House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jul 1991

Mrs. Gillian Shephard : I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), both for their contributions this evening and for their continuing, vigorous support of the British car industry. They advanced valid arguments about the need for green measures and said that such measures could encourage the

Column 133

home market for cars. I hesitate to take issue with either of them because they are such experts in their field, but I am told that Holland, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Denmark and Belgium all have roughly equal or higher rates of tax on non-luxury cars. If my hon. Friends know otherwise, I would be pleased to look into it further.

Sir Hal Miller : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Shephard : My hon. Friend is about to tell me.

11.15 pm

Sir Hal Miller : I said that Treasury officials have speciously seized on luxury rates of tax for larger cars. For volume cars in the middle range the taxation is demonstrably factually much higher in this country.

Mrs. Shephard : I said that I would look into the matter further, and I certainly shall. I should be grateful to receive those exact details from my hon. Friend.

There are some problems with the proposals set out by my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove and for Northfield. First, there is no conclusive evidence that reducing car tax rates would lead to consumers switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles because only switching at the lower margin of each tax band would incur a tax incentive.

One of the major problems is cost. Car tax yields £1.3 billion a year and the proposal in new clause 22 would cost about £880 million. Obviously, it would be necessary to discover how that might otherwise be raised. Some 95 per cent. of cars are in the 25-miles-per-gallon or better category, so there would be a considerable dead weight in the proposed tax incentive.

As I have said, the current car tax yield is £1.3 billion. That is a large amount of revenue for the Government, and careful thought would have to be given to finding the nearly £1 billion that would be given over by the clause. Both my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove and for Northfield said that fuel consumption was determined by the type of vehicle and driving conditions. The manner in which the vehicle is driven is also significant.

The Government have not been inactive in the introduction of green measures for motoring. The difference in pump prices between leaded and unleaded petrol is more than 18p per gallon, and 40 per cent. of all petrol that is sold is unleaded. There is also a considerable difference at the pumps between the price of diesel and leaded petrol. I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said about diesel. There is no doubt that diesel is certainly more efficient than petrol. Diesel-powered cars can travel more miles per gallon than their petrol-driven counterparts. However, my hon. Friends may be prepared to concede that there is some evidence that the emissions from diesel may be as polluting as those from petrol vehicles.

Sir Hal Miller rose --

Mrs. Shephard : I have trailed my coat again.

Sir Hall Miller : Because the efficiency and economy of diesel are so much greater, the environmental advantage of emissions is about 20 per cent., quite apart from the carbon consumption.

Mrs. Shephard : I certainly accept that diesel-driven cars are more efficient. I conceded that.

Column 134

In response to the Opposition clause, I can do no better than quote from a Finance Bill debate of two years ago. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said :

"As we must change our exhaust systems and introduce catalytic converters in a few years' time, what is the point of having an incentive? There is no question of providing an incentive to fit catalytic converters. It has to be done. We have agreed it with the EC. There are cases for incentives in certain circumstances, but they should be argued on their merits."-- [Official Report, 11 July 1989 ; Vol. 156, c. 902.]

I could not make a better argument in answer to new clause 31 than he did then about financial incentives for fitting catalytic converters.

The Government recognise the importance of the motor industry and wish to see the advances made in the past few years maintained. The market situation is not easy, and it is a tribute to the industry's strength and flexibility that it has been able to increase production this year compared with last year, despite the downturn in the domestic market. Production is up 6 per cent. in the first four months of 1991 over the same period last year. There has been a massive surge in exports, with a 101 per cent. increase in the number of cars produced for export over the same period.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Northfield and for Bromsgrove for their contributions, for their continuing effort and for their vigorous support of this important industry. They will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that he will look carefully at the impact of this year's measures on the industry when he is considering next year's Budget. I am sure that they will encourage him to do so.

