Fifty pounds shall be substituted for twenty-five pounds in Section thirteen of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as the amount upon which relief shall be granted in respect of a wife under that Section.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

I beg to move to leave out the words "in respect of a wife.'

I do not know if I am in order, but the Chancellor of the exchequer will be aware that in the Income Tax Act of last year abatement is given not only in respect of a wife, but also in respect of a wife or a female relative of a widower or of his deceased wife, and also in respect of a man's male or female relative whom he has maintained at his own expense and who is incapacitated by age or infirmity from maintaining himself or herself. From this Amendment and the next one which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, I gather that he-is going to confine the abatement now to the first two of these three cases—that is to say, to a wife and to a female relative of a widower or of his deceased wife who has the care of her children, and that he does not propose to go further and give the abatement to the third case, namely, that of the relative who may be incapacitated by age or infirmity and is being maintained by the taxpayer. It seems to me. that there cannot be very many of these people and that the amount of money involved must be very small. But it would seem to be a real hardship that this increased abatement should not be given in those cases, and if the right hon. Gentleman can sec his way to make this further abatement I think it would meet a case of real hardship with practically no loss to the Exchequer.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

While we are all anxious to give encouragement to well doing I do not think the hon. Gentleman will press this further than I have already undertaken to go. I have undertaken to give effect to the Amendment which stood in the name of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson), and I am not sure that the hon. Member himself was not one of those who put it down, in the shape of a new Clause to extend the wife's allowances to £50. This is extending the £50 to the female relative as well as the wife. Then there is relief for the case of a female relative who acts as housekeeper and who is in charge of children. I have also undertaken to extend it to the female child who is in charge of a widower father, even though there are no children in the house. That is as far as I can go.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

I beg to move, after the word "Section," to insert the words in respect of a wife or a female relative of a widower or of his deceased wife.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

I beg to move, at end, to insert: (2) The relief conferred by the said Section thirteen, as amended by this Art, in respect of the female, relative of a widower, or of his deceased wife, who resiles with him for the purpose of having the charge and cave of any child of his, shall be extended so as to confer relief in respect of any such female relative who resides with him in the capacity of housekeeper, and not for the purpose of having the charge and care of any child of his:provided that any relief in respect of a female relative under the said selection shall be conditional on proof being given that no other individual is entitled to relief from Income Tax in respect of the same person under the said Section thirteen, or under Section twelve of the same Act, or under this Act, or if any other individual is entitled to any such relief that the other individual has relinquished his claim thereto. That meets the case which struck me as being a hard one, where there is an elderly man whose wife has died and whose children have passed out of the house, but who keeps one daughter at home, who otherwise would go away, in order to keep house for him. Then there is a necessary proviso to prevent two people getting relief in respect of the same person.

As I gather its purport, the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman docs not exactly meet the new Clause which was put down in the name of my hon. Friend and myself. I admit that the Chancellor has met one of the hard cases to which I referred specially when moving the new Clause, the terms of which were not confined to relatives. As I gather the Chancellor's Amendment is confined to relatives.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

Yes, but so is the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, and if he intended to extend it further, the Clause was not properly drawn. It is confined to a relative, but is extended to a relative who is in the capacity of a housekeeper and not in the capacity of a guardian of children.

I acknowledge the valuable concession which has been given, but it does not exactly meet the terms of our new Clause. There are cases which have come to my notice where a housekeeper who is not a relative is brought in to take charge of j a young family, in the case of a mother dying. There are those who have no children, and there are bachelors who have housekeepers, and this does not include them. It was only the other day that 1 had a letter from a Minister bearing on that particular point. However, I take it that the Chancellor has gone as far as he is prepared to go at the moment. I gratefully acknowledge the concession which he has made, and do not press the matter any further.

I am glad that the Chancellor of the exchequer has made this concession, and, reinforcing what has been said by my right hon. Friend, may 1 say that there is another point. Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to go further this year, I should be very glad if he would consider before next year the case of the widower, who may have no children, who has to engage a housekeeper. If the wife were alive he would be entitled to an abatement of £50 whether there were children or not. He has to engage a housekeeper, pay her wages, and maintain her as well. Therefore I should have thought that the concession would have gone further and covered that case. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not do it this year I hope that he will consider it before next year.

I would like to know whether the Chancellor of the exchequer proposes to deal with this specific case. There is a man who is single and maintains his mother—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

That was dealt with in another Clause.

There are no children. Perhaps I had better put the whole case. It is the case of a man who has an aged mother, and two sisters dependent upon him, but there are no children. I trust that this case is met by this or some other Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

The case of the only son of a widower was dealt with in the first Clause moved to-day. My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member (Mr. Arnold) know my difficulty in extending this Clause to meet the case which they have in mind. Take first of all the case put by the hon. Member, of a man whose house is managed by his wife and who engages a servant. That would mean that anybody might obtain relief in respect of his servant. But the other objection is the obvious objection that if a man is to be entitled to relief in respect of a housekeeper, whether she is a relative or not, it would cover a great many cases for which we have no sympathy. The matter was discussed in the Committee stage. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) was based on the fact that by aggregating the income of husband and wife you put a premium on that which was not marriage, and if you extend this to a housekeeper, who is not a relative, it would cover the case of a man and woman living together and not married. Nobody has ever made a suggestion by which that could be got over. That is what has deterred me from meeting the narrower case presented by the right hon. Gentleman which I should have been glad to meet.

Amendment agreed to.