asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the desirability of making the cost of travel to work allowable against tax.

My right hon. Friend receives representations on this subject from time to time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that between 60 and 70 per cent. of all car registrations are for company cars? Is there any reason why the more fortunate should enjoy tax remissions which are denied to commuters, thereby discouraging public transport and increasing the deficit which eventually has to be paid by the Exchequer?

My hon. Friend will know that when company cars are used for private purposes they are taxed and come within the tax set-up. They are not treated in that respect any differently from anybody else's expenditure on travel.

Does not the Minister appreciate the effect of the high cost of railway fares, particularly on those living in areas such as the South Coast? Does he not realise the effect that this will have on housing, which will become more and more expensive in London, because people will be unable, owing to the constant increases in railway fares, to live in the country? Cannot he make the cost of travel to work allowable against tax, in order to help the housing situation?

I fully appreciate the difficulties caused to many people by the high cost of travel to work. Surely, the difficulties are greatest in the rural areas, where there is very low economic activity. But the way to solve the problem is not through the tax system.

Will my hon. Friend try to be a little more open-minded about this matter? Is he not aware that literally hundreds of thousands of commuters have had six fare increases in the last two years and that travel-to-work costs have gone up by about 120 per cent., although in that period earnings rose by only 30 per cent.? Will he not keep an open mind in order to see whether some help can be given in relation to some part of travel-to-work costs at the basic rate of tax?

The difficulty here is to distinguish between one kind of expenditure and another. Costs have gone up over a wide field, and I do not think that it would be right or fair to allow relief on one kind of expenditure while denying it in regard to another.

Is the Minister aware that his replies will cause great anger among a large number of commuters? His totally unreasonable attitude in refusing to look at this matter with an open mind is disgraceful. Some of my constituents have to spend a quarter of their gross earnings on getting to and from work. Will not the Minister look at it again?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take further steps to reflate the economy.

I cannot at this stage add to what I said in my statement of 26th October. In addition to the tax reliefs and increases in public expenditure which I then announced, I intend—if economic and financial circumstances permit—in my spring Budget to provide some further stimulus to economic activity.

In view of the staggering figures issued earlier this week, showing more than 1½ million unemployed, including more than 200,000 in Scotland, does my right hon. Friend agree with the secretary of the Labour Party in Scotland that the Labour Government ought to be deeply ashamed of these figures. As one of the principal causes of unemployment has been the cuts in public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend take immediate steps to increase public spending, which is absolutely essential for social services as well as for the provision of more jobs?

No Government could take any pleasure in the figures that were announced this week. I ad occasion recently to read a lengthy statement by the Labour Party in Scotland about unemployment, and it paid real tribute to the measures which the present Government have taken to limit the impact of unemployment and to keep it as low as possible. But I shall, as my hon. Friend perhaps knows, have an opportunity tomorrow afternoon to discuss the matter further with the Scottish council of the Labour Party.

Is not "reflation" the most dangerous and misleading word in the whole of the economic dictionary? Should not its use be banned until inflation has been eliminated?

:If I am asked my opinion on that suggestion, my answer is that I should like to ban every noun which ends in the syllables "flation", because I think that inflation, reflation, deflation and disinflation all have implications which are grossly misleading at various times.

Will my right hon. Friend take another look at the problems of the building industry and see whether he can make available an increased sum of money which would help to expand the public building sector, thereby reducing the tragic figures of unemployment in that sector?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we gave substantial stimulus to the construction industry in the July measures and in those which I announced in October. I have noted that the bodies representing the industry now expect an upturn in the current year. But I shall keep this matter under review and consider whether further assistance is appropriate.

The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) men tioned unemployment. How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer account for the fact that, according to a Written Answer that I have received today, unemployment in this country is higher than in any other major Western industrial country—higher than in the United States, France, Germany and Italy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] This is from a Written Answer that I have received today.