Mr. Roger King : We all listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's comments. We shall inwardly digest what she has said. There is no escaping the fact that embracing environmental incentives--the Government have done so admirably with their policy on leaded fuel, which has cost the Exchequer considerable sums of money, although leaded fuel has gone up in price to compensate--it costs a great deal of money. We are well aware that the motor car is one of the main contributing factors to pollution and if we take up the challenge of containing that pollution, we have to look at arrangements such as those suggested in new clause 22. The challenge will not go away and until the Government produce a programme of environmental incentives along the lines of that which we have set out, I am not sure that they will meet the targets that they have set.

The challenge will be an expensive one to meet. However, our proposals will not be as expensive as my hon. Friend the Minister suggested. Not everybody will buy an economy car in year one or year two. Plenty of people will still wish to buy cars in the other bands. Given the downturn in the market from 2.2 million to 1.5 million, and below, this year, the Exchequer has lost an enormous amount of money. The modest tickle up of the industry that we are suggesting may be just what the Chancellor needs to bring money into his coffers. As I said in my opening speech, we are probing, pushing, trying to find a way to encourage the Government to move along the lines that we are suggesting. We shall renew our attempts next year. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Column 135

New Clause 25

Equity release product

. In section 656 of the Taxes Act 1988 the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4) :--

"(4A) Where--

(a) the entire consideration given for the grant of an annuity consists of an amount payable on the death of the person purchasing the annuity,

(b) that person has attained the age of 65 years at the date of the grant, and

(c) the aggregate of that amount and of all other amounts (if any) payable on the death of that person and falling within this subsection does not exceed £100,000,

the value of the consideration given for the grant of the annuity for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above shall be deemed to be the amount payable on the death.".'-- [Mr. Norris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause addresses a serious problem facing many elderly people. I start by declaring an interest as a director of Haven Services Ltd, a company which manages sheltered housing for more than 4,000 elderly people and their families. The company is 49.9 per cent. owned by Commercial Union, which has provided me with the technical information in this brief.

We live in an aging society. The number of people who were over 75 in 1985 was 3.8 million. In five years' time, there will be 4.2 million over 75, and when we are a short way into the next millennium, this will have risen to nearly 5 million.

Many of those elderly people will rely upon the state for their welfare. Some of the more prudent will have tried to provide for themselves in retirement, but they will have seen their savings eroded by the passage of time or by inflation to a point where their entire upkeep will have been thrown on to the state. There are some who do not have families on which they can rely, and there are some families that are not in a position to provide for their older relatives.

An OECD conference three years ago identified three principal ways of funding the rising costs of aging populations. First, it suggested that state benefits could become larger. Secondly, it was suggested that we could keep people at work longer. Thirdly, it was suggested that we could encourage elderly people to provide better for themselves, and the new clause is designed to provide that encouragement. It would ensure that a way was opened to enable an elderly person's own resources to be used better to provide cash for living.

As pressure on public funds grows, every effort must be made to allow those who could help themselves to do so. That in turn will allow public funds to be used to help those who have no other resources and more immediate needs. The Government recognise that need through the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which envisages more private funding of care and the greater provision of care in the home.

We all know how much old people would prefer to stay in their own home. That was made clear in the Griffiths report of 1988, which led to legislation in 1989. Many elderly homeowners sadly become frail or lose their mobility, but they could stay in their own home if nursing and other relevant care were available to them. All too

Column 136

often, tragically, they cannot afford that care and they lose their independence far more quickly than they need. The tragedy is that when the need is at its greatest, the wherewithal to meet the need is not available in ready cash. The huge irony is that many elderly people own their own houses. Currently 46 per cent. of retired people are in that position, and the percentage is increasing. Incidentally, most of the properties of these people are owned outright. The house that is owned by an elderly person may represent a sizeable capital asset. It makes eminent sense to use its value while still allowing the elderly person to live in it. That encourages self-reliance, and it is consistent with the Government's policy to encourage privately funded age care. In present circumstances, however, these people--classically asset rich but cash poor--are compelled to sell up and part with their chief asset, losing along the way the increasing value of their property, of course, or they are forced to become a drain on their family or on the state. There are options already. There are mortgages that are linked to annuities or investment bonds. There are home reversion schemes where the house is sold and the occupant continues as a tenant. There are roll-up loans, where a mortgage has its interest rolled up until death. All these are known broadly as equity release schemes, but each of them currently suffers considerable disadvantages. As the Building Societies Association said in 1988, the low take-up of the schemes, in spite of the keen interest in them, was due to the limitations of the mechanisms rather than a lack of underlying demand. More seriously, recently two companies were expelled from FIMBRA for effectively promoting unworkable schemes. There are instances, sadly, of participants ending up paying out more money than the scheme delivers back to them.

