Amendment of the Law

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The House will appreciate that parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) were his own words and that others sounded a bit like a Whip’s handout. His birthday is to be welcomed.

I suggest to colleagues that it would be worth their while going through chapter 2 of the Red Book, because its 250 paragraphs contain all kinds of things, some of which are important and others of which are even more important.

As we all recognise, everything that we are discussing must be put in the context of the Government’s receipts and expenditure, which are shown on page 18. The attempt to close the gap between the two underlies everything that we are considering. Some of the matters in chapter 2 of the Red Book will not matter to many people, such as VAT being put on the rental of hairdressers’ chairs. Others have not been spotted by many, such as VAT relief being taken off alterations to listed buildings.

Anyone who has had dealings with English Heritage, as I have, will know that sometimes it is very helpful and that at other times it adds to the cost of what one is trying to do. If we have to take the VAT relief off alterations, perhaps we should consider giving VAT relief to the maintenance and repair of such buildings, or to a portion of those costs, because meeting the requirements of the listed buildings authorities can be expensive.

Paragraph 2.40 is on charitable giving. The Chancellor suggested that philanthropy in a person’s lifetime should be subject to a limit of 25% of their income in any year. I can imagine circumstances in which someone would have a very high income in one year, perhaps through the sale of an asset that is not protected by capital gains tax relief. If somebody gets £1 million over and above their normal income and wants to give away two thirds of it, what is the Chancellor thinking of in saying that they can give away only a quarter? It seems to me that we ought to have the same ability to give away our earnings as we have to give away our assets in death.

I ask the Chancellor, when he has his consultation with philanthropists, to ask a number of well-known philanthropists—without giving their names—how they would react to that. For people with established charitable funds, such as Dame Vivien Duffield, who gives fantastic support to charity, there is no problem, but there is a problem for people who, by chance, have a very high income for one year or a number of years and who want to give away a lot of money. That is a matter that the House should consider, but I would like to hear the Government’s response to a consultation before taking up the matter further.

I also have a question, not for answer immediately, about the lifetime limit on savings for self-invested pensions. The limit has come down from £1.8 million to £1.5 million. That does not affect me personally—not on my salary. However, somebody who has got to £1.6 million can now write in and say, “Please protect this amount.” What happens if the value of their investment goes up by 15% in the next five years? Or by 150%? Will they lose 55% of that increase? They have to take the risk that the amount of money might go down, but if it goes up, the Chancellor will say, “I will have more than half of that.” I may misunderstand the provision, and I am not saying that it was new in yesterday’s Budget, but it does matter and we ought to give it some consideration.

I welcome the provisions on employee ownership and the enterprise management initiative, some of which are really interesting.

I am not absolutely certain that I understand the gift aid and charitable giving provisions completely, but they are to be welcomed. Simplification matters, and the headline title in the Red Book is, “A fairer, more efficient and simpler tax system”. I should like to talk about that.

Some of the accusations that the Opposition have made about the so-called granny tax are exaggerated, and we have to realise that we need to get more people to have more provision for their old age. The Government are right to say that £140 should be the minimum pension level, but we need to apologise to people who did not have the chance to receive that. They often worked for much longer than the current qualifying period, but get lower pensions and are more likely to have to get means-tested support. It is unfair to them when we make things better for people in the future, and we have to apologise to those most affected.

I want to ask the Minister why we use the retail prices index for some things that people have to pay and the consumer prices index for some things that people receive. People can rightly go through the Government’s provisions and ask whether there is a philosophy to that or whether it is just what is now called fiscal consolidation, which means, “We’ll take all we can and pay out as little as we can.” That is a perfectly reasonable attitude for the Government to take, but would they like to say openly what the philosophy is?

I end by saying something about child benefit. I ran a campaign in the early 1970s to bring in family allowance for the first child, and I ran a campaign against Denis Healey when he said, “There’s no need to increase family allowance or child benefit—look at the married man’s tax allowance.” Half of that allowance went to people who had no children, and half of it went to people who had working spouses, so it was the least well directed way of supporting those caring for children.

Some of the arguments put forward over the past year, since we first heard about the proposal to cut child benefit for a certain number of people, have been grossly insulting. The idea that someone on £20,000 a year or less will support a person on £120,000 is nonsense. I saw one bit of paper suggesting that I could write to my constituents explaining why people with between £60,000 and £800,000 a year in earnings were being subsidised by the poor, but the difference between the taxation of someone earning £800,000 and someone earning £20,000 would pay for child benefit over and over again. The advantage of child benefit is that people register to get it when they are entitled, and stop getting it when their child ceases to be of eligible age. The amount of family formation, reformation and deformation, and the number of times people change or lose their jobs, will cause a lot of problems.

I say to the Government that whatever they get through this year against my wishes, they should not stick to this mistake. Amalgamating the value of the child tax allowance and the family allowance was right, and child benefit was the right way of doing it. It puts money in the purse more often than in the wallet. The Government are making a mistake, although less of a mistake than when the announcement was made a year ago. If they would like to have a serious debate about the matter, please count me in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Just about the only announcement that was not flagged up in advance of the Budget yesterday was the £3 billion granny tax grab, which means that those men and women in my constituency who built Birmingham and Britain, who are coming up to retirement next year, will face a cut in what they had hoped and planned for of £314.

There are many laughable examples from the historical lexicon of the politically disingenuous—for example, the spokesman in the dying days of the Nixon Administration who said at the height of Watergate that “all statements heretofore issued are now considered to be inoperative”—but to describe this granny tax grab as “simplification” takes some beating. There is one thing that the Business Secretary and I have in common: we are both follicly challenged. Neither of us detains hairdressers for too long. Following yesterday’s Budget announcement, the next time I go to Imad’s, the barbers on Slade road, I will ask for my hair not to be cut, but to be “simplified”.

Why has this happened? Quite simply, it is a granny tax grab to fund a £40,000 tax cut for 14,000 millionaires.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The Labour Government were in power for about 150 months. For fewer than two of those 150 months they had the 50p tax rate. Why?

[Jack Dromey]

I will contrast the record of our Government with the record of the hon. Gentleman’s Government, any time. After 13 years of a Labour Government, Britain was a stronger, fairer, better country. We have now been given a Bullingdon Budget whose first priority is millionaires, by a Cabinet who are oblivious to the consequences.