I can account for the statistics in many ways. For example, Germany has been able to export unemployment on a very large scale by getting rid of foreign workers to Yugoslavia and Turkey. We welcome very much the recent fall in unemployment in the United States. That is because the United States is following policies which I hope to imitate this year in achieving a substantially faster growth rate than in the past.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total of Government debt on 1st March 1974 and on 1st January 1978; and by how much he estimates that debt interest in the current financial year will exceed that for the year ended 5th April 1974.

Government debt outstanding has fallen as a percentage of GDP from 70 per cent. in 1974 to 64 per cent. in 1977. Excluding official holdings, general Government debt was £51 billion at the end of March 1974 and is provisionally estimated at £87 billion at the end of September 1977.

Does the Chancellor agree that an increase in the National Debt of 30 per cent. while he has been Chancellor is something of which he ought not to be proud? Will he take this opportunity to tell the House that he will use a substantial part of the revenue from North Sea oil to repay Government debt and also to ensure that the next generation will not be saddled with the profligacy of his Chancellorship?

The hon. Gentleman talks about profligacy. I would refer him to the first part of my answer, which shows that Government debt outstanding in 1974 was substantially higher as a percentage of GDP than it is today. The present Government should take credit for reducing the proportion of GDP involved in Government sector debt.

Can my right hon. Friend say how our repayment to the IMF affects the conditions imposed by the IMF and whether he is planning any further repayment which would finally enable us to escape from the impact of those conditions?

The repayment of debt to the IMF in no way affects the commitments which the Government made to the IMF when we negotiated the loan in December 1976. I presume that that is what my hon. Friend is referring to. Those commitments expire the moment the Government decide that they want to dispense with the standby agreement. We shall be considering with the IMF staff in May whether the time has come to cancel that arrangement.

Is the Chancellor proud of the fact that, under his management, payments of debt interest on the total public sector debt are for the first time larger than the total expenditure on the National Health Service and personal social services?

I am not proud of the debts which in large part I inherited from the previous Administration. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Oh, yes. I have given the figure, which shows that the debt which I inherited from the last Administration was £51 billion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not particularly proud of that figure.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to ignore the pontifications of the militant monetarists on the Benches opposite and listen to what the TUC is saying? It is urging him to inject at least £3 billion into the economy now if we are to have any hope of bringing unemployment down to below the 1 million mark.

I never ignore any contribution to general knowledge by any hon. Member of the House. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have taken careful note of the points put to me by the economic committee of the TUC when we met on Tuesday. The results of my deliberations will be made plain when I introduce the next Budget.

Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), may I ask whether the Chancellor accepts that the real burden of debt interest at the end of last year was 15 per cent. higher than it was at the end of 1974? Does he not acknowledge that the main reason why it has become possible for him to start repaying the IMF debt is the strength contributed to our economy by North Sea oil and not the policies of this Government? Finally, will he accept that the country has every reason to be grateful to the IMF, because without its firm discipline this Government would have taken the country into bankruptcy? We have every reason to be fearful of the prospects of what the Government would do if tomorrow they were free from that discipline.

I would agree with the IMF staff rather than with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The staff pointed out during our discussions some months ago that the staggering turn-round in the performance of our economy, particularly in our performance on inflation, was due to the steps taken by the present Government and the support for the present Government through the patriotism and common sense of our trade union movement—a patriotism and common sense which is consistently derided by hon. Members opposite.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with whom he has so far had discussions on the possibility of a stage four pay policy.

This subject seems to crop up in many conversations I have.

Will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that he will not continue with the present type of pay policy into a fourth stage? Does he realise and accept that, if he were to pursue a Socialist incomes policy covering all forms of incomes and wealth, he would be likely to get far more support, certainly from this side of the House, than if he were to continue with the anomalous and unfair present policy of pay restraint?

There are rigidities in the policy that is being pursued this year, although it is a great deal more flexible than last year's policy, and last year's policy was more flexible than that of the year before. I would certainly wish to see any future arrangements make it possible to go further towards correcting the distortions and inconveniences which have been developing over the last three years.

