Lords Sitting of 19 June 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield

LINGUISTS IN OVERSEAS TELEGRAM SERVICE
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the General Post Office, in their overseas telegram service from London, are unable to provide staff able and authorised to take down a telegram for France in French when equivalent foreign language facilities are available in other European capitals.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the present arrangements at the London overseas telegraph office do provide for acceptance, by telephone, of telegrams dictated in French or other foreign languages. It is often necessary for callers to spell the words in order to ensure accuracy. Assistance in French is, however, available at most times for callers who are unable to speak English. My right honourable friend's information is that these arangements are regarded as satisfactory by customers generally, and in these circumstances it is not considered that the additional cost of employing linguists at all hours, would be justified.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reply, but did he say that people who are able to take messages in French are available?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I said that they are normally available. The fact of the matter is that they are normally available during normal working hours on weekdays, and usually up
1274
to 10 p.m. at night and at week-ends. Obviously it is rather more difficult to have them available at all times.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply.

SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA
2.38 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, before asking the Question which stands in my name, I wish to disclose a certain degree of personal interest, in that I am a non-executive director of a company one of whose subsidiaries manufactures incombustible materials for ships. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now announce an approximate timetable for the ratification, with the necessary consequential legislation of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which has already been accepted by the U.S.A., France, Norway and nine other countries but cannot come into force until after the deposit of fifteen acceptances; whether they are aware that if and when Britain ratifies the Convention it is likely that the remaining signatures required will be speedily forthcoming; and whether they can give an assurance that, with or without ratification, British standards in both passenger and cargo ships, with particular reference to structural fire protection, will not in any respect be lower than those of U.S.A., Russia and Germany.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960, will come into force twelve months after the date on which it has been accepted by the Governments of 15 countries, including 7 having each not less than one million gross tons of shipping. Thirteen countries have already accepted it, including 6 with over one million tons of shipping. It seems likely to come into force in the latter half of 1964. Domestic legislation to enforce the Convention should precede our ratification of it, but with the pressure there is in Parliamentary time I am not yet in a position to say when this legislation can

1275
be introduced. When the Convention come into force, ships of all nationalities may be required to comply with the standards it demands, if they visit countries that have ratified it. I have no information on whether the countries the noble Lord mentions will impose on their own shipping higher standards than the Convention requires.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he realises that the delay—and there certainly seems to be a considerable delay with no definite terminus ad quern—is harmful to British reputation abroad and to British planning at home? I would ask whether he recalls that, when the noble Lords opposite were in power, Britain was among the first of nations to ratify the similar Convention in 1948.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am aware of this position. I am also aware of the fact that legislation is required to give effect to our adherence to this Convention. I think that it would be an empty gesture to ratify this Convention without having the necessary power in law to enforce it in our country.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what is the length of time the Government have had to consider this matter? Surely it is pretty considerable? Thirteen countries apparently have ratified, and I should have thought that a nation which, though perhaps not still the leading member, has had the reputation of being well in the leadership of this industry, ought to be the first to be able to give a lead to the rest of the world.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I can only say that the Convention was arrived at as a result of a conference in 1960, and that laws vary from country to country. Other countries may not have required legislation, but in this country that is the prime requisite, for which it has not yet been possible to find the necessary Parliamentary time.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he expects this to be a lengthy piece of legislation or a Bill of one or two clauses? In this important question of safety, I should have thought that, in spite of the pressure
1276
upon it, Parliament could well have found time to pass this legislation.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I believe that the legislation concerned will be somewhat complicated and detailed. There is also the question of drawing up the necessary detailed rules which will go with it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, is not three years rather a long time for the Government, having considered this matter, still not to have come to a final conclusion or introduced legislation? Is it because they prefer legislation irrelevant to the needs of our time—such as the London Government Bill?
LORD HAWKE: The Shops and Offices Bill.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I could have seen that one coming. I must agree that from 1960 until now seems a long time, but at the same time it is the responsibility of the Government to put through legislation in the order of priority in which they consider it should go.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does it mean that the Government have really decided that they are not able to do this in their lifetime of office and are leaving it to some other Government to do?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords; it certainly means nothing of the kind.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In practice it does.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, for the noble Earl's information, I think it has been said before that it is intended to ratify and adhere to this Convention as soon as the legislation can be put through.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: At what date?
LORD ELTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord, agree that the Government's delay in this extremely important affair provides further evidence of what has been suggested in this House before now: that, what with shipping, the railways, canals, roads and road accidents on his plate, the Minister of Transport has really too much to do? Can it be

1277
that it is because he has been doing unusually well lately in respect of safety on the roads that he is doing so poorly now in respect of safety at sea?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Perhaps they are just tired.

TOXIC CHEMICALS AND WILD LIFE
2.43 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement made in the House of Lords on June 17 that the official publication Chemicals for the Gardener has not been submitted to the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances, he will urgently consult the Government's advisers on wild life and in the light of their advice consider whether this publication should now be withdrawn.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, the purpose of this advisory catalogue is Ito give guidance to gardeners in the proper use of pesticides. That is a useful and beneficial purpose: I should not care to frustrate it in any way without good reason. Such disputed chlorinated hydrocarbons as appear in the booklet have all been considered from the safety point of view by the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage who have made recommendations for their safe use. The recommendations are reflected in the booklet which provides a means of making them known to gardeners.
Noble Lords will be aware that the use of some of these chemicals in cereal seed dressings has already been severely restricted and this action has greatly reduced bird deaths, but in view of the continuing concern expressed by the wild life societies that the other uses of these chemicals in gardens and in agriculture may be responsible for bird deaths, my right honourable friend has now asked the Advisory Committee to undertake a
1278
further examination taking into account recent evidence and to report to him. The question of whether the Government should take any further action will be decided in the light of that report. Any possible decision on the booklet would have to be a part of such considered action.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his extremely carefully worded statement. In asking him one question, I am glad that what he in fact thought a fortnight ago ought to be the case, and found was not the case, is now after all going to be the case. May I ask him, in particular, to draw the attention of the Committee, when considering this booklet, to the statement in the introduction which says:
" All these preparations have been considered for possible dangers to humans, domestic animals and wild life…So far as is known, none of the garden packs when used according to the directions is likely Ito be harmful to birds or other wild life in the garden."
Would they consider this definite statement in the light of the evidence of the slaughter of birds in gardens?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, undoubtedly this review will be absolutely comprehensive, and will, I am sure, cover every problem in which the noble Lord is interested.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the original reply, would the noble Lord say whether he has any idea when this further inquiry will be completed, whether it will be done before pesticides are used again later in the year?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, that has to be a matter for the Committee. One cannot give a Committee a time limit as to the period in which they carry out their review.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are the Government aware that the remaining birds in the gardens are quite sufficient to require a good deal of attention from most gardeners?
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, arising out of what has been said, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will on this occasion fully and formally consult also the Nature Conservancy in this important matter?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, naturally the bodies which will be consulted are a matter for the Committee themselves; but, to my mind, it is inconceivable that the Nature Conservancy should not be among them. We should not stipulate to the Committee whom they are to consult. They are a highly responsible and learned body, and I am sure they will consult every body and every interest that could be consulted.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, then why cannot the noble Lord ask the Committee to consult them?
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not the duty of every Minister to consult the Nature Conservancy on any matter of public importance which affects the conservation of nature or wild life? May I ask him also whether there is not some misapprehension in what has been said previously, that the Nature Conservancy has been consulted because some of its nominees happen to sit on the Committee to which he has referred? When he says that each of these individual poisons has been the matter of consideration by the Committee in the past, that process has, has it not, been considered over several years? The point now is that this booklet, with its extremely misleading preface, is what has caused the difficulty. I think, therefore, it is important that the Conservancy should have an opportunity of expressing their views as such upon the document as a whole and not merely through representation on a Committee which looks at individual substances.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's view that the booklet is misleading. However, I repeat that the Committee have been asked to carry out a very comprehensive review and I am perfectly certain that they will.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? While no doubt it would be improper for the Minister to give a direct order to the Committee as to whom they are to consult, surely there can be nothing to prevent the Minister himself from consulting the Nature Conservancy, receiving from them a full and considered report and then submitting that report to the Committee?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am perfectly certain that the Nature Conservancy will make their views known, and that those views will be considered by the Committee in this new review.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, why cannot the noble Lord "come clean"? This is not a revolutionary proposition on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who is himself, as a Director of the Nature Conservancy, a considerable expert in these matters; and, if my memory serves me aright, I think I had a hand in starting the Nature Conservancy. Surely the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, can say that either the Minister will invite the Nature Conservancy for their views or that they are at liberty to put their views, and that he will see that they are put before the Committee and the Minister. Really, it will not shake the foundations of the British Constitution if he goes that far. I would suggest to him that he should not be so nervous. Even a Parliamentary Secretary has a right to use his head on the Floor of the House. I invite him to use it and not to be so terrified of the pundits in Whitehall and his Minister.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, what is the use of having a Nature Conservancy, as a supposedly official advisory body to the Government on matters concerning wild life, if that body is not to be officially consulted if questions like this arise?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I really cannot go on repeating my absolute conviction that the Nature Conservancy will be consulted. I should have thought that that was contained in my assurance that the inquiry and the review would be comprehensive.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the Minister is now utterly convinced that the Conservancy will be consulted. Why cannot he say that he will see that they are. This really is petty, infantile, puerile—and I shall produce some more adjectives if I stand here longer. Why cannot the noble Lord, for whom we have a great respect (and we do not want to quarrel with him) say that he will see that the Conservancy's views are invited and will be put to the Committee, or to the Minister, or both?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, it seems to me that there would be a risk of offending the Committee by suggesting that the Nature Conservancy would not be among those they will consult. However, I will certainly bring to the notice of the Nature Conservancy the fact that the noble Lord suspects that they would not be consulted.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, that is very naughty, because I was not going for the Committee but for the noble Lord. If he is now going to do what we want hire to do, that is fine; and I gather that he is. Why he could not have said so before, I do not know. Life would be much easier for the noble Lord if he would be more forthcoming on a point which is so obvious.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I entertain no suspicions whatever of the noble Lord, and I am quite sure he means everything he said. But the simple point is that the Government, in all its Departments, has a duty, and I think I am right in saying a statutory duty, to consult the Nature Conservancy on anything which is within their province. My point simply was that we should like to feel that it was the Minister who would consult them and not merely leave it to be done second-hand by the Committee.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, my right honourable friend is in close touch with the Nature Conservancy, although as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb is aware, the Nature Conservancy in fact come under the Department of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, in his original Answer the noble Lord laid a great deal of stress upon bird deaths. Will he also take into account the possibility of human deaths and illness?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the Question is related to the use of pesticides in the garden. I do not think I should enlarge on it beyond that.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since we seem to making some progress, might I support my noble friend and suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary asks the Committee to consider this terrifying document issued by the Ministry of Health as to the symptoms of
1282
death and illness caused by the misuse of these chemicals? And perhaps the Committee could consider all this in the light of the also rather frightening advice from the scientific advisers to the President of the United States on the long-term dangers of these chemicals.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in so far as the noble Lord is sincerely interested in this side of the problem, it astonishes me that he should call for the withdrawal of this booklet which urges the proper use of the pesticides by gardeners.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, the noble Lord does not realise that we want it strengthened.

TREATMENT OF DURHAM PRISONERS
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at some moment after half past three my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will make a statement on the treatment of prisoners in Durham Prison.

WOMEN IN INDUSTRY AND THE HOME
2.55 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL rose to call attention to the need for an Industrial Charter for Women, and also to the financial disabilities of the married woman working solely in the home; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I stand at this Box about to initiate a debate on women's work I cannot forbear to comment on the fact that some thousands of miles away a remarkable women, a Soviet woman, Valentina Tereshkova has returned to earth with her male colleague. Although it may be a coincidence that we are debating women in this House to-day, the relevance of this is that as women think of this return of hers they know full well that those two will be equally feted and will be equally paid the rate for the job. But if Valentina were still in orbit this afternoon, and could glimpse into this Chamber, I think she would be amazed to learn that British women in the second half of the twentieth century still have to plead for simple justice.

1283
The fact is that the economic equality of women is proving harder to secure than its political counterpart which is now taken for granted.
Last year this House discussed the conditions of nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine, thereby rendering these women a service by focusing attention on certain injustices. To-day I ask this House to examine with equal consideration the conditions of service of two other categories of women workers. Of course, there is no special reason for including these in the same Motion, other than the opportunity afforded me of securing a day for a debate; and I must thank my noble Leader and my noble friends on the Front Bench for foregoing their own, perhaps subconscious, desires to be here and for allowing me to put the case for these women.
The Industrial Charter for Women which has recently been framed by the Trades Union Congress has been described by Mr. J. Newton, a member of the General Council as
" one of the most important documents which has emanated from the T.U.C. for many years ".
It concerns the economic standards and conditions of work of the 8 million women in industry and reveals that these are far below those enjoyed by men. It is not as though women have failed in industry. Perhaps some noble Lords will recall a comment by Mr. Ernest Bevin during the war, after he had been to our engineering factories. He came back to another place, and said that he was amazed at the number of women workers, the amount of work they were doing and the expertise they showed. If women workers all withdrew their services to-day, the country's economy would collapse. The fact is that two out of five women and girls above school-leaving age go to work, and over half the employed women are married. Furthermore, it is not always remembered that married women who work outside the home, whoever they may be, whether in a factory or standing at this Despatch Box, have two jobs. A member of the General Council of the T.U.C. (and I would say here that every aspect of the work of women which I mention to-day, so far as authenticity is concerned, comes from the members of the Trades Union Congress) has said
1284
that research into the working conditions of many women would reveal that hundreds of thousands were working longer hours than the official records disclose, often in conditions which male workers would reject.
Although the occupations of women cover approximately one-sixth of industry and much of their work is essential to men's work, they are paid little over half the average earnings of men. An exception is found in the Government's industrial establishments, where they are paid two-thirds of the men's wage. We hear so much about the affluent society. There is a tendency to over-emphasise the relatively high standards of some workers who are vocal, articulate and well organised, and to ignore the low paid, humble, badly represented part of the community. I would ask those noble Lords who take a part in those debates which are concerned with finance to consider this point. As women's contribution to the gross national product forms a vital part of the nation's wealth, that means that a part of the work for which women are not paid is a direct subsidy in the economy. There is a great deal of talk about wages policy, while one hears little about those unpaid wages of women or the conditions under which they are employed. A strike would be called in any works where a man was not being paid the rate for the job, and it would be irrespective of whether the man was British or a foreigner or the colour of his skin. Yet the wife, sister, mother, girl friend, can work in the same place at the same work as a man and be paid well under the rate for the job, and not a man stirs. The first man who calls a strike to protest at the exploitation of women workers in this country will indeed be the "pin-up boy" of the women in industry.
Men, quite rightly, refuse to work at an unreasonable pace, but I am informed on good authority that women workers in many occupations are expected to work at a high tempo and that piece-work wages or other forms of incentive payment are based on rates which are lower than the male rates. In engineering or other industries women are doing complex work for wages lower than those of less skilled male workers. My Lords, for men to permit this suggests that many

1285
men believe that a woman working for a living is a challenge to their masculinity. This is a myth. The schools should play their part in eradicating these false values which have produced this lack of understanding between the sexes.
Recently attention has been drawn to the increase of accidents in industry, particularly among women and young children. This is believed to be due in part to a speed-up in the pace of work without a corresponding increase in safer working conditions. It is difficult to believe, on examining the statistics, how the Government have completely failed to benefit from the potential skills of half the workers of the country, the women. Apprenticeship schemes for girls are rare, and of these about two-thirds are in hairdressing shops. My Lords, may I take your minds back to Valentina, whose father was a tractor driver and whose mother was a textile worker? But the Soviet Union have a system whereby they recognise intelligence in an individual, whether it is a man or a woman. They do not judge individuals just by their reproductive glands, and this girl from a poor home was shown to be intelligent and therefore she was given a scientific training.
In this country a girl in the same position has absolutely no opportunity of having a scientific training. The girls' schools in this country cannot get science teachers. Our oldest universities—I am digressing, because this is not a question of industry—take 12 per cent. of women. Our London medical schools take only about the same percentage of women, irrespective of the intelligence of the girl. The point I am making here is that Britain should use its brains, irrespective of the sex of the individual. Of course, the old argument is that girls will marry, and therefore training for a skilled job is a waste of time; but this argument is no longer valid. In areas of full employment married women represent the only additional source of labour, and therefore it is essential that they receive proper training in their early years, and retraining later.
Throughout the world women are taking a larger share in industrial life. Countries within the Common Market are establishing equal pay for equal work and it has been written into the Treaty of Rome. Britain is lagging behind.
1286
At present less than 10 per cent. of women at work in Britain get equal pay. In 1962 the T.U.C. pointed out that 35 member countries have ratified I.L.O. Convention 100, which relates to equal pay, and they asked that the Government, as large employers of women, should give the lead by applying equal pay in their industrial establishments. The Government refused, on the grounds that, as a minority employer, they must follow, not lead, the practice of private employers. Surely, my Lords, that is a most remarkable doctrine. It is said that women progress only when men's self-interest makes it practicable; but men's self-interest is involved here. Women are asking that payment should be made in accord with equity, irrespective of sex. The workers, men and women, should be united on a common payment structure so that the prosperity of each reflects the prosperity of all.
Now I wish to speak about those women who spend their working lives in the home, bearing children. And if there are noble Lords who are not sympathetic with the economic status of the woman who works outside the home, I hope in this case they will be sympathetic with the woman who remains inside the home and devotes her life to what are regarded as her traditional duties. I wish to speak about these women, the women hearing children and serving the family as cleaner, cook, laundress and nurse for unlimited hours. In case noble Lords think that I am biased in this matter, may I describe their condition as it is described in the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, paragraph 626—and this, of course, was after the Royal Commission had heard a great deal of evidence. It says:
" …the law fails to take any account of the value of the work which she does in looking after the home and the children; on the contrary, the law still regards her as her husband's dependant, that is to say, as a person of inferior…economic status; and while it may be true that most husbands do not abuse their legal rights, it is wrong in principle that the wife should be left to rely on her husband's goodwill for her wellbeing."
In paragraph 627 they quote specific instances of injustice to the woman who works at home:

" (i) She has no way of ensuring that she gets a sufficient allowance on which to run the home. If her husband does not choose to tell her, she cannot even find out what he earns.

