Lords Sitting of 24 January 1973

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

STUDENTS' FEES
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what fees will be payable in the academic year 1973–74 by—

(a) home students;

(b) students from nations members of the European Economic Community; and

(c) students from Commonwealth countries;

for courses in universities and in further educational establishments, whether advanced or non-advanced.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, my right honourable friend does not fix the fees at universities or establishments of further education. The recurrent grants announced in the recent White Paper, Education: A Framework for Expansion, assumed that the fees for home students at universities will continue to be mostly in the £60 to £90 range in the academic year 1973–74 and that there will continue to be a fee of £250 for all overseas students. Fees for further education courses are fixed by local education authorities at their discretion. In March, 1971, Circular 4/71 asked authorities to review the level of fees with the object of increasing their total income from this source by £3·2 million in the financial year 1971–72 and by £5 million in 1972–73. In the academic year 1971–72 fees for home students were mostly in the £60 to £70 range for full-time advanced
152
courses and in the £30 to £40 range for non-advanced courses. For all overseas students the corresponding fees were £250 and £150. My right honourable friend has no information about authorities' intentions for fees in the academic year 1973–74.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, in so far as I could understand his rapid reading and follow exactly the implications thereof, I hope that it is satisfactory. May I ask him whether we can have some assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not take any final decision in this matter without proper consultation and that they will not take it arbitrarily or unexpectedly, as they did in the case of the raising of students' fees in 1966–67? May I further ask whether, in order to avoid any possible discrimination between E.E.C. students and overseas students (notably those from developing countries), they are at the moment holding consultations with the authorities concerned in the E.E.C. countries?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that my right honourable friend would not consider making any alterations without prior consultation. I must remind the noble Lord that I have not referred to any of the changes to which the noble Lord himself has referred. As regards the E.E.C., I think, if I may say so, that we have got off to a reasonably promising start. We have offered 50 fellowships to post-graduates from Western European countries, extra funds for improving the links between British and European universities and a doubling of the Western European Scientific Exchange fellowships. I can also assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend will be looking at further developments with the E.E.C.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it not true, as the noble Lord has just said, that the basic fees of universities are fixed by the universities, but that the differential between the charge to home students and those from overseas was imposed by Government and did not in any sense represent the desire of the universities? In fact I believe that they were strongly opposed to it. Would it not therefore be right and proper for the Government now to take into account

153
the resentment inside universities against this differential, and cease to impose it? This is a Government imposition.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord: it was a Government decision. In case any of your Lordships may have gained the wrong impression, perhaps I may add that the decision was taken in 1967.
LORD GARNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the appointment of Mr. Anthony Kershaw, whose task it will be to look into the general question of co-ordinating governmental activities, has given rise to very considerable satisfaction among all those who are interested in arrangements for students' welfare? May I ask the noble Lord whether he considers that a complex question of this kind is one that might be looked into by Mr. Kershaw?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garner. In addition, I think it is right to point out to the noble Lord and others who may be interested that it was the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who also wished to see a development of this sort taking place.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: CHARGES AND CONCESSIONS
2.40 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since the possible loss to the Exchequer would be small, they would reconsider their objections to allowing card-holding members of the International Association of Art Critics and the International Council of Museums free entrance to the national museums and galleries, following the example and practice of other countries.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): No, my Lords. In order to keep the price of admission low for everybody, concessions to particular groups and interests have had to be kept
154
to a minimum. Many of the persons referred to by the noble Lord would be eligible for a Cultural Identity Card issued under the auspices of the Council of Europe, for the holders of which free admission is provided.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in thanking the noble Viscount for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the holders of Cultural Identity Cards are entitled to them as part of our Treaty obligations with fellow member States? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is aware of the letters that appeared to-day and also last Saturday in the Daily Telegraph from the past President of ICOM (who is also a former director of the National Gallery) and from the presidents of the art critics and artists sections in this country? These letters all deplore this position. May I ask whether the Government will reconsider this matter?—because otherwise (and they may not be aware of this) Britain will be the only civilised country to refuse such a concession.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, the two letters to which the noble Lord has just referred, from the International Association of Art Critics and the International Council of Museums, exactly prove my point. There are a very great number of societies of this kind, all of which we should have to consider for the grant of concessions if we opened the door to the International Association of Art Critics. Really, my Lords, we have nothing to be ashamed of. We are keeping our entrance fee low, and we can do that only because we do not start concessions, one of which would lead to another.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say, roughly, how many people would be involved if such concessions were made by Her Majesty's Government?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: No, my Lords, I am afraid that without notice I cannot. No doubt there appear to be a large number of art critics; but if one counted them perhaps there would not be quite so many.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, that is the point I am making.

RUGBY UNION TEAMS AND AUSTRALIAN BAN
2.43 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the position of the racially selected English, Scottish and Welsh National Rugby Union football teams, being part of the United Kingdom desirous of visiting Australia, in view of the recent statement by the Australian Prime Minister that racially selected sporting teams will not be allowed to compete in Australia.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am sure the Australian Government is aware that sports teams from this country are, of course, selected on a national and not a racial basis. The position of such teams is therefore unchanged.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not a rather unusual reply? I do not know what the Welsh national language advocates will think about the reply of the noble Marquess when they press for an extension of broadcasting in Welsh—that selection is dealt with on a national and not a racial basis. Is the noble Marquess not aware that the terms of selection of teams are on a racial basis?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think that I should trespass on the Welsh people in this particular context. Speaking as a Scotsman, I would say that my country is made up from several different races in the world, and that is why my original Answer is correct: these teams are selected on a national basis, whether the Welsh nation or the Scots nation, and not on a racial one.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, arising out of the Question which has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, for whom all rugger players have regard, admiration and affection as "Wakkers", may I ask the noble
156
Marquess whether or not it is the case that the English, Scottish and Welsh teams in the Rugby Union—and still more in the Rugby League—accept non-white players with inequity, and that such players have played with distinction? Therefore there is no reason to think that Australia will refuse admission to these teams.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is perfectly right. That was what I was trying to say in my original Answer.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that the Welsh Rugby Union selectors refused to take Billy Boston, who is a coloured man, only because he had turned professional? Is it not a fact that the English Rugby Union selectors chose a Dutch South African named van Rynefeld? Therefore the noble Lord, who feels that he is right in his Question, should do a little more research.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says as a fact. I was not aware of the first instance that she gave. I think that my noble friend need have no fears on this score.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it not true that without the selection of Welsh players the English team would be even less successful than it is now?

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on Vietnam.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
2.45 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which, except so far as their effect is preserved,

157
are no longer of practical utility. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

TAX CREDITS: PAYMENT OF CHILD ALLOWANCES
2.46 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD rose to draw attention to the Government's proposals for a tax-credit system, with particular reference to the payment of child credits to father or mother; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in raising this Motion to-day I do not do so to criticise the introduction of a new method of taxation—V.A.T. or the tax-credit system. If the Green Paper outlines it correctly, as I am sure it does, this should be a simpler method of assessing taxation, and a simpler method of collecting taxes. If the tables on pages 32 and 33 of the Green Paper are right, then there should be a small advantage to all taxpayers. Equally, I welcome the straight £2 a week for each child. This is a good suggestion which is advantageous to the family. The object of my Motion is to bring to the attention of the Government, who from their own statements have still to make up their minds, the real distress which will be caused if, when the family allowances are replaced by the tax credits, the credit is not paid to the mother as a principle. This is what I want to discuss this afternoon, not the whole changeover of the taxation system.
There are many people in your Lordships' House who will remember the late Eleanor Rathbone, and one or two Members will have been with her in another place. I well remember the battle which Eleanor Rathbone fought to get family allowances. How strangely obscurantist the opposition to this humanitarian and excellent proposal seems to us all to-day! At the time when it was introduced opposition came from men in all Parties, and support came from men and women in all Parties. It was not really a Party political issue; it was simply a matter of whether people thought it a good idea or not.
Family allowances have been a most enormous help to millions of women and to their families and are built into the lives of mothers in a way in which few other helping propositions in the social work scale can be. They come as a right; they come automatically, without any means test, and they are collected quite simply at the Post Office by the mother—a really excellent and simple arrangement. I can honestly say that in my experience in local government, social work services, youth work, child care, and in many other ways, the family allowance paid to the mother has been a life-line in countless families. In the happiest of families the mother is delighted to draw the family allowance herself; in unhappy marriages, broken families, the allowance is often the mother's only source of income until, after a little while, National Assistance comes in. It can also be a means, in my opinion, to avoid the break-up of a family and perhaps tide over bad times in family relations. It is, in my opinion, absolutely vital to maintain the principle of paying an allowance for children to the mother and not to the father. That is the principle, and however the tax system alters, the principle should remain.
I have here an article which appeared in The Times, by Sir John Walley, who was deputy secretary in the Ministry of Social Security, and it is a very interesting article indeed. He puts forward a plea for children's allowances to go straight to the child, on the perfectly sound principle that the money is not meant for the father or the mother but for the child. I do not think that this would be a practical or easy way to administer this allowance, but the next best way to get the money to the child is to make it payable to the mother. I know that the Green Paper does not commit the Government to any particular method of paying the credit allowance. Paragraphs 82 to 91 outline the three methods of paying the tax. I am against the arguments put forward in paragraph 85. A family allowance, or the credit replacement by the credit allowance, is not, as is suggested in that paragraph, to be treated like National Insurance or a supplementary benefit. It has been, and could still be—and in my opinion should be—distinguished from the main source of income, supposing this to be earned by the father—this is not

159
always the case. To keep the simple method of paying through the Post Office is not starting something fresh, but simply continuing what is a very satisfactory arrangement.
My Lords, methods of taxation are invented by ingenious people in the Treasury and it should not be beyond their powers to arrange for the credits to be paid through the Post Office to the mother, as before. Even if administratively the cost is a little more, the saving reflected in the satisfaction and happiness in a family would be compensation for the unhappiness and breakdown which result often in far more money being paid out in National Assistance and in other ways. On the occasion when we discussed family planning, some of us pointed out the enormous expense which the taxpayer has to pay out for the breakdown in family life—the children taken into care and the many expensive things which have to be done to prevent children from suffering unduly when family life is broken. The mother deserted by her husband has possibly no income apart from the family allowance. These allowances have been, and still are, the lifeblood of the woman, and to break this would lead to far greater expense by local authorities and by the National Assistance Board. I urge the Government to pay the tax credit in full to the mother through the Post Office, and nothing short of this will satisfy the women in all walks of life who to-day draw the family allowance, with gratitude, and want to continue in the same way. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
2.55 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for having initiated this debate. I certainly recall Eleanor Rathbone. She was in the other House when I went there, as a much younger woman of course, and I was always impressed by her capacities to withstand the hostility, the ridicule and indeed the cruelty of certain male Members of the Commons. I recall well that the then Speaker was certainly not her friend; if possible, he tried to ignore her when she stood up. In the Women's Room one night I said to her: "I am very impressed with your struggle. Don't you get downhearted?" She replied: "No. I have a philosophy.
160
Always remember this. Twenty-five years must elapse between the inception and the fruition of a new idea." With that philosophy she struggled on. I would say, looking at our Parliamentary history, that it probably took us fifty years to impress the Commons. There was the period before Eleanor's time, and then Eleanor came along and of course finally got family allowances put on the Statute Book. But it probably took fifty years to change the male-dominated House of Commons. As we can see, my Lords, from the list of speakers to-day this seems to be a women's struggle. I am rather shocked in looking at the list of speakers because I should have said that a social question of this magnitude—I repeat, this magnitude—was a matter which should concern both sexes equally.
What I have to say is nothing new, of course, but I still cannot believe that the Government are going to embody a proposal of this kind in an Act and put it on the Statute Book. If they do, it will in my opinion provide a classic example of an action by a male-dominated Government who are completely ignorant of the manner of life of a working-class home and the economy. We know to-day that we are bombarded day after day with information concerning prices, wages and hours of work; yet it seems that no Minister is prepared to champion that key worker in the community who has no legal right to one penny in return for the labour which she does for her home and for the country. She is a worker whose hours are unlimited and who undertakes cooking, washing, cleaning, nursing, "shopping around", as commanded by the Government, to get the cheapest cuts of meat; and most of these jobs, of course, command a high rate of pay in the market.
I tried to alleviate her lot by piloting the Married Women's Property Act 1964. Looking back it seems a mean little measure because it enables the housewives of the country to claim half the savings out of their housekeeping allowance. But, as your Lordships will see to-day, it is most difficult to get any measure through the House which concerns women. I was able to get that measure through only because the Lord Chancellor of the day gave me his blessing, as did the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—one of the finest men in the House:

161
yes, I lost my heart to him years ago. Late at night I gazed at him and said, "What about it?"; and he said, "Wait a minute. I'll go and see". He came back, and I started to pilot this Bill. He is the only man on the other side whom I see to-day who helped then (others voted with us after, I agree) to alleviate the lot of that worker in the country who is not legally entitled to one penny in her own right; and we got the Bill through. It was due mainly to his encouragement that I could face the House, because I thought all the men would be against me. This is the only amount that the woman can have, and the only reason I was able to get it through was because the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce made only one unanimous recommendation, namely that the housewife should legally be entitled to half the savings out of her housekeeping allowance.
Most men, when they give money to women, are not unaware of how they are going to spend it, and I am afraid the majority of men in the country fix a certain amount for the housekeeping allowance and the woman, after she has spent money for food, clothing and so on, has none left. So that my little Bill, although it meant well, has not in practice made a great deal of difference to her because there are no savings left after she has spent the housekeeping allowance.
There is a curious idea among men that because wages are high today every wife automatically has her housekeeping allowance increased, but of course the wages are not necessarily reflected in the housekeeping allowance. Too many wives do not know what their husbands earn. In fact when it was suggested that wages should be paid by cheque I was astonished to find that some workers protested because if they were to be paid by cheque it would be easier for their wives to find out how much they were earning. So most wives do not know—indeed even in this House, my Lords, there may be noble Lords listening to me now whose wives do not know exactly the income of their spouse. I will wait to see whether there are any blushes! So many working wives do not know what their husbands earn or whether they have been given a rise in pay. It has astonished me to find that this matter is often kept rather secret, so that the wife will not
162
learn of it. The result is that the poorest and the most helpless—and often the women with the largest families—rely upon the family allowances to help them to buy the food and clothing. As they say, it helps them through the week.
I recall again that when women were given a legal right to the family allowance it was only after those men who protested (oh yes! there was a widespread protest) were shamed into silence. I recall too that in Australia the women demonstrated in order to compel the Government to pay the allowance to them. I am going through this history in order to remind noble Lords that this tiny concession, this legal right to have this miserably small sum in their own right, has been fought and struggled for. The men have tried to prevent it, and here to-day the Government come along and lightly say that in order to manage some fiscal affair they are going to take this money from the housewives.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Baroness at this stage because I think it is important that we should know exactly what the Government have said. They have not said that. The Government have said that they would like to listen to the arguments and that at this stage they have an open mind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am quite aware of that. I think I am arguing, am I not? How would the noble Earl sum up my remarks?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was merely summing up the remarks made by the noble Baroness to the effect that the Government had taken a decision that this money should go to the husband rather than to the wife. That seemed to be the burden of her remarks, and no such decision has been taken.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I welcome that. It means that after the first ten minutes I have been able to impress the noble Earl. Now I look forward to his being a women's champion; I am sure with that smile he cannot fail us. After the next ten years I shall be able to say: "The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe".

