Lords Sitting of 11 February 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

OFFICER S' RETIRED PAY
2.37 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I beg 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 would be the annual cost of restoring to all officers who retired under the provisions of the Royal Warrant and corresponding instruments of 1919 the basic rates of retired pay of 1919 plus 20 per cent., as provided in those instruments]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, the best estimate I can give my noble and gallant friend of the annual cost of restoring the 1919 rates of retired pay and adding 20 per cent. to those rates for retired officers of the Forces is about £1,300,000, but I cannot pretend that this figure is anything but approximate. It includes, for the sake of completeness, £220,000 in respect of officers of the Indian Services who retired under the 1919 pension code, for whose pensions the Government of India, and not Her Majesty's Government, are liable.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, while thanking my noble and gallant friend for his answer, may I ask whether the figure he has given includes any increases which were given in these pensions on account of called-up service in the Second Great War?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, as I explained when we debated this question of pensions in your Lordships' House a short time ago, there are a few hundred officers who retired on the 9½ per cent. rate. Many of the officers who retired between the wars were called up, and those who served during the last World War have gone on to the new pension rates which were brought out in
352
1945 and 1950. Therefore, this figure of £1,300,000 refers only to those officers who retired in 1919 and who were not called up during the last war. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, it does.

FORMER JAPANESE TERRITORIES
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the statement made by the Prime Minister in the Diet on February 3 that "we shall exert efforts to regain the former Japanese territories of southern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands"; whether this statement is in conformity with the Yalta Agreement and the Japanese Peace Treaty; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government can state that they will not be a party to any attempt to break the Agreement and the Peace Treaty in relation to these territories.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's attention has been drawn to the reported statement by the Prime Minister of Japan. The statement, as reported, is not in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government consistent with the Livadia Agreement signed at Yalta (to which, however, Japan was not a party), nor is it in conformity with the Treaty of Peace with Japan. It should, however, be borne in mind that it was made in reply to impromptu interpellations without notice in the Japanese House of Councillors. Subsequently, in a considered statement, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, said that legally Japan concluded a Peace Treaty by which she gave up her claims to South Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands, and, while legally Japan is, therefore, not directly concerned, naturally Japan is interested. He confirmed this attitude in a reply to a question in the Japanese Diet on February 5. As regards the last part of his Question, the noble Viscount

353
can rest assured that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to depart from the international Agreements governing the position of these territories.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for that answer.

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
2.41 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE rose to call attention to the question of equal pay for equal work, and to ask Her Majesty's Government to state their policy and their intentions regarding the matter; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for introducing this Motion this afternoon. So far as I know, this subject has never been brought to the attention or your Lordships until to-day—certainly not during my period of membership of this House, and if it was raised before, it was some years previous to that. It may be said that this is largely a financial question and, as such, is essentially one for the House of Commons; and, further, that it is not the business of your Lordships' House to dictate to the House of Commons in matters of this kind. I do not in the least dispute that view—in fact, I fully agree with it. But the House of Commons has already made up its mind on this subject, and as recently as last May there was carried in another place a very strong Resolution, the salient sentences of which read as follows (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 500, Col. 1857):
"That this House reaffirms its belief in the principle of equal pay for equal work as between men and women."
The other sentence is:
"… it now calls upon Her Majesty's Government to announce an early and definite date by which the application of equal pay for equal work for women in the Civil Service, the teaching profession, local government and other public services will begin."
I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that that Resolution passed through another place without any serious opposition and without any vote being cast against it, even by the Government of the day, despite the fact that it was a mandatory Resolution demanding action by the Government. In view of that action in the other place, it seems to me appropriate that we should discuss this
354
great human question here in the House of Lords, where we have had so many debates on large issues and have been able to take a point of view of our own with regard to them. Further, the form of my Motion precludes any idea of dictation: it is an exploratory Motion; it asks the Government how far and how fast it is getting on with the implementing of the decisions come to in another place without Government opposition. This is in no sense a Party issue. In the other place, where they carried this Motion, there were members of both Parties represented; and in so far as there has been opposition at all, both recently and in previous years, it has been opposition by the Government of the day, representing the Treasury point of view favouring the maintenance of the status quo.
Further to that, I may be asked how this matter is regarded by women. Is it a question of economics, or is it a question of status? I have no hesitation in saying that it is both. It is in the first place an economic issue, because women object—as people of both sexes naturally object—to being paid less money than the rate for the job for the work they do. But it is also a question of status, because it is one of the few last pockets of unequal status that still remain after the main battle for status was won some forty years ago in the Suffragette agitation, in which I myself had taken an active part. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that another of the pockets left is your Lordships' House, where, for some unknown reason, women are still excluded from membership, though they have long ago won the right to sit in the House of Commons. Perhaps I may be allowed to tell your Lordships an anecdote which bears upon this question of the status of women, at any rate forty or fifty years ago. A man and his wife were on a walking tour. They came to an unfrequented inn and on arrival asked for a midday meal. "Very sorry, sir," said the landlord, "I'm afraid we have only one single mutton chop left." "What!", said the man, with unfeigned indignation, "have you nothing for my poor wife?"
After those preliminary remarks, I will come to the main body of what I have to say. First I will deal with the question of principle, and I will then deal with the question of its implementation. I may be asked why I should trouble about

355
the principle at all, because to-day it is generally accepted. Well, my Lords, I am inclined to think that although a certain amount of lip service is paid to the proposal, it does not necessarily mean heart acceptance. The old Adam dies hard; and I have frequently heard some man say, "Why should a chit of a girl earn as much as I do?" He has to put up with an adolescent youth getting as much as he does, but finds it a little hard to know that a "chit of a girl" is earning the same as he does. A good many of such men do not like to come out into the open to oppose the principle. A number of them hide behind the second rampart, which is implementation. A number hide behind the economic obstacle, thinking that that is the best-disguised method of opposition.
But that is not the only reason why I want to state the case for the principle. It is also a fact, I think, that there is a good deal of confusion in the minds of many people, both its advocates and its opponents, as to what the proposal is. The meaning of the phrase "Equal pay for equal work" is that where a woman is doing work identical with that done by a man, or closely similar work, and gives equal results, she should be paid the rate for the job and not a rate which is different because of her sex. On this subject of differentiation between the sexes, I do not know whether any of your Lordships remember this incident in the last war. At the time of Dunkirk an "S.O.S." was sent out for assistance from anyone who owned some craft which could possibly help to rescue our soldiers on the beaches of Dunkirk. The telephone number of the officer who was in charge was given so that those who were willing to volunteer could apply to him. A skipper rang up and offered to bring a craft to help. The officer, on hearing a woman's voice, demurred and said that the appeal was for men. I am afraid the answer was somewhat irreverent: "Sex be damned," said the woman, "do you want help or do you not?" The offer was accepted and the craft took its share in the general work of rescue. Needless to say—and it is perfectly clear from what I have already pointed out—equal pay for equal work does not mean equal pay for unequal work. It does not mean that if a woman is working in a lower
356
grade than that of a man, or if she is working in the same grade and does less work or less satisfactory work, she is entitled to the same pay. Into which category any particular woman comes is a matter of fact.
In the prime case that we are asking the Government to honour at the present time, we are dealing with people who not only are obviously in the same grade and in the sane category but also are doing identical work. That is what is known as the interchangeable class in the Civil Service. I will give your Lordships one illustration of that later. I will pass on now to the main question of the principle involved. It seems to me, and I think it seems to most people who have thought about this question, that prima facie the justice of the claim for the rate for the job whatever be the sex of the person who performs the job, is indisputable. Therefore it is for those who disapprove of this principle or wish to controvert it to make out the case against it. I have tried to enumerate all the main objections that are made and all the main reasons that are given for departing from this major principle.
Now it is said that whereas a woman's pay is for herself alone, a man's pay is not only for himself but also for his dependants. There is some pith in this argument and it needs examination. It is, of course, true that if a man has a family of young children, say under sixteen years of age, his wage has to keep them as well as himself. But how many men are in that position? Different percentages have been given. I think they range from about 40 per cent. to 55 per cent. and they apply in varying numbers to different occupations and, to some extent, according to the social position of the worker concerned. It can be put from 40 per cent. or up to 55 per cent., according to the different class chosen.
But it is also true that many women have dependants—parents, invalid relatives and, in some cases, children. I have made endeavours to find out the figure of the true percentage of women with dependants compared with the number of women who are what are called "gainfully employed," but I have not been successful. Undoubtedly, it is less than the 40 per cent. or the 50 per cent. of men with dependants. Nevertheless, it is quite considerable and can by no means