1287

" (ii) She has no legal right to any allowance for her own personal spending.

" (iii) Any money she manages to save from the housekeeping allowance is in law her husband's.

" (iv) She can lay no claim to a share in the home and the furniture except to the extent that she can prove that she has contributed out of her own separate income.

" (v) The profits of her husband's business are his own, although she may work with him in it without taking any wages."

Later on, in dealing with the breakdown of marriage, they say
" It was said that a wife often puts up with her husband's gross ill-treatment because she fears that she will lose her home. If she does obtain a separation order on the ground of her husband's cruelty or adultery, she may be forced to return to him because, as conditions are to-day, she can find nowhere else to live."
I want just to quote once more, from the Commission's views of witnesses' proposals among other things. In paragraph 647 they say:
" …we think that the weight of evidence suggests that some amendment of the law is desirable in order to give more effective recognition to the wife's contribution to the marriage."
This is the reason why I bring this Motion forward this afternoon.
May I, in the first place, draw attention to the position of the widow which reflects her complete financial dependence as a wife? She has spent many years of her life helping her husband to establish himself and contributing her services to the home and the family, but at the end of her life she has no entitlement to anything, not even to a share of the house or the furniture. This is the law of the land. They are the sole property of the husband, and he may dispose of them without her consent or leave them by will to somebody else. Indeed, a wife could live with her husband for 50 years and at the end of it the husband could leave everything to the local dogs' home or do anything he likes with his money. She has no savings because the law denies her right to save in her own name. I would say that the position of the widow in Britain to-day is barbarous. It is hollow mockery to tell an elderly woman that she has "never had it so good".
Now let us look at the lot of the widowed mother. The widowed mother who toils to support dependent children is subjected to an earnings rule if she
1288
works. This, I agree, was originally embodied in the Insurance Act, in anticipation of widespread unemployment; but this never materialised. I happened to be in another place on Monday and a Question was put down on this matter. The Minister was asked how many widows were working outside the home in order to support themselves and their families, and who were subjected to the earnings rule. We were told that there were 70,000 such widows, and the Government take back from them part of their meagre earnings. I feel that the Treasury adopt a curiously sadistic attitude towards the lone woman. Deserted wives in receipt of maintenance orders for themselves and their families must pay income tax at unearned income rates. Surely, this is absolutely inequitable.
These three categories—the widow, the widowed mother and the deserted wife—have one thing in common. During their married lives, which may well have covered their physically active life, the law has denied them the right to save in their own name. The husband may have been a drinker or a gambler, but the wife is simply his agent. Any saving she effects belongs to him. The vow, "With all my worldly goods I thee endow" to many men means giving to their wives the minimum for necessities and letting them ask for any extra which they may need. Surely, we all know here that marriage must be based on mutual respect, otherwise it is doomed to failure.
Can the economic relationship existing within the institution of marriage command a wife's respect, or is it surprising that those who are concerned with settling matrimonial difficulties find that friction over money matters is often the initial cause of the trouble? The Royal Commission carefully examined this aspect of marriage, and recommended that marriage should be regarded as a partnership in which husband and wife work together as equals. I am pleased to see that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lichfield is to make a contribution to this debate, because in this matter the Church of England has been bold, I do not always compliment them, but in this matter they have been bold, and they have produced an excellent little booklet called, The Threshold of Marriage. I am quite sure that the right reverend Prelate

1289
is going to dilate on this. I take only one sentence from this booklet, but, after all, it is the one which means most—it is the very essence of the matter. They say,
" The income must be regarded as belonging to both of them."
I regard that materialistic statement of the Church of England as something upon which they should be congratulated. Seven members of the Royal Commission recommended the introduction of some form of community of property, which works well in some Scandinavian countries and in the United States of America.
On savings, the Royal Commission's recommendation was this—in paragraph 701:
" We accordingly recommended…that savings made from money contributed by either the husband or the wife or by both for the purpose of meeting housekeeping expenses (and any investments or purchases made from such savings) should be deemed to belong to husband and wife in equal shares unless they have otherwise agreed."
Well, that is going some way. They say that the present system should be changed. But, of course, this in effect means that the husband of a thrifty wife would benefit from her efficient services, even to the extent of receiving half of her savings from the housekeeping allowance. If marriage is to be a true partnership, surely it is logical that she should receive an equal share of the money saved when the other outgoings of the home have been met. It would also follow that a man or a woman should disclose the amount of his or her weekly earnings if the partnership is to be established on a sound basis.
We are so accustomed to convention here, that I believe that many men think that the system that obtains in the instituion of marriage here is the one that obtains everywhere. I believe they feel that men in all the Parliaments of the world are so strong that they are in a majority, and in no circumstances would they therefore change this system. But that is entirely wrong. We might well examine the West German marriage laws of 1958. I never thought that I should come to a Dispatch Box in Parliament and ask Members of either House to examine German legislation introduced since the war. Basically this provides for the husband or the wife to retain the property each possessed on marriage, but after marriage they share equally in everything that is acquired and share the
1290
savings made in the home. There is a complete partnership in Western Germany. We have been inclined perhaps to disparage the German woman, to call her a hausfrau and regard her as being inarticulate. Yet she and her husband as members of society have established equal financial partnership in marriage.
I would say this to the legal profession. Lately women have cause to be grateful for certain judicial rulings which allow a separated wife an equal share in the home. Unfortunately, this protection may be lost if there is a mortgage on the house. After leaving his wife the husband may stop making payments and the building society will then be able to take over the property. If the furniture is being bought on hire purchase, he may stop the payments and return the furniture. Unfortunately, therefore, this recognition of a wife's contribution to the home in terms of service is established only when the husband has left her.
Attempts to establish an equal partnership in marriage prompts some people to utter dire warnings of the probable consequences of interfering between husband and wife. My Lords, this is reminiscent of the 19th century, when those who opposed the Married Women's Property Act quoted the Ephesians when they said:
" Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as to the Lord."
Nevertheless, despite the opposition of some men to the Married Women's Property Act in the last century, legislation was enacted, and now a minority of women are protected against greedy and cruel husbands. The result is that a wife who has money of her own has her independence secured. Surely the woman who gives unremitting service to the home should also enjoy some measure of economic independence.
Unfortunately, we have no records to show how many women are compelled to work outside the home because the husband fails to give her a fair proportion of his wages. There are well-meaning people who cannot discuss these questions in the abstract, but relate every new idea based on justice and equity for the housewife to their own sex lives. It is quite remarkable how irrational intelligent men can be on this subject. Many seem to regard marriage as the

1291
one sphere where women can be kept in their place and an equal partnership is a threat to themselves as pillars of society. I believe that men should give up arguing about women and start thinking with them.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Hear, hear!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Many fail to recognise that the husband—wife relationship is the best testing ground of character. If a man fails in this, then he should look first of all for the defects in his own character before looking for those in his wife's. The value of a woman's qualities in the home can be assessed only when she enjoys complete freedom. Consequently, the economic emancipation of women should be granted in the name of liberty and individual happiness. Finally, let me say there is no fear that it will jeopardise married happiness. On the contrary, it will increase it, for it will remove that sense of dependence which over the years can kill a woman's affection. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for bringing this subject to the attention of the House, because she has undoubtedly been touching on certain matters of social justice, and I am grateful to her for many of the things which she has said.
Last week I happened to be taking part in a big service in Lichfield Cathedral for the Women's Voluntary Services, and a prayer which was used particularly impressed me, and I thought of it during, this debate to-day. The relevant words ran thus:
" We pray that women may learn so to serve their country and their home that in working for the one they may not sacrifice the other."
In my view, that aptly sums up the ethical judgment which women time and again have to make. On the one hand, as the noble Lady has pointed out, the country definitely needs their labour to the tune of eight million; on the other hand, the woman has a special duty to her home.
1292
I would refer to the large number of married women who are now out at work, a fact mentioned by the noble Lady. Clearly, the man should be the chief breadwinner of the home. That, I think, is the natural order of things, and it is one of the reasons why I believe that the word "obey" is appropriate in the marriage service. But it is the woman who makes the spirit of the home, and while the children are young they will certainly look to her more than they do to their father. That being the case, it is very necessary that, if a married woman is going to go out to work, she must have a great deal of flexibility in regard to that work. The hours at her work must suit home requirements. There is nothing worse for the children of our land than that they should return home from school to an empty house, with a grate in which there are burnt-out remains of a fire and on the table the unwashed breakfast things. I do not think we shall ever serve our country well if we tempt women away from these home responsibilities, which surely are primary.
There are some jobs which are clearly for men, and others for women (I do not refer just to heavier and lighter work), but, when we reflect on the matter we discover that many jobs are much more interchangeable between the sexes than is often realised. I cite, for instance, the great profession of nursing. Chiefly, it is staffed by women, and we have often thought of it as women's work. But just think of the number of excellent male nurses we have in the country at the moment. Again, it was only when I started to do a little research in regard to this debate to-day that I realised how many women there are in the engineering works of our land. I had always regarded that as man's work, and to find how many women were engaged in it showed me that there is a much greater interchange of jobs between the sexes than I had realised.
If we have this situation in which the woman has this responsibility in the home and, at the same time, there is the need for her work, and this flexibility and possible interchange between the sexes in regard to that work, how can we help the women of the day to do their duty? Unquestionably in the home they have responsibilities that will occupy their time to a much greater

1293
extent than is the case with men in the home. And, of course, the training of women for various jobs is often looked upon with a certain doubt, because the authorities concerned say, "Well, if we train her she will only get married very soon, and we shall lose her. We had much better get as many men as we can, because the woman will get married and leave." The woman's working life is, of course, interrupted by child-bearing, and all her work must always be subordinate to that primary duty of the healthy married woman to bear children; for on that the future of the country depends. But if that is her primary duty, must the labour that she gives outside the home be always regarded as second-class? If we so regard it, I think we are wrong; and that is why I myself support this Industrial Charter.
Since I became a Bishop I have received a very varied postbag: people give me their opinions on a variety of subjects. For instance, it was only a short time ago that a gentleman wrote to me, "It is obvious why the country has now gone to the dogs; and the moment when it started to go there was when women were given the vote." That may be his opinion, but, as the noble Lady has pointed out, that is not the opinion of the vast majority of our countrymen to-day. I believe that the day will come when it is also seen that in the industrial sphere and on that plane, there must be the same equality as in the electoral sphere. But if that came about, would it lead to the failure of the woman to do her duty at home? If it did, it would be disastrous to the nation. Not unnaturally, some people have felt that that would be the inevitable sequence. But, my Lords, it is interesting to discover that the evidence shows that this danger is not so great as had been thought. If the woman who goes out to work works at the right time, and in the right way, her home is not affected by it; and undoubtedly the woman can sometimes provide amenities for the home which would not be available without the income that she brings in. Thus very often the work that is done by the married woman need not be feared as being detrimental to the true spirit of the home.
This leads me on to the subject of the second part of the noble Lady's Motion, and to her remarks about the financial disabilities of the woman who gives her
1294
time solely to her home. There are undoubtedly many financial disabilities to be experienced in this way. There are many married women who deliberately do not go out to work, simply because they feel that they are needed whole time at home. Many of them also take that line because they feel that they can help their husband in his work; and, as I think of the Church, undoubtedly the Church over the years has had very good reason to be grateful to the women for what they have done in that way.
The woman's home duties must surely be regarded as of the utmost importance, and I feel that it is sometimes unfair to the woman who deliberately stays at home, and gives her whole time to it, if she is then penalised because her neighbour, the wife in the next home, goes out to work and may be able to bring much greater income into the home. I have sometimes wondered whether greater allowances could be given to these women who are employed full-time in their own homes. Such allowances would help—because I know full well of the considerable financial sacrifice that is made in many a home when the wife, in conscience, feels that she ought to stay at home and not go out to work; and I think that that attitude towards the home is one that deserves encouragement and not censure.
If the country needs women at work in this way, as it does, then I would suggest that it must care for them adequately. There are many firms which are very enlightened in the way they look after their female employees. I have myself seen in factories the way in which the doctor is readily available; a trained nurse is available; there is a bright and comfortable rest room, and so on. But I still think it true to say that conditions vary. In some firms the way in which the women are looked after is not so good as it is in these other more enlightened ones. I think, therefore, that we must ask the question, in regard to the welfare of women out at work: are the essential amenities which they need safely left to collective bargaining on their behalf, or should the matter be, much more than it has been, the subject of legislation? In view of the fact that women do not so easily group themselves into trade unions as men do, I think that the possibility of further legislation on that point of

1295
essential amenities for the women, and their welfare at work, is something that ought to be borne in mind.
In this matter I would suggest that we must keep a due sense of proportion. There are principles which we have to defend, and one of those great principles is that nothing we do must ever weaken the structure of the family. But while there are those principles, do not let us make the easy mistake of confusing principles with prejudice—and there are prejudices about this subject. There are sometimes prejudices, for instance, rather than principles, in regard to the employment of the older woman. I think that is breaking down, but it still operates. There are also prejudices against the occupying of senior positions by women. Some of those, it is felt, ought to be held by men. Well, there are some of those positions that I think should be held by men. I personally, and I think the Church, would be sorry if we had the ordination of women.
LORD SILKIN: Why?
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: I could give the reasons why, but they would take up the time of the House for too long. But I should be very happy to give them afterwards to the noble Lord. In regard to this matter, however, very often there are senior positions which are withheld from women by prejudice rather than by necessity. There, too, I think that in this competitive age we should remember that sometimes a great deal of most valuable talent in those women is probably going to waste.
Finally, as we think of this matter of the women of our land and what they do for the country, and what ought rightfully to be done for them, I want to make a plea that we should not lose the spirit of courtesy to our womenfolk. I sometimes think that the country has not improved over the years in matters such as this. I know that sometimes people say, "Oh, well, if women want equality in everything they must take what comes to them. They cannot expect to receive the courtesy that once they did." It will be unfortunate if ever that kind of spirit spreads. As I compare the situation to-day with what it was when I was a young man, I think, for instance, that in public transport the manners of the community have undoubtedly deteriorated. Often one sees a young man
1296
slumped in a seat while an elderly lady is straphanging in front of him. We ought to reflect on this, and see whether that essential courtesy to our womenfolk is not something which is perhaps of greater importance than has always been realised. I believe it is in that kind of little way that we all can realise what we should do for our womenfolk. If this debate this afternoon, which the noble Baroness has so ably initiated, leads us to see the part that women can play and the way in which they can be helped to do it, then I think that the community will have been served.

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT DURHAM
3.39 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, with your permission, I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice an Answer which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made to-day in another place in reply to a Question asking whether he will publish the Report of the inquiry by the visiting committee into Mr. Cronkshaw's allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners at Durham Prison. I will use my right honourable friend's own words:
" Yes, Sir, and copies will be available to honourable Members in the Vote Office this afternoon. Mr. Cronkshaw, a former prisoner, made 11 allegations of ill-treatment of other prisoners at Durham while he was there. The visiting committee find that 8 of these allegations were without foundation of any kind. Of the remaining 3, they report that one involved a conflict of evidence but, even if true, was not of a serious nature; that one disclosed a defect in prison routine, which is being looked into, but no negligence or irregularity on the part of the officers concerned; and that one, which also involved a conflict of evidence, left the committee with grave suspicion that two officers might have been guilty, if not of an assault on a prisoner, at least of using more force than the circumstances warranted, although no complaint was made by the prisoner concerned or anyone else at the time.

1297
" The visiting committee themselves reported that they could not regard the facts as having been proved, but I nevertheless thought it right that the papers be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. His conclusion is that the evidence is clearly insufficient to support a prosecution of the two officers.
" Many of Mr. Cronkshaw's allegations included criticism of the prison medical service. The visiting committee find that none of these criticisms has been substantiated, and that no blame of any kind attaches to the prison medical service.
" Honourable Members will wish to read for themselves the comments in the report on the value to be attached to Mr. Cronkshaw's allegations generally. I cannot but regret the wide publicity that was given to them as soon as they were made and before their authenticity had been investigated. It inflicted harm on the reputation and morale of the prison service which the publication of the report, based on thorough investigation, should certainly dispel."
That is the end of my right honourable friend's statement.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: MyLords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl for making that statement, and that we shall wish to follow the advice that he has given us, to read the Report for ourselves before attempting any comment. I am sure that if in fact the prison officers have been vindicated to the extent suggested here, we shall all be very happy. Those of us who are interested in penal reform must be careful to approach these matters from the point of view that the prison staff are innocent until they are convicted of some offence. We also realise that they live a life of great strain, and that none of them is infallible or perfect.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude for the tone of the statement which the noble Earl has just made. In endorsing what he has said about the prison officers, I wish (jumping the gun, perhaps, just a little) to quote a sentence from the Report, which is now available to your Lordships. It appears on page 29 of the Report, where the Committee state, in
1298
speaking of the Governor of Durham Prison:
" We are satisfied that his administration is just and humane, and that he is supported by a staff who almost without exception are of the same high standard ".
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, could the noble Earl give us any background to this gentleman Mr. Cronkshaw?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have recently learned that Mr. Cronkshaw is in fact due to appear to-day before the Blackpool magistrates' court on a charge of forgery, and in view of that, and since this case is, as it were sub judice, I think it would be wrong for me to give any details of his previous record.

