I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This may appear to be a long and complex and difficult Bill, but there is very good reason why the House should give it a Second Reading. It has been prepared by a Committee of Scottish conveyancers established by one of my predecessors in office. The Committee consisted of representatives of the Scottish Bar, the Society of Writers to His Majesty's Signet, the Society of Solicitors of the Supreme Court, and the Incorporated Society of Solicitors. The convener of the Committee was Sir George Paul, the Deputy-Keeper of the Signet, and I take the opportunity of expressing my appreciation—and I hope I may speak for the House in this matter —of the valuable public services which that Committee rendered. I have revised the Bill, and, as drafted, it supersedes entirely the complicated and numerous Statutes and portions of Statutes, no less than 21 in number, which are mentioned in Schedule C, and form the present code of Scottish trust Statute law. It was introduced last year, and it has been widely canvassed and has obtained, I think, universal support. As the Bill, in many of its Clauses, merely repeats the provisions of existing Acts of Parliament, it seems unnecessary to refer to them, but the new Clauses are Clauses 5, 7, 8, 10 ( c ), 32, and 33. The scope and effect of these Clauses is explained generally in the Memorandum prefixed to the Bill. In the main, we have repeated and propose to enact for Scotland, certain provisions of the Trust Law of England which experience has shown to be desirable. These Clauses extend the powers of trustees, they make the provisions of the Trusts Act more elastic as regards trust investments, and they also regulate the personal liability of trustees. Clause 8 of the Bill refers to the position of the fiduciary fiar— a person who is entirely the creature of Scots law, and whose existence has been responsible for many conveyancing difficulties and a good deal of unnecessary litigation. We propose to give the Court power to form a real trust in cases in which the estate is held by a fiduciary fiar, and this will remove a number of needless conveyancing difficulties and free beneficiaries from some unnecessary expense and litigation. I venture to express the hope that this consolidation Measure, which is now a complete code of Scottish Trust Law, may be of value to the legal profession, and may enable its provisions to be easily accessible to the Scottish citizen as well.

I wish to support the Second Reading of this Measure. In addition to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said with regard to the extension of powers which has become vitally necessary in the conduct of trusts, the Bill performs an operation that is not only necessary with regard to the law of trusts, but also with regard to other branches of the law, namely, a clear and concise consolidation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill has been passed in another place, and as it affects the administration of justice it is necessarily a Bill of importance, and one in which Members of this House will be deeply interested. It is a Bill of two Clauses, each of which refers to a separate matter. Clause 1 refers to the proceedings at a criminal trial in Scotland, and Clause 2 refers to the sentence to be pronounced on a convicted criminal. It is incompetent, according to our practice, for the prosecutor in Scotland to lead evidence in a criminal trial analogous to that which is known in England as additional or rebutting evidence. In England the admission or rejection of this class of evidence is left entirely within the discretion of the judge, but in Scotland the prosecutor's case is confined exclusively to the evidence given by the witnesses whose names appear on the indictment and to the documents, etc., which are detailed in the indictment. This rigid rule has in certain cases prevented justice from being done.

I may say that this question has been seriously affected by the right which Parliament recently gave to a prisoner to go into the witness box and give evidence, and the inconvenience from which public prosecutors suffered prior to the passing of that Act was small compared with what it is in certain cases now. The list of witnesses and productions is, according to our practice, prepared before it is known what the defence is, what witnesses the defence are to examine, whether the prisoner is to lodge a special defence, as we call it, or whether the prisoner himself is to give evidence. The result has been that in a few—but not many—cases unscrupulous prisoners can obtain an unfair advantage, as they can bring their witnesses and obtain their evidence upon giving the Crown only three days' notice; and, when they know that the Crown can neither lead an additional witness nor produce an additional document, miscarriage of justice may and has occasionally taken place. This Clause provides that this new evidence will be competent only if the prosecutor gives to the prisoner two days' notice, and obtains the leave of the Court. I venture to call the special attention of the House to the words in the Clause which require the leave of the Court, because it has been represented that the result of this Clause is to give the Crown the right to tender evidence against the prisoner of which he has no notice, and which is contrary to the existing practice. Under the Clause all that the Crown can do is to ask the judges for leave to use this additional evidence, and the question whether or not it will be rejected is entirely left to the descretion of the judge, and I am sure the House will be satisfied that the legitimate' interests of prisoners are in perfectly safe hands.

Clause 2 extends the discretion which is at present exercised by the sheriffs in criminal proceedings of remitting prisoners to the High Court for sentence where they have been convicted in the Sheriff's Court of an indictable crime. The sheriff's maximum power of sentence is imprisonment with hard labour for two years. The sheriff cannot pronounce a sentence of penal servitude. But where a prisoner gives notice of his intention to plead guilty, under Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sheriff, if he thinks his powers of sentence are inadequate, may remit the prisoner to the High Court. But this remit is competent only when the plea of guilty is tendered and accepted prior to the service of the indictment on the prisoner. This Clause now gives the sheriff power to remit to the High Court for sentence any prisoner who, after the indictment is served, pleads guilty, or is convicted, where the sheriff is of opinion that his powers of sentence are inadequate. I think this additional power, although it will only be used in very rare cases, is necessary and desirable. The public mind is always disturbed if it is thought that a guilty prisoner, particularly of a serious crime, escapes without adequate sentence. The House in all matters of criminal procedure will desire to be assured that the arrangements are such as to allow a fair trial, to allow all the legitimate evidence to be laid before the jury, and to secure that a just and proper sentence will be pronounced in every case. It is because I feel that this Bill makes for an improvement in all these matters that I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

The Scottish Office is fortunate in having a Lord Advocate and a Secretary for Scotland, both able lawyers, and endowed with the ability to put their case lucidly and well. Those of us who know criminal procedure in Scotland know that this Bill is necessary, and that what my right hon. Friend proposes is a great advance in criminal procedure in Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

A White Paper has been circulated which sets out the purposes for which this Bill is introduced very fully, and I have discussed it at some little length both on the Committee stage and on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution. The Bill is agreed to by all parties in the House. Its object is twofold. Its first purpose is to extend the time, both in England and in Scotland, during which loans may be made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purpose of settling ex-service men on the land, and it further extends the time in Scotland during which the Board is empowered, under Section 29 of the Act of 1919, to make advances to smallholders for the purchase of livestock, seeds, fertilisers and implements required for small holdings—a very necessary purpose. This involves, no new charge on the Exchequer. It merely extends the time during which the money which has already been voted may be spent. The second purpose of the Bill is purely Scottish. It makes available for the purpose of settlement upon the land the sum of £750,000. In allocating that sum to Scotland, after a very full inquiry by a Cabinet Committee and after deliberation in the Cabinet, I was authorised to make the announcement in Scotland that the urgent and special need of that country in the matter of land settlement was going to be recognised in this way, and the effect of that announcement, I think, has been wholly good. Even so, with this additional money we shall, I am afraid, take some considerable time before we can meet the demand for small holdings which is made both by ex-service men and others.

I think there can be no objection to the proposals contained in this Bill. It would facilitate its passage if it were committed to Committee of the whole House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[ Mr. Munro. ]

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

We have already had two Second Reading discussions on this Bill—first on the Financial Resolution and next on the Report stage of the Resolution. The Bill follows the usual practice in regard to developments of the telephone system where advances are made out of capital repayable by terminable annuities which are charged on the Post Office Vote. The last Act was passed in July of last year and was for £10,000,000. That sum of money will be exhausted in October, and the £5,000,000 for which this Bill makes provision will last, it is estimated, until the end of April next year. By that time I hope the Committee will have before it the Report of the Select Committee on Telephones, and we shall then be in a better position to know what the future prospects are. Practically no new work will be provided for out of this sum. It is for the completion of contracts which have been made and work which is already in progress. If the Bill were refused the effect would be that expenditure which has already been made on the development of the trunk service, the provision of new exchanges and additional subscribers' circuits would be rendered nugatory and the money would be thrown away. I hope that point will appeal to the House, that it is clearly necessary that whatever be the future of the telephone system these works which are now in hand should be completed. I look forward to an improvement in the demand for telephones during the next year. Certainly if there is the improvement in trade which we have reason to anticipate, and for which we all hope there will be an increase in the demand for telephones. The equipment at present at the disposal of the telephone department of the Post Office is not nearly adequate to meet the existing demands. As a result of that we have had to refuse 23,000 applications for new telephones. That is an exceedingly disappointing state of affairs. Whether the telephone system is in Government hands or in private hands it is obviously desirable that it should be possible to meet the requirements with which we are faced. A good deal has been done to make up arrears. Although we have now 23,000 applications which we cannot entertain, at this time last year there were 35,000 applications for telephones which had to be refused. During the two and a half years ending 31st March this year, 280,000 miles of underground circuits for local systems have been authorised, and of these 200,000 miles have been completed, 200,000 miles of underground circuits for the trunk system have been authorised, and 76,000 miles have been completed. Of new exchanges sixty-eight have been ordered and fourteen have been completed. Of extension of existing exchanges forty-four have been ordered and nine completed. I will not burden the House with a list of the new exchanges now in hand, but they cover the whole country.

It will be obvious that if we are to meet the increasing demands plant must be available before that demand actually arises. It will be exceedingly uneconomical to be suddenly faced with a demand for new telephones, and it would be impossible to meet it promptly unless the plant had already been made available. The three main trunk routes of the great trunk cable system from London, to which I made reference on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, are rapidly approaching completion, and they should continue that improvement in the trunk service, which I think it is within the knowledge of the House has already been effected. I have had an opportunity of discussing with many Members of the House who make use of the long-distance telephones the present condition of these telephones, and I find from all quarters that, in regard to the trunk service there has been a marked improvement in the diminution of the calling-up time. I am afraid that to some extent the depression in trade and the change in rates has reduced the number of calls, but at present it is undoubtedly true that the trunk service in this country is as good as any to be found anywhere. It is possible to get through over very long distances in astonishingly short periods of time. When the programme for which this £5,000,000 is asked is completed, I hope that the trunk service in this country, even when, as I anticipate, we get back to the previous demand, will be as good as it can be.

I suppose the telephone is the most aggravating of modern inventions A Member of the House told me that after leaving here one morning at three o'clock, and having retired to bed for a well-earned rest, his telephone downstairs began to ring. He went down to answer the call, and this was the message he received:

I have made reference to the trunk system, and I should like to say in regard to the local system that there has been—if we take it in bulk, and that is the only way in which I can test the way the system is operating—an improvement in the efficiency. The time taken in answering calls in London, that is from the moment the receiver is removed until the operator says "Number please," was 7.5 seconds in May, 1920, and that has been brought down to 5.3 seconds in May, 1921. That does not complete the operation, but that is the part for which the operator is immediately responsible, and I do not think it is an unreasonable period of time. If we can all succeed in getting our calls acknowledged by the operator in 5.3 seconds, there is not very much to complain about. I was asked when this matter was under discussion last time, what was being done in regard to the development of the automatic system. I wish that the financial situation of the country made it possible to go into a very large extension of the automatic system, because the automatic system, although it does not effect anything like the saving in working costs which is generally supposed, does get rid to a great extent of the human factor, and the caller can no longer blame the operator if he gets the wrong number. The fault in that case is clearly his own. The automatic system means a very heavy capital expenditure, and in the present condition of our finances I do not think I should be justified in asking the House to agree to a great expenditure on the automatic system. Where they are in operation in this country to-day, and we have 13 automatic exchanges, they are working very satisfactorily. I hope it will be possible before very long to lay before the House proposals for introducing the automatic service in London, where there are particular difficulties in working. I hope it will be possible, but at present it is not possible, and I do not think the House would approve of our asking for a considerable capital expenditure on the extension of the automatic system. I think I have covered, broadly, all the ground in regard to the work for which this Bill makes provision. We are following what has been the procedure in the past, and I hope the House will now give us a Second Reading of the Bill so that we can feel that the work which is now in progress can be completed.

; The Postmaster-General has said something in regard to the trunk system, but he did not say anything about the Irish connections. I do not know whether it is the cables that are at fault, but it is perfectly absurd to try to get a trunk call from practically any place in Great Britain to Ireland. Anyone who tries to get a trunk call through from London to Belfast might as well give it up. In the first place, it takes the most outrageous time, and, secondly, when once the connection has been established it is quite impossible to hear anything. My experience goes to show that the cables are at fault. Trunk calls to Ireland are via Liverpool, and it is possible to hear what the operator says at Liverpool, but beyond that nothing can be done. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will make an investigation as to whether the cables are effective or are not.