163
Would not the noble Earl agree with me that a wise Government should not be considering how to filch this money from the housewife but how to give her, in her own right, a generous increase? I say that for this reason: we are told that the trade union negotiations are concerned with how to put money into the pockets of the lower income group. I quite understand that. They say that so many incomes are so high to-day that it would be a waste of money to increase those particular incomes. How can they direct money into the proper channels so that it will finally reach the poorest children in the country? I suggest that instead of telling the hard-working women of the country to "shop around" for cheap cuts of meat the Government should put more money directly into the housewife's purse and economise in other directions. I am not saying this lightly; if the Government double or treble the family allowance the woman, who is the exchequer of the family, a careful manager who rarely lets the family go bankrupt, would be the person who would see that the very poorest—the poor children of the country—are adequately fed, housed and clothed. That is what the Government are striving to do. But they ask: "How should we direct it?" Surely not only should we say "No" to removing the family allowance, but that if the Government were wise they would increase it and say "Very well, let this money be distributed in the way that we think fit, and that is by giving it to the poorest."
I have talked about the woman's common sense and ability to manage and this is not simply because I am a feminist. I think the House will agree that the common sense and the ability to manage of the average woman will do more to raise the family's standard of living than a dozen Government committees. We have these Government committees all the time; I am tired of mentioning them in this House. They may have the statutory woman on them; but often they are all-male committees with no women on them at all. This is quite common. The House will recall that the last one was the bail Committee, which considered the conditions of the poor women in Holloway. I mulled this over and said "Is this all-male?" The Government had forgotten that women existed! The
164
Minister made a half apology and I am pleased to say that he telephoned to the Governor of Holloway and said that he would be pleased to hear from her. There is a curious blind spot about these matters, which was demonstrated again to-day. Immediately this debate was called three-quarters of the House—male—rose up and left the Chamber. Here we have a wonderful demonstration of a male-dominated Government.
So my concluding word is this, because I am appealing to the common sense of the noble Earl: I think the Government should be warned that they cannot fool women by telling them that this action is necessary in order to manipulate taxation. I know the Civil Service well enough and if it wants to do something it will find a way to do it. I have been a Minister in two tough Departments and I know perfectly well that we have all those brilliant men—and a few women; and I tried to increase the number—and one would say to them: "I think this should be done". Always, within a few hours, they would come back and say: "We have thought out a way"; and it is done, and precisely. There is no question of the Government having to say to the country "In order that we may arrange this new method of taxation we have to take the family allowance away from the woman". My final sentence is that I believe the Government only dare to contemplate this step in the mistaken belief that the housewives of the country are unorganised and unable to resist.
3.10 p.m.
BARONESS ELLES: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Elliot and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, have more than adequately, emotionally and intellectually, pleaded for family allowances to be paid to the mother of the children. However, as we are discussing the proposals in the Green Paper on tax credits, there are other matters which deeply affect women and their position in regard to taxation and which, incidentally, also affect family allowances, and I feel that we should at this stage of the debate discuss these matters. The proposals contained are more than welcome to a certain extent, in that they meet a long-felt need, and that is to put money into the hands of poorer families at regular weekly intervals without the need—and

165
this is particularly important—of a means test, other than the normal one of income tax to which everyone must submit, and without the necessity of having to make a specific application. This removes the necessity for a measure which I personally never favoured, the family income supplement, in that it required both a personal application and a means test. It also does away with some of the more complicated aspects of personal taxation; and this, too, is most welcome.
We have been looking for some time at a system which would take in the benefits paid by the D.H.S.S. as incoming cash and the outgoings of the Inland Revenue on the other side. The problem has been to find a system which unites those two in one operation. The proposals in the Green Paper go a long way to meet that need and I am sure that the principle is right. We must, nevertheless, confess to a certain disappointment that even in a Consultative Document, which is all that this claims to be—and I appreciate that it has not crystallised into Government policy—an extraordinary and what without discourtesy I can only call an antedeluvian attitude is taken about women. I should be grateful if my right honourable friend would consider the points that are being raised, bearing in mind the number of women's organisations of all Parties and the number of women in those organisations who are interested in this matter.
Thus, while one agrees with the general principles, it is necessary to look at the application of those principles. There appears to be the continuation into the 'seventies of the 19th century idea that two people can live more cheaply than one. I have always paid the same bus fare as my husband and have eaten as much as he has. As his wife, I use about the same amount of electricity. Yet the value of a wife is rated at £2, which is precisely the same as a baby of six months or a child of five. The single man's allowance is £4, the married man's £6—which is £2 for a wife, the same as £2 for a dependent child. This seems by any standard to be an extraordinary calculation. Each adult, male or female, should have the same tax credit allocated. According to the Green Paper, the figure suggested is £4 a week. I do not want at this stage to go into the merits of that figure of £4 and whether it should be
166
£3, but the fact remains that the principle should be that the woman should have the same amount allocated to her as to a man.
Another consideration which absolutely amazes me is that of the working married woman. Many of us work, although some of us may not earn, but why should there be any difference? Five and a half million people are to be treated differently on a separate taxation system. Since one of the two main platforms of the scheme are simplicity and uniformity—both ideals which in themselves are not necessarily justified—why are 5½ million people to be taxed and assessed separately from other people? It gives more work to the employer and causes injustice. If we are to pursue the matter of principle further, I am sure Lady Summerskill will agree that if the Anti-Discrimination Bill is passed, then even this little Document may be considered to be illegal and perhaps against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, as members of the United Nations, we are meant to support. Yet the reference to this issue in paragraph 20 of this Document says that the scheme will apply to 90 per cent. of the adult population and their dependants; and paragraph 92 goes further and says that it will apply to nine out of ten people. Are married women who work not people? If not, what are they? It is astounding that a Government who have done so much to improve the legal position of women by removing discriminatory legislation should be even associated with this kind of proposal—reducing married women once more to the level of infants, if not of lunatics.
It is even retrogressive in regard to the Government's own legislation in the Finance Act 1971, which gave married women the possibility to be taxed as single persons and not assessed or aggregated with their husbands, at the same rate and with the same relief as for single persons. Thus, I suggest here again that the working married woman should be taxed at the 30 per cent. rate, with a tax credit of £4, just like a single person, though I do not propose to go into the details and mechanics of the matter now. Nevertheless, the principle should be recognised that a woman—working or not, married or not—should be taxed at the same rate and in the same way as a man.

167
This would enormously simplify the work of employers, who would not even have to inquire whether a woman was married; they would be able to employ the same system as for men.
Women do not demand special treatment, but they do demand equal treatment where equality is seen to be fair. Working married women are no longer dependants; they are joint bread-winners, pooling their resources. The Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 is based on the principle of joint contributions to the home, and equal partnership, and one of the difficulties in the division of property after divorce is to calculate the incidence of taxation paid by the parties on income and capital during their married life. The woman with unearned income will be taxed at 30 per cent. without receiving any tax credit, while the relief or credit is given to the husband. The non-working wife with no income should also be entitled to a tax credit, as a dependant, but she will not in fact see it. This again would make for simplicity and would also support the argument in those cases where the wife stayed at home to look after the children that, as the Green Paper states, they tend to be less affluent than married couples where both husband and wife work.
There are two other areas where the proposals I suggest need further consideration. One is the removal of the additional personal allowance at a higher rate for the single person maintaining an elderly relative. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, referred to the hard-won battles which women, and especially herself, have been fighting for years to be recognised as people, let alone anything else. Again, the small, miserable concession which was given to single women looking after dependants, giving them a higher additional personal allowance, is to be removed, so that even the recognition that by keeping a relative at home vast expense is saved the State is to count for less. By not having that elderly relative in a home she is saving the State a cost of, perhaps, £30 to £40 a week.
The grounds given in the Green Paper are that as the elderly relative will—or may, because not all are eligible—be getting the tax credit, there will be no need for the maintainer to have any extra.
168
I can only say that those who wrote the Green Paper have not much knowledge of the psychology of those who have to sacrifice, albeit willingly, their careers to stay at home, or have not had the chance of looking after the elderly to see what happens when an elderly person gets a little extra money. Obviously when someone gets £1·98 extra a week he or she will not easily give it away. I therefore ask that this matter is also considered afresh.
There are two remaining categories where there is discrimination. First, take the case of the working wife who for some reason receives National Insurance benefit, sickness benefit or unemployment on her own contributions. Here again she will be taxed at 30 per cent. but will not be eligible for the tax credit because it will be given to her husband. So the argument that the more favourable the treatment of the working wife the greater the burden that must fall on other taxpayers is quite extraordinary. The more fairly the treatment of everyone, the more will be earned and the more revenue will be earned by the nation as a whole. The argument that a greater burden falls because a working wife is given her proper share of the tax credit is beyond belief.
Then we come to the problem of the recurrent case of the wife who has a husband who is totally incapacitated. She is not to get the dependant's allowance, whereas a special case is made in the Green Paper for the man who has a totally incapacitated wife. It is right that a man with a totally incapacitated wife should have an extra allowance and that it should be taken into account, and nobody quarrels with that. But for precisely the same reasons, the same should apply to a wife whose husband is totally incapacitated and who goes out to work and has all the same household expenses. She, too, should be considered as a special case.
I have dwelt particularly on these aspects because I have not heard them raised before. The question of family allowances has been raised, as I have said, extremely ably and fully by other noble Baronesses, but I should just like to contribute one or two words on this matter which is the particular subject of the debate. I absolutely support that they have been the mainstay of literally

169
thousands of families, either because of low wages, mean husbands, deserting or absconding fathers, or even through sickness. There may be no cash in the home other than the family allowance. It brings security and the knowledge that at least food can be bought, a bus fare paid, or a telephone call made. I would remind your Lordships, and possibly it is difficult for us in this House to conceive it, that you have only to cross the river half a mile away to realise that a family allowance can mean all the difference between wealth on the one hand and a completely empty purse on the other. This was emphasised in our studies when giving evidence to the Finer Committee on one-parent families. I would add that I never ceased to be amazed at the number of women of different financial levels who at some stage or another have to rely on family allowances as their only immediate cash source; and regrettably, whether we like it or not, we have to take cognisance of the increasing separations and consequent poverty of the parent left with children, albeit even for a short period. It would be a retrogressive step, socially, financially and morally, if the Government were to support any proposal to pay any of the tax credits to the father rather than to the mother.
In this context the Child Poverty Action Group recently had an opinion poll taken of which they have very kindly sent me the details. That poll covered all financial areas of the population as well as age groups, and 77 per cent. of the men absolutely agreed that family allowances should he paid to the mother, and 86 per cent. of the women agreed that these allowances should be paid to the mother. It is natural, of course, that more women than men should support this issue; nevertheless, 77 per cent. of the men agreed that this was the right course. Yet in this Green Paper we are constantly reminded that this would be against public opinion. I have a feeling (although I personally do not particularly like opinion polls) that the authors of the Green Paper might be prepared to study some of these opinion polls before any decisions are taken.
The arguments in paragraph 85 in favour of paying the allowances to the father are again completely divorced from reality. In the first, in line with his
170
entitlement: but it is not in line with the fact that despite his entitlement the wife still gets the family allowance. All the arguments in paragraph 85 are very fine intellectually but they have been taken out of the context that the woman is in fact now getting the famiy allowance; so I cannot see that any of the arguments outlined in that paragraph hold water.
Finally—and this was one of the points also raised by the noble Baroness—administrative savings are mentioned. This should be the ultimate consideration. What is administration for if not to serve the needs of the people? We do not have administration for the sake of administration; it is there to serve us, and if we decide that family allowances should be paid to women and their children then the administrative costs are the absolute ultimate consideration that we should pay to the matter. And the final argument, that it would take weeks, would not he so if the fixed tax credit were paid regularly to the mother, and all that would be necessary would be a tax adjustment co the husband's income. Again, if the tax credit is always paid to the wife and children the husband's tax system can be sorted out by the employer. The office which pays out the tax credits has never stopped functioning. They continue to be paid regardless of the income of the husband.
Finally, I draw attention to the rate at which the child credit has been fixed. I am not quite in agreement with my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood when she said how pleased she was that £2 was the right figure, although I have always been in favour of as high a figure as conceivably can be paid to children, because ultimately they are the ones who suffer. It is right to recognise that the cost of a very small child cannot conceivably be the same as that of an older child and in our evidence given before the Finer Committee we did suggest—and this was endorsed by the Women's National Advisory Committee of the Conservative Party—that different rates should be paid for children according to the age of the child and whether they were the first, second or third child. It means, roughly, that the first child gets a higher rate and the second and subsequent children get a slightly lower rate. If we are told that this is administratively a difficult

171
matter, I should like to ask your Lordships why on earth we have computers, because if we cannot calculate these things ourselves, surely that is precisely what computers are for. Since they are based on an immutable fact, the date of birth of a child, I cannot see that it would require a very great brain to programme a kind of payment of this level.
I think that I have raised the main points on tax credit. This is of course in no way a criticism of the Green Paper because I realise that these are only proposals that have been put forward but I should personally be most grateful if my right honourable friend would give very serious consideration to the matters that I have raised. Knowing that the support of all the women of the country will be behind us, we hope that he will give a favourable report on our views.
3.25 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood for giving us the opportunity for this debate. I rise with slight trepidation, sandwiched as I am between noble Ladies of very great experience and very great eloquence. Nevertheless, I do so perhaps in part in order to show that this debate is not some kind of feminist ramp nor any exercise in newfangled liberation.
I should like to give a very warm welcome to the Green Paper because it has great social merits, as my noble friend Lady Elles mentioned. It will be a real help to low income families with children; it will increase their net income and do just a little to diminish the "poverty trap" and to reduce disincentives—the more you earn the less you keep. These proposals will be of great assistance also to the single parent families and particularly to those who are earning, or who will be enabled to go out to work because of it. The proposals will also assist non-earners in that a rather smaller number of people will suffer the "wage stop". Pensioners are another class that will benefit very greatly. It is estimated that 1 million pensioners will cease to need supplementary pensions. That is a great step forward, and I notice in passing that it will be possible to wind up that small, ugly but useful scheme known as the "option mortgage".
172
Having said those things, I should like to address three questions to Her Majesty's Government on points where the proposals could perhaps be made even better. The first concerns the one-parent family, which the Finer Committee mentioned in paragraphs 83 and 108 of the Green Paper. I understand that this Committee will not report until late 1973 but that it will disclose its thoughts (either privately or publicly) to the Select Committee on Tax Payments in another place, which is much to be welcomed. I would ask the Government whether they will provide sufficient resources, particularly of personnel, so that there is no danger at all of the Finer Committee's report being later than it already is. Do the Government appreciate how great a matter of concern is the content of this report, not only to the single parent families themselves but also to all who are concerned with social service whether statutory or voluntary?
Next I would ask a rather more long-range question. Will the tax-credit system be so designed as not to prevent National Insurance contributions and benefits, and also such things as rent rebates and allowances, from eventually in the long term being brought into one comprehensive system? My third question concerns coverage. The Green Paper says that 90 per cent. of the population of the country will be covered by its proposals. Will the Government try to ensure that every single child in the country stands to receive its credit and that that credit should be in cash where necessary? Are the Government fully aware that self-employed persons, if these proposals go through unchanged, will be deprived of family allowances while not being compensated by tax credits?
I turn now to the question whether credits should be paid to the father or mother—and here I am very much indebted to recent articles in The Times by Sir John Walley and also by Mrs. Meacher, together with an occasional paper called No Allowance for the Mother by Mrs. Bottomley. When we look at this particular point, whether the payment should be to the father or the mother, we must start from the present position of family allowances. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Elles, family allowances are paid to the

173
mother; they are a reliable, continuous source of income. They are paid every Tuesday. Something which has not been mentioned and which is of very great importance is that Tuesday is the middle of the week, half way between one pay day and another. Furthermore, family allowances are easily saved by the simple process of not cashing them but just keeping them until they have mounted up.
Having pointed out the advantages of the present system, I am delighted to see in paragraphs 83 and 91 that the Government, as my noble friend has said, have a completely open mind on the question of payments. In order to avoid perhaps slightly sterile controversy, would it not he much better if we could look upon the credits as belonging as of right to the child? Surely parents could nominate which one of them is to receive the cash. If they are unable to agree, then I would most strongly suggest that it should be the mother who should always receive it. If arrangements of this sort can be combined with 100 per cent. coverage of children, this may be somewhat more expensive, but I suggest that it would be infinitely more satisfactory, not only for the poorest families but throughout all classes of society.

VIETNAM CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT
3.32 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to intervene now to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. This is the Statement:
"Honourable Members will already have seen reports of President Nixon's announcement on the 23rd of January of an Agreement on ending the war and restoring the peace in Vietnam and a cease-fire to come into effect at midnight on the 27th of January. I am sure that the whole House will be immensely relieved that, after so many terrible years of conflict, a cease-fire has finally been agreed. The opportunity is there to achieve an enduring peace, and to extend the settlement into the neighbouring countries of Laos
174
and the Khmer Republic, which have also been ravaged by the war. The United States has kept in close touch with us during the negotiations but we must have time to study the final text of the agreement.
"The history of Indo-China gives little scope for easy optimism. But after nearly thirty years of war and near war this agreement, if observed in good faith, appears to offer the prospect of peace at last.
"The Governments concerned are to be congratulated on their success in bringing this agreement about. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending to them and to the peoples of Indo-China our sincere good wishes in their task of achieving a peace of reconciliation. The Prime Minister and I will of course be discussing Vietnam among other subjects when we see President Nixon next week."
My Lords, That is the Statement.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I feel sure that the whole House cannot but be overjoyed at this news. How much more difficult it was for President Nixon to get out than for earlier Presidents to get in! I have three short questions. Can the Government tell us when the text of the cease-fire agreement will be available? A more important question: we are, of course, still co-Chairman of the old Geneva Conference. Is it proposed that there shall be any sort of revived Geneva Conference; and, if so, would this country expect to be a member of that? And a related question: is there any news yet of a Control Commission to supervise the cease-fire itself, and is there any news about the relation between that Commission and a possible revived Geneva Conference? Is there a role for our country in any of that?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches naturally join with the two noble Lords who have spoken in heartily welcoming the cease-fire which is about to take place in Vietnam. It may not result—though we naturally all hope it will—in a cessation of all the fighting in Vietnam, to say nothing of Indo-China generally, but it does signify the end of American military intervention in a situation in which, in the light of hindsight, we may say they should never have intervened.