With a minor change to the tax rules--this is the subject of the new clause --an equity release scheme that would be truly valuable could be available. In essence, the scheme would work as follows. An elderly householder would promise an insurance company that after his death a sum agreed between the two would be paid to the insurance company. The promise could be secured on the house or on other assets. In return, the insurance company would pay a regular and increasing amount to the participant. Companies operating such schemes would fund the payments from the pool of funds reverting to the company after the deaths of the participants. The key is that no borrowing is involved, hence there would be no interest payments to participants. Such schemes are immune to interest rate fluctuations and are therefore dependable and effective as a source of income. If such schemes are to work, current tax rules need alteration. The new clause widens their scope to make it entirely clear that a participant would receive no interest element in his equity release income. The income is, in effect, an advance repayment of his own capital--that is, part of his estate. Technically, the participant will use part of the value of the house to buy a monthly sum until he dies, which amounts, in effect, to an annuity.

Such a scheme is therefore governed by the tax rules on annuities and the new clause would modify the relevant section--section 656--of the Taxes Act 1988. The payments received by the participant are in two parts--first, capital because it returns to him his purchase price over time and, secondly, income representing interest on the capital before it is paid back to him.

Column 137

If the new clause were accepted, it would allow for schemes that would give participants predictable payments for their lifetime. 11.30 pm

Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle) : Is my hon. Friend aware that his proposal would be especially attractive to people who retired before 1978 and the introduction of the state

earnings-related pension scheme? As he will know, in Bexhill in my constituency 46 per cent. of the population is 65 years of age or over. Many people retired before 1978 and the average statistic of an uplift in income over the past decade of 23 per cent. above the rate of inflation does not apply to them because they do not have additional earnings over and above their basic state old-age pension. My hon. Friend's scheme is especially attractive to people who wish to stay in their houses but do not have that additional income.

Mr. Norris : My hon. Friend is entirely right. He recognises the desperately sad phenomenon in his constituency of people who are asset rich and cash poor, who are keen to stay in their homes and who could have the wherewithal to do so if the Government were minded to consider the new clause with favour.

If the new clause were accepted, it would allow for schemes that would give participants predictable payments for their lifetime, which would increase at a rate expected to exceed inflation. Participants would retain full ownership of their assets and not be at risk of losing them. They would also benefit from the rising value of their house during their life.

When the present law was drafted, no one had contemplated such a scheme. Its wording enables the Inland Revenue to interpret part of the payment received by the participant as coming from interest and thus be subject to tax. I submit that no interest is involved and, subsidiarily, that such a tax liability would make the scheme decidedly unattractive and, in effect, unworkable.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to explain what would happen if the new clause were accepted and if a person in either sheltered accommodation or in his own property--which is what the new clause would provide--had to go into residential accommodation and had to sell his property?

Mr. Norris : I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I can give him only what should be a long answer. In brief, however, what happens in general is that, sadly, the entire value of the asset is consumed by local authority charges in a relatively short time. One of the ironies is thus that, in the end, the public purse must contribute far more towards the eventual upkeep of the elderly person than if the insurance company funded what remained of his life out of the pool of participants' income. If insurance companies were able to offer such a tax-efficient scheme, my hon. Friend's constituent in sheltered housing would be infinitely better off as would the local authority which would otherwise have to fund the person.

