HC Deb 17 April 1946 vol 421 cc2791-5

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Assheton

We support this Resolution, but we only support it with enthusiasm on account of the special circumstances in which we now find ourselves. Any taxation proposal which under normal circumstances gives too much encouragement to married women to work so that they would be obliged to neglect their families is something we must watch very carefully, but we recognise that in present circumstances there is advantage to the community in accepting this Resolution.

8.30 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

My right hon. Friend has said that we on these benches, as a party, do not oppose the Resolution, but I think there probably are individuals amongst us who take very great exception to the purport of it. In speaking against this Resolution, I do not want it to be thought that I am opposed to earned income allowances in general, still less to benefits to married women. What distresses me is the conjunction of that allowance with the class, and also the end to which this Resolution is directed. What does it do? It offers a financial inducement to married women to leave their homes and to spend long hours and, for many of them, dreary, spiritually unprofitable, nerve-racking hours in business establishments, and in factories engaged on mass production. Now production is important. We are all agreed about that. We are agreed about the vital need to encourage our export trade, we are agreed about the value of a growing quantity of consumption goods in staving off inflation. Nevertheless, I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House ought to ask themselves in the coming months whether production is important enough to justify any financial device which operates against the perpetuation of home life and against the birthrate.

Perhaps the most serious long-term problem with which this country is confronted is the decline in the population. It is significant, but perhaps scarcely surprising, that there has been absolutely nothing in either of the first two Socialist Budgets to bring aid and comfort to the home and to facilitate the birth and maintenance of children. I hope to develop that point a little on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill; I should be out of Order in doing it now. To some extent there is a place for women in industry. I am far from arguing that every woman's place is in the home, but if we are to apply financial stimuli, surely the class to apply it to in the first instance is the unmarried women. It appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not interested in unmarried women. What has he done? Instead of increasing the allowance to married women earning income and leaving unmarried women untouched, the Chancellor ought to have done just the opposite; he ought to have increased the allowance to married women when they are dependent upon their husbands' earnings, and widened the gap between earned and unearned income allowance for unmarried women. Recently the spinsters besieged the lobbies of the House—

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

They are still outside.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

—asking for pensions. I do not think they should be denied all payments. Let them have their pension, but let them have it in the form of earned income allowance which will necessitate their taking employment to earn that income.

Mr. Tolley (Kidderminster)

Would the Noble Lord like to go and tell them that?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

I am quite prepared to. It is altogether incomprehensible to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have begun his drive for production with married women, and have made no proposals at all for these pension-hunting maidens outside.

I strongly oppose this Resolution, and I would ask hon. Members on this side of the House to come into the Lobby tonight, but for the fact that I realise that many of my hon. Friends lay particular stress at the present time upon the nature of the industrial problem, of which they have intimate knowledge. Nevertheless, it is just this kind of legislation, which is remorselessly eating away the home, that we on this side of the House will have to oppose, and oppose resolutely, one day, and to my mind the sooner we do it the better. I hope we shall get a sympathetic reply from the Government tonight. The Financial Secretary is by nature a sympathetic man. The fact that he is married, and has children, ought to make him even more sympathetic. I urge the Government to say that this is a temporary provision and that the undesirable trend will be reversed next year when production is easier. Without that assurance, we on these Benches would, I feel, be justified, next year, in voting on a specific Amendment to the Finance Bill designed to achieve the object we have at heart.

Mr. Attewell (Harborough)

I feel it is very necessary that this House should realise that unless married women are given this encouragement in industry, which so badly needs their help, we will not be able to rehabilitate industry and help forward the country in its struggle to achieve that home life which we so desire. Our women have been used to work in factories and fields through dire necessity. The wages of our menfolk over long periods have been such that when young folk marry, their livelihood is lowered to such an extent that, unless the women go to work, it has been almost impossible to give children the standard of living they require. It is academic to say that we should keep our women folk at home in order that they may bear their families. As an example, I would quote the boot and shoe industry. The bottleneck there has been caused because we have lost the services of our skilled women. This is holding up production and the same position arises in other industries. Because, through economic necessity, women were forced into the factories, when the war came, we had to recruit women who had left the industry. That had to he done so that they could continue with the skilled job which they knew.

Until we are able to draw on single women new to the industry, we are bound to ask married women to come back into industry Is it to be expected that we on this side of the House believe our women go to work because they desire to go to work? Of course not. Our women would be prepared to stay at home to look after their families in the same way as others more fortunately placed. When our women go into factories and work 45 or 48 hours a week, is it to be expected that they are able to perform all the duties housewifery demands? Of course not. Many a shilling goes out of the pockets of housewives in order to pay for those duties to be performed while they are at work. The relief which the Chancellor is giving is compensation for the expenses that our women folk have to face.

Mr. Peake

I rise to draw attention to the usual misprint which we anticipate in everything the Government bring forward. It is to be found in line 5 and I express the hope that the Government's hope for the year will not be irremediably vitiated by it.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

That is a better point than usual from the other side of the House.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

There is little occasion for me to deal at length with this short Debate. Except perhaps for the Noble Lord, there is, I think, universal agreement in the House that a provision of this kind, as a temporary measure, will be necessary, certainly for this year and possibly for a year or two to come. That at the present time married women should be given this extra inducement either to go back into or remain in industry is, I think, universally recognised. That is the reason why they have been put in this advantageous position compared with unmarried women or even with men. In the knowledge that it is possible every year to alter and change the taxes and rates of allowances, I hope that the House will give us this Resolution.