Finance Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

Given that we are told by the Conservative party that money is tight, is this a sensible way of spending scarce resources? The measure would cost about £440 million a year and I would sooner that those scarce resources went into the NHS, which benefits everyone in the general population. I do not think that the idea will fly even on the Government Front Benches. As I said in my opening, it is nice to see, in relation to this and the other amendments in this group proposed by Conservative Back Benchers, that the true face of conservatism is not dead in this place.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am delighted to be regarded as the true face of the Conservative party, but I am also very pleased that there are lots of other true faces of the Conservative party present to listen to this debate. Not everyone recalls the great excitement that there was in the Conservative party and on the Conservative Benches back in 1989 when the then Secretary of State for Health, who is now the Justice Secretary, said that he was going to introduce tax relief for health insurance premiums. That policy, which was announced in a health White Paper and then put into practice in the 1990 Budget by Nigel Lawson, was the action of a self-confident Conservative Government. That same self-confidence carried on through the years when John Major was Prime Minister, and right up to 2001, when a proposal to restore the relief, which had been taken away by the mean Labour Government, was in our manifesto. Since then, we seem to have rather lost our way.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of losing his way, but can he remember why the Labour Government did that? It was not just because the relief was unfair but because they went on to use part of the money to reduce the VAT on heating fuel.

[Mr Chope]

That was the excuse put forward at the time, but I doubt whether it was the real justification. I suspect that the real justification was a feeling on the part of a lot of socialists—people on the Labour side of the House—who resented the idea that the health service should in any way be funded by the private sector. The problem we have in this country is that although our health service is funded by taxpayer money to the extent of most health services across the G7 or G8 countries, we lag behind those other countries in that we do not have enough private sector contributions to the health service. That is why the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is brilliant, because it sends out a very strong signal to people that we want to encourage them to participate in and contribute to the cost of their health care.

It is good for people to contribute to the cost of their health care, and that of their family, if they can afford so to do. Some people who can afford to do that pay for their health care outright: in a sense, they pay as they go. Others who can afford to do that pay through insurance policies. Yet others who can afford to do that do not make a contribution at all, because they believe that it is in the national interest that the whole cost of their health care should be borne by other taxpayers, many of whom are less well-off than they are. Those are the three categories, and we should try to move more people from the category of those who could afford to pay for, or contribute towards, their health care but do not, into the category of those who do contribute.

[Mr Jones]

I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I understand where he is coming from. However, the scheme introduced in the 1980s did not do what he wants. It basically just gave a tax cut to about 500,000 people who already had private plans, so it did not work the last time it was tried.

[Mr Chope]

Obviously, the Treasury will always say that there is what is described as a dead-weight cost associated with such initiatives, in that people who would be paying for health insurance anyway would get the tax relief—but that is looking at only part of the issue. What I am trying to do—as is my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley in his new clause—is to encourage more people to come into that category, so that we grow that cohort of people. We certainly do not want to allow that cohort to be reduced, as it inevitably is when people who were on schemes provided by their employers retire and lose that provision. Taking on that burden, or responsibility, for themselves is a significant expense; my hon. Friend’s new clause would not eliminate that cost, but it would reduce it by a useful amount.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend tell us how, in the current financial situation, we could pay for any dead-weight costs? Where would the money come from?

[Mr Chope]

It is a matter of seeing what the countervailing benefits would be, because obviously, if as a result of my hon. Friend’s new clause a lot more people who are not contributing anything towards the cost of their health care started to do so, thereby reducing the burden on the NHS, the dead-weight cost that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) mentions would be exceeded by the overall benefits, and a reduction in the overall burden of taxation. More people who are getting health care in this country would be paying for it, or contributing to its cost, rather than relying on the state and the taxpayer to do so.

