A question of tone - and one of over-simplification

Written by David Heath MP and published in Western Gazette on Fri 22nd Jan 2010

Events in Haiti are absolutely horrific. It is hard to imagine a country less capable of withstanding such a natural catastrophe. They had nothing before the earthquake, and they certainly have nothing now. All those of us who are lucky enough to live in richer, more comfortable and safer places can do is to look on in horror and lend our financial support. And hope that, after the horrors, a better society emerges.

Even when resources are forthcoming, though, it is not easy to deliver effectively, and I wonder if I am alone in expressing some dismay and even irritation at the tone of many of the reports from the broadcast media over the last week. There seems to be no problem in getting more and more reporters and presenters to the stricken area (why did the BBC feel it necessary to send a reporter to interview their own "special correspondent" on the spot, and then hand over to another presenter somewhere else among the chaos?) so they can then pontificate about the lack of capacity of the ramshackle and damaged Port au Prince airport and how vital aid supply planes have been delayed in finding landing slots. They then solemnly intone, at length, about the slowness of aid getting to those who are suffering.

Well, I suppose the complete collapse of the Haitian government might have something to do with that. The sheer scale of the catastrophe, with millions of utterly impoverished people homeless and hundreds of thousands dead might have an effect. The lack of any kind of functioning local services, whether it's police, fire, hospitals, utilities, anything. Do they really think that emergency aid organisations, having in incredibly short order got massive amounts of food, medicine and cover to as big a disaster as anyone has seen in recent history, are deliberately then sitting around and preventing it getting to the people who need it? No, of course not; they are doing their best, in incredibly difficult circumstances, and should be applauded for their efforts. God knows, most of us couldn't do it. And nor could the wiseacres of the press, who stand in front of injured and desperate people without lifting a finger to help. I know it's their job to report, but I find it more than a little offensive.

Meanwhile, here in Britain there is a debate emerging this week on whether the tax system should benefit those who are married, and therefore dis-benefit those who are not. Some say it should; that to do so would support the institution of marriage, and that in turn helps to build a more stable society, is better for the family and the interests of children, and all in all is a good thing. It is a seductive argument superficially, but I wonder if it bears closer examination.

I actually support marriage. I have been married for nearly twenty three years (to the same person!), and I don't regret it; I hope my wife feels the same way. And although I recognise that there are many ways of providing a loving and stable environment for children to grow up in, a strong marriage often provides a good start. Equally, it is clear that fewer people marry nowadays than a generation ago. And more marriages end in divorce. So there has been a societal change, which certainly doesn't encourage stability.

But do people really marry because it might change their tax code? Would they stay together in an unhappy relationship because their PAYE would change? I have very sincere doubts. And I would also venture the thought that if people were to stay together purely because of a marginal pecuniary advantage, that might not be the best motive, and may not be conducive to the happiness of anyone involved. I'm not sure the taxman has much of an influence on people's personal relationships.

But there are some other difficult questions. The suggestions which are being debated at the moment are based on rewarding marriage rather than supporting families. So that means rich childless couples will get the benefit, for no apparent reason that I can see in public policy terms. And the benefit would only be gained if one partner in the  relationship worked and the other didn't. So it's an advantage to those well enough off to survive happily on one income, while the very many people in this country who have to earn every penny they can by both partners working to keep a roof over their heads wouldn't share in this state benevolence. A millionaire footballer and his WAG would benefit, a teacher married to a nurse wouldn't.  Not, I would have thought, ideal, or justified.

And then, if it is simply being married that counts, what's to stop the serial philanderer abandoning his wife (who of course would no longer qualify) to re-marry his new girl-friend, taking his tax benefit with him. Is that what we want to encourage? Or take the case of the widow struggling to bring up her children after the death, say, of her husband bravely fighting in Afghanistan. I know that's an emotive example. It was meant to be. She wouldn't have a tax advantage, while a married couple down the road with no family commitments do?

I just think this is a very complex area which repays very careful thought. What might sound attractive on first reading has some really complicated implications. And I'm not convinced that such a complex business as human relationships can really be reduced to a mere tweak in the tax codes.