HC Deb 15 June 1959 vol 607 cc88-95

In subsection (1) of section two hundred and sixteen of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which relates to relief for dependent relatives, after the words "or his or his wife's widowed mother", there shall be inserted the words "or his or his wife's mother who has been deserted by her husband":

Provided that no person shall by virtue of this section be liable to pay more tax than that person would have been liable to pay if this section has not been passed.—[Mr. Houghton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

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

What is clearly called for now is an act of atonement on the part of the Government, and this new Clause gives them the opportunity. It is a very small point. I hope that the Financial Secretary has his notes written in his own fair hand and is ready to concede to the Committee the small relief here suggested, which was the subject of favourable notice by the Royal Commission.

At present, the dependent relative relief is given only in respect of dependent relatives incapacitated by old age or infirmity or to widowed mothers without proof of old age or incapacity. The new Clause is designed to extend the relief without proof of old age or incapacity to mothers who have been deserted by their husbands. Reference to this was made in paragraph 200 of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, and I will read the brief comment there made: The improvements that we recommend are:? (a) The dependent relative allowance should be extended to cover the case of a mother who has been deserted by her husband, without requiring any proof of disability. At present such proof is dispensed with only in the case of a widowed mother, but the two cases seem to us the same in principle. Although I think my name has been associated with this proposal for some years, I do not recall that it has ever been discussed on the Finance Bill. I may be mistaken there, but I do not recall ever taking part in a debate on this particular matter. It need not cause the Chancellor any misgivings on the ground of cost. I do not think that it can cause any difficulties in administration. As the Royal Commission said, the deserted mother seems to be in the same category as the widowed mother for this purpose, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is empowered to recommend the Committee to accept the new Clause.

It will be interesting to see whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is for or against the deserted mothers or whether, as on an earlier occasion this afternoon, he will prove himself to be a better tight-rope walker than a yachtsman, as when he steered a balanced course between the Schedule A abolitionists and the Schedule A retentionists without glancing to the left or to the right. It will be interesting to see whether hon. Members opposite are as much in favour of deserted mothers as they appear to be in favour of clamorous under-assessed owner-occupiers who could not tell the difference between a house and the Chancellor's suit.

Sir James Duncan (South Angus)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the proposal a little further? What happens if the wandering swain comes back? Does the tax then have to be paid?

Mr. Houghton

I do not think that the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) is out to help me, somehow. I do not wish to be diverted from this simple proposition which is now becoming very clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman and which, I feel sure, he is anxious to concede.

6.15 p.m.

That is all there is to it. The dependent relative relief in the case of widowed mothers has been given expressly by the will of the House, without, in their case, a request for some proof of disability, as there is in other cases. Here is another category of mother, not widowed but deserted by her husband, who should qualify on equal terms.

The only conceivable reason which the hon. and learned Gentleman may, I think, put against this proposal is this. He may say that it is easier to prove that a mother is widowed than to prove that she is deserted by her husband. I doubt whether this question is of practical importance in this connection. As I have said on other occasions, the practice of the Inland Revenue, in considering claims for relief, is to accept the word of the taxpayer. If he says that he is married and his wife is living with him, the Revenue does not send a long list of question and a request for proof. If he claims for children under the age of 16 or over the age of 16 but still receiving full-time education, the taxpayer's claim is usually accepted. So it is with dependent relatives.

There are occasions when, on some ground or other, on information received, or as a result of some doubt which arises, the Inland Revenue may ask the taxpayer to furnish evidence in support of his claim. In this case, if a claimant were asking for dependent relative relief for his mother deserted by her husband, and the Revenue asked for some proof of that, I do not think there would be any difficulty in supplying proof if it were a bona fide claim qualifying under the new Clause.

Mr. Geoffrey Stevens (Portsmouth, Langstone)

Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that, if the taxpayer is dead, the inspector of taxes sometimes asks for proof of that, and asks for production of probate as well?

Mr. Houghton

Yes. I do not say for a moment that the Inland Revenue does not ask for proof of certain facts. Occasionally it does. At times, false claims are discovered quite accidentally. But I think that the Financial Secretary will accept my proposition that the taxpayer's word is taken. In certain cases, if proof is sought, the Inland Revenue is fully entitled to press for it, and the taxpayer can usually supply it if he has a good claim.

I do not think that anyone would object to a quite specific definition of "separation" for the purpose of qualifying under the new Clause. Some mothers may be deserted by their husbands and have not taken steps to establish the fact that they have been deserted. They may have made no claim for maintenance. There may be no judicial separation; in some cases, there may not even be a separation agreement. However, these difficulties are encountered in connection with alimony and payments of different kinds to spouses. The sort of difficulty which might arise administratively is well within the competence of the Inland Revenue to deal with without unnecessary trouble to the taxpayer or difficulty to itself.