[Mr Leigh]

The dead-weight cost argument is always used against ideas such as school vouchers or tax relief for health insurance, but does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of such proposals is to help the people in the middle? Quite rightly, Parliament is concerned about the people at the bottom of the heap, and the rich can always buy their way out, but this part of the Conservative party should help the people who struggle all their lives, and pay tax all their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a lot of resentment about the fact that people who arrive in this country can latch on to the health service, at no cost to themselves, when they have not made any contribution at all. The new clause would give people who have been making a contribution, either through their employers or by paying insurance premiums themselves, a bit of help in the form of tax relief when they retire. We are talking about modest sums, but that would send a useful message and be an incentive.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

If we were designing a system to increase the number of people with private health insurance, would not this proposal be a very inefficient way of doing it? I must draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Institute for Fiscal Studies and King’s Fund report, which showed that when the scheme was abolished, 0.7% of people—4,000 people—gave up their policy. It strikes me that for most people, the scheme was a not a great incentive to buy health insurance.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman quotes figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that go back, I think, to 2001—10 years ago. What concerns me is that there has been no update of those figures. If my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench, comes forward with up-to-date statistics that show that the Government have been considering the issue seriously, obviously I will listen to his arguments, as I always do.

I am concerned that the issue has become one that the coalition Government do not want to discuss, and they are not prepared to commission research into it. They are not prepared to consider the argument put forward by my hon. Friends and myself that our proposal would generate more private sources of income for the health service. The Government are going for the simplistic version and concentrating on the idea that there would be an up-front dead-weight cost. There might be, but that would be outweighed by the other benefits.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the individual making the payment should not make it out of resources provided by another person for the purpose of enabling it to be made? If he can explain that, does he not believe that it would require a desperately intrusive large state to undertake investigations to ensure that the provisions in the new clause were adhered to?

[Mr Chope]

The new clauses being considered together are a word-for-word recital of the original legislation. The hon. Gentleman may have some good points, but I hope that those will not be taken by the Minister, because they would be points against the measures that followed the 1990 Budget.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I am simply trying to establish the extent of Government intrusion that would be required in order to enforce the clauses that he supports. The Government would have to intervene and find out whether the funds being made available for the premium had been supplied by a third party—perhaps children who wanted to help their ageing parents. How would the restriction be enforced?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

In the same way as it was enforced before, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley says. As the insurance companies will be the beneficiaries, in a sense, because more business will be created for them, the provisions of the new clauses require those insurance companies, in effect, to participate in a regulatory regime supervised by the Treasury. That is the reasonable safeguard that we had before, and it would be a reasonable safeguard in the future. I am delighted if the hon. Gentleman’s only objection to the new clause is that whingeing technical objection, because that must mean that he is in favour of the substance of it.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me. I am puzzled that Labour Members oppose the new clause as creeping privatisation, because when they were in office they privatised large sections of the NHS, with the independent sector treatment centre programme. I do not see how those two views sit together.

[Mr Chope]

As so often, my hon. Friend makes a telling point, which has got Opposition Members back on their haunches as a result of that good intervention.

Let us look at the total contribution made to health spending in this country by the private sector. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) quoted from the Institute for Fiscal Studies report that came out in 2001. It said:

“Despite the increase in use of the private sector, private spending on health care makes up only 16.3 per cent of total health spending in the UK, which is lower than in any other G7 country.”

It goes on to describe how low health spending was as a percentage of gross domestic product. I concede, and am pleased, that since then health spending as a percentage of GDP has increased, but the percentage of private contributions to health care has not increased commensurately, as it should have done.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

That has been used as an argument against privatising the national health service, because the reason why the United States spends such a high proportion of its GDP on health care is that there is a completely free market there. The hon. Gentleman is actually making an argument for the national health service.