Is the Chancellor aware that the patriotism and common sense of the trade union movement have been met with threats of a further stage 4 from him? The whole subject is clouded in mystery and double talk, and the obfuscation is similar to certain hon. Members who seem to have spent the night in the "No" Lobby. Will he come clean and tell the House whether there will be a statutory incomes policy in stage 4 or not?

There certainly will not be a statutory incomes policy next year. That has repeatedly been made clear by myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is too early to say what sort of arrangement is likely to be reached, but it does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman to talk about mystery and double talk with regard to incomes policy from this side of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members think that it is a good thing that he is discussing the future of pay policy now rather than waiting until later?

I am aware of that factor. Nobody who has lived through the last three and a half years—or, indeed, the last 15 or 20 years—can doubt that the maintenance of a level of earnings increases which is close to the level of increase in productivity is a precondition of keeping inflation at levels that will allow us to maintain high employment. Nobody with whom I have discussed the subject denies that; certainly nobody in the trade union movement denies it. How one seeks to create a framework of collective bargaining to ensure this outcome is a question on which this Government have made some progress in the last three years. I hope that we can make further progress in the coming months.

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of contradictions. Is not the greatest contradiction of all that which lies between the right hon Gentleman's writings in the Socialist Commentary saying that there will be a stage 4 and a formal incomes policy for ever and the comments of the Prime Minister last week to the effect that we were now to have free collective bargaining? Should not the two right hon. Gentlemen get together, and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having spoken to the Prime Minister, please tell the House what his policy is to be?

The Prime Minister and I are in continuous and intimate contact on this matter. As for the contradiction which the hon. Gentleman appears to detect between the interview I gave to the Socialist Commentary and the Prime Minister's interview on television, I detect no contradiction whatever in that respect. Possibly, if the hon. Gentleman were to borrow my spectacles or the Prime Minister's, he would see the matter more clearly.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of abolishing investment income surcharge for all taxpayers over the age of 65 years.

About £150 million for 1977–78.

In view of the relatively low cost of such a change, will the Minister show sympathy for the plight of elderly people whose savings are running out fast and who pray that they will die before their savings vanish altogether? Will he, in the next Budget, give high priority to a move in the direction suggested in my Question?

The Labour Government have since 1974 shown a high regard for the priority of looking after the elderly. We have managed to maintain in real terms the income of the elderly, taking inflation into account. The elderly have been treated extremely well if one compares that section of the community with other sections which have suffered from inflation.

Does the Minister think it right to go on discriminating through the tax system between those who are privileged to retire with occupational pension schemes and those who have to live in retirement on income from savings?

The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the Government discriminating in this way. I would point out that the principle of taxing earned income differently from unearned income has been accepted by both major parties for a long time. If the Opposition are saying that they do not want to persist with this distinction, they should make it clear.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average monthly rate of inflation since March 1974; and how this figure compares with the average monthly rate of inflation between July 1970 and February 1974.

The average monthly rate of inflation between March 1974 and December 1977 was 1·36 per cent. This stands in a better relation to the performance of the previous Administration than theirs did to their predecessors.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer both parts of my Question, or is he too ashamed to do so?

I thought that the answer was a good one, rather better than the Question.

Are my right hon. Friend and his colleagues proud of the fact that the situation has so improved compared with the statement by the Governor of the Bank of England in evidence to a Select Committee of the House in 1973 that we were on the edge of a financal abyss? Now that there has been a tremendous improvement in our financial affairs under the Labour Government, will they put their minds to economic matters and give high priority to unemployment? Will they bear this matter particularly in mind when considering the Budget proposals?

I assure my hon. Friend that we have these things in mind, and we hope to be able to do something about the situation in the Budget.

Is it not a fact that in the past 45 months of Labour misrule prices have increased by 83 per cent. and the pound which the Labour Government inherited from their Conservative predecessors is now worth only 55p? Is this why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to reduce the size of the pound note to the former size of the old ten-shilling note?