175
Happily, withdrawal seems to have been arranged on terms which the United States can accept without being humiliated, and which at least hold out some prospect of the maintenance for the time being of a non-Communist règime in South Vietnam. Therefore I am sure we can all agree not to try to assess too accurately which side has got the better of the cease-fire bargain; rather, we ought to do our best to assist the process of reconstruction which we now all hope will happily begin.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. First of all, may I say I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for the way in which, as I felt certain they would, they have welcomed this news to-day. The noble Lord asked first when the text of the agreement will become available. I understand that it is to be released at a Press Conference by Mr. Kissinger later on to-day; so one would hope that we shall have the full text during the next 24 hours or so. Of course, until we get that I cannot be very specific in answering the noble Lord. Our understanding is that a proposal is being made that an international conference should be called to consider the whole future of Vietnam, and indeed of Indo-China as a whole. I cannot give any more information about this, except to say that I would have thought such a conference, if it did not supersede, would at any rate be complementary to the Geneva Conference. Or it may be a wider conference. I cannot at this stage give any details, but this is what I understand is going to be proposed. We shall know more to-morrow.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am sure the wise thing to do would be to follow the good advice of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who said that no one should assess fault on either side. That would be a fruitless process at this moment, I am sure. We are all, in Britain and throughout the world, glad that this slaughter has ceased. Nevertheless, we hope that the cease-fire agreement is not like a cheap colour television set, brilliant and gaudy in illumination but sadly out of focus. In other words, we hope to get more precise statements later. May
176
I therefore follow up the question of my noble friend on the Front Bench? There is to be, some 30 days from now, a conference in Vienna at which will be represented Canada, Poland, Indonesia and Hungary, which seems to be the net setup to oversee the cease-fire. Having many years ago made an effort, although a humble one, in Hanoi to get some answers, which leaked too soon, may I ask whether the Government will press for the valuable information which has been gathered over many years by the International Control Commission, of which we were Chairman, to be available at that conference, and that some people representing that Commission should be present at that conference, because I am sure that their practical information will be of great value.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that that suggestion of the noble Lord is very useful. I shall certainly pass it on to my right honourable friend.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I imagine that for most of us this is the happiest day since the day which concluded the Great War, and therefore we do not want to say anything which will prejudice hopes. But is it not the case that, while this agreement may be signed, the dangers of conflict in Vietnam, and perhaps still more in the rest of Indo-China, still remain very great? Therefore, would Her Majesty's Government do all they can—and one welcomes what the Minister said about the possibility of an international conference—to try to secure effective international action to deal with the situation which may arise after the peace agreement has been signed? The situation has reached a new stage, where it is in the international sphere, and either the United Nations or a resumed Geneva Conference will be necessary if there is to be that common action which is to realise our hopes.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I of course welcome what the noble Lord says about the present situation, but, as he says, it is only a first step. I think that the next stage will be equally difficult, and certainly Her Majesty's Government are fully ready and prepared to do everything they can to make certain that this time we shall get a lasting peace in this part of the world.

177
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the British Government will consider, at the appropriate time, giving what assistance and aid they can for the people of Indo-China and the devastated areas?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, certainly. This is obviously something that we shall have to consider very seriously.

TAX CREDITS: PAYMENT OF CHILD ALLOWANCES
3.42 p.m.
Debate resumed.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may we now return to the Green Paper on the Tax-Credit System. We have already heard some excellent speeches on the Motion, which the noble Baroness has introduced with her usual clarity. I am delighted that she used her opportunity in the ballot to bring this particular subject before us to-day. I would say also that I endorse everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has said, and probably would have made note of it had I not confined myself to the very narrow terms of the Motion to-day.
We have heard what the Green Paper seeks to do: it is to consult the general population on a change in the taxation system. No one would deny—certainly not I—that a simplification and reform of the collection of tax is a good idea. Obviously later on there will be many debates on the general scheme, but on this particular occasion we are confining our comments to the issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has raised. It is always a very attractive proposition that something will be administratively more convenient, but I should very much like to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has said, that it may be administratively more convenient but it may not be for the benefit of the individual to whom it is being administered.
Quite recently, I visited a school that I wanted to use for a meeting of some highly respectable housewives—they might well have been going to discuss such an issue as this—whose behaviour nobody could question. The caretaker said to me, "If they come in here they will damage all the paint and scratch the
178
floor". I was not quite sure on what he based this idea, but I pointed out that of course it would be much easier administratively, and for him, if no one used the building at all. But, curiously enough, buildings are put up in order that people may use them. One finds examples of this in the hospital system, where administratively it is more convenient if you all work on a kind of conveyor belt system, and whether it is more comfortable for the patients seems to be a much more minor matter. I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply appreciates that some of us are getting a little concerned about whether this great thing which I call "the Administration" is going to overtake us, rather like Quatermass.
No one would deny that you cannot always equate simplification with equity, and I think that here we have a very clear example. Any mother will tell you that, as we have heard already, the cost of supporting a child rises steeply with age, and there is already some recognition of this in family allowances. I think that there are several points to be debated here: whether in fact we should have a level for one child and different levels for other children; whether we should have a fixed level, or whether in fact it should operate decreasingly. I will leave these points for further consideration, for undoubtedly they will crop up again.
I am particularly concerned—and I speak as general secretary of a women's organisation, mainly of young working-class housewives who are concerned about this new suggestion—that the women should themselves be allowed to retain the family allowances which they now receive through a Post Office. As has already been said, mothers in low income families depend very heavily on family allowances. Let there be no illusion about that! I was speaking in Liverpool a couple of weeks ago, and I was told by a school helper that it is becoming quite customary for school meals to be paid for on Wednesday because the mother has to collect the family allowance on Tuesday in order to meet this payment. What my noble friend Lady Summerskill has said so many times—and we must again repeat it to-day—is that the housekeeping allowance is not something over which a woman has any

179
control at all. There is no legal definition of a housekeeping allowance. The husband can hold it back, he can reduce it, or, if he feels in a particular mood, he does not need to pay it at all. Family allowances are completely different in that the woman will collect it each week, and she knows that she has that small sum for herself.
I sit in the domestic court, as do many of your Lordships, where there are revealed all too clearly the facts that have been given to-day, one among them being that many women do not know what their husbands earn. Indeed, many of them do not even know what their husband does when he is at his place of work. I have even met women who do not know where he works! In fact, one wonders what they talk about when he returns home in the evening. It is clear that we are not talking about an ideal state of circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to "antediluvian ideas", and I am sorry to say that I find that many husbands, even young husbands, have ideas which are steeped in another century. They say that the wife is "let out"—that is their phrase—one night a week; but if she asks for two nights she is rather conflicting with some code of behaviour which they seem to have inherited. What we say to-day may seem strange to your Lordships who, I am quite sure, have always been beneficient and generous husbands, and therefore may not have been up against these particular circumstances that we describe.
There are several groups who will need some other support if there is a change in the method of payment: mothers with self-employed husbands; unsupported mothers who are receiving maintenance payments; the married woman who is unable to trace her husband (I understand that she might, in law, be treated as a single woman, but I should like some clarification on that point); the wife of a husband who is on strike; and the single woman, or widowed mother, who is earning £8 a week.
Luckily, this debate coincides with the publication of a splendid piece of research, already referred to, which has been undertaken by the Child Poverty Action Group, and I understand that the findings are to be submitted to the Select Committee on tax credits, who I hope
180
will take notice. We have already heard some of the fascinating facts which have emerged from this survey, when 77 per cent. of the men interviewed, as well as 86 per cent. of the women, felt that the child tax-credit should be paid to the mother rather than to the father.
Another extraordinarily relevant fact which has come out of this survey is that 34 per cent. of the married women with children who were interviewed had not received any increase in their housekeeping allowance during the past year, despite the fact that, as we know, there have been a number of increases in pay. This applied particularly to the women who were on the smallest incomes. As we have said so many times in this House, almost anything that we discuss hits hardest those who are on the lowest income level. But this survey was conducted among various groups, and it was very significant that some middle-class women also used the family allowance and would not like to see any change in payment. I have known young mothers with two or three small children who have saved this money and have spent it on clothing. It is a form of saving which they can easily take out when they want it.
Another group who have sent me a splendid paper, of which I should greatly have liked to give more details to your Lordships, is called the Women's Equal Rights Group. I do not mind what they call themselves, but they seem to have been doing their job very well. They raised one very significant question and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to reply to it. This Green Paper states at the beginning that the Government have an open mind and would like to have opinions on the proposals. The Women's Equal Rights Group has received a letter in which one woman states:
"Not one woman we interviewed was aware of the proposals. Parliamentary language often acts as a barrier to the less articulate and they never seem to receive the relevant information."
I should like to ask the Government why they have not consulted the women's organisations on this point. My own organisation, the Women's Clubs, has been consulted by various Departments of Government and we are delighted about that. We are being asked for

181
comments on the metric sizing of food packs, we are being asked to give opinions on a number of matters, and we are conscientiously trying to get opinions which we shall send off to the Departments concerned. I believe that if the women's organisations were alerted to the aspects of the Green Paper which concern women—the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has drawn attention to some other aspects which we are not discussing to-day—they will get honest answers and some help in this matter. But, for the moment, I beg the noble Earl who will reply for the Government to take back the view of many women that this is a matter about which they are deeply concerned and that the present payment, whatever it is called, should remain in the hands of mothers.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not about to reply prematurely to the noble Baroness, but I think it is incumbent upon me now just to say how much time we have. We originally had until 5.17 p.m., on our 2½ hour basis. We had a memorable Statement on Vietnam which took eight minutes, and therefore we have until 5.25 p.m. to run.
3.54 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, in spite of the intervention of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, I shall be very brief indeed and will not take an extra eight minutes. I think that this is a very opportune moment to discuss this matter, and we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, for having raised it. We have been told repeatedly—and therefore I feel that it must be true—that the Government have an open mind on this subject. I hope that the debate here and the reports to the Government from the women's societies will persuade them not just to remain with an open mind, but to come down on the side of the views which we hold so very strongly.
This is really a Treasury problem, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said. She also said that we expect our permanent officials to solve these problems for us. I have always understood that the Treasury recruits the brightest brains in the Civil Service, and this problem must be a challenge to them which I have no doubt they would be able to solve if they put their minds to it. I wonder whether they even have a statutory
182
woman in the Treasury. If they do not have one, it might be a good idea to get one. The problem which the Treasury will have to face is as nothing to the problem which will arise in the homes if this alteration is made. We have heard a good deal about split families, deserting husbands and so on. Just to lighten the subject a little, I shall read your Lordships an extract from a letter written by a husband from whom payment was expected. He said:
"I wish to submit an application for a longer time, as it is impossible to pay in such a short time. I am in a flat which costs me £9 weekly. I have an H.P. debt and my girl friend is about to have twins any moment. My wage at present is £20 a week. I have no bank account so you see I cannot pay."
That is perhaps a rather humorous example, but one continually gets letters such as that, and if a mother is no longer certain of obtaining her child's allowance she will be put in an impossible position.
I am quite certain that the heart of our Minister for Social Services is in the right place, and I am also sure that the Minister who is to reply will be very sympathetic. I do not want to bludgeon noble Lords who are present, and I would appeal to their sympathy. I should especially like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for standing up and being counted. I am certain that in this House there is a great sense of fairness, that the points which have been put so very ably by the noble Baronesses who have spoken before me have sunk in and will be taken into account, and that from this House there will go a message to the Government that they really must consider this matter very seriously and retain family allowance for the mother.
3.57 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE of YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood has most ably introduced this short debate on the Government's proposals for a tax credit system, with particular reference to the payment of child credits to father or mother. The debate has been interesting, amusing and forcibly supported on all sides of the House. I make no apology for repeating anything that has been said already, because it is only by slow dropping that we shall wear away the stone. I understand that, as yet, no firm decision has been taken on any of the proposals

183
in the Green Paper, and that a Select Committee of the House of Commons is examining all the proposals. I hope very much that the Select Committee's attention will be drawn to the terms of this afternoon's debate. I am interested in the question of the payment of child credits, and it is clear from the list of speakers that other noble Lords are interested, too. When I was bringing up a family of four children we enjoyed family allowances—at least, I enjoyed the allowances and my noble relative paid the tax. As we have just added to our grandchildren by twins who arrived at 11 o'clock last night, I shall be highly unpopular if, by any means at all, the mother of those twins, who already has two other children, is prevented from drawing her family allowance, whatever her husband has to pay.
This payment, which has been received by millions and millions of mothers of children, has always been regarded by them as their money, to spend, if they were conscientious mothers, on the children's basic needs and on extras such as outings, presents, football boots, sports gear et cetera; or, if they were not conscientious, which I am convinced is a very small minority, on cigarettes for themselves, on hair-do's, on cosmetics and the like, which may have had the effect of sedating their personalities and, therefore, of helping their children in another way. In whichever way the money is spent, it is often the only money the mother can collect for herself without having to make a case to her husband for an extra amount in her housekeeping money.
This question of housekeeping money paid to the wife on a regular basis is decided by the husband and the wife, after taking account of which of the two is responsible for rent, rates, light, heat, food, clothes, holidays, entertainment et cetera. Once the decision has been taken, usually very early in married life and based on the existing salary or wage packet of the husband, often no change is made thereafter, in spite of the increased costs which have to be met by the wife. Twenty or more years ago it was frequently the habit of men to sell their empty wage packet envelopes to men earning more than they were, so that the exact amount written on the outside could
184
be put in and the packet handed over to the wife, who had no means of knowing that what she was getting in the envelope was not a true amount of what her husband was earning. The majority of women never know what their husband really earns: they know only what he tells them. I like to hope that that particular practice is no longer current.
My Lords, family allowances are an emotional issue. The mother has learned to regard them as hers, and I hope that the Select Committee will come down on the side of the mother, disregarding administrative convenience or economic considerations which may stand in the way.
4.1 p.m.
BARONESS NORTHCHURCH: My Lords, may I first apologise for not having put my name on the list of speakers, but I was doubtful about being here this afternoon. Before I say my few words, may I be the first person to congratulate my noble friend Lady Brooke on the arrival of the twins early this morning? I am fortunate enough to be the grandmother of two lots of twins, but, alas! we went in only for girls, whereas I understand that my noble friend's son and daughter-in-law have brilliantly managed a boy and a girl. We all welcome this opportunity to congratulate them warmly.
I want to add only a few words in support of what has been said this afternoon. In 1945 I had the privilege to be in another place with Miss Rathbone. I knew her well, and worked with her; and I should like to add to what has already been said about how much we owe to her for the magnificent work that she did. From a certain amount of experience I can confirm what has been said by everybody, but I, too, want to add to it; that is, that countless wives never know what their husbands earn. Again and again you find that these wives have no idea what has been put into the pay packet: they are given something, and they believe that that is all there is. Therefore it is of enormous importance to make sure that the allowance is paid into the wife's hands. Although, again, to many of your Lordships it may appear a foolish thing to say—it has been said several times this afternoon, and it is utterly true—wives want to feel that money in their

185
own hands. Even if they had the opportunity to receive a cheque, they would prefer the cash in their hands; and with that cash in their hands they go away with a feeling of security which they would not otherwise have. That is all I want to add to strengthen the arguments which have been so well put forward in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I think we owe a deep debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lady Elliot for having given us the opportunity to discuss this vital matter.
4.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood for introducing this subject to us this afternoon—at a very timely moment, I think. When my noble friend asked me whether I would speak I, with my usual timidity, vacillated. What does an immature young bachelor like myself know about such things? Would I be drummed out of the Chamber by the outraged cries of noble Baronesses? Then, stung by the taunts of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and encouraged by the intrepidity of my noble friend Lord Hylton, who seemed to get away with his life, I decided to intervene, with your Lordships' permission, but only for a moment.
I remember that nearly twenty years ago in another place, when I was, I think, Minister of Food, I used to put up with the most formidable chastisement from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who used to ask me almost impossibly difficult questions. She wanted a straight answer to a straight question: did I purchase twenty loaves of bread a week; and when had I last shopped around for baby food. But she invited your Lordships this afternoon to tell your wives how much you earn. It is a great relief when you are a septuagenarian and have retired. I have not a wife to tell, but I will tell your Lordships this afternoon that I earn nothing whatever—and if I had a wife that is what I would tell her now.
I want to say only one thing. I have always been a supporter of family allowances, and I have always been a supporter of their being paid to the mother. As every speaker has said this afternoon, it is the most direct way of ensuring that they get to the children. There are no doubt occasional abuses, but I believe that there
186
would be more abuses if the allowances were paid to the father. Certainly from my experience of young people in various youth organisations I have never had any doubt that, on the whole, the influence for good of mum was greater even than that of dad; and I think that we really must back mums in a matter like this.
My Lords, I am not an expert on the new tax credits, and though, as an old Treasury man, I am conscious of the appalling responsibilities that lie on one in such a position, and the remorse one feels on every subject like this (though I think I managed to keep my hands off family allowances when I was after economies), I should regard it as a tragedy if some way were not found for paying the equivalent of family allowances to the mother. It also seems to me that there may be a case for considering the grading of the amount, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Elles. I cannot hope, I suppose, to joint the two "pinup" Earls of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, but I hope that perhaps my noble friend Lord Hylton and I may be put on the waiting list.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Granted!
4.7 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I too should like to add just a word of support to the cause which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, is so eloquently advocating. I do not think there is anything at all to be added to the substantial arguments which have been made by noble Lords and noble Baronesses, on both sides of the House, but sometimes I think one gets a new light on a subject if one looks at it under a slightly different presentation. For instance, I often wonder what the reaction would be if, instead of the present practice of adding a statutory woman to most public bodies, the practice were to add a statutory man. It would not be any more unreasonable; in fact, it would be less unreasonable than the present custom, because we are, as it happens, the majority sex. So I ask myself: if it had been customary, since these allowances were introduced, for them to be paid to the father, what ingenious administrative arguments would have been devised in order to show that it would not be right to pay them to the

