§ In making arrangements with respect to the appointment of teachers, a local education authority shall not make or authorise any differentiation as regards salary on the ground of sex.—[Mr. Whitehouse.]
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI beg to move, That the Clause be read a second time."
Throughout the profession the demand is made for equal pay for the same work and for women not to be placed under a sex disqualification. Throughout the whole industrial world the same movement is making progress and it is recognised now very generally that it is only fair that women should be paid for the same work at the same rate as men. It is necessary for the Government to set a good example to the country in this respect. Other Departments of the Government are setting this example. The whole of the legislation that this House has passed with regard to trade boards makes no sex distinction and no trades board appoints a different rate of pay for a woman, because of sex, for the same amount of work. At an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill the right hon. Gentleman said this was a matter for the local education authorities themselves, and he rather sought to place the responsibility for making this change upon local education authorities. That argument is perhaps not wholly a sound one, and it is not a principle that he himself has observed in the past, because quite recently the Board directed that a minimum salary of £100 should be paid to a male certificated teacher, and for a female teacher a minimum salary of £90 should be paid. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion did not take the view, that the fixing of a minimum salary was a matter for the local education 738 authorities. He intervened and fixed what the Board thought was a proper minimum rate of salary. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman can hardly base his objection to this Clause upon that argument. I certainly hope he will feel that it is not outside his province to direct that education authorities receiving a Treasury Grant should make no distinction upon the ground of sex. I believe, on the ground of justice, it is impossible to resist this Clause. I have never heard any argument or any statement of any kind taking the line that this was an unjust demand, and as it is a just demand, as it is demanded by the profession, and as it is demanded and being increasingly acceded to in all departments of industry, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the Board of Education sets a good example in this respect.
§ Mr. R. LAMBERTI beg to second the Motion.
Mr. FISHERThe Clause, if it were carried, would undoubtedly be an expensive one for the local education authorities, and I cannot accept it. It would involve a very large increase in the cost of elementary education, and a large portion of that burden would be borne by the local education authorities. My reason for resisting the Clause is that if the State were to come to the conclusion that there should be no differentiation in pay grounded upon sex, it should come to it first of all in reference to its own employés, and not in reference to a great body of servants who are appointed, dismissed, and controlled by other bodies. For that reason I think it would be improper for the Government to adopt the Clause.
§ Mr. KINGI am disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. It seems to me that he is not facing the question fairly.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman says if the Clause was carried it would impose a very great increase in charge upon the ratepayers and the State. If that is so, is the Clause in order?
§ Mr. KINGOn the point of Order. It does not at all logically follow that it would cause a great increase.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the effect of it would be to cut down the salaries of the male teachers in order to provide salaries for 739 the female teachers, that would be one way of looking at it. The hon. Member appears to give his assent.
§ Mr. KINGThat is very satisfactory, because then the Clause is in order. The real point I wish the right hon. Gentleman and the House to face is this: What is going to be the effect on education and on the status of the teachers, and on the attractiveness of their position? I look upon it as one of the great defects in our recent Debates on the Bill that we have not really faced one of the great problems, how to get the teachers for this great scheme that we are passing. The cost or the equipment, or anything else, seems to me to be nothing compared with the supply of teachers, and especially the lack of attraction which the teaching profession now offers to young men, and especially to young women. Only within the last three weeks two young teachers have come to me with accounts of having been years in the profession and their position as teachers has not risen anything like the advance of salaries which other professions have had during the War, while the cost of living for them is even greater, and a not unimportant point in considering the position of women teachers is this. They have longer holidays than almost any other profession, and that in many cases is a very serious difficulty in meeting their expenses. To be away from their vocation on holidays is a cause of constant expense, and for women teachers it is a particularly serious thing, especially for those who have not parents' homes to go to. I, therefore, look upon this question of paying men and women teachers alike as much larger in its real importance than the right hon. Gentleman's speech would admit. It is a question of whether you are going to attract women as they ought to be attracted. You are going to ask from them the same amount of previous experience and education, you are going to submit them to the same examinations, you are going to give them the same work to do and the same hours of labour, but you are not going to give them the same salary. You cannot ride off by saying that the State does not recognise men and women as having equal pay in other Departments. In no other department of national activity is the work so really identical between the two sexes. There is no other Department where the actual duties, labours, responsibilities, and work 740 so coincide as in teaching. The expense, equipment, education, and acquirements are the same, and the right hon. Gentleman's speech was certainly unfortunate and unequal to the occasion. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Clause.