The House owes a debt of gratitude to the Postmaster-General for explaining lucidly what ha has been doing to develop the telephone service. That the telephone service should be extended we are all agreed. The question is whether this is the right way of doing it. Some of us feel that a better way would be to cheapen its cost and make it more easily pay for itself. To do that and to follow up logically our arguments, we hold that the overhead charges for the telephone service are too great, that the rates paid are too high, that the staffs employed are too large, and that the work is not economically carried on. From that point of view we part company with the Postmaster-General. I will give an instance of what I mean and I shall be glad to supply him with all the papers and particulars in this matter. Some years ago a gentleman who resides between London and Brighton was approached by the National Telephone Company to allow their wires to pass over his land. He consented on the condition that he should receive an annual rental of a guinea a year, and a proviso was inserted in the agreement that the payments should be made punctually and that he should not have to bother asking for them. There was a proviso that if either party failed to carry out the agreement it could be terminated by the other party on giving three months' notice.

So long as the company had the telephone the rent was paid punctually. When the Government took over the telephones they took over the agreement which had been made between this gentleman and the company, and from that date the payments of the sum of a guinea a year were irregular. He had to write repeatedly until eventually he pointed out that as he was obliged to write so often, he would terminate the agreement by giving three months' notice. For a considerable time the Post Office did not write. Then they wrote to say that a preferable form of agreement would be one under which he would allow the wires to pass over his property without any rent. He wrote that that was not the case in point, than an agreement was an agreement, and that they must adhere to it. After a number of interviews and after delaying the matter to the last possible moment the Post Office had to send their employee to take down all the wires and to erect them somewhere else. To avoid paying a guinea a year punctually they must have spent well over £100 on removing the wires, on correspondence and on sending engineers down to interview the gentle- man when it could all have been avoided by observing the agreement made by the National Telephone Company. This is an instance of what happened. That is the sort of thing which a great many people think is going on at present, and when we are asked to sanction the loan of £5,000,000 to the Postmaster-General to extend telephones we have a. suspicion in our minds that he is calling on us to throw good money after bad. Though I am convinced that the Postmaster-General is making a real effort to give up an efficient telephone service I cannot help feeling a doubt as to whether that £5,000,000 will be profitably spent.

The House must have the deepest sympathy with the Postmaster-General in the extraordinarily difficult task which he has in dealing with the telephone system to-day. He is in the unfortunate position of having to endeavour to work a national system in a country which dislikes a national system, and which obviously is not fitted for a national system of any kind. So far as I am concerned, whenever one has had anything to do with either the Postmaster-General or the Assistant-Postmaster-General one has received the greatest courtesy and kindness, and they are, whatever may happen in other Departments, doing their level best to make things work well. That ought to be said because a great deal of abuse is poured on their undeserving heads in this particular matter. The blame is not theirs, but the existing position is due to the difficulties of the time, wages, materials, and so forth, which have made a difference in the postal service in every way. The Postmaster-General told us about his trunk service and the service between the great cities and of the new exchanges. So far as England is concerned, we might very well spend a little time in learning what these new exchanges are, and particularly would I like a list of names and possibly the cost of any new exchanges that may affect the West Country.

There is one point on which I would like to say a few words more. One of the most crying needs in the country districts is to develop as far as possible there the telephone system. The big towns have got telephone facilities, particularly in England. I will not speak for Scotland be- cause the hon. Member for Perth will tell us what they want in Scotland, and I dare say that some of the Irish Members will have something to say about Irish country districts, but in England people in country districts are living under great disadvantages, and unless during the next few years we receive every kind of help which we can fairly expect from the Government Departments in this matter we are bound to feel our difficulties accumulating. In Norway they have got a most complete system worked fairly economically and provided fairly cheaply right out into very much more sparsely populated country districts than you have got here. In the same way you have got country telephones developed to a much larger extent in Canada and in our Dominions. In view of the fact that the telephone service is needed very badly in our country districts, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he can cheapen the way in which he puts up telephones in country districts. You have at the present large substantial posts. Would it not be possible to put up lighter posts or cheaper posts for the time being? You could develop on those cheaper lines and when prosperity returned you could build up more permanent lines. It would be easier in this way to connect many of our country villages. A large part of my division covers a vast area of Dartmoor. There the people are practically without communications. Would it not be possible to run across the moors a system of light poles which would draw the people into closer connection with the centres?

I fully realise—I have acknowledge it many times—the importance and necessity of doing everything possible to develop the telephone system in the rural areas. I sit for a constitutency which is largely rural. There is the question of establishing public telephone boxes in a great number of villages where there is no opening for a general system of telephones. The great difficulty in rural districts is that there is a prejudice against the rural party-line. It is the common system in Canada and in the United States. Because of the innate conservatism and love of secrecy which besets our race, the people will not have that system. It could be established much more economically than the ordinary system. If my hon. Friend can persuade the Devonshire farmers that there would really be no harm done when neighbours overheard their conversation, we could cut down the cost considerably.

It would be much easier to persuade some of the Devonshire farmers than some up-country farmers, because the Devonshire farmers are more progressive. If the Postmaster-General would come to Plymouth or somewhere in the neighbourhood and tell us all about it in the autumn, we might get developments on those lines. I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for the help he has given on this point. In Clause 1, Sub-section (2) of the Bill, certain sums are to be borrowed by means of terminable annuities. I think we might be told something as to the terms of these annuities. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give us the information?

When we are voting this money for greater efficiency in the service, we might consider the point of greater efficiency in the operators. Those of us who have been round the big telephone exchanges in London must have realised that all the modern work with regard to the livening up of staffs might as well be a sealed book for all that the Post Office does in the matter. The Postmaster-General relies on various administrative measures. What he wants is a jazz band upstairs. If he could give the operators a little change, a little exercise, ten minutes every two hours, to stir their blood, he would quicken up the connection time a great deal more than he does. The whole point of telephone connecting is that it is a very delicate thing which depends on delicate physiological factors in the operators. Recent investigations have been of the utmost value, but the subject is absolutely neglected in the Post Office. I went to the exchanges. There were the operators, sitting at the bottom of a big dark room. I went to the place where they had their lunch. I said to the gentleman in charge, "Do they go out to lunch or get it in the building?" He replied, "Oh, we discourage their going out." That means that they get no fresh air. In the lunchroom the windows were nearly as high above the floor as they are in this House, and they were streaming with damp. The operators get a good lunch, it is true, but no fresh air. What is the condition of the girl at the end of their rest? They are still jaded.

A little exercise would quicken up the whole operation of the Post Office. This is not merely a joke. Men of experience throughout the country have proved that by proper attention to the welfare of the workers operations are quickened up very considerably. I was greatly struck by a remark of one of the Members for Lancashire, a big manufacturer, who said he had found that workers would work more quickly if there was painted on the wall opposite them a bright snappy picture to take the place of the white-washed wall. This is not merely a crank's fad, but an actual scientific fact. By psychological stimuli, by music, bright colours, and so on, you can quicken up psychological reactions. The shorthand-writers in the Gallery of this House are on duty for only 20 minutes at a time, because they have to keep up a very high pressure of concentrated attention. Telephone operators, who also have to keep up a high pressure of concentrated attention, should have short hours and short breaks, and should be encouraged to take exercise and fresh air when possible. We should spend a certain amount of money on what is known as welfare work amongst the operators.

This is not an occasion for debating the administrative work of the Post Office. The question before us is merely whether the House will pass this Bill for capital expenditure.

In regard to the extentension of telephones, will the Postmaster-General take into consideration the extension of telephones inside one's own house after a telephone has been installed? At present the charges for an extension to, say, one's library or bedroom form an enormous proportion of the total annual charge for a telephone. Frequently, one has to go to a considerable distance, at great inconvenience, in order to get a message which one might have received at one's elbow if the charges were more moderate. If the Postmaster-General wishes to make those who rent a telephone contented with the Post Office, he might consider this question.

Could the Postmaster-General give the House any information as to the progress being made with wireless telephony? Is there any prospect of that system being used in this country within the next few years or is it outside commercial possibility? In my constituency we have the automatic system and I am not very favourably impressed with the results from it. For seven years I have had submitted an application for a telephone at a place near Leigh. Every few months I get a- notice from the Post Office telling me that the matter is receiving attention. If the passing of this Bill brings that telephone a little nearer, I shall be delighted.

I would like to emphasise what has been said with regard to telephones in rural districts. I assume that some hon. Members will be going to the moors shortly, and they will find themselves twenty, thirty or forty miles from, any doctor or other professional man and perhaps something will require to be done. In rural Scotland, where the population is exceedingly sparse and the distances are very long, we are under many disadvantages. Where there is no village nearer than 10 or 15 miles it is no use to be told that you can get the advantage of any call office within five miles of your telephone. I understood the Postmaster-General to tell us that the number of applications for installations was considerably reduced, and that there was a difference of something like 10,000. I would like to know if that difference arises because installations to that number have been made.

Yes, that is the explanation.

I am very glad to hear it, because it might have been due to withdrawals of applications by people who are dissatisfied. At a time when the Prime Minister and the Government of this country are constantly emphasising the need for rural regeneration, you must give some reasonable facilities for the people living in rural districts.

I am perfectly aware this is neither the time nor the opportunity for speaking on all the details of the Telephone Service, nor is it the time to talk about providing music for the operators to lighten their cares of office. We sympathise with our friend who, like Jacob, hats waited seven years, and we hope he will not have to wait a second seven years. What the House has to decide now, however, is as to advancing the capital necessary for the development of the system. We have heard a good deal about the need for extensions, and we should realise that extensions and improvements cannot be accomplished without expenditure. We know the telephone system in this country is not perfect, but it is not perfect in any other country. I have heard as many swear words, which were calculated to destroy the wires, used in America and in other parts of the world regarding the telephone system as are used in this country. Our telephone system, if the necessary capital is forthcoming for alterations and extensions is, I think, a very good one. I have tested the automatic system, and have had a, good deal to do with it, and I have never heard anyone complaining about it. Had it not been for the war and for the shortage of money I think it could have been extended, and that it would have proved a distinct advantage. I do not know what the experience of others has been, and I am only speaking of my own district. It has been installed in one of our offices, and we are fairly large telephone users, and compared with all the other installations, I think the automatic has been vastly superior. I hope this money will be voted to enable the necessary extensions to be carried out, and that a marked improvement will soon be manifest in the working of our telephone system.

12 N.

I have put down an Amendment upon this Bill, but I have only done so for the purpose of raising one point. I understand a part of this £5,000,000 is to be expended on laying underground cables. In the past we know that when we have had storms and bad weather in this country, the overhead telephone system has been totally dislocated. Some 12 or 18 months ago the Members for the City, of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives, saw the late Postmaster-General with regard to the bad telephone service to Hull and the lack of underground cables. The then Postmaster-General promised that as soon as possible an underground cable would be laid either directly to Hull, or viâ Leeds, so as to provide a more efficient service. No part of this £5,000,000 is going to be utilised for that purpose. I am only too willing to admit that the trunk telephone system to the Hull district has been greatly improved since we saw the late Postmaster-General, and I only trust, if this money, or any part of it, is not to be expended on an underground cable as promised by him, that at least some of it will be utilised for the purpose of improving the service to the North-East coast generally. Such an improvement was badly needed, though I am glad to say it is improving.

In regard to the question which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Major Entwistle), I may say that the time at the present moment from Hull is seven minutes; from Birmingham, 10 minutes; from Liverpool, seven minutes; from Manchester, six minutes; from Newcastle, 10 minutes; and from Nottingham, four minutes. I think, therefore, that he is accurate in stating that this service has been improved to a great extent, and I hope it may be improved further. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Lindsay) I shall be very pleased to look into the question as to the cable between Belfast and Liverpool and to see whether anything can be done to accelerate this service.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the time from Belfast to London as he has given the time from other cities?

I have not got the figures here, but I will endeavour to obtain them for my hon. Friend. The Postmaster-General would be very glad indeed if hon. Members of this House would come and visit these exchanges, and I think, having regard to what the hon. Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) has said in re-regard to jazz bands and other matters, it would be very wise for him to go and see some of the exchanges.

I did go. This is the result of an inspection of one of the exchanges.

