I would agree that, on the face of it, the amendment has certain attractions, but it presents a number of difficulties which make it impossible for me to accept it. The main objection that I would have to it is this: that it would not operate equitably as between different traders. For instance, while the cost of operating the tax in relation to goods liable at the 16.37 per cent rate is not likely to be more expensive than its operation in relation to goods at the 5.26 per cent rate, the net tax payable would be higher and the suggested basis of compensation would therefore favour goods taxed at the higher rate. As a result traders such as jewellers and furniture dealers would receive relatively more compensation than grocers or drapers; and those traders who are accountable at the 30.26 per cent rate would be the most favoured of all. In addition to that, the method proposed in the amendment would favour traders who imported their stock, because, since no tax would be chargeable on imports, their net liability for each taxable period would be higher than the net liability of corresponding traders who purchase their stock locally from accountable traders. Another objection to it is that firms who are engaged solely in exporting would have no net liability and therefore would not be entitled to any relief. I would add that in so far as this is intended to compensate retail traders, in particular, these traders will have their liquidity position substantially improved by the decision to extend the taxable period from one to two months, and this improvement would at least compensate, if not more than compensate, them for any additional cost of operating value-added tax as against the present system of turnover tax.