§ Sir W. DICKINSONI also regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with this question rather more seriously than he has. It is one on which the Board of Education will be bound to make up its mind in a very short time. I should like to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman an expression of opinion a little more definite as to what the Board of Education is going to do on the question in future. He said it is a matter for the local authorities. From my own experience, it ought not to be left to the local authorities to settle. They will settle it in very various ways. In one part of the country the woman will receive less pay than the male teacher, who is doing exactly the same work, and in other parts of the country she may receive the same pay, and the Board of Education will find it absolutely essential, if they are going to lift up the standard of teaching throughout the country, in a very short time to lay down some definite rule. I should like to see them grapple with the question at once and say that in all cases where women labour is employed, where the results are equally valuable with those of men, they should receive the same pay. I know very well the objections which are raised to it. I have been through all of them myself at various times in connection with the salaries not only of teachers, but of other Government employés, and I feel certain that immediately after the War there will arise a very serious difficulty, not only with regard to teachers, but with regard to other servants of the State, and, indeed, to those in private employment. I believe that if in a case like this, where there can be very little doubt the work of the woman is of equal value with that of the man, the Government Departments concerned could very soon lay down rules that equal work deserves equal pay, it would go very far towards solving questions of the general employment of women all through the country. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman takes up the attitude that he cannot put this into the Bill, but I regret that 741 he is not able to foreshadow a little more definitely what is going to be the attitude of the Board of Education in regard to this question, which must be settled very soon.
§ Mr. JOWETTAs I understand the Clause will be pressed to a Division, I shall vote for it, but not on the understanding that seems to prevail amongst some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse) was invited by Mr. Speaker to say whether he intended to reduce male teachers' salaries.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe next new Clause—[Prohibition of Fees in Secondary Schools]—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) is one which clearly imposes a charge.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEMay I address you, Sir, on a point of order? I wish to submit that it does not impose a charge because it seeks to make statutory a power that the Board of Education already have, because in the Section relating to
§ Sir F. BANBURYHe said so.
§ Mr. JOWETTThat was no doubt intended to escape a pitfall in the Standing Orders. I want to make it perfectly clear that when my vote is given there will be nothing of that sort about it. I intend, as I believe my hon. Friend intended, to level up and not down.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 93.
741| Division No. 62.] | AYES. | [4.32 p.m. |
| Arnold, Sydney | Jacobsen, Thomas Owen | Rowlands, James |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | King, Joseph | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Bowden, Major George R. H. | Lambert, Richard (Cricklade) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah C. |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Millar, James Duncan | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Glanville, Harold James | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Pringle, William M. R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Whitehouse and Sir W. Dickinson. |
| Hogge, J. M. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling | Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (S'hampton) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John | Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester) |
| Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf | Greig, Colonel James William | Pratt, John W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gretton, John | Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.) | Reid, Rt. Hon Sir George H. |
| Barran, Sir Rowland H. (Leeds, N.) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford) | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts) | Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hills, John Waller (Durham) | Rutherford. Col. Sir J. (Darwen) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (N'wood) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub. U.) |
| Bird, Alfred | Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Liverpool) |
| Boles, Lt.-Col. Fortescue | Hunter, Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Aston) |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.) |
| Burgoyne, Major Alan Hughes | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Mackinder, Halford J. | Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Macmaster, Donald | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.) |
| Clyde, James Avon | Marriott, John A. R. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince) |
| Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) |
| Colvin, Col. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A. |
| Craig, Ernest (Crewe) | Morgan, George Hay | Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield) | Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Norton-Griffiths, Sir John | Winfrey, Sir R. |
| Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B. | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Worthington-Evans, Major Sir L. |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Parker, James (Halifax) | Yate, Col. Charles Edward |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) | Partington, Hon. Oswald | |
| FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A. | Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest. |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Peto, Basil Edward |
§ Grants, which is numbered 43, and which repeats the existing law, the Board of Education already has power to pay whatever proportion of fees or the whole of the fees in any class of school that it decides to do by Regulation. Therefore, the effect is not to impose a charge in the sense of giving additional power to make a charge, but merely to make statutory a power the Board already have by Regulation.
743§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the hon. Member is inviting the House of Commons to lay down a rule, the effect of which may well be that a deficit will occur through the absence of any fees, and that must be made up out of some fund, and the only fund out of which it can be made up is the rates.