GORDON'S LITTLE HELPER

The Chancellor's new tax wheeze, says

Petronella Wyatt, has put domestic servants

back within middle-class reach

ONCE in a while, perhaps once in a gener- ation, a government behaves in a manner so generous and so thoughtful that we of the middle classes can only go down on our knees and give thanks to provident Heaven; or rather, in this case, to our own dour Chancellor, Mr Gordon Brown.

We thank you, 0 Gordon. With a misty eye and a lump in our throat, we stutter our thanks to you and to Tony. We cannot guess whether it was cynicism or compas- sion which caused Gordon to recognise the special staffing difficulties of middle-class households. But who cares? I say: Kiss goodbye to that dusting misery. Get up off your knees, darling, and forget about the washing-up. At last, after all the depreda- tions of Labour taxation, we can afford domestic staff again.

Lash out on that Filipina housekeeper, and get yourself one of those starch- bosomed nannies while you're at it, because everybody, or almost everybody, is getting the wonderful new Working Family Tax Credit.

As Gordon has said, he's going to take away the 'stigma' of 'social exclusion'; the shame, my dear, of not being able to afford that little treasure. As Tony says, Working Family Tax Credit is going to put us all 'in control of our lives' — and how. Put your feet up, Grandma, while New Labour gets on with its ludicrous scheme to 'lift 1.25 million people out of poverty', because one of its prime effects will be to lift many of us out of the tedium of making our own beds.

Last week, amid much pomp and the yawns of Fleet Street, Tony Blair and Gor- don Brown announced a 'radical . new scheme to make work pay rather than ben- efits'. A family tax credit will guarantee a minimum take-home income of £200 per week for all families with dependent chil- dren, providing up to £105 per week help towards the cost of childcare.

Well, yippee. Let's say you wanted to employ a housekeeper, but were reluctant to pay the going rate of roughly £200 a week. From 5 October, no problemo. You simply hire a housekeeper who has a 'part- ner' and a child under 16 years of age. Under the new rules, if the employer pays her £110 per week, the state will top it up by £80 or £90. It is nothing less than Brown's subsidy for civilised living — but there will be more of it upstairs than downstairs.

You are sceptical. You think this couldn't possibly work. There must be a fly in the ointment, you say; and so did I. This is just a middle-class scam, I thought. And so, of course, my heart in my throat, I put it to the test. The Times had printed a tele- phone hotline that one might ring to dis- cover who was eligible for the benefit. (The number, in case readers are interest- ed, is 0800 597 5976.) The caller is treated to a recorded mes- sage that advises, 'If you are a parent and you or your partner work more than 16 hours a week, press one.' The second mes- sage announced, 'To find out if you qualify for the family tax credit, press two.' Presently a man answered. I said I was ringing on behalf of my Portuguese house- keeper who wanted to know if she was eli- gible for Working Family Tax Credit.

He asked me her name and the age of her child, which I said was newborn. He inquired whether or not she had a partner and whether she possessed savings of £8,000 or more. I replied that she had a husband but no savings. Did she work more than 30 hours a week? Yes, I answered. What was her weekly wage after tax and national insurance? I plumped for the ceil- ing rate of £200 a week. 'In that case,' the man said, 'she is entitled to an extra £30 a week.' He said he would send me the forms.

A few minutes later I telephoned again. This time a woman answered. 'Where did you see this number?' she asked.

`In the Times.'

`And what?'

Mum . . Dad . . its time you knew - I'm a biplane.' `What do you mean, and what?'

`What's its other name?'

`The Times.'

`Yes, but which Times? The Working Times?' One has to say they are sticklers for detail, these people.

This time I said that my housekeeper earned £110 a week. This entitled her — or me — I was informed, to an extra £70 or £80 a week in benefits. Again I was told the forms would be sent to me to fill in. In nei- ther instance was I asked why the applicant could not telephone for herself or, indeed, complete the forms by herself.

The most immoral scenario implicit in this, then, is of an employer pocketing between £30 and £80 a week in family tax credit and blowing it on dinners at the Mirabelle. The most probable outcome, naturally, is that employers will use the new benefit as an excuse, and a not wholly unjustified excuse, to pay their workers less.

In my stupefaction I rang Polly Toynbee, the Guardian columnist and former social affairs editor of the BBC, since she under- stands these things better than anyone else. Yes, she confessed at length, the scheme might be used by middle-class families as an excuse to cut their outgoings on servants. `I don't see why domestic employers should in theory behave worse than other employers. But,' accepted the high priestess of social justice, 'I suppose they could well employ people with children on a low wage.'

And then, still not quite able to believe my luck, I rang the Treasury and, 'Yes,' said Gordon Brown's man, 'nannies and house- keepers would be eligible.' David Willetts, the Tory welfare spokesman, calculates that it will cost £100 million just to administer the tax credit, and that is in addition to the £5 billion cost of the programme. Given that last year's total welfare budget was £99.3 billion, this will take social security zooming past the £100 billion mark.

In fine, the new benefit is an illustration of how, once again, the government's pro- fessed objective of lifting a section of the population out of poverty will actually work to the advantage of those who are already comfortably off. The money the Treasury raises in taxes is being churned back to the middle classes, when Labour's traditional constituency — and, indeed, many others — would rather it was spent on hospitals, schools or roads. Moreover, it is another testament to the government's failure to reform radically the welfare system or, indeed, even to simplify its complexities. When Gordon Brown said boldly that the provision of help with childcare would remove one of 'the biggest obstacles to work for thousands of people', he should have said instead that it will remove one of the biggest obstacles to paying others to work for thousands of people. Television advertisements for the family tax credit will use the slogan, 'Better deal for working parents — pass it on.' Rather, 'Better deal for middle-class house-owners — pass the marmalade, Maria.'