I think he will find a great deal has been done in connection with the work which he has so much at heart. It is a very simple matter to visit some of the more important exchanges in London, such as the City Central and the Trunk Exchange. With regard to what has been said about Scandinavia, I daresay the House is aware that the Chairman of the Committee, which sat in regard to telephones, is now in Scandinavia considering this question. When he returns, with the expert who has accompanied him, we shall probably have a Report to the House regarding some method of adopting whatever is best in the system of Norway and Sweden. In regard to the question of new exchanges in the provinces, the new exchanges opened include Perth, Carlisle, Liverpool (Central), Huddersfield, West Bromwich, and Northampton. Exchanges have been completed at Leith, Bristol, Lncoln, Derby, Birmingham, and Hove. There is a considerable amount to be done still. The number of subscribers applying for telephones who cannot be supplied, owing to shortage of plant, either exchange or underground, is still considerable. There are some 54 new new exchanges, and 35 exchanges have been ordered but are not yet completed. In 46 other places equipments are in course of design, and not less than 235 others have been earmarked for extension or replacement at an early date. With regard to the question of storms, a great many of the difficulties surrounding the telephone service have been due to snowstorms, and it is difficult to understand why snow should cause so much difficulty, but I think it was in January of last year that we lost 40,000 lines on one day in about two hours owing to a snowstorm. Therefore it is quite plain that it is advisable in the interests of the service, if possible, to put those lines underground.

My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Wignall) drew an analogy in regard to Jacob and waiting for telephones, but the only point in the analogy which I can see is that in both cases they were waiting for ladies. My hon. Friend asked in regard to the question of the automatic extensions, and I think those of us who have had some experience of the automatic service will realise that it is very much to the advantage of this country. In my own constituency there has been an automatic exchange—I think it was the first one of all—for eight years, and I have had practically no complaints whatever in regard to it, but, of course, this system costs a great deal, and in the unfortunate financial position in which we are placed at the present time; no one would really think it possible to extend it on a very large scale. I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Fildes) say that he had had an unfortunate experience in regard to the automatic system, because I think that on the whole it is free from any complaint whatever. The cost for London would be not less than £6,000,000, and therefore we may see that it is very difficult to have that extension which everyone in the House would desire, but it is a development which it is very important to consider in the near future, when our financial position has improved. In regard to the annuities, they are for 15 years, with a maximum of 20 years, but there is no public issue. The money is subscribed by the National Debt Commissioners and other people of that kind, and the interest is settled from time to time by the Treasury.

In regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), the Post Office in the last few years has done a great deal to improve the system of telephones, and although I was laughed at in the House of Commons when I said that an improvement had taken place, I have not met anyone recently who does not agree that an improvement has, in fact, taken place, and the statistics which have been given by my right hon. Friend in regard to the timed calls and in regard to the trunk system, and other statistics, show that an improvement has taken place, while we have every reason to believe that the system will improve very much more in the early future. With regard to wireless extension, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Gardiner) referred, he will realise that with wireless telephony and other systems of that kind, wireless is making great strides at the present time, and I would personally like to invite him down to the telegraph office to see what is being done in this respect. I think I have dealt with most of the points which have been raised in the Debate, and I shall be very glad at any time to give any further information in regard to any of these questions affected by the Bill, if any hon. Member so desires.

Can the right hon. Gentleman deal with the interior extensions asked for by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh?

If my hon. Friend will give me any particular extension, I shall be glad to go into it, but it is impossible to say what the cost of any particular extension is without knowing where it is.

The real point is the proportionate charge for putting in an extension from the floor of a house to a bedroom or landing, which is enormous.

I think the Committee which is sitting now under the presidency of the right hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) is going into this question, and a report will be made. I quite realise the importance of it.

How exactly is the money to be found? My right hon. Friend said the money was to be found by the National Debt Commissioners and some other people. Whom does he mean by "some other people," and is it a part of the sinking fund of the National Debt which is to be used for this purpose?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer those questions. The point of interest about these annuities is this, that they have never been, and there is no prospect of their ever being, made a public issue. The amount is so small that they are taken up in the ordinary way as investments for those funds which are in the hands from time to time of various Government Departments for investment. I do not think I could, out of memory, give a full list of all the various Departments which have funds for investment from time to time, but I refer to such funds as the Post Office Savings Bank and so on.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a Bill of a somewhat technical nature which nevertheless must, I think, have some interest for the House, and of which the House will undoubtedly require a brief explanation, though I imagine that it does not involve the necessity for any very long discussion. The purpose of the Bill is to adapt the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1866 to present-day conditions. That Act is a great monument of financial legislation and was designed by the great masters of financial administration, but 50 and more years have passed since then. The growth of revenue and expenditure which has come under audit has been immense, from £39,000,000 in 1866 to £669,000,000 in the present year, and it is not to be wondered at that the structure needs some alterations and repairs. The matter was undertaken, and in designing the necessary alterations and bringing the scheme of audit up-to-date, the Government has had the assistance of an expert Committee, the members of which consisted of the present Comptroller and Auditor-General, of a distinguished civil servant who, the House may have observed, has been appointed to succeed the present Comptroller and Auditor at an early date on the retirement of the latter, of the senior Treasury officer of accounts, and, as Chairman, of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), for whose services I should like to take this opportunity of rendering the very best thanks of His Majesty's Government, as they have been of the very greatest value in dealing with this somewhat complex and laborious matter. This Report was considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and the pronouncement of that Committee upon the Report has been issued to the House, appended to the Report of that Committee.

The Bill as it is laid before the House follows out the recommendations of the Committee. The general trend of the changes proposed is to give greater discretion to the Comptroller and Auditor-General as to the extent of his audit, and to make his measures more elastic. The principal alteration is this. Under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1866, it is necessary by law that the Auditor-General should carry out a full, detailed 100 per cent. arithmetical audit over the great bulk of the Appropriation Accounts of the country. That was necessary at a time so long ago as 1866, in the first place because accounting methods were bad, and arithmetical irregularities were frequent, and, in the second place, because the accounting staffs of the offices then were in a rudimentary and undeveloped condition. Since then the accounting staffs of the great offices have been developed with the growth of modern methods and modern ideas on these subjects to a very much higher standard of efficiency—in fact, to a standard of efficiency of the very highest. In these circumstances, this arithmetical checking of every account by the Auditor-General of every voucher and arithmetical detail is no longer considered essential by those who are best informed of the work, and it leads to a very great waste of time and energy. The effect of the provision in the Bill is to give the Comptroller and Auditor-General discretion to dispense with the 100 per cent. of arithmetical detail and minute check, wherever he considers it to be, in his experience, unnecessary, and to substitute for it an intelligently applied and scientific audit by way of test. As safeguards, the Comptroller will, of course, still have absolute power to apply the minute 100 per cent. test wherever he considers it necessary; in the second place, the Treasury will have power to require the Comptroller to apply such checks, wherever in the opinion of the Treasury they consider it necessary; and, most important from the point of view of this House and the safeguarding of its control, whenever the Comptroller and Auditor-General makes any substantial change in the methods by which he audits such accounts, he has to report that change to this House.

On a point of Order. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has informed us that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee has attached to it a memorandum or circular which deals with this Bill. I have been to the Vote Office to see if I can obtain that circular, and I find that it is not yet printed. In these circumstances, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it would not be more in accordance with the custom of the House to adjourn the consideration of this Bill until the circular to which the hon. Gentleman alluded is obtainable by Members? I do not see how we can properly discuss this very important Bill unless we know what is the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. I happen to know the Public Accounts Committee were not unanimous, and that the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir H. Craik) is strongly averse to the Bill.

It is not a point of Order calling for any intervention from the Chair.

May I move the Adjournment of the Debate?

There is no Question yet before the House. The Minister is moving the Second Beading of the Bill. Perhaps he will proceed.

I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Baronet is under some misapprehension. The letter to which I referred from the Public Accounts Committee is printed as an appendix or annexe to the Report of the Committee on the Exchequer and Audit Department Act. It is Command Paper 1383. I certainly have reason to believe it is available in the Vote Office, and my impression is confirmed by what I have heard in the House.

If I may make it quite clear, my hon. Friend the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (Mr. A. Williams) has just handed me the report, which contains, on page 11, the particulars in question.

Quite so. To proceed— I have dealt now with what is the principal point of substance as regards any change in the system of audit under this Bill, that is, the substitution of discretion in the Comptroller and Auditor-General to replace an out-of-date method of meticulous repetition of arithmetical calculations and total checks by the more modern, more scientific, and more useful method of a test applied by intelligence and discrimination. The remaining provisions of the Bill as regards the actual methods of audit are not of the same substantial importance. One which, I think, will interest the House is to give statutory power to the Comptroller and Auditor-General to deal with various forms of trading accounts. Trading accounts are a growth that has sprung up since the Exchequer and Audit Department Act, because in those days such operations as it was necessary to make in the nature of trading during the recent War were unknown in Government activities, and so the trading accounts had not yet come into existence in Government accounts; but trading accounts of income and expenditure are now of the greatest importance, and it is necessary to make provision that the Treasury shall have power to see that such accounts are kept, and that the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall have power to audit them on behalf of this House.

In connection with that branch of the Bill, I have to mention a minor provision, which is, nevertheless, one that will be of interest to the House. Under the old scheme, accounts of receipts and revenue, stock and store accounts, and the trading accounts to which I have just referred, were only audited on behalf of the Treasury by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Now the growth in the importance of these accounts, and the necessity of maintaining Parliamentary control over them, is recognised in this Bill by enacting that in future these trading accounts, stock and store accounts, and accounts of receipts and revenue, shall be audited not only on behalf of the Treasury, but officially and formally on behalf of this House, so that the responsibility of this House over them through its officer, the Auditor-General, is, as it were, signalised by statute. The opportunity is taken of dealing with two other matters affecting the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Office. Under the general rise in the rates of salary of the principal officers of the Departments, the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General was raised from £2,000 to £3,000. As the House is aware, the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is paid, not out of Votes, but out of the Consolidated Fund, and that is done in order to mark the exceptional independence, freedom and dignity of the position of this great officer of the House of Commons. That being so, the change having been made in the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it is essential, and I think the House would require, that power should be taken by statute to pay any addition to the salary in the same way as the original salary was paid, so that in no respect should the independence of that officer be qualified by any part of his salary even being paid out of the Votes of Parliament.

Finally, to cover my brief review of the provisions of the Bill, the opportunity is taken to provide for the discontinuance and the abolition of the office of Assistant Comptroller and Auditor. This is a contribution towards economy. It will make an immediate saving of £1,600 a year, but I would mention that this is not, as it were a measure of recent consideration in any sudden or emotional concession to the demands of economy. There is a very remarkably long and continuous chain of evidence by all the great experts who have known the position of Comptroller or Assistant Comptroller that this office is redundant, reaching back from the present holder of the office to those devoted retired gentleman who still are with us, and who held that office in the past. A careful inquiry would, I think, be convincing that there are very definite gains of organisation and efficiency to be obtained by the abolition of this office. For the Assistant Comptroller-General there will be substituted a senior official who will fill the office of Secretary, and, of course, at a reduced salary; and that is where the saving comes in. This will have two specific advantages beside the economy, that it will improve the personal responsibility of the Comptroller towards this House, because under the existing system the Assistant-Comptroller has a status of semi-independence, or even more than that in the absence of the Comptroller himself, leading to an awkward and curious division of responsibility between these two officers.

In the second place, it will present that encouragement which is obtained from a prospect of promotion to an office of responsibility inside the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Office, a prospect which has hitherto been lacking for the encouragement of the staff of that office. The Public Accounts Committee have approved, in the letter to which I have referred, of this change subject to an assurance which they require and it is this, that the officer who shall be appointed to the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Office shall have a status, such as they describe, adequate to the discharge of the duties of great importance, difficulty, and responsibility to the Public Accounts Committee. This assurance, on behalf of the Government, I need not say I hasten to give, and to say that the recommendation of the Committee in that respect has the assent and shall be as far as possible put into practice by the Government in dealing with appointments in the future. I also hasten to give them the assurance they require as regards certain personal aspects in this letter as to the holder, and the succession in the office.

