HC Deb 10 July 1972 vol 840 cc1329-35

'In section 18 (relief for blind persons) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 for "£130"wherever it occurs there shall be substituted "£200" '.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Pavitt

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order.

Mr. Pavitt

I believe that we are discussing with the new Clause—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. When I ask the House to come to order, I expect hon. Members to obey the Chair.

Mr. Pavitt

I believe that we are also discussing the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers), new Clause 29,

Relief for blind persons

'Section 18 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (Relief for blind persons) shall have effect with the following Amendments—

  1. (a) in subsection (1), for "£100"in both places where that figure occurs, there shall be substituted "£200"; and
  2. (b) in subsection (2), for "£200" in both places where that figure occurs, there shall be substituted "£400" '.

The Clause should command the support of both sides of the House. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) here, because he moved a similar Clause very eloquently in 1968.

I shall not delay the House for very long. We are not asking for pity or sympathy for blind people. I rest my case solely on the economic consequences of the way in which the value of money has changed since the original disregard of £100.

Blind people get about quite slowly, but not quite so slowly as Governments move. The disregard arose from the Royal Commission Report of 1952. It was not until June, 1962, that the Government of the day decided that there should be a disregard of the first £100 of a blind person's income. In spite of the efforts of the hon. Member for Chelsea and the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) in 1968, that sum has not been altered.

There is no need for me again to argue the case about the need for people to live in the community in spite of their disability. Blind persons want work. There are 11.9 per cent. of those who could be working who are at present unemployed.

The new Clause merely seeks to bring the rate originally conceded in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, which stemmed from the decision of 1962, up from £130 to £200. The hon. Lady's new Clause would increase from £100 to £200 the figures in other parts of the Act.

I have every sympathy with the Minister who is to reply. If the brief he is to present to the House is anything like the last one, he deserves more of the sympathy of the House than the disabled or the blind. I beg him to accept the Amendment, which involves only a small amount, so that the House may proceed to the rest of its business.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port)

I was fortunate enough in 1962 to be successful in originating the original Clause, and therefore I support what the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said. I should also like to speak to my new Clause.

Speaking to the new Clause introducing relief for blind persons in July, 1962, Mr. Brooke, now Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that the blind were in a very special category, and he spoke of the great courage of blind men and women who are earning their living as teachers, musicians and in other walks of life".—[Official Report, 2nd July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 231.] I agree that they have courage. Many of them could stay at home and not play the part in life which they wish to play, yet the taxes on them are the same as for a sighted person. Lord Brooke pointed out in that speech that if a blind man received National Assistance or was war-disabled or had suffered an industrial injury, he would not benefit from the Clause. The only people who would do so were those with the courage to go out and work for themselves. Therefore, the Chancellor then thought it right to introduce the Clause, as he thought the blind were a unique case. They are still unique, and I hope that the Government will recognise that what was said in 1962 is equally applicable today.

In view of what the hon. Member for Willesden, West said about the value of money today, the blind certainly need extra help. Their expenses are considerably more than those of a normal person. Blind people are generally extremely proud. They have to give extra tips in order to get help, which perhaps is not the best way of doing it but it is essential today, and they must seek their living in the open market and compete with sighted people. It was for this reason that my proposal was accepted in 1962. Therefore, I can see no logical reason why my present proposal should be refused.

Mr. Brooke said in 1962 that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been particularly impressed by the arguments put forward by myself, I am glad to say, that the blind formed a special and, indeed, a unique category."—[Official Report, 2nd July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 230.] The category has not changed. The Government's intention may be to change the tax system altogether, but until it is changed I hope that blind people will have the increased benefit which they have earned in line with the increase which was granted them 10 years ago. I trust that my hon. Friend will give way on the Clause on the condition that as and when the taxation system is changed these people may have to relinquish this benefit in order to obtain another.

Mr. Dalyell

A number of us attended a meeting organised by the National Association for the Blind in Committee Room 14 three weeks ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) was present.

This problem must be seen in the total context and not simply from the point of view of this tax or that tax. What struck a number of us about that meeting, apart from any contact which we may have had in our constituencies, was the way in which the official representatives of the blind thought that far more couldbe done to give them work through Government purchasing. They outlined in some detail the sort of work which they thought blind people could have. That was one of their main points, and I hope that the Treasury will take it on board.

Mr. Nott

The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) spoke on this subject in the Budget debate, and over the weekend I again read his comments on that occasion. He has had an Early Day Motion down on the Order Paper on this topic.

The present allowance is £100, or£200 if both the husband and wife are blind. Under the unified system the amounts will be increased to £130 and £260 respectively. The figure which the Hon. Gentleman proposes should be increased is that for the unified allowance, and it may be therefore that he intends that it should not take effect until 1973–74. I do not know whether that is his intention, but he has raised a general point, and I shall answer in that spirit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) proposes in new Clause 29 that the relief should be given this year. I appreciate that it was partly in answer to her appeal that the present allowance was introduced. The blind person's allowance is an allowance in addition to the basic personal allowances and any other allowances which may be due to a blind person. The £100 must be looked at besides the personal allowances to which blind people are entitled. If we were to agree to the £200 which is proposed, it would, for example, amount to almost three times the maximum amount which a person can claim for a dependent relative or almost twice that allowable when the claimant is a single woman.