[Mr Chope]

I certainly support the national health service, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands my point. My point is that even in very socialistic countries, such as Sweden, the other Scandinavian countries and others in Europe—quite apart from the United States—the proportion of total health spending that comes from the private sector is much higher than it is in this country. I think that it would be much better if a higher proportion of our total health spending came from the private sector and from individuals and companies.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a powerful speech. Will he explain why some people think that not having private money gives us a better health service? Our European colleagues have better outcomes when they have more private money.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think, and some of the research suggests, that when people contribute directly to the cost of their health care they take a greater interest in outcomes and hold the health service to account to a greater extent than when they can be told, “It’s all free, so what do you expect?” We talk about the health service being free at the point of delivery, which of course it is, but I want a health service that is available at the point of need, and the two things are very different. That is the gap that exists at the moment. A little more private sector resource, which would relieve some of the burden on the taxpayer or complement taxpayer resources, would be a good thing.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Where is the evidence for that? The old scheme that the hon. Gentleman says was so great clearly did not do that, for example in relation to waiting lists. It would cost £140 million, and it would be far better if that money went into the health service to improve care for all, rather than to the small section of society that he is trying to benefit.

[Mr Chope]

Of course, the original scheme was brought in on the basis that it would apply to everyone over the age of 60, and initially would give full tax relief to higher-rate taxpayers, so the figures would be nothing like as high under the new clause, because its proposals would apply only to people over 65, and would give only 20% in tax relief.

[Mr Leigh]

Is my hon. Friend not being very moderate? Surely there is an argument for giving everyone tax relief, which is how we would move to a continental-type system with much better health outcomes, and blur the boundaries between the private and public sectors. That is what we, as Conservatives, should believe in.

[Mr Chope]

I absolutely agree, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who tabled the new clauses, is a gradualist by nature; that goes back to his time as leader of Wandsworth council, when he was preparing for his time in Parliament and knew that things could not be done immediately but must be done gradually. He can speak for himself when he contributes to the debate, but perhaps that gradualism is part of his thinking.

I will finish soon, because many Members wish to contribute, but let us first put this suggestion in perspective by thinking about roughly how much it would cost. Let us suppose that an average health premium is about £2,000, which a pensioner or pensioner family would be faced with paying, and which previously their employer had paid as part of a contributory or non-contributory occupational scheme. Many pensioners would not pay that, but if we gave them the tax relief, which would amount to more than £400, I submit that many of them would carry on paying for their insurance, thereby contributing towards the cost of the health service, which would be a benefit.

The last time I spoke in a debate on a Finance Bill on Report it was about insurance premium tax. The insurance premiums paid for health insurance are already subject to tax, which the Treasury keeps increasing, so an alternative way forward might be to abolish the insurance premium tax paid on health insurance contributions. That is a separate argument and not the subject of this group of new clauses, but it serves as an example. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury would obviously say that we could not afford that—but does he realise that if we increased the number of people taking out health insurance, the Treasury would receive a lot more in insurance premium tax? I am sure that he will take that into account when he—in due course, having done the proper research—tells us the costs and benefits of the proposals in the new clauses.

We should not forget that the dynamic effect of these taxation changes could deliver great benefits and dividends. It is important to send a strong message to those who can afford to contribute towards their health care costs but who currently do not do so, that this would enable them to contribute at a lower cost than would otherwise be the case. I think that it is a well-rounded and sensible proposal, and I am delighted that it is getting so much support from colleagues on the Government side of the House.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I am sure that people across the country would be astonished to discover that the first priority of Back-Bench Tories on health spending is to give a tax concession to people who pay, on average, £2,000 a year towards health insurance, because most people over 65 are in no position to pay such a sum towards health insurance. Most people across the country, including many pensioners, and perhaps even those pensioners who have private health insurance, think that the first priority for spending should be to avoid some of the cuts that the Government are already introducing and to direct spending to the national health service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is interesting that there are now far fewer adverts for private health care. He is right that part of the reason for that is that we have a superb national health service. Having served in the House for longer than I, he should take a great deal of credit for the fact that we have a first-class health service. The second reason why I suspect private health companies are not advertising is that thanks to the policies of the Government parties, people cannot afford to have private health care. Of course, many people are losing their jobs. I will return to that point shortly.

The other huge issue about burden is that the private health system is a burden on the national health service, because it takes doctors, nurses and other medical professionals away from it.

[Mr Chope]

indicated dissent.

