Lords Sitting of 13 November 1968

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

POSTAGE RATES AND NEWSPAPER DELIVERIES
LORD AIREDALE: 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 what increase in revenue is expected to result from the withdrawal from private citizens of the concession they enjoyed until recently in common with newspaper publishers—and still enjoyed by the publishers—of receiving first-class service for newspapers posted at the second-class postage rate.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, newspapers sent by publishers are newly printed and they have more need of urgent treatment in the post than newspapers posted by private citizens, which are usually at least a day or two old. There will be an increase in revenue only in those cases where private citizens decide to send newspapers by the first-class service and pay accordingly. The main object of the change is to reduce the number of non-urgent newspapers given overnight service.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged for that Answer, but my Question really was, "How much?". I have not had the answer to that question. Is it right that for a quite unspecified and unknown increase in revenue the Government should forsake the principle that the services provided by the State should be available to all on equal terms; and is not that a jolly good Socialist principle?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, it is too early in the working of this two-tier system to have any estimate that is of any value. With regard to the other
496
question raised by the noble Lord, I should like to thank him for his courtesy in discussing the matter with me and also for writing to my right honourable friend the Postmaster General. The position is that registered newspapers like The Times are first bound up for the individual reader, say, in a distant part of North England; they are then often sent in bags in The Times van to the various termini in London, where they are distributed; and only at the end of the journey, say at Carlisle or Manchester, is the sorting done.
The position with regard to the other newspapers—and I think that about 150 million a year were sent until this concession was withdrawn—is that if the noble Lord sends his Stamford Herald to a friend of his who used to live in Stamford but does not now, it will not receive the same urgent attention as the newspapers sent direct by the publishers, unless it is sent by first-class post.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question in regard to the statistics—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, with great respect I think the noble Lord has now introduced a different argument —the argument of bulk posting of large quantities of correspondence. That, surely, is open to all alike. If I go to the Post Office with a large sack full of mail it will be bulked and I get a reduced rate, and so does everybody else, including newspaper publishers. But that is a completely different question.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to register with the Post Office for 5s. a year, I believe he can do that.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether my personal copy of The Times, which is posted by Messrs. W. H. Smith, will have to be paid for at the 5d. rate by Messrs. Smith or whether they and other newsagents get a special rate?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I under. stand that newsagents are treated in exactly the same way as the newspaper publishers.

PONY EXPORTS TO EUROPE
2.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: 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 how many ponies, excluding stallions and colts, have been exported to the Continent of Europe in the last twelve months; how many were under one year old; and what was the total sum realised on the sale of such ponies.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, the information available to the Agricultural Departments indicates that in the twelve months ending October 31, 1968, the total number was 3,050, of which 289 were under one year old. We have no information on the total sum realised on the sale of these animals, but the total value as declared to us by the exporters was just over £300,000.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him two supplementary questions? First, why cannot ponies have the same protection as mules, asses, genets and horses under the Export of Horses Order, No. 507, of 1966? Secondly, has not the moment arrived for some revision of commoners' rights for other forests, as was suggested last week in this House in the case of Epping Forest, thus making the breeding of scrub ponies unnecessary?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, so far as the first part of that question is concerned, I should like to inform the noble Marquess that trade as described in the first part of the question does not now exist. With regard to the second part of the question, relating to grazing in Epping Forest, that is a matter for another Ministry. I will get what information I can on it and will write to the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Department concerned has yet been able to ascertain the real pur-
498
pose of these exports; and what happens to these ponies when they react their destination?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, as to what happens to the ponies when they reach their destination I am afraid that I have no information. With regard to the purpose of the exports, I understand from the Ministry that people exporting ponies have to give the Ministry information why they are going to the Continent, or to some other country, whether it is for breeding purposes or for riding purposes. I think that answers both points raised by the noble Lord.

AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE TO,lb/> UNITED STATES AND PRESIDENT-ELECT
2.43 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in asking this Question I should like to put it on record that there is nothing personal in it, as I have never met the person concerned.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the critical and hostile public references to the President-Elect of the United States of America attributed to our Ambassador-designate to the United Stales of America, they now intend to review this appointment.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has yet asked his Question, but the Answer is "No".
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, as an ex-Ambassador in Washington, may I ask two questions, one personal and about the present and the other procedural and about the future? The first is, do not Her Majesty's Government agree that they and the Ambassador-designate will find in Mr. Nixon a man quite big enough to be able to shrug off what was said in different circumstances by the Ambassador-designate in the Press some years ago, and that what Mr. Nixon is much more likely to ask himself is whether the Ambassador-designate is likely to enjoy the confidence of the British Government of the day? The second question is a procedural one and

499
has nothing to do with the personal aspect of this Question, if there is one. It is this. As a general rule would not Her Majesty's Government agree, on procedure, that it is usually better to wait and see what the Government is likely to be before appointing and announcing an Ambassador?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the answer to the first question is, "Yes". I should not wish to come between the Ambassador-designate and the President-Elect and I really do not intend to follow the noble Lord, as an ex-head of the Foreign Service and former Ambassador to Washington, into the considerations which must determine the action of the Government in a matter of this kind.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would not the noble Leader agree that this illustrates the hazard of appointing to a senior diplomatic post, as against a career diplomat, a controversial personality, and particularly in this case one addicted to apparently extravagant or intemperate language?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say I think the noble Lord is trespassing on the most dangerous ground. I do not propose to make any points of a Party political or any other kind. I will only say that I should hope that any British Government will always seek to choose the best man for the job.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, whilst sympathising with everything the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, may I ask whether he would not agree that in general it might be said to be a mistake to appoint Ambassadors too long in advance. because, after all, who knows what may happen in the interval before they present their credentials?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a mischievous Question to cause discord between the elected President and the new Ambassador, and does not this Question come badly from the other side, who vilified Winston Churchill in the 'thirties and acclaimed him a hero in 1942?
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, I do not think that any reasonable person could criticise the anxiety that lies be-
500
hind this Question. But is it not a fact that those who know Mr. Freeman, and especially those who saw him at work in India, as I had the pleasure of doing, recognise him as a man of absolute integrity and one outstandingly equipped to represent this country. whatever Government may be in power here?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Blyton, and to the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon. I entirely agree with their view. I do not think that this is a very helpful Question. Although this is a free House, in a political sense—and of course it is particularly free to ex-diplomats—there is an argument that if you do not announce these appointments well in advance you then almost certainly stick to the career diplomats. There are times when Governments, of all shades, choose people other than career diplomats for their posts. I think we will leave the matter there.

PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT OF MARRIED WOMEN
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTHrose to call attention to the need to encourage industry, the Civil Service and the professions to make more use of qualified married women on a part-time basis by tax relief or other means; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I was asked at one time to widen the scope of this Motion, but I felt that if I did so it would lay open a vast field and that some of what I hope to put forward to-day might be lost in the process. Nevertheless, I feel that this House has always welcomed noble Lords who speak widely on a Motion, and I have certainly said to one noble Baroness that I hope she will find the words of the Motion no restriction and that this matter can be taken with as wide a meaning as possible. What I am going to say is, of course, completely non-political. There are perhaps at one of two times criticisms here and there, but they are not intended to criticise any Party as such; they are only remarks as we go along. I hope that although this is a serious subject we can take it fairly lightheartedly, and I certainly at times shall make one or two remarks which I hope will call forth a

501
reply from the noble Baronesses. I rely on them entirely for support for this Motion, and if they feel like interrupting me in the middle of my speech and I see them, I shall certainly give way.
The requirement to-day is for an increasing number of skilled and highly trained persons, and our academical and training colleges are stretched to the limit to meet the requirements forecast in the Robbins Report. We are unable to give further education to all those who would benefit from it, or even to meet to-day's requirements for such trained people. We are desperately short of qualified persons in many of the professions, in particular teaching and medicine, and yet in spite of this we allow almost 50 per cent. of married women who have been educated beyond the age of 19 to be completely unemployed.
I do not believe that men and women are always equally suited to all jobs, but there is a vast field where no preference need or should be expressed. There are also occupations for which women are in general more suited than men. We have gradually increased the number of women at our universities until to-day the proportion of women to men has risen to one-third. Yet in spite of the cost of educating them, the shortage of university places and the national need for such trained persons, we do almost nothing to encourage and make it easy for them to use their talents and education for more than a quite limited period of their lives.
If we persist in this policy, I maintain that there is but one logical answer at the present time; namely, to reduce the places given to women at universities and for further education, unless and until all men who are capable of benefiting by further education are able to obtain places. Of course, this is really what we have done in the past, but I do not think it would be in line with present day thinking, and it is most unfair to those women who do not marry, or who marry and wish to have continuing careers.
Fortunately, there are alternatives, and I greatly hope that the noble Baronesses who are speaking to-day will support me on this issue. However, I will provoke them by saying that if there is a family then I maintain that the family should always have the first priority. I am sure
502
that all noble Lords and Baronesses who have sat on the Bench will confirm that the absence of love and attention from parents frequently is the cause of crime among the young and adolescents. I will therefore be brave and say that in present circumstances a woman who is bringing up a family can seldom take a full-time job without putting her family and married life in jeopardy. I have chosen my words rather carefully when saying that. I said "seldom", not "always". This does not mean to say that a full-time career for a married woman with a family is impossible or undesirable, if the present conditions of employment and tax structure can be modified.
Although this Motion is primarily concerned with part-time working for women, this is of course only a preferred solution to the general problem of why many married women are unemployed; and I think it would be useful for a moment to consider the reasons. Quite apart from the fact that many women feel that they should spend longer than a full-time job allows with their families, the major difficulty is in arranging for the family to be cared for in the wife's absence. There are two ways of at least partially overcoming this. Either help is obtained in the home, or the children are sent out to some establishment or school which will look after them during the day. Arrangements also have to be made for the holidays. For those children who live at home during the term, going away for most of the holidays may be no bad thing for those attending day schools, but it is certainly not a desirable solution for the still significant number of boarders. In any case, the demand for well-run holiday homes or other alternatives is at a premium. This problem can be largely avoided if the wife can take some unpaid leave, say eight weeks in the year to coincide with most of the time the children are away from school.
The major objection to getting help in the home is financial. A responsible children's nurse is well paid and almost certainly would be unwilling to do all the housework in addition. The wages bill is therefore likely to be £1,200 a year or even more. As we all know, a husband and wife's income is taxed together, and this means, in the circumstances I have described, that the wife would have to earn £2,000 a year or so before having

503
any return for her labours. I must say that to me it has always seemed strange that our tax laws should provide an incentive for living in sin, and that at a time when we talk a lot about equal pay for equal work the working married woman is still suffering a double disability.
I think the Government should also face the fact that no person living on an earned income, even if it be £20,000 a year, is rich by to-day's standards, good perhaps in theory as levelling incomes by taxation may have been. The plain facts are that there are still almost as many rich people as ever. The entrepreneurs and tax evaders are getting far more than they deserve in relation to the fixed salary man or woman. It really is time that we stopped thinking in terms of political or ideological philosophy and became more pragmatic in our approach to the problem.
I certainly would not dispute the fact that some levelling of incomes is a good thing. But we are still hitting against the target that used to be, and the target we ought to be thinking of is, as I said, the tax dodger or the entrepreneur who is getting too big a benefit from what he is doing for the community, and the excellent man at the top of the tree on the fixed income, who simply is not in his class at all. I make a genuine appeal here for a change of philosophy on this matter, and a return to seeing what is really happening and not what people imagine is happening.
Returning to my main theme, there are also other reasons why it is difficult for a married woman to return to full-time employment even when her family commitments are reduced. Probably most important is a loss of confidence in her personal ability and a feeling that she is not longer in touch with the latest developments. There must therefore be a period where she brings herself up to date and regains her confidence. Much too often this would mean starting again at the bottom of the ladder and having to fight every step up it again. This is unfair, and moreover women as a whole are not usually so aggressive as men in fighting their way upward. They need more encouragement in order to realise their full potentialities. It is very noticeable that women who are architects have been more successful than others in
504
re-establishing themselves. The reason seems to be that very often their husbands are in the same profession and can help with the difficult transition period.
I am sure that with the very rapid progress which is being made in all technical disciplines periodical updating courses are necessary in almost all fields, including that of management, and such courses could be run to meet, or include, the requirement I have in mind. The more difficult question is how to persuade employers to accept the woman who is returning to work and to give her an opportunity of making up for the time she has lost and of reaching a position which her ability demands.
Now, my Lords, even if we think that it should be made as easy as possible for married women to have an almost uninterrupted full-time career, the fact remains that many very able and highly educated women feel that they cannot and do not wish to abandon their domestic ties to such an extent. Nevertheless, if they are to have a balanced life and maintain a sense of perspective which is necessary both as a mother and wife, some challenging work outside the home is essential. It is with this sort of situation that my Motion is primarily concerned, but if part-time working can be made a reality it will also mean that the married woman who intends to have as full a career as possible will be able to reduce the period when she cannot work at all to an absolute minimum. The major problem in making part-time work a reality is in persuading employers to accept it. The difficulties in using part-time labour effectively will vary with the different forms of employment and, of course, with the grading. Already we have had to accept part-time work to a great extent in the teaching and nursing professions, and although there are abvious difficulties in a hospital matron or a headmistress working on a part-time basis, I am by no means sure that the problems are insuperable.
It was not very long ago that most directors worked very much on a part-time basis, and certainly many heads of businesses spent a great deal of time away from the office visiting far-flung posts of their empires. They relied on their staffs or a deputy to carry on and make urgent decisions in their absence, and this sort of delegation was regarded

