§ 2.38 p.m.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider in the next Budget freeing wireless sets for the blind from V.A.T., bearing in mind that these sets, provided on free permanent loan to the blind by the British Wireless for the Blind Fund, have been free of purchase tax since the Finance Act 1945.
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, the Government have considered the matter most carefully but have come to the conclusion that introducing legislation on the lines suggested would inevitably lead to pressure for similar reliefs for many other groups.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that 8,000 people, mostly old, go blind each year and that this new tax will rob 1,000 of them of a wireless set next Christmas? Is he further aware that it would be very surprising if this ancient Parliament, having done something for 28 years, should now cease to do it for the convenience of the Treasury?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, my own awareness of the number of people who go blind every year is very largely as a result of the work over very 1824 many years of the noble Lord who asked the Question—and of course the Government acknowledge it. I cannot accept, however, that not exempting wirelesses from V.A.T. is in fact a discriminatory tax against the blind.
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether this is not a really mean attitude on the part of the Government towards this project? The Government say that they would not be able to resist any other pressures. Surely, if they can resist this they can resist all kinds of pressure.
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I appreciate the noble Baroness's feelings, but not exactly her logic. As to the point about the Government being mean, I would draw her attention to the very considerable estate duty concessions to charities made by my right honourable friend in the last Budget.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, would not the Minister say that this serious case is a repercussion of joining the Common Market?
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, if this small facility were given, could the noble Earl say how much it would cost the nation?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, this is not a question of how much it would cost the nation. It is impossible to assess how much it would cost. The question is what other brands of unfairness would be created by an exemption of this nature.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, nevertheless, is it not true that the unfairness, if it be such, has persisted for 28 years?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I appreciate the concern of the House in this matter. I read most carefully the noble Lord's arguments on this matter on a Private Notice Question raised by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull last year. It is to the regret of the Government that we cannot do anything about this matter, but the reason we cannot do anything about it is that we believe it would open the floodgates to a very considerable degree of unfairness.
§ LORD COLERAINEMy Lords, is it really conceivable that any other class of person besides the blind could have a case for freedom from the tax? Surely the Government could take a stand on the case of the blind. It is surely inconceivable that any other class of persons could make the same case.
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, the Government have already recognised the point made by my noble friend, because for V.A.T. purposes talking books for the blind are zero rated. I think that that is a very considerable acknowledgment of the special claims of the blind.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all Governments use these weary arguments, and would he please consider whether there is not a need to restore the situation to what it has been? Would he therefore convey very strongly to his right honourable friend what I believe to be the undoubted feelings of your Lordships on this matter?
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, could the noble Earl define the floodgates which would be opened as a result of this tiny concession?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, the definition is really fairly simple. It is that there are many classes of disabled people in this country and many charities for them. The Government recognise this, and that is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor made considerable concessions in the last Budget. It would be considered unfair to other groups of disabled people, however, if there were a special exemption of this kind.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, Would not the noble Earl agree that blindness is the greatest disablement of all?
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, does the Minister recognise the very deep feeling in all parts of the House on the issue that has been raised? Is not the proposal that the Government should wait until the next Budget a very moderate 1826 proposal? Why should not wireless sets for the blind be exempted from V.A.T., as other goods are exempted at the present time?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will have read my noble friend Lord Fraser's original Question, which has a subsidiary clause asking us to bear in mind that many of these wirelesses are provided on loan. There are, of course, no taxes on loans of this nature.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, is the noble Earl taking into consideration that most classes of disabled persons are able to listen to the radio, and that blind people are by definition unable to see television, which is available for most other classes of disabled person.
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, it is because my right honourable friend is aware of the very valuable point the noble Baroness has made that he exempted talking books from V.A.T.
§ LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINEMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware—and I speak with great respect for him personally—that it is inevitable that this deprived class will compare the cost of the proposed Channel Tunnel, Concorde and Maplin with the Government's refusal to grant this comparatively small concession? I am speaking with great respect personally for the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I must thank my noble friend for his kind remarks about me personally, which I in every sense reciprocate, but I really fail to see the connection with Maplin or the Channell Tunnel in this connection.
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the replies he is giving are not being well received, and that, as he has given an undertaking to bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the feeling of the House, it would be appreciated if he could indicate that he was accepting with a little more sympathy than he appears to do the points that the questioners are trying to make?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I have every sympathy for any questions which are connected with any group of disabled people. I fully acknowledge 1827 that. I have also every intention of relaying the feeling of this House to my right honourable friend. I have no intention, however, of misleading the House as to what could or could not be done.