CAB129-35 — Page 160

Page 160

Bills Committee, whose members are appointed by the Committee of Selection. In the case of this Bill a Debate will arise when the Chairman moves the Second Reading and the Government will have an opportunity of intervening to indicate their views.

11.

I confess that I think there is some justification for the argument put forward by the supporters of the Motion opposing a Second Reading, which is that if it is right to remove a restraint on anticipation for one person, restraints should be removed altogether for the benefit of all who may be concerned, and that the abolition which was effected by the Law Reform (Married Women and Tort Feasors) Act, 1935, should now be made complete and retrospective. In 1935 Parliament resisted the pressure to abolish restraints retrospectively on the ground, apart from the general objections to retrospective legislation, that it would contravene the intentions of testators and other settlors. Since 1935 the economic position has altered con- siderably and it is inevitable, with the present incidence of taxation, that restraints on anticipation must operate to the disadvantage of married women. They are in fact an anachronism, since it is inconceivable that any settlor or testator in, say, the year 1921, would have imposed a restraint had he known what its financial effect would be on the beneficiaries today.

12.

In the Second Reading Debate in the Commons there will be, as it seems to me, two courses open to the Government. We may either:-

13.

(1)

Admit the validity of the arguments of the supporters

of the Motion and express our readiness to support or introduce legislation to abolish those restraints still existing in all instances, in which case I think that our support of the present Bill should not be withheld, or

(2) Oppose the arguments for general legislation, in which case it would be logical to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

It would, in my opinion, be wise to take the first course and not the second.

The arguments for general legislation are very strong

(a) They are consistent with the attitude of this Govern- ment regarding married women, and women in general, as being in a position in no way inferior to that of men.

(%) As the law now stands, men and women alike, with the sole exception of the class of married women still subject to the restraint in question, are free to deal with their income as they like. If they have not immediate control of their capital, they can raise capital (amongst other ways) by selling part of their income to an Insurance Company. The effect of the general legislation in question would be merely to put this diminishing class of marrieû women in the same position as all other men and women, married or unmarried.

(c)

For reasons stated above (in paragraph 11) it is no Page 18866easonable to preserve these restraints in deference to the supposed wishePage 60 of 366ors.

-3-

1

|"

IL

fid

MC

+ 119

,』

1

I