505
as the hallmark of efficiency. The objections to divided control can be met, as one can see from the recent American practice of appointing a number of joint managing directors.
We are told that research requires full-time working. As a general statement I should have thought this to be indefensible, bearing in mind how often research is combined with teaching in universities. I am afraid I have also gained the impression that in some, at least, of our Government establishments urgency is hardly the major consideration, and that they would benefit by an infusion of enthusiastic part-time scientists. May I say, in parenthesis, that I think this is a very difficult problem indeed when establishments are engaged, as often they are, on secret work, the results of which cannot be published, and there is no industrial incentive there. It is easy to see that they are not producing as much as could be achieved in different circumstances, and an infusion of fresh blood from outside, at a competent level, could do very much to produce something of a challenge.
Even when it comes to office staff, in particular secretaries, it is often possible for the employer to rearrange the work so that two part-time secretaries can be employed. In fact, secretaries are often shared, and by using two part-time secretaries a man can have what he always prefers to have, namely somebody who works solely for him. I feel that employers' objections to part-time working on these grounds are not fundamental. However, one must recognise that such a course means some change in outlook and reorganisation and that when arrangements which a woman has made to have her children looked after fail, or if her children become ill, she may have to take time off. In some cases this can be allowed for by having an increased number of part-time staff to cover both sickness and holidays. But this again costs money.
I believe that if part-time working is to become a reality, further tax concessions for the employer are necessary. I know that there are already some, but I think they must be increased, and I also think that the Government must show the way by implementing this policy in their own establishments. I may be taken to
506
book on this, but I have not noticed that they have been in the forefront of this movement. Undoubtedly automation will bring in its train more shift working and, whether we like it or not, the concept of the full-time employee will, to some extent, disappear. I think we all know the reason why this is inevitable. The cost of equipment is becoming increasingly great, and so one has to try to employ it on a 24 hours basis. This is a tendency which I think few would deny will continue in the future.
I should now like to turn to consider what can be done to help those women who would be willing to work part-time, apart from the financial aspect which I have already mentioned. One obvious course would be to see whether we could get schools to extend their hours so that they would cover both, let us say, morning and afternoon, so that some children at certain ages could attend in the morning and some could go later in the day to fit in with the woman's work. This suggestion bristles with difficulties and would increase the cost, but it should be looked at with a serious determination to solve at least part of the problem. If my observations about the increase in shift-work are correct, then this problem will become an increasingly important one, both now and in the future.
Another disability suffered by a married woman with a family who is trying to work part-time is the problem of uneconomic travel. All of us who live in the country know how very expensive it is to come into town each day for a full day's work, taking the cost of our train fare over a year. If one is working part-time this amounts to a far larger and much more important part of one's salary, and the Government should see what concessions can be made in this respect.
I have recently been to Sweden and I know that the Government there are trying to sell this idea of part-time working to women, and I believe they are having some success. I suggest we want to sell it not only to the women themselves, but of course to the employers. In other words, we want to make our efforts in both directions. There are quite a number of speakers to-day so I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. I am sure they will cover the points which I have not covered, or with which I have

507
dealt only lightly in this introduction. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.8 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I think we have every reason to be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for moving this Motion this afternoon. The problem he has brought before us is an immense and a very human one. I may repeat some of his arguments, but I shall crave your Lordships' indulgence to listen to a repetition of an argument when it is put from the woman's point of view rather than from the man's.
This is not a Party matter, but only the Government can act. And it is for action that those of us who feel deeply concerned are asking. Less than a hundred years ago educated women were destined either for the altar, or, if they failed to find a husband, for the task of looking after other people's homes and children, or other people's elderly relations or invalids. Marriage almost any marriage—was better, as Jane Austen makes Charlotte Lucas reflect on her engagement to Mr. Collins:
"Mr. Collins, to be sure, was neither sensible nor agreeable: his society was irksome and his attachment to her mug be imaginary.
"But still he would be her husband. Without thinking highly either of man or of matrimony, marriage had always been her object. It was the only honourable position for well-educated young women of small fortune and, however uncertain of giving happiness, must be the pleasantest preservation from want."
My Lords, that was a hundred years, and more, ago. The major changes affecting women's rights came after the First World War; but they are only now working themselves out.
In March, 1954, Mr. Hammarskjoeld said to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women:
"More and more people arc coming to realise the vast implication in the change in women's status and are making an attempt to evaluate it."
Then he went on to quote Canon Raven:
"Among all the achievements of the past century, those discoveries and developments that have transformed the life of man and altered the very meaning of time and space, it may be doubted whether any is so profoundly significant and in the long run so beneficial as the emancipation of women."
Modern labour-saving homes and equipment, man-made fibres, earlier
508
marriage and smaller families—all these contribute to the change in women's lives in the home. As Joan Barnes says in her pamphlet, A Woman's Place:
"If at some time in her life, especially when the children are small, the modern housewife sees herself as Cinderella, at least she is a Cinder in nylons, attractive clothes, morale-boosting cosmetics, raking out not the ashes, but washing her drip-dries and cooking on a gas or electric stove."
The present trend is for women to have all their children old enough to go to school about 15 years after marriage. Women, while their children are small, tend to be excessively busy and tied to the home.
"Women with children under five are practically forced to give up work",
wrote Fiona MacCarthy in her, Work for Married Women:
"It is possible to argue that women with under-school-age children have a moral obligation to stay at home with them. But the fact remains that by no means every woman wants to, or even feels she needs to. More mothers would be out at work if they could find child-minders"
or have access to suitable day nurseries, play groups, crêches or nursery schools.
Not every husband wants to be responsible for the elementary plumbing, carpentry or electrical work in his own home. But he is not subjected to criticism if he decides to call in the appropriate expert to do the job for him. He is merely poorer in his pocket. Women, on the other hand, are often made to feel social pariahs if they hand over their small children to what are often far more capable hands than their own. However, this period of being necessarily tied to the home lasts for a relatively short time, after which the majority of women find themselves with many years of active life ahead, able and willing to take up new interests and occupations outside their homes or to return to old ones.
It is conceivable that, even with the most attractive husband and children in the world, some women get bored with staying within their own four walls, and with being captive behind their own front door. What do they do? In 1966 there were 8,650,000 working women in Britain; and this figures does not include the self-employed. It represents 38 per cent. of all employees. More than half of the total number of women workers were married. So approximately one in

509
three married women now work, compared to one in ten just before the Second World War, and it is nearer one in two, if we count only married women under 60. But there are 6 million married women of working age who are not working, and among them is to be found the hidden reserve of untapped strength which could be called upon to make a considerable contribution to the basic economic and social shortage of our time—the shortage of skilled human power.
We are a small nation competing in a highly competitive world, in which other larger and more powerful nations do not owe us a living. We must work and produce and sell, or shrivel up. On every side we hear of shortages of skilled manpower—in the Civil Service, in the professions, in the social services, in industry. We need qualified teachers, scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses and all the ancillary helpers, to quote only a few among the professions. There is a shortage of skills throughout industry, too. There is an acute shortage of good shorthand typists. These shortages must be made good before we can achieve the economic growth we need.
If we are to persuade a very great many of those 6 million married women to come to the assistance of the nation —women who could work outside their homes and are not doing so—we have to create conditions which are sufficiently attractive to encourage them. For a number of reasons, a great many married women would like to have whole or part-time work outside their homes. A great many of their husbands and children would like them to have it, too. From a public opinion poll, taken from a national cross-section of children whose mothers had jobs, the majority were very much in favour. "Mum is much more fun. She doesn't get so cross and irritable. She has more intelligent interest in what we are doing", were some of the answers given to the questionnaire.
Before marriage, many women may have spent years in training for a profession. They may have qualified as teachers, doctors, nurses, barristers, solicitors, dentists, social service workers and so on. Then they marry and have their family, and one day the moment comes when they feel they would like to return to work. They are interested in the job
510
they were doing. They feel that their minds need stretching. Maybe they want to make a useful contribution to society. They would certainly like to use their abilities and qualifications to swell the family income. But to return to work again is not easy. They now have a husband to think about, children to care for and a home to maintain. Unless these women themselves can employ good substitute help to undertake some of the essential jobs which they have been doing in the home, a return to work will not be feasible. A highly trained and conscientious woman, who is running her home efficiently and well, will have to be satisfied that the same standard of happy comfort will be maintained if she is no longer there all the time.
So a married woman seriously considering returning to her profession has to solve a number of problems. First, she must be sure of the co-operation of her husband. She must then get hold of a reliable worker to do some of the cleaning and cooking and shopping for which she will no longer have time. She must find a reliable child-minder or play group or day nursery if she still has a child not old enough to go to school. And where are there yet enough of these? She must find suitable work accessible to her home. She may have to go through a refresher course or retrain herself if the period of absence from her profession has been lengthy. It is obvious, my Lords, that even when all these obstacles are overcome, if the amount of her earnings left over after tax has been deducted and all these extra things have been paid for is not enough to benefit the family materially, the wife and mother will, in all probability, abandon the idea of returning to her profession and will decide to remain at home.
There is the tax problem. Al this year's Conference of the Conservative Party, Mr. Iain Macleod repeated the pledge which he made at the 1967 Conference:
"to improve the tax position of married women at work".
Are the Government going to show the same enlightenment? Mr. Macleod cited cases where married women were discouraged from going back to work because, with their husband's income, they were talented enough to incur surtax as well as income tax. There is also the