357
be neglected. If this argument that people should be paid according to whether or not they had dependants were really true and were to be put into practice, what would it involve? It would involve that men who had no dependants would be paid on the lower basis and that women who had dependants would be paid on the higher basis. Of course, that would be quite impracticable; and if it were practicable it would be very stoutly resisted. Therefore the fact is that this argument is really used only to differentiate between the sexes, and otherwise no one seeks, or would wish, to apply it.
I have spoken of the dependants as being the man's young children. Some people argue that a wife is a dependant because the man has, it is said, to keep her. Of course, the true fact is that when a woman is gainfully employed outside her own home and has no relatives, and has to get domestic work done for her inside the home by somebody else, she not only has to keep that person but she has also to pay her a wage; whereas a man gets, in his wife, an unpaid housekeeper who does all those things for him. When the man and woman have children, what really happens is that the man and the wife, in their different ways, he outside in the world earning money and she inside the house looking after the house and bringing up the children, are contributing to the upkeep of the house and the nurture and advancement of the children.
It used to be said that one of the reasons why women should have lower pay was that they were more frequently sick. That argument I believe is more or less exploded to-day. It was also said that, because they got married or were likely to get married, their work was of less value. We hear little of that argument to-day. The matter is dealt with in other ways and I do not think it need enter into the discussion; otherwise I could give my reasons for disagreeing with that point of view. Further, there are two arguments used. One is that if we had equal pay for equal work, it would depress the wages and prospects of men in industry. It is also said that the giving of equal pay for equal work would operate adversely on the employment of women. Those two arguments are, to a large extent, mutually contradictory, and I could, if I wished and if I did not mind wearying your Lordships,
358
give you a great number of theoretical arguments against them. But I am going to take a different line.
The real question is, what do the people themselves think? We are able to judge what men think by taking the views of the Trades Union Congress, who represent the vast number of thinking working men in this country. The Trades Union Congress represent millions of workers, the great majority of whom are men. What is their view on this question? So far back as 1888, they passed a resolution in favour of equal pay. I am bound to say I think it was rather a pious resolution in its time, and they did not do very much about it for a great number of years. But during the last few years they have actively campaigned for, and laid increasing insistence upon, this claim for equal pay. In 1950, 1951 and 1952 they passed strong resolutions—I will not weary your Lordships with all of them. I will read only the one resolution passed in 1952. It is as follows:
"This Congress demands that joint consultation should take place forthwith through the appropriate machinery to apply equal pay throughout the field of Government employment."
In the main, the attitude of the General Council on equal pay is to regard it as primarily an industrial matter to be settled by negotiation within the industries and services concerned; but, because it is a problem common to many occupations, including the Civil Service, they have themselves raised it with successive Governments. That, surely, is evidence that men do not regard the coming of equal pay as a menace to their wages and conditions of work.
Now what about women? It is said that women would stand to lose by the implementation of this principle. Again, I take the same examination and I find that practically all the women's societies are involved in this agitation, and that there is none taking the other view. Therefore I think it is quite legitimate for me to argue that women certainly do not accept that adverse view. Then it is sometimes said that a single woman or a widow may favour equal pay but that the married woman, the housewife who is dependent upon her husband's earnings, is against it. But if the men themselves are not against it, it is difficult to understand why their wives should be. On

359
this point also there is very strong evidence. There is one organisation which, more than any other, is entitled to speak for married women, and that is the Women's Co-operative Guild. Not only have they never come out against equal pay, but they have consistently supported it, and I am told that at the present time they are propagating a scheme for carrying out equal pay for equal work inside the Co-operative Consumers' Society, of which they are members. Well, those are all the objections that. I have been able to "vamp" up in order to overthrow this suggestion. It may be that other noble Lords who speak will find some that I have not mentioned, but I think they will agree that at any rate I have done my best to put forward the real case that is being made against the principle, and that I have not shirked any of the major issues.
Now I come to the second part of what I have to say to your Lordships, dealing with the timing of the implementation of this principle. I did not spend twenty months at the Treasury without learning the lessons which the Treasury has to teach. My officials there advised me that a Government was not entitled at the public expense to blaze a trail in wage increases and to set the pace for employers to follow. I accepted that view of the Treasury then, and I accept it to-day. But the Treasury also taught me that where certain standards have been set in the best employment comparable to employment under the Government, it is not only possible for but the duty of the Government to line themselves up with that best employment and not to lag behind with the bad employers. I venture to submit that that time has arrived with regard to this subject. Had this proposal been made (as I am sure it was) twenty or thirty years ago, I concede that quite clearly it would have come only under the first rule of the Treasury, because at that time had the Government acceded to equal pay they would have stood almost alone. But that is very far from being the case to-day.
Just let me remind your Lordships of a few of the avocations in which admittedly, women are at the present time accorded equal pay. In the other
360
place we find that Members of Parliament are paid with no differentiation as to sex. Some noble Lords sitting on the Benches opposite are in the Government; they receive precisely the same wage as their lady colleague, Miss Horsbrugh, who is a member of the Government. Women Cabinet Ministers receive the wage for the job, and it is not in the least altered by reason of sex. In the Labour Government we had a woman member of the Cabinet who was paid the full Cabinet wage. The B.B.C. are paying equal wages; the United Nations have equal pay, as does U.N.E.S.C.O. Women magistrates, doctors, barristers and actresses all receive the same wages as their male colleagues. In addition there are many manual workers who are engaged on piece work. As they are paid the same piece work rate (I think this is particularly so in the engineering trades) they have equal pay for equal work. Lastly, I come to bus conductors, where again there is complete equality between men and women.
Now I should like to say a word about the L.C.C. The position on the London County Council is that the principle of equal pay is now operated for all those in the service of the Council who come entirely under its control. It is quite true that a very large number is outside its control. There are the teachers, for whom the Burnham Committee provides the scale. In that respect there is unequal pay. Various industrial councils regulate the pay of other workers, and with these the London County Council do not attempt to interfere. But so far as all the services which come under the direct operation of the Council are concerned, equal pay has recently been brought into complete operation. Therefore I maintain the view that if the Government accede to this request they will not be a lonely pioneer blazing a trail; so far as this matter is concerned they will be aligning themselves with the best employment, and will not be lagging behind with the bad employers.
Having dealt with that, I come to what is really the last stand of the Government. It is not a Party question; it is the question of the national economy at the present time and, further, the question of inflation. Before putting my own view on this aspect I should like to tell your Lordships, quite frankly, the point of view of a great many women, and