WOMEN IN INDUSTRY AND THE HOME
3.44 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this question. I must confess that I had intended to come here to speak as an employer rather than as a husband, but I think that perhaps the husband's voice ought to be raised in this debate. The noble Lady referred to the many duties of the wife. I made a list of the ones I have had: stoker, cook, dryer-up, painter, gardener and children's nurse; and there are many of us who, I hope, in the properly conducted home, share duties as is appropriate. I must confess that when I give prizes away at boys' schools I always advise them to learn to cook, because it is so much more interesting for the husband to cook than to have to dry-up. But this does not, I think, weaken the case that my noble friend has made. Nor, I think, does it weaken the point that the right reverend Prelate made about courtesy—although I remember coming back from the British Empire Exhibition when I was a small boy and having to give up my place to a man whom my aunt had knocked down because she thought he had been rude to her.
My Lords, however much we may feel that these demands for rights are misplaced so far as we are concerned, or so far as the majority of homes are concerned, there is not necessarily any harm

1299
in granting them—and I refer in particular to some of the legal points—and if there is a need for them, then they certainly ought to be granted. I should have thought that the fact that (and this has been true of the whole story of the emancipation of women) so many women are inclined to say that they do not really need it, they do not want it and that they do not think it is necessary, is not, in itself, enough reason to dismiss the very powerful arguments that have been adduced, and adduced so eloquently, by my noble friend to-day.
It is, of course, an indication of the social progress of a particular country if rights of these kind are established. My noble friend referred with some slight astonishment to improvements in conditions, in terms of rights, of women in Germany; but, of course, in many other respects also German legislation in the social welfare field, as in other European countries, is outstripping us in this country. I think that, in considering the points of my noble friend, we should realise that this is an aspect of our whole social progress; that you cannot have one without the other; that this is a very good indication. And the points my noble friend made are a very good indication of the degree of general progress that is being made.
I wanted to refer mainly to the position of women in industry and commerce, which is where I spend a good deal of my day, in the personnel field. I am particularly concerned with the employment and conditions of women, working, as I do, with a large number of women personnel officers. I agree most strongly with the argument that has been put forward—and most sensible employers now appreciate this—that employers must get out of their minds the idea that it is not worth training women because later they are going to leave work and marry. There is no doubt that they are going to leave and get married, and it is extremely irritating when this happens; but once it is realised and accepted that you still need to employ women, and that there are many jobs at which they are best, and many jobs which they may do as well as, if not better than, the men who may be available, albeit for a relatively short period, then one gets a rather clearer approach to this matter.
1300
It is of course true—and this came out recently in our debate on industrial training—that training for industry must be based on the educational system, and the criticisms that have been made in regard to the training of women in industry do apply, of course, to the state of training generally in industry. It is the fact that what my noble friend said was true to such a marked degree with regard to women is also true to a considerable degree with regard to men. There is not enough training, and I do not believe the Government—and this is perhaps the one critical point I should make from an Opposition point of view—are yet seriously tackling this problem. We had an interesting debate recently. We are making a somewhat leisurely approach by setting up training bodies in industry, with powers to levy, but this is not going to be enough to meet the national need, and it will certainly not be enough to meet the rather special problems which my noble friend Lady Summerskill mentioned. I would merely say on this that, until we do have a central body of such a kind as they have in Sweden, we are not going to tackle this problem efficiently.
It is, of course, in the school that the most important part of the preparation for industrial life begins from the training point of view. But there is, of course, a need for continual further training of a kind that best employers already give, but which is still not enough. The noble Lady is right in saying that the majority of apprenticeships are likely to be in trades like hairdressing; but unless there is some form of apprentice training it is probable that very little training will be given. This can be overcome; the devices are known. There are bodies able to provide this training and to advise on it, and, of course, the best firms already do it. It is of very great importance not merely to the woman herself at the time when she is in full-time employment but for her future employment when she may at a later date return to industry or commerce after marriage.
I would just say a word about the attitude that industry ought to take towards marriage. Too many people assume that the moment a girl gets engaged to be married and the date is fixed they are going to

1301
say goodbye to her for ever. I do not propose to go into the difficult question of the extent to which married women should work in industry, but the fact remains that for large numbers of them soon after marriage it is probably an economic necessity. Then comes the question of maternity, and at this point the difficulty arises. I want now to speak not merely of legitimate children but of illegitimate children. Most girls who find themselves about to have an illegitimate baby almost certainly try to conceal the fact from their employer for fear that they will immediately get the sack.
It is in the interest not only of the community but of the employers themselves to look after the girl in the prenatal state; to give her maternity leave, if necessary on pay, and to offer her the opportunity to return to work afterwards; because in many cases the unmarried mother has no option but to arrange for the child to be adopted. Even if the child is not adopted, the State is very much better in providing facilities for the child of the unmarried mother than for the child of the married mother. I should like to see in any industrial charter provision for maternity leave on full pay for mothers, whether they be married or unmarried; and this will come, I believe, at a later stage as we progress. I know firms who in fact do this; my own firm happens to be one of them. I am quite satisfied that it is not only to the inestimable benefit of the girl in question but to the advantage of the employer.
I want now to turn to the difficulties arising in employment of married women. This question imposes a responsibility and an extra labour on management. We have had in your Lordships' House a number of discussions on management, and the primary requirement of management, and the primary requirement that the worker and, certainly, the trade unions want in management, is that it should be intelligent and competent. If management is to be, intelligent and competent, then it must take into account—and it is not always easy to do this—the circumstances of married women. Some of the best unused labour, from a national point of view, is to be found among married women who are not able to go out to work full-time. It may be difficult to incorporate part-time workers into a
1302
business, but in fact a number of firms have done this successfully, both by means of certain shift systems and by means of certain types of work. This brings me back to the point I was making: that it is very important that a woman should be competent at her job and have a skill, either educationally or technically in her fingers, which she is able to use. She then becomes an asset, at least to an intelligent employer.
I would argue that this is in the interests not merely of the economy and the employer but also of the wife and of her husband; because there are plenty of women who are devoted mothers and housewives but who, none the less, after a while find the domestic round is not enough to satisfy their interests. They may be able to find an outlet in social work in their community; but for many of them the opportunity to do some part-time work in industry or commerce will not only be of economic value to the family but also add to their own happiness. Those of us who are engaged in more than one job—and many of us in this House are, because we can go from our business to Parliament—will know how refreshing is the change of activity. This is one of the great privileges that men have. They have, on the one hand, their home; and, on the other hand, their work. For many women it is purely the home, and I believe there is rather a strong social case for extending the opportunity for part-time work to married women. Before I leave that particular point I would emphasise that here is a reservoir of very high-calibre labour which could be usefully and beneficially put to work in this way.
I would say a word or two about the conditions of work for women in industry to which the right reverend Prelate referred. I agree with him in his reference to the importance of the medical side, and here I would return to the special importance of a gradual development within industry—which is voluntary at the moment—of industrial medical services.
I believe that the industrial health service must to some extent change its rôle. It has not simply to cope with accidents or emergencies; it has to provide the sort of help needed for minor

1303
ailments. This is of particular importance where women are concerned. There should be opportunities perhaps for an hour or two of rest, for the treatment of minor ailments and for the sympathy that can sometimes be beneficial. Let me say straight away to the noble Baroness that I am sure she would not accuse me of thinking that men are tougher than women. We know that this is not so. But women do have certain particular needs, and I think a proper industrial health service is of importance.
Now I would turn to the question of wages and promotion. Here again there is the same sort of prejudice that has existed for a long while. It is the doubt whether women are capable of filling the highest ranks in industry. I said that I was in favour of removing all disabilities, legal and otherwise, and I also hope that we shall be able to remove psychological disabilities. It is unlikely, at any rate for a long while, that the majority of women will wish to take over the work of the majority of men, whether in industry, Government or Parliament, but there are some who are capable of doing so, and it would be an act of both injustice and folly to deny them that opportunity.
I have had in business considerable experience of women executives at the highest level who have shown the greatest degree of efficiency and competence. Here again we shall have to move to some extent by legislation. Without going deeply into the vexed question of equal pay and the rate for the job, it is difficult for employers who seek to establish equivalent pay in those industries where rates are fixed by wages council awards and there is a big difference between the two rates of pay. The good employer will always pay above the statutory rate, but the fact is that the pattern will be set by the rate fixed by the wages board. We shall need to move gradually to an integration at that point.
From the employment point of view I think it important—and I am sure that my noble friend would agree with this—to recognise that men and women have different qualities and are each particularly suited for certain jobs. For instance, I should like to see much greater employment of women in personnel management, for which they are particularly well suited.
1304
I happen to have experience of dealing with them in this field, and the women personnel officers who work with me are able to tell me things that I did not know and could not know, because they have these perceptive qualities—which it is so unfair for them to possess but which nevertheless can be put to specific use. I think that a reasonable partnership can be arrived at, in which there is no question of biological inferiority, but a recognition that there are certain qualities which are found more highly developed in women than in men.
The last point I want to make is about the loneliness which so particularly affects women. This is a question with which my noble friend has been long concerned. Recently I heard of the sad case of a lonely woman who committed suicide, which is almost a classic example of the effects of loneliness. There is a particular need to do something for single or deserted women, who find it more difficult than men do to find a place in the community.
In conclusion, I would say that we cannot think about the position of women, both in the home and in industry, in isolation. It is a good thing, as my noble friend has done, to take a separate look at this matter and to isolate the problems and issues that need special attention; yet when we look at it, we find that there may be a need, in respect of certain difficulties, for an advance on the general social and industrial front, and that it is not a matter affecting only women. But in making any advance we should give special attention to special circumstances and special categories. Therefore, I think that it is right that we should have taken this look at the matter today, and I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising this subject.
4.6 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I think that the speech of the right reverend Prelate was one of valuable thought and usefulness in a debate of this kind. I agree with most of what he said, although I have reservations about a point or two taken up also by the last speaker. I am afraid that more than once on this very subject I have got at cross-purposes with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. I do not know why, and I am very sorry for it; but I have

1305
my views upon the subject and may be allowed, I hope, to have them.
I feel that the way in which the debate has gone shows that there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding of certain aspects of the problem. We heard, for instance, that there is a tremendous requirement in industry for women's labour. This was not the view of the trade unions years ago. The trade unions, of course, have altered their point of view upon the subject, but the idea that we cannot get on unless vast numbers of women are engaged in industrial employment, particularly mechanical employment (the career woman is quite another matter), is taken for granted. But I do not take it for granted, any more than I take for granted the common assumption that we must "export or perish". But then I am a Socialist—one of the few Socialists that remain, if I may say so. I think that we have forgotten a good deal of our fundamental principles. I cannot understand the enthusiasm with which so many of our professed Socialists are rushing into the fight for so-called women's freedom, which really amounts to making more and more wage-slaves of the sex than there were before. I am not so enthusiastic about that. I do accept the idea that there are two sexes with certain differences and that these differences are, sometimes at least, important.
The misunderstanding I refer to is the assumption that the objection applies to woman's labour in general. I assure the noble Lady that in my case it does not. There is a great amount of service to the State and the country which can be and is being rendered by women in many directions. No one talks about all women being refused the chance of employment, even in industrial work. There are hundreds of thousands of women who are not married and who ought to be employed in industry according to the kind of work they can do. There are older women, with experience of life, who perhaps have shed certain responsibilities of their earlier life, and who have a right to industrial employment or any other kind of employment for which they are fitted.
I do not want to say a word against the career woman. I do not care whether it is the barrister, Member of Parliament,
1306
or whoever it is, no one suggests for one moment that such people, who render a great service to the State, should be refused the opportunity, at some time of their life, at any rate, of the other kind of service for which they are thoroughly trained and well fitted. I, and those who think with me, do not take that point at all. The point that we take is on the running of a home (I am talking about the married woman with a young family) and doing all the chores of a home. That means a great deal. It will not do to say: "I employ daily help" because if you do that you are merely shouldering the slavery on to others for a mere payment, and that is not a very Socialistic thing to do. I have said that before, and I am afraid it upset the noble Baroness on a former occasion. But it is merely shelving the question.
Surely the point is this: that you cannot run a home on tinned foods and letting children run about the streets until mother gets home or until both parents get home. Young children especially want a lot of motherly affection. There are a lot of child problems in the home—little illnesses that crop up and the comfort that is required. That, alone, is sufficient to suggest to me that full-time industrial work for a married woman with a young family is not a thing that should be supported. It is a bad thing; and I have seen many examples of how bad it really is. Beyond the direct care of the children, the love that is required for them and the intimate care at all times that a child requires, there is also the everyday work of the home. I am thinking more of a working-class home, because I am of the working-class and I have not known much other than working-class homes. In the running of a home, however humble and small, there is shopping, cleaning, bathing the children every day, ironing and all sorts of domestic work to be done. This is work which a man who has done a day's hard work would not think of attempting, and should not be expected to, anyhow. If you have not the daily help that is required to make it reasonable, then something must go; and it does go in many thousands of homes. I am very much concerned about those homes, and not particularly about anything else.
By all means let us have women in industry; it would no doubt do industry a great deal of good. But I object to

1307
the economic point put forward, which to my mind is unsocialistic; and I object also to the idea that it is a question of the rights of womankind. It is not a question of rights. If a woman takes up the responsibilities of a home by getting married, that, as the right reverend Prelate said, comes first; that must be settled anyhow. Even so, the career woman who has training for an important profession, if she selects a home, should not neglect that home, but should make other provision for the proper care of the home and children.
Those are the points I want to put forward. Just think of what a working-class mother's work is: shopping, cooking and all sorts of things. Then it is said: "Let the husband do his share of the chores." My wife would object very much if I interfered with her running of the home. I do not like it, and I do not do more of it than I am compelled to. But there are some things I do and that I think a man should do in the home. I will not go into what they are, because it would take too long, but I want to make it plain that I am not that all-out opponent of women that the noble Baroness has so often thought I am. I have no objection to women in business, in industry or in anything for which they are fitted. But if they go into the business and industry of a home and motherhood, then that must come first, even if they have to pay other people to do it. But do not pay other people to do it and then say: "That is the Socialist thing to do. Look what a good Socialist I am!". You are nothing of the kind.
On the economic proposition, I want to suggest, as a last word, that this country does not need, and really is not in the position of needing, the wife and mother, the one responsible for the actual work and management of the home, in industry. I refuse to believe that. If you regard a "rat race" as the proper economic thing that we as Socialists have to deal with and support—and a good deal of Socialist literature makes me think that you do—after all, it is only a question of nationalising capitalism, and competitive capitalism at that. If you take that, and use all the slogans of the Conservative Party and the capitalist sections of the community you are right. But, as a Socialist, I say that you are wrong. First things first: as, for instance, the point
1308
about whether we must export or perish. It is not true that we must export or perish. It is not said, "We must make do with this, that and the other; there are certain things we have to go without, and we shall be hindered "; it is suggested that we should perish. What a fine idea, that one of the greatest countries, from a horticultural and agricultural point of view, must perish if we do not join in the "rat race"!If that is the modern socialism, I have finished with it. I do not believe it.
I believe in first things first. And one of the first things on this subject is the care and love of the children, and abolishing a situation where, in my own knowledge, in the streets round about where I live, children carry latch keys and come home from school, day after day, to an empty house; and other cases where the parent has to go a long distance to school to take to or fetch from school the younger children of six, seven, eight or nine years of age, making that journey twice a day. The argument that a woman is compelled, or finds it necessary, to do a day's industrial work with all that responsibility on top of it does not seem to me to be a Socialist proposition at all.
4.19 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I will delay your Lordships for only a short time. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for not being present when she made the whole of her speech, but I did hear the last half. Unfortunately, I had a public luncheon and could not get away, and I was not here when she started. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for putting down this Motion, which I think covers a matter of great importance. I would approach it, if I may, in a non-political, non-Party way. The noble Lord who has just sat down made various points, with some of which I agree, but with others I do not agree, but I would not say that I was speaking from the point of view of a Tory or making any points which are necessarily of a Party political kind. The noble Lord who has just sat down spoke about the Socialist point of view. He may be right; I do not know; but I think there are many Socialists who would disagree with what he said. But I am not speaking from any point of view except one of some experience over a fairly long