187
mother? I think we must estimate the ingenious administrative arguments against this proposal in the light of that kind of presentation.
4.8 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I, too, should like to add support to this Motion. It would be quite inappropriate if nobody were to speak from the Liberal Benches. After all, I think I am right in saying that it was the Women's Liberal Federation which originally pioneered family allowances in support of Eleanor Rathbone; and we should find it disastrous if the payment were transferred to the father. I am sure that in many cases the money coming into the household is shared equally, but it is of course a fact that there are a great many cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has said, in which the wife has no idea how much money is in fact coming into the house; the contents of the pay packet is a jealously guarded secret—though in fairness one must add that there are one or two places in the country where the husband still takes home the unopened pay packet, hands it to his wife and has his spending money presented to him by her. I am not saying that that is a desirable practice; certainly it is an unusual one. But there are cases—I know of some of them personally and so, no doubt, do others—in which the money paid to the man does not reach the wife at all, and the minimum security the woman has to be able to feed and care for her children at the minimum level depends on her having control of that small amount, that all too small amount, of family allowance. I very much hope that the House will press and continue to press that the payment should go to the wife.
4.10 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, radicals of all Parties have for at least a generation advocated and searched for a method of simplifying personal taxation and fusing our personal taxation system with our social security system. That is what the scheme laid out in the Green Paper does. I must admit to being an enthusiast for this kind of simplification. I am an enthusiast for three reasons. First, we have in our community a large number of
188
families, particularly of pensioners, whose income is less than their income tax allowances. In any just society, their income would be made up to their tax allowances. That will happen if we have a tax-credit scheme. It does not happen under the present scheme of income tax and a separate social security system. Secondly, we have many families who have entitlements to social security but who do not take up their entitlements. We regret their apathy; we regret their lack of know-how; indeed, we often admire their pride. But that is not enough. We need a system which would give them their entitlements automatically. A tax-credit system would do that. That is the second reason why I favour a tax-credit system. Thirdly, our personal taxation system and our social security system have been built up piecemeal; consequently, they are unnecessarily complicated. Particularly so is P.A.Y.E., which is on a cumulative basis.
The systems of taxation and of social security overlap and at the point where they overlap they do not apply the same standards. In so far as they do overlap, they are obviously wasteful. We spend money employing people to collect and we spend money employing other people to distribute—sometimes back to the same people from whom we have collected. Consequently, I admire any attempt made to get a fusion of our personal income tax and our social security systems because I believe that it would not only simplify matters, in the interest of the taxpayer so that he would understand it, but that it would also produce a substantial saving in the administration of income tax and social security. If we have a system of income tax credits, then income tax allowances, as we have known them, will go. There will be no allowances against income tax. Instead, tax will be assessed on salaries and wages and on social security; and against that tax there will be tax credits. Where the tax exceeds the credits, the taxpayer will pay; but where the credits exceed the tax, the individual will get an automatic and immediate addition to salary, wage or social security. That, I believe, is the common sense system which we should all welcome as an ideal.
I am not concerned at this stage of public discussion with the amount of the

189
credits, how much they should be or what we should get credits for; because by the time we come to apply them, any figures that we use now will be out of date. But I am concerned with one or two conclusions at which the Green Paper has arrived. For example, it has come to the conclusion that it is impracticable to bring within the scheme married women who are working. I would hope that that would receive further consideration. We are living in an era when it is accepted that when a man and a woman come together and get married, their income tax allowances should at least remain where they were before. Therefore, I believe that the married couple should have double the single allowance. I believe also that when a married woman is working, her part of the allowances should go to her credit and she should come within the tax-credit scheme. I should have thought that the practical difficulties of incorporating married women into the scheme had already been overcome by the wage bar of £8. Nobody with a wage of less than £8 a week would come within the scheme. I should have thought that that would have been sufficient protection against the married woman who is working part-time coming within the scheme to the advantage of the family but against that of the Treasury.
On the question of family allowances or child allowance my mind is clear in three respects. First, I believe it is absolutely essential that we should always do everything we can to get any child allowances direct to the child—and, if possible, without going through the medium of either parent. Therefore, I believe that substantial school meals, milk and the subsidies on children's clothing are the last things that ought to be cut in any economy drive. They should be sacrosanct. Secondly, in so far as there are cash allowances, certainly if one only of the parents has the custody of the child that parent should receive the cash allowances. Thirdly, I am quite clear in my own mind that no matter what anybody would like to do, it is not practical politics to take away anything from the women who are at present receiving family allowances. But I would ask the ladies to take a more balanced view of the whole subject.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: "Balanced". What an extraordinary expression!
LORD JACQUES: Yes, my Lords, balanced—not biased. There is a logical argument for paying the father. I believe that it is overcome by the psychological argument but there is a logical argument. In the first place, at the present time the father receives income tax allowances. Even if you were to amalgamate and to consider together income tax allowances and family allowances, the present position is that where there is only one child in the family, the father receives all the allowances. When there are two children, he receives at the present time three quarters. It is only when the family is very large that he receives less than half. So what we are saying is that if we are to have a tax-credit system in which the child allowance and the income tax allowance are to be amalgamated into one tax credit, the father ought to give it up and the mother should receive it all.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? Has he forgotten—he is trying to equate the two—that the father has £20 or £30 in wages to spend on himself? Will he explain the "balanced" approach to that?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I should have thought that whether the father has £20 or £30 in wages depends on which father you are thinking about.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, a good many fathers have that amount.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, he may have or he may not.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: He has all the money! Tell us what the woman gets to equate all the money that the man has. Then that would be "balanced".
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, he would also have to bear in mind that at the present time with National Insurance benefit and supplementary benefit, it is the father who receives the allowances for the children.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is my noble friend arguing

191
that because a wrong principle is followed in a number of cases it ought therefore to be adopted universally?
LORD JACQUES: No, my Lords. What I am saying is that if you have a system of tax credits and decide that this credit shall be paid to the wife, you have also to look at all the other cases where the husband is receiving them, otherwise you will be remarkably inconsistent.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Certainly; he is receiving £20 or £30, and now we want to know the other side.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, give way? I would remind the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, with all respect, that it is not usual in our House to interrupt from a sitting position.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Is it not usual in these circumstances—when it is suggested that the Government should do something which might encourage women to riot?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hesitate to come between the noble Baroness and her noble friend. I am concerned only with the Rules of your Lordships' House.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, let us be clear. I am not advocating that the Government should or should not do something—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That is better!
LORD JACQUES: That is a gross exaggeration. All I am doing is reminding your Lordships that there is a case for and against. We have heard one side of the case from my noble friend and surely she will allow me the privilege of stating the other side of the case.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am listening.
LORD JACQUES: It must be accepted, too, whether we like it or not, that so far as collection and payment is concerned it is far more economical to do it by an adjustment of wages than by payment through the Post Office. That must be accepted as a fact. But against all these economic arguments, and arguments
192
about what is happening at the present time, there is, I think, an overwhelming psychological argument against the father receiving the whole of the allowances. In an age in which, in many sections of our society, we are moving towards a far greater measure of equality between the sexes, it would be regarded as an inexcuseable rebuff to withdraw family allowances from the women who are receiving them. It would encourage disapproval of the whole idea of tax credits which are not wholly dependent on child allowances and, furthermore, obviously it would give rise to agitation—and I am quite sure we have enough of that without encouraging it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Silly!
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, one can state a case both for and against payment to the mother. It is true that she receives family allowances at present. It is also true that the mother is in charge of the housekeeping and has the right to be protected against a husband who does not bring his wages home to maintain his family and who has other priorities. But I would remind the ladies that all the villains in this world are not men. There are women who mismanage the money they receive and who spend far too much time in bingo halls. There are "villains" on both sides.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: How many women have you known?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I believe that there is a strong case to be argued as to why women should not receive the whole of the tax credits. First, it would mean that there would be a substantial reduction in the take-home pay of the men. Most men would have their take-home pay reduced because there would be no child allowance which exists in respect of income tax at the moment. Secondly, it would greatly increase the cost of administration. At present there are Post Office books for family allowances only in the case of those families with two children or more. But to pay all the tax credits to the wife would mean issuing books for families which have only one child. It would greatly increase the pressure of work on the Post Office and also increase the cost of administration. But I believe that there is a fundamental, psychological argument why the

193
tax credits should not be paid wholly to the wives. I believe that we should encourage a system of society in which the fiancial responsibility for the children would be shifted from the father to the State. We should encourage a system in which the father paid his tax and then expected the State to take over the financial responsibility for his children. I do not want to see that kind of society and therefore I hope that tax credits will never be paid wholly to the mother.
I think that there is a strong case for a compromise. For example, if the father received the tax credit allowance for the first child and the mother received all the other allowances, no woman would he worse off. The wife with one child would be in the same position as she is now. On the figures given in the Green Paper the wife with two or more children would receive twice as much as she is receiving now; and while the cost of administration would not be reduced, it would not be increased because there would not be additional books to be made available for wives who had only one child. I suggest, therefore, that there is a very strong case for reconciliation on the basis of paying the father the credit for the first child, which would be an enormous administrative saving, and for the mother to be paid the credits in respect of all the other children.
I should now like to say a word about interest received. If those who receive wages and salaries and those who are on social security absorb the whole of their tax credits at the point where they are paid, it means that any other income they have is liable to tax at the standard rate. They will have absorbed the whole of their credits in their wages, salaries or social security receipts. That means that many people who are not paying tax at source at the present time would do so if we had a tax-credit scheme. There are three great repositories of working-class saving. The first is National Savings and the Trustee Savings Bank. The second is the building societies, and the third is the Co-operative Societies. In none of these cases is there any built-in hedge against inflation, and very often because of inflation the working-class investor loses money over the period of a year in the sense that at the end of the year the value of his investment, plus interest, is less than it was
194
at the beginning. These three institutions are pillars of the society that we know. They all have a social pattern.
The Trustee Savings Bank encourages national savings. That is what it is there for. The building societies are the agency between those who can lend and those who want to borrow for the purposes of house purchase. They are the principal basis of house ownership within our society. Our Co-operative Societies frequently make deliveries of milk, fuel and bread, and provide shops in places where the company shop could not be provided because it would be too costly: there would be no profit in it. So that each of these three organisations in which the working class people invest their money has a valuable social purpose.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lord, is the noble Lord prepared to admit that these valuable social institutions would be made more valuable still if the interest on them were index-number linked?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I would wholly agree. If the interest were index-number linked it would be their hedge against inflation. The Green Paper admits that in the future in all these three cases there will be taxation at source. So far as the concessions to these three organisations are concerned, it makes only one comment. It says that the concession of the first £21 which in the case of the Trustee Savings Bank is interest-free will stay. It says nothing of the arrangements which the building societies have whereby they pay an estimated amount of tax and are able to pay their interest tax paid. It says nothing of the arrangements which the Co-operative Societies have, that their interest will be paid without the deduction of tax and the societies will merely inform the Inspectors of the larger amounts that are paid. I would suggest that it would be much more equitable if we had a system of tax credits by which all these three organisations, which, as I say, have a social purpose, are treated alike: that the members of all three organisations should have an amount which is not subject to tax, and this should not apply only to the Trustee Savings Bank.
Finally, I should like to deal with the question of who is going to pay for the tax-credit scheme. A tax-credit scheme is inevitably costly. All our circumstances

195
are different, and if we had a strictly equitable system of taxation we should each have different allowances to fit our circumstances. Consequently, the system would be both complicated and costly to administer. When you simplify, as a tax-credit scheme does, then it is necessary to guard against anyone getting hurt. You have to be generous to prevent people from getting hurt in any process of simplification. Consequently, simplification is costly. It is estimated that the scheme set out in the Green Paper would cost £1,300 million a year. It goes on to say that it is manageable, and that this could be met out of the growth of national income. If so, well and good. But I fear that it may not be possible to meet it all that way. I would say that if we are to have a tax-credit scheme at the cost of an enormous increase in indirect taxation, and more particularly V.A.T., then the Government can expect some very strong criticism from this side of the House.
4.35 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to echo what other noble Lords and noble Baronesses have said, in that I believe—and I say this sincerely—that my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood has placed us very much in her debt in giving us an opportunity this afternoon to debate at a formative stage in the Government's thinking the proposals embodied in the Green Paper.
It is generally acknowledged, I think, that these proposals, taken together with my right honourable friend's proposals for a unified tax system, represent possibly the most drastic overhaul of our fiscal system which this country will have seen this century. That being so, I trust your Lordships will agree that the Government have been right to proceed in this matter down the Green Paper path. I think that all too often in the past Governments of the day, irrespective of their political complexion, have tended to mull over big changes in our fiscal system in the recesses of Whitehall and of Somerset House, and then to dump them, perhaps rather unceremoniously, in the lap of another place. I am sure that unnecessary mistakes have been made and unnecessary burdens have been thrown both upon the taxpayer and the tax collector because major proposals have not
196
received a public ventilation, have not been exposed to informed comment before they have been submitted for Parliamentary approval. However, as your Lordships know, not only have these proposals for a tax credit system been laid on the national table, as it were, in the Green Paper, but, the Government have now asked a Select Committee of another place to look at the scheme, and the Committee have already begun to take evidence from the sponsoring Departments.
In answer to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I might mention that the Government have asked for views from the general public, and that includes the women's organisations. I think one important women's organisation has already submitted its evidence to the Select Committee. I very much hope, and the Government expect, that others will follow suit. As part of this exercise in what I think tends to be termed open government, I should like to say straight away that the Government welcome this short debate in your Lordships' House which my noble friend has introduced. I am quite certain of one thing, and that is that the Select Committee will take careful note of the views that have been expressed this afternoon. I shall certainly see that those views are drawn to their attention.
I must confess that I have not been entirely surprised, seeing that the majority sex (as we have learned it is) has been in the majority in this debate, that so much of our discussion has turned on a single but very important issue; that is, the question of the direction of the payment of the child credit. I shall come back to that subject quite shortly. But first of all I hope your Lordships will allow me to sketch in quite briefly some of the background to the scheme and to deal with some of the other specific points which have come up in the debate. In view of the fact that this is a mini debate I do not think it would be right for me to deal with every single point that has been raised, but I will certainly see that noble Lords and noble Ladies receive answers to any specific points which I do not cover in my reply.
My Lords, two strands of thinking and of motivation, as I see it, run through the proposals in the Green Paper. One strand is technical and practical. From that standpoint, this is a measure of