In the whole of this important, but not very structural change in the scheme of audit, the Government have received the assistance, support, and advice of the expert Committee to which I have referred, and in particular throughout from the present holder of the office, the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I may seize this opportunity to say a word on that point that, I think, the House will expect in view of the fact that the present Comptroller and Auditor-General is retiring after 36 years' public service. This includes six years as Assistant-Controller, and ten years as Auditor-General. As the House well knows, the Comptroller and Auditor-General is a person independent of the Executive and a servant of this House. Sir Henry J. Gibson's long service in that office covered the particular and great difficulties of the War period, when the magnitude of the public expenditure was enormous, and the difficulties of audit unparalleled in the history of the office. These services have brought him into contact with many Members of the House. The House will wish, I think, to pay a tribute to his high devotion to public duty and his exacting labour on their behalf. He has risen in his office to the height of the great occasion of the War and the great task imposed upon him.

It is quite evident from the statement which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made that this Bill is not one which is at all likely to pass without pretty adequate discussion, and I would, therefore, ask the Leader of the House, who is expected here in a moment, or in his absence, the Patronage Secretary, whether the Debate on this Order should not be adjourned. There was a very clear understanding, which I am certain the Government wish to honour, not only in the letter, but in the spirit, that on this occasion there should be ample time allowed for the discussion of the next Order. There seems very likely to be a very acute division of opinion followed by a Division in the Lobby, and there should be full Parliamentary opportunity in this regard. The point I wish to put is this: that a full Parliamentary opportunity will not be given if we start a discussion, it now being 12.30, an hour and a half hence. I therefore urge that the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate might now well come from the Treasury Bench.

I must apologise for the absence of the Leader of the House who has been detained, and who, I expect, will be in the House in a minute or two. In the meantime I should like to say that I quite agree there was an understanding that an opportunity should be afforded for the discussion of the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills). I was given to understand that this Order, the Exchequer and Audit Departments Bill, is not likely to excite a long discussion, and as a matter of fact when you, Mr. Speaker, put the Question from the Chair I saw only one Member rise.

There were plenty going to rise!

May I suggest to my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) that this discussion might be continued till one o'clock, say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—and if then there be no chance of the discussion being finished, the Treasury should move the Adjournment of the Debate. At the present moment I have, however, no indication that the discussion will be prolonged, and that the Bill will not pass.

I have made it my business to inquire, and I find that there is a considerable amount of opposition to the present Bill. Under these circumstances I would suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no advantage in going on longer, and so risk spoiling of the next Debate without being able to finish this.

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I have not had the advantage of making those inquiries that the Noble Lord has made. Naturally I accept his word.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

I beg to move: Service is that women are not being admitted on the same terms as men, and just because they are women they are receiving smaller pay than men. It is no exaggeration to say that the difference in the treatment of women and men has become greater, and the position of women has worsened during the last two years. If the letters I receive are any indication of the actual position, I can safely say that at no time in the history of this country has there been such deep discontent in regard to the treatment which women are receiving. All through the Service this state of things cannot be a good thing in the public interest, and if it can be remedied I appeal to the Government to do it.

That position is more extraordinary because last May this House passed, without a division, a Resolution which opened the public service to women on the same conditions as to men. That Resolution was passed, and although the Government opposed it, they did not take the matter to a division, and it was passed unanimously. Since then, however, it has been completely a dead letter. That is rather extraordinary, and perhaps the House will allow me to run through the stages whereby we have arrived at the present position. At the end of 1919 the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act was passed. In February of the next year the Whitley Council of the Civil Service reported, and their report is one of extreme importance, which I shall deal with later on. After that Report there came the Resolution of the House to which I have referred, which declared the Service of the Crown open to women on the same terms as to men. In August last year the Orders in Council under the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act were laid on the Table of this House, and subsequently the Regulations were also laid on the Table. The House will remember that the first Section of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act purported to remove the bar of sex and marriage in regard to women, but it enabled the Government to lay down Regulations governing the admission of women to the Civil Service. After a good deal of discussion, in November last year, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), the then Leader of the House agreed to give a day for the discussion of those Regulations, and that discussion was postponed and postponed for a period of nearly eight months, and it is in consequence of that pledge that we are now discussing this matter. The Resolution I am moving is in three parts. The first paragraph is as follows: vice, and how far they ought to receive equal pay.

The objections which a great many hon. Members feel can be placed under four heads. The general objection is that women's work is less valuable than men's work, and that women all round are less efficient servants of the State than men. As to that, I would only say that I am the last to suggest, if that be true, that they should be employed, but I do say that until you have tried them fairly alongside men, you have no right to say that they are inferior, and you cannot say that until you have allowed them into the Civil Service at the same door as men passed through, and when they do get in you cannot judge until you have placed them on the same establishment lists as the men. Women are now admitted by a, different door. Men come in by free and open competitive examinations; women are admitted by a Board of Selection, with all the evils of patronage which must attach to the best system of selection. When they are in they are placed in separate establishments, and consequently you cannot compare their work with that of men. Consequently when hon. Members say that women's work all round is less valuable than that of men, I say if it is then let women find some other business, and let the men run the Civil Service entirely.

I will deal with another argument, the family argument, which I believe weighs with a great many hon. Members. It is said that a man has a good many more commitments in the way of his family, and therefore ought to receive a larger salary. It is not nearly so broadly true as stated. Since the War especially, women have larger commitments in the sense of dependants. There are widows and wives deserted by their husbands, sisters who educate brothers at school, and daughters who help to support their mothers. If you get at the facts, you will find that a great many women are supporting dependants. The real argument, however, against that kind of reasoning is that nobody ever has paid a wage on the family responsibility of the man. A man with 12 children is not paid at 12 times the rate of a man with one. You pay for the value of the work, and, if women give equal work and are entitled to equal pay, then any family obligation, if it be recognised at all, ought to be the business of the State and not of the employer. I think that states fairly the general argument which many Members feel that women are of less value than men. The second objection is the ex-service man. I believe it is common ground with every section of opinion that the ex-service men should receive the most generous treatment. I fully and frankly admit that where there are ex-service men available women for the time have got to stand aside. I am arguing this case, however, not so much on what prevails to-day, as on what we shall find when the transition period is past and when the ex-service man has been absorbed and normal times return. I fully admit the claim of the ex-service man to generous treatment.

The third argument, I think, is more important, and I am sure will weigh strongly with this House. It is the argument of economy. It is said, "If women are Cheaper than men, and they will do the work at lower rates, why not pay them lower rates and save money for the State?" I agree that the economy argument at the present day is a difficult one to meet, and I admit that I have voted against the Government often on the question of expenditure. I shall be told, "Yes, you always vote against the Government on expenditure, but when it comes to a special case you press the Government to spend money." That is quite true, but, before the House commits itself to paying women less than they are worth just because they are women and will work cheaply, do let it see what it is doing. I do not ask that anybody should be paid excessively. If they are not worth the money, dismiss them and engage men in their places. Do hon. Members, however, think it right to pay people less than they think they ought to receive just because they are women? I thought that we had got beyond all that when we passed the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act. Just look at the evils into which you are running. You will have all the dangers of undercutting; you will have women degrading men's wages, and, above all, you will have a most bitter and uncomfortable sex war. That is bound to start, because men will not for long allow women to come in and undercut them. What occurred during the War? The House will remember that vast numbers of women went into the engineering trades, and the Engineering Union said, "If you come in, you must not come in at black-legging rates." No doubt the Engineering Unions were thinking of their own self-interest to a certain extent, but, after all, it is self-interest which makes the world go round, and I do not object to it. Sooner or later, if you have two classes, one paid at a lower rate than the other, though they do the same work, you must have a quarrel, and you may have a very bitter struggle before you. Does not the House think it a bit mean to avail itself of women's work because it is Cheaper? After all, if the work be not good, do not pay anything for it; but, if it be good work, do not pay less than it is worth.

I come to the last of the four objections which, I think, the House feels—the Report of the Whitley Council. That Council reported in February of last year. Sir, I admit at once the hight authority of any council bearing your name; I admit also that they have reported in favour of unequal pay and of different status, but I want to make certain qualifications. First of all, that Council was composed of members inside the Civil Service. On one side there were the official members, and on the other side the staff members. The outside women who want to come in had no representatives on the Committee at all, and even the inside women—those who are engaged—were very sparsely represented. Out of 23 members, there were only four women. Thirdly, the staff side, it is quite clear from the Report, were very reluctant to report against equal entry and equal pay. They expressly said that their Report must be regarded as transitional and that after five years the whole position ought to be reviewed.

My real point is that you cannot expect a departmental body such as the Whitley Council to decide a big question of policy. Whether you pay men and women equally is a tremendous public question, and you cannot leave it to a council of your civil servants to decide. It is for the Government to decide. I want to say once more that the House, at any rate, has expressed its opinion, for in May of last year, three months after the Report of the Whitley Council, the House unanimously passed a Resolution in flat contra- diction of that Report, although the Debate turned on that Report, it being mentioned in every speech. Therefore, so far as the House is concerned, it turned down that Report, but, as I have said, the Government have disregarded the Resolution of the House, and I am certain, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to speak, he will lay great weight on the Whitley Report. I wonder what would have happened if the positions had been reversed? Assume that the Whitley Council's Report had been against what the. Government want, assume that it had reported in favour of equal pay and equal opportunity, assume that three months later the House had passed a Resolution refusing equal pay and equal opportunity, would not the Government have come down and said that the House had turned down the Report and that they must have regard to the decision of the House? Every Member knows that they would have done so. It is no good therefore for the Government to hide behind the Whitley Report. It is their decision, and they must take the responsibility. We all know perfectly well that if that Report had not embodied what they want, they would have paid no regard to it for one moment.

1.0 P.M.

For all these reasons I say that, although the Whitley Council is a perfectly proper body to discuss questions of grading, classification, salaries, and hours, it is not a proper body to settle a principle that must vitally affect our political organisation for years to come, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he speaks, will deal with the question on these broad lines. It is a very big question, it is not merely a scramble for more money. It has its ethical and ideal side. It is a claim for a full citizenship, and for the full effect of the removal of the bar of sex. Although I do not discount the value of a good salary, and I admit that salary is largely regarded as an index to ability, I do press still more strongly for equality of opportunity, and I am not sure I shall not have the Government behind me on this. If, as I expect will be the case, they make great complaint of the expense of paying women the same as men, I would press that they go a step further and open the door still more widely to the cheaply paid women. If women are cheaper than men, if you want to save money, then employ more women. When I come to the Regulations themselves, I see that in two classes—the junior grade of the administrative or higher class, and the junior grade of the clerical class, women are chosen by boards of selection. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is not the case that since the war both men and women are being admitted to the Service by selection boards. They are coming in on the same terms. That is all right, but is it not the fact that from some near date in the future there will be an examination held of men for one-half of the vacancies, and that the other half of the vacancies are to be reserved for ex-service men. I am told that that is so, and if it be the case, I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to open the one-half of the door for the admission of women on the same terms as men. You never will have peace unless you do that. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know his mind on this question is far more acute than mine. On what basis of principle will you choose women unless the examination is thrown open? You will have to refer this question to this or that board, one board will judge by one standard and another by another standard. One board will select a girl because she behaves prettily to middle-aged gentlemen. One board will select a candidate because she has a University degree. The women one's friends marry form one of the eternal surprises of life, but they will be nothing to the surprises of these boards' selections. You will get the wildest difference, and through all there will run an undercurrent of suspicion and resentment because people will not understand. The system of public examination has killed patronage. Examination is impersonal. You are just a number. You are examined on a paper. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will mark the danger of a deep suspicion, whether justified or not, running all through the Service of the work of boards of selection. I have had many cases brought to my notice where patronage is charged. I have refused to deal with them for obvious reasons. The charges may be true or not, but they are being made and others will be made in the future. We do not want to have this sort of thing, but unless we admit women to the examinations it would crop up.

When you have admitted women, do not segregate them. You now have what is called assimilation. What does that mean? Assimilation for men means that they are being assimilated and graded up; for women it means that they are being assimilated and graded down. I am told that that is absolutely true. It must be the result if you still regard women as an inferior class. The effect of assimilation is that women who are doing the same work as men are paid on a lower standard. There are no prizes for them. They are going down into separate inferior grades for the whole of their professional lives. On these great questions of entry and common service and equal pay the future relations of men and women depend. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to check the ideas that some people are endeavouring to carry on from pre-War periods. We have now decreed that women are equal to men and shall have equal chances. I want a chance for them to serve the State on equal terms. I look forward to the Civil Service as a great common service, each sex contributing their best. I do not say that men and women should be interchangeable, in fact I say that as civilisation progresses they are more and more differentiated. Each has a great work to perform for the State, and we cannot get the best out of women by keeping them eternally in inferior positions.