511
stumbling block of the selective employment tax which, in most cases, has to be paid if domestic help is employed in the home in order to release the mother for work outside.
It is of key importance that a sufficient financial incentive should be offered to women to return to their professions after marriage. I wonder if the noble Lord the Leader of the House will tell us whether serious consideration is being given to granting tax relief in respect of extra domestic help in these cases, or to some scheme for reducing the tax liability on wives' earnings, particularly where the combined earnings would now attract a higher rate of tax; or to the abolition of the selective employment tax where the mother goes out to essential work.
Another point which very much discourages part-time employment of women is the fact that employers normally have to pay the full National Insurance weekly stamp. This means that it is twice as expensive in stamps for an employer to have two people working, one for a full morning and the other for a full afternoon, as to have one working full-time. It seems to me that there is a very good case for having a half-rate employer's stamp in respect of part-time employment. I believe that this principle has been accepted in the case of the selective employment tax. I realise that this particular problem may be solved when the Government's new earnings-related social security scheme comes into operation, if the amount of the stamp is then directly related to earnings. But as, on the Government's own forecasts, this scheme is unlikely to be started until after the next General Election I would ask: can we wait till then? Something needs to be done now.
Then, my Lords, the facilities for finding part-time jobs are pretty haphazard. Part-time jobs may be advertised in shop windows, in local newspapers or outside factory gates, but surely more effective use could be made of the employment exchanges in this part-time employment field. Would it be possible to have an officer, similar to a youth employment officer, directly responsible for helping women to find part-time jobs: someone who could encourage employers to keep her fully in the picture about their vacancies for part-timers, and who could be
512
urging employers to take more part-time women workers? This might need some national publicity, but the response might more than justify it. How can the needs of industry, of the public service and of the social services be met unless we can attract more trained women back to work? If they are needed, what they need must be taken more into account. In other words, if we need them working, the Government must do a lot more to help.
3.22 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, it is customary on an occasion such as this to congratulate the noble Viscount who initiated the debate. I do that wholeheartedly. But, even more, I want to say to him how refreshing it is to find a male Member of this House framing a Motion designed to help women. To-day, my Lords, is a great day.
Now although I agree with much of what the noble Viscount has said and with very much of what the noble Baroness has said, I think we must realise that it is not just facts and figures which prove the case which the noble Viscount made. There is something much more intractable. The real enemy, of course, is irrational prejudice. I would ask noble Lords to do a little research, and to look at the First Edition of Encyclopœdia Britannica in 1771. The article on women consisted of only six words:
"The female of man. Sec 'Homo'".
Woman was considered as an appendage by that contributor in the 18th century, and I sometimes wonder when I go to conferences and listen to speeches, as I did to that of the noble Baroness just now, whether we have changed very much.
Two hundred years have done very little to remove irrational prejudice. Not only is a married woman's income regarded as an appendage to her husband's for tax purposes, but she is subject to all kinds of petty discrimination which, for some curious reason, successive Governments perpetuate. I am afraid I must say that on this question of prejudice there is very little difference between politicians of any colour. I have learned from my experience in both Houses that changing the law is very hard work, but it is nothing compared with the effort needed

513
to persuade the prejudiced to adopt an enlightened attitude. Unfortunately, there are no laws against discrimination by administrative practice; and I do not think it is realised that in the professional and managerial fields women in Britain have still not established the right to apply for a job, let alone to be seriously considered for it.
When the annual report of the Oxford University Appointments Committee for 1967 was published, the Committee pointed out that whereas about 90 per cent. of the public service jobs notified to them were open to women as well as to men, when it came to private industry and commerce over half of the jobs notified were closed to women. Yet nothing was done about this. This was not related solely to engineering and technical jobs. In the case of non-technical jobs for arts graduates, the proportion closed to women actually reached 55 per cent. Two years ago the Ministry of Labour stated in a report that of firms that were recruiting new scientists about two-thirds had a "men-only" policy—and, of course, we have one of the most brilliant Nobel Prize winners here; a woman scientist who is recognised throughout the world as being outstanding in her field.
My Lords, during this year I have listened to speech after speech about discrimination on the grounds of colour, creed and race, but not a word has been said about sex discrimination; and it has been difficult to amend a Bill because, I have been told, such an Amendment to introduce sex into the discussion would be considered inappropriate. On the question of sex discrimination the Government really must take some action, for a vicious circle exists. Certain areas in this country are regarded as difficult for women's employment, and therefore well-qualified women do not go for jobs in those areas. Consequently, the employers have a good excuse for saying that no women are available. I believe that prejudice becomes a habit, a bad habit; and if prejudice is allowed to continue to hamper the education of girls, it is not surprising that the qualified woman, married or single, finds the same irrational force barring her entry to the Civil Service, to business or to the professions.
A large number of headmistresses—and I think the House will agree with
514
me that the average headmistress is a very responsible individual who does not make statements very loosely—have expressed the view that "A" levels that are good enough to get a boy into university are not good enough for his sister, and although it is believed—and I have said this often—that there is co-education in our medical schools, it is a little odd that in some London schools we find that only 12 per cent. of women students are accepted. We are told repeatedly by the Government that more people with education and training are necessary because we shall have to live on our wits. My Lords, I think it is an inescapable fact that at least half of these wits are in female heads. Take this example: in a country where we have plenty of girls who are good at mathematics and drawing and where there is a serious shortage of draughtsmen, the latest figures show that of the apprentices training for draughtsmen there are 17,450 boys and 350 girls. This is not due to the fact that these bright girls of ours who like to draw and who have got good mathematical brains do not want to become draughtsmen. That would be absolutely their "cup of tea". It is because the girls are not given the same opportunity to become apprentices.
According to the Ministry of Labour, in the other technical jobs of immense importance to our industrial effort, such as those supporting our applied scientists—ask the House to forgive my quoting these figures, but I should like to put them on record so that the Government and my noble friend who is to wind up the debate will be able to digest them thoroughly—there are 12,150 boys in training and 160 girls. The fact is, my Lords, that girls are not getting the opportunity and are not being encouraged to take training for the responsible and interesting jobs. How often we hear of women in miserable, repetitive, routine jobs earning miserable wages, as they do to-day, receiving only 50 per cent. of what a man gets for the same job One reason why these bright girls are not in other jobs is because the opportunity is withheld. Some employers are so prejudiced against trained women that occasionally in The Times personal column we see an advertisement such as:
"Woman graduate who can type wanted."

515
We all know that there is a great shortage of typists. This apparently is an easy way for the woman graduate to save her face and to accept a job as a typist.
Excuses come readily to the lips of those in authority. They say that girls are not interested in jobs of responsibility. But women are basically the same in every country in the world. Yet in Britain, where able girls are denied equal opportunities of training, only 17 per cent. of doctors are women; while in the Soviet Union it is 75 per cent. In Britain, where few girl apprentices are permitted, only 1 in 1,000 engineers are women; in France, 1 in 50; in Norway, 1 in 10; and in the Soviet Union, 1 in 3. The excuse that we hear so often is that women have babies. I always feel that it is a good thing that at least one of the sexes can have babies. The argument is put forward that because they have babies it is a waste of time to train them. But women have babies also in France, in Norway, and in the Soviet Union—where they find it very worth while to train their able girls.
One hears this criticism about babies generation after generation. It is levelled as a form of reproach. But, my Lords, having babies is the most important contribution which can be made to the working population. It should be regarded as a service to the community, one calling for the generous provision of those facilities calculated to help mothers do a part-time job. Having a baby is not a chronic disease. The shortage of qualified women in some fields could be met easily by providing nursery accommodation for the pre-school children. Yet 37 county boroughs and 27 counties have no nursery places available. That is a direct reflection on British administration of services upon which women have to depend.
We find hospitals, schools and many other institutions working with a limited staff. We find hospitals closing wards; and we find teachers getting irritable because they are overworked—all this because the local authorities fail to find nursery accommodation for the small children of the qualified married women. In most of these institutions there is a small room which could be used as nursery accommodation, but prejudice is so
516
entrenched that to make a change of this kind in the minds of some people seems absolutely revolutionary. Yet countries on the Continent are taking this in their stride and recognising that this is plain common sense.
Apart from the fact that in a free society people, irrespective of sex, should be able to fulfil themselves intellectually, there are women whose husbands are not supporting them, there are unmarried mothers and there are women with very high rents; and these women, whether they want to or not, have to go to work. It seems clear to me that while it may be possible to persuade employers by some kind of financial arrangement, by some kind of tax remission, to take part-time women, there are other aspects of the problem which call for immediate Government action. Nothing that I have said, nothing that the noble Baroness has said, nothing that my noble friend has said, is not known to the Government. It is said year after year to successive Governments by men and by women—by a few men whom I always regard as the cream of their sex, by a few men in this House and in the other place; and it is said by many women. Yet we wait year after year and no action is taken at all. Such is irrational prejudice.
In the course of this year, 1968, Human Rights Year, women have celebrated the Golden Jubilee of Women's Suffrage and speakers have drawn attention to the discrimination against women. Yet now, to-day, as the year draws to a close, the Government have taken no action to indicate that their attitude to these questions differs from that of the Government which preceded them. My final question to my noble friend who is to wind up is this. Can we hope that on December 10, Human Rights Day, the Government will announce their ratification of I.L.O. Conventions 100 and 111 on Equal Pay and Employment Opportunities?
3.37 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, if we did not already owe a considerable debt to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for introducing this debate, we should certainly owe it him for having enabled us to listen to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, because almost everything she said I

517
found myself echoing in my mind and in my heart. Seldom, I think, has the case for reform, which most of us know to be necessary, been so cogently and urgently put.
But in the slightly narrower field with which this debate is concerned I hope that I may be allowed slightly to bend the terms of reference; because if we concentrate entirely on part-time work for married women I am not certain that we do not slightly beg the question of the best way of improving and helping married women. It may be, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has said, that more and more worthwhile jobs will become part-time jobs; but this is far from certain and many of the most worthwhile jobs which women could best do are also going to be whole-time.
Throughout the post-war period, it has been relatively easy for married women able to work full time to get work for which little or no training is required. But for the many women who seek part-time employment the position has often been difficult, and work which is consonant with their abilities is hard to find. It is probable that with regard to full-time jobs for women the situation may change. Semi-skilled or unskilled work in production or in offices is the type of work that will be going out with automation. More and more people will be needed, not so much in those jobs as in education, in the health and welfare services, in a wide range of professional and personal services, in technical work and, possibly, in distribution. On the whole, these are jobs which need a very high degree of training and education.
The married women of to-day who, as girls, left school at the earliest possible moment and received little or no systematic training or education afterwards, may find when they wish to return to work that the jobs they obtained so easily when leaving school are no longer there. Many of these women will have been born with the ability to do the more exacting jobs that will require to be done, but because of the inadequacy of their earlier education and training they will find it very difficult to reach the level of knowledge and competence which the work requires. We are told that learning is, in part, a habit, and that if you give it up for quite a long period of
518
time, you find it very difficult to come back to it again. This means, first of all, that it is very important that girls and boys should go on learning as far as possible and for as long as possible. I think that the decision not to raise the school-leaving age is also going to impinge on this problem.
My Lords, if we do not encourage girls to stay at school longer, and to receive education and training afterwards, we shall find a ludicrous situation in which there will be jobs needing women and women needing jobs, but no chance of the two marrying together—not because the women lack capacity, but because they lack the education and training. This means that, in addition to encouraging them to stay in education, there are strong practical reasons for encouraging women to follow some kind of organised training or education during their years at home in order to keep their hand in and ease the transition back to work and training.
Something towards this will no doubt be done by the open university, and a great deal is being done by adult education centres. A lot could be done by bodies such as the National Extension College, which I think might well be grant-aided to help with this important work. In this context I think it very sad to read a report in the newspapers to-day that there is likely to be a cut in further education as supplied by local authorities because this too has a bearing on the situation.
When these women come back to work they will need more training again. I think it understandable—though not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, pointed out, entirely reasonable—that employers do not necessarily want to invest a great deal of money in training young women who, they think, will get married and leave the jobs and not put back into the work what has been put into their training. But when you get an older woman returning to work, at, say, the age of 40, with 20, 25 or even 30 years of working life ahead—certainly 25 years —surely this justifies investment in training either by public authorities or private employers, or both. The problems involved in giving women the opportunity to train for work at an appropriate level are real but not insuperable, once the will is there. Much more difficult to