361
how they regard this long delay in granting a request that they regard as absolutely just, the principle of which has been admitted by all Parties and by nearly all political persons in the country. They have fairly long memories, and they remember the shocking delay which occurred after the principle in regard to women's suffrage and a great many other things had been largely accepted. They put it in rather a jocular way, in the terms of one of Lewis Carroll's stories as "Always jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day."
I feel that they have a good deal of reason for taking that view, although it is not precisely the view that I take. I do not accept that position, because I feel that there is at any rate some sort of a case which can be made out on the other side. I have had a fair amount of experience of Parliamentary life (I have been nearly thirty years in one House or the other) and I have seen a good deal of chicanery going on. I have known cases where, in order to get out of difficulties, the Government said "We agree completely, but of course this is not the right moment." And it was quite clearly understood by anyone who knew the facts that the Government had not the smallest intention of ever doing the thing at all. Such instances do occur. This is not a Party issue because it has happened on both sides, and those of us who have lived in political life as long as I have have probably come across more than one instance of this sort. It is not surprising that women should take the view they do, although, as I have said, I do not entirely share it, because, first, I respect the personalities of Chancellors of the Exchequer, coming from both sides of the House, who have dealt with this question. I recognise that there is a considerable jam in the economy spheres of the country, and due weight has to be given to it. Nevertheless, I want to explain to your Lordships why I think the time has come when a beginning should be made with this reform.
I will start by attempting to discuss precisely what finance is involved. As I have already said, the claim which is made is, in the first instance and primarily, for the identical classes in the Civil Service; and I will give your Lordships a typical instance. I do so looking to my left to the gentleman who is writing
362
very hard at the table just behind the I Clerks of this House. The fact is that shorthand-writers, including the writers of Hansard in another place, have unequal standards as between men and women. They do precisely the same work. They have to make the same shorthand reports. They have to make the same accurate transcripts. If they do their work without due care, or insufficiently well, naturally, they will be hauled over the coals. They have precisely the same work, and they take precisely the same hours. They have precisely the same results to offer. But what is the position? The latest rates of pay of verbatim shorthand-writers in the Civil Service are unequal. The fully qualified Grade I woman has a maximum of £675 per annum, which is a man's minimum. The disparity is particularly galling in work which requires a high degree of skill, the measure of which is by equal test. The man, in this case, has a maximum of £800 a year, which is a fair rate for the job, and which women equally earn. That is just a typical illustration which shows what is meant by the term, "Equal pay for equal work." That is a prime case for giving it to these people.
The cost of this single change would not be very large. I think it is a number of millions which can be counted, certainly on two hands and, I believe, on very little over one hand. If the matter is dealt with in stages—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself said it will be if it comes into effect—the cost in the first year would probably not be more than £1 million. One million pounds is a very large sum to any of your Lordships or to me, but it is a very small sum in terms of the immense sums with which the Government are dealing at the present time. But, of course, I am neither so foolish nor so disingenuous as to imagine that this particular implementation of equal pay for equal work could stand alone. I reminded your Lordships a little while back that I served for some time in the Treasury as Financial Secretary, and that I learned many Treasury lessons there. One of the lessons I learned was connected with the charming word "repercussions." I have no intention whatever of shirking the repercussional influence of "equal pay for equal work" in the interchangeable classes. I am quite prepared to put before your Lordships what adoption of this principle would involve.
It would involve adjustments in other women's branches in the Civil Service, where women are doing not identical work but comparable work with that of men. That expense would fall equally with the first on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would affect teachers and other occupations of which part of the cost would fall upon the Exchequer. It would affect, no doubt by repercussion, municipal employees. I think my noble friend on my left, Lord Burden, intends to say something about them. It would affect the employees of public boards and nationalised industries, and—though more remotely no doubt—it would have some effect upon women in industry and private employment generally. It is for the Government to say, and I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who I understand is to reply, will be able to give us a specific answer as to what the total cost of the direct repercussions is estimated to be. In the other place, the figure of £28 million a year was given. That was ten months ago, of course, and the figure may have varied slightly since then. What I particularly want to know is what that figure represents. Does it cover all expense on the Exchequer, or does it cover only part of that? Or does it go beyond that to the expense on the public funds which do not come directly on the Exchequer? I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that. But inasmuch as the figure given by (I think it was) the Financial Secretary, was £28 million, I imagine that it will not be very much over that. I want to remind your Lordships that that is a gross sum. Part of it will come back to the Exchequer in the form of income tax—perhaps £4 million or £5 million. If the change is made by stages, the whole of the cost will not occur in the first year—indeed, only an inconsiderable part of it will fall on the Exchequer in the first year.
As to the matter of industries and private employment, those outside the Exchequer and public finance, I think I should read part of the evidence given by the Treasury to the Royal Commission. I forget the date of this evidence, but I believe the Report was called the 1944–46 Report. This is what the Treasury representative said:
"The Treasury believes the Commission will find that outside the public services men and women are normally segregated in employment, and equal work is not common. Therefore,
364
a decision that equal pay must be given for equal work would be unlikely to have much effect on wages outside the public services."
That may or may not be the case, but that is the Treasury point of view. It is certainly the object of the Trades Union Congress to introduce on a large scale the principle of equal pay, but the Treasury do not think adoption of the principle in the public service would have very much effect on the outside industry—certainly not for a time. Therefore, I do not think this problem should be one of the larger clouds overhanging the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he looks at the public economy of the country.
My Lords, I have nearly finished what I have to say. I just want to wind up this point. Of course, these amounts are large sums, sums which no Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified in regarding as negligible. But let us see what has been given in the way of wage increases in recent years. Your Lordships will remember that five or six years ago, when this question was first put on one side owing to the economic difficulties of the country, there was a wage freeze; and I think that while there was a wage freeze it was not altogether unreasonable to say to women, and to men who were asking for an increase in wages, however justified in their own opinion an increase was, that the country was in such a fix that they must largo their claims. But we all know that after a couple of years or so we had a wage thaw. I do not know how far your Lordships appreciate the very large increases that have taken place since that time. In the last three years the increase each year has been to the amount of over £200 millions a year and these increases are cumulative, so that after three years taken together wages are now over £600 millions a year above what they were three years ago.
In view, of these facts, and of the fact that the Government themselves have given the Civil Service an increase amounting to about £30 millions a year, it will be very difficult to persuade women that an increase which will cost a few millions in the first year, and a few further millions in a further year and so on, until the aggregate in a number of years would amount to £28 millions (it may be a little more; I do not know, but the noble Earl will be able to say what it will be),