I beg to second the Motion.

It seems to me that the issues before the House are very clear. In the first place, are we, as individual Members of Parliament, going to carry out the pledges we gave at the last Election? Secondly, are we, as Members of the House of Commons, going to insist that upon this question the will of Parliament shall prevail? As to the pledge, I do not think I need argue it at all. Any Member who stood at the last Election as a Coalition candidate tacitly or overtly supported the Manifesto that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Conservative party as regards equal treatment of men and women. As to the House of Commons, my hon. and gallant Friend has already reminded the House that on three separate occasions it has defifinitely declared for the equal treatment of men and women—first of all upon a private Member's Bill, when, against the Government Whips, we carried the principle; secondly, up the Resolution proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend, when the Government, taking wisdom from their former experience, refused to face a Division at all; and, thirdly, by the Government's own Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill, in which implicitly it was admitted that, in the matter of the Civil Service, men and women were to be treated equally. How could it have been otherwise? By what conceivable line of argument can a woman be elected to this House when you refuse to allow her to compete for an ordinary examination for the Civil Service? By what conceivable line of argument can you say that a woman can become a Cabinet Minister, and can receive the full pay of a Cabinet Minister, while she is not to receive the ordinary £500 a year of a First Division clerk? By what conceivable line of argument can you allow a woman to become Prime Minister, and refuse that in the ordinary course of events she should become the head of a section in a minor Government Department?

It seems to me that to these questions there is only one answer. You cannot take the line that between men and women there is the difference that a man enters a profession as his permanent life's work whereas a woman does not. That is not true. It can be proved by statistics that a large number of women are prepared to enter the permanent Civil Service as their life's work. But even if it were true, neither the Government nor this House can urge that objection. After the House has three times declared that men and women are to be treated equally, it is over-ridden altogether. The case seems to be so strong that I can quite imagine many hon. Members asking themselves the question, Why is it, in view of these repeated decisions of the House of Commons, that, on a Friday afternoon, at the end of a long Session, we should be called upon again to debate the matter? Unfortunately there has been a sinister fate hanging over women's questions in this House. It is not necessary to go back to what took place in the last Parliament; it is sufficient simply to remind hon. Members of what has happened time after time when the moment has arrived to carry out the pledges that we gave to women on our election. Individually and collectively we have given many pledges, but it has been a most unfortunate fact that time after time, both in the last Parliament and, possibly, in this Parliament, when the moment has come to carry out the pledges, it has been said, "Oh, it was not this particular pledge, it was something else"; or it was said, "The moment is not opportune, you must wait a little bit longer." I am afraid that, if the Government oppose this Resolution, the same charge that was made with such force against our action in the last Parliament over the question of women's franchise will be rightly urged against them in this respect.

What has happened? The House has declared unanimously for equal treatment of men and women, and yet, when it comes to carrying that into effect, we are faced with Treasury Regulations setting up all kinds of checks and balances that are to be applied exclusively to women, making it difficult for women already in the service to be promoted, making vacancies very few for new women to come in, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend has just said, having the effect of setting up two Civil Services, the one a big and open one for men and the other a restricted and hole-and-corner service for women. In view, therefore, of these facts, we have to come back to this House and put the case before it. We want the House to carry out in fact the principles which it has already affirmed in the Division Lobby. We do not want to go further than the Resolution which the whole House supported unanimously a year and a half ago. As my hon. and gallant Friend has just said, we realise any practical difficulties, and are prepared to meet them. We realise, first of all, that the first claim rightly goes to the ex-service men, and in my hon. and gallant Friend's Resolution that is explicitly stated. Speaking for myself, I can point to the many occasions on which I have pressed the Treasury, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in particular, to give even better treatment to ex-service men than they are given at the present time; and I should be the last Member of this House to say that, in questions of admission to the Civil Service, and retention in the Civil Service after admission, the ex-service men have not the first claim. Secondly, we frankly realise that there are a number of technical positions which must obviously be restricted to men; and, thirdly, we realise that, with the number of temporary men and women already in the Civil Service, there must be a short interim period before you can bring the permanent conditions into effect. But, making those three reservations frankly and definitely, we do say that after that the conditions of admission must be equal

I venture to express an opinion on this question for this reason. For many years before this Parliament, I was a member of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, and I have perhaps, on that account, more than most hon. Members, had an opportunity of seeing the inner workings of Government offices. One fact that particularly impressed itself upon my mind was the great drawback of having a number of different examinations and a number of different conditions for people who were doing very much the same kind of work. Surely at this time of the day, with all the experience that we have had in Civil Service administration, it cannot be contended that you should have a. different system of admission from that which you apply to men. Why should you have different boards of selection? Why should you have selection at all? I notice with interest that in asking that question I have the support of no less a Member than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. On 19th May, 1920, the hon. Gentleman used these words: reason: Why, if you allow the same examination to men and women who wish to matriculate at the University or to pass the History of Great Schools of Oxford University, should you have a separate examination for them in the Civil Service? So we say the examination must be the same for both. We say, secondly, that the conditions of service must be the same. Surely anyone who has had any experience of the administration of a large office must accept the fact that it is a great cause of discontent and inefficiency to have people doing very much the same work under different conditions of service, I do not think I need argue that point.

As to the question of equal pay, my hon. and gallant Friend has already stated the case. It seems to me that if you do not pay women the same as you pay men one of two things is bound to happen. Either you will depress the wages of the men or, in your desire for economy, you will make the public service a women's service, and that is just the danger that is facing us now in teaching. There is every risk now, from the fact that we pay women teachers less than we pay men teachers, either of men's salaries being reduced or the whole teaching profession becoming a women's profession, a result that I should be very sorry to see. There in a few sentences is our case, and it seems to me a very strong one. But behind the actual details of our case there is the very grave question of political justice and expediency. Surely at a moment when we are faced with every conceivable problem of national reconstruction the obvious course to take is to attract to the public service all the ability that we can, whether it be in men or women, and throw the doors open and try to get in, not only the able men, but the able women as well. Moreover it seems to me that the danger to the stability of the State is not the few very foolish people who wave red or black or white flags, but the exclusion from the work of the State of any large section of educated opinion. That was the trouble in Russia. It was the exclusion of large sections of the educated class that went far to make the Russian revolution. That is what I am afraid may happen if we maintain the policy of keeping out of the active work of the State any large section of educated citizens. I say to my Conservative friends that they will be doing an ill-service to the Conservative party if they try to set up a Chinese wall to keep educated women out of the service of the State, but they will be doing a far worse service to the country as a whole if, by clinging to the worn-out weapon of male monopoly, they leave unsatisfied the justifiable aspirations of educated women.

I have listened with great pleasure to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, and I think the whole House agrees that a case has been made out for the equal treatment of women in the Civil Service, but in my opinion they have not faced the very great difficulty of the situation. When we are contending for equal pay between man and woman we must not fail to recognise that in the life of the community man carries a greater responsibility than woman in this sense, that the homes of our country and the lives of our children are dependent very largely upon the earnings of the husband. I should be glad if the supporters of the Resolution would be prepared to treat this question from the point of view that the single man and the single woman shall receive the same pay for similar work, but that the married man shall receive an accretion to his salary on account of his wife and an accretion to his salary for each of his children over and above the salary paid to a single woman. It is a debatable point whether it is not desirable that we should take into consideration this fact, that there is thrown a responsibility upon the shoulders of the male section of the community which we cannot neglect. The proposal of the Mover and Seconder is that an unmarried woman shall claim the same amount of pay as a man.

I am not contesting the moral liability of the State to pay a woman an equal amount for the work that she does alongside a man, but we cannot get away from the fact that in our Income Tax law special arrangements are made in respect of a married man, his wife and children, and I should like a similar arrangement put into operation in regard to the question raised by this Resolution. We must recognise that men have a duty which is forced upon them by the State. They are responsible for the feeding, clothing, and upbringing of their family, and I do not think it is quite right to say that an unmarried woman should get the same pay, and that for the 20 or 30 years that she remains in the Civil Service she is to have the same emolument as a man who is responsible for maintaining a wife and perhaps five or six children. That is a weak spot in the argument of the supporters of the Motion. I am in favour, and I think we are all in favour, of the removal of any inequality and injustice in regard to the treatment of women, but the proposal as it is on the Paper is not only going to give women equal treatment with men, but it is going to provide that an unmarried woman should be placed at a greater advantage compared with a man who has a wife and family to maintain. If the Mover and Seconder of the Motion could incorporate something in the Motion to meet the point that I have raised, it would be a sound and sensible contribution towards the solution of what is at present a somewhat difficult problem, and one which the whole House is anxious to see ameliorated.

I do not know what the attitude of the Government is going to -be upon this Resolution, but I purposely intervene at this stage in order to appeal to them to give effect to what I am satisfied is the general opinion of the House, namely, that in substance and in spirit, I do not say in all its terms and phrases, this Resolution ought to be accepted. During my political life I have opposed with a good deal of strenuous-ness, under not very comfortable conditions, the claims of the other sex to the franchise, but even when my fighting armour was in its best trim in that campaign, I always acknowledged, and have done my best to give effect to, the view that, as regards the great professions, and particularly the service of the State, women ought to be placed on a precise equality with men. I may indeed claim, although I am afraid I got very little credit for it from the sex to which I am referring, to be a pioneer in this matter. When I was at the Home Office, nearly 30 years ago, I introduced the appointment for the first time of women as inspectors in factories. It was considered by the State officials at that date to be a dangerous proposition. They shook their heads, and they did not sleep comfortably at nights. It would be an interesting revelation of the progress of opinion in this matter if one could turn up some of the old Minutes of the Home Office in those days. It was suggested that the women would get their petticoats in the machines, and also it was suggested that it would be most unseemly that they should go about at night alone in the workshops.

Hear, hear!

My right hon. Friend says "hear, hear." Instead of being something in the nature of a sparrow on the house-top, he would in those days have found a very large number to flock round him. We have advanced. We made a very modest beginning in the admission of women to the inspectorate in those days, but we have not gone back on it in any way. On the contrary, it has been developed upon an ever-increasing scale, and all must admit, even the right hon. Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) will admit, that it has had most beneficial results, particularly in regard to women and girls in our factories and workshops. That is one of the things which are excluded from the scope of this Resolution, and I only give it by way of illustration to show how efficient women, when they are put to it, can discharge functions in the service of the State which, up to a very short time ago, were jealously reserved for our own sex. The matter, of course, does not stand where it did in those days. We have now not only a Resolution of this House, but we have on the Statute Book an Act for the removal of sex disqualification, and I cannot get out, indeed I do not see how any of us can get out, of the plain language in the first Clause of that Statute: examination should not be applied to ascertain the qualifications both for men and for women. In a very conservative institution with which I have the honour of being connected, the University of Oxford, for years past women have been admitted to the same examinations as men, and won the highest honours sometimes, and now I am glad to say that women are admitted to Degrees and they appear in the same class lists as the men without any distinction. If that is good enough for the University of Oxford, why is it not good enough for the Civil Service? What possible grounds are there for maintaining this distinction which is inconsistent with the statutory declaration, and which is without any corresponding or compensating advantage on the mere question of expediency? That is the first point and the most important point, and if that is agreed to, a large step will have been taken towards the removal of the anomaly.

There is another point of which I confess I was not sufficiently aware until I heard the speeches of my two hon. Friends, a point which arises after women have been admitted to the Civil Service. Now, when reorganisation is going on and you are endeavouring to obtain what is called assimilation, is it true that in the regrading that is going on in the vast majority of cases the regrading takes place to the prejudice of the women and to the advantage of the men? If that is so, it is a very serious inroad on the principle of equality which Parliament deliberately sanctioned. I say nothing about the question of pay, but speaking for myself, and I believe for the majority of Members who have given pledges to their constituents on the subject, what we are asking for, and what I hope and believe the women themselves are asking for, is not a status of privilege. For instance, if after an open examination to which both sexes are admitted on level terms, a woman gets in, and, as is often the case at present, comes well out of the examination but does not maintain that position afterwards, if having gone in on a level footing she turns out to be inefficient or less efficient than her male competitors in the discharge of her duties, no one contends that she ought to have a position of priority or preference, and that others should be passed over in favour of her if there is any question of promotion or preferment. There is no such claim made. What you want is to have an efficient Civil Service. Everything must be subordinate to that prime consideration, but you will get an efficient Civil Service, I am satisfied, more easily and in the long run more successfully by throwing open the doors as wide as possible for entrance to examinations and allowing no discrimination purely on account of sex. On these grounds I trust that the Government may see their way to come to an arrangement with the promoters of this Resolution, because if we can have something like unanimity it would be a great advantage.