1309
period in the question of the employment of women.
At the beginning of the last war the Minister of Labour of the day, no less a great man than Ernest Bevin, set up at the Ministry of Labour a Committee called the Women's Consultative Committee which was to advise the Minister on the difficult and important problem of the call-up of women for industry, munitions, women's services and all the other great range of employment that was required for women during the war. I sat on that Committee from the beginning, and at the end of the war we were asked to advise about demobilisation of women, which we did. Since then we have met four times a year when our advice has been asked on various important problems connected with the employment of women. During the whole of those years I realised how tremendously important this subject is and how it is growing year by year, whether we like it or not.
The total number of women who are in work to-day—and I expect the noble Baroness mentioned these figures—is 8,120,000; that is, an increase of 140,000 between 1961–62, and an increase of 1,020,000, between 1952 and 1962. That is an enormous labour force, and I could not agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down in saying that those women, or a proportion of them, are not required in industry, in social services or in professions; because, in fact, they would not be employed if they were not very anxiously needed for the various kinds of professions. In fact, 35½ per cent. of the total number of people in work are women, and this is 1½ per cent. above what it was in 1952. These are very big figures indeed. The largest increase in the last year in the employment of women was in girls under 18, where the increase was 5·6 per cent. and the increase in the number of those over 18 was 1·4 per cent. Nearly half of the increase of 140,000 in the year 1961–62 for which I could get Ministry of Labour figures was in professional employment—scientific, educational, medical and dental services. That is, in my submission, a vital and most important contribution which women are making to the community in which they live. A third of that 140,000 went into the distributive trades and a quarter
1310
went into what is described as miscellaneous trades, largely the hotel and catering trades. That is a very big proportion of the total labour force of the country.
The noble Lord who has just sat down spoke about the married women, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his most interesting speech as an employer, and a very enlightened employer, if I may say so, of women in the distributive trade, spoke about part-time women workers. Of these, 52 per cent. are married or widows, and they, too, make a very good contribution. The increase in part-time workers is largely in women over 35 years of age. That, I think, would help the noble Lord who has just sat down, because, on the whole, the families of those people would be either of school age or above school age and would, to a certain extent, be able to look after themselves. There has been a decline in the number of women employed in the age group under 25. There are 386,000 women working part-time in manufacturing industry, and this also, I believe, is an important contribution indeed to the success of our manufacturing industry. I think your Lordships would agree that those figures alone show the great importance of the employment of women.
I do not want to go into the details of how women are employed, because other noble Lords have done this, but I do think that this enormous labour force, whether it be in the professions, in the manufacturing industry or in distributive trades, is a matter which should concern us all. And here I think the noble Baroness is right when she speaks of the importance of some kind of industrial charter or conditions in the way of employment which everyone would observe and which would, I think, be of great value Ito women in their employment.
But there is still a great shortage. The noble Lord who has just sat down mentioned that he did not know whether there was a great shortage, and I should like to inform him that in certain employments there is. In the teaching and nursing professions, in social work and domestic work, all of us have had experience of the shortage of workers, and I believe we shall not get people to go into these professions unless we can assure them that the conditions under

1311
which they are employed and paid are comparable to, and as good as, those in any employment offered to men in similar professions.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness mentioned the importance of equal pay for equal work, but I am quite sure that is a matter of great importance in the professions and the other services. In the profession to which the noble Baroness belongs we have always agreed that equal pay for equal work is absolutely axiomatic, and nobody suggests that a woman who is a skilled doctor should be paid less than a man similarly skilled; and there are many other professions in which that would indeed be equally true. So that this is something which we want both employers and trade unions to look at with a fresh and enlightened eye.
On this Women's Consultative Committee we have represented all the political Parties, and many people from the professions whose political affiliations I do not know: but that point does not enter into it at all. We almost always agree on methods which we think the Ministry of Labour should adopt; and it speaks well for women of all political Parties that we should have worked for so many years together on these important problems and, so far as I can remember, have never disagreed or taken a vote of disagreement on any of the recommendations we have made to the Ministry of Labour.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who mentioned the training of women and girls in industry. I have here an extremely good booklet, issued by the Industrial Training Council, on the training of girls in industry, which is of the highest importance. I know that many of the great employers, certainly in the manufacturing and distributive trades, have enlightened views about the training of girls in industry or in the distributive trades. At the back of the book there are various accounts of the ways in which different companies, factories and manufacturing industries train women for industry.
The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lichfield touched on the question of women in the Church. I do not think this is a debate in which one should
1312
raise this matter in any detailed way; but only the other day, at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which I attended, a remarkable speech was made by Miss Mary Lusk, who is appointed to a post at the University of Edinburgh which would normally be carried by an ordained minister. She is a deaconess, a worker in the Church, not of course ordained, but carries out exactly those duties. She has asked that the question of whether or not women should be admitted to the Church should be considered; and, because of the remarkable speech and the remarkable case which she made to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland the other day, a committee of investigation is being set up. The right reverend Prelate only touched on it in his speech, but I believe that in the Church of England also an inquiry is being made on these lines.
This is not a matter in which one can have any particular views, because the fact is that these things are all under discussion. But that goes to show, I think, the tremendous importance that one should attach to the contribution which women are making in enormous numbers of spheres of work. And the conditions under which they work, the training which they receive, the standards which are required of them, and so on, are all an essential matter in this very modern world in which we live. I hope very much as a result of this debate, as a result of the very careful and important manner in which the noble Baroness deals with these matters, being herself a professional woman, that we may have a very careful study made by both employers and trade unions and the political Parties, not so much from a Party point of view but from a general political point of view, of the way in which we can help women to continue to make, and to improve the contribution they are already making, in my opinion an essential contribution, to the welfare of the community to-day.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, we must all be glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, was able to be here in time to speak. She said, and was entitled to say, that she was speaking from a non-Party point of view, but, if I may say so, her Party

1313
is lucky to have someone who is so dedicated to social work and public-spirited causes, and she is certainly a great source of strength Ito anybody with whom she is associated. She spoke, as have other speakers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the right reverend Prelate, from intimate knowledge and experience of these problems. We have also had a contribution from my old friend Lord Amwell, who certainly carried us with him while he was stressing the rôle of the mother in the home. There were other more controversial aspects of his speech on which he challenged the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, but I will leave her to cope with him, because I feel she is more worthy of his steel; but we were all very glad to hear him.
I am delighted to be able to back up the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. I myself think that no one has made more difference to this House in the last few years since she came here than the noble Baroness. She has not only made stirring contributions herself but has caused other timid souls to pluck up courage and square our shoulders and play the man, if that expression is allowed in her presence; and certainly to-day she has spoken from a great background of work and idealism.
I was also very much interested to hear what the right reverend Prelate had to say about courtesy. I am sure that courtesy is something that should transcend sex. I still cling to the idea that one should rise in a tube—not in a bus, if one is at all tall, because one causes trouble—but in a tube and offer one's seat. My rule is to rise once between Sloane Square and Westminster, but not twice. I hope the right reverend Prelate would regard that as a thoroughly Christian rule. It is embarrassing, when one reaches the age, now being approached by some of us, at which young women begin to offer their seat to oneself. That is, I think, a wrong trend. Yesterday at Earl's Court, when I was coming down the stairs to the tube my bag flew open; it was not perfectly locked; and a lot of things fell out. It is always interesting on these occasions to, as it were, test the Samaritan qualities of the average congregation as they flow past one. The two who stopped to help me were one young man of what might be called the Y.M.C.A. type, and an
1314
elderly woman who confided that she was suffering from bad arthritis. I am all for courtesy. I am sure the right reverend Prelate would agree that this is something that should flow between the sexes, and not only in one direction.
I have just been reading a life of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, which is shortly going to appear. When one reads the history of the suffrage movement one finds it really astounding that it is only a few years ago that men conceded the principle of equality. Taking the whole story, one must agree that the greatest condemnation of the male sex is their treatment of women over the centuries. If it had not happened one would not believe it could be true. I am afraid the male sex still constitute in many ways, when they are challenged and still in a position to resist the challenge, the most obstinate vested interest one can find.
It is only a few years ago in this House some noble Lords resisted, on what appeared to them the highest grounds, the emergence of Ladies such as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. You might think that those noble Lords would now think that they were then wrong. I met one the other day. I ought not to quote this but it provides lighter relief and it is only telling the truth. I said, "Surely now the noble Ladies have done so well you must agree you were very much at fault." A look of hypothetical delight stole over his face and he said, "Whenever I see that long neck bending down I wish I had my chopper, and I say to myself, ' Chop, chop, chop '." That is the attitude still to the fair sex of some who are legislators in this House. That being so, it is really surprising they got here at all. At any rate that is what women have had to fight throughout the centuries.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene on a point that occurs to me?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Certainly. It was not the noble Lord who said that.
LORD AMWELL: I am not intervening on that point but on something that was said a little before, about rising in a train because a woman comes in and she should have your seat and you should stand. The point that occurs to me—I may be wrong is—that it might be worth

1315
considering whether, if it is so necessary and so gallant and so desirable to give up a seat for a few minutes in a tube train, it can conceivably be regarded as a right thing for a woman to do a hard day's industrial work in a factory and then go home and do the chores of the home.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am afraid I do not follow that argument. I think giving up one's seat to a lady is an act of courtesy. I have various rules of that sort which I recommend to the noble Lord. Never walk into a room in front of a clergyman, is one of my rules. I think these are courtesies rather than acts of physical sustenance. I think the world would be poorer and coarser it these courtesies were not observed. There are other arguments but that I suggest to the noble Lord.
I was saying that throughout the centuries this struggle has gone on. Plato, if I remember rightly, was in favour of equal chances for women. In the last century Mr. Gladstone was not. In this century Mr. Asquith was a strong opponent. I am sorry to say it in the presence of his distinguished relative, the noble Baroness, but I think Mr. Asquith was extremely difficult where the rights of women are concerned. And Sir Winston Churchill, too. I am sorry to say that. But Sir Winston is, I am glad to say, still with us; so we are not living in ancient history now. That battle has gone on, and now, at last, the principle is more or less accepted.
There has been progress in the Carlton Club. I do not know whether noble Lords have read "The Londoner's Diary" in the Evening Standard of to-day—we are still quite early in the day. If not, I venture to quote something from the first paragraph of "The Londoner's Diary". It says:
" There have been some radical improvements at the Carlton Club since the arrival there a month ago of a new Secretary, Mr. Michael Lord."
I ought to say that I resigned from the Carlton Club, before being expelled, in 1935, so that I am not in touch with proceedings, as the noble Earl and other noble Lords may be. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, would be allowed to be a
1316
member of the Carlton Club—she shakes her head!That is not much of a step forward. We are now told that in the Carlton Club
" women, instead of being confined to a small ante-room are now allowed in the more spacious library on the first floor."
That means that the noble Baroness will be allowed into the library.
" The ante-room has been turned into a banqueting room which can be hired also for cocktail parties or used as an overflow from the dining room. Attendance has doubled. More good things are to come. ' When we close in August we are turning one of our very many lavatories into a bar ', said Mr. Lord "—
I do not see what the connection is there; it is all in this passage—
" Women are still denied access to the main staircase ".
Even for the Carlton Club that is a bit backward. I repeat:
" Women are still denied access to the main staircase. They must take the lift to the first floor."
I am in favour of equality of rights, but I am not in favour of absolute and total feminine predominance. Men must be allowed to speak. This is the situation in the Carlton Club which I have placed before the House.
However, at the special request of the noble Baroness, I turn to the more technical part of my speech which will be dry enough, I think, for all tastes. I want to deal in great detail with the life of women in banking, and when I have finished I think no one will complain that I have been facetious, because it is not at all a laughing matter. In regard to the problem of women in banking, I want to make two demands on their behalf which I think will be conceded by all Members here; and of course the remedy does not lie entirely in the power of the Government. But I take banking because it is something with which I was associated for a number of years, until just the other day. I make a demand for equality of pay and equality of opportunity, and I think that the noble Baroness, not to mention other speakers, will be with us because she has upheld strongly the principle of equality of pay, and also, I have no doubt, the equality of opportunity. But may I take the second one first, equality of opportunity, because the question of pay is rather simpler?

1317
In banking the question of equality of opportunity is a rather tricky one. In fact, in commercial banking in what are ordinarily called the joint stock banks, of which the "Big Five" are much the best known, Barclays is the only bank which has appointed women as managers. Barclays now has two women branch managers: no other bank has any. There are in Barclays several kinds of women appointed to senior posts inside the bank. They have a woman staff manager administration, and I am told that that is regarded as a higher position than that of a branch manager. All this, one is bound to say, refers to Barclays alone. Taking the banks as a whole, it is inconceivable that there should be so few women in good positions if there were anything like equality of opportunity. I say that because, indeed, it is bound to be one's conclusion, when one bears in mind that at the moment the banks are recruiting more female than male staff, and that the proportion of women in banks is between 40 and 50 per cent., and is increasing the whole time. In that situation, one would say that it was astonishing that in Barclays there were two female managers and in other banks no female managers at all.
There is need for caution here. The vast majority of women who enter banking as girls leave it, after a few years, to be married. All that side of things was stressed in a more general way by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton; and so one has to be careful in saying, "Well, half the staff in the banks are women; therefore half of them ought to be managers". I am not putting that claim forward, because it is extreme and would be rather absurd. Nevertheless, out of the more than 100,000 men and women employed in banking there must be some thousands of women who give their whole life to the profession; and it must be clear from the figures, and from what I said earlier, that the few women who have received senior posts—those who do give their lives to the work of banking—receive a much worse chance, on the average, than the men, and a much worse chance than their talents deserve.
But we must look at the matter from the point of view of the banks. I have been a bank chairman, and I know this side of it. From the point of view of the banks, when the young women join they are, of course, regarded as much
1318
less durable, much less likely to last, than men. Taking them as a whole, they are looked on as not providing potential material from which managers are likely to emerge, simply because it is thought that the vast majority of them will be married fairly soon. When one is discussing this question of equality of opportunity for women one has to bear that side of the matter in mind. Even so, I would say that the fact which I have just mentioned, that the vast majority of the women marry fairly soon provides an altogether insufficient excuse for the backwardness of the banks. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, covered all this over a wider field, and I must not try to repeat what he said. But I am talking now of banking from first-hand experience. The banks as a whole have failed to take adequate steps to train promising young women so that they can be equipped to take on higher responsibility if they stay in the banks. Most of the female recruits to banking tend to gravitate to routine tasks, to work as ledger-posting machinists or shorthand typists; whereas suitable young men, and indeed the average young men in the bank, are usually, after they have been in the bank a little while, given the chance to acquire wider experience in the various aspects of banking. All this early training and wider experience paves the way for their promotion later on to managerial posts. It is, I suppose, broadly true—though it is difficult to generalise—that if a young woman wishes to rise in banking beyond the routine tasks, she has to show rather special initiative in pushing her way forward, whereas the opportunity comes to the young man in the ordinary course of events.
Therefore, making allowances for all the progress, I respectfully plead with the banks to show far more enterprise and sense of justice than hitherto in giving equal opportunities to their female staff. I was told to-day (I have not seen it myself) that there is an advertisement from one of the banks which shows considerable enterprise. They have published an advertisement under the heading, "Job or career. We provide you with whichever you want". That stresses the fact that a woman may want to come for only a few years; but some may want a career. If that is so, and a bank has put an advertisement of that sort in

1319
the newspaper, I give it all credit. But a great deal more should be done.
I turn now to the question of pay. I should just say, linking these two matters together, that if the pay were more equal as between men and women, there is no doubt that a good many more young women would be ready to assume responsibilities to which their talents entitle them than is now the case. As things stand, they are frequently reluctant to take on the higher responsibilities if only because they do not feel they are going to be properly paid for them. Therefore, the employers have some argument—though not a very strong one in view of their backwardness—for saying that they cannot get the women to take on these higher posts. If they paid them properly, a lot of that contention would disappear.
I should like now to say one or two words on pay. In most of the banks in this country there is a measure of pay parity between men and women on the clerical scales in the early stages. Among the Big Five, according to my information, Barclays, the Midland and the National Provincial offer parity on basic clerical scales up to and including age 23. From the age of 17, or whatever age they enter, young men and women will be paid the same up to, but not beyond, 23, and in some cases the disparity begins before 23. After 23, or sooner in some cases, the disparity begins. At the later end of the salary scale, at 31 in most cases, the increments in the case of men go up from £70 to £75 per annum, and in the case of women, from £15 to £20 in the year. So by the time they reach 31, in spite of the equality up to age 23, the gap between men and women is very pronounced. I am here talking of the people on the scale, not of the people who receive special pay for special responsibility.
In fact, if you take a typical case, still citing the scale, a man of 31 will probably be getting about £930, and a woman might be getting £665 or thereabouts. There would therefore be a gap of about £265 at 31. All that will have opened up between 23 and 31, so there is a very big discrepancy in the years after the age of 23. I am sure we would all agree that this is grossly unjust and that it ought to be brought to an end as soon as possible,
1320
as it has been brought to an end in teaching and in local government in Scotland. It is not long since there was a great disparity there, but now the principle of equal pay is applied in teaching, in the local government services and elsewhere. This discrepancy does not even make very good administrative sense; at any rate, it clearly reveals a kind of flagrant injustice.
It is after 23 that the staff begin to specialise in various banking departments, such as the foreign department, securities and administration. Where women are given opportunities, as they sometimes are, for specialisation after the age of 23, these promotions usually coincide with a step on the salary scale where equal pay no longer applies. The following position results—and this was described to me by a young woman who came to see me the other day when I was studying the matter with the National Union of Bank Employees. She gave me the facts of her own case. In many instances female staff in their late twenties who are seniors in their department are receiving less than the male staff under their charge. This was the case with this particular young woman, and I am told it is quite common.
It is true that the merit award, whatever you like to call it, for higher responsibility, will be the same in the case of men and women, but the difference in the basic scale is so great that you will get a good many cases where the young woman will be getting less than the young man under her charge. I think we would all agree that that position was utterly wrong and should be brought to an end as soon as possible. In fairness, I should add that the women who obtained the more senior positions and become managers receive in total pay, so far as I know, the same as the men. The managers in a bank like Barclays would be getting the same whether they were men or women, but there are many positions of the kind I have mentioned in the intermediate level where women will be grossly underpaid in comparison with men.
I am afraid that all sounds very complicated, but let me re-state what seems to me to be the irresistible demand which must be made on behalf of women in banking, as of women working elsewhere. Women are not asking for equal pay for unequal or inferior work. They are asking—and surely we must all

