asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the current rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has plans to set another target for reducing inflation.

We have already made very good progress in reducing the rate of inflation from its 1975 peak of 26·9 per cent. It remains our objective to bring the United Kingdom inflation rate at least down to the levels of our main overseas competitors. I shall not be satisfied until we have achieved this.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the progress referred to has dimmed a bit recently? Does he further accept that, apart from 105 Labour Members of Parliament signing a motion for an alternative strategy, the meeting of the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers this morning presented an alternative strategy that is almost a mirror image of the one on the House of Commons Order Paper, namely, the question of price control, direction of investment, import controls, and the restoration of public expenditure cuts? Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues now put their minds to the task of devising an alternative strategy along those lines?

I have seen the motion signed by my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends, and I am pleased to note that they have reverted to a selective import control policy rather than one of general import controls. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend demurs, but I have the motion here and I have read it. It is more in line with what the Government have in mind.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that it is deliberately misleading to pretend that the target that the Government are after is a reduction of the rate of inflation from the rate that they themselves created as a result of their first 18 months of government? What the nation wants to know is: when will the target figure begin to approach the supposed figure of 8·4 per cent. that the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted about in October 1974?

The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he thinks so much that he does not listen. He should at least listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who has told him and the House on numerous occasions that the rate of inflation in 1974–75 was due to the excessive growth of money supply led by excessive growth of public expenditure—at that time undertaken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and many of his right hon. Friends, including the Leader of the Opposition.

As it is relevant, would my right hon. Friend care to inform the House what the current rate of increase is in money supply and what it was two years ago?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we intend to ensure that the rate of increase in money supply shall be in the region of 12 per cent., whereas in the years to which he referred it was between 28 per cent. and 30 per cent.

Is not the disappointingly high rate of inflation due in large measure to the decreasing value of the pound abroad? Is not that, in turn, brought about by the lack of confidence of people abroad in the Government's policies? What new policies have the Government to put before the House and the country with a view to abating the rate of inflation?

I agree that the depreciation of sterling has had some effect. Equally, if we are talking about confidence, some of the more hysterical and exaggerated comments of Opposition Members do not help.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the value of the £ sterling has fallen since he took office.

Sterling has fallen by 27·3 per cent. in terms of the United States dollar and by 33·6 per cent. in effective rate terms since 8th February 1974.

Is the Minister aware that I am disappointed that the Chan. cellor did not answer this Question? Will he make perfectly clear to those 100 of his right hon. and hon. Friends who yesterday signed an Early-Day Motion deploring further cuts in public expenditure that the£ sterling is bound to drop further unless such public expenditure cuts are announced shortly?

The hon. Gentleman may have his own views on that subject, but I think that most people take comfort from the fact that sterling has been pretty strong for the past few days. The hon. Gentleman sees one solution only to the problem of the fall in the value of sterling. Other and better commentators, if I may say so, see the fall in sterling as a valid consequence of the high level of inflation, which goes back some years.

Will my hon. Friend say what impact he expects the increase of 33·1 per cent. in unit labour costs last year will have on the exchange rate this year?

The precise relationship is, of course, a matter for some speculation, but, clearly, there is this relationship—this effect—between the rates of inflation and the decline in the exchange rate. However, at the end of it all what will settle the level of sterling is the value that people put on the prices that they pay for the goods that we export and the goods that are imported into this country.

Does the Financial Secretary agree that one of the most unfortunate effects of the fall in sterling is on the nationalised industries which have foreign currency borrowings? Does he agree, therefore, that it is time that the exchange guarantees were stopped, and also the practice of nationalised industries borrowing such large amounts of foreign currency?

The hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that when nationalised industries borrow in foreign currency they must take account of the different interest rates that are payable. The nationalised industries make their own decisions, and it would be wrong for the Government to intrude excessively upon those decisions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary of the Treasury to discuss economic and financial matters of mutual interest.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to visit Washington DC to discuss economic and financial matters.