[Thomas Docherty]

Now the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. There are many highly paid consultants who split their time between their private practice, their golf course and the national health service. The time that they spend in private practice is clearly time that is not available to the national health service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman; there are times when I am happy to accept congratulations from the other side of the House. We want to ensure, especially given the constraints that we are working under in these times of fiscal austerity, that measures can be well justified.

An Institute for Fiscal Studies report published in 2001 questioned how far the take-up of private medical insurance would ever respond to tax relief. It also suggested that the dead-weight cost would make it unlikely that tax relief could be self-financing.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend was not in the House in 1989, but is he saying that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was Secretary of State for Health at the time, was wrong to say that introducing this self-same measure would

“reduce the pressure on the NHS from the very age group most likely to require elective surgery, freeing resources for those who need it most”?—[Official Report, 31 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 169.]

[Mr Hoban]

Loth as I am to suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend could ever be wrong on any measure, I want to make a point about the chances of a reduction of pressure on the NHS exceeding the cost of the tax relief. There is no evidence that there would be a net positive outcome for the Exchequer. When a similar relief existed in the 1990s, it had little apparent effect, and the IFS report from 2001 concluded that it was unlikely that such a subsidy for private medical insurance would ever be self-financing.

I appreciate the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has put forward his argument for the new clause, but I do not think that there is sufficient evidence at this point to justify the relief. There is no evidence that it would represent good value for money for the taxpayer, particularly at a time when our efforts should be focused on reducing the deficit and tackling the problems left by the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The proposal is not subtle at all and his personal example is a good one. Why should someone who loses a spouse in an accident or through natural causes be penalised because, through no fault of their own, they have lost their spouse? That is the problem with trying to use tax in relation to marriage. As I have said, the measure is very different from what was put forward in the Conservative manifesto because it does not include civil partnerships. It clearly is not what Conservative Back Benchers have read in their own manifesto.

[Mr Chope]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point was put succinctly in a Daily Telegraph editorial of 11 July 2007, which asked

“why should favouring married couples be an unacceptable interference when favouring single ones, as this Government does, is not?”

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman knows that there are always winners and losers in any tax system. I am very surprised at him because I know that he has very libertarian views on a whole host of subjects, which we have heard on many occasions in the Chamber. Is he really suggesting that we should use the tax system socially to engineer society by saying that people should marry rather than cohabiting or, as has been mentioned, becoming single through separation or bereavement? I am surprised at him because I thought he was very much against the state doing anything, but the measure has the state wanting to determine or influence exactly what an ideal society should be. I am sorry, but the statistics just do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman proposes. If such tax measures worked as a way of bolstering marriage and keeping families together, we would have expected marriages to rise with the married man’s tax allowance through the 1960s and 1970s, but they did exactly the opposite—we had record levels of divorce and separation. Hon. Members should look at the facts. Tax measures have not succeeded in doing that in the past, and I doubt whether they will in future. They certainly will not encourage anyone to get married for a small financial benefit.

It is important to dispel one myth, which has been put forward again by the Conservative party—the fact that a wicked Labour Government somehow did away with the married couple’s tax allowance and that Labour is responsible for the degeneration of society that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions describes in his report. It is important to recognise what the previous Conservative Government did on this. It was Chancellor Norman Lamont in the 1993 Budget who proposed that the married couple’s tax allowance should be restricted to 20% from April 1994. That was the first time that happened for the basic MCA, which for a couple under 65 was then £1,720, so it was worth something like £608 for those who were on marginal rates of 40%, but only £344 for those on marginal rates of 20%. We then had the argument that it was unfair to have different amounts for people on higher tax rates than for those on lower tax rates. The then Chancellor said:

“There is no good reason why an allowance intended to recognise the responsibilities of marriage should give least to those on low incomes and most to those right at the top of the income scale.”—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 182.]