1321
agree with this—that if they do the same or equivalent work as men they should receive equal pay. I hope it will not be many years before this elementary demand is granted. The principle has been accepted up to age 23. That in a way is rather curious, because, if there are objections (and there are difficulties which may occur to noble Lords), they are just as pronounced before the age of 23 as afterwards.
It may be said, for example, that men tend to have higher educational qualifications than women. That is so in a good many cases, but that need not be so in the higher positions because the employer can demand various educational qualifications as required. Again, there are certain problems as to how you decide that the work is equivalent when the women are doing something which, in a number of cases, may be different from the work actually being done by the men. Nevertheless, these objections have in fact been overruled up to the age of 23. That may well be because employers could not obtain the services of the young women unless they had overruled these objections.
We should all agree that these objections should be overruled for a higher reason. I may be asked: should full equality be imposed up to the age of 31, or whatever is the last year of the scale? That is certainly right in principle. I am not going to say that it should necessarily be done to-morrow, but a long step forward should immediately be taken in that direction. Unless we do that we are going to make a mockery of the idea that we stand for the principle of equal pay for equal work. I have much pleasure in supporting the noble Baroness.
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lady who has introduced this Motion has presented us with a wide field of discussion, or rather two wide fields of discussion. The first part of her Motion calls attention "to the need for an Industrial Charter for women"; and an Industrial Charter for women—according to the document to which she referred, prepared by the Women's Advisory Committee of the Trades Union Congress—consists of equal pay based on the job done and not on the sex of the worker; opportunities for promotion;
1322
apprenticeship schemes; improved opportunities for training; re-training facilities for older women; and special provisions for the health, welfare and care of women workers. That involves a number of Departments: the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Health. The other field which the noble Baroness introduced, in a speech which most admirably condensed all the points into a fairly short compass, was the financial disabilities involved in the married woman working solely in the home. That again might involve the Home Office, the Law Officers, and the Inland Revenue.
The noble Lady will appreciate that I have come here to this debate primarily for the purpose of listening to what the noble Lady, and others of your Lordships who have spoken, had to say; and, of course, to see that everything that she and your Lordships said in this debate receives proper attention from the various Government Departments which are concerned. Your Lordships will not expect me to attempt anything in the nature of a formal statement of Government policy on so great a variety of different subjects. I should like to comment, if I may, on what I thought were the salient points raised by the noble Lady: the question of equal pay; the question of training for women, the question of education, and also, in the other part of her Motion, the question of certain disabilities which arise from the very difficult problem of married women, some of whom work, others of whom may not work outside the home, but whose working inside the home is perhaps more arduous and more important to the country.
My Lords, on equal pay, which has been referred to by many others of your Lordships who have spoken, including the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who has just resumed his seat, I do not think that there is any body of opinion in this country which is opposed to the principle of equal pay. I cast my mind back many years to 1947, when I was temporarily not a Member of either House of Parliament, to the Industrial Charter which was issued at that time by the Conservative Central Office. Your Lordships may remember that on page 30 of this Industrial Charter there appeared this statement:
" We have examined carefully the claim for equal pay for men and women. It seems to

1323
us that payment by results ought to give equal pay for equal value whether the work is done by a man or a woman. We believe that there should be one rate for the job, provided that the services rendered and the results achieved by men and women are the same. We commend this principle to those engaged in industrial wage negotiations as the right one to adopt. In non-industrial occupations we should wish to move forward on the same principle when financial and other considerations make it possible."
This Report of the Women's Advisory Committee quotes a resolution of the Trades Union Congress in 1962, which says:
" The Congress notes with concern the relatively slow progress made in implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work for men and women. The Congress therefore urges affiliated unions seriously to consider adopting a policy of securing equal increases for men and women in all wage negotiations."
My Lords, there is a great deal that can be done in various ways to lead public opinion to carry out these pieces of advice. But the real problem is probably that, although it might ideally be possible to achieve equal pay for equal work gradually, by working on opinion and by giving advice to employers, trades unions and so on, I believe that what most people have in mind when they talk about carrying out a comprehensive policy of equal pay is that there should be legislation. This must, of necessity, interfere with voluntary wage negotiations, with the free right of employers and trades unions to negotiate wage agreements, to the extent that the law must provide that any such wage agreements shall give effect to the principle of equal pay for men and women.
As the noble Lady said, that principle has been agreed to by the countries of the European Common Market. Although it has not yet been implemented, the programme is that equal pay in France, Germany and the other E.E.C. countries shall come into effect by the end of 1964. We do not yet know exactly how; and there are, as the noble Lady, who is more conversant with these subjects than most of us, is no doubt aware, a great many differences of opinion as to exactly what constitutes equal work. Particularly in industrial occupations, it is often very difficult to equate the value of the work which is being performed by men and women.
1324
But the point about this is that, if Great Britain had joined the Common Market, if we had been able to do so, we should have been bound by Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, and we should have been compelled in 1964 to bring in legislation equating our industrial laws on this matter with the laws of France and Germany. So although our application to join the Common Market has been vetoed, and we are no longer likely in the immediate future to be under any such obligation, it is of course a matter which was in everybody's mind while the Common Market negotiations were on, just as we thought of various other changes in our economic life, such as agricultural changes which might have increased the price of food. Although we might regard the object as a wholly admirable one, this was a change which naturally aroused the reluctance of people to interfere with the free rights of negotiation between trades unions and employers. We should have been prepared to override that if we had joined the Common Market, but whether or not it will arise again none of us can foresee.
Let me just briefly recite to your Lordships what progress has been made up to date. As the noble Lady said, the Government have adopted equal pay for the Civil Service, but not for Government industrial employees in the Dockyards, Royal Ordnance factories and so on. As she rightly said, the reason why that has not been done is that the Government are a small minority employer and, according to the Fair Wages Resolution of 1946, which governs regulation of wages among Government industrial workers, it is considered right that we should try to follow what the majority are doing and not to give the lead. In the Civil Service the agreement with the National Whitley Council for equal pay for non-industrial civil servants was made in January, 1955. Equality was to be achieved in seven instalments, the final one being in January, 1961. For the last two years all non-industrial civil servants (I think the teaching profession was the last one to be completed) have enjoyed the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Now, my Lords, there were one or two points raised by the noble Lady on this

1325
matter which I do not want to pursue argumentatively but on which I should just like to comment briefly. She said—and I think it is a figure taken from this trade union women's Report from which I have already quoted—that according to the T.U.C. less than 10 per cent. of women in Great Britain get equal pay. I have not been able to confirm that—I think it may be an underestimate; I think it may be more—but what the Ministry of Labour estimates is that equal pay, if it could be enforced, would benefit about 3 million out of the 8 million who are now at work. The 10 per cent. does not mean 10 per cent. of the women who would be getting equal pay if this were done, because it covers all women, including those who are not doing equal work.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Does that mean that more than half the women actually at work ate getting equal pay?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords. Although we cannot confirm this, it is right to say that a very small proportion are actually getting equal pay, but we must remember that equal pay is to be given for equal work, and it is often very difficult to decide what work is equal and what is not. The Ministry of Labour's estimate—I am merely giving this as a matter of interest, and not argumentatively—is that about 3 million women out of the 8 million would receive increases in wages if this principle could now be universally enforced all over industry. Many women in industry are employed on jobs which are exclusively women's work, and they would probably not benefit directly From the introduction of equal pay. The women who might chiefly be affected are in distribution and in non-manual jobs in industry.
My Lords, I do not want to give too much attention to percentages—I know they are often misleading—but I think the noble Lady was right in saying that, on the whole, women are getting only about half the pay which men are getting—that is to say, women's earnings are, on the whole, about one-half of men's earnings. Of course, that is accounted for partly by the fact that they work fewer hours. If you take the rates, I think that in general women's rates are between two-thirds and four-fifths of men's rates. Some unions try to get equal increases
1326
for men and women in absolute figures rather than in percentages, which of course is a good thing for the women, because if they are getting a smaller wage then a percentage means a smaller increase. This was achieved, as the noble Lady probably knows, in the recent agreement in the engineering industry: the increases were absolute and equal—but that is still rather exceptional.
My Lords, I should like to say a brief word about training, and a word about education. The National Economic Development Council, in its Report on the means of achieving a 3½ per cent. increase, refers to the importance of more industrial training for women, both before they marry and later on, if they want to come back to the work after an interval of several years. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who referred to the fact that some employers were reluctant to spend money on apprenticeship training because the girl might marry after a few years. That, of course, may be equally true of the young women; they may not want to spend a lot of time on apprenticeships if they want to marry quickly. But in November, 1962, the Industrial Training Council issued a booklet, called Training Girls in Industry (no doubt the noble Lady has seen it), which urges that all girls entering industry should receive systematic training, and points out the advantages to employers in quicker learning, a higher standard of work and a greater interest in the job, leading to a reduction in labour turnover. The importance of training girls has also been emphasised at the conferences of training operatives which have been organised by the Training Advisory Service of the Industrial Training Council. I should like to assure the noble Lord that the Government are aware of the need to make more training opportunities available to girls and have tried to encourage the provision of training for them—and it is part of our policy to do more in this regard.
As for education, my Lords, I thought the noble Lady paid a good deal of attention to this, both in regard to schools and in regard to universities. She gave certain figures about the numbers or percentages of women who were receiving secondary education, on which I should just like to say a word. Apart from Oxford and Cambridge, where numbers

1327
are limited by the capacity in women's colleges, women can compete quite freely for places with men; and, of course, the universities are wholly autonomous in the selection of their students. They apply to all candidates, whether male or female, whatever criteria they themselves judge are academically desirable; and the proportion of women among university students is thus a result of independent decisions taken by selection boards within individual universities. At present, there are 116,000 students currently studying at British universities, and about a quarter of them are women. The proportion has not varied much in recent years. In 1954, it was 25 per cent.; in 1959, 24·8 per cent.; in 1960–61, 25·4 per cent. Under our present university expansion plan, about 35,000 more university places are expected to be provided by 1966 or 1967. We do not, of course, provide specific places for men or women, but if the proportion of women in the total student population does not change (and it is not expected to change very much up to 1966), that will mean that some 9,000 of the additional places are likely to be taken up by women.
The noble Lady, I noticed, made a particular reference in her remarks to medical education. There are no fixed proportions of men and women in university medical schools, but the proportion of women at present entering university medical schools has risen from 25 per cent. in 1954 to 26 per cent. in October, 1962.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, as the noble Earl is dealing with universities, may I ask him a point on that?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know if I can answer it, but the noble Earl may certainly ask it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Then may I submit a point to him? I cannot believe that he desires to do this, but I think that he perhaps gave the impression that there is parity of treatment as between men and women in the struggle to get into universities. We have only to take the university which the noble Earl and I know best—Oxford. We know that, in order to get into a women's college there, you have to reach what is
1328
at any rate the exhibition standard and almost the scholarship standard of a male college, simply because there are very few women's colleges and they will not have any more. That is the position. I am sure the noble Earl did not wish to give the impression that men and women are on the same sort of footing in their ability to get into universities.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for pointing that out, but I think I did take particular care to say that the standards by which the university authorities select candidates were a matter for them. I did not imply that university authorities applied exactly the same standards to men and women. I thought it would be of interest to all of your Lordships if I gave total figures.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, forgive me for interrupting. Is the noble Earl about to leave universities?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have been there quite a long time.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Earl might come a little cleaner. He had misled me in the same way as he misled my noble friend. I hope he would now agree that there is not equal opportunity for men and women in finding places at certain universities. Anyway, I hope he will agree, because this is a rather fundamental point.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think I said that; but to make quite sure may I just again repeat what I said—not all of it but the relevant sentence. I said that apart from Oxford and Cambridge, where numbers were limited by the capacity of women's colleges, women compete quite freely with men for places in our universities. The universities are wholly autonomous in the selection of their students, and they apply to all candidates, male or female, the standards they judge to be academically desirable. I do not want to comment upon that or to enlarge upon it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I say that I was glad that my noble friends have taken up this point? This is one of the greatest scandals of the country. The noble Earl has been briefed to say that the proportion of women

1329
university students in this country is overall, 25 per cent. But let us just come back to Oxford and Cambridge. The fact is that in Cambridge it is something like 11 per cent., and in Oxford about 12 per cent. He says to us that the reason is that we have not sufficient colleges. Why are there not sufficient colleges? Surely, if we believe in an equitable approach to this subject, the Government should recognise that they should provide the accommodation for more women. And those are the figures of our two oldest universities—who ought to know better. When the noble Earl speaks about medical schools—it is not his fault, he has these figures and must give them—I have to say that on this side of the House there are some experts listening to these figures. When he was talking about medical schools, I mentioned the London medical schools. If he inquires to-morrow or telephones any Dean or Secretary lie will find that each London medical school has a quota. There is not one medical school in London which takes more than 15 per cent. of women. Some of them take only 10 per cent. or 12 per cent.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is certainly true that at Oxford and Cambridge there are less than 25 per cent. of women; but at other universities there are more. That is why the average figure is 25 per cent. which I must adhere to.
I was going to say a few words upon the noble Lady's representations which she made about married women in the home. I think that she and others of your Lordships who have spoken have brought out very clearly the extremely difficult social problem in relation to this. The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, argued very strongly against a normal married woman working in a factory because he thought that this is against the interests of the children. I am quite sure there are many of your Lordships who are equally concerned when they hear about children coming home in the evening and looking under the door mat for the key, finding their own way in, looking after themselves, playing with the television perhaps, until their mother comes home. On the other hand, I think it is fair to say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, did, that the 8 million women, many of whom are married, who
1330
are working now, are essential to our economy and it would be a great interference with human freedom if they were prevented from doing so. Although I would not expect that it would really go very far to removing the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, it is fair that I should quote another sentence from page 4 of this Report of the Women's Advisory Committee of the Trades Union Congress. They say:
" Investigations carried out by the Consultative Committee suggested to them that there was no general problem or evidence of any serious failure on the part of mothers to make adequate arrangements for the care of the children while they were at work."
I think that is true; and I think that, much as we should like to see women able to do two things at once, which nobody can do, we will all agree that it is possible, and ought to be possible, for work to be done by women and at the same time for a happy family home to be preserved.
There are a vast number of financial and social problems which may arise from that, many of which I should say could not be solved by legislation. I should like to mention the tax position for the information of your Lordships, the provisions that have been made in the Finance Bills for helping married women who work. A married man gets his personal allowance of £320 compared with a single person's allowance of £200. In addition to that, if his wife has earnings of her own, additional income tax reliefs are given against her earnings that qualify for special earned income allowance which is seven-ninths of the earnings up to a maximum of £200. That may not be very much comfort to those who work only in the home; in fact, it may exaggerate the discrepancy between women who work and the other type of wife with whom the noble Lady is so rightly concerned, who has to do the whole of her work at home. I listened with very careful attention to what she said. She quoted various recommendations of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, and she also quoted from some passages in the Report concerning recommendations which were not made.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It was concerning evidence.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: A proposal was that there should be community of

