HC Deb 07 July 1959 vol 608 cc1163-6

Section two hundred and sixteen of the income Tax Act, 1952, shall have effect as if the reference to the mother being widowed included—

  1. (a) a reference to her living apart from her husband, and
  2. (b) a reference to her being a single woman, in consequence of dissolution or annulment of marriage:
Provided that no person shall by virtue of this section be entitled to less relief under the Income Tax Act, 1952, than he would be entitled to if this section had not been passed.—[Mr. Simon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Simon

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

This is the new Clause which I started to move a little time ago, having "jumped the gun". It arises out of an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in Committee, which was based on a recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. The effect of the hon. Member's new Clause was to extend the dependent relative allowance to a taxpayer who maintained his mother or his mother-in-law, even though she was not incapacitated, if she had been deserted by her husband.

That proposal in itself seemed to receive the general assent of the Committee, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) pointed out, in a way which, I think, convinced the Committee, that it was quite anomalous to limit any concession to the case of a deserted wife and leave outside the concession the case of a wife divorced on some other account than desertion, or where the desertion had been terminated by a separation order or separation agreement, or, indeed, when the marriage had been terminated by an annulment.

In view of the welcome given to the principle of that new Clause, and of the criticism put forward by my hon. Friend, I told the Committee that my right hon. Friend accepted the object which the hon. Member for Sowerby had in mind, but that he proposed to put down a new Clause at this stage which would extend the concession to the wider ambit of the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend. The new Clause does that.

Paragraph (a) includes any woman who is living apart from her husband. That, of course, means living apart in intention and not merely geographically—living apart in such circumstances that the separation is likely to be permanent, It also covers all the cases where the state of desertion has been terminated in the sort of circumstances which I have mentioned, cases where there has been a divorce or a judicial separation on some ground other than desertion. Paragraph (b) is the reference to the dissolution of the marriage by divorce, on the various grounds, or by annulment.

In these circumstances, I hope that the new Clause will commend itself to the House.

Mrs. White

Once again, we are very glad to have a new Clause. As the Financial Secretary has said, it is rather wider than that originally proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who, unfortunately, is not able to be here at the moment. My hon. Friend was much gratified to find that the new Clause had been tabled in this form. It removes an obvious anomaly and it is very satisfactory that for once, at any rate, women who are for all practical purposes in precisely the same position in the matter of their social obligations are to be treated alike whatever their legal or marital state.

Sir J. Duncan

My hon. Friend was kind enough to mention the references I made to the Clause proposed during the Committee stage and I thank him and his right hon. Friend for going so far to meet the point. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has been able to devise words which cover a wider range than the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) wanted to cover in his Clause.

May I ask a question on paragraph (a), which refers to a mother living apart from her husband? I was wondering how this would work administratively. What documents, what proof, would the Inland Revenue require as evidence that the spouses were living apart on purpose and not merely geographically? I suppose that this goes wider than judicial separation? It would be an unjudicial separation if the parties concerned decided to part. What evidence, therefore, would the Inland Revenue require before the allowance could be granted in respect of such a dependent relative?

Mr. Simon

The Inland Revenue normally in such circumstances would accept the claim of the taxpayer. It is only where there is reason to doubt the statement that the Inland Revenue would call for independent substantiation. In that case it would challenge the claim and leave it to the taxpayer to prove his case.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.