365
should not be granted because it would ruin our economic position. I do not think it would be easy to make women swallow that argument, and they have not swallowed it up to now. I fancy that some of your Lordships will wonder whether, after such large additional sums have justifiably been granted in other cases, the absolute prohibition on the women's claims can be very much longer maintained.
In addition to the ground that economically the country cannot afford this reform, it is alleged that inflation would take place. I can understand the economic argument, but I confess that I am not so clear about the grounds on which the inflation argument is based. Let me give my reasons. So far as the Government service and the public Exchequer are concerned, this claim for increased wages, if it were granted, would stand exactly in the same position as any other increase in expenditure. Whether it produced an inflationary effect or not would depend on precisely the same factors as would operate if an increase were granted for some other entirely different cause. It would depend on whether the Budget was properly balanced. If the Budget is properly balanced, then the items of expenditure have not an inflationary effect because they are properly balanced by the items of receipts. If the Budget is not balanced, that in itself is inflationary. And if the amount to be given to women civil servants, in order to bring their pay up to equality with men, were put in a separate basket, standing outside the Budget, no doubt that would be inflationary; but no sensible person ever imagined anything of that kind and no doubt that would not be the case. Therefore, the argument that that part of the cost which would fall on the Exchequer would be inflationary is, I think, pure imagination. I can only suppose that what the authorities are concerned about is the part outside the Exchequer. I am bound to say that I regard that result as very problematical. I have read to your Lordships that passage of the Treasury's evidence in which they said that they did not think the adoption in the public service of the principle of equal pay for equal work would have a substantial effect on wages in private employment. And for the life of me I cannot see why it should.
I do not wish to go through the elaborate arguments against this change. I do not see why it should be any more inflationary than any other proposal for expenditure which falls from the Government or anyone else, and I reject that argument entirely. I should like to say this to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I trust that he will be able to hold out to us some hope that the Government are at any rate moving in this matter, and that there will be a positive response before very long. I say that, not only because I believe in this reform but because I believe in the good faith of the statesmen of to-day, to whichever Party they belong; and I believe that this decision made by both Parties (it is a non-Party point of view) to hold back a little while, even with a beginning of this implementation, was made in good faith. But I feel that if this continued exclusion is carried beyond a certain point, people will lose faith in the Government. They will lose faith in politicians. They will say—and rightly—that when any body of people make threats to the Government that, unless they are given this, that or the other, action will be taken which to some extent will paralyse the life of the country, they are given into; but that when a body of people take a more patriotic line and ask for the implementation of an act of justice, the principle of which is fully admitted, then they are kept waiting outside the door for ever. And in my view, if that happens, it will be not only injurious to the cause I plead to-day but also to the belief of the people of this country in the good faith of their rulers. I beg to move for Papers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I hope in a short time to be able to make a further statement about the floods. Perhaps the noble Lord who is then addressing the House will forgive me if I intervene.
3.28 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence. We are all indebted to him for (raising the matter and for his speech this afternoon. In the record of men who have fought to secure freedom for women, and to remove their social, political and economic handicaps, my noble friend has an honoured place. More than that, my noble friend, with his

367
truly noble lady, has had what I believe to be a unique experience, so far as your Lordships are concerned. He has suffered imprisonment and torture—I use the word deliberately—for protesting, and protesting vehemently, that it was quite wrong to deny women the vote and to include them in the category of children, criminals, paupers and lunatics.
SEVERAL. NOBLE LORDS: And Peers.
LORD BURDEN: And Peers, too. But we are exempted because of special privileges which, unfortunately, women do not have at present. They are even denied membership of this House. The vote in itself is not an end; it is a means to an end.
I am sure that my noble friend will remember the slogan which was prevalent in certain Left Wing circles in the early decades of the present century, that economic power precedes political power. Be that true or otherwise, it is certainly true that at the end of the First World War (and I believe the vote was graciously conceded to women at the end of the First World War because of the efforts which they had made in the war) an effort was made to secure economic equality for women. I have here the Report of the War Cabinet Committee oil Women in Industry. One of the things I learned early in life from my tutors was never to destroy a document, and this one is dated 1918. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like toread one or two sentences from the Minority Report of Mrs. Sidney Webb, just mentioning in passing that the Majority Report comes down in favour of equal pay in the Civil Service. The Minority Report says:
"That the existing relations between the conditions of employment of men and women, whether in manual labour or in brain working occupations, is detrimental to the personal character and professional efficiency of both sexes, and inimical alike to the maximum productivity of the nation and to the advancement of the several crafts and professions.
"That the exclusion of women by law or by custom, from the better paid posts, professions and crafts, has driven them to compete with each other, and with men, in the lower grades of each vocation, where they have habitually been paid at lower rates than men for equivalent work, on the pretence that women are a class apart, with no family obligations, smaller needs, less capacity and a lower level of intelligence—none of these statements being true of all the individuals thus penalised."
368
Another paragraph says:
"That the popular formula of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' or, more elaborately, 'Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value in Quantity and Quality,' whilst aiming at the expression of the right ideal, is so ambiguous and so easily evaded as not to constitute any principle by which the relations between men's and women's wages can be safely determined."
The Minority Report goes on:
"There is no more reason for such occupational or standard rates being made to differ according to the workers' sex than according to their race, creed, height or weight."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: From what is the noble Lord quoting?
LORD BURDEN: From the Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry (Cmd. 135), published in 1919.
History repeated itself. Noble Lords will remember that another Committee was set up to consider the problem of equal pay, and it is interesting to recall that that Committee was set up because of a vote which was carried in another place affirming the principle of equal pay for women in the teaching profession. On the Motion of the Government that vote was nullified, and another Committee was set to consider the whole problem. My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence has made it quite clear that this is not a Party question. As far back as 1920 the House of Commons passed, without a Division, a Resolution in these terms:
"That it is expedient that women should have equal opportunity of employment with men in all branches of the Civil Service and throughout the United Kingdom and under all local authorities … and should also receive equal pay."
A similar Resolution was carried, again without a Division, in May of last year. No one, whatever his private views may be—and one has no reason to assume that Members have any private views in connection with this matter—dared to vote against that Resolution.
I am not going to deny that there are some difficulties in the application of the principle as it is elaborated in certain quarters. I am sure that some of your Lordships have read that fascinating study of Women's Life and Labour by Professor Zweig. Dealing with wage differentials and the equal pay issue, he tells us that, comparing the average hourly earnings of men and women in October, 1950(and those figures were taken from the Ministry of Labour Gazette), he found that women's earnings in all manufacturing industries were

369
about 60 per cent. of the amounts paid to men. Some industries showed a much higher percentage, the highest being in cotton weaving, 73 per cent.; cotton spinning, 67 per cent.; woollen and worsted, 67 per cent.; potteries, 62 per cent. The lowest percentages were in paper and printing, where the figure was 53 per cent., and tailoring, 52 per cent.