197
practical, if radical, reform, designed to replace the present cumulative P.A.Y.E. system by something which is much easier to operate and much easier to understand, be it by the man or woman in the street or be it by the practitioners of the Inland Revenue or of the Department of Health and Social Security. I have seen something of those offices up and down the country, and I have been appalled at the complexities of the present system which comparatively young, well-trained, conscientious people have to operate. It is bewildering in its complexity at the present time. I think it is generally recognised that as and when these proposals are put into effective action, the present jungle of family allowances and income tax provisions will be vastly simplified, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and my noble friend Lady Elliot have indicated. An enormous amount of complicated and perplexing underbrush will be cleared away, and from this wholly admirable process of simplification, as I see it, considerable economics in manpower should ensue by the way. This is not the purpose, but it will be a desirable by-product and will result, as the Green Paper points out, in a saving of some 15,000 civil servants. I should like to add, parenthetically, here, bearing in mind my Civil Service responsibility, that any significant reductions in manpower involved in this scheme, as and when effect is given to it, will be carried out only after the fullest possible consultation with the staff interests concerned.
In addition to bringing about this major simplification of our tax system over a very wide area, the scheme also involves, as my noble friend Lord Hylton has pointed out and as I think has been implicit in this whole debate to-day, a major social reform. This is in fact just as important a part of these proposals as is the practical administration. The replacement of tax allowances by tax credits which can be paid out in the form of tax benefit when they exceed the tax bill, has very valuable social implications. It will offer a way of channelling help to poorer people—those on retirement pensions or those who are receiving other benefits under the National Insurance Scheme just as much as low earners—by enabling them to make full use of their income tax allowances. In fact it will do something (though I do not wish
198
to exaggerate this) to alleviate that famous "poverty trap".
For these reasons I very much hope that the scheme as a whole will receive the general endorsement both of the Select Committee and of Parliament. I believe that in this discussion, though speeches have tended to concentrate upon one particular area, it has received a pretty general blessing from your Lordships. If the scheme is later proceeded with, as I sincerely hope it will be, it will make it possible for low earners to receive help automatically within the scheme instead of having to apply for a means-tested family income supplement and it will boost the income of pensioners as well as those of widows and other National Insurance pensioners by such an amount that on the Green Paper calculations, which are of course purely illustrative, something like one million fewer of them will need to have recourse to the supplementary benefits scheme. The help given here will more than compensate for the withdrawal of the dependent relative allowance, and it will go not only to the old and the widowed but to the chronic sick who draw invalidity pensions. Irrespective of to whom the new child credit is paid, it will offer a considerably more generous measure of child support than is now available from the present exceedingly complicated mix.
From all these standpoints, I think there is a pretty general recognition of the social benefits which should flow from this scheme for our society as a whole and for the family units which are vital to its health. That being so, I have not been surprised, by and large, to read comment in the country as a whole that the broad scheme has received a general welcome. In this context, I have been particularly glad to note the support given to it by bodies such as the Child Poverty Action Group. I think that the architects of this scheme—and not least that distinguished outsider, Sir Arthur Cock-field, who has played such a large personal part in its inception—can be justly proud of the plans which they have produced so far.
Some of your Lordships have drawn attention to the fact that the scheme does not cover the whole population. Our estimate—and this has been referred to

199
in the discussion—is that as at present drawn it should cover some 90 per cent. of the population, including wives and children. However, as the Green Paper makes clear, the new arrangements are not intended to extend to people of working age who are right outside the field of employment or who have only very low earnings. The Government have noted the criticisms that have been voiced on this score. Some of the criticism seems to have stemmed from a misunderstanding. For example, it has been suggested that the Government regard tax credits as a complete solution to the problems of poverty. I do not think that has been suggested here this afternoon, but I have heard it voiced elsewhere. The Government have made no such claim. Indeed, my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the foreword to the Green Paper, emphasise that the scheme is not designed to cover all circumstances of need. They stress the need for continual development of our social services and the high priority which any Government must continue to accord to them. Perhaps I might here, parenthetically again, deal with a point put by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in a very thoughtful and courageous speech, if I may say so without being accused of any undue male chauvinism. He asked me about benefits in kind, such as free school meals. In this context, of course, they will certainly continue for those families who need them, but we would expect the improvements brought about by tax credits to mean that rather fewer people will need to claim exemption from the standard charge. However, I take the point which the noble Lord made.
Perhaps I might stress again that tax credits are not meant to replace the supplementary benefits scheme. Universal benefits large enough to do that would be quite inordinately and prohibitively expensive and would be an extravagant and inefficient way of meeting all individual needs. For those in need of assistance, help has to be related to individual circumstances and provided in a way that is sensitive to changing family needs. This kind of help cannot be just "dished out" on a universal basis. The real argument, as I see it, is not whether supplementary benefits should provide a safety net at
200
all—this has been common ground ever since Beveridge—but whether so many people in our society should need to rely on it. By this standard, it is my belief that the new tax-credit system could secure a very great advance indeed.
One particular group to which a number of speakers have referred—my noble friend Baroness Elles among them—was that of the unsupported mother whose family responsibilities prevent her going out to work. May I say here that these are people who naturally command our sympathy. They represent an all too numerous group in our society. The circumstances of the unsupported mother and her family are at present being studied (as my noble friend Lord Hylton remarked) by the Finer Committee. The Finer Committee is expected to report later this year, and it seems right to us to leave open the position of this group in relation to tax credits until the Committee has reported. But I can assure your Lordships that this is a matter which is very much in our minds; and I can assure my noble friend Lord Hylton, in reply to his specific question, that this Committee will be given all the help it needs in order to ensure that its Report is available—as it must be—as soon as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in this general context asked a question as to whether deserted wives would be treated as single. The answer is that once it is established that a wife is permanently separated from her husband she will be treated as a single woman and eligible to be in the scheme. That is my understanding of the position. There has also been some criticism, criticism again which I have heard in your Lordships' House this afternoon, of the proposal to leave out the self employed. Naturally we should have liked to include them in this scheme from the outset. The Green Paper explained in some detail—I will not run over the arguments here—why this has not been thought possible, at least initially. I should like to add that in the longer term it may be possible to bring in more—and we are certainly open to suggestions in this area—in particular in relation to credits for children, the matter to which certain noble Baronesses and my noble friend Lord Hylton have also quite rightly drawn your Lordships' attention.

201
Nevertheless, while expressing our willingness to be open to suggestions in this area of the self employed, the Government feel—and I hope that I can carry your Lordships with me on this issue—that it would be wrong for us to hold up a scheme which will have very considerable advantages for the great majority of the population and which we know is workable and watertight, until we can see our way to solving the problem of how to deal with the remaining 10 per cent., or so. This is a problem which is very much in our minds.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I hope that when talking about the unsupported mother the noble Earl will emphasise that it sounds very simple when she has established that she is deserted; but that can be a very lengthy process. At the moment the woman draws family allowances; if she does not draw them she will not be drawing anything.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I take on board the point the noble Baroness has made.
Some noble Lords have voiced the criticism that the scheme discriminates against working wives. Again, I believe that some of this criticism may be based on a misunderstanding. I would draw your attention to the facts as I understand them. On the figures in the Green Paper—which, I stress, are illustrative—the single person's credit is set at £4 a week, and the credit for a married couple at £6. In addition, a working wife would receive, as a quite separate matter, the tax relief at present available against any earnings of her own through the special wife's earned income allowance. So a husband and wife together, who are both at work, would have their tax bill reduced by up to £9·43 a week—consisting of a £6 credit and tax relief of up to £3·43 available to the wife—compared with £6 if the husband only was in employment, or £8 a week if each was simply entitled to the single person's credit. These figures—which I ask your Lordships to contemplate, as it were—do not support any charge of discrimination against working wives.
My Lords, I am conscious that I have been speaking against our new clocks for 19 minutes. Therefore may I turn in conclusion to what has been the burning
202
topic this afternoon; namely, the issue of payment to father or mother in a two-parent family. In so far as my noble friend Lady Brooke confessed an interest as a new grandmother of twins—and I should like to join in congratulations to the noble Lady—as a father of seven I must confess a certain interest in this matter. There is one point I should like above all to emphasise here. I should again like to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 91 in the Green Paper in which the Government said quite explicitly that on this vexed but important issue their minds were entirely open. This is essentially one of the issues in which we wish to listen to the national discussion of this matter, and we wish to have an informed opinion from a very highly qualified Select Committee. Another place should be congratulated—and I suppose we should not really do these things—on the quality of that Select Committee. I have been a little shocked to see some of the suggestions that all this profession of an open mind is so much boloney, and that the Government have in their secret conclaves come to a predetermined decision, perhaps out of administrative convenience. I utterly repudiate this view, and I am glad to have the opportunity of so doing.
My Lords, having got that off my chest, I think it would be right for me, whatever my private feelings might be, to maintain a course of perfect neutrality on this issue this evening. In the Green Paper we have set out the various possible courses and the arguments for and against them, and I should like to refer to them. Briefly, we see in favour of payment to father the fact that it allows the settlement of accounts between the State and the family (either through the collection of tax or the payment of benefit) to take place in a single transaction: this is simpler to understand and easier to administer. It matches the practice under the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit Schemes, which make a payment for the household and pay it to the father—an arrangement which has not given rise to criticism over the years. Having said that, I should like to make it clear that we believe—and I entirely endorse the view which a number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses have expressed this afternoon—that in matters of this sort administration should be the servant of our

203
society and not its master. I do not dissent from that for one moment.
In favour of payment to mother we clearly see the argument that she, rather than her husband, is likely to be responsible for the day-to-day budgeting in the household and expenditure on the children. And if she has difficulty in obtaining regular income—for whatever reason, be it because her husband's employers pay him irregularly or intermittently (and this can happen) or be it that the husband suffers from alcoholism or is mean, moody, or too magnificent or careless, as the case may be—we recognise that direct access to the credits would be of special value to her. We recognise all that has been said—and I accept it—regarding the importance of family allowances in this respect, and I know this from my personal experience.
In favour of splitting the payment in some way—and this was the course to which, with great courage, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was inclined—it can be argued that both parents incur extra expenditure because there are children in the family, that the present combination of family allowances and income tax child allowances gives help for the children to each of them, and that it is sensible to continue this pattern in one way or another. There are very many ways in which this could be done. Some of them are mentioned in the Green Paper. There are, of course, arguments against each of the solutions. Payment to the father means in effect withdrawing the mother's present title to her family allowance, with all that that implies. Payment totally to the mother means, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, pointed out, cutting the take-home pay of family men, as a man with several children would have to pay as much tax as a man with the same earnings who had none. Dividing the credit means introducing complications, quite considerable complications, into the administration of the new scheme which many people who favour the simpler approach of payment to a particular parent would find quite unnecessary.
My Lords, those are the arguments, pro and con, on the three approaches as we see them. But, in conclusion, what I should like to emphasise once again is this. On this important issue in the Green
204
Paper the Government mind remains open. We wish to listen to the discussion, and one member of the Government has listened very carefully to the dicussion in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Without departing from my stance of perfect neutrality here I must confess that I have been impressed by the weight of the argument in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Of course, I go on the assumption that in this instance what I have been hearing in your Lordships' House was an expression of the "vocal" majority, not of the "silent" majority. I hope that I am right. I should like to undertake one thing, which I do very willingly. I undertake to ensure that very careful consideration is given by the Government to this expression of your Lordships' opinion. This has been a short debate, but I am probably voicing a sentiment shared by many of your Lordships in saying that it has not been an unimportant debate. I should like again to thank very much my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood for introducing this topic to us at this timely moment this afternoon.
5.2 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl very much for his speech, and to emphasise once again my hope that, although his views may be entirely impartial, he will take to his colleagues in the Cabinet, and also to those who are on this Committee, the fact that in your Lordships' House there was no doubt at all as to the views held on all sides. There was only a short moment otherwise when the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, threw a slight spanner in the works. I do not know how much that represented his own point of view or the fact that he thought he ought to put the case for men as well as for women. Be that as it may, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and to our ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Amory, for coming so bravely into what was a debate in which many of the speakers were noble Baronesses. Nevertheless, I am quite sure we represent the views of millions of people, including men, on this subject and I am most grateful that we have had the opportunity of holding this debate. I hope that the noble Earl. Lord Jellicoe, will tell his colleagues, with no uncertain

205
voice, what all of us here think; and I am sure that the Government, in their wisdom, will see that it is a good idea occasionally to take the advice of your Lordships in this House. I thank noble Lords very much, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CROWD SAFETY AT SPORTS GROUNDS
5.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to call attention to the Report of the Inquiry into Crowd Safety at Sports Grounds; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will recall that on January 2, 1971, at about 4.45 p.m., during the final moments of a cup tie between Rangers and Celtic at Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, a section of the 70,000 crowd present began to leave the terraces and surge towards the access stairway at the North-East corner of the ground. It was then, in a matter of moments, that a disaster struck—a disaster of such appalling magnitude, which happened with such apparent, almost senseless, ease, that the sheer horror of it shook and stunned the country, and, I am sure, chilled the hearts of all soccer administrators everywhere. No fewer than 66 people lost their lives in this tragedy, and many more were injured. This was the second major accident that had occurred at football grounds in Britain, the first being at Bolton in 1946, when 33 people lost their lives. Both disasters had a unique and disturbing common denominator. The casualties were not caused by any structural failure on the ground but were inflicted by the crowd upon itself.
I mention this at the start of my introduction of the Wheatley Report on Crowd Safety at Sports Grounds, as this was the direct background to the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, and his Committee, which was set up jointly by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The terms of reference for the Committee were drawn very wide, and were to examine existing arrangements for crowd safety at all types of sports grounds, and to make recommendations. The first decision the Wheatley Committee
206
took—and I am sure it was a wise one—was to limit their inquiries to soccer and rugby grounds only, as this was a matter of immediate public concern. Clearly, the problems of other sports grounds were so vastly different, and in many cases could offer little to no fruitful comparison.
There are two general aspects of the problem of crowd safety which strike one when reading the Wheatley Report. The first is that the problem of crowd safety in soccer grounds is no new issue. It was examined in a Departmental Committee Report as long ago as 1923. Recommendations were made in the Bolton disaster Report of 1946, in the Chester Committee's Report on Football in 1968, and in the Lang Committee's Report in 1969. In other words, in the past 50 years the problem has been under review, and it is largely the theme of these reviews, together with a critical analysis of the nature of the problem, and a firm recommendation to overhaul the present system of safety regulations, that form the first part of the Wheatley Report.
The second aspect which is emphasised, both in the Wheatley Report and in the Bolton disaster Report, is that, however good is the standard of safety precautions in any ground, however careful have been the safety designs at all the danger points—the entrances and exits to and from the grounds, the gangways, the crash barriers, the penning and so on—no amount of planning can cope all the time with the unpredictable form which human conduct may take in the pressure of large crowds. Indeed, no total guarantee can ever be given against accidents occurring in the best planned grounds, particularly with a densely packed and excited crowd. The best that can be achieved by good planning is to minimise this risk.
Having said that, I feel it would be fair to say that there are two main conclusions at which the Wheatley Committee arrived, after sifting thoroughly through all the evidence they had heard and collected over 12 months. The first was a firm recommendation that the present voluntary system of control of safety precautions at soccer grounds—a system which has operated for the past 50 years, initially by the clubs themselves and more latterly under a certification system operated by the Football Association—is

207
no longer adequate and must now be replaced by some form of statutory licence parallel to that required at the present time for most other premises of public entertainment. One may add here that of course this does not cover Wimbledon, greyhound or horseracing grounds.
The second conclusion which the Committee clearly felt was equally vital to the licensing recommendation, and in a way was very much complementary to it, was that it was now quite essential for a central technical code of standards to be drawn up as a flexible guideline for use by the licensing boards and clubs throughout the country, so that a minimum standard of safety at all grounds would be eventually reached. Not only was this felt to be in the best interests of public safety generally, but it was also felt that it would be helpful for clubs themselves when contemplating any alterations or improvements to their grounds.
The Committee set up a technical support group of six wise men to carry out this task, a task which included not only the study of all the technical evidence submitted to the Committee but also an examination of what technical guide lines could be drafted in a general specification on the construction and layout of grounds. Their findings form a most valuable second part of the Wheatley Committee's Report, for it is the first time in fifty years that any attempt has been made to have uniform safety standards.
What response has there been to these two recommendations since the Wheatley Committee's Report was published nine months ago? The first, and perhaps natural reaction from the Football Associations as the governing bodies of football, was that they did not accept that their voluntary system of certification, over which they could of course, impose disciplinary powers, had proved defective as the Wheatley Report suggested. Indeed, the English Football Association has shown a commendable action in recent weeks by providing a fund of £50,000 to provide a free survey of crash barriers at any member club's ground. They were concerned that if a technical code was accepted they should be allowed to take part in the drafting of it. They were also concerned on the
208
appeal procedure at the likelihood of licences being withdrawn, but above all they were, and I believe are, worried—and that worry is being shared by clubs—that should the technical code be adopted by licensing boards too rigidly and not introduced over a phased period many of the clubs, already hard pressed financially, would be unable to meet the costs of the capital improvements required and would be faced with the closing down of their grounds. In short, the Football Associations are saying to the Government: "If the new licensing authorities were introduced and the technical guidelines in the Wheatley Report were adopted where would the money come from to carry out the improvements to the grounds?"
This leads one to ask just how bad are the present safety standards of football clubs up and down the country. Why do the Football Associations see the need for such heavy expenditure on grounds and how big is the risk that over 1 million people take every week for eight months of the year when attending soccer matches? We read from time to time of walls collapsing, as recently happened at Oxford and Millwall. We also read of crash barriers giving way, recently again at Crystal Palace and the Arsenal ground, all mercifully without any serious injuries. Are these situations that would have been avoided had a licensing board been in operation? Has anyone a detailed survey report of the grounds that the public pay admission to every week?
The Wheatley Committee sought advice on the state of grounds from a small committee set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Walter Winterbottom. This committee, one understands, visited over 60 grounds, but their findings were a matter only for the eyes of the Wheatley Committee. This, I believe, is a pity, for we are left very much in the dark as to what evidence they found. We are left to draw our own conclusions from the Wheatley Report. Clearly that Committee was influenced by the Winterbottom findings, and indeed one suspects was disturbed by them. One notices, for instance, that at column 70 criticism is levelled fairly sharply at the lack of proper facilities for the police, first-aid and ambulance services and the co-ordination of all personnel involved in crowd control at certain grounds. Indeed at