519
tackle, as the noble Baroness said, is the problem of prejudice.
My Lords, in a detailed study recently undertaken in eight British companies by three persons, of whom one was Miss Nancy Sear, an ex-President of the Liberal Party, to whom I am indebted for a number of the ideas in this speech, managers' attitudes towards the employment of women in responsible positions were examined. They were asked what sort of jobs, in their view, could not be done by women. In almost every case jobs named by a manager in one company as being impossible of performance by women were being done by women in one of the other companies. Reasons given for the unsuitability of women ranged from, "Women cannot stay alone in hotels", to, "Men are better at dealing with emergencies"; and, "Women cannot speak openly and forcibly—" which I think shows that some of these people should come to your Lordships' House. Obviously these reasons owed far more to emotion and prejudice than to logic and experience, and a great deal of work will have to be done to overcome them.
Another obstacle to the proper employment of married women is the care of the home, and this aspect has been touched on by all the speakers. Even when the children are at school, and the mother feels it possible to take employment outside the home, many women consider that part-time employment is all that can be tackled if they are to fulfil their continuing responsibilities. This means that many women feel themselves debarred from the really important jobs, such as industrial executives, administrative civil servants, hospital matrons, headmistresses, all of which are full-time jobs. Women in such positions are likely to have husbands in jobs of a similar nature. They are also likely to be reasonably well paid, and, naturally, husbands expect reasonable comfort in their homes; and wives also expect reasonable comfort in their homes. In attempting to meet these dual obligations of home and career a woman must make one of three choices. She may try to tackle her job in addition to all her family and domestic commitments; she may drastically reduce the time devoted to her home, or she may
520
employ help to carry part of the domestic load.
Clearly, it is impossible to combine two full-time jobs: a full-time job is a full-time job. Certainly the maintenance of family life at civilised standards is just as demanding as a career job. But, presumably, to reduce the care given to the home is not desirable, either. In a more civilised society in which we are all aiming at better standards of life for an increasing number of people, an agreeable home life is surely one of the most desired of objectives for a very large number of people. Society cannot help being poorer if for many of the most intelligent and educated husbands there is less time for hospitality and for leisure, and less opportunity for understanding and enjoying human relationships and the arts. I think, therefore, that we must look very seriously at the question of providing help in the home; and I am not certain that we have been right in looking, as we have done so far this afternoon, at just the provision of somebody to help in the home, which is merely an extension of the old idea of bringing in servants to look after the home while the women either went out and did work or enjoyed themselves.
I suspect, my Lords, that there is a case for something much more formal, time-saving and efficient, because the household arts are very real arts, and very real jobs. In the case of women who are spending part of their time on their home, which stops them taking a whole-time job, there is a need to see whether the responsibilities of the home cannot, to a certain extent, be taken over by a team of properly trained people, so that the jobs which are being done in bits by women may be done by arrangement, by a team covering, say, an area or a number of homes. This is the kind of thing which might be done by an institute set up for the purpose. I think that if we had that, it might help more than many other things to free women and allow them to take jobs which they are able to do and which the country wants them to do. Such a scheme, of course, would have to be paid for, and if it is something that we really want to encourage, I think it entirely reasonable that it should be paid for by some kind of tax reduction. That would be in addition to

521
assessing men and women separately for tax purposes—something in which we on these Benches firmly believe.
I should like to sum up by saying that I think the problem is not simply one of encouraging married women to take part-time jobs worthy of them; it is one of their taking jobs, whether part-time or whole-time, that are worthy of them. Ways to encourage this will have to be found. That will not be simple, and some of them will be one or two removes from the obvious objective. Among these ways I would put first the encouragement of girls to stay on at school and the raising of the school-leaving age as soon as practically possible; secondly, the continued education of women during the period which they spend being actively domestic, possibly by use of the open university; thirdly, intensive re-training schemes for women wishing to come back to work; and, fourthly, the provision, whether publicly or privately, of some kind of domestic service such as I have outlined. I believe, my Lords, that among the various things necessary these four measures may be found necessary for the solving of this problem for the future.
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY:My Lords, at the outset of his speech the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said that he expected that most of his support would come from the noble Ladies of this Chamber. He may be surprised and interested to know that he is going to get warm support from a Bishop. Quite clearly, a number of important issues in this valuable and worthwhile debate deeply concern the Church, and that is why I feel it right at this moment to address your Lordships.
Three questions pose themselves, which I think are basic. First, is it in the interests of the health and welfare of families, and particularly families in which there are young children, that married women should be encouraged to go out and obtain work, part-time or whole-time, outside the home? Controversy has raged on this issue for many years, and much has been made—far too much, I think—of stories about the limited number of irresponsible women who go out to work at the cost of the welfare of their children without having made proper arrangements for them. But in fact, my Lords, a number of surveys
522
have been made which have produced no evidence whatever of a correlation between working mothers and a high incidence of child deprivation or delinquency, although it is true that occasional dramatic illustrations can be given to kindle indignation and to fan the flames of protest. I myself am the child of a mother who was the wife of a very busy parson, and who was extremely active outside the home. I was very largely brought up by a nanny, and to no small extent subsequently by a governess. I do not think I am any the worse for that fact; and certainly I did not love my mother any the less.
In 1958, at the Lambeth Conference, a Report was produced entitled The Family in Contemporary Society, which revealed that most women in this country are responsible wives and mothers, and that, in partnership with men, married women are discharging both their roles at home and at work responsibly to themselves, to their families and to society. Let us be careful, my Lords, not to be carried away by irresponsible rumours about "latch-key children", rumours which have little, if any, substance.
The second question that I pose, and seek to answer, is this. Is it in the interests of society as a whole in the present situation that married women should seek part-time or even whole-time work? It is increasingly becoming a commonly accepted fact that society, as we know it today, would almost collapse without the contribution that women are now making to the professions, to the public service and to industry. But a Government policy which discourages qualified married women from working full or part time will simply depress the quality of the nation's labour force without materially affecting the number of wives and mothers who go out to work. Married women will be encouraged to work simply because of the situation of supply and demand in the labour market. What is at stake is the quality of women who will be encouraged or discouraged to go out to work—the highly qualified women who do not need to work in order to earn money—but it seems unfair, and rather tragic or absurd (whichever adjective you care to use) that, for instance, a highly qualified doctor married to a business executive should be prevented from using

523
her talents because of crippling taxation after a certain figure of, say, £5,000 joint income, husband and wife, has been reached. It is also a sore point with married women who would like to carry on the work for which they were trained that they can get no tax allowance for domestic help to look after their children or a sick husband while they are at work.
We hear a great deal about the brain-drain to the United States. But somebody (I cannot remember who it was) quite rightly pointed out that we hear far too little about the brain-drain down the kitchen sink. Furthermore, married women have another grievance: that it is Government policy to restrict day nursery and nursery school accommodation to the use of fatherless families. This is aimed at trying to prevent mothers of children whose husbands are at work from working away from home. But I am arguing that by so doing we may be preventing qualified women from exercising their talents, thus making them feel frustrated, and depriving the nation of gifts, without necessarily begetting a race of children who are any happier or more integrated.
That leads me directly to my third and last question, a matter which should deeply concern us all. Does a system which discourages married women from doing jobs for which they are qualified, actively discourage them from living full and interesting lives and from making the maximum contribution of which they are capable within the context of the family in society. I would argue, as has been already pointed out by the noble Baroness, that industrial developments have greatly relieved women of many onerous domestic duties which, fifty years ago, took up a great deal of their time, thus giving them far more leisure time which, if not catered for, can lead to grievous boredom. As one who has been a parish priest for a number of years, I know only too well how acute is the problem of boredom among married women, highly qualified and trained, who are not able to go out into society. And not only do I find boredom, but a great deal of real frustration; and a frustrated mother is not likely give very adequate maternal help to her children.
There are those who think that nothing good ever emerges from Russia; there is
524
a very real prejudice often expressed towards that nation. I am not one of those people. Not everything that comes out of Russia is bad, and I would argue that that country has a far more highly developed system of child nurseries and infant schools than we have, thus freeing qualified married women to fulfil their talents and make a valuable contribution to the life of the whole nation. And there is no evidence that children have suffered therefrom, physically or mentally, or that family life has as a result been wrecked.
As a responsible person, I realise strongly that a child is to no small extent moulded by its mother—but not by a mother who is frustrated by the knowledge of talents wasted and qualifications thrown away. A mother with heavy family responsibilities must, of course, be urged to recognise these as a firm priority, and to obtain work that, for instance, will enable her to get back home in time to welcome the children on their return from school. On the other hand, the Government should not impose such crippling discouragement to work, by unfair taxation and one-sided provision of day nurseries, that qualified mothers are so strongly deterred from work that they become morose, embittered, inadequate wives and mothers.
My Lords, we live in the twentieth century, not in the nineteenth. Of course, it is true, and always will be, that a mother's first responsibility is towards her children. But let it not be forgotten that she also has a responsibility to herself, to her nation and to God, who has endowed her with talents, capabilities and experience. I cannot see why—always provided that she makes adequate and caring provision for the training of her children—she should not be allowed, and indeed encouraged, to use her talents in work outside the home. Although I speak as an individual Bishop and not in any way on behalf of the Church, I hope that some of these discouragements, which appear to be designed to prevent qualified and talented mothers from doing part-time work outside the home, will be removed.
4.0 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY:My Lords, we are having an excellent debate and it is cheering for all of us taking part. We come from all political

525
Parties and from none and, although we have prepared our remarks independently, the fact that the same points keep coming up gives them not only greater validity but, I would hope, much greater impact on the Front Bench.
It is also cheering that in to-day's debate we have seven men and four women speaking. I would stress to the outside world that this shows what a progressive organisation we are, because I doubt whether anywhere else in this country to-day, in a mixed organisation, there would be this proportion of the sexes among the speakers on this subject. I hope that my noble friend Lady Summer-skill, for whom I have the greatest affection, will agree with me that in this sort of matter it is good to have men in the majority.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Hear, hear!
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I want to make three short points. I want to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for giving us the opportunity for this debate. I congratulate him on getting such an opportune day, because I think that to-day is the right time for this debate, and I would tell him how much we all enjoyed his speech. Secondly, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate. It is a very good thing to have two voices from Coventry in this debate even though vie speak independently. The third thing I want to say is that I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Shackleton is to reply to the debate, not only because of the respect and affection we have for him, but also because he knows distribution and industry and a great deal about the Civil Service. Ever since I have known my noble friend, since we were together in another place, I have never known him to stick to a conventional and out-dated attitude, if he believes that something more is called for—and I hope that these nice remarks will produce a nice answer at the end of the debate.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, knows, I want to speak on the background to all this. Other speakers have done so, and therefore I need not feel myself the odd one out in this respect. The Motion speaks specifically of "qualified married women" and "a
526
part-time basis", but I do not think that we shall get any great advance in attitude here until we have a considerable change of another attitude—that is, the attitude towards the employment of women in general. I am glad that other speakers, and in particular my noble friend Lady Summerskill, embarked on the question of prejudice, or whatever we like to call it.
My Lords, in common with many others, men and women alike, I have worked for equal pay, or "the rate for the job", for many years. I think that every one of us realises that the battle for economic equality is even harder than the battle for political equality. I think that has been borne out by the whole of the evidence. Public opinion, and enough of it, I believe, is now moving to the conclusion that these inevitable excuses by Government and employers alike must cease. At last the climate has changed. But for the best result I suggest that we should not confine ourselves to the subject of equal pay, or to pay at all, but should look over the whole field of job opportunities and training for women workers in industry, distribution and the professions, in which I include the Civil Service.
It looked as though the era of excuses by our own Government was to be ended when Mrs. Castle, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, announced, relatively recently, that she was to enter into discussions with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. with a view to drawing up an agreed time table for the move to equal pay. I am glad to see in to-day's Financial Times (and other noble Lords may have seen it, too) that questionnaires are being sent out to 300 companies in 13 industries by the Department of Employment and Productivity in an attempt to build up a true picture of the cost of equal pay for women. Personally, I would accept a possible transition period of seven years to implement equal pay, as took place in the Civil Service, but I think that there are two particularly difficult hurdles that have to be negotiated.
The first one is that women will be able to move up to men in pay only if the men themselves agree to hold back. Here I think we might say a kind word about the banks. In September last a deal was announced between the barks and