The answer to that supplementary question should probably be something on the lines of "Ugh!", though I do not know how that will appear in Hansard. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the reasons for the growth in inflation in the last four years, certainly in respect of the early period, was due almost entirely to the policies pursued by the Conservative Government. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is pleased that the rate of inflation is now coming down, although he has noted that, because of the policies that were pursued by his right hon. and hon. Friends, food prices will not be coming down as fast as hoped.

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

I shall not be satisfied until we get inflation down to the level of our international competitors and keep it there.

In the course of the past two or three years, have not the Treasury and the Government generally been attempting to control inflation by restricting wages and at the same time turning a blind eye to the menace of the dole queue which has been ever-growing on our doorstep? Is it not now time, in what is supposed to be electoral year—perhaps come one—to start feeding the economy and let the trade union leaders do the job they were supposed to do, which is to fight for better wages and conditions and increase consumer purchasing power? If we do that, there is just a chance that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will get back on to the Treasury Bench.

I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's kindly consideration of my position in the House. If we advocated the kind of policies he suggests, it would be utterly disastrous for my chances of remaining here, and perhaps even of his remaining where he is.

Would not the Chief Secretary agree that a formal wages policy imposed upon the private sector is either statutory or is unlawful, arbitrary and despotic?

The strict answer to that question is "No, Sir". I know the hon. Gentleman's views—I am not so sure about the views of the Opposition Front Bench—about incomes policy. I have said recently that any Government will be concerned with incomes in the foreseeable future. This Government are concerned with levels of income. I hope that the Opposition are, but that is a little unclear.

What does my right hon. Friend think will be the effect on inflation of the decision on the green pound and its implementation? How can he possibly think in terms of continuing the pay policy against the background of rising prices for the working people?

Let us be clear. The responsibility for the 7½ per cent. devaluation of the green pound rests with the Opposition. On the subject of pay, I must tell my hon. Friend that it is an utter illusion to imagine that we could reduce either the level of inflation or the level of unemployment whilst allowing pay to rise to the level that some of my hon. Friends have in mind.

Since the Government have accepted the relationship between excessive public expenditure and the rate of inflation, may I ask whether their projection of a 2·2 per cent. increase in public expenditure every year until the early 1980s is dependent on the achievement of their optimistic forecast of a 3·5 per cent. annual increase in GDP?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper. We did not make a forecast of a 3·5 per cent. growth over the years until the 1980s. We said that those figures in the later years were very provisional and that we would be reviewing them in 1978 and in the many years that lie ahead for Labour Governments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study his Department has made of the effect of value added tax on the boat-building industry in the last 12 months.

We have continued to monitor the effect of the higher rate of VAT on the boat-budding industry, and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has maintained close contacts with the trade associations concerned.

Does the Minister accept that that non-answer does not take us very much further? Will he recognise that the real decline in some of the areas connected with the domestic market of the boat-building industry stems from the differential in VAT, especially at the top rate of 25 per cent. Since some small boat builders are suffering from the differential in VAT, will he say what the Government intend to do about the situation?

I do not accept that argument. The reason why the boat-building industry, in common with other industries. has suffered in the last few years is mainly that, because living standards have not risen, people have less money to spend. According to a survey recently carried out by the boat-building industry, there are signs of an improvement and there is optimism for the future.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent liberalisation of sterling exchange control upon employment in the United Kingdom, overseas investment, and the £ sterling exchange rate, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Among the adjustments which I announced on 26th October last, the liberalising of sterling borrowing by non-resident controlled manufacturing companies for their United Kingdom business has stimulated some interest. This could lead to additional industrial investment from overseas in the United Kingdom. The greater freedom for banks and insurance companies to retain foreign currency should help them to compete for business abroad and so assist invisible earnings. This may also bring benefit in the longer run to domestic employment. It is too early for any more detailed assessment of the impact.