209
column 72 one is left with the disturbing comment that the evidence certainly supports the view that something must be done.
I hope my noble friend will have something to say later on the general state of the grounds at the present time as the Government see it. I believe the answer to where the greatest danger lies in crowd safety in soccer grounds at the moment (and this seemed apparent from my brief discussions with associations, clubs and the police) is with the small clubs, and then only on special occasions such as cup ties, when exceptional crowds are attending. Here the skill of the police in advising on crowd limitation and their subsequent handling of the crowd plays such a vital part. In saying that, one is well aware of the dangers at the larger clubs—of hooliganism, of the swaying of the crowds and of the natural danger points of the crash barriers and exits.
Returning for a moment to the question of where the money will come from, the Wheatley Committee's summary of the present financial state of football was, I believe, accepted as being very fair, and the careful avoidance on reaching a solution shows a marked degree of tact. It is widely accepted to-day that, despite the great popularity of football as a national sport, where at least 1 million people play every week and a further million people go to watch and 7 to 10 million people watch on television, the game faces the severest financial crisis in its history. Falling gates, coupled with rising costs, amount to an annual loss calculated at over £1 million to football generally. Only a few clubs are profitable; most are in financial straits, supported by income from sweepstakes and transfers and living on huge overdrafts secured by the one great asset—their ground. Calculations have been made that if clubs try to absorb V.A.T. next season many of the few who at present make a profit will go into the red. In this climate it is not therefore surprising to find a distinct lack of enthusiasm towards the implementation of a new safety code without Government assistance.
When discussing the present financial crisis in football, the football authorities claim that the Government earn something between £30 million and £50 million a year from football pools tax, and with the introduction of V.A.T. they will
210
earn a further £1 million a year. At the same time, the Government put next to nothing back into the game, unlike other European Governments. The same authorities argue that the practical effect of the proposed licensing boards could well mean the closure of a number of clubs unless some Government support is forthcoming.
Undoubtedly football is the most popular national sport of the country to-day, and indeed is part and parcel of our national way of life. It offers a valuable contribution to recreational activities and leisure time interests; it is enjoyed by millions both playing and watching, and when achievements are reached, such as winning the World Cup, it undoubtedly does something for our morale. Many in football realise that the financial crisis cannot be solved alone by the Government. Football itself must put its house in order. Clubs must live within their means. The vicious circle of paying more and more for the transfer of players and paying more and more to the players themselves, at the expense of facilities for the spectators is not a healthy one. Perhaps there are too many small professional clubs seeking too few spectators and the authorities of football clearly have a considerable responsibility in the years ahead to guide football back into a financially healthy situation.
But in the short term, my Lords, if clubs really do face the possibility of closing down because they are unable to satisfy licensing boards in the future, and if the closing down of their ground would be against the interest of the community it served, as in many cases it undoubtedly would, then there seems to be some justification for the Government to be looking now into the need for a levy board funded out of part of the annual revenue derived from football pools tax and similar to the Racing Levy Board. This board would clearly have a duty to assist in capital improvement to those clubs which were serving a need of the community but at the same time did not have sufficient funds to meet their requirements. Perhaps again my noble friend can say later whether the Government are actively examining this proposal, which of course has been voiced for many years and recently has been put forward again by the English Football League.
Turning to the technical guidelines, I hope that my noble friend will be able to say, if the general framework of this is to be accepted, that a committee representing men with practical experience in football drawn from clubs as well as the associations will be invited to the Home Office and the Scottish Office to thrash out the technical specifications to be adopted. I am sure my noble friend will agree that practical experience in this subject is as valuable as all the scientific and theoretical experience put together.
I have a specific question to ask my noble friend concerning the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The Wheatley Report draws attention to the fact that its provisions applying to football grounds have not been implemented. Perhaps my noble friend will explain whether these are now to be adopted. The Wheatley Report paid some well-earned tributes to the ceaseless work of the police and the unselfish voluntary work of the St. John Ambulance Service. I wish to pay my tribute to them as well. Having been lucky enough to attend the World Cup Final in 1966 I shall never forget the skill and patience of the police and the calming effect one policeman can have on an over-excited crowd. Equally, I shall never forget the sight of St. John Ambulance men and women helping those who had fainted or who had been overcome by the general excitement of the occasion.
It is gratifying to find in the Report confirmation of the excellent working relationships between the clubs and the police, particularly on decisions of crowd limitation, and also to learn from clubs how effective recent steps have been to reduce that ugly element of football, hooliganism. The Wheatley Report states in the summary of its conclusions that all clubs have a clear duty, where the public pay admission, to provide grounds that are reasonably safe for spectators. Nobody will challenge that. As I have said, the Report examines closely and argues cogently why it considers the present voluntary system of certification on safety regulations is defective and must be changed. In its place it recommends a two-pronged system—a statutory licensing procedure, with an appropriate appeal structure, and a voluntary technical code of safety regulations, to be used as a
212
guideline for the licensing boards. The Report particularly stresses that this guideline must be flexible, with grounds being categorised and improvements phased.
The Wheatley Committee have produced what in my view is a most thorough, comprehensive and well-argued Report which I trust will achieve a service both to football and crowd safety. I am only sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, has been prevented by his judicial responsibilities from being present to-day to take part in this short debate. He and his Committee deserve our thanks. I commend the Report to the House and hope that my noble friend will be able to say in reply what views the Government have formed and what action they intend to take. My Lords, I beg, to move for Papers.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, before the noble Earl resumes his seat, may I ask him a question, his answer to which may help me to understand the arguments which he has advanced? He made crystal clear the need for some improvement to the standards of safety and the need for licensing. Towards the end of his remarks he seemed to place great emphasis on the need for Government support. Do I understand that his major point is that football as a whole, and the Football Associations in particular, are in need of State support to do the job they should have done years ago?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I was trying to explain that from the Report one could not quite judge what standards of safety applied to all grounds throughout Britain and that the Football Associations' argument was that if a code of safety conduct was to be introduced, many clubs would require financial support.
5.26 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I take part in this debate as one who is president of my local soccer club and who spends as many Saturday afternoons as a busy programme permits watching the noble game of football in the First Division. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that it is sad that it takes a tragedy to bring to the attention of the nation the unsatisfactory condition

213
of crowd safety, but has that not been true throughout history—that it is alas! tragedies that call certain serious needs to the attention of the great masses of the people?
This is not to say that local clubs have not done a very great deal on the whole to ensure that safety precautions are good. Nevertheless, the Wheatley Report rightly makes it clear that some general overall standards should be imposed and observed, and I agree wholeheartedly with Lord Wheatley's recommendation that local authority control should be imposed because, of course, it must be admitted that certain clubs whose finances are limited have possibly not done all they might have done to ensure that safety precautions are as good as they might be.
Speaking for my own club—and, I am sure, for a vast number of others—there has been for some time a yearly examination by the police, fire authorities and the club's own architect. Walls, exits, entrances and staircases have all been for many years carefully examined. Furthermore, I believe it is true to say that when new stands are erected they are built so that each stand is a separate entity with the people in them, as it were, in a pen. So far as possible, crash barriers have been erected to stagger the number of people coming down steps or slopes, and the Football Association has offered free of charge expert advice in the erection and use of crash barriers.
Nevertheless, while it is true that many clubs have in recent years been very conscious indeed of the dangers and have taken many precautions to prevent accidents, there has hitherto, until the Wheatley Report, been no compulsion in this matter. The Wheatley Report has brought a certain amount of compulsion. While nobody likes compulsion, when lives are in danger it becomes necessary. It is because of the high cost necessitated by the high standards of control that will be forced on football management by local authorities that Lord Wheatley has recommended that licensing should be introduced in stages, starting with the large international grounds and First Division clubs, so giving time for the smaller and therefore poorer clubs to set their houses in order. I cannot find myself in total agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in suggesting that
214
clubs will need State aid. Where a club is able to produce football that is positive and attacking, and where the management of that club is imaginative and provides adequately for those who attend, in the form of seats that are comfortable and facilities that are inviting, I should have felt that it would have enough financial support to guarantee that the high standards imposed by local authorities can be carried out, and I should be a little hesitant in urging that Government aid should come to the support of clubs.
Obviously there must be a certain connection between emotionalism and crowd safety. Whatever stringent precautions are taken, a sudden excess of emotion can imperil those safety precautions. Emotion takes many forms. One of them that has been much in the public eye recently, and to which the noble Earl drew attention, is hooliganism, and this can undoubtedly enhance the danger of crowd emotion and thus heighten the dangers. In my own local club, as in many others, steps are being taken, in close conjunction with the police, to prevent hooliganism. Where possible, trains bringing large crowds of visitors from another club should be brought as close as possible to the football ground. Buses also should deposit people as close as possible to the ground entrances. Furthermore, it could well be that punishments should be enhanced and detention centres (open on Saturday afternoons, to which culprits are forced to go so that they miss their Saturday afternoon football) could well be developed.
But none of these steps touches the real heart of this particular problem which very definitely affects crowd safety. The real problem is that youngsters should be given creative opportunities for self-development through sport—such as swimming, boxing and table tennis. Hooliganism is too often the result of inner frustration and boredom. There should be a greatly increased use of school grounds for boys and girls who cannot otherwise receive opportunities for training—bearing in mind that perhaps the biggest problem in this respect is the bringing in on a Saturday of a caretaker. But I believe that difficulty can be overcome. There should be the development of all-weather floodlit pitches, and well-known instructors should be urged in their spare time

215
to train young people. Every football club should be urged to develop these facilities for the training of young football fans.
Having said this, it must be fully recognised that it is only a very small minority indeed which has expressed its emotion in this form of hooliganism. Nevertheless, if it were to increase—and there are signs that it is increasing—it would go far towards ruining the sport of the vast majority who only want to watch good football. There is a very narrow knife edge between the enjoyment of a manly sport and violence. The police are becoming increasingly expert in controlling violence on the football ground itself. Steps now have to be taken to ensure that that violence is prevented from breaking out around the football ground. One step, among many, which can prevent this is the development of everything that will ensure the orderly, controlled and unemotional departure of large numbers of people from the stands.
As has been rightly pointed out, up until now football grounds have been private property, unlicensed, and not subject to any special laws, regulations or by-laws. Lord Wheatley's Committee has recognised that this is dangerous, and quite rightly has taken steps to prevent it. The Wheatley Committee has drawn attention to the fact that although numbers attending football matches may have gone down, the game is still the focus of the largest social gatherings in Great Britain and, therefore, safety precautions must be imposed by competent experts who must have frequent access to the grounds and whose decisions and suggestions can be authoritatively imposed. For all these reasons, therefore, I welcome this Wheatley Report.
5.34 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, first, I must add my congratulations and my thanks to the noble Earl for providing us with an opportunity of discussing Lord Wheatley's invaluable and lucid Report on the dangers of and the remedies for large crowds at sports grounds. In paragraph 72 of his Report he refers exclusively to football grounds and it is to this aspect that I and probably other speakers are turning.
For the major part of the season professional
216
association football in both England and Scotland is organised and administered by the Football League, consisting of four divisions of between 22 and 24 clubs in each division; and the Scottish League of two divisions, of 18 and 19 clubs respectively. The Report raises a number of very relevant and useful points concerning the safety of the spectators. Paragraph 67 states that the clubs have a paramount duty "to see that their grounds are reasonably safe for spectators". But neither of the speakers so far has pointed out that most grounds in England and Scotland are no more than half full throughout the season, and perhaps only three or four times in any one year is there any question regarding the safety of spectators because of overcrowding. Such occasions could be a league match against local rivals, or a cup match against one of the more successful teams in the land. There are, I understand, about six grounds in England and two in Scotland which are regularly filled to within 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of their capacity. Only these eight clubs and a handful more both in Scotland and England are able to meet their expenses from their receipts at the turnstiles—the deficit is made up from selling players to more successful clubs, from development funds, from mini-lotteries, social clubs and, mainly, from the private means of directors who will either pay in large amounts of cash or will guarantee bank overdrafts and loans.
Thus, the question of finance can be seen in a new and somewhat more tricky light. The clubs that are financially healthy are those to which, in the main, the Report applies. These clubs—about 12 in England and 4 in Scotland—play at grounds of varying capacities, but mostly the stadia have grown up in the midst of factories, houses and wasteland. Various stands are improved and modernised each year as finances and physical limitations permit. Nevertheless, there are physical and financial limits to what can be done to modernise and to make safe grounds which regularly hold 40,000 to 50,000 spectators at each league or cup match. Of course, in Scotland where we take our football seriously, club grounds will accommodate 70,000 to 80,000 spectators.
It was at one of these grounds, Ibrox, that in January, 1971, as we have heard

217
from the noble Earl, a huge section of the crowd on leaving the terracing at Ibrox, fell, tumbled and slithered down a staircase towards the exit, and we had this terrible toll of 66 fatalities and over 100 people injured. But nobody has yet been able to define any particular cause for that tragedy. However, it is fairly certain that very little blame could be attached to the Rangers Football Club who own the ground, or to the stadium itself. This tragedy, which united the City of Glasgow in grief, gave rise to the Report which we are discussing to-day, and it is ironical that the Rangers Football Club to whom Ibrox belongs had done everything possible to make the ground safer and more attractive to its supporters. Indeed, since 1971 large additional amounts of seating accommodation have been added and the club has now done more than it could reasonably be asked to do to make safety of prime importance in the stadium.
The Lang Report, which examined crowd behaviour, laid stress on the importance of increased seating accommodation. We have yet to see in England the first football stadium with seating accommodation only. This is due mainly to the advancing age of many British stadia together with the physical constrictions that I have mentioned. It is believed that potential violence is reduced when spectators are unable to move forward. There is certainly less danger from crowd surge; but from personal experience the offer of violence can still be present and, much worse, escape from this violence is far more difficult. The main advantage of seating accommodation is to minimise the risk of turmoil and pushng when the game is over, and it is this point which should be stressed when forestalling the chance of a similar incident to that which occurred at Ibrox. When seating of the spectators is not immediately possible, there will be large banked and stepped terraces where crush barriers will minimise the surging of crowds. These terracings are not perfect, but much is being done to make them more reasonable. However, a vast amount of freedom of movement is possible and, thankfully, numbers are rarely as great as those at Ibrox, so that the problems and risks are considerably diminished.
218
The Report sets out some excellent constructive points for reducing the risks when such large numbers of people are gathered in one place. Paragraph 43 suggests that grounds should be licensed just as are other places of public entertainment. The local authority should be able to determine the capacity that can be seen to be safe, on arrival at, during the match, and on leaving any particular ground. I entirely endorse this suggestion. But already the police can advise on a tolerable capacity, and I believe this should be made statutory at all sports grounds, both large and small.
I come to behaviour of the crowds at football matches. This is, I regret to say, of very great relevance. Spectators go to football, I believe, particularly in the case of the major league grounds, to be entertained, but also to express their anger, joy or rage at what goes on in front of them. I think it is unreasonable to expect 50,000 people necessarily to behave like an audience at a symphony concert. There is a great danger in believing that any measures we are discussing will correct crowd behaviour or crowd emotions. We have heard of the Ibrox disaster. But within very recent memory in Lima over 300 people were killed on May 24, 1964, when police had to fire tear gas into a section of the crowd at a match in an attempt to separate rioting spectators. Many of the fatalities occurred outside the stadium, but nevertheless this incident started and grew in one of the most modern stadia in South America. To go further back, I understand that in about 140 A.D. over 1,100 spectators died when wooden tiers collapsed at the Circus Maximus in Rome during a gladiatorial contest. We are not told how many Christians were eaten by the lions in the supporting contests.
Crowd behaviour, I think, is the main factor in any safety measures, and if violence does break out these same safety measures could easily imperil innocent bystanders who cannot escape over some of the suggested high fences, over moats or ditches, or indeed round or through barriers. Nevertheless, I consider the main points of the Report are more valid than ever to-day, two years after the disaster occurred at Ibrox. The safety of spectators is still a matter of paramount importance, and I should like to