:I have no immediate plans to do so, but I am of course in frequent contact with American colleagues and I shall hope to have an early opportunity to make contact with members of the new Administration.

Is it true that the outgoing United States Secretary of the Treasury believes that this country will need to borrow more than the $3·9 billion proposed IMF facility, particularly if the problem of the sterling balance is to be exorcised once and for all, and that Germany will end up by providing the bulk of a loan which could eventually amount to approximately $10 billion?

I have no information whatever to justify that statement, and I should be interested to receive any evidence that the hon. Gentleman has. He will know that the United States Secreretary of the Treasury has expressed great confidence in the management of the British economy and has never criticised it, as sometimes the Opposition have done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the United States when there is a change of President there is also a change of financial advisers to the President? The United States contend that if there are Presidents of differing political views, with different economic opinions, it is not possible for the same set of advisers to advise both types of President. How does the Chancellor reconcile that with the situation in this country, where there are people such as Mr. Alan Lord, and others, who are now advising my right hon. Friend, and yet were attempting to advise the previous Government who, presumably, were pursuing quite different policies?

The function of civil servants in the British constitution is to advise Ministers how to carry out the policies of those Ministers. In my experience, and I am sure, in that of the Opposition Front Bench, they give that advice at all times in the most objective way possible.

Will the Chancellor tell the Secretary of the United States Treasury that with Scottish self-government the £ Scot will rise to at least the equivalent of £1·20 English? Does the Chancellor consider that to be a conservative or a liberal estimate?

I confine my discussions with the United States Secretary of the Treasury mainly to facts, but if I ever have time to discuss fantasies I may take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the amount of sterling borrowed per household in the United Kingdom if the 3·9 billion dollar loan requested from the IMF is granted.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete his discussions with the International Monetary Fund about the application for the further IMF loan.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the visit of the team from the IMF.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he next expects to meet representatives of the International Monetary Fund.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of his talks with officials of the International Monetary Fund.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends w meet the IMF.

On 29th September I announced my intention to apply to the International Monetary Fund for a standby which would make available our remaining credit tranches in the fund. As hon. Members will be aware, a team from the fund is now in London to discuss the application. I have met the senior members. Discussions with officials began this week and I expect that they will take a fortnight or so. In order to finance the United Kingdom drawings, the International Monetary Fund will need to call upon the Group of Ten countries to activate the general arrangements to borrow. When arrangements with the Group of Ten have been completed, the United Kingdom application will go forward for discussion and approval by the Executive Board of the IMF. At current exchange rates the borrowing will represent some £125 per household.

I am grateful to the Chancellor for that reply, but is he not aware that this addition of £125 per household to the already heavy debt incurred by this Government will appal the people of this country, on whom borrowing of £461 per household has already been incurred by this Government?

My impression—I suppose we all derive our own views from contacts with our constituents—is that the British people would prefer to maintain the highest possible standard of living at the expense of borrowing at very low rates over a reasonable period rather than to incur the sudden and dramatic fall in living standards which would be involved if we did not succeed in arranging this loan.

Why should a borrowing requirement of £600 per household be such an enormous deterrent to the average family, which borrows about £8,000 for its mortgage?

My hon. Friend has made a point that has often struck me, that the Conservative Party believes in home ownership by borrowing through building societies for the most important and largest single item of expenditure in personal spending, and that its enthusiasm to cease borrowing has never extended to abolition of the building societies.

Bearing in mind that the Chancellor's last package to reduce Government borrowing included misguided and ill-timed extra burdens on industry, will be now agree with the Director-General of NEDO that the next set of measures should be concentrated on non-productive public expenditure—in other words, not capital expenditure and not indirect increases in taxation—and has he expressed this view to the IMF?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the remarks made by the current Director-General of NEDO the other day. He is, of course, free, like all his predecessors, to express his personal views, at the risk of being told by members of the National Economic Development Council that they do not agree with him. Some members of the Council have already expressed that view.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how he can reconcile what he has just said about maintaining the high standards of life of the British people with the fact that a Treasury adviser has recommended, according to a report in The Times this morning, a high rate of unemployment? The statement of my right hon. Friend and the statement of the Treasury official are irreconcilable. Will my right hon. Friend state quite clearly that it is not his policy to create a high rate of unemployment?