If sterling continues to appreciate, will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the opportunities and advantages which that situation will provide for a further liberalisation of exchange control?

I am keeping all aspects of the problem under review, but the hon. Gentlemant knows as well as I do that countries such as Japan, Switzerland and Germany, which have no outward exchange controls and which have imposed inward controls, nevertheless have seen their currencies appreciate just as fast as happened formerly. There is a tendency grossly to exaggerate the impact of what happens to exchange controls when there are movements in the exchange rate.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the disappointing and damaging trend in the trade balance in manufactured goods in the last three or four months, following the encouraging performance earlier in 1977, might conceivably have anything to do with the appreciation of the pound?

Not on the sort of calculations that my hon. Friend espouses. Those who believe that depreciation brings automatic benefits to the trade balance do not expect that benefit to accrue for at least two years after that process has taken place. If one examines the improvement in the volume of exports of manufactures, one sees that it pre-dates the depreciation of March 1976. On these matters, there is a tendency among economic theorists grossly to exaggerate and sometimes to mistake the impact of exchange rate movements on the flow of trade.

Since the Chancellor is so confident about debt repayment and the fact that debt management is said to be under control, what justification can there be for having stricter foreign exchange controls for a creditor country with a large supply of North Sea oil for years to come when the countries to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have no such restrictions? Surely now is the time to continue a further lightening of foreign exchange controls.

We also have a very large burden of foreign debt to repay, and that is not the case with the other countries to which I referred. I warn Opposition Members to be cautious about supporting the propaganda drive from some sections for the abolition of exchange controls, because it was that same section of the financial community which pressed for the introduction of competition and credit control, and the Government and the Bank of England have been wrestling with the consequences of that mistake for the past four years.

If the present problem is an inflow of foreign funds, rather than a further liberalising of exchange controls, would it not be better to have a further substantial cut in interest rates, which would benefit all parts of the economy?

Short-term interest rates have fallen substantially in the past 12 months and are now lower than they are in New York, but I do not believe that it is right to think that the inflows of foreign currency which we suffered or enjoyed, according to hon. Members' points of view, last autumn had very much to do with the level of interest rates. They were basically speculations on capital gains, and the fall in interest rates that we brought about at that time had no apparent effect on them.

The Chancellor mentioned the pressure for relaxation from certain quarters of the financial community, but does he not recognise that those in industry, specifically the CBI, who are concerned with helping manufacturing industry and British exports are concerned about the impact of the value of the £ sterling on price competitiveness and that this is a factor that has to be taken into account? Is he aware that, unless he is prepared to make a relaxation of exchange controls when the opportunity presents itself, there is a grave danger that intervention, far from saving jobs, will destroy them?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman must make up his mind whether he agrees or disagrees with the CBI over various matters. On most matters, such as incomes policy, it seems that he tends to disagree. In his question he was mixing up two different matters. He expressed his disquiet about the rise in the exchange rate, but this is welcomed by his monetarist friends. I should be interested to hear how he reconciles his views on monetarism with his views on the exchange rate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the total cost to his Department of unemployment over the last year.

I take it that my hon. Friend is interested in the total cost of unemployment to public funds. The estimated cost of social security benefits payable because of unemployment in the financial year 1977–8 is about £1,460 million. Special labour market measures are expected to cost some £400 million over the same period and to support the equivalent of 375,000 annual places. The most important other costs are the loss of tax revenue and national insurance contributions, for which it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has given represent a scandalous waste in human and economic terms? As the representative of a constituency with clothing interests, does he agree that the continuation of the temporary employment subsidy is crucially important to combat unemployment? Will he tell the Common Market Commission and others opposed to the continuation of the subsidy to take a running jump and that the Government intend to continue the subsidy in order to combat unemployment?