219
add my support to the noble Earl in asking the Government to work out any means possible for allowing those clubs which are profitable and which regularly attract large numbers of spectators to keep as much of their profit as possible for the purpose of implementing the recommendations of the Report. If further help can be obtained from the Government, then it will be seized as a valuable bonus. My Lords, I support the Motion.
5.43 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I range myself with the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Coventry, as being one who enjoys an afternoon at a football match, and, with him and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I thank the noble Earl for raising this matter this afternoon. As I understand it, there is no argument against the proposition that we need to have the maximum possible safety arrangements at all football grounds or all grounds where large sporting crowds gather, and I do not detect any heavy attack against the recommendations of Lord Wheatley that licensing and consequent inspection responsibilities should be placed upon the local authority. Certainly the Football Association feel that their own capacity to inspect and certify was adequate, and certainly I would accept from the right reverend Prelate that if, as he modestly states, his local football team is Coventry City, then from all that I read they have done a lot with their ground; I hope one day I might even be allowed to go and see exactly how luxurious are the facilities they provide. Many clubs have done a good deal, but I do not think we can argue against the proposition that there is still more to be done; and I cannot myself see that there is any better arrangement than that proposed by Lord Wheatley that the inspection and the licensing should be in the hands of the local authorities.
But the question is one of money. Although my heart warmed when the Bishop of Coventry was talking about the merits of positive and attacking football, I doubt very much whether that alone will provide sufficient crowds to provide enough money to achieve the right sort of standards throughout the football playing world. The noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, says that this is a matter for the organisation who wish
220
to be licensed; and so it is, of course. But there is nevertheless a public interest, a spectator interest, in this, and I do not think we can wash our hands of it. What seems to me to be wrong—and it seems so wrong that I may be mistaken as to the facts—is that expenditure on fixed capital costs, on stands, for example, and the fittings, do not qualify for any tax rebate. If again, as I am given to understand, a club can spend £200,000 on a player and that sum is allowable as an expense in their accounting for inland revenue purposes, this is an absurd state of affairs. Not only do these large expenditures do much to give a wrong image to modern football; I think they have done as much as anything to make some people think that it is all a bit of a racket and turn aside to something else. I think it is wrong and against the best interests of soccer that there should be these large sums of money spent on some young man. But it is equally wrong that if a club tries to have proper standards of accommodation, proper safety arrangements, the money which they spend on this fixed capital equipment is not allowable for taxation purposes. I hope we may be assured by the noble Viscount who is to reply that this point is seriously being considered.
I accept what was said behind me by one of my noble friends about the Government coming to the aid of those clubs that have not faced up to their responsibilities in the past. I accept that. But we are moving into a situation where, unless the Chancellor says something very unexpected next month, a further financial impost will be placed upon those clubs in the shape of value added tax. This seems a quite retrograde step. After all the argument we had about the entertainment tax, after all the agreement that was reached that exceptions should be made in the case of football, we are apparently going backwards and placing this impost upon a sport which will not in the main be able to afford it. In these circumstances there is a very special need for the Government to see whether something can be done to help those clubs which need to bring up their standards of accommodation to a proper level but just do not have the money.
One other thing I would mention. The Report refers very briefly—and the right

221
reverend Prelate referred to it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—to the question of human behaviour. Of course this is relevant to the question of safety. Some of the factors which have a bearing on the control of crowds are within the responsibility of clubs; for example, they can control admissions, they can control the sale of drink, and in other ways they can have some control over behaviour, proper provision of police and so on. But it still remains the case that the psychology of some of these crowds is created by factors outside of the football ground. In this context, although I am not one automatically to criticise the media, I think it is possible that television has not helped in this regard. There was a time when "Match of the Day" was an enjoyable thing to watch, but now it seems to be an opportunity to try and stir up some feverish excitement about the whole thing. There is very little connection sometimes between the match one sees and the selected incidents shown upon the television screen; and that prelude, that preview, before the match of the day, showing a frantic, indeed frenetic, dashing about the field by some of these characters is calculated, I think, to give an entirely wrong atmosphere to the football crowds, and to encourage the wrong kind of behaviour among spectators. I recall when it was a happy presentation. I remember my family used to cheer when Danny Blanchflower was shown holding up the cup in that happy picture of him, but that is completely different from what the television authority seems to think we want now.
I very much hope that they will look at this, and wonder and cogitate whether jazzing up their soccer presentation is in the best interests of all concerned. It is not a major factor, but it could be a contributory one, and I think that we have to consider this aspect of crowd behaviour when we are considering safety. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to tell us that the Government accept some responsibility for making available directly—or, if not directly, indirectly—the finance that will be needed by some of the clubs to bring their grounds up to the proper state.
5.51 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, as is almost always
222
the case in your Lordships' House, those who have spoken in this debate have turned out to be not only devotees of football but singularly well-informed ones at that. Somehow I do not think that my noble friend is going to persevere with his request for Papers, since it is plain that he has read all that are available, and I do not suppose that he is alone in that among those who have taken part in this debate. He pointed out that the Wheatley Report is the latest in a long series arising from sad disasters where people were injured or crushed to death in large crowds, mainly at football matches. I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that these have highlighted the problem. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Lyell was really saying that we ought to underestimate these disasters when they occur, or the need to secure that a ground, when it is full, is safe, just because that ground may on other occasions be less than wholly filled.
I wondered at one stage in the speech of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull whether he was taking sides with those who, he said, had been showing a certain lack of enthusiasm for the implementation of the Wheatley proposals. If one looks at the history of this subject one realises, I think, that we have now reached the stage where something has to be done. I will not go through all the details of past inquiries, because my noble friend has really done this. The Wembley incident in 1923 to which he referred was in fact a football incident. Fortunately, nobody was killed. The Crowd Safety Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Shortt recommended measures for safety on sports grounds on a voluntary basis, but even at that time they thought that if that method failed we should fall back on full licensing controls. The matter was looked at again, though in a slightly different context, by Mr. Dunne, after a terrible disaster in 1943 at the air raid shelter at Bethnal Green Underground station, when an incident on a staircase occurred very similar to that which took place at Ibrox Park recently.
My noble friend mentioned the Bolton Wanderers inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Moelwyn Hughes. I am afraid that in that incident 33 people died. The Committee recommended—

223
and this was in 1946—statutory licensing for safety, but after the Report had been considered it was eventually decided to rely on voluntary arrangements. That was the beginning of the process that has led up to certification, particularly on matters like safety limits, communications, and local authority inspection. Again my noble friend was quite right to refer to the Lang Committee Report in 1969, because that suggested that the memoranda on the voluntary basis issued by the Football Associations after the Bolton Wanderers report should be brought up to date and reissued. That was probably in the process of being done when the matter was overtaken by the Ibrox Park accident That particular occurrence was described in brief by my noble friend, and I am sure that I do not have to go into the details of it again. The jury, I recall, were specifically advised by the sheriff who dealt with the inquiry not to go into the question of fault for the club, and I do not believe that that matter has ever been gone into at all. Certainly I can confirm my noble friend's speech that the staircase concerned has since been improved.
Here we have the Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, and although he had some assistance I think that this Report was something that he largely produced on his own. I am not sure that anybody in a speech from the Government side has ever thanked him for the energy and wisdom he put into this matter. It involved a good deal of travelling between Edinburgh and London in addition to his judicial duties. It did not take him very long, and I think that we should be grateful to him for the thoroughness which he put into this job. As various noble Lords have said, we have reached a stage where he recommends in paragraph 17 that the voluntary certification procedure should be considered inadequate. I think I should be offering myself as a hostage to fortune if I were to fall in with the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull that I should say what the Government think about the general state of soccer grounds at this moment. If one looks at paragraph 17 one finds that Lord Wheatley says this:
"There are no standards to act as guidelines, so one cannot know what standards the 'qualified
224
personnel' apply. And there is apparently no requirement for anyone with the requisite qualifications to look at the inter-relation of the various features of the ground to see whether the ground, viewed as a whole, is safe for the public. The Football Associations accept the certificates without question, and there is no machinery to test their validity, accuracy or reliability."
It is precisely in order to cure that that we are getting down to work on codes of practice, and I shall come on to that subject in a moment.
I have no doubt that Coventry City is one of the shining exceptions to any criticism on this score. I would just make a comment on the right reverend Prelate's point about new buildings. I do not think that there is any difficulty about seeing that the standards of safety in new buildings are all that they should be, because the buildings are subject to planning and building regulation control when they are put up. The trouble arises about the old ones and about sonic method of imposing statutory requirements, or some sort of requirements, on their safety.
Very soon after the Wheatley Report was published—it is dated May, 1972—my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary accepted it. Indeed, in a Written Answer on May 3, at column 161, he said:
"The Government accept the Report in principle, and, in particular, the recommendation that certain football grounds should be subject to a statutory licensing control administered by local authorities. So that the necessary legislation may be prepared, there will now be consultations with those concerned, particularly with local authority and football interests, on the proposals in the Report."
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that certainly nothing in the debate to-day, perhaps with the possible exception of a slight innuendo in the speech of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, has shown that anybody wants to depart from that acceptance by the Government. That was our response. My noble friend asked what response there was, and he described what the Football Associations thought, but the Government's response was instant and took the form that I have described.
I will not spend very long on this nasty, tiresome legal stuff, but it has to be looked at. One might ask, why is legislation needed? One has only to look

225
at paragraph 13 of the Wheatley Report, where it goes through the existing legal powers, to find that nothing is really quite tailored to the sort of matter that we need to deal with. There are two further powers which he did not mention. There is a section in the old 1890 Public Health Act which, at any rate in the case of one football ground—actually it is in Portsmouth—has been used by the council, which so far as can be done under that Act, annually inspects and certifies the ground. So we have here the patchy picture of the law being interpreted sometimes in one way and sometimes in another, with nothing clearly biting on the sort of problems which most people would agree should be dealt with by way of law. The other power which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, did not mention is the byelaw making power which local authorities sometimes have in local Acts. These relate to unruly crowd behaviour, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, may have thought that that aspect was slightly outside his terms of reference.
I agree with those who have spoken, that crowd behaviour is very much an inherent part of the problem that we are looking at. It may have to be controlled partly by the influence of the police and partly by the influence of the clubs, and I think I read this morning that British Rail have now provided a special train which has all sorts of amusements on board, which may be hired for supporters. But crowd behaviour can also be controlled by physical means, and such things as gangways to let the police get to the seat of the trouble quickly are a very important structural feature which should be borne in mind. However, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that hooliganism has recently been tackled from many aspects, and nobody is more glad than I am to know that that is so.
My noble friend Lord Lyell mentioned the sad affair at Lima, which was indeed a tragic disaster. The players started fighting each other, whereupon the crowd threw objects at them and the police fired tear gas bombs at the crowd, at which many of the crowd rushed for the exits only to find the doors shut, because there was a rule that the doors could not be opened till five minutes before the end of the match. I am afraid
226
that as a result 300 people died. I suspect that the main difference is that the police in this country would be unlikely to fire tear gas bombs at the crowd and, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said, it may be that we are a tiny bit less excitable than those in Peru who were present on that occasion.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount has said that the police are unlikely to fire tear gas among the spectators, but I think he fails to understand that the spectators are quite likely to have such implements in their own hands and to use them in inter-team fighting in the stands. This is a crucial aspect. The noble Viscount believes that many of the spectators have wings of angels, but I think the right reverend Prelate would indicate otherwise.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords, I do not think I suggested that they have wings of angels. But what I believe is happening—and my study of the papers has indicated this—is that the police are getting more and more expert at spotting people who have offensive weapons. Incidentally, I can think of no more terrible offence under the Firearms Act than, as a member of the public, to have a tear gas bomb, and I hope that those to which my noble friend has referred are of slightly lesser lethality. The police know very well what may happen and they are getting increasingly good at removing offensive weapons from members of the public. But of course one must not be complacent. I was merely drawing attention to a certain difference between what happens here and what goes on in Peru. However, I think I shall meet with no opposition when I inform the House that what went on in Roman circuses has nothing to do with the Home Office. My noble friend made a comment in that respect, and I think I can duck that one without much difficulty.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, recommended the special statutory scheme, and I am so glad—as I expected to be the case—that noble Lords realise that he set out the framework, including appeals, on which the Football Associations place so much emphasis, as well as the phasing which the right reverend Prelate described,

227
which, again, is of the greatest importance on the financial side. What have the Government done about this, after accepting the matter in principle? My right honourable friend said that consultations were needed and the vital feature here is Appendix A, which is the technical report at the end of the Wheatley document. This is an area where you have expertise from architects, from surveyors, from policemen, from firemen and, I am told, from people called operational research scientists. When I asked what they did, I was told that they are people who are able to tell you about the pressure of the crowd and the respective strength of barriers and the human body; and, of course, it is most important that we should have that sort of expertise. Strangely enough, this is the first time that we have had any technical guidance on the matter. It is true that it was contained in the Winterbottom Report, but I do not think my noble friend need feel worried that that Report was not published, because it was almost wholly absorbed in the technical Appendix to the Wheatley Report. Subject to what I am going to say now, I think we have all the material that we could possibly use in that Appendix.
That Appendix A was not a desk exercise only. It was tested at one football ground, at any rate, and it was modified. But I entirely agree with my noble friend, that it needed to go further than the team who prepared it, and needed the advice from, and the consultation with, practical men in the football world, which was advocated by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. That is why an informal Working Party was set up by the Government with people of exactly that sort involved, and they finished their work on the first stage last week. What we have to do next is to look at the initial reactions to this Working Party's Report. Second—and this is another answer to my noble friend—we have to incorporate points about fire precautions which were specifically left out of Appendix A; that will be done as well. Next, bearing in mind what my noble friend has said, we think it would be very wise to go back again to the practical men and ask them to look at the results of those two stages. That is what we shall do, because I have no doubt that this is a vital area and it is essential that we should get this code
228
of practice right. But I must also emphasise, if we are to have statutory licensing, that the Wheatley Report did not suggest that the technical code should form a statutory part of it, because it is quite obvious that the guidelines which are so much needed must be flexible to allow for the endless local variations between one club or one ground and another. To get these guidelines right is, I believe, an essential prerequisite to any legislative process.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before my noble friend moves on, may I ask whether these consultations cover Scotland as well as England and Wales?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think so, my Lords and I very much hope that they do. If I am wrong about that, I shall inform my noble friend. But I should have thought it would be extraordinarily unwise of us to leave Scotland out of this. I think both Home Departments have been involved, both North and South of the Border. I must comment a little wryly on one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I take what he said about the capital expenditure on improving stands, but this point was drawn to the attention of his Government by the Chester Report in 1968, specifically and ill terms, and I rather suspect that the reason why they did nothing about it may he the same as the reason why we have done nothing about it. All I can do in matters of taxation is to pass on to my right honourable friend in another place what he has said, and that I shall certainly do. But there is that historical background to the matter.
LORD BESWICK: I accept that, my Lords, but it will not have escaped the notice of the noble Viscount that there are a number of things which this Government have said, and past Governments have said, were impossible but which, on reflection, they have found they could do quite easily.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, all I am pointing out is that both Governments seem to have said that it was impossible, and perhaps this adds strength to my case; but I do not know.
Now it will no doubt be something that involves finance, and I must confess that, as is the case in the rest of his