1331
income. That was rejected, I think, by 12 to 7. Then the proposal was made that there should be a statutory allowance that the wife should be entitled to have a share of the husband's income. They rejected that and gave one rather interesting reason. They said that the practical objections to this proposal are clearly brought out in the evidence given by one of the women's organisations. This body had at first supported this proposal, but subsequently withdrew its support on the grounds that the difficulties of implementation were insuperable.
But there was another proposal, which was positively recommended and which the noble Lady quoted, in paragraph 701, which says:
" We accordingly recommend, in respect of England and Scotland, that savings made from money contributed by either the husband or the wife or by both for the purpose of meeting house-keeping expenses (and any investments or purchases made from such savings) should be deemed to belong to the husband and wife in equal shares unless they have otherwise agreed."
In the short time available, I have done my best to consult my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about this, and he thinks that the Government would have no objection to accepting the recommendation of the Royal Commission about joint ownership by husband and wife of savings from housekeeping money and that, indeed, this might be a suitable subject for a Private Member's Bill. I should not like to say—and neither, I think, would the noble Lady—how much good such a measure would do; but I hope it is a point which will be followed up. Since I have mentioned my noble and learned friend, may I remind your Lordships that the present Lord Chancellor is the first who has been responsible for appointing a woman to be a county court judge?
The other grievance raised by the noble Lady which seemed to me to have something substantial in it, is the question of bequests, but I do not think that it is advisable for me to say much on that point. She said that a man did not have to leave anything to his wife. In Scotland, that is not so. He would have to leave one-third, at least, of his possessions to his wife, which I think is a very good thing. I do not wish to
1332
be rash enough to comment on the position in England, but an Inheritance of the Family Act was passed in 1938, under which the position is that, if a man dies intestate, his widow can claim enough to support her and the children and, if he does make a will and the wife considers that she has been left insufficient money by her late husband, she can claim a readjustment.
I think that we are all agreed that men and women are equal, certainly in a spiritual sense, and that they ought to be equal in regard to human rights and civil rights. Exactly how this equality may in future be related, or ought to be related, to human relationships of every kind is a question which I do not think I could answer. I do not know whether the general sentiment that a husband ought to have the duty of supporting his wife and children is an out-of-date old-fashioned idea or whether it is a permanent part of natural human relations. If it is an out-of-date idea, then no doubt the time will come when husband and wife will not only have an equal amount of money but also equal responsibility for supporting each other and for supporting their children. This is an idea which I think would be alien to most of our minds in the present age, as certainly it is to mine.
I think that we ought to honour the traditional occupations of women, what they call in Germany "the three K's", which is, in our language, church, children and cooking. I think that these are arts of a high and magnificent order, for which we ought to be grateful to women, as well as to their Creator. But we also want them to be able to express themselves in other ways, to earn money, to practise arts, even to fly through space, like Valentina Tereshkova, whom we are so glad to hear has safely landed this afternoon. As the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lichfield said so rightly, we must have flexibility between home life and other occupations. I profoundly agreed with the right reverend Prelate, as I am sure all your Lordships did, when he said that women had a duty both to their country and to their home and that he prayed that, in working for one, they would not sacrifice the other. I am sure that the noble Lady who brought in this Motion would also agree with that sentiment.
5.36 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I have now been in both Houses of Parliament for a quarter of a century, and the longer I am here, the more I realise that one can never anticipate what might emerge from a debate. In the last five minutes, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said something which, in my opinion, can well revolutionise the economic position of the ordinary working woman in this country. When he got up, my heart sank. He began modestly, as he always does, by saying that he came here to listen. Then I looked at the documents which I assured myself he would have before Recess, so that he would have plenty of homework, and I felt that they had been pretty well thumbed, and I realised that the modest approach did not reveal his intellectual grasp of the subject.
The noble Earl went on to deal with practically every point I raised. This is a most unusual thing in Parliament. Generally a Minister is inhibited when dealing with women's problems. My noble friend beside me has just whispered to me that that is because in public schools they are never allowed to mention girls. The noble Earl did seem a little inhibited at first, but as he developed his argument he showed that he had an understanding of, and had thought about, the implicataions of these matters, and his peroration could not have been better. He even congratulated Valentina.
What the noble Earl said was so important. Perhaps some of the noble Lords who have listened to this debate have not read this very long Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. I have quoted some of it, because I wanted to put these extracts on the Record. I have observed that Members of this House listen and if they feel that an argument is sound, they are fairly sympathetic. I pointed out that one of the problems affecting all women—widows, and married women who unfortunately have men who drink or gamble or do not give them enough money—is that women are denied the right to save a penny of the household income, even if they can do it privately. If a woman takes in lodgers, the money she makes is her husband's, because the house is her husband's. If a woman gets a dividend from the co-operative society,
1334
that belongs to her husband because the housekeeping allowance is her husband's. If she does anything in the house to make money which can be interpreted as using what belongs to the husband, then she cannot save a penny of it.
In this quiet House this afternoon, five minutes ago, the noble Earl announced that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that, if a Private Member's Bill is introduced, he will be prepared to accept the proposition that a married woman at home can keep some of the home savings. I can only say that I am deeply grateful. I want only to be asked to have the honour of introducing such a Private Member's Bill. I do not know whether Private Member's Bills can go through before the Recess, but it would have to be a very quick Private Member's Bill if it did. I want to thank the noble Earl very much for telling me this and doing this for the most badly treated women in the country.
In these matters we are always dealing only with a minority. Most husbands are very fine people, and most of them speak as the noble Earl spoke in his last few sentences. They recognise that a woman as an individual has the right to express herself, and has the right to freedom of every kind, including economic freedom. But there is the minority. I think that when we look at some of our legislation which concerns men and women we find that much of it is of a deterrent nature. In the last century, when men had the right to assault their wives, there were people who said: "You must not interfere. The wife belongs to the husband, and if he wishes to assault her he may." Then, it will be recalled, a Bill was introduced to the effect that a husband could assault his wife provided the stick was no thicker than his finger. Well, he managed to cause quite a lot of trouble with that stick the size of his finger, and more legislation was introduced saying that the wife must have protection from this assault. But it was only the minority; and it deterred the minority. That is the point. Now it is only a question of a minority who do not treat their wives well. When this little Bill comes in, it will probably be welcomed by a minority of women who desperately need it. The great majority, I am sure, enjoy happy lives.
I feel that I should not say anything more because I am so deeply grateful

1335
for what the noble Earl said. May I ask the noble Earl whether he would accept a Motion, if it was written out to-day, on the subject of the Bill?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I meant your own Motion.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I see. I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, very deeply. I want to thank other people who have taken part in the debate to-day. My noble friend Lord Shackleton made reference to unmarried mothers. Things have been said in this debate which must be very welcome to groups of women who are friendless, helpless and desperately need our help. My noble friend Lord Shackleton has told the House that in his firm not only will an unmarried mother be taken back after the birth of the child, but the firm will give her full wages during the period of her pregnancy and, indeed, will look after her and care for her, and even arrange for the adoption of the child. This is progress in the social field, and it will bring happiness to the hearts of many people.
I thank the right reverend Prelate for taking part in the debate and for what he said. I am sorry he did not talk about the pamphlet On the Threshold of Marriage. I was a little amused—and I say this in all kindness—when he said that we must beware of prejudice, and then said he believed in women in all fields except in the Church. I would remind him that there are now only two worlds which refuse to have anything to do with women, and they are the Stock Exchange and the Church of England. I hope the right reverend Prelate will think about this. Then, while he was out for just a few minutes, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, got up and quoted from that wonderful speech made by Mary Lusk in the Church Assembly in Scotland, where she pointed out to the assembled clergy that she did everything that they did in church work, but they refused to have her ordained. She made a wonderful speech, and I am glad to hear that she has converted many people.
I must say something to the noble Lord, Lord Amwell. He charges me with harbouring uncharitable thoughts about him. The only uncharitable thing about me is that I never harbour any thoughts
1336
about him. Why he keeps looking at me and thinking, "This woman does not like me", I do not know. I know that he is well read, and I can only suggest that he goes home and reads Freud, which will give him the answer.
LORD AMWELL: Did I convey that impression?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord is always saying that I am harbouring thoughts about him. My noble friend Lord Longford always supports me on most unusual occasions. I must confess that I did kick his legs at that moment, and I apologise, but I thought he was getting a little facetious. But what he said about women in banking will be welcomed. There is no doubt that the attitude does change. My own bank manager knows how I feel about it and always has a woman on the front counter.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Especially for you?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I do not know. But she is always there, and I am very impressed. There is no doubt that things are changing. On the subject of equal pay, I was very pleased to learn that we might have it in this country next year if we enter the Common Market. I was glad that the noble Earl expressed his approval of that.
I have to move the Motion which stands in my name, which I am very happy to do. I am looking through it to see whether there is anything to which any noble Lord could object. It says:
" To call attention to the need for an Industrial Charter for Women and also to the financial disabilities of the married woman working solely in the home; and to move for Papers."
As this is only "to call attention to", no noble Lord here will commit himself to anything more. My final word is: Thank you very much for what you have given to the women of Britain to-day.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness was instigated by someone to take this line. The last time I accepted a Motion moving for Papers was from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and it led to some difficulty about the Papers. As I could do this

1337
only after consultation with my colleagues, I should prefer it if the noble Baroness would get over that difficulty by seeing her way to take what is the more usual course in your Lordships' House of withdrawing the Motion.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I was going to tell the noble Earl that he need not worry about Papers at the end of the Motion. But if that is the case, I will withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INQUIRIES INTO RAILWAY CLOSURES
5.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the narrow scope of any hearing before a transport users' consultative committee, when the closure of a railway station or line is proposed, the Minister of Transport will use his powers under Section 90 of the Transport Act, 1962, to give full opportunities to members of the public to object to such a closure at a public inquiry. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I must now direct the attention of your Lordships to a quite different subject from that which has been discussed in the Motion moved by the noble Baroness opposite. What I wish to do this afternoon is to raise a point—and it is a quite narrow point—on the procedure which occurs at a hearing before a transport users' consultative committee. I would emphasise at the outset that it is not intended by me that this discussion should relate in any way to the closure of any specific line or station, but is simply a matter of the procedure which will be adopted at these hearings. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a matter of some importance; because if Dr. Beeching's Report is to be carried out at all, or in full, there are bound to be a fairly large number of these hearings, beginning perhaps comparatively soon, and I believe that the public will become aware of the shortcomings, in my view, of the procedure as it now is.
The transport users' consultative committees originated under the Transport Act, 1947, and they were set up at that time in order to give the members of the public some redress as against the nationalised industry which came into
1338
operation under that Act. To use the consultative committees' own words:
" They were created so that the users of transport should have some means of criticising the Commission and making suggestions for improvement. They were set up to represent transport users of all kinds and to convey their views to the Minister and the Transport Commission."
Later on, they say that the Chairman and members are there to see that the users of transport get the best deal that is consistent with the national interest. And this, I think, sets the pattern for what they have been doing since. In practice, they have done two things. One was to investigate complaints and suggestions about services that are provided, or ought to be provided, by the railways; and the second was to deal with objections to proposed closures.
It is interesting to compare the old handbook published about these functions with the new one which has come into existence, after the passing of the Transport Act of last year. Originally, the consultative committees said (and they emphasised this) that persons attending their meetings were not taking part in an arbitration and were sitting essentially as a consultative meeting for consultation as the representatives of transport users. They go on to explain that a considerable part of the material before them is in writing, and that normally it is only that part of the Commission's case with which an objector disagrees that will be discussed across the table. They then say that members of the public at large, unless they had formally established their right to make representations and had received the relevant documents, would not, if they attended a hearing, fully appreciate what was going on. Thus the emphasis was, first of all, that people should attend the committee's meetings—most of which concerned closures—only when making formal objections and after a proper study of the documents. And certainly I read in this paragraph of the old book an underlying principle that objectors who came to the hearing on the occasion of a closure, would have a fairly good synopsis of the British Transport Commission's case before them which they could then all discuss—in, it is true, an informal way around a table. But, of course, the consultative committees emphasised that they were not arbitration boards or legal tribunals, and

1339
were not meant to be; and they said, indeed, that if counsel or solicitors turned up they were treated simply as spokesmen, and were not there to do fierce cross-examination or display their forensic skill.
However, although the powers in the Transport Act, 1947, were very wide, restrictions were, in due course, placed upon the scope of the hearing before the consultative committees. I will give your Lordships, in a minute, examples of one of these under the old Act. In due course, last year, your Lordships and another place were discussing the Transport Act, 1962, and in this Act the scope of the hearings in front of the transport users' consultative committees was cut down. Instead of the general power they had before, to look into all these matters, they were now allowed to do only one thing—and I quote from Section 56(9) of that Act:
" A committee with whom an objection has been lodged…shall consider the objection and any representations made by the Board concerned "—
that is, as a rule, the Railways Board—
" and report to the Minister as soon as possible on the hardship, if any, which they consider will be caused by the proposed closure, and the report may contain proposals for alleviating that hardship."
My noble friend Lord Chesham, when he moved the Second Reading of what is now the 1962 Act, drew attention to the fact that this change had taken place and that, instead of having the wide powers they apparently had previously, the committees were now allowed to deal only with hardship. He said (col. 113 of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of May 8 last year):
" …the area committee will, in future, report direct to the Minister any degree of hardship which they see arising out of proposals for complete withdrawal of railway passenger services and they can make suggestions to meet it. The result of that will be to speed up the procedure and to place the responsibility on the Minister for deciding whether the passenger services in question should be closed down or not."
That is, in any case, the Minister's function under the Bill, but I am bound to say that it appears, from what my noble friend said, that the intention of the Government, when introducing this restriction in the Bill last year, was to cut down very considerably upon the area with which the transport users' consultative committees would deal; and if this is the case,
1340
I am very sorry. Certainly the committees have so interpreted it.
I should like now to compare what I have just said with the new handbook which the committees have produced. They now say that the committee's reports to the Minister will be concerned only with the hardship, if any, involved by the proposed closure in the light of the alternative services available or proposed, and with what they think should be done to alleviate such a hardship. Even although the committees and the objectors may have before them the statement of the losses or savings, the assessment of this is entirely a matter for the Railways Board, in the first place, and for the Minister, when he decides whether or not he will consent to the closure. There will, therefore, be no point in future in objectors coming to consultative committees and seeking to question these figures.
They then go on to say that
" There is nothing in the Act to specify the grounds on which the objections should be made, but as there is now only one ground on which the committee may make a report to the Minister, any objection should be addressed to the hardship, which, in the objectors' view, would result from the proposed closure, and to proposals for alleviating it."
Later they say that "Heads of Information" will be sent to an objector who wishes to appear at one of these hearings setting out the details of the facts to enable him to develop his case before the committee. In an Appendix to the handbook there are set out specimen Heads of Information which noble Lords may see, and they appear to be a summary of various figures which are no doubt produced by the Boards themselves. And your Lordships will remember that it is not now possible to make representations at all on these matters. In another part of the handbook they say:
" If objectors, or deputations of objectors, like to bring lawyers with them, these lawyers will be treated simply as spokesmen for the purpose of putting their case concisely, and not as pleaders with the right to cross-examine. …Questions may be put…but this is in no sense to be a cross-examination. It cannot be made too clear that persons attending a meeting of a consultative committee are not taking part in an arbitration, and that the consultative committee is not a tribunal. It is, in effect, a committee discussing matters on a round-table basis with the people making representations, and making a report after hearing their views."

1341
The committee may ask the Board to comment on such points as the objectors make, but there is to be "a minimum of formality". I think I have sufficiently described to your Lordships the sort of hearing which the transport users' consultative committees have themselves decided that they should hold under Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962, and it seems to me that it compares very badly with the sort of administrative process with which the citizens of this country are now familiar.
Your Lordships will recall that since the last war there has grown up a very remarkable phenomenon in the constitutional law of this country, consisting of public inquiries leading to reports to a Minister which he may then have to decide on as a matter of policy, quite apart from the actual facts or the merits of the case. This is the system that has grown up. I know it well in the field of town planning and compensation, but there are many aspects of it, and it is, on the whole, one which is now widely accepted by members of the public as fair. But it is so accepted just because of this fact: although the decision, in the end, is to be taken by the Minister, under powers granted to him by Act of Parliament, on probably a matter of pure policy, nevertheless, before he gives that decision he sends dawn to the locality an inspector of his choice who will hold a public inquiry at which the people concerned in the matter may appear. They may make any representations they like, may cross-examine, may produce their own expert witnesses and generally give the thing a very good combing out in front of the inspector.
The inspector then makes a factual report, not an anything to do with policy but upon the merits of the case he has heard argued before him; and he puts this report in front of the Minister, and in due course also in front of the people who were present and made representations at the inquiry, if they want it. Thereafter, after that has been done and justice has been fulfilled, and I think very successfully fulfilled, so far as it can possibly be done, it may be that the inspector has to be overruled on policy grounds by the Minister. This does not happen by any means in all cases, and I think that in the planning world the
1342
inspector's recommendation is usually upheld.
Your Lordships may say most of these public inquiries about which I am talking relate to the interference with, or the deprivation of, the personal rights of an individual; they refer to whether he can use his land for something which he wants to do or whether he is to have his land expropriated for the national good, and that therefore this sort of inquiry is not really a proper analogy for the situation in which a member of the public is having one part of his public transport services taken away from him. I do not think this is really so, because it is not only in the compensation or the planning cases where public inquiries now take place. If we consider the case of the Boundary Commission that is now going on, major and very lengthy public inquiries have been taking place up and down the country, at which the citizen is chiefly represented, it is true, by his local authority, but where the issue is not the individual rights of any one member of the public but the proper administration and the proper way of running affairs in the locality; and I think perhaps the public inquiry idea is sufficiently widespread even at the present time to comprehend the sort of situation where the railways, which after all belong to all of us, are going to be in some part closed or interfered with.
Further than that—and this is a point of which I have not previously informed my noble friend, and consequently I do not suppose he knows about the very obscure Act—the idea of public inquiries relating to the closure of things such as railway lines is an age-old one, so far as I can make out. There was certainly considerable power in the case of light railways, but here I find in Section 35 of the Tramways Act, 1870, that if at any time after any tramway has been opened for three years to the public
" it shall be represented in writing to the Board of Trade by the local authority of such district or by 20 inhabitant ratepayers of such district…that the public are deprived of the full benefit of the tramway, the Board of Trade may (if they consider that…the case is one for inquiry) direct inquiry…into the truth of the representation."
And after that the Board may grant licences for somebody else to put trams on the tramway and see that the public get a proper deal.
It is very interesting to see that even in 1870 there were these powers of the referee to hold an inquiry. He was sent by the Board of Trade, gave proper notice of the time and place of his inquiry. He could summon witnesses and put them on oath on pain of perjury if a witness gave false evidence, and finally give a report in writing. And this is the interesting thing. He was to deliver copies of it to all or any of the parties at the inquiry. That seems to me the most up-to-date of all possible forms of inquiry. It was introduced as early as 1870. I cannot believe the sort of case I have in mind is at all without precedent or should be a surprising matter for the Ministry of Transport to contemplate.
It will not be surprising, I think, with the explanation I have given of what will happen in front of these committees, that there will be criticism that people are not going to have their say. I have an example of one such criticism which has recently come into my hands from a very responsible body in the North of England. They say that the sort of criticism they have of these Boards is, first of all—and I may say this is not necessarily my view; this is what the public are going to say—that representatives of the Railway Boards are given unduly privileged positions. I think this means two things: one, that they are allowed to put in their reports without being cross-examined, and there has also been some question of their supplying the secretariat of the Board and thereby perhaps producing undue influence.
Secondly, this reputable body say, the objectors get no chance to examine the Board's representatives on their figures. And this, I may say, is to some degree a very important matter, because I also have a copy of a publication called the Economic Journal, edited by Sir Roy Harrod and other eminent people. Again I do not know whether this is true or not, but it is certainly a view that some eminent economists hold. It says:
" There has been major disagreement between British Railways and the consultative committees over the choice of the time period upon which estimates should be based. The agreed scheme "—
that is, of figures which is put before these committees—
1344
" represents a compromise between the long-run views of British Railways and the short-run views of the C.T.C.C."
If there is some question even on the basis of the figures themselves, it seems to me very strange that there should be no opportunity for members of the public to cross-examine. Thirdly, the criticism goes, the chairman is apt to curtail the time available to objectors to develop their arguments. I do not know, but it would be lamentable if this were so. Finally, they say, no steps are taken to see that objectors' documents are examined by members of the committee. These are not my criticisms; I do not necessarily subscribe to them. But I think it is deplorable that there should be a system where there is the possibility of this sort of criticism being made. And this is the thing I object to.
I read recently in a newspaper called the Hunts. Post of April 16, 1959, of the procedure which took place before the East Anglian transport users' consultative committee on April 14 that year—this was before the restriction was put into the 1962 Act—referring to the proposed closure of the St. Ives-Kettering railway. A certain gentleman protested that there was nowhere a clear statement about the figures that the Board were putting forward. The deputy chairman of the committee said:
" We have as a committee. These figures are presented in a way laid down by agreement between the Central Consultative Committee and the British Transport Commission and approved by the Minister."
He went on:
" We have the information, which cannot necessarily be made public. You can ask me what you want. I started by saying it is not for you to be satisfied, it is for us to be satisfied."
Then the objector said:
" Why do British Railways publish the book? "
That is the heads of their case to which I have referred. The deputy-chairman replied:
" Firstly for our information and secondly for other people interested. You are not here at a public inquiry…. You do not really appreciate what this meeting is. I am not prepared to carry on with any argument about figures, because we are—many of the committee—skilled in accountancy, and we will be satisfied the figures are correct. We will have access to the sources which we require. I cannot permit you to go on when we are under no obligation to prove that the arithmetic is right."