THE FLOOD SITUATION
3.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure the House will desire to hear at the earliest possible moment the statement I am now in a position to make. It is a similar statement to that being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Good progress continues to be made in the work of repairing the breaches and it is hoped that more than two-thirds of the breaches will be closed to high-tide level before the next high tides; the remainder are for the most part in areas where any flooding which may occur will not be likely to endanger the public. Since my last statement five more deaths have become known to the police, so that the total number of deaths is now 288. About fifty persons are still reported to be missing. There are still nearly 30,000 persons living away from their homes.
With regard to rations, my right honourable friend the Minister of Food, in order to help housewives to replace stocks of rationed food which they have lost in the floods, has authorised the food offices concerned to give an additional temporary ration card which will enable them to obtain two weeks' extra supply of rationed food. Arrangements are also being made, through local food offices, for retailers to rebuild their stocks of rationed foods and to obtain additional replacement supplies of the scarcer un-rationed foods such as canned milk and dried fruit.
As to furniture, in my statement on February 9 I undertook to give information about arrangements for collecting and distributing furniture, offers of which have been coming in generously from the public. From now on, any person wishing to offer furniture should make the offer in writing in the first place to the nearest local office of the W.V.S., and no
370
furniture should be despatched until arrangements have been notified to the donor by the W.V.S., who have undertaken to be responsible for the distribution of the furniture in co-operation with the local authorities, as needs are ascertained. The W.V.S. will arrange for the transport of suitable furniture to the appropriate centre, if necessary visiting the person making the offer. The Government will bear the cost of transport of furniture accepted under these arrangements.
Her Majesty's Government hope that local authorities, voluntary organisations and others, will be prepared to co-operate, if approached by the W.V.S., in providing local centres in which furniture can be temporarily stored pending transport to the main depôts. The most useful gifts are likely to be floor coverings, materials for curtains and chair covers, household utensils, heating stoves, household linen and small—I would emphasise "small"—tables, chairs, chests and cupboards. Victims of the flood who are in need of furniture should make application to the local authority of the area in which they normally live. They should give their names and both their usual and their present addresses, and should state the extent of the damage which they have suffered and their requirements. The local authority will, after checking the applications, pass them on to the W.V.S., who will get into touch with the applicants and will try to meet their needs out of the gifts that have been made.
With regard to the warning system, I am now in a position to announce the arrangements which have been made to give warning to the public if it is thought that there is likely to be danger from further floods. The essential features of the scheme are as follows:

(i) warnings will be localised as far as possible;

(ii) the river boards will be responsible for advising the police if there is, in their opinion, any threat of danger;

(iii) the police will be responsible for giving warnings to the public and to local authorities and public utility undertakings. The river boards will be responsible for warning people at work of the repair of the sea defences and for securing their safety in the event of further inundation.

The river boards will receive from the

371
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, by teleprinter, reports from the Meteorological Office and also data of high and low tides obtained from Leith, the Tyne, the Tees, Grimsby and Harwich, or Felixstowe. The police in the coastal areas have been asked to make surveys, in consultation with the officers of the river boards, in order to find out which are the probable danger areas. They have also been asked to nominate senior officers to attend at the headquarters of the river boards during the hours of high tides in the emergency period in order to initiate police action, if required, without delay. They are taking steps to inform the public in the danger areas of the times of high tides and of the local warning arrangements.
The precise arrangements will depend on the circumstances of the areas concerned. They will include, as appropriate:

(i) the posting of police or civilian watchmen at threatened points;

(ii) the patrolling of villages and towns with loudspeaker cars;

(iii) the use of suitable warning devices, for instance, maroons:

(iv) warnings to isolated houses and farms;

(v) warnings to local authorities;

(vi) warnings to public utility and major industrial installations;

(vii) stand-by warnings to owners of small craft and any owners of vehicles who may be able to assist in evacuation, and

(viii) the surveying of practical escape routine.

All these arrangements will be in operation from this evening.
In addition to these local arrangements, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has arranged with the B.B.C. for the broadcasting of information as follows:

(1) The Ministry will be informed by a river board of the issue of any local warning and will, where necessary, inform the B.B.C. with a request to broadcast the warning.

(2) At hourly intervals throughout the day and night the B.B.C. will broadcast on the Light Programme,
372
long wave, 1,500 metres, details of warnings of high tides at various points on the East Coast, and of any flood warnings which have been issued.

Further details of these arrangements (which will operate from to-morrow afternoon) will be issued by the B.B.C. So far as can be foreseen, the danger areas are likely to be few, and there is little risk except during the period from three hours before to one hour after high tide. Her Majesty's Government have, however, thought it right for the present to err in the direction of excessive precautions and they hope that the public in the areas affected will co-operate, in particular by strict compliance with the advice of the local police. Special vigilance should be shown by the occupants of bungalows in low-lying areas, and the owners of bungalows in the Canvey and Jay wick areas are particularly warned that it will not be safe for them to return before Thursday of next week at the earliest.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, in the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt, and on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, I should like to thank the Lord Chancellor for making that statement. We are quite satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to alleviate the suffering caused by this terrible disaster and are taking every precaution to prevent a recurrence of the trouble. We are very grateful.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as one who raised with the noble and learned Lord the question of the delivery of furniture, I am personally well satisfied with the arrangements which Her Majesty's Government are making for collecting furniture from those donors who are willing to spare it. May I ask two questions? One is with regard to clothing. I understand that at one time there was a great shortage of men's clothes. I gather that that shortage no longer exists. Offers have been coming in to such an extent that the W.V.S. are overwhelmed. If the noble and learned Lord can say anything on this subject, will he kindly do so? I believe that large quantities of men's clothing are still coining in. Are they still required? The other question is with regard to warnings. How long is it proposed to continue these warnings? Is it

373
merely for the next period of danger, or is it to become a permanent feature within the areas affected?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said. With regard to the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has asked, I am not in a position to say anything about clothing, but I will certainly take steps to find out and let him know. I should myself infer from the statement (which has been prepared not by me but by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary) that since no mention is made of clothing the need for further help in that direction has ceased to exist. I can only answer that hypothetically. With regard to warnings. I think I must say that we have not looked beyond the present emergency. Whether it will be necessary for such precautions to be part of the normal life of the East Coast I hesitate to say. All I have said to-day relates to the present emergency.

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
3.49 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, may I now resume my speech? The engineering, shipbuilding and electrical industries, the chemical industries, and the shoe and leather goods industries are good industries which keep very near to the average percentage. Then Professor Zweig goes on to say:
"The position of the most able, experienced, efficient and industrious girls, who can compete with men on completely equal terms all round, and who are at present dragged down by the crowd of inferior female labour, badly needs reviewing and adjusting. I have seen many girls turning out more and better output and taking greater interest in their jobs than their male opposite numbers, while earning considerably less. They are at present handicapped in industry, while they should ha given more encouragement."
Now, my Lords, I am aware of the difficulty that most of these rates of pay have been negotiated by trade unions and that it is difficult for any Government to interfere, but the Government can, I think, as was stressed by my noble friend, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, set a good example and concede the rate for the job in the Civil Service. This, undoubtedly, will
374
lead to the same method of payment in the local government service and the teaching profession.
So far as the local government service is concerned the rate for the job is paid equally to a minority of men and women only. The national scales apply equally to men and women in the administrative, professional and technical grades and the miscellaneous grades. In the general division the scales are based on age, from 18 to 32. In the clerical division the scale is £470 to £515, and in the higher clerical division £515 to £560. Women are paid 80 per cent. of the men's rates. That is to say, a man aged 25 in the general division is paid £355 a year, while a woman doing equal work is paid £284 a year. A man on the maximum of the clerical division is paid £515 a year, while a woman on the maximum of the same division and doing equal work is paid £412 a year. A man on the maximum of the higher clerical division is paid £560 a year, while a woman on the maximum of that division and doing equal work is paid £450 a year. Other conditions of employment, such as holidays and so on, apply equally.
In considering this matter, I am sure that there will be no attempt at all to score Party political points. In another place, time after time, the point was put that Labour had been in power for six years and should have conceded equal pay: but, after all, Tory or Tory-dominated Governments were in power practically all the time from 1918 to 1939, when the war broke out. If the point is made that the Labour Government should have conceded the principle, I would remind noble Lords that the present Prime Minister is on record as having told Mr. Morgenthau that at the end of the 1939–45 war this country would be bankrupt. We must look for the real reasons. All Parties, I believe, are fully committed to the principle of equal pay, and I think one is entitled to ask why the expressed will of Parliament has been ignored. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who will, I understand, reply for the Government, will, I am sure, speak earnestly and sincerely in support of the principle and in supporting the principle I know he will say what he really believes. I make no complaint. If the noble Earl will allow me to say so, if one of my noble friends had been

