COMMUNITY (INEQUALITIES) (Hansard, 19 November 1970)

§ Q2. Mr. Eadie
asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to remove inequalities between different sections of the community.

§ Q9. Mr. Sheldon
asked the Prime Minister what measures he proposes to take to reduce inequalities in the community.

§ The Prime Minister
The aim of our policies is to create a fair society in which all sections of the community benefit from a soundly-based prosperity.

§ Mr. Eadie
Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the best ways to do away with the equality—I mean inequality—in society would be to drop his policy of non-intervention and do something about prices? Does the Prime Minister now regret having said prior to 18th June that he would do something about prices at a stroke?

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused between equality and inequality, but what one wants to achieve is a fair society.

§ Mr. Sheldon
If the aim of the Prime Minister is to create a fair society, why is it that the income tax reductions benefit those with high incomes more than they benefit those with low incomes and benefit those with unearned incomes most of all?

§ The Prime Minister
Given the nature of income tax, that is bound to be the case. If one accepted the hon. Gentleman's argument, one would never reduce income tax; indeed, one would constantly raise it.

§ Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles
Does the Prime Minister realise that the most glaring inequalities are suffered by public service and Armed Forces pensioners, 1424 and that his recent action on this front is welcome across the country?

§ The Prime Minister
It has been warmly welcomed, and I should have thought that it was warmly welcomed by both sides of the House.

§ Mr. Duffy
Is the Prime Minister aware that there are marked and growing inequalities in opportunity for employment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region which are in no way improved by current regional development policies? Will he take note of an impending Early Day Motion on the subject?

§ The Prime Minister
There may be differences about the policy which should be adopted in the regions but there cannot be a difference of view about the objective, which is to remove inequalities of opportunity and produce a fairer society.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
The right hon. Gentleman omitted to answer the second part of the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), about whether he regretted having made that statement. This question has been put to the Prime Minister several times in the House and he has not yet replied. Does he now regret having won votes by a promise to deal with prices at a stroke, or does he stand by that promise?

§ The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my promise was to reduce the rise in prices. By refusing to sanction the increases demanded by the National Coal Board as a result of inflation under the previous Administration, and by refusing £30 million to the Post Office to meet the increased debt incurred, under the previous Administration, we have done just that.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
As the right hon. Gentleman has not reduced the rise in prices, will he also take this into account and give us his answer? He will recall that in a recent debate the whole of that quotation was read back to him. The phrase included "reduce prices". That is what he said—that he would hold back prices. There was all this nonsense about immediate taxation changes and other things summarised in his phrase "action to reduce prices". Does he stand by the latter part of the statement? Does he stand by any part of the statement? Why 1425 does he not stand by that pledge or withdraw it?

§ The Prime Minister
By refusing to allow the Coal Board to increase prices as it demanded, we have reduced the rise in prices from what it otherwise would have been. That cannot be denied.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Is the Prime Minister aware that to remove inequalities amongst many wage-earners he will be compelled to have an incomes policy to include national minimum earnings and subsequent increases tied to productivity?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman speaks about removing inequalities amongst wage-earners. If he is saying that one should aim at all wage-earners having equality, that is not a philosophy which either I or the country can accept. If he wishes the poorer members of the community to have a better income, we are the first Government to take direct action to do that through the family income supplement.

§ Sir T. Beamish
When the Leader of the Opposition asks questions about prices ought he not to wear a white sheet?

§ The Prime Minister
A white sheet could not cover the whole of his sins.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
As this Question refers to inequality, and as one of the worst aspects of poverty in Britain for many years has been child poverty amongst large families, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who secured the pledge from him on this question during the General Election, which they regarded as a total pledge, have now stated that that pledge is being betrayed and that the Prime Minister's family income supplement does nothing to meet the problem? Is not this a further betrayal of a pledge made during the General Election?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman was not able to be here on Tuesday, for reasons which the House fully accepted. I stated then that I make no apology whatever for producing a better scheme in five months to help the poorer members of the community and half-a-million children than would have been the case if we had implemented the proposal for increased family allowances with claw-back. If the contrary 1426 is stated by the Opposition, they are absolutely wrong.