1345
The objector said:
" I am remarking that in the statement available to us, there is nowhere a statement of the present receipts and costs and therefore no statement of the present loss. Therefore we do not know whether there is a loss or not."
The deputy-chairman replied:
" You must leave that to us. I do not think you are going to get anywhere by harping on that point. If you will not accept my assurance that we will see the figures are correct, I am sorry, but I do not see that there is any point in you continuing."
I do not know whether or not that is accurate, but it seems to me to be an unfortunate state of affairs when that type of thing happens in front of these committees. I must admit that on that occasion the Huntingdon County Council were able to put forward seven objections to the closure of this railway line, and I think that only one of them at that time related to hardship. Yet that is the only ground they could put forward today: the other six would not be suitable.
What is to be done about this state of affairs? I have one suggestion which I have put into the text of my Question to my noble friend—namely, that the Minister should use his powers under Section 90 of the 1962 Act to hold proper public inquiries—because it is quite clear that these committee hearings are not full public inquiries. Section 90 says:
" The Minister may hold inquiries for the purposes of his powers under this Act as if those purposes were purposes of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and section twenty of that Act shall apply accordingly."
I do not think that provision is as obscure as it sounds, because the reference to the 1919 Act is simply a matter of machinery for giving the inspector power to require witnesses to attend the inquiry. I have no doubt in my own mind (although I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Chesham says) that the Minister could hold a public inquiry under this section. Because one of his powers—indeed one of his duties—under the 1962 Act is to consent to each and every proposed closure of a railway line and station, and sometimes to impose conditions before anything can happen at all. Therefore, he seems not to be in any legal difficulty, although, as I say, I am interested to hear what my noble friend says about that. I hope that he will tell me that I am right because it seems to me that this is the only way in which people who are affected by this
1346
sort of closure can be satisfied that their case has been properly heard and properly reported to the Minister.
The only alternative arises out of something that I saw in The Times of April 11. This was not a verbatim report, but a synopsis of the Annual Report of the Wales and Monmouth Transport Users' Consultative Committee. They, of course, operate in an area which is threatened with severe closures by Dr. Beeching's proposals, and they recognise that they can deal only with the hardship side of it. Nevertheless, they have taken a wide view of what is meant by "hardship". For instance, they say that they consider that it will be hardship if anything is proposed which will increase the cost to anybody of carrying out his trade or profession; or anything that will affect the health of train-users and their dependants; or anything that will affect their standard of living, such as denying them access to a shopping centre of reasonable size. They then go on to say that the cost of the saving arising from the proposed closures is, of course, quite relevant, but that it is chiefly relevant to their duty to see that hardship is, if possible, alleviated. They say that hardship can almost always be alleviated or ameliorated at a cost; but they also say that if the cost is as high as, or exceeds, the saving, then they think that this would be a ground for disagreeing altogether with the proposed closure. That, as I understand it, is what they say. If that is so, this must bring in the question of costs, and the question of all the figures that the British Railways Board are to put forward.
My noble friend Lord Chesham said in the Second Reading debate on the 1962 Act that he thought it would be a good thing if, without laying down a hard-and-fast rule, there were some sort of uniformity of scope for a hearing in front of these committees. So I hope that he will be able to say either that he and his right honourable friend have already made up their minds, or are going to think hard about this; and whether or not they are going to allow transport users' consultative committees (if he will not hold local inquiries) at any rate to interpret their terms of hardship in a wide way, so that they can let in almost as much as would be possible at a public inquiry. I recognise

1347
that it will be necessary to keep these matters within bounds to see that the proceedings are not interminably long. Nevertheless, I hope that this term "hardship" will be interpreted as generously as possible, and that Her Majesty's Government will give a lead in this respect.
Finally, I want to ask one other thing. As I said in regard to the St. Ives-Kettering case, the Huntingdon County Council put forward many objections on all sorts of grounds, including those concerning educational facilities—getting their children to schools, and that sort of thing. County councils are bound to have a large stake in the future of some of the railway lines concerned; and so, of course, will other local authorities, such as county district councils. At the moment I do not know whether the point about hardship applies to them. But what are they to do about the cost of transporting their children to school? What are they to do if new projects are mooted in regard to bringing industry into their area which at the present moment is being served by a railway line, if the Board propose to close the line?
How are they to get this sort of thing in front of the Minister? So far as I can see, they cannot go to the consultative committee. Surely it is essential that they should be able to put forward their proposals, and perhaps further-reaching proposals than that. Perhaps they want to suggest reforms in regard to the way the railway is working, or something of that nature. Indeed, I consider it vital that they should be able to do so. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me a little about that.
No doubt railway closures will have to take place. I am not suggesting for one moment that they should not. Nor am I suggesting that in any specific case they should not. What concerns me is that the proper procedure should be laid down, so that when the decision of the Minister is announced, members of the public should not feel aggrieved that their case has not been completely and fully heard and considered, and digested by the Minister before he makes his decision. I beg to ask the Question in my name.
6.17 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am quite sure that your Lordships will agree
1348
that the noble Viscount has contributed a public service of considerable importance in raising this matter, and I would feel that to him are due not only our thanks but our congratulations for the manner in which he has made his points. In my view, he has proved the case that there cannot possibly be the right kind of inquiry under the new set-up of the transport users' consultative committees, and that it is only if there is a properly constituted public inquiry at which all the relevant factors can be considered that justice at least can be seen to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is aware that I am Chairman of the National Council on Inland Transport. We are in touch with literally hundreds of local authorities, and I can assure the noble Lord that all over the country they regard the present set-up as deplorably unjust. I am also aware that members of the public in large numbers in the areas likely to be affected feel strongly about these matters, now that realisation is coming to them. In the areas affected they are reading things in their local Press such as this item which appeared last week:
" At the first meeting of the reconstituted transport users' consultative committee for the South-Western Area…. the chairman, Major-General W. E. V. Abraham, emphasised that the committee was no longer empowered to make any recommendation as to whether or not a railway line should be closed. The committee's only function now is to assess what hardships would be caused if a particular line or station is closed, and how this hardship could be alleviated."
" He hoped that objectors would appreciate this and address protests against proposed closures on grounds other than passenger hardship, not to the committee, but direct to the Minister of Transport. The committee was most anxious to investigate thoroughly and suggest alleviation of genuine hardship."
The noble Viscount quoted from the old Transport Consultative Committees' handbook, which said that they were set up to ensure that transport users get the best deal that is consistent with the national interest. I am quite sure that is what all of us want, including the Minister and certainly the noble Lord. But I am bound to say—and I feel the noble Viscount proved his case—that unless the suggestion he has made is accepted, then certainly very few people will believe that they are getting the best deal consistent with the national interest.

1349
It is obvious that unless this change is made only relatively unimportant matters will be threshed out in public. To say that they will be threshed out in public is probably an exaggeration because the amount of discussion which will take place is obviously limited, as the noble Viscount has made clear. That means that all, or almost all, of the major questions and considerations will be considered, as I see it, in secret and decided by the Minister without apparent opportunity for discussion by the people mainly concerned. That seems to me as unsatisfactory and as undemocratic as the procedure of the Star Chamber.
The noble Lord a few days ago sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who was kind enough to let me see a copy of it. In that letter the noble Lord said that there was no reason why even now local authorities should not be preparing cases on hardship for submission to transport users' consultative committees, and on all other matters acting now in preparing cases or reports for submission to the Minister, with copies to all other Government Departments normally concerned with the subjects touched upon. Just consider that kind of set-up. Here we have a local inquiry under a T.U.C.C. dealing just with the narrow issue of hardship. Then on all other matters local authorities are invited to write to the Ministry of Transport with copies to other Government Departments on particular issues.
On May 1, in the debate on transport, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, gave us some of these considerations on which local authorities and others are now invited to write to the Minister of Transport and to other Ministers—namely social; defence; industrial development; distribution of industry and employment; the effect on areas of high and low employment; on population movements; road considerations; planning future towns and conurbations; the cost of alternative transport. That is a most important and far-reaching list.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: And education, of course.
LORD STONHAM: Yes. The noble Lord said, of course, at the time that that was by no means a comprehensive list. So it will be little or no exaggeration to say that local authorities are not merely
1350
being invited, but are positively being incited, to get in touch with Government Departments after long inquiry and at great expense.
The noble Lord also added in that speech [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 249 (No. 76), col. 200]:
" There is a great deal of thought and consultation before us, and many and various are the interests which must be consulted or considered before a great many of the proposals can be carried into effect."
I quite agree with that, and he will recall that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Hailsham, on the next day said that, in his view, there was no hurry about this matter and that it might take as long as seven years. But the noble Lord will be aware that all over the country closure proposals have now just been published, and the British Railways Board has said that in various parts of the country, including Scotland, the railways will be closed on September 8 or 9 or 15—only 10 or 11 weeks from now. Whereas under the 1962 Act those proposals have to be published for two weeks, then six more weeks must elapse for objections to be lodged before the T.U.C.C. can sit. This means that they cannot possibly send a representation to the Minister, even on the narrow ground of hardship, until the latter part of August.
The Minister is supposed to consider all these things and to give a decision before September 8 or 9. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, shakes his head. I will quote chapter and verse for that if he likes, but I do not want to speak for too long. These are announcements which have been made and this is the position. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Minister is going to arrive at a decision in that short period, but I am bound to inform the noble Lord that these announcements have been made by British Railways. I have one in my hand containing the details—in fact I have many of these, but this is just one in regard to one line, in which they even give the number of redundancies, the number of men in various jobs who will have to be dispensed with if these proposals go through.
I mention this because of a particular point raised by the noble Viscount, namely, that we have to consider public opinion. I am not suggesting that he entirely agrees with what was said at

1351
this particular hearing or by the particular local authorities whose views he quoted, but that is what the public thinks; and justice not only has to be done, but has to be seen to be done. When you get an item in a newspaper headlined that a line will close on September 8, with various particulars quoted in detail below it, then that is what the public believe. And when they are told that all this other elaborate machinery has to be gone through before anything is decided, well, they have their doubts. Then if finally the matter is decided affirmatively by the Minister very soon after September 8, or whatever the date may be, they will be sure they have not had a fair deal in the matter and certainly their voice has not been heard.
How can the Minister in a comparatively short space of time positively give full consideration to all these matters, which the noble Lord has said must quite rightly be considered, when there are 300 branch line closures which could be possible and some 2,300 stations involved? I have a list here of ten different branch lines now scheduled for closure in the northern part of Scotland, which is supposed to become effective in September. I know of eight in the West of England already, and there are the large number which was considered before the new set-up, on which there has been an inquiry and on which the consultative committees have sent a report to the Minister, but about which the Minister has as yet made no decision. That, again, is a sapping of confidence.
For example, the Porthcawl line is one which I brought to the notice of the noble Lord. There is another, the Haltwhistle and Alton line. There the local authority was able to establish a disagreement with the figures put forward by the Railways Board, and to prove that the loss which could have been wiped out easily was only some £1,600. This is an area where there is no alternative transport, where it is a thousand feet up, and where it is extremely unlikely that there could be a bus service anyway. The Minister has had that case before him since July, 1962, with a recommendation from the transport users' consultative committee that the line should not he closed. They have had no decision about it, and it
1352
is still in the list in the Beeching Plan for closure. They are the kind of things which sap the confidence of the people and, as it was put rather crudely to me, it seems to us that it is a case of heads they win, tails we lose.
Even when the consultative committee announces in our favour, the Minister does not come to a decision. Surely, a public inquiry such as the noble Viscount suggested, with witnesses, a chance for questioning, for testing the alleged figures, is the only fair way, and, indeed, the only practical way, because surely, unless this procedure is adopted—and we are having these cases all over the country—the Ministerial machine must become clogged up.
I would ask the noble Lord to tell us this now. If there is not a public inquiry, such as the noble Viscount has asked for, and if local authorities and others accept the invitation from the Minister to send in their written detailed objections and answers to the Minister or the Ministers, can the noble Lord guarantee that a Minister will discuss these objections and give these people the opportunity to challenge facts and statements made by the Railways Board? I do not wish to go into any questions of detailed cost now, because that is a matter I am going to raise to-morrow. But I do assure the noble Lord now that there is no case which has come to my notice where the figures put forward by the British Railways Board have not proved inaccurate. He will be aware that the line manager of the South-Western Division, Mr. Taylor, agreed only the other week at the Isle of Wight that the figures put forward for the Isle of Wight railways were suspect. So there must be opportunity to challenge these things. When these figures are known in the particular areas, and people are able to look at them and are not satisfied with them, there must be opportunity for all the facts to be brought out.
I quoted what the noble Lord said about consultations. There must be consultations, and I quite agree there should be. If the local authorities ask for consultation with the noble Lord's Department will it be granted as of right, because that is most important? Is he aware also that, although he has said again and again—and I quite know this must be so—that lines cannot be closed down without the consent of the Minister, and the

1353
Minister has said that if there is no alternative service he will not give his consent (or words to that effect; I do not want to misquote, but that is near enough), in some of these closures which have now been put forward there is no alternative bus service over a considerable part of the area, no kind of proposals have been put forward for an alternative service, and this is causing very considerable worry?
I think it must be agreed that every responsible organisation representing local authorities has protested in the strongest possible terms against the present set-up, and has expressed its concern at the way in which it appears, so far as we can tell (subject to anything the noble Lord says), this is going to be administered. In particular there is the County Councils Association. The noble Viscount mentioned one county council. This letter, which was sent by the County Councils Association to the Minister of Transport on April 23, is a really remarkable document. I do not know whether the noble Lord has read it, but it deals with matters which are of vital and important concern, and with which all the county councils are concerned. We are not talking now about the tiny organisations or a political organisation. Apart from Parliament, apart from central Government, we are talking about one of the most important associations of government in this country. They say things like this:
" …the Association are gravely concerned about the Board's intention, expressed in the Report and apparently supported by the Minister, to carry out the proposals for line and station closures and withdrawals of services as quickly as the statutory procedures permit…. The Association ask the Minister to give an assurance that he will not give his consent to any closure proposal until he has given due consideration, not only to the recommendations of the appropriate Transport Users' Consultative Committee on the issue of hardship, but to those other issues to which reference is made below."
Then the Association refer to a great many things, including the fact that the alternative service
" will still provide a reasonable service to the public after the closure."
They refer to the financial implications. They want
" an immediate examination of the type and carrying capacity of the vehicles available ";
1354
a survey
" of the pattern and capacity of the roads which are to take such vehicles; an immediate survey to determine the need for additional car-parking facilities…; the close coordination of road and rail services ";
and a great many more things of the utmost importance.
My Lords, I submit that those things cannot possibly be settled with satisfaction, or indeed sufficiently speedily or efficiently, if they all have to be referred to the Ministry of Transport and considered departmentally. Because representations from bodies of this kind cannot possibly be ignored, and I am quite sure that neither the noble Lord nor his right honourable friend would wish to ignore them. But the point is that, even from the viewpoint of machinery, quite apart from what the public think about it and know about it, and quite apart from giving them satisfaction, a great many of these things and their local application could best be considered by the kind of public inquiry which has been suggested by the noble Viscount. He did suggest, perhaps, an amplification of the transport users' consultative committee or their present power. I believe that that would be only a second best. An inquiry with a ministerial representative from the Department in the chair would, of course, be very much better, and would give a great deal more satisfaction.
This question does not concern only the County Councils Association. The Town Planning Institute have put the most serious questions to the Minister. There is the Wales National Conference, and a resolution by the All-Wales Committee—not the T.U.C.C. there—speaks about
" deep concern and anxiety about the proposed widespread withdrawal and restriction of passenger and freight services, which will result in irreparable damage to the social and economic life of the Principality. Where it is established that a railway line will be of genuine and permanent value to the community, social considerations should prevail and arrangements made to retain the service with necessary economies, notwithstanding that it may not be financially viable."
They ask the Government to
" defer a final decision on the implementation of the Board's representations until a nationwide examination is made of all forms of transport."
My Lords, anxiety is felt not only by official bodies of this kind. There are