The Economic Secretary and the Financial Secretary were extremely helpful to me when I discussed the outline of the proposal with them. The Exchequer would not lose revenue if the new clause were accepted. It involves a zero interest annuity, no income is involved and only capital is paid out. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), there is a potential for substantial

Column 138

public sector saving of community care costs, and the proposition is also in line with Government policy on encouraging independence. It is especially appropriate in dealing with the elderly who can manage in their own homes and whom we clearly want to encourage to do so.

On that basis, I invite the Minister to consider the advantages of extending the relief as I have outlined.

Mr. Maples : My hon. Friend's proposal is extremely interesting. I have considerable sympathy for the idea of enabling elderly people to release equity from their homes so that they are not, to use my hon. Friend's phrase, asset rich and cash poor. However, his amendment would create considerable possibilities for tax avoidance. I will not go into detail, but my hon. Friend is aware of them because we have discussed them.

It would be necessary to include in any such provision safeguards against such practices. I am, therefore, unable to accept my hon. Friend's new clause, but we will examine his proposal further, without commitment, to ascertain whether there might be worth while public expenditure savings if the proposed new annuity became available. I will ask the Inland Revenue to discuss the possibilities with bodies representing the insurance industry.

Mr. Morris : I take my hon. Friend's point concerning tax avoidance. I have no desire to see the scheme used as an avoidance device, but I believe that a mechanism could be devised to prevent that from happening, which would cap the amount made available under such a scheme.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for his otherwise constructive acceptance of my general proposition. The concept of allowing people to release the large amount of equity that they have stored up for their own benefit, to provide for themselves in their old age, is an important one. In view of my hon. Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 26

Relief for disabled persons

(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 265 of the Taxes Act 1988--

"265(B).--(1) Where a disabled person who is self-employed requires the services of a personal assistant or assistants in order to undertake his employment, any payment to that assistant or assistants shall be deducted from or set-off against the income of the said person from that employment.

(2) For the purposes of this section person is a person in receipt of an attendance allowance, a care component of a disability living allowance or a constant attendance allowance under the industrial injuries or war pensions schemes.".'.-- [Mr. Alfred Morris.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Government's acceptance of new clause 26 would be a small but significant step in enriching the lives of a number of severely disabled people by enabling them to live independently in their own homes.

It is good to see the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) in his place, and I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the debate proceeds. I understand that it was the issue of principle raised by a case involving a constituent of the hon. Member for East

Column 139

Hampshire that first led the legal and parliamentary committee of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation to press for the change in the Taxes Act 1988 for which new clause 26 provides. RADAR has liaised very closely with me over the drafting of the new clause, which has its full support. I refer the House to the details of the case brought to my attention by RADAR to exemplify the need for the new clause. For many years, the disabled person concerned- -a mouth artist--was a resident of Le Court Cheshire home. Originally, he was able to pay his fees out of his earnings, but with rising inflation he was unable to continue doing so.

That individual's local authority refused to sponsor him, and consequently the charity had to foot the deficit. Eventually, the health authority agreed to sponsorship--which was more satisfactory, as its rules for the treatment of earned income are more beneficial to him than those of local authorities.

About five years ago, the individual in question--like so many other disabled people--decided that he wanted to leave residential care and to live independently. His work as an artist flourishes, but he has to pay £17,000 a year in fees to a nursing agency, which he believes should be treated as a work expense.

If that individual gave up his work, all his care costs would fall on the state, and the Treasury would receive no income tax. Equally, if the new clause encouraged other disabled people to set up in business, the state would gain considerable sums. For the Treasury to ignore the unavoidable extra costs of disabled living is unjust and self-defeating. For disabled people, hardship is piled on hardship as they try to compete with non- disabled people whose living costs are much lower than their own. The new clause is supported not only by RADAR but by the Disablement Income Group, Arthritis Care and many other admirable organisations of and for disabled people that are held in the highest regard by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

On 12 February, the Chancellor said that he could not then be expected to comment on the case for the change in the law that I am proposing owing to the proximity of his Budget statement. That was five months ago, and the Budget did nothing to remove the injustice to which the new clause is addressed. I urge him now to accept what is--as he must surely agree--a modest but none the less important amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire) : I am pleased to be able to support the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I do not feel that this is a party matter ; it is, above all, a human matter.