I rise to support the Mover and Seconder of this Motion. After the remarks of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), the only reason which I can give for endeavouring to press this matter on the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to demonstrate the fact that the greatest in this House arc sometimes supported by the least. It would be a truism to recall that the whole history of civilisation has been marked by the growing emancipation of women. One of the first things one notices is the fact that women get rights and that disabilities are removed. In this country fortunately we have reached a very far point in the emancipation of women, and the delightful political paradox as to when is a woman not a woman, or when can a woman legally be a man, was decided in December, 1919, by the Removal of Sex Disqualification Bill. Hon Members are familiar with the relevant Clause which says that a person shall not be disqualified by sex. There was a provision which went on to say: to be discontinued the Civil Service were to be in a position to make special regulations for particular departments and particular appointments. The Civil Service, if one can gather their intentions from their actions, consequent on the Act and the subsequent resolution, have gone in for a system of studied exclusion. It appears as if as far as in them lies they propose to resist the undoubted claim of women to advancement and high position.

If Members of the Government were less conscientious it would be proper to point out to them that women have great weight in these days in the direction of the country's affairs. There is no question that women and women's organisations in very large numbers feel the fact to which I have referred as a distinct grievance to the sex; and though it cannot affect the policy of the Government, as they would not be guided by any such low considerations, perhaps the fact may give them seriously to think as to whether they are carrying out the wishes of those who elected them. We have exactly the same thing at the Bar. Women as members are now admitted to the Bar and may practise, in some garb or other which has not yet been decided, on equal terms with men. Like the undergraduates at Oxford they pass the same law examinations, they eat the same dinners, and I have no reason to believe that they do not drink the same wines. At any rate they meet on terms of exact equality. That was resisted, resisted, it is now admitted, by members when were afraid that the competition might take their work from them. The country looks to the Government in the future to fix the colour of its own behaviour. The country sees that there are in fact real disqualifications in the Civil Service. There are different examinations, different restrictions, and a difference in promotion. This House has said that those must be swept away. I hope that the Government will readily accept the will of the House and will accept the Resolutions which are on the Paper to-day, and will give us a guarantee that our wishes will be carried out at the earliest possible opportunity.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has made some rather startling statements. First of all he says that civilisation has been improved when women have been emancipated.

That was not what I intended. What I intended to say was that civilisation was marked in its progress by the emancipation of women.

"The emancipation of women" is a big phrase. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member means that where women are no longer shut up in harems, and compelled to wear veils, there is an advance of civilisation. That may or may not be, but if the hon. and gallant Member means that when women have been given the vote there has been an advance in civilisation I beg leave to differ from him. I do not think that our civilisation has advanced in the last year and a-half; rather the reverse. I think the position of the country ten years ago was far better than it is now. An allusion has been made to votes. I am afraid that votes very often influence, I will not say Members of this House—they might possibly be influenced—but they influence certain people, and make them think that the object they have to secure is not to do the right thing but to obtain votes. I see that the Prime Minister is present. I am not sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be made an Under-Secretary at once, for having said that the Government were not influenced by votes. The Prime Minister agrees. It is news to me. I was always under the impression that, if not always, the Government were sometimes a little influenced by votes. Now we shall have an opportunity of seeing whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right or whether I am right, for we can judge by the action of the Government to-day. I hope they will rise superior to the occasion and dismiss all questions of votes and move the rejection of the Motion, in which case I shall be very glad to support them in the Lobby.

I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) is not here. He said that if it could be proved that women's work was not as efficient as men's work he had nothing further to say, but he added that that had not been proved. I say it has been proved, and I will give two illustrations which have come within my own knowledge. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) made some allusion to factories, but I think he admitted that that did not come within the Motion we are discussing. I know an instance where women's work in a factory was as efficient as men's work. I allude to the recapping of 18-pounder shells, which was done at our works on the Great Northern Railway during the War. That work was done by women, and I was very much struck by their efficiency and by the amount of work they did. It was light work, and a woman's hand is quick. Whether they were able to keep it up I do not know. With regard to clerical work I have had some experience. I was for many years a bank director, and I conceived the idea that it would be advisable to try women as clerks. I met with considerable opposition, but eventually we did try a few women. Then the War came and we employed more. I had an investigation made quite genuinely as to their work, and the officials of the bank informed me that they had come to the conclusion that it required three women to do the work of two men.

On the Great Northern Railway, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, we employed a considerable number of women as clerks. I took considerable interest in their work. I went to the accountant's department, as I thought that was the best department from which to get statistics, and I asked the accountant to find out whether in the opinion of the other heads of departments, and to tell me whether in his opinion, the work of women compared favourably with that of the men. I said nothing whatever to him about the bank, but he gave me the same report—it took three women to do the work of two men. I do not say that that is the case everywhere, but I think it is a fair presumption that in the majority of cases where clerical work has to be done, a woman cannot do the work of a man. What they told me in both cases, more especially in the case of the bank, was that women did very well for 4 or 5 hours, but that after that they seemed to get confused and they could not keep their attention concentrated in the same way as the men. In these days when we should be straining every effort to save money, it would be wrong to put in women and pay them the same wages as men if they are unable to do the same work.

Yesterday I received an interesting circular, and I am sorry to say I have left it at home, for I did not know that this Motion was coming on. To-day I have had a document from the same body. It is the Association of Women Clerks and Secretaries, "affiliated to the Trade Union Congress." In their communication yesterday they said that they were concerned about the dismissals of women from the Civil Service, in order to make room for ex-service men. They said they had no objection to the dismissal of women in order to make room for disabled ex-service men, but they did object to the dismissal of women in order to make room for Grade 1 men, and the reason they gave was that the women were doing the work much more cheaply than the men; and in view of the economies which ought to be practised, it was, in their opinion, wrong to dismiss the women. In the document which I have before me, they say that the saving would be £1,560,000 a year. I put down a question yesterday to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what the saving would be if these women were retained instead of being replaced by Grade 1 men.

The point I raise now is that the women seem divided among themselves. Here is an association which, I presume, commends itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite because it is affiliated to the Trade Union Congress. The association's point is not that the women are not getting enough wages, but that they should be kept on because they are cheaper. The Motion now before the House says that women are to be paid the same wages as men. The two things do not agree. This is only further proof of the complete inconsistency of women.

Shame! That is not true.

There is something to be said for the point of view that women who entered the Civil Service when they were wanted should not now be turned out by any body of men. Where disabled men can be taken in, it is a different thing, but I am not at all sure that during the War women did not do in their way just as great service as men. Since the days of the Amazons women have not gone to war, and I do not know whether the argument used by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) means that civilisation was improved by the exploits of the Amazons. In any case women did the best they could during the War; they are deserving of consideration, and they should not be lightly dismissed from the Civil Service—

Hear, hear!

Especially if they are doing the work cheaper.

No, no!

I am not sure whether the hon. Member agrees or disagrees with me.

I disagree.

2.0 P.M.

That is, on second thoughts. It has also been suggested that if women do not do their work as well as men in the Civil Service they can be dismissed. That is a moot point. I have tried to obtain from representatives of the Treasury and the Civil Service a statement as to whether or not any civil servant can be dismissed, and it was very difficult to get—I will not say a straightforward, but an accurate and comprehensible, statement, as to whether they can or not. It is said, "Of course they can be dismissed," but when one asks "on what grounds" the reply is, "Oh, well, supposing they do not behave really properly." What it really comes to is this: that as long as a civil servant attends the office at whatever hour he is required, and as long as he does not go away before his time, and as long as he does not commit any very gross breach of the regulations, he ascends in the scale, whatever his capacity may be. He is just as secure in his seat as I hope I am in the City of London. Therefore I think we may dismiss the idea that women, if they are admitted into this or any other Civil Service, can be dismissed for such a very insignificant reason as that of not doing as much work as somebody else in their Department. The Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) drew an illustration between this proposal and the examinations at Oxford, but I could not for the life of me see what the two things had got to do with each other. At Oxford, according to the right hon. Gentleman, women are taken as undergraduates, and are admitted to the same examinations as men, and if they come out ahead of men they are recognised accordingly. What has that got to do with doing work in the Civil Service? Examinations have got nothing whatever to do with this case. Personally, I think we attach much too great importance to examinations. I never passed an examination myself, and I suppose I am not more deficient in ability than the minority of this House. I think we are inclined to attach much more importance to these examinations than we should. Whether examinations be good or bad, the fact that men and women compete in the same examination, has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether women ought to be let into the Civil Service to occupy the same positions and receive the same salaries as men. This is really one of those Resolutions which appeal to the sentimental heart of this community. I am very much afraid that during the last few years, whether it is owing to the larger part women have been playing in affairs or not—the hon. and gallant Member for Durham seems to think we have improved very much— but since We gave these facilities to women, we have certainly grown much more sentimental, which I think is a wrong thing. You never do anything by being sentimental.

Hear, hear!

The hon. Member first disagrees with me and then she agrees with me. I cannot say which course she means to follow. Women are always inconsistent. Sentiment is all very well in its way, but it is not any good in business or in managing the affairs of a great country like ours. You have got to look at the practical facts of everything. Sometimes you have got to say, "Though I should like to do so and so, I must come to the conclusion that in the long run it is better to take up a hard position." You have often to turn a deaf ear where your own inclination would lead you to lend a willing ear. There are many cases in which the kinder action is to take up the hard position, and go back to the old economic laws and to the laws of Nature. One of the laws of Nature is that man is not the same as woman, and that woman cannot do the work of man, and that man cannot do the work of woman. Therefore I sincerely hope that the Government, fortified by the presence of the Prime Minister, will resist this Amendment, and I shall have much pleasure in supporting them.

I am sure the House will agree that if hon. Members disagreed with the speech just delivered, they all enjoyed it. I think the right hon. Baronet will forgive me if I add that the fact that he has opposed this Resolution places its success beyond the shadow of a doubt. The arguments which the right hon. Gentleman used regarding the employment of women in factories and other establishments during the War were very largely wide of the issue. The introduction, temporarily, of certain labour which could scarcely attain a high degree of skill for the work, and could not be expected to adapt itself very readily to many of the occupations, is another matter. While we were in the difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, women adapted themselves in a very remarkable way, and made a remarkable contribution to material output, and I think they are entitled to our gratitude. The problem before us this afternoon is, however, one of trying to give practical effect to a policy and a principle in the State which is commonly accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people. We have argued in terms of equality of the sexes, and we have done our best so far to give more or less complete equality as regards the franchise. It is quite true that there still remains much to be overtaken under that head, but the difficulty which confronts many members of the community at this time is the giving practical effect to these changes in the industry and commerce of this country.

We on these benches take the view that sooner or later we have got to face that proposition, and we must make up our minds upon it at the earliest possible moment and see that it is brought about in the healthiest possible fashion in the interests of the community at large. In the Regulations which we are discussing this afternoon, there are two or three points which are manifestly out of date. Take, for example, the examination which was held in October, 1920, for men and women clerical workers in the Civil Service. If hon. Members turn to the record of that examination, they will find that in that case women were actually exposed to a severer test, so to speak, than the male candidates, and yet after wards they were placed in a lower grade, or their status was lower, although the assumption was that their qualifications must have been better because of the test which they passed. That worked out in practice as a kind of lower status for equal service, and I suggest that we shall never get anything like full efficiency in the Civil Service of this country, which must be recruited very largely from women workers, if we allow a state of affairs of that kind to continue.