527
the National Union of Bank Employees which gave women a pay rise of 11 per cent. and men one of 7 per cent. Surely this type of agreement could be a model for further agreements in the gradual implementation of equal pay. Secondly, I am quite convinced that our main grievance is not so much the question of unequal pay as the denial of training and the refusal of access to jobs conventionally reserved for men. We are a very conservative nation (and since I do not wish to give comfort to the Benches opposite I would make it clear that I mean "conservative" with a small "c") and we depart very slowly from convention. I hope that this Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, will help to change an out-of-date approach.
It seems to me, my Lords, that we need a greater allocation of money and resources to train or retrain older women who want to work, married women who want to return to work and younger women who want to set out on a career. I do not believe that these can be separated. We all know that women are now marrying earlier and that many will want a second career when their children are old enough. This means a challenge in education, not only in retraining but also in new training for new careers. Working wives will want support from the State in such things as allowances for the cost of employing help in the home while they are at work. Some months ago I remember a woman chartered accountant saying that she could deduct the employment of business staff from the cost of running her company but could not deduct her domestic staff costs. Indeed, to add insult to injury, the Inland Revenue always applied to her husband for details of her tax.
If this Motion to-day is really to get off the ground, as most of us have already said, we need common agreement that joint assessment for taxation is wrong, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to say something to us about this point. The noble Viscount who introduced the debate mentioned Sweden. He is probably aware that in August last there was an International Congress of Business Women in London. One woman Member of the Swedish Parliament said she believed that much of the trouble was due
528
to the fact that for years most of the men who had been making laws on taxation had been men with wives at home. She had a point there: presumably she was speaking of the men in Sweden. However, some progress has been made in that country, because only last year working wives in Sweden were allocated an additional allowance of about £250 on top of the usual personal allowance for husband and wife.
I want this Motion to-day to succeed, but I should like your Lordships to bear in mind one factor which has nothing to do with married women. It seems to me that the real sufferers from injustice today are not the married women, qualified or not, part-time employed or not, whose work—granted the benefit to the nation—is a supplement to building a family, but those women who choose to make paid work their main business and then find that they are undervalued. I think sometimes this is overlooked, and we are all too used to the type of employer, not the most progressive type of employer, who says, "Well, of course, we cannot give our women the rate for the job, because some of them leave to get married".
Undervalued or not, part-time or not, equal pay or not, the background for improvement in all these matters, including the Motion to-day, I firmly believe is a change of approach. We must look at the large number of jobs that could pefectly well be done by women but which women are not allowed to touch. That is my main complaint. If this sector were tackled, if these jobs were open to women, part-time or full-time, married or single, the value of women's work would go up; and not only would the women benefit, not only would industry benefit, but the economic growth of the country would benefit.
My Lords, these are not words from an out-dated past; they really are a protest from the outraged present. To-day in industry more than a half of Britain's working women earn less than 5s. an hour. Of these, only about 4 per cent. can expect to earn as much as 10s. an hour. I think this is statistical evidence that women are second-class citizens, that they are under-privileged and underpaid. There are 1,865,000 women working in industries whose minimum rates make a distinction between men and

529
women and are less than £8 a week. On average, women earn only three-quarters as much as men. Of nearly 4 million women covered by industrial agreements only 175,000 have equal pay. On this record, a record of to-day, not one of 25 years ago, it is obvious that there is a massive wastage of ability and qualifications. I would say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that there is an almost complete lack of re-training facilities for women in those industries which are short of skilled labour. That is why I would describe what I am saying as a protest from the outraged present. I think it is an outrage.
Our Motion to-day is not going to get very far if such attitudes pevail. And it is not only in the lower-paid jobs that this climate exists. If we look at management, if we look at the more rarefied area of jobs at the top, what do we find? To-day for every fifty men earning £5,000 a year there is only one woman. Yet in the total labour force of the country men outnumber women by only two to one. Obviously the woman who gets to the top starting from scratch must be a most exceptional woman. If somebody says to me, "Ah! but money is not the be-all and end-all", I agree. Of course it is not. But in this context, of jobs at the top, money is the measuring symbol, the status of the holder. But let us get away from money. Let us look at something that does not touch money at all. The House will remember that only last autumn, the autumn of 1967, a woman had to go to the High Court to secure her right to stand for election to the Council of the British Institute of Management. She won her case but was not elected. My Lords, all I am trying to say is that this builds up to a climate, a climate of opinion; and I am quite convinced that we shall not get anywhere, that this Motion will not get anywhere, until we chance the climate, whether it is at the top or whether it is at the bottom. We all know that it is much harder to change a climate, to change people's way of thinking, than it is to get more money.
I hope that this Motion to-day will help to change the climate. It needs changing on both sides of industry. If employers made more use of women in ordinary jobs rather than in the low-grade "women's jobs", which they are almost all confined to now, there would be much greater efficiency of working
530
throughout industry. Of course, it is not only employers. I remember earlier this year when bus drivers concerned objected to a qualified woman bus driver driving a bus in their area, even though there was a shortage of drivers. I am glad to be able to say something nice on that side now because this was an unofficial attitude and, as most of the House will know, officially in London we are now a step forward. The Central London Bus Committee of the Transport and General Workers' Union support equal opportunities for women to qualify as drivers. This is supported by London Transport, and next week at a delegate conference representing London's 30,000 bus men the matter will be decided, so let us hope that we shall get somewhere on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned Miss Nancy Seear, and I want to quote from a paper that she produced for the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. She said that out of 2 million women in manufacturing, only 29 per cent. were skilled, whereas the proportion of men was 49 per cent. She said something which I thought was much worse. Of the 900,000 women in non-manual occupations, 86 per cent. are on clerical and office work and only 2 per cent. are technicians. She pointed out that women are, to a large extent, in the type of job which she believes will most likely be modified or eliminated by technical changes. Her recommendation is that we ought to prepare for when there will be far fewer routine jobs and far more people needed in technical and skilled grades.
Quite apart from Miss Seear, I should have liked to talk about education in this context. There is the discrimination of medical schools against women medical students. Professional engineering is almost wholly a male preserve, and this is both explained, and bolstered up, by the lack of opportunity for British girls to have any scientific training at all. So I should Like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, if we are to continue in a position where women have inadequate training facilities and unequal education opportunities, with very few nursery and domestic services for women who work, or rather who want to work, where is our Motion to-day likely to get?

531
I believe that the 'seventies will bring many new types of job, untraditional jobs, jobs requiring short, intensive courses of training, and such jobs must be thrown open to men and women alike. I would suggest that artificial barriers in the way of employment of men and women alike must be removed. I, for one, would see removing these artificial barriers to employment as one of the most worthwhile jobs to be done today: worth while not only to men and women alike but to the country. So taking this Motion in its widest sense, taking into account the background of the past, taking into account the even more important matter of climate today, is industry, is the Civil Service—the new Civil Service for which my noble friend will be largely responsible—and are the professions, willing to accept this challenge?
4.19 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, originally I had not intended to speak on this Motion at all, but yesterday, when I saw the list of speakers, and in view of what might be said, I thought it might be for the interest of the House if I were to say just a few words about one particular aspect of this problem. I will not follow the noble Lords and Ladies who have already spoken on the more general side of this question. I want, therefore, to refer to what is happening in the medical profession with the employment of women doctors. We all know that at present there is a considerable shortage of doctors in the country. I want to deal with the post-graduate training, not the undergraduate training; although I am surprised, as has been said, and rather disappointed, that the number of women being encouraged or allowed to take up medicine has not increased faster. There has been a certain improvement in the many years since I first began to practise medicine, something like 45 years ago, but the figures have not really grown as much as one would have liked them to grow.
We talk about the great shortage of doctors in this country, so why on earth do we waste married women doctors who have so much to contribute? One is told that to train a doctor costs, I believe, about £10,000, although I have not checked the figure. One is con-
532
tinually told about people going abroad —emigrating, the "brain drain", call it what you will—and people say, "Oh, dear! this terrible amount of money is being lost to the country". But surely the same amount of money is lost to the country when a woman who has trained as a doctor finds, for some reason, that she cannot continue to practise her profession.
I should like to put forward one or two facts and ideas about the way in which this state of affairs might be changed. The situation will get worse, because as people marry at a younger age there will be more difficulties in the way of young married women, and particularly those with children, in being able to practise. So far as one can see, a great many women doctors—it is not quite half, but the majority of those that I know anything about—go into full-time work of one sort or another. The larger number go into general practice, and one cannot really work Hart time in general practice. The others go into hospital appointments and some of them, although not many, go into public health work. These are the people in full-time employment.
One has seen from the inquiries carried out by various professional bodies that a large number of women doctors who are not working at the present time would like to work again. I have seen the number put at 1,000, with another thousand doing part-time work who would be willing to do more work than they are doing at the moment. One of the troubles has been that if women want to go into the hospital service, and particularly in the senior grades, the posts there tend to become more and more full-time posts or maximum part-time posts, which means the women have to work for nine-elevenths of their time which, from the family point of view, is practically full time.
Over the last twenty years there has been a tendency on the part of both the Ministry and the Regional Boards to cut down on the number of part-time hospital posts by amalgamating them with other part-time posts, so that two part-time posts become one full-time post. This, of course, is not so good for the married woman with a family. The junior posts in hospitals are becoming even more difficult for women, particularly now that

533
they are marrying younger than they were, because a large number of the junior posts are resident posts, and the number of hospitals which have proper quarters for married people is extremely small, and particularly so among the teaching hospitals where some of these young women would like to find jobs. One has been told in the past that it is difficult for the young male doctor who is married because he cannot get married quarters, and I am sure it is just as difficult for the young married woman doctor.
I was pleased that my noble friend, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the right reverend Prelate both referred to the possibility of giving some kind of financial relief to women who wish to work but who have families—either young children or aged relatives—to take care of, so that they might employ someone to do that and be able to get some kind of tax relief for the purpose. That point was brought up in the days when I was working in the Ministry of Health and a suggestion was made, and it was backed up by the medical staff there, that it might be possible for children who wish to take care of their parents to be given some kind of financial compensation, if it meant giving up a job outside to do it. It would save their parents from being taken into care and would be a much better thing for them. But we were told by the administrative side that it was quite impossible because there would have to be a large number of inspectors to make sure that the women were really taking care of their relatives and were spending the money in the right way. I am talking now of 25 years ago and I trust that that attitude has long since changed.
That is all I wish to say. I have mentioned one or two of the problems affecting the medical profession. I do not expect the noble Lord to give me the complete answer to-day, because I did not give him any warning of the questions I was going to ask, but perhaps he can bear in mind what I have said and will see that it goes to the appropriate quarters, and so some good may come of it.
4.27 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, while talking to women can be, and certainly should be, fun, talking about them in this context inevitably becomes rather heavy
534
going. I think the reason is that so little vocal opposition is forthcoming. That is probably because those suffering from the "irrational prejudice" which was so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, either keep quiet on these occasions (and on other occasions such as at conferences), or cloak their prejudices in such rational clothes that they are even unaware of those prejudices themselves.
A great deal has been said about some of the financial changes that could help the married woman at work. I will not go further into them except to say that I think the present tax position for those couples who stay married, and where the wife's working income is aggregated with that of her husband, making them, tax-wise, worse off, shows a great respect for the stability of family life —which is often so "knocked" these days—because they would be better off if they were living in unmarried financial bliss.
We have to consider this whole subject in the context of the pattern of women's lives, which is more and more falling into two periods: the early days before the children arrive, and afterwards, when the children are growing up. Undoubtedly, so far as the qualified women who want to return to work are concerned, everything goes to show that the majority of them want part-time work. If I may throw one figure into the hat that is almost filled with statistics, the British Federation of University Women, in a survey in 1966, found that, of those graduates who were not working but who would like to work, more than nine out of ten would like to do part-time work. So clearly it is a preference on the part of women. I will not expand on what has been said by the right reverend Prelate and by noble Lords about the advantages to the woman herself and to her family, except to say that I know of many women who have taken full-time jobs but who would much rather have had part-time work. Unfortunately, they cannot get part-time work that is in any way commensurate with their ability.
On the question of prejudice, I do not think that we should ignore or omit a mention of many women who are neither very co-operative nor supportive of other women going out to work. I do not