I suspect that my lion. Friend entered the Chamber after I answered an earlier question on this specific point. Mr. Alan Lord, in giving a lecture the other day, did not make the remarks which were attributed to him by the sub-editor of the report in The Times. What he said was—I apologise to the House for repeating it—that. if we are to get the increase in productivity which is our common objective, steps must be taken to replace the jobs which will be lost through new investment and lower manning levels with new jobs in productive industry. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares this objective.

The Chancellor made a very important statement when he asserted that the British people would prefer to go on borrowing—at whatever interest rate—and maintaining their standards of living in that way rather than face the realities of economic life. Does the Chancellor realise that so long as he continues to misjudge the mood of the British people in that way his economic strategy is doomed to failure?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as so often, completely misrepresents what I said. I referred to borrowing at an exceptionally low rate of interest from the IMF. I remind him that the Government of which he was a member started the programme of public authority borrowing in order to maintain living standards in 1973, at interest rates which were very much higher than those charged by the IMF. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should sometimes show some recall of the activities in which he and his right hon. Friends indulged when they carried the responsibilities that I carry now.

When my right hon. Friend has further discussions with the IMF will he bear in mind that the world boom seems to be bottoming out much faster than we expected, and will he draw to the attention of the IMF that it cannot be helpful either to the world or to this country to have further massive deflationary measures imposed upon us?

I shall certainly take my hon. Friend's advice. But the responsibility of the countries with substantial reserves and surpluses on their balance of payments to take action which will allow world recovery to proceed somewhat faster is a responsibility which is now acknowledged by authorities as various as the Director-General of the International Monetary Fund, Dr. Witteveen in his speech in Manila the other day, and the leader writer of the Financial Times.

Does the Chancellor remember writing to the IMF just under a year ago to the effect that an essential element in Government strategy was the continuing and substantial reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement? Since he has now told us that it is up £2 billion on the estimates for next year, what will he do about it?

Melodramatic shrieks add to the liveliness of our discussions but not very much to our information. The hon. Gentleman made three misstatements in his short intervention. The likely level of the borrowing requirement this year, which was the subject of my undertaking to the IMF last year, is certainly likely to be met. Hon. Members will have seen the latest published figures of the central Government borrowing requirement, which is an important component in that. As for the likely size of the borrowing requirement next year, the next financial year does not begin for another five months, and the reports to which the hon. Gentleman is referring have not been confirmed by me. The hon. Gentleman must await events to see what forecasts can realistically be made for that year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government side of the House think that in addition to negotiating the $3.9 billion loan with the IMF, the Government should also be negotiating the phasing out of the sterling balances? Has my right hon. Friend been able to make any progress with that?

The Prime Minister has already expressed in public the Govern- ment's desire to phase out the reserve role of sterling, and this has implications in the handling of the sterling balances. I have already made clear that we have had a number of discussions with the relevant authorities on this matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the negotiators from the IMF are aware that they are dealing with a Government who had lost the confidence of the country, as shown by the by-elections last week, and who are gradually losing the confidence of Parliament, as shown by the Divisions last night?

I am glad to say from my contacts with members of the IMF staff that they have a good deal more understanding of political realities in various countries than the hon. Gentleman assumes. They may have noted that the last Labour Administration had similar temporary and local political difficulties at the same time in its period of office and that, before the next election took place, the Government had achieved a surplus both on the balance of payments and on the public sector borrowing requirement, which was disgracefully squandered by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches when they took office.