As to the claim of the deserted wife, on terms comparable to those of the widowed mother, the Committee will accept the general view of the Royal Commission that they differ little in principle. I know that, after what I said the other day, I must not rely too heavily upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I said then—I repeat it—that its recommendations are a good guide in these matters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has relied on the Royal Commission once this afternoon, and he will probably do so again before the day is over. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will not complain about that. I do not base my proposal solely on the fact that the Royal Commission recommended this; but that it did so is of help in moving the Clause. I sincerely hope that we shall have a favourable response from the Financial Secretary.

I now await a revolt on this matter from the benches opposite equal to the heat and emotion generated on gifts inter vivos with which we were dealing a few minutes ago.

Sir James Duncan (South Angus)

The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was not fair to me in saying that I was not helping his cause. I was trying to get him to explain what he meant at a moment when he was attacking this side of the Committee. If I put him off his stroke, I am glad, but he was less than fair in an answer he made. He said that the proposal would be easy to administer. I can see all sorts of difficulties sticking out a mile in the administration of this proposal. What is "deserted" in law? It will be extremely difficult for the Inland Revenue to accept or refuse a claim in any case unless there is some technical description of "deserted", which I do not think that there is. If a mother is divorced she is not deserted in this sense, because she ceases to be a liability. Therefore, we are left with the indeterminate kind of deserted mother whose husband has gone off and may return. What will happen in that case? I asked the hon. Gentleman that earlier, but he did not answer. Does the family have to pay back the money if the husband returns? That is merely one of the administrative difficulties which I can see sticking out a mile.

I can understand the Royal Commission's idea in suggesting that there should be some help, and I agree with it if this can be dealt with administratively, but I see very grave administrative difficulties in dealing with it on the lines proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon)

The effect of the Clause is to extend an existing relief, granted at the moment by virtue of Section 216 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, whereby there is relief in favour of a person who maintains his own or his wife's widowed mother, whether incapacitated or not, to cover a deserted mother, whether incapacitated or not.

Generally speaking, this is to some extent an anomalous relief, a relief which inures to the benefit of someone who is not incapacitated. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, the relief has been approved by Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this extension was recommended by the Royal Commission. The fair way in which we ought to look at such recommendations is the way which I suggested last week, namely, that a recommendation of the Royal Commission is not in any way binding on the House of Commons, but it is entitled to very great weight and, other things being equal, effect would probably be given to it.

In the present case, there are difficulties in this Clause and in this recommendation. First, I am bound to point out a drafting difficulty which would preclude us from writing this particular new Clause into the Statute Book. I have made attempts to draft new Clauses and Amendments to the Finance Bill, but I have never succeeded in getting one right. We all recognise that the draftsman, with his great skill, experience and sources of information is at a very great advantage compared with even someone like the hon. Member for Sowerby who has great experience in those matters. At present Section 216 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, reads: If the claimant proves that he maintains at his own expense … his or his wife's widowed mother, whether incapacitated or not … The new Clause proposes that we should write in the words: or his or his wife's mother who has been deserted by her husband". Therefore, Section 216 would then read: or his or his wife's mother who has been deserted by her husband whether incapacitated or not". which is certainly not the effect which the hon. Gentleman seeks. That is no doubt a matter which is capable of adjustment later.

There are more serious difficulties, some of which were adverted to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). It would be impossible to defend a position which would give the allowance for a mother who was not incapacitated if she obtained a divorce on the ground of desertion, but would refuse it if she was not incapacitated and the divorce was obtained on other grounds. For example, a mother who had divorced her husband on the ground of adultery could probably not claim that she had been deserted. In certain circumstances, it might amount to desertion, but, generally speaking, it does not. Another example is a case of wilful neglect to maintain. The woman might even obtain a small maintenance order which was not honoured, but she might not be deserted. Other examples are, first, where there is a deed of separation, which normally terminates a state of desertion; secondly, a judicial separation, which normally terminates a state of desertion; and thirdly, a separation order in a magistrates' court.

For all those reasons, it is impossible to defend an extension which would not cover all divorced or legally separated mothers. However, the Royal Commission recommended this extension. The hon. Gentleman gave reasons for desiring to extend it to a mother who had been abandoned in any way or ill-treated by her husband so that she was forced to live alone. My hon. Friend was clearly anxious to see some extension, if it could be achieved without producing the anomalies and difficulties to which he drew attention.

If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Clause at this stage, my right hon. Friend is prepared to table a new Clause at a later stage of the Bill which will cover the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind but will go a little further and therefore avoid the sort of difficulties which I know the hon. Gentleman has in mind and to which my hon. Friend referred.

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the cost of such an extension would not be in any way an impediment to such an improvement to the law. We believe that, dealt with in that way, the administrative difficulties could be overcome.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Houghton

I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman and I am full of apology to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). I am, in fact, overcome. Here at last, at this late stage in the Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman has responded to the many appeals that I have made to him. I will not pursue the matter further. We look forward to the new Clause which the Chancellor will put down later.

I am sure that we will not look a gift-horse too closely in the mouth. I agree that, to make the extension tolerable to others besides deserted mothers, there would be other categories to include as well, and I have no doubt that suitable protection should surround the enlarged concession. I beg to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.