The right hon. Gentleman outlined the case of my constituent, Mr. Albert Baker, who, because of a very severe handicap, has been institutionalised all his life--latterly, during my time as his Member of Parliament, in the excellent Le Court Cheshire home. Five years ago, because he had developed such a tremendous skill in painting with his mouth--he cannot use his hands, his legs are in calipers and he is practically immobile without help --he decided that he wanted to lead an independent life. His income from his painting would just allow that. Accordingly, he moved out, and we all raised a cheer : that was precisely what the Government wanted. He is now on

Column 140

the point of having to return to institutional care, because he simply cannot afford the cost of care, with which he is receiving no help. Moreover, he cannot claim it as an allowance against his income.

Five or six months ago, I spoke to the Financial Secretary about the matter. He promised that he would examine it closely, and he did so. However, he brought back the answer that--alas--we hear so often from the Treasury : "I am full of sympathy, but it is too difficult."

If nothing is done, my constituent will have to go back into institutional care, and then--oddly enough--it will be the Treasury that loses. My constituent is making an income, paying his taxes and doing what we want all disabled people to do--living as much in the community as possible. He has that most precious of things, his independence.

It is not enough simply to say, "It is too difficult. If we make an exception in this instance, we shall open the floodgates to others." There must be a way in which to define those who are so severely disabled that they must have full-time care, thus giving some allowance to people such as my constituent, who is doing his best to make his own way despite his dreadful handicaps. We should help such people, rather than shutting the door on them by making the tax regime under which they suffer much less fair than it is for the rest of us.

Mr. Maples : I am sure that we all sympathise enormously with the case that has just been described to us. In normal circumstances we would want to encourage those who have the guts to try to look after themselves, and to assist them, but there are difficulties in this instance.

I am afraid that I am going to say exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) says that he is fed up with hearing from Treasury Ministers. There are some rules governing what can be deducted by self-employed people in business--expenses that are wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of their trade. If a self-employed person in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has described--whether disabled or not-- employed someone wholly and exclusively in connection with his business, any payment made to that person would be deductible, but relief for expenses that are purely personal are not deductible.

However, if a disabled self-employed person employed someone who provided him with assistance--both personal assistance and assistance with his work- -and if it was possible to define the proportions in which the expenditure fell, the Inland Revenue would be prepared to allow a deduction for the appropriate proportion when computing the business profits.

Mr. Mates : I did not raise that argument, because I was trying to be brief. However, according to that argument, people are encouraged to cheat. There is an invitation to deduct 10, 20 or 30 per cent. We do not want to go down that route. We want to be able to define such severe disablement so that care is an essential part of that person's making a living. That care is related to work, because the person to whom I referred cannot work without that care.

11.45 pm

Mr. Maples : To the extent that expenses are incurred in enabling him to do that work, they would be deductible under the normal rules that apply at the moment. I was

Column 141

about to say that the proposal extends wider than the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire suggested.

The new clause is confined to people who are self-employed. I am not sure whether that is logical. Why should the proposal not apply to employees as well? Why should it be confined to a personal assistant and the services of an individual who essentially works for the disabled person? Why should it not apply to other forms of expenditure such as special equipment, a car or special adaptations to a home?

The issue of the kind of expenses in which disabled people become involved to enable them to work could range much wider than new clause 26. We would quickly find ourselves in other areas. I wonder whether a tax relief of the kind proposed is the way to address the problem.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire should consider the wider issues. I do not believe that it is possible to deal just with the self-employed and personal assistants. If we believe that the tax system can be amended to help those people, we must be prepared to consider a wider group of costs and people. Although I make no commitments, perhaps we could consider that.