Take, in the second place, the so-called marriage bar. We recognise that there is a very great deal to be said on both sides of that problem, but the fact is that at the moment women are debarred from many of the offices in the Civil Service on their marriage, or, if they are allowed to remain at all in the service, their prospects of promotion are very seriously curtailed. On the question of marriage, I think most hon. Members will be inclined to agree that within recent years in this country there has been a practical revolution, at least in thought, on that matter, and there has been a very great change in practice as well. It is now a common thing for large numbers of married women to seek occupations in the outside world and to supplement the income of the home by what they can earn in one or other of the Departments of the State, or in an outside calling. Let me make it perfectly clear that there is a great deal of division of opinion on that point. If, for example, we have a time in this country of widespread distress or unemployment, or if we have difficulty in finding work for comparatively large numbers of people in times other than times of distress, then the natural tendency is to try to spread occupations as far as we possibly can over the homes of the country, and not, as it were, to duplicate occupations and incomes in one home. Thus, if we had a husband in one case fully and remuneratively occupied, and if we had another case in which the head of a household had no occupation at all, we should try, other things being equal, to give the occupation to the unemployed head of the household, rather than to the wife of the man who was already engaged; but, of course, while one lays down a general principle of that kind, everyone knows that it is very difficult indeed to apply such principles in the service of the State or in the service of industry or commerce, because everything turns fundamentally on the qualifications. I only mention that this afternoon to bring out the difficulty that attaches to the discussion of the so-called marriage bar, and to show that it is something which reaches down to many of the most acute problems of income and the maintenance of the home, especially in times of crisis and difficulty similar to those through which we have passed; but, subject to any qualifications on the lines that I have just tried to describe, I think we must recognise that there is a large element of unfairness in debarring a woman either from promotion in the Service which she has already entered, or from continuing in the Service at all by the mere fact that she has been married, and if she desires to remain, and if she possesses the necessary qualifications, I think we should try, if possible, to retain her services for the State.

The third point to which I wish very briefly to draw attention is this question of selection. The utmost feeling has been raised by the proposal that selection should be regarded, not merely as a temporary device for the purpose of recruiting the Civil Service, but that it should actually be continued as a permanent part of the Civil Service recruiting scheme. Many of us who, unlike the right hon. baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), have had the misfortune to sit examinations are well aware that there is perhaps nothing so misleading as a mere record of marks in a competitive examination in which practically everything is written, but, of course, a, very large number of these written examinations are now supplemented by oral examination, which is designed not merely to find out what the candidate knows by way of oral question and reply, but also perhaps from some points of view to see what kind of candidate he is, and what is passing in his mind on the particular subject which is under discussion for examination purposes. I have always thought that is a very useful addition to the written test, and if oral examination on these lines was really what was in mind, I do not know that the objection would be so very strong; but I think it is altogether different when we pass out into a selection, which may possess very different qualities indeed, when in point of fact it is so very short in the great majority of cases that it is quite impossible to find out the type or the attitude of mind or the general outlook of the candidate at all, and when a very great deal would turn on other considerations which are perfectly irrelevant from the point of view of an efficient Civil Service in this country.

The hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) referred to another point, and we all know perfectly well the pressure which is brought to bear on Members of this House by correspondence, by interviews, and all the rest of it, to try to secure either special consideration for individual cases or facilities for interviews so far as Civil Service posts are concerned. Competitive examination really removes the personal element of the character I have just described, but I do not rule out that oral examination which in many cases seems to be a useful addition to what is written down on paper from time to time. These are three of the points on which we attack the Regulations which are either in force or proposed to be put in force in the near future, but this case, which we present as strongly as we can, and on which I have every reason to believe that some kind of working solution will be reached, rests really on far deeper and far broader grounds

Women are making their contribution as taxpayers in this country, and I think that that in itself would go a long way to entitle them to the fullest freedom, on terms of complete equality, to every post which the State has to offer, and which they can fill with reasonable success in the service of the community. They are contributors in that fundamental way, and that seems to me to establish the right. But, apart altogether from that fact, we have the political changes of the times to keep in mind. We have the extension of the franchise; we have this growing recognition of the equality of women and men so far as the exercise of the vote is concerned. In the third place, there has been a great change in the universities of this country, to which reference has already been made in Debate. I do not want to make any special plea for my own country, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular would agree that we in the Scottish universities were in many respects pioneers in this matter, and that where we led, the other universities of Oxford and Cambridge have followed. That, of course, is a most aggravating statement to make so far as the English universities are concerned. I merely make it for the purpose of bringing out the fact that, for a considerable time, in the provincial universities, at all events, the change in practice has taken place, and women are on terms of substantial equality.

I really think it should be remembered that the University of London was the first university in the Kingdom to admit women to degrees on the same terms as men.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I entirely agree. I was, of course, referring to the older universities, and more particularly to the contest which is still raging in one case, with which, of course, he will be familiar. That change is taking place in London and the provincial universities, and, of course, it follows that a very large number of women for the various posts in the Civil Service must be recruited from the graduates of those and other universities. Therefore, it is altogether intolerable that after we have arrived at terms of substantial equality in other directions, we are going to be confronted with a barrier when we have reached the Civil Service itself. These are the changes which have come about. I think they have paved the way for that complete equality which we are asking at the hands of the Government this afternoon, and I hope they will not stand in their own light by opposing this proposal, but will come down on the side of the really democratic principle in its application to the Civil Service.

It is not to be denied that there is a difficulty. The headmaster of one of our greatest public schools used to say that there is some hope for a boy who sees a difficulty when it occurs, but that there is none for those who cannot see it when it stares them in the face. The difficulty, it seems to me, might easily have been foreseen when votes were given to women. I cannot see how, under the present dispensation, anyone can properly and logically object to the Resolution of my hon. and gallant Friend. Obviously, when once the grant of the vote to women was conceded, it was perfectly obvious that this next stage must follow. Though I was not a very ardent advocate for women's suffrage, I admit that, now that we have it, we have to carry it to its logical conclusion. But that is not to say that you must point a pistol at the head of the Government and say they must in every particular put men and women on the same footing. The dilemma at present seems to me to be this: If the Government is to tax the fathers and the future husbands of the women in order to raise the women's remuneration, to what extent is the family, of which the woman is an unit—and, after all, she is an unit—a being on her own—to what extent is that family immediately to provide what, I presume, are the large sums which will be required if this Resolution is to have literal and immediate effect? That is how the position appears to me. If they are equal at the polling booths, they are equal everywhere else, and I do not know what argument is to be advanced to the contrary. I can imagine many arguments, and I have stood up here and advanced them, against their being on an equal footing at the polling booths, but I can see none for putting them on an inferior footing when once they have been placed on an equal footing in respect to the vote.

Will my hon. Friend contend that they ought to be put into the Army and the Navy?

My right hon. Friend reduces the position to a reductio ad absurdum. He is very capable of doing that, although he said he could not claim to pass examinations though as clever as other Members of the House.

No; I did not.

I freely concede that, although I have passed numerous examinations, I am not only not the Chairman of a great railway company, but I am not even a director of a light agricultural railway. I confess I cannot see how, after this crucial, this tremendous step, as I think it was, of giving women the vote, I can myself vote against the Resolution which is before the House to-day; but is the Government bound on the spot, if it has not the money, to pass the remuneration immediately? My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) knows that bills of accounts are constantly put before directors to be "passed for payment," and that a great many things are entered in that account and passed which are not going to be paid until money becomes available, and not always then. They are simply "passed for payment." I think this Resolution will have to be passed for payment, and left to those who hold the purse strings. It will be interesting to see in what case and under what circumstances they can give effect to the Resolution. I confess, I think they are in a position of considerable difficulty in so doing. I have not heard anyone put the case exactly in that way, but that is how it occurs to me.

I ought to say that, not only am I committed to represent the women of my constituency quite as much as the men, but for five years it was my fortune—and good fortune—during the War to be the head of a very large Department, staffed by about 500 women and a dozen men. I must own that I started without quite the feeling I have now on the subject. I was struck with the work of those women. Their attendance was perfectly regular, and they never failed. It was suggested that their health might keep them away. It never seemed to do so. They were always there, always smiling, always pleasant, and always efficient. Some of them have reminded me I might say so to-day which I most certainly and openly do. No men's Department could have been better. That is a relevant factor at a moment like this, and since the Regulations that exist are relevant, very relevant indeed, to the present issue, because I believe they will disappear if this Motion is carried, I want to enter my humble protest against one part of them. For instance, we are told in respect of women candidates in England that, in English composition, irrelevance will be regarded as the most serious fault in an essay or letter, and that incoherence, obscurity, needless repetition and diffuseness will also be reckoned against them. I never saw that on the syllabus of any examination that I have passed as a man, nor have I, who have examined innumerable men candidates in various languages—I should frighten the House if I gave the number of examinees—ever ventured to put anything down like that for colonel, major, captain, man-at-arms, or civilian candidate that came before me. I regard such conditions as distinctly depreciatory, and I think, on the contrary, our language in respect of women should be that of high appreciation.

Again, one of the Regulations says that mistakes in grammar, and the incorrect use of words and phrases will be heavily punished. I do not think that that is at all fair. Grammar matters very little indeed, and the incubus grammar is made in our educational system and in the study of foreign languages makes it not the real pleasure it ought to be, but as tearful, painful, and miserable an occupation as one could well have. If there are any Civil Service Commissioners present I trust they will take these few remarks to heart from one who has had as much experience as any of them and has even been one of their own examiners. Let me also say here that I most heartily agree with my right hon. Friend behind me. He said, and truly, that a competitive examination was a very bad method of choosing either men or women; a board of selection is a far better way of choosing people than by competitive examination, nor would I for my part regard it as a very serious matter if the board of selection recommended pretty ways towards middle-aged gentlemen as a proper qualification for which some few marks might be given. If that is one of the worst things that can be said against the board of selection I think the board of selection has already established itself in a sound position.

It is too late to found arguments on the inferiority of women. I protest that I did not consider them inferior in the old days, but whether, if they are quite equal in the work equal pay should immediately be found for them is a matter which fortunately rests with the Government rather than with individual Members of this House. If, as I understand, this Resolution is passed, then the Regulations that I have in front of me will also disappear. Well here is one which says that the posts in the Civil Service of His Majesty's Government in India, for which appointments are made in the United Kingdom, other than posts for which women are specially fitted, are to be reserved for men. I hope, whatever may be the result of this Debate and vote—if there is a vote—and I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in this regard that there should not be a vote—there ought to be agreement upon the position in India, so that it will be saved. When last the question about women in India was raised, the position was different from what it is now, for as I understand it, resolutions have been passed in the Madras and Bombay Councils in favour of women having the vote, and this makes me extremely shy about expressing any opinion whatever in regard to a country where I spent 25 years of my life, for I think members must have voted under some kind of temporary mental aberration. I hope that male civil servants will continue to go out from this country, and that for the present the Indian Government will be administered by men.

As to the ex-service men a good deal has been said, and I think it is a most deplorable thing that anything like antagonism should be developed between women and the ex-service men—an antagonism one might say as between Venus and Mars which by no means existed in the mythological era. I hope that the ability, tact, and suavity of the right hon. Gentleman below me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be equal to devising some means for the present of obscuring that antagonism and, further, of putting before the House something on which we can all agree. It would be intolerable really if those Members who were swayed by sentiment— as to which I hold with my right hon. Friend that it really incapacitates them for the despatch of business and for representing a business-like community in a business country—it would, I say, be intolerable indeed if they were able by their votes to secure the position of being better friends of the women than those Members who are bound to take a business-like view of the whole situation, who, while they feel that no pay can be too much to give them and that they should in all respects be equal with the men, yet may find that there is no money in the pocket, and it may be impossible immediately to do that which we all equally desire to do.

I have only one or two other remarks. I suppose they will be relevant. I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), who said, as I understood him, that not enough attention was paid in Russia to the education of women and that their non-employment in the public service helped to bring about the Russian revolution. On the contrary it was the educated people in Russia who were the very people who promoted the revolution. The revolution in Russia, if I may respectfully say so— and I claim to know something about it, at any rate I am a Russian interpreter and I have visited Russia and taken the greatest interest in that country all my life—the revolution in Russia was not a movement of the people at all; it was brought about by the debauchment of the Praetorian troops in Petersburg by German gold, and it was undoubtedly helped by the half-baked Nihilism and radicalism of the universities which was one of the greatest powers for evil that ever existed in the whole of Russia. I cannot in this matter—

May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that these are not the Civil Service Estimates?

I apologise deeply that I have been led a little astray, but my hon. and gallant Friend said certain things in one minute, and I have replied to them and have taken two minutes, and thus for one minute beyond my due have trespassed inexcusably upon the time of the House. I humbly apologise and will submit myself to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and having said all I have to say, I shall not trespass further upon the House of Commons this afternoon.

The good Book says

"there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repentance."