I take it from the last part of my hon. Friend's question that he does not think that this expenditure is a waste but would much rather that it were not necessary. We can be proud of the level of unemployment benefit that we pay and the measures that we have introduced to protect jobs. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be in a position to make an announcement in the near future about the use of further measures-of this nature.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind not so much the cost to his Department, which is well able to afford it, as the cost to individual Scots, men and women, who are facing increased levels of unemployment because of the failure of United Kingdom economic policy in Scotland? The Government have given Scotland its highest unemployment level since 1939. Does not that make the Labour Party's slogan "Back to work with Labour" seem hollow, sickly and wizened?

I am deeply conscious of the impact in human as well as financial terms of the present levels of unemployment, but the House will know as well as I that the number of young men and women coming on to the labour market is increasing by 200,000 a year. Last year, employment in Britain increased by well over 100,000, although unemployment increased by almost as much. The employment measures to which reference has been made have done a great deal to soften the impact, and if the Government continue to develop their present policies we shall see a steady fall in the unemployment rate starting this year.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if one takes into account the loss of tax revenue, the tax rebates that are paid—the total level of which he refuses to specify—the loss of industrial production and the other benefits to which he has referred, the total cost of having 1½ million people unemployed throughout the year is £4,000 million? Is it not also worth recalling that he is the same fellow who told us that, if we had a £6 a week pay policy to reduce consumer purchasing power and another pay policy after that, unemployment would be reduced and none of these problems would arise? That is why we cannot afford another pay policy.

I do not think that that is a compliment to the overwhelming majority in the trade union movement which has supported pay policies for the past two years and is supporting this year's policy. My hon. Friend's passionate devotion in these matters is fully appreciated, but he must not show disregard of the views of his fellow trade unionists who are supporting the pay policy, because they know that its contribution to the conquest of inflation is of vital importance to the conquest of unemployment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase he anticipates in the gross national product over the next five years; and what percentage increase he estimates in defence expenditure and what percentage increase in other public expenditure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase he anticipates in the gross national product over the next five years; and what percentage increase he estimates in arms expenditure and what increase in non-military spending.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase he anticipates in the gross national product over the next five years; and what percentage increase he estimates in arms expenditure and what increase in non-military spending.

The recent public expenditure White Paper does not make a forecast of increase in gross national product. It provides for volume increases between expenditure plans for 1977–78 and 1981–82 of 6·6 per cent. for total civil programmes and 5.3 per cent. for defence. Programmes for 1980–81 and 1981–82 will be reviewed in the 1978 Public Expenditure Survey.

Will my right hon. Friend resist the constant demands from the Opposition that the Government should greatly increase defence spending while reducing other public expenditure? Does he agree that one of the problems that we have faced as a nation since 1945 is that we have been spending too high a proportion of our gross national product on defence compared with our competitors in Germany and Japan, who have given priority to manufacturing industry? Will the Government now give priority to improving investment in the manufacturing sector?

As my hon. Friend knows, that is our top priority. It remains our intention to bring defence expenditure down as a proportion of GDP, in line with our major NATO allies.

Will my right hon. Friend respond to the proposals of the Vickers, BAC and Lucas Aerospace engineers that they should be employed on the expensive plant and machine tools that we are at present importing and on other non-military goods? Would not that be better for the British economy?

I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that I would rather see the workers to whom he refers working on something other than defence. But we also have a priority. We have to spend money on defence as well. Our commitment as a party and a Government is to reduce our defence expenditure as a percentage on GDP in due course, in line with that of our major NATO allies.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that the public expenditure White Paper shows planned public expenditure for the coming year to be 8·2 per cent. above the outturn for public expenditure in the current year? How does he reconcile that with the 2·2 per cent. increase of which he told the Press? He would need a £3,000 million shortfall to reconcile it. Is that £3,000 million shortfall to be achieved deliberately, or is the 2·2 per cent. figure eyewash?

No, it is true. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper. The 2·2 per cent. related to the plans in the last White Paper. What the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do is to compare like with unlike. He does not know any more than anybody else does what the outturn for 1978–79 will be. We made a comparison of the plans for 1978–79 with the previous plans, and the percentage that I gave then was absolutely correct.