HL Deb 19 June 1963 vol 250 cc1282-96

2.55 p.m.

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. 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 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 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. 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:

  1. " (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.
    2. 1287
  2. " (ii) She has no legal right to any allowance for her own personal spending.
  3. " (iii) Any money she manages to save from the housekeeping allowance is in law her husband's.
  4. " (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.
  5. " (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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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.