In the November 1993 Budget, the current Justice Secretary confirmed that change and went on to announce that the MCA would be further restricted to 15% from April 1995, so there was a slow change in the system. The provision restricting the MCA was made in section 77 of the Finance Act 1994. When this was debated in Committee, there was general support for the idea that the MCA should be the same across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a key point and I understand why she makes it. This goes right back to when income tax was introduced in the 1790s, when a spouse’s income was the property of the husband. That was the basis on which income tax was brought in and it continued for centuries. There was no recognition that even within marriages people might have separate tax affairs or sources of income that needed to be recognised.

It is interesting to look back at the debate that took place about the MCA. Baroness Maddock, who was then a Member of this House, argued that the MCA was

“a relic of the days when a husband was taxed on his wife’s income as well as on his own. It contravenes the principle that marriage should be tax neutral.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 February 1994; c. 344.]

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman quotes my predecessor, the then hon. Member for Christchurch, but in order to emphasise how out of touch her opinions are, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no longer a single Liberal Democrat councillor in the whole of my constituency?

[Mr Jones]

I am very pleased to hear that but I am not sure that that is very good news for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) to whom I understand the Baroness is now married. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Interestingly, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Michael Portillo, concurred with Mrs Maddock’s view. The then Chancellor, who is now the Justice Secretary, recognised that and announced in his Budget speech that there would be a two-stage restriction of the MCA, stating:

“Now that husbands and wives are taxed independently—one of the best taxation reforms in recent years—the married couple's allowance is a bit of an anomaly.”—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 935.]

The important thing that this demonstrates is that change was taking place under a Conservative Government, and that it was not the wicked previous Labour Government who came up with this idea. However, the change did set off the forces who were arguing that the changes were wrecking marriages. In 1995, a major paper called “Farewell to the Family” appeared. It made much of the fact that the measure would change families and discourage people from marrying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

In making a brief contribution to this very important debate, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on getting it going. It came as a bit of surprise when my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) did not speak to the new clause, but I am delighted that she subsequently joined the debate to speak in support of it.

I come at this subject on the basis that the Prime Minister supports exactly what I support: recognising marriage in the tax system. He promised that the Government would recognise marriage in the tax system after the general election, and this debate rightly puts the focus on how that commitment will be implemented. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will say exactly when that is going to happen. Over a year ago, on 2 June 2010, the Prime Minister said:

“I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system. Those in our happy coalition will have the right to abstain on them, I am happy to say, but I support marriage. We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]

Those were excellent words from my right hon. Friend. Then, some three or four months later—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Chope]

No, I am not going to allow anybody to interfere with the words of the Prime Minister.

On 5 October 2010, the Prime Minister said:

“I have always supported the idea of supporting marriage through the tax system, specifically supporting the idea of a transferable tax allowance. The idea of a transferable tax allowance is in the coalition agreement.”

That is where my hon. Friend’s new clause comes in, because it calls for just that. One is entitled to ask why, having had two Budgets since the general election, we still do not have proposals to implement that very important pledge.

Labour Members are misrepresenting this proposal as an attempt to build new privileges for those who are in a marital relationship, but, as has been brought out time and again during the debate, the question is what we are going to do to prevent those who are married from suffering disadvantage under the tax system. That is what we are trying to put right with the new clause.

[Helen Goodman]

Labour Members would be far more sympathetic to the case that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are making in saying that they do not have negative attitudes towards single-parent families if they had not voted for the Welfare Reform Bill, which requires lone parents to pay to get the services of the Child Support Agency.

[Mr Chope]

Speaking for myself, I do not have negative attitudes towards single-parent families, but I do feel that single-parent families should not be advantaged in the tax system as compared with married families. That is the problem that we have at the moment, and that is what we are trying to put right in the new clause.

I am lucky in that my constituency is in an area described thus in a headline in last week’s local paper: “East Dorset is a place for love and marriage”. The article says:

“Married couples in East Dorset stick together. Latest…figures show that 65 per cent of marriages in the area last, well above the national average”,

with the seventh highest rate of marriage survival in the country. Even so, fewer than two out of three marriages survive, but that is a lot better than in many other parts of the country.

