NEW CLAUSE. —(Increase of Belief from Income Tax in Respect of Wife.) (Hansard, 16 July 1919)

§ Mr. ARNOLD
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a second time It is not necessary for me to say anything except that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated that he will accept this new Clause. There are two of the classes of persons who should also come under that Section—the female relative of a widow or of a deceased wife who has care of the children, and the relative who may be incapacitated by illness or old age. There are not very many of these persons. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not give the increased abatement to all three classes. If so, I will move to delete the words "in respect of a wife," and then the abatement of£50 will apply to all the persons as the£25 does now. It would be interesting to know what this concession is estimated to cost the revenue.

§ Mr. ADAMSON
I have already handed in a new Clause which seeks to give the housekeeper the same advantage as is being given to the wife. The present position imposes' hardship on a number of persons, and more particularly on men who are on in years and who have 'had the misfortune to lose their wives, and who perhaps get one of the daughters to act as housekeeper, but who have no young children. They are debarred from this abatement. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that case.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I hope that the Committee will be content to accept the Clause as it is on the Paper and allow me to bring up any Amendments for the extension of it which I may be ready to accept on the Report stage. I would like to consider the words. As regards the point raised by the right hon. Member for West Fife, where it is a case of a widower with a housekeeper looking after his children, I think the increased abatement ought to foe given the same as for the wife. That is as far as I am prepared to go.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
A sister!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
It is not a question of relationship to the person but the reason why that person is there. I hope that this Clause will not be made a stepping off place for pressing me for still further concessions. At any rate, I am not prepared to go beyond the pledge I gave. The right hon. Member for West Fife put me another question, and I 456 should like time to consider it. It is only fair to him to say that in the consideration I have given, the matter so far I do not see my way to accept it. There is a class of case, such as I suppose he has particularly in mind, in which all of us would be glad if we could device a form of words and machinery which would exclude another class of persons it is not desired to include There was talk last night in the Debate of a penalty on marriage, but I do not want to set up a new premium for the other. That is the difficulty which the hon. Member's Amendment would lay us open to. The hon. Member who moved asked for an estimate of the concession. I cannot give him a complete estimate including the last concession I made, but I will give him some figures which will probably be sufficient. The cost of increasing the wife allowance from£25 to£50 is estimated at£1,600,000, and in a full year£3,100,000. The extension of the children's age for relief from sixteen to eighteen is£70,000 for this year and£150,000 for a full year. The cost of the granting of a£25 allowance to an unmarried son or daughter supporting their widowed mother is£50,000 this year and£100,000 in a full year. That make 6 a total of£1,700,000 for this year and£3,300,000 for a full year. Something will have to be added for the concession as to the eldest child, but I have been rash enough to promise it without knowing what is was going to cost.

§ Mr. ADAMSON
As the Chancellor has promised to consider the terms of my new Clause between now and Report, I do not propose to press it.