HC Deb 25 April 1961 vol 639 cc209-10
9. Mr. Wade

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will include in the Finance Bill provisions for special reliefs in respect of the costs of children's education and of personal saving for married men whose gross earned income does not exceed £5,000 a year.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

No, Sir.

Mr. Wade

In view of the Chancellor's statement last week about the difficulty of a man earning £5,000 a year being able to provide for the education of his children and to save, may I ask him, first, whether he is assuming that all Surtax payers send their children to fee-paying schools, or, in his calculation, does he envisage some extension of fee-paying? Secondly, if it is so difficult for a man earning £5,000 a year to provide for the education of his children and to save, has the Chancellor any proposals for helping those earning £2,000 a year or less? [HON. MEMBERS: "£1,750."] Is not their difficulty even greater?

Mr. Lloyd

As to the first part of his supplementary question, I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right; I was basing my remark on the assumption that they would send their children to a fee-paying school or, under the university grant system, would pay a substantial amount for university education.

As to the way in which I try to help them, there will be some assistance to them and to others in certain income groups lower than that in my proposals, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman. There was a certain amount of laughter when I made the remark about the £5,000-a-year man not being rich, but I am not certain that people would laugh quite so much if they realised that the net income of a man earning £5,000 a year gross before my changes is equivalent to the net income of a man earning £1,400 a year gross in 1937, and £770 gross in 1912.

Mr. H. Wilson

But after all these calculations, is it not a simple fact that that man's net income after taxation is still a good deal higher than the net income after taxation of a man earning £2,000, £1,500, or £1,000 a year? Is not that a fairly obvious point? If that is true, and if there are all these difficulties at the £5,000-a-year level, why does not the Chancellor address himself to the obviously greater difficulties of those on a much lower level of income, including old-age pensioners?

Mr. Lloyd

Substantial efforts have been made to alleviate the problem for lower-income groups in the past—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—certainly they have—and this time my proposals will deal with Surtax payers.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is the Chancellor aware that this remark of his has greatly interested the miners working at the Barony Colliery, Auchinleck, in my constituency? Will he come to Auchinleck and address the miners there on the difficulties of those earning £5,000 a year?

Mr. Lloyd

No, except in so far as they may understand my plan, because, irrespective of the way they cast their votes, they are people of great political sense.

Mr. Jay

Does not the Chancellor think that it is also difficult for those on £1,000 a year to survive under his administration?

Mr. Lloyd

I should not think it is anything like as difficult as it was under the administration of night hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.