I am not suggesting that the tax system is causing marital breakdown, but I am saying that we should follow the very strong lead of our Prime Minister and put pressure on the coalition Government to implement their commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Is not the real issue the calibration of the compromise? Most new Government Back Benchers recognise that in a coalition there has to be compromise. At the same time as we see moves forward on the individual allowance for our Liberal Democrat colleagues, we need to see some progress along the lines that my hon. Friend is setting out. The key issue is that there appears to be an imbalance in the compromise.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are seeking a route towards a destination. The Prime Minister set out the clear destination, but so far we do not seem to have made any progress towards achieving it. What was set out in detail on the Conservative website at the time of the election was a very modest proposal, which talked about a small proportion of the tax allowance being transferable, with quite a tight maximum income threshold in order for people to be eligible. Even that modest proposal has not yet been put forward by the Government in the Finance Bill so that we can support it and implement it.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman has talked about the Prime Minister’s support for this proposal. Does he recognise that the Prime Minister included civil partnerships in what he said? If we agreed to this proposal tonight, civil partnerships would be excluded, which is clearly at odds with what the Prime Minister wants.

[Mr Chope]

If there is a defect in the wording of the new clause and it fails to recognise everything that the Prime Minister said—he certainly referred specifically to civil partnerships—the hon. Gentleman may have a point about that, but he does not have a point about much else, in my submission.

[Mr Leigh]

I am happy to make the concession to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who spoke at some length on this point, that if the new clause is defective, I am happy to withdraw it and for the Government to bring back a new clause that includes civil partnerships. I make it absolutely clear that we have nothing against civil partnerships.

[Mr Chope]

My final point is that there is a read-across between the new clause and the conundrum that the Government face in the debate about the withdrawal of child benefit from families that comprise at least one higher rate taxpayer. That issue is causing a lot of angst among our constituents, particularly for parents in single income households in which one parent stays at home to look after the children. As I have said in correspondence with the Minister, in some cases one parent stays at home to look after a disabled child. If there is one parent who is the breadwinner and he is a higher rate taxpayer on an income of about £45,000 or £50,000, he will be above the threshold and will be deprived of his child benefit.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Chope]

I will give way in a minute.

In comparison, a household with two people earning between £35,000 and £40,000 each, which has a much higher income, will keep its child benefit. That is not fair. In response to correspondence, the Minister has said that there has to be a bit of rough justice and that to introduce a system of transferability of allowances and entitlements would be very complicated. However, that is exactly what was proposed by the Prime Minister with the transferability of tax allowances, and that is what is proposed in the new clause. That is of significance, because there is a read-across from this other thorny policy issue that faces the Government.

I hope that we will have a positive response from the Minister, and that he will spell out in detail when and how the Prime Minister’s pledges to the country will be implemented.

[Chris Leslie]

What on earth is going on with the Tories this evening? It is a perplexing situation, because Conservative Members usually accuse Labour Members of filibustering in an open-ended Finance Bill debate, but not at all this evening. Instead we seem to have a private family dispute breaking out.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) highlighted child benefit and taxation for higher earners. The two issues are inextricably linked, because when challenged about his decision at the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister said, “Oh well. Don’t worry. We’re going to be making moves on a transferable married couples allowance.” Of course we never saw such a proposal then, and we still do not know how the child benefit taxation arrangement will be implemented. That would be a major change to the independent taxation system.

[Mr Chope]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

This is the final intervention that I will take.

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear a major announcement on that issue from the Minister very shortly.

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman could have speeded that up by not intervening.

I shall finish by saying that, clearly, there are major problems with the transferable allowance. It is costly and not targeted, and it is unfair to those without a marriage certificate, whether they are divorced, widowed, single or in a couple. There are a host of anomalies and unintended consequences, as several of my hon. Friends have said. For instance, if a husband is killed in a tragic road accident, his widow and children will be left without support, and so on. The proposal undermines the principle of independent taxation, but most of all, we should focus our tax and benefits system on need and on the alleviation of poverty. I sincerely hope that the House will reject new clause 5.