MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 26 November 1963)

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Married Women's Property Bill of 1963. The purpose of this Bill is exactly the same as the Bill which I introduced at the end of the last Session, the Married Women's Savings Bill. Your Lordships will recall that, after an interesting and indeed stimulating debate, that Bill was given a Second Reading, but as Parliament was shortly to adjourn for the Summer Recess there was of course little time to send the Bill to another place. Therefore it has been necessary to reintroduce it. However, so far as I am concerned the delay has been very fortunate because it has enabled me to take advantage of the best legal advice in the country, stemming as it does from the Lord Chancellor 634 and his officials, for which I am extremely grateful. The result has been a re-drafting of the Bill, for it seems that the word "savings" might have been difficult to define in the context of the Bill and I have been advised that the word now used is preferable.
The new draft also incorporates the various suggestions made by noble Lords in the previous debate. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, drew my attention to the omission of that part of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce which related to an agreement between husband and wife, and now the relevant addendum has been made. It will be noted also that this Bill specifically states that it does not apply to Northern Ireland. It will be generally appreciated that, while the new form is more explicit, the Bill has not been unduly lengthened—though when I say "explicit" I am concerned with one point which I will explain to your Lordships in a moment. I feel that perhaps it may still be necessary to make an Amendment, which I shall be happy to make on the Committee stage. Originally the Bill consisted of 25 words which received the commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, for simple brevity, something that I think he was extremely pleased to see; and although there are a few more words in this Bill it is still limited to one paragraph.
I do not wish to inflict a long Second Reading speech on your Lordships, but I think that, for the sake of those Members who were not present in the House for the previous debate, I should quote the recommendation of the Royal Commission, in paragraph 701, in which they said: … 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. This is where I feel that perhaps there should be a further Amendment to the Bill. My original approach to this was to help those wives—and I think they are in the great majority—who work at home, who cook, clean, wash and serve the family for unlimited hours, but who are not legally entitled to save one penny in their own name. A woman may 635 indeed be married to a man who perhaps drinks a little too much, or spends too much on gambling; she may be a thrifty wife, but she has no right, in law, to save for herself anything out of the housekeeping allowance.
The purpose of the Bill was to cover her needs, and that is why the new draft, which perhaps is not as clear as the old draft, says … money derived from any allowance made by the husband for the expenses of the matrimonial home or for similar purposes …". I felt this presupposed that the woman was not working outside the home and that the husband was making the sole contribution to the home. But the Royal Commission Report, of course, refers in its recommendation to money contributed by either the husband or the wife or by both". This naturally rather complicates the issue, and it was left out of this draft Bill because it was felt that this simple measure should simply cover the needs or the rights of the woman in the home who was dependent solely on the contribution made to her by her husband.
Before I came into the House the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and I discussed this point. I should like to have more advice about this, and we might raise it on the Committee stage. I am only a little afraid of complicating it and being told that in fact I might be producing a Bill whereby the husband could remain at home for all time, could be supported by his wife, and he could also be legally entitled to halt of her savings. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who has given a lot of thought to this matter, for his help and advice.
I would say, also, that in the average household of which we are thinking the woman still makes a very big contribution in the way of services; and if we were to introduce this other Amendment, she would not receive any recognition of those services such as the Royal Commission mentioned. I would remind noble Lords that the Royal Commission also said this: 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. 636 This other point I am only too happy to raise on the Committee stage, and I should like to have advice beforehand. The Royal Commission sat for four years so this was not a question of a snap decision; and they took evidence from a very large number of organisations and individuals. They considered a number of recommendations but they were unanimous only on the proposition incorporated in this Bill.
My Lords, as I said in the debate in July, legislation of this character has been operating in other countries for many years. This is not a revolutionary suggestion. A community of property has been established in many Scandinavian and European countries, and in certain States of the United States of America, and recently West Germany introduced an equal financial partnership in marriage. But Britain is lagging behind, and I feel that there is this rather pathetic category of women who serve their families and the country yet are never entitled to save one penny in their own name. Acceptance of the principle of this Bill would be some recognition of the services of the wife who works solely in the home. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the principle embodied in this Bill will be accepted again and a Second Reading., given to this very small measure, because I do believe that it will be a most useful Act to add to our social legislation.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH
My Lords, the speech that I had in mind to make was a short one, but in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has already said it will be shorter. The Bill must surely be greatly welcomed for the principle of equity which it represents. My own humble opinion, as a bachelor, is that savings from the housekeeping expenses—and I am thinking of the case of the home where the husband is the money-maker and the wife is working at home—should belong wholly to the wife, and I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, would support that general point of view.