Since the United States of America has a great effect on IMF decisions, will my right hon. Friend have early discussions with President-elect Carter's financial advisers, as, in his election, President-elect Carter fought on a programme to increase public expenditure and to bring down the unemployment rate, which is the very opposite of what the Opposition stand for?

It is a relevant consideration that President-elect Carter said during his campaign—and this would be the view of the British Government—that in his country it was impossible to bring down the rate of inflation so long as there were 8 million or 9 million unemployed, and that to solve this problem by increasing unemployment, which is the policy of the Conservative Party, flies right in the face of all experience and logic.

Is the Chancellor aware that if the recent by-election results are anything to go by, most households in this country will be extremely dismayed at the prospect of having to pay another £125 a year in financing the Government's spendthrift borrowing? Is it not about time that he started to listen to the voice of the people rather than to the voices of some of his hon. Friends and put the nation's house in order by starting to introduce some serious public expenditure cuts?

I listen to the voice of the people, I suppose, as regularly as anyone else in the House, both when I visit my own constituency and when I visit the constituencies of other hon. Members on both sides, and I do not get the message which the hon. Gentleman purports to receive. But I dare say that I visit constituencies that are more representative of the broad mass of the working population of this country.

I heard my right hon. Friend's earlier remarks about the misrepresentation of Mr. Alan Lord in The Times today, but will he say nevertheless whether he thinks that it is a good idea for a senior civil servant to make speeches of that kind, which can be misinterpreted? Secondly, did my right hon. Friend see the speech and approve it before it was delivered?

First, I think that it is a very good thing for senior civil servants to be able to talk in public. I believe that one disadvantage of the British system in the past has been the inability of very able men who are responsible for carrying out Government policy to explain what they are about. I did see and approve the lecture. I shall arrange for a copy of it to be put in the House of Commons Library so that all hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, can see that the headline in The Times completely misrepresented its message, as indeed, was clear from the quotation in the report that followed.

Although the Chancellor's record post-war devaluation of over 30 per cent., exceeding that of his Socialist predecessors Cripps and the present Prime Minister, is humiliating enough, can the right hon. Gentleman not understand that IMF visitors having to come here and be forced to live under assumed names is an appalling comment on the level to which his Government have brought visitors to this country?

I think that the House on the whole—even if it were slightly contrary to the rules of the House—would prefer the hon. Member to read his supplementaries rather than try to recite them in that incoherent way, from memory.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that even if the reports that he has given us about Mr. Lord's actual speech are correct, the problem which arises, if his aim to get greater productivity succeeds completely, is that fewer and fewer people will be required in productive industry? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend take it that we hope that he will produce a strategy for other types of employment as well as productive?

May I remind my hon. Friend that the countries which have succeeded in having a growing manufacturing sector in which employment has increased, not fallen, in recent years—such as France and Japan—have done so by increasing productivity and output? It is no good anybody in this country imagining that we can sustain a higher number of people in unproductive employment unless we have more people in productive employment making better use of existing capital and using more capital than they now have. This was the message that Mr. Lord sought to put over in his lecture, and I strongly advise my hon. Friend to read it, because I think that it is the view of the great majority of people on both sides of the House and on both sides of industry who believe that industrial regeneration is the key to an improvement in Britain's economic performance.

Following that answer, will the Chancellor say how industry will go for more productive investment at a time when interest rates are at their present record level and when profitability, as he well knows, has fallen to an all-time low? How can the resources required by British industry be found unless the Chancellor is prepared now to have a dramatic cut in public spending? It cannot make sense unless he does.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the views of the CBI, which can be regarded as representative of British industry, are completely different from his. The last survey published by the CBI, which was taken after the recent increase in interest rates, forecast a very large increase in manufacturing investment over the coming year. The profitability of British industry has at least doubled in the past two years, and exporting, which must be the key component of demand for economic growth in this country—as the hon. Gentleman, I know, would agree—is more profitable than it has ever been in our history.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce further economic measures.

