HC Deb 25 July 1977 vol 936 cc160-2

Bill, as amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Sir Raymond Gower

There seems to be an unhealthy alliance between the two Front Benches against the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). It would seem that a respectable argument was put forward in the opening speech—that is, until a Government—any Government—produce an adequate grant, it is quite respectable to suggest that a blind person should pay less tax on the same income than a person who is not blind. The arguments that have been put forward by both Front Benches are just excuses for doing nothing. At least the inclusion of this amendment in the Bill would focus Government attention on the problem of framing an adequate grant for the blind through the social services.

Mr. John Moore (Croydon, Central)

Perhaps my hon. Friend would prompt the Minister to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the cost of the amendment.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

I am sorry. I forgot to answer that. The cost is £1½ million.

Sir R. Gower

It was suggested that the question of cost could have been a disincentive, in that it would make it more difficult to change over. But it is the reverse of that. It should compel the Government to admit that this is becoming expensive, therefore it would be better to change over to a grant. They should agree that this is an expensive way of doing things and it would be better to change to the social services system.

This amendment would compel the Government to look at the matter more urgently, and to create a proper and adequate benefit for the blind through the social services. Pending that, this amendment would be an improvement for some blind pensioners who have to pay tax at the same rate as those who are not blind.

Mr. John Moore

I endorse everything that has been said in support of this tiny amendment. I accept and understand the difficulties that have been put forward, but we are talking about a mere £1½ million—an insignificant sum of money compared with the sort of thing we want to spend it on.

The Minister waves his arms about and dispenses millions of pounds. Only last Friday the Government announced that they were spending £3 million on a Press centre. We are talking about reasonable expenditure to maintain something to which this House is already committed—a benefit to those who are disabled. That is all. We should be a little more aggressive in pressing such an important case.

Mr. Ashley

I am maintaining my stance in not pushing this amendment to a Division for the reasons that I have given. It does not mean that I am soft. It simply means that I am looking to the future. I shall be watching the next Finance Bill very closely in the light of what has been said this evening, and I shall look very hard at what the Government have done.

Hon. Members on both sides have spoken with one voice on this issue. I hope that the Treasury has taken very careful note of the central purpose that we have enunciated tonight.

Amendment, negatived.

  1. Clause 25
      2. cc163-4
    1. CHILD TAX ALLOWENCES: CHILDREN LIVING ABROAD 336 words
  2. Clause 26
      3. cc164-6
    1. CHILD TAX ALLOWANCES: STUDENTS 1,072 words
  3. Clause 27
      4. cc167-70
    1. RETIREMENT ANNUITIES 1,427 words
  4. Clause 30
      5. c171
    1. EARNINGS FROM WORK DONE ABROAD 98 words
Forward to