637 For that reason, I am glad to see that Clause 1 of the Bill starts with the words If any question arises … I do not suppose that this Bill, if enacted, as I hope it will be, will have any great immediate effect upon the majority of homes in this country, but it may in the long run have two good effects, provided that one danger is avoided. That danger, of course, is that the husband or wife may selfishly stand upon the rights which are given in this Bill. I do not think that the Bill in itself will in any respect necessarily increase that danger: it exists in any event. The two good effects of passing the Bill will be, first, to improve the legal position of the wife when she has to rely upon the law for her status; and, secondly, that it may in the long run assist a more sensible attitude towards sharing what, from a material point of view, might be called the assets of the marriage. I hope, my Lords, that this Bill will receive the unanimous support of this House.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, the noble Lady will undoubtedly get an unopposed Second Reading. I, likewise, am not going to repeat anything I said on the earlier occasion. I think that the drafting of the present Bill is better than the previous one. The only point I would raise is that which has been described by the noble Lady. I agree with her entirely, of course, that she should not have to answer to-day, but should have an opportunity of taking advice. There is an obvious advantage, other things being equal, in following the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, and I think that, in order to follow that unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, it would be necessary to insert after the word "husband" in line 6, "or wife". I entirely agree with the noble Lady that that is a point which can be discussed when we come to the Committee stage. I only thought it right to warn her that that question would probably arise, in order that she should give it full consideration. I do not want to say any more about it at this stage, but it seems to me that some addition would be required if we are to follow the unanimous advice of the Royal Commission.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lady on the way in which she has moved the Second Reading and for the clear explanation she has given of the Bill. She has told your Lordships that the Bill seeks to give effect to a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce to which the Government see no objection. There can be little doubt that the present state of the law, under which any savings which a wife may make out of any allowance given her by her husband for housekeeping or similar purposes belong to the husband absolutely, is capable of working injustice to the wife. Accordingly what this Bill does is to provide that where there is any dispute on a matter of this kind any money which may be left out of an allowance made by the husband, or any property which may have been bought with such money, is to belong to the husband and wife in equal shares unless they have agreed that the money or other property is to be dealt with in some other way.
I think the Bill which is before the House today is perhaps rather clearer, as the noble Baroness herself has said, than the Bill which the noble Lady introduced before. First of all, it avoids any reference to savings and so gets rid of the difficulty of what constitutes a saving and, in particular, the point of time at which the saving can be said to be made. That was a great complication in the original Bill. Under this Bill, if a husband gives his wife £2 a week for the groceries and she spends only 30s. of it, one does not have to consider whether she is entitled to keep 5s. for herself at the end of every week, because the present Bill operates only if there is a dispute between the husband and wife as to the way in which the money, or any property which may have been bought out of that money, is to be divided between the two of them. I think this may in itself help to avoid the petty squabbles which perhaps might have arisen under the previous Bill.
Secondly, the Bill applies only where the husband and wife are living together and the allowance is made for the expenses of the matrimonial home. It seems right to leave the question of any 639 allowance which a husband may make to a wife from whom he is separated to be dealt with under the ordinary law, under which I think I am right in saying that the position is that the wife keeps the whole of any savings she may make unless she and her husband have reached some other agreement. I am not going to comment—it would be rather unwise for me to do so—on the possible Amendment about which the noble Baroness has talked. She is going to get the best advice on that. I only hope that, if the Amendment is moved, it will not complicate this Bill and hold it up at all.
Finally, my Lords, the noble Baroness has mentioned that the Bill will apply to Scotland, but I am glad to see that the noble Lady has provided that it should not apply to Northern Ireland, as did the previous Bill. Northern Ireland has a Parliament of its own, and ought to be left free to alter the law on this subject in any way it thinks fit. This is a modest Bill, but I think it may do some good in such cases as 640 where, in the past, wives have felt, probably with a good deal of justification, that they were the victims of injustice. For that reason, the Government are glad that the noble Lady has brought the Bill in again, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
Although it is quite irregular, perhaps I might be allowed to say that I was so overcome by the fact that the Government accept this Bill that I failed to express my gratitude. I should just like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for what he has said; also to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who encouraged me; to the godfather of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who was very helpful; and, of course, to all those who helped me redraft it. Thank you very much.