I beg to move, at end of Clause, to add the words "and the expression 'child' shall be extended to include a child permanently adopted."

This is a very modest Amendment—not nearly so ambitious as a great many which have been proposed, and I think I can safely say it is a very cheap Amendment. I hope on both those grounds that the Government may be able to look upon it with favour. At present no relief at all can be obtained in respect of an adopted child for this reason, that the term "child" under the Finance Act, Section 68, in addition to a legitimate child, only includes a stepchild or an illegitimate child whose parents happen to have married afterwards. But take the case of a widow with two or three children having to earn her own living. In order to relieve the burden of those children, it is quite possible that relations and friends may come forward and adopt one or more of those children permanently. In fact, it often happens. They undertake to bring them up and educate them and provide for the whole of their maintenance. Take the case again of a father who is left with young children. It is an enormous relief to him that someone should come forward and permanently adopt one or more of the children who have been left behind, to look after their interests and their education, and, of course, it is not only an enormous relief to the father, it is of the greatest benefit to the child, who cannot possibly be looked after by the father if he happens to be a working man, out at his work all day long.

But under the existing law adoptive parents cannot get any relief under this Section or under previous Acts. I really do not think it is fair. I think it is only fair to help those people who, out of kindness and generosity of heart, come forward and agree to permanently adopt the children of other people who happen to be in very poor circumstances. I cannot conceive anybody going to the trouble and expense of adopting a child merely in order to get the relief I am trying to persuade the Government to give. It certainly would never happen. I think it is quite conceivable that want of relief, and holding the relief back, will very often discourage the adoption in cases where it would really be of inestimable benefit. I have no estimate of what the cost will be, but I cannot imagine that the cost will be at all large, and I am certain that it would not be anything but a very small proportion compared with the great benefit which would accrue to a great many poor people.

The Government may possibly reply that it is impossible to define the term "permanently adopted." But, after all, that will have to be a question of fact, and all through the Income Tax laws it is over and over again a question of fact as to whether a tax has or has not been paid, or whether relief is given or not. For instance, take the case of the control of a company. It very often has to be decided whether the control of a company is in this country or abroad. That is merely a question of fact. There is no absolute definition. Take, again, a trader's profits. It has continually to be decided what really are the profits. It has to be decided whether what ought to be profits appear in the accounts of the year. That, again, is merely a question of fact. Take, again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own Clause 5—the question of domicile. That, again, is merely a question of fact as to whether a person is domiciled or not in this

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is impossible really, to accept this Amendment, and I cannot help thinking that when the hon. Member sees the difficulties it would produce, he will understand that himself. He proposes to make a concession in favour of those who permanently adopt a child. It is impossible to say that a child is permanently adopted. You might adopt a child to-day and abandon it to-morrow. There is no such thing known to the law as "permanently adopted." Nobody suggests that you can have a child permanently adopted, and, therefore, this Amendment would enable a person to adopt a child in order to get relief for a few months and then to get rid of the child. I think the only way of dealing with this matter is to confine the Clause to those for whom the reduction was originally intended.

I beg to move, at the end Clause, to add the words,

"Section sixty-eight of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall read as if for the words 'five hundred' the words 'one thousand' were substituted."

By the Finance Act of 1909–10 it is provided that wherever a person who is liable for Income Tax proves that his income does not exceed £500, and that he has a child or children under sixteen years of age, he is entitled in respect of each child to relief from Income Tax on £10 of his income. By the present Bill that is altered to £20. My proposal to substitute the words "one thousand" for "five hundred" is avowedly in the interest of public servants abroad, and more particularly in India. I venture to submit that it is very advantageous that officials from our British Possessions with sons who are likely to follow in their footsteps should have the advantage of giving them educa- tion in a public school. By common consent of those acquainted with this subject, they make better administrators in foreign countries than those who have not enjoyed that advantage. I suggest that the limit should be altered from £500 to £1,000, in order to give this class a chance of giving their sons this kind of education. My hon. Friend the Member for the Wirral Division (Mr. Stewart) moved last night that a reduction of Income Tax should be allowed in respect of the amount spent by parents on the education of their children, and, in reply, the Attorney-General rather unfairly said that it was a proposal that every man who sent his son to Eton and paid £300 for his education should have a corresponding reduction in respect of the amount upon which Income Tax is charged. There is very little chance of men who have only £1,000 a year sending their sons to Eton. I submit that it is perfectly clear that men with £1,000 a year all told—they do not get so much net—cannot afford to send their sons to Eton. I think the privilege mentioned in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's first Act should be extended. This is quite a moderate proposal, and, for the reasons which I have given, I venture to commend it to the favourable consideration of the House.

I dealt with this matter before in reply to the hon. Gentleman; I forget whether when he was proposing an Amendment or foreshadowing this Amendment. I still adhere to the view which I then expressed, that if there is any extension it should be an extension of the allowance. I would very much prefer to increase the amount of the allowance to incomes under £500 than to extend the limit. People with less than £500 who have children are very hard hit by Income Taxes and rates. It is a very serious matter for persons with these incomes who have to try to keep up an appearance for professional purposes and the purposes of their business, as well as to spend money upon the education and the maintenance of their children, to have to pay additional rates and taxes. I think that there is a great deal to be said for increasing substantially the amount of the allowance for incomes under £500. I have no defence for the comparative smallness of the increase this year, except that the Exchequer could not afford to give a larger allowance. But I hope that some Chancellor of the Exchequer soon will be able to give a greater allowance than I could afford to submit to the House of Commons this year. I hope that when that time comes the House of Commons will take the view that the direction in which such allowance should be made is by increasing the amount in the case of small incomes before you come to the extension of the limit. For that reason I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to support the Amendment. I have been in India, and I know how hard it is for Indian Civil servants to pay all these taxes. I am for helping the man who has under £500 a year, but I do not see why relief cannot be given in both cases We are getting a lot of money now for rates and taxes, and there is no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not accept this Amendment.

This is a perfectly nonsensical Amendment. The amount of relief which is proposed to give to these people from India is 15s. on incomes of £1,000, and to say that an official from India cannot educate his child because he does not get relief to the extent of 15s., is perfectly ludicrous, and the hon. Member knows it.

Though I do not at all accept the views of the hon. Baronet, still this proposition is not one which seems to command support, and I do not think that I should be justified in asking the House to divide upon it.