§ 4. Mr. Willeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average pre-tax personal income for the latest available period in the United Kingdom, South-East and North-East England. respectively.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinThe following average incomes per head for 1969–70 are produced by dividing the incomes for income tax purposes by the population.
| £ | |
| United Kingdom | 528 |
| South-East Region | 631 |
| Northern Region | 422 |
§ The figures of the population include children and other people without incomes below the effective exemption limit.
§ With permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
1215§ Mr. WilleyDoes the Financial Secretary agree that these figures show a serious disparity between the standard of living in the North-East development area and the more prosperous regions of the country? Does he also accept that that disparity is steadily getting worse and forms a serious indictment of present development area policies?
§ Mr. JenkinI certainly do not accept the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The disparity has existed for many years. The Government's aim is to encourage development in the development areas where, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, special tax incentives are available.
§ Mr. WilleyWith respect, the words I used were, "that disparity is steadily getting worse".
§ Mr. BagierHow does the hon. Gentleman equate these figures with the oft-repeated statement by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government that high wage claims create unemployment when apparently unemployment is highest in the North-East where incomes are lowest?
§ Mr. JenkinThere are a number of cases where inflationary wage claims and settlements——
§ Mr. WilleyWhere?
§ Mr. JenkinI refer to the Chrysler Company, in particular. There are a number of cases where inflationary wage claims and settlements have led directly to the loss of workers in the industry. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for unemployment— [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—the Secretary of State for Employment has made clear on many occasions, it is not necessarily the people who get the inflationary wage claims who lose their jobs; it is their less fortunate colleagues in other industries.
Following are the details:The figures of income for tax purposes used in arriving at the answers were derived from the results of the (as yet unpublished) Survey of Personal Incomes for 1969–70. These figures do not therefore include non—taxable income such as National Insurance Benefits and any income in kind or taxable incomes below the effective exemption limit of £330 a year. If it were possible to take the extra incomes into account and to exclude members of the population who have no incomes the average incomes 1216 per head would be higher. The Survey for 1969–70 uses the place of residence of the taxpayer in the regional analysis. Earlier Surveys used the place of assessment to classify taxpayers by region. The 1969–70 figures are therefore not comparable with those for earlier years.2 The population figures used relate to mid-1969.3. The regions given are the Standard Regions of England and Wales as defined in Appendix 1 of the Abstract of Regional Statistics No. 7, 1971. The South-East Region includes the G.L.C. area. The Northern Region the counties of Cumberland and Durham as well as Northumberland, Westmorland and the North Riding of Yorkshire.
§ 23. Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the distinction among income groups of the relative gains or losses from all the Government's financial measures since June. 1970.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinIt is not possible to provide estimates of the kind for which the hon. Member asks.
§ Mr. MeacherIs the Minister aware that skilled workers have suffered a net loss from the Government's fiscal and welfare measures so far, while those with incomes of over £5,000 a year have made a net annual gain of over £1,250? In view of this massive feather-bedding of the rich, how can he possibly expect Government workers to accept a wage norm of 8 per cent.?
§ Mr. JenkinI do not accept the hon. Member's figures, which, as always, seem to be full of inaccuracies. But if the recent Fabian Society book is even approximately an accurate statement of what took place when the Labour Party was in power I should have thought that it would approach the question with a good deal more humility.