I am glad that the Minister of State confirms that there will be a shortfall in the use of the money for child benefit next year. Although £50 million may be a minor amount in terms of the overall public budget, I should prefer it if £50 million had been used to support children through child benefit rather than simply being swallowed up by the Exchequer.

The Minister of State also argued that our amendment, which would allow the husband to transfer the married couples' allowance to the wife if he so wished, would benefit financially only 1 per cent. of tax-paying couples. I accept that only a small number of people would benefit financially from such an arrangement, but the point of the amendment is that not only financial benefit but the principle of choice is at stake. A couple should jointly determine what happens rather than having the Exchequer determine by fiat that the whole amount will go to the husband. The amendment is not just about financial gain but is about equity of treatment between husband and wife within the taxation system.

We believe that the principles that we have adumbrated in relation to the amendment and the clause still stand. The Government's praying in aid of practical difficulties has not stopped them dreaming up systems of local government finance and all sorts of other mechanisms to penalise people. Praying in aid practicalities in defence of doing nothing on a basic principle that is right does not wash. However, because of the Bill's strictures, we could not put forward in its entirety the proposal that we should have liked to make on the married couples' allowance. Our amendment is therefore very much second best, and although it would be a small step in the right direction, it would not be right to push it to a vote. However, I hope that we can return to the matter on a future occasion. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.