535
think it is fair to put all the blame on the men, because if more women supported other women the situation might be different; and also they have an indirect effect when they are influencing their husbands. One of the big factors which militates against any really widespread adoption of part-time work is, I think, the reluctance to accept economic and social change that we find in this country. And yet if we look at some of the more conservative institutions, such as banks and insurance companies, we see that many of them are running extremely efficient schemes based on part-time work, sometimes with the women working for a fortnight on and then being a fortnight off, and in other ways. What has been found, is that the secret of successful deployment of part-timers is to have skilled personnel selection and central co-ordination. I do not think this is something that can be done haphazardly, nor do I think it should be looked at, as I think it is still to some extent, as a sort of "last ditch" fall-back. There must be a more positive attitude to this.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, in her comments on the Ministry of Employment and Productivity. I find it quite shocking that there is no policy about part-time work and little help given in getting it. I believe many of us thought that the setting up of Industrial Training Boards would make an impact on women's training and help women to train or retrain, but in fact there has been very little impact at all. A great deal has already been said about training and retraining, and I would only say that I agree with all that has been said about lack of facilities. There is one further point I would make, that women who want to do part-time work, or can only do part-time work, need to do part-time training, and it is very difficult to find courses where there is such training. I have been associated with a scheme where we have been trying to help women get back to work, and it is very difficult to find enough courses, apart from teaching, where they can go and where they can fit it into their own daily lives.
So far as social work is concerned, many women would like to enter it or reenter it, and yet at this moment there
536
is only one part-time course in the country and that is at Stevenage College in Hertfordshire, which seems very extraordinary. This is not only a question of it being important to the individual but is an essential investment for the country's economic future, and I think that so far as training is concerned a great deal more could be done. As has already been said, the facilities for women going out to work are absolutely poverty-stricken.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but may I ask her one question in view of what she has said? She emphasises the importance of encouraging these ladies to take on part-time work. Does she think that S.E.T. is an inducement to employers to employ these women?
BARONESS BIRK: No, my Lords, I do not think it is an inducement to employers, but I think S.E.T. was a temporary economic necessity and I hope it will not be permanently with us. I am trying to put this in a rather larger context than that. So far as facilities are concerned, I think they are extremely poor. If one is contemplating what is being done, I think it goes even deeper than the amount of money and bricks and mortar. There is still what I would call a double-headed attitude to this: on the one hand, exhortation for women to go to work, the appreciation by some people, like the right reverend Prelate, of the emotional necessity for many women; and, on the other hand, the feeling that a woman's place is in the home and that therefore there should not be too many facilities for her to leave her young children. I think this contradictory attitude is partially responsible for the lack of facilities. I could not help feeling when the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was talking so eloquently about the household arts and finding somebody to undertake them on a part-time basis, that he might have been referring to husbands.
The Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, refers to the Civil Service, and here I think that the Fulton Committee Report lays the field open to tremendous possibilities in the future. A unified structure in the Civil Service means greater mobility and would make it much easier (and will, I hope, do so in the future) for late entrants, which would affect the

537
mature women, to enter the Service at what now is the executive grade for which there is no late entry. The Civil Service College which is to be set up seems to me to be an ideal place to have courses for mature students, and I hope that the new Ministry is considering how to use more part-time women in the Civil Service.
In paragraph 24 of the Fulton Report they say:
"The Service must avoid a static view of the new ideal man and structure which in its turn could become as much of an obstacle to change as the present inheritance."
If this is read to include "man or woman", then I think the way is open to look at the structure of part-time working, and I ask the noble Lord who is the Minister in day-to-day charge of the new Department and who is speaking to-day to say whether they are seriously considering the prospects of far more part-time work in the Civil Service.
One of the difficulties in talking about the particular problems of women's rights is that they are often too broadly based and not precise enough, and therefore it is very easy to pigeon-hole them until the next talking bout comes up. But if one can examine specifically one issue and the strategy and problems associated with that issue, then I think it will be of great value. I think what we really need is to take a practical step forward, for there to be a Government inquiry into the whole field of part-time work. This would certainly not exclude, though they would be in smaller numbers, those men who, for age or health reasons, are anxious to take up part-time work.
This would mean that we could find out the facts, because I think that whatever has been found out is all in separate bits. There would be a much more comprehensive view of it. Evidence would be obtained from employers who have successfully structured part-time workers into their organisations. This should be examined not only in terms of women's rights but also in terms of the profitability and the attractiveness to the employers, which is obviously essential. It would mean also that the part played by the Ministry of Employment and Productivity could be worked out. The whole question of training and retraining could be looked into, because
538
the facilities vary considerably from one part of the country to another. The views of trade unions could be obtained, and also the whole question of facilities for small children, facilities during school holidays and the sort of help that a woman needs if she is undertaking any work. Incidentally, on that point J. think one must remember that there is a positive side for the children as well; that is, that when they are at a nursery school it can be of positive benefit to them, and is not just a case of putting them somewhere while their mother is at work.
I believe that the whole of the financial and insurance proposals that have been made in this field could be examined. And lastly, and not least, perhaps one ought to include the views of some husbands as well. By doing this the Government would be stating an attitude and taking a lead, which I think would be the greatest incentive to industry and to the professions. If something practical along these lines comes out of this debate we shall be even more grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for introducing it to-day.
4.40 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, those who criticise the existence of your Lordships' House might well benefit from reading the Report of to-day's debate, because we are discussing a subject which is all too infrequently discussed in Parliament. It has been discussed to-day by speakers many of whom have had a great deal of practical experience in the matters surrounding the subject, and we are all particularly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, not only for initiating the debate but for the most convincing way in which he did it. Perhaps one of the troubles about a Motion of this kind is that it is easy to oversimplify it. It is easy to try to rush one's bridges all at once. Obviously, this policy has to be initiated gradually. But that does not mean that it should be put into cold storage.
I should like first to take a look at the other side of the coin. A few years ago a friend of mine was before the selection committee for a marginal Parliamentary seat in the London area. She had previously had experience of fighting another seat. When it came to the matter of selection the men on the Committee voted unanimously for her, but the

539
women were most adamant that the constituency should be represented by a man, no matter how talented or how outstanding the woman. I am not saying this to pour cold water on this Motion, because I think that this most unenlightened view is not typical to-day of politics or of business in general—at least, not in comparison with the situation fifty years ago.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, were they not rather conservative women?
LORD AUCKLAND: Well, my Lords, I would not deny that this was a Conservative administration; but this has also happened in other political Parties. It is neither more nor less justifiable for that. Of course, this Motion does not concern the question of the latchkey child, who not long ago was the subject of discussion in Parliament. I refer to the child of the mother who has a young family and who sends the child or children, aged about six or seven—the age of my own youngest child—home to an empty house to light a fire, to put the kettle on and so on, with enormous danger to life and limb. That is one of the fringe problems surrounding the young married woman. At the same time, I think that the cry that the woman's place is in the home can be overdone. Certainly, the mother of quite young children is in this position because the child looks to the mother for its security and for example. Often, through business or other reasons the father sees but little of the child. But as the child gets older the situation differs. What is frequently overlooked by those who are fanatically opposed to women taking jobs, whether part-time or full-time, is that when a woman has become a mother she matures considerably in every respect. She has had the enormous experience of having not only borne a child but having borne all the symptoms leading up to it.
Certainly there are a number of professions in which there are all too few married women. I should like to enumerate one or two of them. One is marketing. I am an associate director of a small company which in part deals with marketing. When you are marketing household goods, whether it is wash
540
ing powders, baby foods or whatever it is, it is often useful to know something about the product. A young man may receive theoretical training in the product, but a mother who has used the product in washing a particular garment or, if it is a food, in feeding the child, has found out for herself whether it is suitable for the child and so is able to project the information first hand. This is most valuable. For this reason, I am sure that the employment of married women in this field, whether part-time or full-time, could do this particular profession a great deal of good.
Then there are the social services, which are consistently understaffed, the Probation Service and the field of child care. There is no more harrowing a case than when a child is handed back from foster-parents to parents, and so on. Recently a case in Scotland was dealt with in a television programme. One heard only the theory of the case; no verdict was given as to its merits. One thing, however, became apparent: that the reason why action had been so delayed was that in the county council concerned there was a great shortage of people qualified to deal with the matter. Who better to deal with it than a married woman with children of her own, of 14, 15 or perhaps 20 years of age, she having had experience of the problems which always ensue in bringing up children?
Then, as has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, there is the medical profession. We hear, and have heard for years past, of the shortage of radiographers and physiotherapists. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned in his opening speech, there is the problem of travel. Often, particularly in the country, a physiotherapist may have to travel 15 to 20 miles or more in all weathers to get to the hospital. Again, the sympathy and the know-how which a married woman can bring to these delicate tasks of physiotherapy and radiography, often in painful circumstances, is quite apparent. I am not denigrating the young unmarried woman who has to train for these tasks. Many, indeed most, undertake them well; but there are times when maturity and experience can count for a great deal.
The Government may well argue that all this is linked with the economic situa-

541
tion of the country. I am not going into any Party political discussion on this point, because we all know that for many years past we have faced balance-of-payments problems from time to time and shall continue to do so. Small businesses especially must be able to rely on staff, whether men or women, who do a full-time job and who attend regularly, because, for various reasons, little or no compensation is paid out when they lack the staff and production goes down. These are all arguments which may well be used.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is so uniquely qualified to deal with a subject of this kind, can give the House an assurance that the Government will review this problem largely in the light of the economic situation. We all hope that the balance-of-payments problem will be at least temporarily solved, and when this happens it is essential that matters of this kind are given top priority. I do not believe that anybody would think that pay is the be-all and end-all of this problem. It is really a question of opportunity, and there are a number of professions, some of which I have mentioned, in which women, and particularly married women, have a vital part to play and are uniquely qualified to play it extremely well.
4.53 p.m.
LORD KIRKWOOD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for having given us the opportunity to discuss this extremely important subject. I should like to congratulate him upon the concise and factual manner in which he has introduced the Motion, which I support.
We have listened in this House to many well-informed noble Lords describe in great detail the underemployment of the capital assets in this country. To-day we are discussing an equally grave situation; namely, the underemployment of a large reservoir of professional skills. With the rapid development of industry and our social services, we require an ever-increasing number of persons of above average ability to operate and administer. In course of time our universities and technical colleges will reduce the shortage, but in the meantime the requirement is urgent.
I would urge the Government to make it attractive to the married professional
542
women to come out of retirement and return to their professions. I appreciate that special arrangements would hive to be made to utilise the services of married women who have family responsibilities. As I see it, there are three groups. Group one covers the person with very young children, and those working between the birth of children. Quite a number of women desire to work without waiting for all their children to be at school. This would mean long absences from work necessitated by the birth of each child, but if there was a large pool of this sort of labour then a flexible timetable could be worked out. In group two would be the person whose youngest child has gone to school. This situation requires a flexible timetable and an understanding employer. In group three you would have the older person with few family responsibilities. There is special need here for retraining and refresher courses which will, to a lesser degree, also be required by groups one and two.
Most people would feel nervous about resuming their previous occupation after a lapse of several years, but would regain confidence following a suitable refresher course. Many women might not have enjoyed their previous employment, such as teachers, nurses, and so on, and might elect to be trained for other vocations. Another valuable help would be active and wide-scale encouragement of pre-school play groups, with good leaders. At present in this country these are largely run by private concerns. Kindergartens should be available for every mother—with or without a profession—who wishes to return to work. I have seen and have been impressed by the considerable number of excellent kindergartens for two to four year olds in Germany.
Married professional women must be cajoled back to their profession; the Government should lure them back to activity. I feel that the present attitude of the Government is that if a married woman is dedicated enough she will find a way to return. Unfortunately, the number of jobs to be filled is far greater than the number of dedicated women, so we must seek the services of less dedicated but well qualified married women. To get those women to return to work would require an attractive, adequately paid proposition.