I understand that the problem is very important to those involved. However, by definition, perhaps only a relatively small number of people would be able to take advantage of the proposal. If the proposal were available, other people could take advantage of the other things that I said might be made tax deductible and we would no doubt face calls for those. If we were to face the problem, we would want to face the whole issue and not just a part of it, only to find that someone raised another aspect next year.

There are difficulties with trying to deal with the problem through the tax system. On the other hand, no one could fail to be full of admiration for the people referred to by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire. I invite them to consider whether all the areas that I mentioned could be brought together in some way and I would offer to look at the matter again. There are difficulties, but I cannot offer to accept a proposal focused on the narrow area of a self- employed person employing a personal assistant. I would be prepared, without commitment, to consider the wider aspect to see whether something more generally could be done for disabled people to enable them to work and look after themselves, whether or not they are self-employed and whether the expense was related to personal assistance or otherwise.

Mr. Alfred Morris : The Economic Secretary will not be surprised to learn that we find his response very disappointing. He seems to argue at one and the same time that perhaps the new clause does not go far enough and yet it goes too far. He has agreed to look at what he calls the wider area. I am grateful for any further consideration that he is prepared to give to what is a very important amendment. I am sure that the House was moved by the statement of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) about his constituent.

Column 142

The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation is well deserving of consultation by the Treasury. I hope that the Minister will consult RADAR and other appropriate organisations.

It is not my intention to press the new clause tonight, but I emphasise again that it is unjust and self-defeating of the Treasury not to help people who are trying as hard as the constituent of the hon. Member for East Hampshire to achieve the dignity of staying as a taxpayer instead of moving towards the dependence of social security payments.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

Amendment of Finance Act 1990

.--(1) The Finance Act 1990 shall be amended as follows : "(2) In section 25(2)(g) leave out £600 and insert £250.".'.-- [Mr. Alex Carlile.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alex Carlile : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause relates to gift aid. Gift aid has been a success. We were told in Committee that in the eight months to the end of May this year, tax repayments of more than £19 million had been made to charities. In Committee, the Economic Secretary promised to keep the minimum limit under careful review, having agreed and included in the Bill a provision that raised the maximum limit.

It is disappointing that, thus far at least, the Government remain determined to keep the minimum limit as high as £600. There must be many people who would be prepared to enter the gift aid scheme if it were possible to give £250 or a figure between £250 and £600, but who cannot give as much as £600. I appreciate, of course, that tax relief can be obtained for small donations given, for example, under deeds of covenant. However, many people find the gift aid scheme simpler, more attractive and more straightforward than giving under deeds of covenant, which they regard as a legal procedure involving a legal document which they feel binds them for a number of years in circumstances that may well change.

I suggest that the reduction of the limit from £600 to £250 would lead to a considerable increase in charitable giving while maintaining the threshold high enough so that the administrative costs are not disproportionate. We know that charities have had to absorb a real blow as a result of the 2.5 per cent. increase in VAT which was announced in the Budget. We know that the Government express support for the voluntary sector--indeed, we have heard many exhortations from the Government that people should be more self-reliant and that the voluntary sector, especially charities, should carry greater burdens. We know of the tremendous support which the public are prepared to give charities in relation not only to poverty and other domestic considerations, but to worldwide challenges which they see in their newspapers and on their television screens.

The total unreclaimable VAT bill met by charities in England and Wales this year will amount to as much as £250 million. That places not only a financial burden, but an administrative burden on the charities.

As I said in Committee, there is a strong case for the reform of charity law. I encourage the Government to

Column 143

consider whether that reform can be included in the next Gracious Speech. I hope that that will be the case. Perhaps the Government can give a commitment now that they will consider lowering the lower threshold for gift aid so that charities can enjoy, as we approach the general election, the double bonus of being able to receive far more under gift aid and to work in a less mysterious and hostile framework.

Next Section

Home Page