The argument comes back to the point I made on an earlier new Clause. We are seeking to try to keep the relation of one allowance in line with another. My right hon. Friend, in producing his substantial concessions and tax allowances this year, looked at all these matters at the time, but did not feel able to increase this allowance.

Blindness is the only form of disability which qualifies for an extra tax allowance. As I mentioned earlier, we have not found it practicable as yet to give a special allowance to people suffering from other forms of disability. Substantially to increase the blind person's allowance at this time would add to a sense of injustice felt by other people. I think that is probably a fair argument.

Dame Joan Vickers

If so, why was not a sense of injustice felt previously when the allowance was granted?

Mr. Nott

I will answer my hon. Friend's point. That was a matter for the then Chancellor in 1962. We are now moving into a period in which we shall be considering the whole future régime of tax allowances and benefits. It is not appropriate, when we are about to introduce a Green Paper on the tax credit scheme, to make changes to the minor tax allowances. By "minor" I mean that this is not one of the major tax allowances such as the general personal allowance.

Mr. Pavitt

If £100 were right in 1962—that is worth only £50 in relation to the whole structure of what the blind person is now receiving—why is it wrong to increase it up at this time? We are not asking for any more. We are asking for proportionately the same as they had before. Ten years have elapsed. A blind person who has been working for the last ten years has in each year lost something from the original amount that was given. Will the Minister address himself to the Stewart Report of 1962 which made a further demand which the then Government resisted?

Mr. Nott

I appreciate that the blind person's allowance which was introduced in 1962 has fallen in value. The same argument applies naturally to, and is used to support claims for increases in, all the other tax allowances right across the board. It was in recognition of this argument that my right hon. Friend substantially raised personal allowances in this year's Budget. Blind people who are liable to tax will, like other taxpayers, benefit substantially from the increases in personal allowances from £325 to £460 for single people and from £465 to £600 for married people. Certainly the value of this allowance has fallen, but clearly this was looked at by my right hon. Friend when he decided to increase personal allowances generally by about £1,000 million. Of course, blind people are entitled to any rise in the threshold in general personal allowances. That is the way my right hon. Friend sought this year to alleviate the problem of falling values in which reference has been made.

Mr. Pavitt

Does the Minister recognise, on the generality of tax concessions, that the 1952 Royal Commission made out a special case for the blind? The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) was able to emphasise that in 1962. Now, 20 years later, the hon. Gentleman is denying the whole basis of the Royal Commission's Report, the Stewart Working Party, and the hon. Lady's representations.

Mr. Nott

I am not denying the basis of the recommendations by people who have examined the matter. I am merely saying that this year my right hon. Friend chose to give the relief on personal allowances generally and that blind people will benefit substantially from that relief. I have, however, listened with interest and sympathy to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Willesden, West. I assure them that the whole question of tax allowance is to arise shortly and will be publicly debated as part of the new tax credit Green Paper. We shall look into these matters then.

11.15 p.m.

Dr. Gilbert

What is the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the cost of this minor allowance?

Mr. Nott

I do not have the figure now, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman have it as soon as I get it.

Dr. Gilbert

Treasury Ministers come to a debate of this nature singularly ill-prepared. These are reasonable new Clauses, and if the hon. Gentleman does not have this sort of information he ought to have it. It is something akin to a serious discourtesy to the House not to have it available. I suspect that the figures are quite insignificant.

Earlier, the hon. Gentleman was boasting about the allowances given by the Chancellor, amounting to about £1,000 million.

Mr. Nott

The cost of doubling the allowance would be about £2 million.

Dr. Gilbert

I suspected that it was something like that. It is just as well to have that in the open. I should be surprised if, after getting that information, the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to make the speech that he made a few moments ago.

I ask the House to consider the other concessions made in the Budget. They are: £30 million for relief of capital gains on unit trusts; £7 million for interest relief; £14 million for surtax payers; £115 million for free depreciation; and £45 million for small company relief. The Chancellor stood at that Box on 21st March and reeled off concession after concession, nearly all of them designed to make the division of income and wealth more unequal than it was before. That was the purpose of the Budget. [Interruption.] The Budget was intended to make ours a society more unequal than it had been because to do so was regarded as a stimulus, and yet the Government refuse to grant a relief of £2 million.

Mr. Dalyell

For the benefit of hon. Members who have just joined the debate may I tell the House that at about five o'clock this afternoon there was a concession, ironically of £2½ million, for on-course betting for racing?

Dr. Gilbert

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I do not withdraw one word of what I said. This is the whole sentiment behind the Budget. The allowances provided by the Budget were supposed to give people an incentive. If the Government are prepared to give £1,000 million as an incentive mainly to the better off section of the community, I am surprised that they are not prepared to give £2 million as an incentive to blind people.

Question put and negatived.