375
sitting on that side and making the speech for the Government, I am sure he would be making a similar speech, with the same brief as the noble Earl's. There might, perhaps, be some slight change of emphasis in the speech, but substantially it would be the same speech.
Therefore, I am afraid that we must be brutally frank. I can assure the noble Earl that I do not want any lessons in Ministerial responsibility and things of that kind. I have been in public life long enough to appreciate those points. But, in my judgment—and it seems to have been reinforced by the slight lifting of the curtain of Treasury experience by my noble friend—it is my Lords of the Treasury, it is their social, political and economic prejudices which have successfully defied and frustrated the expressed will and wish of Parliament for over thirty-three years. In 1920 the principle was overwhelmingly confirmed in another place. I hope I shall not be regarded as cynical if I have not the simple faith of my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, but if the evidence which they gave before the recent Commission is to be taken as their settled view, unless we get a Chancellor of the Exchequer able, determined and ruthless enough to ordain otherwise, my Lords of the Treasury will go on flouting the will of Parliament for another thirty-three years. Dare I say that we want another Chancellor of the Exchequer of the calibre of the late Sir Kingsley Wood, who, to put it quite mildly, had transferred to another Department the well known autocrat of the Post Office? Until we get a person of that kind we shall still be getting the same answer from whatever Government is in power; and for the women in the Civil Service and the teaching and local government professions it will be, as my noble friend has said, in the immortal words of Lewis Carroll:
"Jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, but never jam today."
3.59 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I shall not detain you for more than a few minutes, but I should not like to allow the chance to go by of adding my voice to those of your Lordships who have demanded justice this afternoon—or
376
rather who have demanded that an injustice which has all too long been a blot on the national honour in this country should be removed. One of the most frustrating things about the whole of this business is the one which has been referred to by the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat—that all political Parties have been committed to this policy and committed to it for a very long time. The trouble is that their leaders, when they find themselves in power, always find it inexpedient that justice should be done at that time. It is obviously within the power of the Government of the day to see that in that part of the economy which they clearly and directly control, the employment of the Civil Service, at any rate an end can be put to this injustice. While I have no hope that the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government will indicate that they are proposing to do so, I feel that it ought to be made clear to them that all those people in the community who feel strongly about justice think that they will be making a serious mistake.
Only last week the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in a speech which was as full of good sense as it was full of wit, pointed out that, when we find two Front Benches in agreement, it is time for us to be on our guard. Incidentally, I was rather sorry that my noble friend Lord Silkin took him to task afterwards and said that the noble Viscount came here only to hear himself speak, because I suppose, if we are quite frank with ourselves, one of the reasons why most of us come here is because we enjoy speaking. Looking at the serried ranks of the Government Peers at the moment, I do not suppose that I am speaking this afternoon with the idea of converting large numbers of Conservative Peers to this Motion! If the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, likes to hear Lord Hailsham speak, I can assure him that there are many other Members of your Lordships' House who find that experience even more entertaining and more interesting, and even more full of real thought than we get from other speakers to whom we have to listen, both here and in another place—but that is perhaps rather by the way.
What I am emphasising is that the noble Viscount did warn us that we should be on our guard when we found

377
the Front Benches on both sides of the House committed to the same policy. It may be said to me that, as the mover of this Motion and his supporters are sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, this afternoon, at any rate, it is not true. I only wish I could think that if, as I imagine is very probable, during the next two or three years they find themselves back on the Benches opposite, they will then immediately see to it that this injustice is put right. But I am afraid that, as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, indicated towards the end of his speech, it is very unlikely that there would be any actual difference if that political change came about. There always have been, and no doubt there always will be, a large number of people in this and in every other community who, while they see quite clearly where the path of justice lies, also see equally clearly how inexpedient it is to follow it. I do not know what happens to those people when they die. It is a long time since I read Dante's Inferno. I cannot remember, but I think it is almost certain that he must have had some little corner of the Inferno in which those people spend a very long time, and, I think, justly spend a very long time.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, is quite right when he says that the real reason why this injustice was not put right years ago is because of the advice which has been given to successive Chancellors of the Exchequer at the Treasury. It is not the Treasury's job to do justice; it is the Treasury's job to give financial advice. It is for the political leaders to see that justice is done, after listening to such advice as may be given to them at the Treasury on the financial problem. No doubt, the financial experts of the Treasury say that we cannot afford this, just as, during the whole time that I have had any interest in politics, they have advised that we could not afford this or that we could not afford that. I throw my mind back to the years before the war when hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, of men and women in this country rotted—that is literally the only word which can be used to describe it—because of the financial advice which was given to Governments by the Treasury. We can in fact always afford justice, and it is time that in this case we saw our way to afford justice to the women whose work during the war
378
was, I think, the decisive factor. If one looks at the way that the labour resources of the different countries engaged in the war were mobilised, the decisive factor was that our women did a much finer and heavier job that the women in the enemy camp.
I do not propose to follow the noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon into a detailed analysis of the economic reasons which are given in favour of continuing this injustice. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, pointed out that in actual fact, viewed against the wage increases which have been going on over these last years and which we see every week as we take up our papers, the necessary expenditure which would be incurred in putting this injustice right would be quite a small percentage. I have no doubt whatever that this claim is at least as just as any of the other claims which are met from day to day, from week to week and from month to month. I am quite sure that this claim is a great deal more just than a large number of them. I have no doubt at all that, when it is viewed against the whole mass of these increased payments which have been going on over these years, the comparatively small expenditure required could be quite easily obtained from economies which could be made in a number of directions. The whole of the amount required could be obtained from a more efficient management of the National Health Service—to give just one example.
I should like to finish my few remarks by referring to a profession to which I have the honour to belong, in which equal pay for equal work has been acknowledged ever since women came into the teaching profession at the universities. I can assure your Lordships that in the universities we have neither colour bar nor sex differentiation. Women professors, readers and lecturers receive just the same pay as their male colleagues. They do just as good work and the atmosphere is thoroughly happy. When one looks round and finds the frustration and discontent which the continuance of this injustice undoubtedly causes in the ranks of the Civil Service and in other occupations, one must agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said in his peroration, that we have here a rankling sore near the very heart of

