§ Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. BlairThis point might have been raised on a starred amendment but it can probably be raised just as easily in this debate. The importance of clause 35 is in the definition of "relevant earnings" in terms of the amount of contributions that can be made under earlier clauses and thus the amount on which tax relief applies.
Subsection (7) provides: 1052
For the purposes of this Chapter, a married woman's relevant earnings shall not be treated as her husband's relevant earnings, notwithstanding that her income chargeable to tax is treated as his income.I wish to probe the Government's thinking on this. If the wife's and husband's earnings were aggregated, the amount of contribution would be much larger, so they must be disaggregated to ensure that the husband can contribute only the relevant percentage of his own earnings and cannot top up his contributions by aggregating his wife's earnings. I assume that that is the only purpose, but I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that clause 35 merely translates into legislative effect what is already customary practice.
§ Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsI should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would reassure me about the effect of subsection (7), as it appears to reintroduce an element of inequality between the sexes. I should like to feel that we are preserving the unisex character of our legislation across the board, but I cannot see how that will apply if we insist on retaining this provision.
If the subsection was read the other way round, it would read:
a married man's relevant earnings shall not be treated as his wife's relevant earnings, notwithstanding that his income chargeable to tax is treated as her income.Is the clause intended to be read as applying equally in both senses? I may be showing my ignorance with this remark, but I believe that the Committee should express some uneasiness about that provision and that we are entitled to ask my right hon. Friend for an explanation.
§ Mr. Norman LamontMy hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is certainly not showing any ignorance of the subject, but rather a remarkable knowledge of it. My hon. Friend's summary was correct, as indeed was what the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said. The clause follows the existing rules for retirement annuities under which the wife's annuity is treated as earned income. I shall read what my hon. Friend said to consider whether there is anything that I can add to it. If there is, I shall write a note to my hon. Friend.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.