I have nothing further to add to what I said on 11th October, in the debate on the state of the economy.

Has the Chancellor no idea of the deep sense of national humiliation that his policy of muddle and inaction has caused? Does he not realise that immediate and drastic measures are essential, even from this "lame duck" Government?

I have always noticed in my political career that those who foul their own nest at some stage in the game dislike the smell; and I know that is the experience of hon. Members opposite. However, I do not get the feeling from my own contact with the British people that they feel humiliated. They feel as proud and determined as ever to conquer the economic and other problems which face them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever future measures have to be announced they are the prerogative of the elected Government in consultation with the party—[An HON. MEMBER: "Which party?"]—The governing party. Does he therefore also agree that his remarks to my hon. Friend earlier, about the statement by Mr. Alan Lord, are a little dangerous, in that they tend to imply that civil servants can indulge in policy-making options—as, indeed, was the situation in the case of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) recently—which become, in a sense, self-fulfilling prophecies for those policies.

I ask my hon. Friend to read both what I said and what Mr. Alan Lord said in the lecture to which we referred. If he does so, he will see that Mr. Lord was explaining a policy that has been adopted by the Government, by the Labour Party, by the Labour Party Conference, by the TUC, and by the CBI. This explanation of policy—powerful and cogent as it was—would do nothing but assist the attainment of the objectives that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Is the Chancellor aware that he has entirely misconstrued my letter, in exactly the same way as he just now accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) of doing with statements that he had made? I have not admitted any such thing, and I do not admit it. I did not suggest that I had names in my possession.

This is a fairly important matter. I think that all Members of the House would wish to guard the reputation of hon. Members as being responsible people, by ensuring that if accusations are made against unnamed public servants they should be justified or withdrawn. I do not think that this is the moment at which I should bandy words with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. I hope he will agree that we should publish our mutual correspondence.

If we may return to the Question, as tax increases are among the further measures that regrettably, have been suggested, does the Chancellor realise that today a married man with two children has to take a job at £77 a week if he is to make that job worth while? When will the Chancellor make it pay to work in Britain again?

I am concerned, as I said yesterday in a broadcast, that the burden of sacrifice now facing the nation falls disproportionately on those who are working rather than those who, for various reasons, are not in work and whose benefits rise automatically in relation either to prices or to earnings gross of tax. This is a matter to which both sides of the House would wish to address themselves. There are many ways in which the problem can be tackled, and all Members of Parliament will know, from their contacts with constituents, that it is a matter of great concern to many people.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will define the meaning of the word "cut" as he applies it to public expenditure, making plain if he regards it as meaning either: (a) reduction from a projected level of future expenditure to one higher than the current level of such expenditure or (b) reduction from the level of expenditure currently being incurred.

My definition of the word "cut" would be the same as that given in the Oxford English Dictionary. In 1977–78 there will be a reduction from the level of expenditure currently being incurred.

But does the right hon. Gentleman's definition of "cut" encompass measures to maintain the programme of the Government's spending for next year at the levels that have already been planned and announced?

The hon. Gentleman had obviously prepared that supplementary question before hearing my answer. I indicated that the level of expenditure in 1977–78 would be lower than the current level.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take steps to increase the rate of VAT.

All tax rates are kept under review but my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate any decisions that might be reached.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that if VAT were restored to its original level of 10 per cent. it would bring in about another £700 million a year, and that if it were increased to 20 per cent. it would bring in between £3,000 million and £4,000 million additional revenue? As food, housing, heating and children's clothes are all exempt, and the real essentials are therefore not affected, will my hon. Friend confirm that that would be a far preferable way to cut the public sector borrowing requirement than by the generation of unemployment or by reductions in the standards of public services?

I do not have all the figures to which my hon. Friend referred, but he is broadly right in those that he quoted. It is correct that the public sector borrowing requirement can be cut on both the revenue and the expenditure side. Exactly what my right hon. Friend may wish to do in the future is a matter for consideration in the light of subsequent events.