1355
the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds, representing 200,000 women, who, at their conference in Edinburgh, passed a resolution; the Council for the Preservation of Rural England; the Women's Institutes and the Rural District Councils Associations. In fact, it is quite true to say that, in the areas likely to be concerned, this matter is causing more anxiety and worry than any other domestic subject to-day. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, when he comes to reply to his noble friend, will be able either to accept the suggestion or at least to say that the matter will be reconsidered, so that a far truer, better, more thorough and more satisfactory local inquiry will take place, in order that we shall give greater confidence to the public and also be sure that, when a decision is made, it is in the best interests of the people affected.
6.41 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has posed his Question in the lucid and well-documented way that we have come to expect of him, and certainly, so far as concerns the background to the Question, which he sketched in with some care, I should have no complaint as to the way that he did it; nor should I have the slightest challenge of the various facts that he put forward to us, though it may be that, as my argument develops, there will be a difference between the conclusions drawn in the matter. In view of the importance of the subject which he has raised, which I do not deny at all, I think I ought principally to address myself to what is the substance of the Question as it appears on the Order Paper.
It seems to me that, if I were also to address myself, in the process, to all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who has just sat down, I should, first, perhaps be somewhat trespassing on the substance of the two Questions which the noble Lord has down for to-morrow (and I think those matters would be better dealt with in their context then); and, secondly, I might be going a little further away from the original Question than the amount I have to say on that Question would seem to make it wise to
1356
do. Therefore, the noble Lord will, I am sure, understand if I do not quite cover all the ground. For instance, there is his assertion, which he has repeated often in this House, that every figure the Railways Board have produced that he has yet had anything to do with has proved to be inaccurate. My Lords, he may well continue to assert it, but I shall say no more at the moment than that that is by no means the experience of many other people. But, my Lords, I will not take that matter up now.
I think I ought to start by looking carefully (and perhaps in a somewhat oversimplified manner, even, to be sure of the matter) at the provisions of the Transport Act which are involved in my noble friend's Question. Section 90, as he said, provides generally for the Minister to hold inquiries for the purposes of his powers under the Act. He also told us, quite correctly, that that was an extension, or a continuation, perhaps I should say, of the powers he originally had under Section 20 of the Transport Act, 1919. The point really is that it is not, in terms, associated directly with any of the particular powers and functions that the Minister has. On the other hand, the provision—and, indeed, it is the only provision—for inquiry in relation to rail closures is subsection (9) of Section 56 of the Transport Act, and that, of course, provides for the consideration of objections to the proposed closures and for a report to the Minister. That is a very different provision from Section 90. As the noble Lord pointed out—and I agree with him—it contains a special, deliberately restricted and well-defined power of inquiry. About that, three points are, I think, especially notable: first, the power of inquiry or of consideration is given to an independent body, the T.U.C.C.; secondly, its scope is confined to proposals for closing passenger services or stations; and, thirdly, within that scope the inquiry is confined to the one aspect of hardship. I am over-simplifying, perhaps, but it is most important to double clarify, if necessary, exactly what is the position of that power.
Now my noble friend, it seems to me, is trying to amend subsection (9) of Section 56 in a most ingenious manner, which would not require a change in the

1357
law; and, as he told us, he has sought to do it by invoking the wide general powers of inquiry under Section 90. Those powers, I certainly agree, are very useful in appropriate circumstances. I can see what he is driving at here, and it is something in which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, supported him, but they must remember that this suggestion that they have put forward follows very soon after Parliament has taken a decision on this very matter. Consider what happened only a year ago. The question of which method should be adopted for considering closure proposals was before Parliament when the Transport Bill was debated. The machinery of examination in Section 56 was what was finally approved. In taking this decision, Parliament deliberately selected certain features for consideration by the T.U.C.C.s from among the number of things which they might have considered. Notably, for the first time, it provided a statutory process by which objections to proposed passenger closures by users or by bodies representing them were required to be heard before the event by the independent T.U.C.C.s, and it confined the main function to an assessment of hardship. So what my noble friend is trying to do, as I see it, is, in effect, to reverse a decision taken at a very recent date by Parliament on the machinery of inquiry which is appropriate to these proposals.
Although the Act makes available the machinery of inquiry under Section 90 in relation to any of the Minister's powers, Section 56 provides this special procedure as to the regular and, indeed, the obligatory machinery of inquiry that is to take place before proposed passenger closures can lawfully happen. I do not think any Government should entertain the proposition that a statutory pattern which has so recently been set by Parliament should be radically altered in the way which my noble friend suggests at this stage, with as yet so little experience of its working. Because I cannot find it easy to agree that the provisions of the Act deny the public the opportunities they should have to object to a closure proposal. Within the scope of the T.U.C.C.s' consideration they have an opportunity which I should have thought would be described as ample. Again, they get public notice of the proposal. There is the six-week
1358
period in which to lodge objections; and once a single objection is lodged the case has to be considered by the T.U.C.C., who must then report on the hardship to the Minister. And the closure cannot take place until the Minister has given his consent.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, thought—and I say this in good faith—came precariously close to being somewhat misleading to the House when he asked how all these things could happen within the period, which he described as "short", between the notice being given and the date on which a closure was proposed to take place. He gave the impression—perhaps he did not mean to—that because a proposal had been made that something should be closed on September 8 there was some almighty power that dictated that it had to happen on that day and any considerations had to be stuffed into the intervening period. That is not so.
The purpose of the procedure that the T.U.C.C.s follow under Section 56 is that when a closure is opposed the machinery starts; and I do not suppose for a moment that in all cases the considerations will be completed within the period. In the circumstances the closure will not take place until later, if it takes place at all.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? I would say that I did not mislead the House at all, nor am I in ignorance of these facts. What I protest about is that British Railways should make the announcement of a closing date when, by the nature of things, as the noble Lord and I are well aware, it is virtually impossible in reason for it to take place on that date. It is quite wrong to create the wrong impression and mislead people in that way.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is exactly where the noble Lord is coming close to misleading the House; because in no case that I know have the Railways Board announced a closing date. I did not want to bring this point up, particularly because it is better suited for to-morrow; but, in fact, they have announced their proposals, which is a different thing. If the noble Lord tries to tell us that it is not a different thing, then he is not being fair to his subject; because one thing that must happen is

1359
that when proposals are put forward they must have a date on them. That is one of the things that must be done. Therefore it is not correct to say that when they are putting forward a proposal, including a date, they are announcing the closing of a particular line or station on that date; they are announcing that they propose it should be closed on that date. There is a difference there and it is rather an important difference.
Noble Lords are interested in the question of hardship. I am not going to attempt to discuss what hardship means; it would, in fact, be quite wrong for me to do so. The reason why is a significant one. In the Act, hardship is of course not defined, and, in practical terms, the lack of definition means that hardship is left to the T.U.C.C. to assess on the evidence that is brought before them at the hearing. Any user who can demonstrate that the closure would produce hardship, to whatever extent and for whatever reason, will have his objection properly considered and carefully weighed by the Committee.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, forgive me for interrupting. The noble Lord himself, when discussing the Transport Bill, said a certain amount about this; and it was on this point that I was asking him. Perhaps I can remind him. He said:
" It is clearly desirable that the reports that the Minister receives and on which he is to found his consideration should be based on broadly similar lines and should adopt broadly similar criteria and standards for assessment of hardship."
The point I was making was that here is Wales and Monmouth making a very wide assessment with which I fully agreed. If we cannot have these inquiries, will be give his blessing that they should all adopt the same width?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I cannot see anything inconsistent between what I said then and now; because I think it would be a genuine cause of complaint for the user if the meanings of hardship were somewhere laid down. It would have been very difficult to lay down a comprehensive definition of hardship which would take in all possible reasons why people might suffer it. To attempt to do that and not to leave the question to the T.U.C.C. to assess hardship
1360
on the evidence before them would be a grave disservice to the user. I should hope that there would be a consistency of operation between the T.U.C.C.s, but, at the same time, it would be wrong to exclude any particular matter which can be described in the widest context as hardship. I am sure I am right about that.
What my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, want is much wider public discussion of matters other than hardship. The first, and perhaps the most important, is the economics of the service. My noble friend, if I understood him right, thinks that the commercial justification for each closure ought to be examined and debated in public. That is exactly what happened before the 1962 Act was passed; and that is exactly what Parliament deliberately changed in Section 56 of the Act. There were at least three good reasons for making that change. First, the new Railways Board was enjoined to operate on a commercially sound basis. Its general duty is "to provide railway services in Great Britain"; its financial duty is to break even as soon as possible. It was given a wide measure of freedom for achieving those objects. Requirements to justify in detail each closure proposal would hardly be consistent with these duties, and particularly when justifying them, as is suggested, in quarters and to people on whom those duties do not lie. The decision to propose the closure of a service or station is a plain matter of management. It is part of the operation of running a transport undertaking on commercial lines.
Secondly, under the old procedure, arguments about figures and alternative methods of operation wasted a lot of the T.U.C.C.s' time. These committees are voluntary local bodies and they were not, and indeed are not now, really equipped to deal with that kind of argument. They are ideally suited to the task they now have of assessing hardship and advising on alternative services. I might mention a point on alternative services which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The noble Lord complained that certain proposals he had seen did not give alternative services. As the proposals are only announced at this stage, they would be hardly likely to do so, when they have

1361
yet to go before the T.U.C.C., which would consider that aspect of them.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, because these are detailed proposals, which in fact detail the available alternative services but say nothing whatever about a 10-mile gap where there are no alternatives at all. As the noble Lord will be aware, his right honourable friend would have the right to direct the Railways Board to provide an alternative service, if he thought fit.
LORD CHESHAM: I agree; but no doubt that particular aspect would be brought to his attention by the T.U.C.C. in their consideration. I do not think it is a very strong ground of complaint that the whole of that aspect had not been pre-considered by the Railways Board when putting through the proposal. I do not think we should complain about that.
The third point is that a decision to refuse consent on a closure or to insist on an alternative service is likely to mean expenditure by the Railways Board and hence, as things are to-day, by the Exchequer. Responsibility for that decision is placed by the new Act squarely where it belongs: on the Minister. Therefore I say it is right that he should be the one to judge the economic factors involved, though, of course, he would be helped by the T.U.C.C.'s advice on hardship.
I come to the other factors which the Minister must assess before deciding whether or not to give his consent. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for reading out a list which I used previously, because it saves my having to do it again, though I would remind your Lordships that it is not intended to be comprehensive. It seems to me that the majority of these non-hardship factors, if I may call them that, if not all of them, fall into one of two categories: either they are management matters, like figures of costs, economics of the line or alternative operating methods, or they are matters within the scope of Government Departments, like defence and planning.
In the first category, successive Ministers of Transport have always set their faces against intervening in management. We consider that the Board of a
1362
nationalised industry should be allowed to get on with its job without any more interference by the Government than is absolutely essential. This is even more important in the general philosophy of the 1962 Act than it was before. These management matters, therefore, are scarcely appropriate to a public examination, except in so far as they may cause hardship to individuals.
In the second category of matters, such as planning, no doubt the Minister will receive direct representations, which he will consider. But his advice on such matters would surely come from the normal process of inter-departmental consultations, and I doubt whether a public inquiry would add significantly to that advice. These are matters which ultimately require judgment in the light of national policies, and this is the function of the Government and in particular of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and of his colleagues and advisers. He has already set up the appropriate machinery to ensure that proper advice will be available and to take account of suggestions of this kind which are made by local authorities and others. I have to conclude, therefore, that the sort of changes which are proposed by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross would expose the railway management decisions to question in a way that was never contemplated by the 1962 Act, without necessarily improving the advice which in any case is available to the Minister on the non-hardship aspects.
I should like to go back for a moment to some of the practical aspects of the noble Viscount's specific suggestion in regard to Section 90. If there were to be an inquiry under Section 90, it would clearly have to take place either before or after or concurrently with the T.U.C.C. consideration. It would have either to include or to exclude matters relating to hardship and alternative services dealt with by the T.U.C.C. I rule out the possibility of the inquiry replacing the T.U.C.C. consideration, because this seems plainly contrary to the intention of the Statute. For the same reason, I argue against an inquiry either before or at the same time as the T.U.C.C. examination of the matter. This leaves us with the possibility of an inquiry after the T.U.C.C. has reported, but I should

1363
think that this would have an unfortunate effect on the position of the T.U.C.C.s and on public confidence in their work. If the inquiry did not exclude hardship, there would be the possibility that the Minister might receive a different report on that aspect from the inquiry than he would from the T.U.C.C., and in that case the effect would be even worse.
Obviously, a great deal of importance has been attached to the channels that exist for giving the public the opportunity for making representations on grounds other than hardship, and I recognise the importance which both noble Lords attach to that side of the matter. As your Lordships know, the Government have already consulted a large number of representative organisations about the Board's proposals generally. Organisations and members of the public have also voluntarily made their views known on general issues and particular proposals, and certainly a lot of it has been of great value. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has also made it quite clear that he will carefully consider all relevant representations that are made to him when the Board give formal notice of a particular closure proposal. Views on matters other than hardship are likely to come more especially from local authorities and other responsible bodies. Their views will certainly be fully taken into account.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, to whom should a local authority send the information, if they are of the opinion that a line which it is proposed to close could be made viable by reducing or modifying the service? That is a management matter, which the noble Lord said would be excluded. To whom should the representations be made?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the representations mentioned should be sent to the Minister. That does not exclude the possibility that, if the matter was a planning one, it might not reasonably be submitted to the Department that would normally deal with it. I should have thought that on the whole it was more convenient to make all representations to the Minister of Transport, with copies to the Department concerned; but the fact that in a planning matter only it might be sent to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government certainly
1364
would in no way inhibit its consideration by the Minister of Transport through the normal channels of inter-departmental consultation. My right honourable friend has also said that he will not hesitate to consult local authorities and other bodies if he thinks that they can help him on particular points.
We come to this as the position. The Minister will take two things into account when a closure proposal comes before him. First of all, there is the T.U.C.C.'s report on hardship. I would remind your Lordships again that this can include proposals for additional bus services or something to relieve the hardship if the trains go. Secondly, on the other side, there are all the other relevant factors. I think that the assessment of these factors, in the light of national policies, is firmly a matter for the Government, and, as I have pointed out to your Lordships, appropriate arrangements have already been made for this to be done.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, 95 per cent. of my noble friend's reply could be regarded, I think, as rather unsatisfactory, but the last 5 per cent. was much more satisfactory. There seems to be some confusion in his mind on this question of management decision and to whom one can make representations. If the Minister is going to take fully into account all the possible alternative methods of operating these lines and so on, he is interfering in management decision. I feel that he must do it, but that rather "shoots down" the three original points that my noble friend made about the management decision and the Minister's responsibility for expenditure and so on.
The noble Lord made great play about Parliament having only recently revised the T.U.C.C., so that it would be wrong to enlarge it now. But I think that if Parliament at the time had been aware that proposals were going to be put forward for drastic closures of the railway lines of this country, based on figures which have been widely challenged, and which the Minister is not prepared to see challenged in any form of inquiry, Parliament might have considered that the old original form of tribunal was the more suitable for making these representations.

1365
I do not want to be misunderstood. I appreciate, and I am sure the general public appreciates, that a great many railways and stations in this country have to be closed. But, at the same time, they want to make certain that the interested people have a full opportunity of putting their points of view and of hearing them answered in public. Anybody who has ever been connected with railways knows how difficult it is to establish the cost of operating any particular piece of railway. Of course, the saving on closing a piece of railway will never be anything like the theoretical cost of operating it.
There is, apparently, to be no discussion on these figures. Then when these local authorities, or users, or anybody else want to put forward suggestions for operating changes, such as operating light railways, there is no chance of discussing it. They can be put forward only to the Minister, who, apparently, will discuss them in his Ministry. The local authorities cannot receive any information about costs; they cannot be told that the cost of operating as a light railway would equally be prohibitive. They have merely to put the proposal to the Minister and leave the decision to him. They have to submit to closure without having any public discussion
1366
of the alternative proposals from users, or even of the basis for the figures. For the general public this will be most unsatisfactory. Dissatisfaction has already been expressed in the West Sussex area over this sort of thing. It is essential from the public relations point of view that the maximum information shall be available to the people who are going to use their services, otherwise they will feel that they are at the mercy of a diktat from the Ministry of Transport, and they will not like that at all.

REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.