379
the body politic. It is the job of Governments to see that such sores are removed. I hope that this Government will take their courage into their hands and do something in that direction.
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not think anybody who has listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence this afternoon has any doubt what a powerful advocate he is for any cause which he cares to take up. He has devoted many years of his life to two subjects in particular, one the interests of women and the other public finance; and in both spheres he has made a notable and important contribution to public life. If I may venture to do so, I should like to recall from his autobiography the circumstances in which he came into the women's movement, about forty-five years ago. He writes in this way:
"I had a mind open to conviction but I do not suppose that I should ever have become entangled with the suffragettes if it had not been for my wife."
He goes on to say,
"From 1906, the suffragettes surged into my life; they invaded my flat and almost took possession of it and everything in it. They engrossed the attention of my wife who became their honorary treasurer."
It is perhaps interesting to note how the lives even of great men are influenced by small events. In fairness, perhaps I should repeat: what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has already said: that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, was prepared to suffer pain and penalties for what he considered to be a matter of principle. I should perhaps add, too, that when the movement took on a form of violence he separated himself entirely from it.
My Lords, to-day we are concerned, I think, with rather a small aspect of the whole question in which the noble Lord was engaged. It was well before 1939 that votes were first granted to women, and then extended to what was known as the "flapper's vote," and I can at least claim that that was brought about in association with the Party which is now in power. However, I do not want to make that point. Historically, so far as Parliament is concerned, the question of equal pay may be said to have taken its
380
genesis from a Resolution passed in 1920—it has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Burden:
"That it is expedient that women should have equal opportunity of employment with men in all branches of the Civil Service within the United Kingdom and under all local authorities and should also receive equal pay."
I think it is fair to say that in the last thirty years the first part of the Resolution has been substantially implemented, and it is the second part which has gone relatively slowly. Of course, the matter did not stop there. There was a Royal Commission which sat from 1929 to 1931 and the members of that Royal Commission were almost equally divided in their views.
In 1944 a second Royal Commission was appointed, and reported in the year 1946. Their Report is an extremely interesting document: it made no recommendation—indeed, it was not required to make a recommendation. But it examines the whole situation with such carefully balanced arguments that I think anybody could find a quotation to suit his sentiments, his politics or his economic advantage, whatever he might wish to do. But as a result of that Report of the Royal Commission, Mr. Dalton, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was asked to state the views of the Government. He said that the Government must be the judge, of priority, and the Government did not consider that this was the time when it would be in the national interest for these additional burdens to be undertaken. He said that the question would be examined later in the light of developments, both economic and social. That was in June, 1947. Your Lordships may recollect that the so-called convertibility crisis occurred in August-September of that year. About six months later, in February, 1948, the same question was put to Sir Stafford Cripps. Sir Stafford expressed sympathy with the claim, but said that, owing to the fact that the White Paper which had just been issued spoke of the need for restraint in regard to prices, wages and salaries, it was quite impossible for him to meet the claim that was being advanced.
The matter rested there for a period of about three years, until 1951, and then the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council again approached the Chancellor

381
of the Exchequer, who was then Mr. Gaitskell; and he announced the results of his decision in June, 1951. He said that the Government could not depart from the decision announced in 1947, and he gave as an additional reason the fact that any action of the Government in this respect would have far-reaching consequences outside the Civil Service. He also stated that the introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service would be swiftly followed in other occupations in industry and commerce; and that any increases in pay given to women in employments common to both sexes would lead to similar increases for women engaged in purely women's work. He went on to say that even this would not be the end of the matter, because the introduction of equal pay would mean that the standard of living of a married man with a wife and children to support would compare unfavourably with that of an unmarried woman with no dependants. This would, in his opinion, unquestionably give rise to demands for large increases in family allowances. It was for that reason that he announced the Government's decision at that time not to introduce equal pay.
Since then there has been a change of Government. During the last year there have been two debates in another place on this subject, and. as I think the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence mentioned, after one of those debates there was passed a unanimous Resolution, that the Government should announce an early and definite date for the application of the principle of equal pay. In the meantime, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had two meetings with the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council, and also meetings with the T.U.C. As a result of the second meeting, in September of last year, he asked the Staff Side whether they would like, quite informally, to examine the possibility of working out a plan for the gradual introduction of the principle of equal pay, but on the clear understanding that the Government were not committed either to a date or, indeed, to any particular scheme—that is to say, to discuss the sort of scheme which, if it were introduced, would be most agreeable to both sides of the Council. The Staff Side considered that carefully. However, on November 10, they said that on the whole they did not think that at
382
that time any useful purpose would be served by considering these proposals.
That is how the position stands at the present time. Perhaps I may just remind the House what the Tory Party said in regard to this subject in the course of the Election of 1951. They said:
"We hope that during the life of the next Parliament"—
that is, of course, this Parliament—
"the country's financial position will improve sufficiently to enable us to proceed at an early date with the application in the Government service of the principle of equal pay for men and women for services of equal value."
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence knows the terms of that pledge, and it is, of course, if I may say so, an implied compliment to the Government that he brought forward this Motion indicating—I think, by implication it must—that the financial and economic strength of this country has in a considerable measure improved. I assure the noble Lord that we find some encouragement in that thought. He has asked me for some details in round figures of the implications of his proposals. If your Lordships will permit me, I will give those details as fully as I can. I must emphasise that the figures are only approximations and are to the nearest million. First of all, I should like to give the amounts which would have to be met from public funds in what is strictly an overlapping area—that is, an area in which the sexes have exact equality of work and jobs are interchangeable. For the Civil Service the cost to the Exchequer would be £8 million and to the rates nothing. In the sphere of teachers, the cost would be £6 million to the Exchequer and £9 million to the rates. In the case of the Health Services the cost would be under £500,000 to the Exchequer and nothing to the rates. In the case of local authorities, as regards employees other than teachers, the figures are under £500,000 to the Exchequer and under £500,000 to the rates. That is to say, direct expenditure would be about £15 million to the Exchequer and £9 million to the rates.
Now I must deal with what might be called the sympathetic area in these services, where rises might be expected. The cost would be in regard to the Civil Service £3 million to the Exchequer and nil to rates; nothing in respect of teachers. With regard to the

383
Health Services the figure is £2 million to the Exchequer. In respect of local authority services other than teachers, the cost would be £1 million to the Exchequer and £1 million to the rates. That is to say that in this sphere there would be an expense of £6 million to the Exchequer and £1 million to the rates. There is thus a total figure of £20 million to the Exchequer and £10 million to local authority expenditure. The total public expenditure, therefore, would be, very roughly, £30 million. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, it really is not practical to call this quite a small sum. As I have said, the grand total is £30 million, and that is in fact, in any context, a substantial sum of money.
LORD CHORLEY: It is less than 5 per cent. of the figure which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, mentioned as wage increases over the last three years.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord should have mentioned that. With respect, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, confused two things which are really separate. He mentioned the public services and said that the expenditure required would be £28 million. Actually, as I have shown, it would be about £30 million. He then went on to say that the annual increase in wages throughout the country over the last three years or so was of the order of £200 million. But that, of course, is over the whole field—nationalised industries, private industries. Government services, everything. Strictly speaking, those figures have not a very close correlation. I must emphasise that this subject cannot be regarded as one which is entirely detached from the general economic situation of the country. The noble Lord was very fair about that, and I have no complaint to make. But I would stress that it must be regarded within the framework in which the country stands and of other claims which are being made on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Recently in this House we have been discussing Service pensions and post-war credits. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is not here now, but he reminded me the other day that many people wanted a general reduction in taxation. These are problems which it is the task
384
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear fully in his mind. He cannot regard them as entirely detached.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, though not shirking the question of repercussions, was a little anxious, I thought, to underplay them. He made a quotation from evidence by the Treasury which I am afraid I must say would not be endorsed at the present day. Besides the figures I have given, it is anticipated that there would be considerable repercussions throughout the whole of industry outside. I am not going to attempt to say what they would be, but the total cost would amount to a very substantial sum—a sum substantial even in comparison with that which could be borne from public funds. With regard to what Lord Burden has said in this connection, the Government would certainly not interfere in any way with the discussions between the parties in which the trade unions take part, as to the way in which these increases would occur. They would undoubtedly occur sympathetically over a very large sphere. It is because of that that we have to watch particularly the repercussions at the present time.
The position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter is clear. He has, as everyone knows, taken a real and personal interest in this subject. He has no reason in any way to amend the statement of policy which I have quoted, and which was made a year ago last Autumn. At the same time he has to keep a balance of his duties. He must maintain the economic strength of this country. After all, if that were to go, any concessions of this sort would be entirely valueless. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind the House that only twelve months or little more ago, gold was flowing out of the Bank of England at a rate which would have meant its being exhausted by last September, while at the present time we are building up the gold reserve. This is only part of the story. I am not pretending it is the whole answer; we are still, in effect, working our way along a lee shore. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, is not here at the moment, but he seemed to suggest in his speech that behind my right honourable friend there was a vindictive and powerful body of men who had a quirk on this subject. My Lords, there is nothing nicer in the world than spending other people's money—nothing happier