Will the Minister confirm that the nationalised industries have been ordered to borrow abroad and to borrow expensively, rather than to borrow cheaply from central Government, and that this has been done in order to fiddle the figures for the public sector borrowing requirement?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There has been no ordering and no compulsion by central Government upon nationalised industries in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, nor would it be right to exercise such compulsion

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the position with regard to the next tax deduction certificate in view of public concern, and the opposition which it has aroused in the building industry.

No, Sir. The new certificate is essential to deal with those on the "lump" who are evading the payment of tax and National Insurance contributions.

Is the Minister aware of the deep suspicions that exist among contractors and sub-contractors, particularly about the photographs that are to be required? Has the Minister seen the alternative suggestions that have been put forward by the National Federation of the Self-Employed, which seem to me to be perfectly reasonable? Will he now consider postponing this scheme and appointing a representative from the Federation to his Advisory Construction Manpower Board so that the difficulties can be frankly discussed before the scheme is imposed upon the industry? Surely that is the most sensible way to proceed.

The hon. Gentleman will know of the problems that we have had over the past five years in the levels of tax evasion. The difficulties experienced by the previous Government have to be put right because of the widespread evasion by a limited number of firms. I am always prepared to look at further suggestions, and if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me to explain his ideas, I shall be prepared to consider them. But it is essential that we end the widespread evasion that has been taking place.

Does the Minister realise that present evidence suggests that a significant number of self-employed people in the construction industry will be deprived of their livelihood, through no fault of their own, because of the harsh operation of the regulations? Will he postpone their operation until he has sorted out the present harshness.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding. The certificate, I repeat, is not a certificate to work. Income tax can be deducted at source if such a person is unable to obtain a certificate. He is still able to earn his livelihood in just the same way. The arrangements that we have explained to the House are to ensure that income tax is collected and not evaded.

Is there any evidence of public concern as implied in the original Question, as distinct from concern within the particular trade or industry?

I have had a number of representations, as my hon. Friend will understand, some of which concerned the nature of the photograph. But, of course, it is essential that we end once and for all this more than five-year-old scandal, whereby large sums of money have been lost. Finally, we must come to a proper conclusion, and the method announced by the Government is, we believe, the best way to proceed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax due to be paid but not remitted was recovered by the Inland Revenue as a result of (a) negotiation and (b) prosecution in each of the last three tax years.

Information is not available as to the amounts of income tax overdue and recovered without the need for enforcement action. The amounts for which legal proceedings were commenced, including corporation tax, capital gain tax and surtax as well as income tax, were approximately as follows: year to October 1973, £19 million; 1974, £25 million; 1975, £40 million.

Will my hon. Friend look again al the collection and compilation of these figures? Is not it grossly unfair that when millions of working people regularly pay their taxes through PAYE there are these apparent loopholes in the general tax system?

My hon. Friend is quite right in the comparison that he makes between the various parts of our tax and social security systems, but at the same time it must be pointed out that we are never in a position to know the levels of evasion at any time. We can only ensure that the arrangements we have made for the collection of tax are as rigorous as can be devised, and if my hon. Friend has any comments, or contributions, to make, I shall be delighted to hear from him.

Has the Minister read the article in The Times today by Sir William Pile, in which it is alleged that there is to be a special clamp-down on small companies in the collection of tax? Is there to be discrimination between large companies and small ones? Is the Minister aware that, for example, in my constituency last week the bailiffs were sent in to a company which employs 20 people, and whose tax was only seven days overdue?

I am always pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman concerning his constituents. He writes to me regularly and I am always pleased to assist whenever I can. But I can state quite categorically that it is not the Government's intention to do anything other than assist small companies and to help to solve their problems. If there are certain difficulties in the income tax system I am always prepared to consider them, but I must make it clear that I have no information that these matters bite more harshly on small companies than on others, for the reasons that I have indicated.