543
The tax situation operates unfairly to the professional married woman and should he reviewed without delay. This, my Lords, is the main point of my contribution. The income of a married woman living with her husband is deemed, for tax purposes, to be his income, and is taxed in his hands. An application for separate assessment may be made, but it makes no difference to the total tax bill. A husband has no claim against his wife in respect of tax paid by him on her income. On the other hand, if the husband fails to pay the tax the Revenue have the power to recover from the wife. In practice, the bulk of married women have tax deducted from their wages or salary under P.A.Y.E., with the result that at that point they are treated as if they were single persons.
The basis of married women's income tax has been in force since income tax was first introduced in 1799. The reason for its adoption is not now clear, but no doubt stemmed from the subordinate position then occupied by women and their incapacity at law. The principle involved has been considered on a number of occasions and was endorsed by the Royal Commission on Taxation, which, in its Second Report (Cmnd. 9105, 1954) said in paragraph 119:
"We have conic to the conclusion that taxation of the combined incomes of husband and wife as one unit is to be preferred to their separate taxation as separate units because the aggregate income provides a unit of taxation that is fairer to those concerned."
More recent approval of the principle of aggregation was given by the Government during the debate on the Finance Act 1968 when considering the question of aggregating a child's unearned income with its parents'—OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 761, No. 84, col. 292 and the proceedings in Standing Committee, May 15, 1968, cols. 890 and 891.
The present system is a very obvious deterrent to a wife's working, particularly where the husband is a substantial earner. The marginal tax on a wife's earnings will, in many cases, be so high as to discourage all but the most determined. Where, for example, a husband earns £4,000 per annum, the extra tax attracted by his wife's earning an additional £2,000 would be £682. Since that £2,000 would, first of all, be subject to
544
P.A.Y.E., she would not be working for very much if the husband had to pay £682.
Fiscal problems of the family have been recognised and tackled in different ways in many countries. In France, for instance, the system of a "familial quotient" has been adopted, which results in a married couple paying just twice the tax of a single person with half their joint income. In the United States, income may be split between husband and wife, so that the tax charged is twice the tax on half the joint income, It is appreciated that the adoption of any such solution would require a major alteration to the taxation system as a whole, with large and not entirely predictable revenue consequences.
It would not be realistic to anticipate that any such change could be speedily achieved, and as the immediate objective is to encourage the re-entry of married women into the economic life of the country it is not suggested that any fundamental change in the taxation system would be appropriate. I would not propose, for instance, that there should be any change in the method of taxing a wife's unearned income. Tax relief in this field would be costly, and it has no substantial bearing on the problem. The proposals are, therefore, confined to the question of taxing a wife's earned income alone.
The most favourable solution would be to treat the earned income of a wife in all respects as that of a single person. The wife would be legally responsible for payment of both income tax and surtax on her earned income. Such income would attract the full personal allowance of a single person and the reduced rate reliefs for income tax, as is the position in practice at present. Full earned income relief would be given without restriction by reference to the husband's income. So far as surtax is concerned, it might he felt that the provision of the full reliefs for a single person would be taking reform too far at present, and that surtax on the wife's earned income should stand at a lower limit of, say, £2,000. I suggest that were the Government to give the married woman tax equality with single persons, they could tap an enormous wealth of talent at present being dissipated on domestic chores.
5.3 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is quite clear that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has introduced a debate concerning which he can be very well satisfied indeed. I should like to start off by making two personal points in reply to the debate. First of all, I attach the greatest importance to this subject, and for that reason I grabbed it for myself, instead of allowing it to some of my very able women colleagues who are sitting on the Front Bench. Also I took it partly because I thought—and I think my noble friend Lady Summerskill will agree—that this should not be an entirely female debate, and that it should be apparent that there are a number of us who take this whole question with very great seriousness.
The reason why I take this subject so seriously is that I have had many years' experience of working in business, in commerce, in industry, with women as subordinates, as superiors and as equal colleagues. It has been my view for many years that there is still a reservoir of talent which has not been properly utilised, both for the satisfaction of the women concerned and for the benefit of this country. Regardless of all the arguments about the obstacles and difficulties of employing women, many of which may be real—and we all acknowledge that it is women who have to go off and have the babies, and not the men, and very thankful I think most men are for this—the fact remains that they are too easily used as excuses. So it is necessary, as with so many important problems, not to dismiss them and say that they are all too difficult to solve, but to face up to them in the general interest.
The second point which I should like to make is in relation to the rather challenging remark by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that if we did not make proper use of women who went to the university it would be better if they did not go and if the places were reserved for men. I know he was deliberately provocative and that he does not really think that. He was merely posing the idea as a sort of challenging issue. But I am sure he would agree—and I say this partly to straighten his own record—that men and women should be equally educated; that within the present circumstances of society those who are capable of receiving
546
higher education should receive it, regardless of whether they expect to spend their lives in industry, or commerce, or in the home; that education is important in the home as the background to the family life; and that, furthermore, it is the people with the extra education who are in a better position to return to industry, or commerce, or business, or the professions. It is noticeable that, notwithstanding the slow progress of women in certain areas, it is sometimes easier to be a part-timer within a profession. For instance, there are probably as many part-timers who are legal advisers as there are part-timers in any other type of activity.
It is with those preliminary remarks that I want to preface my more official remarks on behalf of the Government. I am happy to say that what I have just said, as an expression of personal interest in this matter, is a view which is firmly echoed by the Government, and that we have genuinely welcomed the opportunity to debate this matter. I do not think I need again to deploy the various economic reasons—I have them in my speech, but I think we can take them for granted—and the case has been very well put already. There is undoubted evidence —the very fact that women have "voted with their feet"—of a change in social attitudes. In the field of employment opportunity, the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations has recently drawn forceful attention to the limited access of girls to skilled work. We shall certainly need to ensure, for their own sakes and for ours, that the rising generation of girls leaving our colleges and universities find work which adequately reflects their abilities and achievements.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Summerskill, that it is as much in the attitude of mind it in the prevailing opinion—that some of the obstacles lie. I would not suggest for one moment that Governments have not been lax in this matter, though I hope to show in the course of my speech that some progress has been made and that we have not just stood still over the last few years in regard to the employment of women. The Department of Employment and Productivity are, of course, actively concerned with these problems, and I know from my talks before this debate how interested and serious they are in regard

547
to the subject. We know that in 1965 they commissioned the first national Survey of Women's Employment to provide more background information, in particular, on women's own attitudes to employment and any obstacles they felt they encountered—and certain noble Baronesses suggested that sometimes a little support from certain members of their own sex might be helpful in improving their position.
I imagine that most noble Lords who have taken part in this debate will in fact have read that Survey. One does not need to go through the whole of it. The main conclusions are available in a fairly simple form, and I do not propose to go through it now. There are, however, certain points which I should like to make at this stage, partly because the Department of Employment and Productivity are reviewing this whole subject in the light of that Survey, and I can assure the House that in the course of this review they will take the fullest account of this discussion. I should like to stress again that these are not idle words from a Government Front Bench of a kind with which we are familiar. We are genuinely interested to have had the opinions of the House.
My Lords, over a third of the working population of Great Britain—nearly 9 million out of 25 million in June, 1967 —are women, and the proportion in this country who are "economically active" is in fact one of the highest outside the Communist countries. Indeed, since 1951 women, and mainly married women, have accounted for over two-thirds of the increase in our labour force. The Survey of Women's Employment and other available material tells us a lot about the characteristics of women at work, or considering employment. We have seen that those interested are very familiar with the material, but some of the most important features are worth re-emphasis. It is apparent, if these trends and attitudes are correct, that the married woman of the future is increasingly likely to return to employment for 20 years or more. She will probably be less available to look after her daughter's children when that daughter, in her turn, goes back to work. On the other hand, she will be someone more likely than ever to possess some training or qualifications, and
548
entitled to be regarded by an employer as in a true sense a permanent employee, and not just somebody who comes back for pin money.
From this, important economic and social issues arise; the facilities to be Provided for the care of children; the training (and this was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Birk, and I think by my noble friend Lady Burton, whom I had meant to thank very much for her kind remarks) and "refresher" training of the returning woman worker; again, the attitude of employer and unions; and the national need to ensure that a very substantial investment in education and training and our main reserve of labour, married women, are not under-used through being held down in the labour market. Or, to translate this into other terms, we have to make sure that the legitimate career expectations of the individual women and girls concerned are not disappointed.
My Lords, this is relevant to opportunity and to the Motion before us to-day. I have already mentioned the Donovan Report's comments on women's access to skilled work. It is true, of course, that many enter certain occupations—nursing, the social services and so on—and I need not go further into them. But here again much of the training has to take place outside the apprenticeship system. On the other hand, it is also true that many of these occupations, are among the most essential and socially rewarding of any, and they reflect the existing preferences of the girls concerned. Nevertheless—and this has been confirmed in this debate—the feeling is gaining ground that the range of employment open to women needs to be extended.
The National Youth Employment Council has just lent its weight to efforts which the Department of Employment and Productivity are making to encourage girls to enter some of the traditional male occupations, taking advantage, for example (and this, again, is relevant to what my noble friend Lady Summerskill was saying), of the new courses of training, such as modular training in engineering, that are becoming available under the Industrial Training Act. It has also emphasised the importance of girls' keeping their career options open for longer

549
than they often do at present—for instance, by not dropping mathematics at the earliest opportunity at school.
My Lords, these are points which have to be got across. That is why I believe that this debate is important, because I hope that what many of your Lordships have said will be read by teachers and others. I hope that it will also be read by those employers who still have traditional attitudes. I remember trying to arrange for a colleague of mine in business to take a very able young woman into Organisation and Methods work, and being met by the flat answer, "We cannot employ women in Organisation and Methods work because they have to go into warehouses". I cannot imagine a more ludicrous answer; but it took about two years to break down this attitude. And this experience is repeated time and again: people are nervous of change along these lines.
At the highest level of professional and managerial jobs there may also be, I believe, scope for a greater contribution by women and girls. We had some comparative figures given to-day by the noble Baroness, by the noble Viscount who opened the debate and by others; and we had a very interesting speech, if I may say so, from the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke. She obviously knows the subject very well and very clearly. But, again, the Government are aware of this problem; and there is some evidence that women with equivalent academic qualifications to men are often employed in lower-grade jobs. This last fact seems to be prima facie evidence of under-utilisation, and it is a guide for future Government effort.
To find out more about this, the Manpower Research Unit of the Department of Employment and Productivity is undertaking a study of the relevant material from the 1966 Census, as it becomes available, about the employment of the two sexes in relation to their qualifications. Again, I think that these facts will be useful. Many of us no doubt have a good idea of the sort of answers which are likely to come out, but it will be useful to have them in hard form.
The facts lead into arguments on matters of judgment and principle. I do not propose to go very fully into this, but I think I can say without any hesita-
550
tion that if the Government accept entirely the importance of improving employment opportunities in response to the powerful economic and social forces at work, this does not in any way derogate —and here I agree with the right reverend Prelate—from the claims of family life or the special contribution which an educated mother can make in the home. I do not find it essential to my happiness that every girl should become an engine driver. Nor, I am sure, does my noble friend Lady Summerskill. I do not propose to develop this argument. But some of the arguments that take place on the employment of women are really "non-issues". I think that to-day the House has much more clearly got on to the real issue.
Obviously, there are differences of degree and there will always be extreme attitudes, but there is nothing in the principle of employment opportunities which entails taking a mother away from her youngest children any more than the wide range of technological and administrative jobs in modern industry and commerce need be as uncongenial to a woman as something from the age of steam. Indeed, the average computer must be much less steamy than even the most sophisticated kitchen sink—and that perhaps is half the trouble. This is not to deny that there are serious issues underlying both career choice for girls and the question of combining domestic responsibilities with a job. It is simply to say that the Government, at any rate, do not see progress in this matter as dependent upon forcing women into employment and uncongenial work. Rather the reverse.
I think we are probably all speaking basically the same language on this matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has emphasised the attractions of part-time employment, and the fact that these exist for many women with family responsibilities is not only un-deniable but is also very attractive. I have already referred to the great recent increase in part-time work and to the fact that rather less than half of all married women already have such jobs. We should, however, remember the corollaries of these figures: that rather more than half the married women manage to do full-time jobs. This is, of course, of still greater value to the