385
and more pleasant. But I say, with great respect, that we all have great reason to be thankful for the care with which many of our affairs are dealt with in the Treasury.
We do not get very much satisfaction from considering the fact that the gap between the wages of men and women is narrowing, but still it is perhaps worth considering. I will give your Lordships some figures which show the general tendency. Between 1947 and the present date, for instance, men's rates have risen 32 per cent., whilst women's rates have risen 38 per cent. That is not very much, of course. Between 1938 and the present date, the earnings, as opposed to rates—which I have just mentioned—have risen from 52 per cent. of men's hourly earnings to over 61 per cent. That probably means that the actual rate movement has been rather greater than that. I know that these figures do not bring any real satisfaction to the advocates of equal pay. There is little use examining the Report of the Royal Commission, and I do not propose to go into questions of principle at all. I do not suppose the advocates of the principle are even interested in examining the subtle arguments which may arise, and this is not a time to examine whether women, by gaining the prerogatives of the oak, may perhaps lose the perquisites of the vine. There is no question of expressing any sympathy for the claim; sympathy is not wanted. What is wanted is action. I can only say that action becomes possible only when the strength of this country is such as to enable the principle of equal pay to be put into force without doing damage which would outweigh any benefits arising from it.
I should like to take up one point which the noble Lord raised—namely, that this claim is based on grounds of elementary justice. Of course, if it were only a matter of justice it could be met by lowering men's wages at least to some intermediate level, and bringing those of women up to it. That is not a proposition which would commend itself to the people of this country. From a practical point of view it must be regarded as a wages claim, with all the results which naturally flow from such a claim. The noble Lord, I thought, endeavoured to show that his proposals, if adopted, would not have a very serious inflationary
386
effect. But this claim is being based not on hardship and not on increased productivity; it is being based on justice. I do not know whether the noble Lord is prepared to say that all other wages should stand still. He did not say so to-day. I do not really think he could say so. In these circumstances, I think the noble Lord cannot get away from the proposition that, unless the economic situation is strong, the inflationary effect will be very considerable indeed.
I will not detain your Lordships, except to say this. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has worked for many years for this cause, which he has spoken to to-day; and I would say to him, and to those who work with him, that we all, both men and women, have reason to be grateful to them because the policy which we have applied progressively over the years of opening opportunities to women has paid enormous dividends. I know that it is not a desirable thing to draw examples from war time, but they are the most striking, particularly in comparison with other countries, and especially with Germany. In this field of work, the contribution which women were able to make was enormous. They not only held high administrative appointments but were regarded as an integral part of the Armed Forces, whether it was as fitters in the Royal Air Force, or manning antiaircraft guns or acting as ferry pilots. It may well be that it was just that contribution which was the vital and decisive influence in the time of our greatest trial. I think we can fairly claim that the real status of women is as high in this country as in any other country in the world. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, can to-day take real satisfaction in the work which he has given to this cause since as long ago as 1906. May I end by repeating that the Government adhere firmly to what they have said, but that they must remain the judge of the economic circumstances and of both the timing and the manner in which this matter can be put into force?
4.32 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind personal remarks which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has made in reference to myself, both at the beginning and at the end of his speech. As he has differed from me

387
in the principal claim that I made, he will not mind if I differ from him in his decision. I think the simplest way I can put the difference is this: that he has reinforced the plea that has been made for a supplementary Beatitude
"Blessed are they who expect nothing; for they shall not be disappointed."
I did not expect much. The noble Earl is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I knew that he would not be able to go far beyond what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said. The Chancellor has gone only to this extent beyond what he has already said—he has said that he stands exactly where he was. We are thankful to know that, at any rate.
I am reminded of a British force that was marching in France in the First World War. The troops had to reach a certain place, and it was a very hot day. One of the French peasants they met was asked how far it was to this place. He said, "Dix kilomètres." They marched on. It was very hot and they went on for what seemed an unconscionable long time. They came across another peasant and asked him how far it was to this place. "Dix kilomètres" he replied. On they went—it was frightfully hot and they were all sweating. They stopped a third peasant and asked him how far they had to go. "Dix kilomètres" was again the answer. "Thank God the place isn't gaining on us!" said the colonel. It seems to me that that is exactly where the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands. But I am glad to see that he has not receded from the position he took up at the General Election.
There are two more things I should like to say. First of all, there is this question of repercussions in outside industry. As the noble Earl admitted, I did not attempt to disguise in the least the fact of these repercussions, and I did not even attempt to stand entirely by the Treasury advice to the Royal Commission. I said that it would be the job of the T.U.C., as it was also my own hope, to see that women secured advances in ordinary industry. But, though I agree fully with the Treasury about the repercussions, I anticipate that they will not occur immediately, but are likely to be spread over a large number of years. Before all the ripples caused by casting a stone in the middle of the pond have reached the
388
edges, a long period of time elapses: let us hope that the dangers of inflation will be gone by then. Only to-day I was reading a Report of the economic advisers to the United States Treasury in which they said that they saw a sign of full business activity during 1953, but that they were not so sure of 1954 and 1955. I certainly am not going to make any prophecy about 1954 and 1955; nor do I think the noble Earl would venture to do so. But since the repercussions are likely to be spread over twenty or thirty years, I think they may be treated with a certain amount of—I will not say indifference: that is putting it too high. But at any rate they must not be given too great a prominence.
Towards the end of his speech the noble Earl said something with which I am in full agreement. He said that, so far as opportunities of service were concerned, nearly everything had been opened up to women in recent years, particularly during the war, and that those opportunities were part of the demand—in fact, a main part of the demand—which women made of successive Governments. The noble Earl said how well the women had done when those opportunities were offered to them. Yes; but do not forget that women might have said they would do those things provided that they were paid the proper rate for the job. They did not say that. They accepted the task offered to them and put their backs, their minds and their spirit into it. The noble Earl repeated what was said by my noble friend Lord Burden: that we won the war, in part, through their action. Now they say, after all that has gone by, "We did not make a bargain with you. We trusted to your honour and good sense that, when we made a demand for adequate payment for the job, which you say we have done so well, you would not boggle over the terms, any more than we boggled over terms at the time when our services were desperately needed by the country." I say that it is up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whichever Party he belongs, to do something. I take no exception to the record of events which the noble Earl has put forward. I make this no Party question. It is the duty of any Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind that fine record of women during the war; not to

389
put them at the back of the queue, and to keep on putting them at the back of the queue, whenever fresh applicants arrive. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before five o'clock