Last updated 14:03, Tuesday, 26 August 2008

It’s always dangerous to make wildly sweeping, generalised statements but wouldn’t it be safe to assume that the majority of those occupying the House of Lords were posh well-heeled folks?

Not the kind to worry about the next gas bill, for instance. Not the sort to go without a winter coat or kit out their kids in school uniform from the local supermarket.

But the Lords, in their assumed be-wigged wisdom, have decided we need to be spending much more on our clothes than we do right now. We should lose our bargain-hunt tendencies and opt instead for investment dressing, buying the kind of high-priced, high-quality garments worth mending when their seams fray or hems collapse. Prada rather than Primark, Armani not Asda, Missoni instead of M&S... all the better for recycling, they say.

At the risk of over-indulgence in wildly sweeping generalised statement: What a load of pompous, ignorant, toffee-nosed tosh!

These titled toffs make more sense when they’re fast asleep in their chamber. Their grunts and snores are less offensive.

But when the Lords’ Science and Technology Committee criticised the wastefulness of cut-price High Street fashion they did at least illustrate where we so frequently go wrong in this country.

We keep giving jobs, responsibilities and titles to people with absolutely no understanding of real lives in the real world outside independent wealth and public funding and – having paid for those roles in one way or another – we fall hook, line and sinker for their nonsensical hot air... which invariable leads to ludicrous legislation and yet another tax.

The Lords’ report declared with particular arrogance that the established and growing popularity of stores such as Primark was “costly and socially unacceptable” since the clothes they sell are now so cheap there no incentive to repair or recycle them. Like in the gold old days just after the last world war.

The assumptions made in that statement are astonishing in their ignorance of how people without chauffeurs, housekeepers and personal shoppers at Gieves and Hawkes or Harvey Nichols actually live.

How do they know a Primark frock or Matalan skirt isn’t considered worthy of a replacement zip or a new button? On what basis are they presuming an Asda school blazer or Top Shop jacket is thrown in the bin after only half a dozen outings? And where exactly do they think the money is coming from to make investment or designer shopping a commonly shared experience?

The Lords’ Science Committee members – all male, incidentally – condemn what it calls our throwaway culture. It believes we shop deliberately for the disposable and that we all have money to burn. They urge a more ethical approach to spending on clothes. What they mean is a more expensive approach – which is fine, if you can afford it.

And guess what they suggest? Variable rates of VAT, higher for what they regard as cheap and throwaway, with discounts for products which are longer lasting and can be easily recycled. There goes the tax bit... what a surprise!

This is one of the world’s most expensive countries in which to live.

Already hit hard by a mind-blowing raft of national and local taxes, frighteningly high-priced utilities, soaring fuel, transport and food costs, are we now to have the clothes taxed off our backs as well?

In the real world of ordinary families trying their damndest to make ends meet in particularly difficult times, the prospect will seem scary – but not at all surprising.