229
Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, got the Government's position very accurately stated in paragraph 60 of his Report. He said:
"The Government's general policy as brought to my notice by the Treasury is that in the private sector occupiers of premises should take whatever measures are necessary for the safety of their customers while they are on the premises and should finance such measures themselves."
On the other hand, we had the other day—and this has been referred to by some noble Lords—a plaint from the Football League, who pointed out what they considered to be the need for an extra £5 million and brought up again the Chester Committee's recommendation of a Football Levy Board. This is a very recent matter, and the Government have not made their mind up on this particular statement; but I am bound to say that my personal reaction to it—and it is purely a personal one—is to look with a certain interest at the sums of money which are stated as passing from one organisation to another, because it does not seem to me that it is clear beyond a peradventure that the £5 million can he found only from one source—but perhaps that is as may be.
But, naturally, the point of finance is one of very great importance. I should have thought that a promising approach was the suggestion of phasing the coming into effect of these controls, so that they first applied to the grounds with the greatest pressures of crowd and perhaps also the best finances, while gradually and over quite a long period working through to give time for clubs to save up, and so on. I believe that we would have to co-ordinate this question of finance indeed, we have got to co-ordinate it as Her Majesty's Government—over a number of Departments, and, as with the technical code, we have got to do this before legislation is introduced. But, on the other side, I would again draw attention to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, said in paragraph 71:
"On the financial side, clubs"—
and this is the football world—
"may have to re-appraise their priorities. It may be that some of the money spent at present in other directions will have to be spent on necessary ground improvements."
So I believe there is room for consideration of this financal aspect on both sides.
230
It is not just a matter for the Government to look at again: it should be looked at by everybody.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the last thing I want to do is to inject a Party view into this matter, but would not the noble Viscount accept that the potential imposition of a value added tax on football grounds makes a very big difference between what happened under the previous Administration and what is to happen under the present one?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if the noble Lord were to study the Football League's statement and see where all the money goes and the amounts involved, I do not know whether he would pursue that particular point. But, as I said, the matter of value added tax is not something I can deal with, but is something I can only pass on to my right honourable friend.
My Lords, I hope that this has been a useful debate. It has certainly been useful to me to hear the endorsement that has come all round for the Wheatley recommendations. We still think that legislation is necessary. As I have explained, we are engaged in the processes involved, but while this is going on we must not forget the disasters of the past. I do not want anything that I have said about our looking at this or that, or about clubs looking at this or that, to detract in any way from the need for clubs all the time, as I know most of them do, to bear in mind the safety of their spectators and the need to do everything possible for them. Even if the voluntary system has not proved the ultimate, there is a lot of good in it and in the interim, while we are waiting for the final outcome, I would urge all concerned to look again at the voluntary code of practice that the Football Association has prepared to see whether it can be implemented at each ground, or implemented better or more fully, and to take account of the (I think) ready co-operation that will be received from the local authorities, the police and the fire services as well. In that way, both we as Government and the football organisations themselves will endeavour not only to prevent another disaster but, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull himself said, even minimise the risk of any such disaster.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. I was very glad to learn that among the football enthusiasts in this House there are a number of right reverend Prelates and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lye11 for, among other things, his historical notes on Roman and South American tragedies. I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Colville that I personally fully support Lord Wheatley's recommendations. I am sorry if my noble friend possibly thought otherwise. I believe that speakers have given their unanimous support to the Report, and I am very glad that we have obtained my noble friend's assurance that action is being taken. On that hopeful note, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FARMERS' RETIREMENT HOMES
6.17 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH LORD GISBOROUGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the demand by farmers to build their retirement homes on their own farm land and of their overwhelming territorial association with that land, whether planning consent may be allowed to them without such consent being held as a precedent to enable other people to build in the open country. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as amalgamations of farms take place and farmers retire, or as, having farmed all their lives, they hand over to their sons at an ever earlier age in order to guard their families from being thrown off their farms by the effects of death duties, they apply for planning permission to build retirement houses on a piece of their land perhaps not far from their villages, perhaps not far from the local pub they have known all their lives, and on the land which they have known arid worked all their lives. Over and over again county planning committees, presented with these applications, turn them down. These applications are referred to the county by the area planning officers because the area committee has usually wished to grant permission against the advice of the planning officer, and the planning officer has taken the
232
dispute to the county. The area planning committees have, with local knowledge and with local sympathy, wished to grant permission; and so have the planning officers and the county planning committees. But they know that if they do then other people will apply to build houses alongside those retirement houses, using those retirement houses as a precedent: that they will probably succeeed in getting permission, if necessary on appeal: and that in no time there will be a ribbon or sporadic development on all sides of the village. So the farmer looks again for a house in the village, probably without success, and eventually finds himself in the local town or in a different area. Very often it is a matter of great hardship and distress for the farmer, and many times he has a feeling of injustice, such as that indicated in letters which have been sent to me and which perhaps only a countryman will appreciate.
One answer, perhaps, lies in the policy which certain counties are adopting; that of converting farm buildings. As old farm buildings and farmsteads become obsolete and uneconomic through the merging of acreages, and as stock gets congregated into large, umbrella-like brick buildings, it enables these farmsteads to be converted into country cottages and small settlements. There is a big demand for these small cottages, particularly in the National Parks, either as a main house or, if for nothing else, as holiday cottages. There are several problems with this policy; problems of sewerage, conservation, landscape and so on. Each case is, in fact, decided on its merits. But these considerations are more beneficial to the public who may want their country cottage than to the farmer who is retiring.
The answer which I think could be worth considering is a new form of planning consent which is not available under the present law. Where a new man can prove "overwhelming territorial association" (a phrase I have used for lack of a better) with a piece of land; that is to say, that he has farmed it for twenty years, the authority should be able to give him planning permission for a new house under a new section of the Act. Then it would be inadmissible for the permission for that house to be used as a precedent by anybody else applying to build a house nearby. Thus the farmer

233
will have his way and the planning authorities will be satisfied. An obvious problem is that of what happens when the farmer dies. Some farmers have already succeeded in getting a house near their farms for their retirement in cases where the area planning officers have not felt strongly enough to take the matter to the county. Obviously, in these cases they have considered that the risk is acceptable. There would obviously be a need for only one retirement house per holding. When the farmer dies, the family would have to take appropriate action to reserve that house for themselves for when they need it. This has happened many times. Young farmers, the sons, have moved into that house which is perhaps much more economical to run. Perhaps the old farmhouse has been divided, modernised and turned into two houses for farmworkers.
Another obvious question is of what happens if the system gets abused. Farmers could apply to build a house and then sell it and go off and live elsewhere. Just as a farmworker's cottage can be built under the condition that it is used only for farmworkers, so should these houses be built conditional upon their being occupied by the farmer in his retirement. All these things have lots of "ifs" and "buts" about them. It is possible to tear anything to pieces. Nothing is perfect. But I think that by and large it is a system which would work. Where it has already happened, where farmers have had their retirement houses, there does not appear to have been any abuses—certainly not in my part of the world.
Young farmers these days are less inclined to work for seven days a week and 52 weeks a year. They all want holidays and the odd weekend off. This can be extremely difficult when there is stock to be fed and cows to be milked; so there would be an advantage in having an older farmer not too far away who could help on these occasions, who could come in at lambing time and harvest time. This would allow the old farmers to keep an active interest and to have an active retirement. And it is a two-way help; for when the old farmers have got beyond helping the young farmers, the latter are in a position to be not too far away to help the retired farmers in their old age.
When the new local government planning set-up is operated, one must remember that the area planning committee will become the district planning committee and will no longer be able to refer disputes to the county planners. The district planning committee, like the area planning committee now, with local sympathies and knowledge, will allow these farmers to have their retirement houses on their farms. So, without a change in the Act, the kind of permissions which we must learn to expect will establish a precedent. It will no doubt allow other people to build houses in the country alongside the farmers' retirement houses and we must expect to see ribbon development and sporadic development outside the villages. It may be said that if one allowed more retirement houses under this proposed new section which one might introduce, it would be easier for isolated houses to "adopt" the countryside. They will in any case with the new district planning committees; so it is a question of whether one has houses dotting the countryside or whether one has holdings or houses accompanied by ribbon development and sporadic development. Even as a rabid conservationist of rural areas, I do not abhor the building of isolated cottages, but I should like to see stricter controls and a more imaginative standard of siting and design, of elevation and of materials. I believe that with care the individual house can enhance the countryside.
It is not necessary for me to say more other than to repeat that at the moment many farmers feel a sense of hardship and injustice that they cannot retire on the land of their fathers or of their lifetime. Again, I warn that under the district planning procedure, when disputes cannot be referred to the county, we must expect that the farmers will get permission to build, that precedents will be established and that this will lead to ribbon development and sporadic development.
6.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I added my name to the list on finding that the noble Lord was in the position of having to start a debate with nobody but a Government speaker on the list of speakers to question what he said or to support it. For that reason he was good enough to agree that I might join in. I

235
should like to support the proposal that he has made. I do not think that he has defined what kind of farmer he is thinking of: whether it is the owner occupier, the tenant farmer or even a bailiff. For instance, in my own case I am here because of the excellence of my bailiff. After 30 years he might also have qualified. Therefore, when this matter is considered it should presumably cover types of farmers. I entirely support the noble Lord's arguments on grounds other than that of the retired farmer situation. We on the farms have no neighbours. If we asked townsmen to retire to circumstances similar to those to which farmers like to retire, they would regard it as an intolerable burden and would be very bored. Surely a superannuation house, attached more often than not as a regular practice to farmsteads, would provide a certain neighbourly assistance not only in the agricultural department but to the women—for instance, in baby sitting—and it would enable the family as a whole to get out while somebody looked after those things which must be looked after.
I appreciate the difficulties of the administrators—and this is my last point. There must be a category; otherwise the administrator will always be in the very difficult position which I illustrate by an old chestnut, a limerick, which runs:
"A diner got up and said, 'Phew!,
I've found a small mouse in my stew.'
Said the waiter, 'Don't shout
And wave it about;
The others will all want one, too'."
That is the answer. If it is a house, it is wanted even more than a mouse. If there is a category to which they can refer, the administrators will say that "the law provides". Otherwise, you will have local opinion in the area, knowing the matter and saying that the administrators have a favourite spot for this particular farmer. Without legislation, it seems to me to be difficult for the bureaucrat, to whom an anomaly is always absolute anathema. That anomaly is possible only if it is provided for in the legislation.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, for the same reason as was given by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I too wish to join in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for introducing this subject which I think will be understood by all who have ever lived in the country.
236
I will make a mini-speech. The idea of the dear old farmer, after all his active years, retiring and building himself a house and watching the grass grow on his favourite farm is a lovely one. The danger is caused by the knavish tricks of the developer, for which we have to watch out. Developers are with us in strength. A developer could say to the farmer: "George, you are going to retire. You are selling your stock and implements. You will be selling your cows and your pigs—if you are allowed to take them to market—and then that will be your chips. You could go off to your aunt's house outside Harrogate and live there. But listen to me. I want to help you because I like you. You put in an application to build a house on your own land. I will build it for you and it will cost you nothing, and then I will buy it from you when it is built." My Lords, I think "nuff said"!
6.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, we must all feel sympathetic with the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. We all know of many cases in the country where everyone would like to see this happen. It is very reasonable that when a farmer gets too old to run his farm himself he may still want, if he can, to keep close to his old home and the fields which have been his whole life. I think, therefore, that it would be the hope of us all that planning authorities would be as sympathetic as possible in cases of that kind. But I see certain difficulties about giving, as it were, an automatic right. I think that various difficulties will stem from that.
One knows of cases where a retired farmer has built himself a bungalow and, unfortunately, has died or moved away somewhere else, and someone from the nearby town has come to live in the bungalow. That has been a stroke of luck for the person who was given the opportunity to live in the bungalow. I agree with the aspiration of my noble friend that some way should be found to make it possible, in genuine cases, for people to be able to live close to their old home. The noble Lord was quite right when he said that it is often a great advantage to have someone who has retired living close to the farm so that

237
he may be available in an emergency. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Sandford has to say, because I can see certain difficulties in the proposal which has been made to give an automatic right.
6.34 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I have put down my name to speak on this Unstarred Question, although somewhat late in the day, and I endorse and support what has been said by previous speakers, and especially by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I was interested in the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in the first debate to-day about the plight of the elderly relative. She mentioned a different aspect of this matter but one which relates to this Unstarred Question; namely, what happens to the parent or elderly relative if no planning permission is granted for a second house to be built on the property. Let us suppose that there are four options. One would be to look for another house in the nearby village or town; the second would be to seek planning permission for a temporary dwelling; the third would be to search for a sufficiently large caravan; and the final, and most unpalatable, option would be to consider putting the relative into a home.
My noble friend Lady Elles mentioned the cost of accommodation in a home as being roughly £30 to £40 a week. I have seen homes where elderly people are looked after, not particularly well or in particularly comfortable surroundings, for these enormous charges, and I wish to stress to the Government, purely from a welfare viewpoint, that this is an important matter. There are few places available in homes run by local authorities and surely, therefore, it should be incumbent on planning authorities—if the directors of the social services and the planning authorities think along parallel lines—to see that this question of planning permission is considered. Some local authorities genuinely beleve that they are fulfilling their duty by denying planning permission. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gisborough that that is a product of the urban mind. It is the case that the proportion of the population concerned with the land amounts to approximately 3 per cent. and that 97 per cent. of the people dwelling in this country are not concerned with agriculture.
238
So it is natural that they should not be able to understand the outlook of those who are concerned with the land.
It seems to me that the question is whether the developer will get a look in. May I suggest—and I hope this suggestion is in line with the proposal of my noble friend—that there might be a second option in respect of planning permission; that is, not necessarily for a permanent dwelling, but for a temporary dwelling or an encroachment upon the site which would have a life of 15 to 20 years, and then the planning permission would cease. If a farmhouse lay in a conservation area where a new dwelling would be unsightly in the long term, surely there would be a case for encroachment and some relaxation. That would not let in the developer and it would deny the charge which has been levelled.
6.38 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, it was not my intention to take part in the debate, because when the list of speakers first appeared there was on it only the names of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the Minister, but since then the number of speakers has multiplied to at least five so I think I may say a word on the subject. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, had to say, although I did not quite follow his argument. Apparently he thought that there was difficulty in paying death duties and he spoke about a person's being thrown off the land and having a new house—all at the same time. I should have thought that the person who paid the death duties would have departed this life and therefore would not be interested in having a house, because he would have gone to one of his Father's mansions and that would solve the problem for him.
I should like the Minister to give consideration to what was done in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) legislation. As your Lordships will know, one of the problems which prevented the amalgamation of small farms was that of housing accommodation. There might be two farms adjacent to each other and each too small to be an economic proposition separately, whereas amalgamated they would form a viable unit. Always the trouble was to find somewhere for one of the farmers to live. I think it was in the 1969–70 Bill that we went out of our

239
way to make accommodation for the second farmer: in other words, to allow him to retain his house on his farm while amalgamating the farm. It seems to me that along those lines something could well be done. If you are going to try to inject planning permission into each of these cases, I think you are going to cause a fair amount of trouble. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who said that once you agree to this proposal anything can happen. The house then becomes a great difficulty, because in the end you find, not somebody who is retiring from a farm but someone who is looking for a country residence. That can mean difficulty inside the farming industry.
While I understand the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, was trying to make, I do not think we should pretend that this is a simple problem to solve. I should be glad if the Minister would give some thought to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which dealt with amalgamations and sought to deal with this particular problem at the same time, because perhaps along that road a solution might be found to the problem raised by the noble Lord to-night.
6.42 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gisborough for having raised this matter, and I am sympathetic, as indeed I am sure we all are—and nobody put it better than the noble Lord, Lord Strange—with the point of view of people who have lived perhaps the greater part of their lives on a farm in the country and who wish on retirement to remain in the neighbourhood. We would not want farmers to have to struggle on in their work simply because they cannot face having to leave the area where they have worked and lived for so long. But I do not think we could encourage local planning authorities to permit retiring farmers to build new homes for themselves on their farmland if this involved a clear conflict with normal good planning principles. I believe that to build in the open country in
240
situations unrelated to existing settlements would in general involve such conflicts. In this context, I would say that there is nothing in the changes in local government that are coming about on April 1, 1974, which of itself will alter the legislation on which these policies are based or the Development Control Policy Notes by which the local planning authorities are being guided.
On the other hand—and this was a solution to which my noble friend Lord Sandys was looking—where a farmer has land, or could obtain it, in a situation where a new dwelling would make a suitable addition to an existing village or hamlet, planning permission might reasonably be granted unless there were special planning policies applying in the area: for example, where the village was within the Green Belt and was not to grow at all. If a proposal put forward by a farmer was on planning grounds finely balanced, then the personal circumstances of his territorial associations with the land and the locality might well tip the scales in his favour. I can assure my noble friend that on appeal to my right honourable friend any evidence given of this kind is very carefully considered, but, as I have already said, it is unlikely to outweigh the general strong planning objections. We have to bear in mind, as both my noble friends Lord Gisborough and Lord Amory mentioned, that though a house might be permitted initially to meet a purely personal need, the house is certainly going to remain where it was built long after the personal circumstances of the original applicant cease to be material. This is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, also rightly drew our attention.
My Lords, I think the House would agree that the case for allowing a house in the country for a retiring farmer can be distinguished clearly from that of a house needed for the running of a farm. If it is established that there is a long-term need for an agricultural worker to live on a farm to be near animals which he has to look after, then planning policies do not preclude the building of an additional house. But clearly care must be taken in the siting of such dwellings, and authorities will be concerned to ensure that a dwelling is in fact reserved I for an agricultural worker. There is

241
certainly plenty of scope for abuse here if that policy is not strictly enforced. To this end, planning authorities will in general impose a condition limiting occupancy in this way. Such conditions do not preclude a retired worker from remaining in a farm dwelling. That, I think, meets the point made by my noble friend Lord Sandys about the compassion which we should show to, for instance, the widow of a retired agricultural worker, who can also without infringing the conditions remain in a farm cottage where this is acceptable to the farmer. But it would not be appropriate to impose a condition limiting occupancy of a new house to a retired farmer.
There are fortunately, however, other ways in which retiring farmers may be able to obtain houses in the country near where they have farmed. I would think that the increase in productivity of labour on farms, and also to some extent the amalgamation of farm holdings, which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, mentioned, are resulting in a continuing fall in the agricultural labour force, and in many areas existing farm cottages are no longer required for farm workers. A retiring farmer may therefore be able to retain for his own use such a property on his own land, or to acquire one from a neighbour. Where the standard of such a dwelling is not suitable for the farmer in its existing state, he may well be able to improve it, possibly with financial assistance from the local authority. Many of these improvements do not require planning permission, and, even where they do, the local planning authority will often be ready to look favourably on an application from such a person for such a purpose. Where an existing house would not he suitable for improvement in this way, the site might prove acceptable to a local planning authority for a new dwelling.
My Lords, I think I have gone as far as I can in showing how a retiring farmer is likely to be able to find a house for himself in the area in which he has farmed without overturning planning policies and without requiring any special policy in his favour. After having looked at this with some care, I think this is the right way to tackle the problem that we have been discussing. But I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the
242
opportunity to discuss it and to have the benefit of his views on it and those of other noble Lords.