551
economy where circumstances permit—and the circumstances often do permit, let us say, before the children arrive, or after they begin to grow up, to take no further examples. Equally, we must qualify this by saying that not all women now in employment are in the field for being attracted back. In fact, this is far from being so. But I think the House would agree that, by and large, the higher-level jobs represent a somewhat difficult section of the market for part-time employment. There are obvious difficulties in arranging hours, particularly where there is urgency about the work to be done; but it is not to say that it is impossible. I know, again from my own experience, that one can sometimes get the advantage of a much higher quality of ability for particular jobs if one can arrange that they should be done part time. It is worth trying; and there are some quite impressive successes on the part of employers who are able to be flexible in this matter.
My Lords, let me turn now to the qualified woman in part-time work generally. The House will, I think, be encouraged to know that a comparison between the numbers of female part-time workers recorded in the 1961 and 1966 censuses shows the following results. There were increases considerably above the average for the "top job" part timers —that is to say, in the numbers of professional and technical workers, artists, administrators and managers. These were 63 per cent. and 78 per cent. respectively as against an average of 46 per cent.
Now I should like to turn to the Civil Service to which a number of noble Lords referred and for which I have a particular responsibility. This is an area where the Government are in a position to give a lead. I should like to quote one authority on this matter. Sir Paul Chambers has said:
"The Government is very much ahead of industry in recognising the equality of women; the pay is the same—and several women in the Civil Service have been heads of Departments.
"Somehow there sex is quite irrelevant and men don't mind taking orders from them. The fact that they are women never intrudes—though I certainly don't mean that it is necessary for a woman to become in any way masculine in a position of authority."
552
Naturally, the distribution of women throughout the Government service depends on their education, aptitudes and aspirations. Most of the 297,000 or so women in the Civil Service are engaged in office work. Many of them are in junior or middle management; but this is also true of the men. This is a consequence of the numbers in junior and middle management. They do reach the highest position and it is not surprising that in many respects the Civil Service reflects the national position. While there is no sex discrimination in recruitment for the vast majority of posts in the Civil Service, there are not as many women as I should like to see in some groups. For example, only 750 out of 20,500 professional, scientific and technical staff (accountants, lawyers, doctors, engineers and so on) are women.
Here again, improvements have taken place in recent years. The woman who marries is not subject to a marriage bar in the home Civil Service and is under no obligation to leave as was the case in the past. There is reasonable provision for maternity leave if she stays. If she is a permanent civil servant and leaves either on marriage or when she starts her family she may want to return at a later date. If so, provided that there is a place for her and that she is of the standard required, there are ways in which she can again become a permanent and pensionable civil servant without the formalities which were appropriate when she first joined.
In the field of part-time work the Civil Service again is an enlightened employer. There are over 36,000 women part time; and the number so employed in the Civil Service has risen steadily in recent years. They have exactly the same pay and conditions of work as their male colleagues. The probability is that the majority are in clerical work and in the Post Office; but over 150 of them are employed in professional, scientific and technical grades. And there are a few in the executive and administrative classes. But where the opportunity exists—particularly on research of the kind to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred—Departments are authorised to take advantage of any suitable opportunities which present themselves for employing such people part time. I have a large number of other

553
figures on employment in the public sector in the positions of teachers and nurses, but I will not take up the time of your Lordships in this matter.
I should like to say something about the assistance that the Government are giving towards the employment of women, particularly married women and part-time women, in industry. There has been a growing readiness in industry to take on and accommodate part-time workers. This is a consequence, and a pleasing consequence, of full employment. Firms will more readily allow time off for shopping and various forms of flexibility of hours and holidays to fit in with husbands' and children's holidays and other needs. There is room to improve; but there is an obligation on management to be intelligent about it. At the higher levels, there are also a number of qualified women who carry on part-time work—sometimes even from their homes—including research and consultancy. The computer provides opportunities, particularly in this type of work, on programming and systems analysis.
The public employment service helps in this way through the Professional and Executive Register and those specialised offices which deal with clerical and commercial employment. Therefore, I was a little mystified by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and also those, I believe, of the noble Baroness who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench. On the question of assistance, I would point out that all employment exchanges hold information about job opportunities, local available transport, child care facilities and training. In general, it is fair to say that the number of people looking for high grade part-time jobs outweighs the demand. Further development of this employment service may well be one means of helping and is one of the matters covered in the review which I mentioned.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, up to as late as yesterday information from the Ministry itself was that it did not have a service for part-time employment. If an employer telephoned and asked for a part-time worker, somebody might happen to come in. But this is not a question of policy or general habit or general attitude. This is information from the Ministry.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am also speaking for the Ministry.
BARONESS BIRK: Then there has been a change since yesterday.
LORD SHACKLETON: A recent innovation in the service which is of very great potential here is the occupational guidance service for adults which was introduced experimentally in 1966 and which is now becoming well established. Advice is available at 24 units throughout the country for people making a choice or a change of career, or for those such as married women who are returning to the labour market after a period of absence. There is the further extension of training facilities being developed by the Industrial Training Boards. I fully concede that there is an enormous way to go, particularly regarding Industrial Training Boards. Following the remarks of my noble friend, I should he very happy to look further into this, but since she was good enough to give me information about what she intended to say, I did go into the matter rather thoroughly. It may be that we can communicate on the matter, and I will see where the difficulty has arisen.
BARONESS BROOKE 0F YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, may I intervene, as the noble Lord also referred to something that I said? The point I was trying to make is that on the whole women are not in the habit of going to employment exchanges after they are married. if it were possible for publicity to be given to the fact that there are these facilities available, if it could be brought to their attention through some publicity media or another, I believe it would be to the mutual advantage.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Baroness's point is a very helpful one, and this is one of the matters which will be taken into account. We have already talked about refresher courses and re-training. Here again, there is a need for extension. The Department of Employment and Productivity carried out experimental recruitment campaigns for women in 1966 in selected areas where there was a shortage, and they were resumed this year. Attention and publicity has been given to part-time local opportunities, but

555
clearly more has to be done. I think that that is one of the messages coming from this debate. There is, I think, evidence of considerable interest and real action on the part of the Government both as Government and as an employer. The whole question is being kept under continuous review.
My Lords, before I conclude, I should like to deal with one or two further points. It would, I think, be difficult, and not very satisfactory anyway, if I were to go into the complex subject of the provision of child care facilities. The noble Baronesses who took part in the debate know this extremely well. They know just how much provision there is and, if I may say so, how little there is. I do not think that there is anything new that I can say to the House beyond stating the fact that the demand is far in excess of what it is possible to provide. None the less, it is an important area.
My Lords, I found myself in some difficulty about the question of taxation, because I was never quite sure what aspect of taxation noble Lords were discussing. There was a reference to the disincentive effects of the aggregation for tax purposes—the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to this—of the incomes of husband and wife. Other noble Lords have referred to this point. I accept—and the noble Baroness was precise on this point—that it is more a problem at the level of better-paid qualified employment where the surtax question comes in. The noble Baroness will not expect me to anticipate any changes in the present position or even to suggest that they are likely, but none the less she made a valid point. I hope it will also be accepted that it is much less likely to be a problem in the case of part-time work. The House will be aware that there are special income tax reliefs for a wife's earnings, and when all the income of husband and wife is earned income the present system is more favourable to the two partners than separate taxation would be below a joint income of about £5,000 a year—and it is not a very low level of income that I am talking about.
My Lords, even in this House which has no responsibility for finance we are
556
never short of suggestions for desirable tax concessions. We have had a number to-day. It involves the most complicated subjects. I looked up the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, in the reference books and saw what a responsible position he holds in industry; but if I understand correctly the notes which I now have before me, I think that he has done his computation wrong. However, I should be very happy to correspond with him on this point. I freely grant that over £5,000 a year it becomes—this is what I might call the "living-in-sin" argument—a question whether in fact it is cheaper not to be married.
VISCOUNT HAWORTH: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one minute? I devoted quite a bit of my speech to the feeling about the taxation of combined incomes which amount to over £5,000 a year. I realise that this has political difficulties, but in to-day's climate I do not think that it ought to have, for the reasons which I stated at some length. I just wanted to emphasise that point.
LORD SHACKLETON: Well, my Lords, I am rushing on at this moment, but the noble Viscount will have an opportunity to reply. I fully concede the point. But we ought not to think that everybody is in the £5,000 a year plus class, even if they are married; and in this matter it is generally appreciated that it is advantageous financially to be married rather than the reverse. I shall be happy to supply the necessary figures to convince anyone about that.
LORD KIRKWOOD: My Lords, would the Minister permit me to interrupt him at this moment? My tax figures were supplied by a tax consultant and they are not my own homework. As to the high figure, may I suggest that we are talking about professional people, and they do earn substantial salaries. The shortage to-day is among those with abilities over and above the average. If we must have these people in employment we must make the tax position possible.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his point. I am disputing his computation. He is advised by tax consultants; I am advised by the Inland Revenue—two very competent bodies. But it may be purely in

557
the matter of presentation, and since I am no accountant this is the point at which I retire to allow the experts to argue it out. Again I say to noble Lords that they have made their points and I have also made my point. I should like to make clear that there have been improvements with regard to S.E.T., and it is rather boring when noble Lords refer to this matter.
I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who said, "What about S.E.T.?" People have been saying, "What about S.E.T.?" for two or three years. This is one matter about which the Government have listened to advice. There have been changes in the selective employment tax. There is no doubt that when it was introduced in 1966 there was some evidence that it was operating as a disincentive to the employment of part-timers, and the Government reduced the tax payable in respect of those part-timers to half-rate. The tax payable in respect of full-timers was increased in this year's Budget, but the rate for part-timers was held steady, and now represents only one third of the full-time rate. This is a substantial differential, and it could be argued that this is an incentive to the employment of part-timers. I have noted the further suggestions that the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, has made.
Finally, I should stress that the Government are engaged in their major review of social security. Though I cannot anticipate the contents of the White Paper which will be produced within the next few months, it will obviously have a bearing on some of the relevant issues, including the level of contributions paid for part-timers. The Government's stated objective in the new scheme is to relate both benefit and contributions more closely to earnings (and may I say to my noble friend Lady Summerskill that this shows that some progress is sometimes made by Governments?) and this should ease the, position both for employer and employee in cases of part-time or other lower paid work.
My Lords, looking at my notes, I am conscious that there are still many points that 1 have hardly discussed. We have had interesting speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Amulree and Lord Auckland, and
558
from other noble Lords to whom I have already referred. I feel that this has been a worthwhile debate. Some important ideas have been raised, and certain points of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, are matters for further consideration. I feel that I have already taken too long, and it is impossible for me to deal with everything; but I do congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.
This is a continuing battle. Progress has been made. Ten years ago, for instance, there was not a single Baroness in your Lordships' House; 39 are now eligible to sit in the House. I think that progress is going on all along the front, and certainly it will be the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in the interests of justice to woman and of the general economic advantage of this country, that this progress should continue as fast as possible.
5.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and to say how fortunate I feel we have been in having the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, to reply. I remember that the noble Lord spoke for what was then the Opposition on the first Motion I introduced and I do not appear very often—and I am grateful to find that he has been able to reply to-day. My only regret is that we have not had more industrialists and employers putting forward their objections, because there are many valid objections to what we are proposing, and I think that this would have made a very different kind of debate. I said one or two things which I hoped were calculated to get a reply from those who object. However, I feel that the right thing to do is to end this debate on the happy note which has been carried throughout the whole of it. I certainly should not wish to raise any further points. With that, I beg leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord actually withdraws, may I add that I have a feeling that I have not given satisfaction to my noble friend Lady Summerskill on one question, though I am not sure whether she aimed it at me or at the noble Viscount.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I asked my noble friend whether on December 10, which is Human Rights Day, he will announce to the country that the I.L.O. Convention 100, dealing with equal pay, and Convention 111, dealing with equal opportunities, are accepted by the Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think it unlikely that I shall be able to announce that on Human Rights Day. The Government do attach importance to the question of equal pay and, as my
560
noble friend knows, some progress has been made; but it would be wrong to ratify a Convention before we fully honour it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if we ratify, will that not encourage us to honour it?
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.