That is how I felt when I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) rising to defend the cause of women. It seemed to me very extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should be defending the cause of women against a Government headed by the Prime Minister, whom we have always looked upon as rather a champion of women. The case for the women has been put so ably by other Members that it will not be necessary for me to detain the House. They have appealed to logic, reason, justice, and fair play, and the case has been put without pride or prejudice. Only one Member of the House has spoken against this Motion, and that is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), but he does not really represent women. He may represent the view of a few unfortunate ladies who have not got any further than cleaning up offices in the City. Nevertheless I respect him for speaking in the way he has done, because it shows that he is full of conviction and courage, but may I point out that he does not depend in the City upon the votes of women?

I believe there are 10,000 women voters in the City, although I do not know how they got there.

At any rate, I think the right hon. Gentleman had better look out, and see that he gets those votes next time. With regard to the hon. Baronet who has just sat down (Sir J. D. Rees), it is obvious that he has "got the wind up." I have watched him for a year in this House, and have always found him to be a good barometer as to the way in which the women of the country are thinking. I do not want to threaten the House or the Government. It is no good threatening when you have a good case. The younger Members of the Government and some of the older ones have given their pledge to the women on this subject, and there is nothing the Government can appeal to except prejudice and expediency, and that is hardly worthy of a Government composed of such splendid men. I really mean it, and I know they are in a difficult position. I hope there will not be much more speaking on this subject. I do not warn or threaten the Government, but I do ask them to look into their hearts—and I know they have got hearts, and I know they possess almost as much sentiment as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, who is full of it, and who has not much reason or logic.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London says he does not believe in sentiment, and no more do the women. That is why we do not want selection. We want competition and we want a fair chance. I want the Government to carry out their promises on this question, and I do not want them to wait until they are forced to carry them out. The Government in the end always give in, and in the meantime they put their followers in a very awkward position. I hope hon. Members will realise that they are sent to this House by the votes of thousands of women throughout the country, who ask for no favours, but simply for justice and equal opportunities with men.

I beg to move, to leave from the word "That" in paragraph ( a ) to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words

"(1) this House approves of the temporary Regulations for competitions governing the appointment of women to situations in the new reorganisation classes in the Home Civil Service.

Provided that after a provisional period of three years, women shall be admitted to the Civil Service of His Majesty within the United Kingdom under the same Regulations, present and future, as provide for and prescribe the mode of admission for men.

Provided further that the allocation by the Civil Service Commissioners of such candidates as qualify at the examination shall be made with due regard to the requirements of the situation to be filled.

(2) That women shall be appointed to and continue to hold posts in the Civil Service within the United Kingdom under the same Regulations, present or future, as govern the classification and, in so far as regards status and authority, other conditions of service of men.

(3) That, having regard to the present financial position of the country, this House cannot commit itself to the increase in Civil Service salaries involved in the payment of women in all cases at the same rate as men; but that the question of the remuneration of women as compared with men shall be reviewed within a period not exceeding three years."

I have the greatest possible diffidence in rising to reply to the speech which has been made by the hon. Member who has just sat down, because I feel that in some respects my standing up is a repudiation of one of the glorious sentences which she used. However that may be, I am prepared to respond to the appeal which she has made to the Government. I think that the attitude of the Government has been Very much misrepresented in the course of this Debate. I for one, as representing the Government on this occasion, am perfectly prepared to agree with many of the arguments used in the House today with regard to the rights of women, and to the position and status and responsibility which they ought to occupy in the Government service. We have opened all the avenues of employment to women, and I for one am perfectly prepared to go to the full extent of the pledges to which reference has been made. I think there has been some misapprehension on this point. I notice that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) complained that we were unwilling to allow women in the Civil Service to occupy posts at salaries carrying £500 a year.

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I did not intend to imply that. I took that figure as a comparison as an average salary of a first division clerk.

It is quite erroneous to suppose that there is any exclusion of women as women from such posts. I would like to put the position before the House, and at the end of my speech I shall make a proposal which I hope will be agreeable to the House. There was passed by the House an Act, to which reference has been made, called the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, and it provided that ferred upon them. There was a conference and discussion in the Whitley Council as to what means should be taken to ensure that women should obtain the requisite recognition in the Civil Service. I hope that the House will take it as an assurance from me that there is no difference between those who advocate the Motion and those who administer the Civil Service as to the object which is to be achieved, namely, that women should have the fullest opportunity of exercising all the functions which in the ordinary way a member of the Civil Service exercises.

The real question must be how you can most efficiently ensure that women shall get all available opportunity. The National Whitley Council discussed this matter very elaborately and at great length, and they came to the conclusion that for a period of five years the entrance of women into the Civil Service in the higher grades should be regulated by selection arrangements rather than by competition and examination. There is a preliminary examination, but there is, in addition, the exercise of selection by an authoritative body composed as to the majority of women. It was believed, rightly or wrongly, that it would give women a fairer chance of getting admission to the higher grades of the Civil Service. It was thought that up till now that, taking women as a whole, men had better opportunities of education for the purpose of passing such examinations as are set for this particular purpose. It was thought that it would be putting women at an unfair disadvantage if they were subjected to the ordinary open competition, and it was believed, and on that belief they acted, that you would give women better opportunities of acquiring the chance of entering the higher grades of the Civil Service if you made appointments on the basis of selection at least for a temporary period and until experience showed what women might be able to do in the way of acquiring the necessary knowledge which would enable them to pass these examinations. Accordingly, if there be any complaint to be made, you may make it against the judgment of the Government and of those responsible for the administration of the Civil Service, but you cannot make it against the purposes and objects which they were endeavouring to achieve. In consonance with that view, Regulations were made for the purpose of settling the particular plan or system by which women should be admitted to the various grades of the Civil Service. These regulations are in the Paper which is at present lying on the Table of the House and which I am going to ask the House to-day to approve for the temporary period in question.

If my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion were to be passed simplicitas, it would undoubtedly involve that all these Regulations would receive the disapproval rather than the approval of the Hou6e. He proposes, in the first place, that the same mode of admission to the Civil Service should be given to women as to men. I do not disagree with that, at the end of this trial period. I am going to propose to the House that we should, during the next three years, carry on the system upon the basis of the Regulations which at present lie on the Table of the House, but that at the end of that period there should be the same mode of admission to the Civil Service in the case of women as in the case of men. There is a certain difficulty arises if you simply take my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion as it stands. It would not be wise or expedient or prudent if you were to grant that arrangement without also providing that as people came out of the examination they should be considered from the point of view of the appointments for which they are suitable. You cannot just provide that any appointment that happens to be vacant at the moment should go to the candidate who passes the highest examination, because it might be an appointment for which a woman was not suitable at all. Nothing could do greater harm to the women's cause than to insist upon an arrangement of that kind. Accordingly, there must be some sort of arrangement by which we can regulate that matter. The next branch of the Motion proposes that the conditions in the Civil Service should be the same for women as for men, including that of remuneration.

I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would make it quite clear that it is not intended to grant the principle and then cheat the women by Regulations which will hold the application of that principle. I am sure that is not intended.

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for making the sug- gestion in order that I may make it perfectly clear. I give the most complete assurance of fair administration in this matter. It is not intended in any way to use such a Regulation for the purpose of preventing women getting appointments for which they are entirely suitable. I hope the House will clearly understand that. I am perfectly prepared to assent to the first part of the second branch of my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal with these qualifications. In the first place, I cannot agree, in the condition in which the country's finances are at the present time, that the remuneration for women should be the same as for men. It would cost us many millions. I cannot quite tell the exact amount, but the House may take it that it would run into many millions. It would not stop with the Civil Service; it would have far wider ramifications, and the amount in which we should be involved is something which, I quite frankly tell the House, one could not contemplate. If a case could have been made that women were being underpaid in the Civil Service, and that they were not able to live upon what they were getting, that would have raised an entirely different issue; but I have been looking at the salaries of women, and I am perfectly certain, taking them along with the bonus which they enjoy, and which they will still enjoy, even if it comes down, that no one could complain of these salaries as being inferior to those which women are earning in other walks of life. You can, of course, say that it is an illogical argument to say that men deserve higher salaries because generally they have families to keep—you can give all sorts of instances in which women are keeping perhaps a mother or young sisters—but, taking it by the large, it is still true that the obligations and responsibilities of men, in the main, are very much greater than those of women. While you cannot draw a meticulous line in this matter, nevertheless, at a time when the country's finances are in the position in which they are now, there would be no very active propaganda for carrying out the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion.

Do those lines remain exactly as they are, or is there any alteration?

Yes, there is a second qualification, to which I was going to refer. It is that in the third line of paragraph ( b ) there should be inserted between the word "and" and the words "other conditions of service" this phrase, "in so far as regards status and authority." My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said there was great divergence of opinion whether married women should be in exactly the same position as married men, and indicated that there were very strong arguments on both sides. I entirely agree, but at the present time I think that, until further experience has been gained, it would be very unwise to provide that married women should be in the same position in the Civil Service as men. It is perfectly obvious that their duties in life are very different. There have been many criticisms as to the convenience of allowing women to be engaged in occupations at times when much more severe responsibilities are either awaiting them or upon them. But these things apart, there is the great consideration to which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh referred, that in times of de pression you would have two people in a home together bringing in salaries, when many other people were going entirely without remuneration. That is a consideration which, I think, will appeal to many of my hon. Friends opposite. For the reasons which I have sketched out, I cannot agree to this part of the Resolution without the qualifications to which I have referred. Now I turn to the third branch of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Resolution in which it provides there shall be a transition period of not more than two years, during which time women establishment officers shall be appointed in every Department and a number of qualified women admitted to each grade. I readily assent to the idea of having women establishment officers wherever there is a body of women civil servants of whom care has to be taken, but it would be obviously unwise to make such wide provision as this Resolution indicates, because that would mean that you would have women establishment officers where there were no women to look after. So far as the other part is concerned, as to the introduction of women into every grade of the Civil Service, I do not think my hon. Friend will persist in asking that. Obviously, it would mean either that men would be displaced in order to allow women to come into the various grades, or else you would be appointing women to positions really not required, and I cannot imagine my hon. Friend would ask that we should do either of these things. To sum up, I would venture to propose this Amendment to my hon. Friend's Motion: to leave out all the words after the word "That" in paragraph ( a ) and to substitute the following:

"This House approves of the temporary Regulations for competitions governing the appointment of women to situations in the new re-organisation classes in the Home Civil Service."

That covers the case of the Regulations to which I have referred. The Amendment goes on:

"Provided that, after a provisional period of three years, women shall be admitted to the Civil Service of His Majesty within the United Kingdom under the same Regulations, present or future, as provide for and prescribe the mode of admission for men."

That meets the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion.

"Provided further, that the allocation by the Civil Service Commissioners of such candidates as qualify at the examination shall be made with due regard to the requirements of the situation to be filled.

(2) That women shall be appointed to and continue to hold posts in the Civil Service within the United Kingdom under the same Regulations, present or future, as govern the classification and, in so far as regards status and authority, other conditions of service of men."

You have left out remuneration.

Yes. To proceed:

I ought also to add this before I sit down. As far as the transition period is concerned, when these Regulations to which I have referred are in force, and the selective system is also in operation, the method of selection will be so conducted as in no wise to prejudice women or to prevent their admission to branches of the service which they are fit to occupy.

The Amendment of my right hon. Friend is a little complicated, but I think with assistance the House will understand what it means. Perhaps I may be permitted to refer to the atmosphere in which this question is now discussed, an atmosphere which differs so entirely from that which formerly obtained. Women now have no difficulty in getting a fair hearing and fair consideration.

They never had any difficulty before.

I do not propose to follow him at any length, and it is not necessary that I should do. I shall only just say that, as I understand the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, it clearly contemplates the establishment of equality for men and women in regard to all appointments in the Civil Service. It is true that it says that the Government shall prescribe the method of appointment, but no one can read the Act as a whole without seeing that equality is what is aimed at, and equality was what the House resolved upon in May, 1920. That is all that women have ever asked, and it is all that they ask on the present occasion. I desire to emphasise as strongly as I can, that, right from the very outset of the conference with regard to the position of women in this country —in all of which, I think, I have been engaged—women have never put forward any demand except for equality. They have never asked for exceptional treatment in any respect. My right hon. Friend tells the House, and I am sure the House accepts his assurance, that the Government only desire to carry out that principle by the Regulations which they have put in force. But I think he will see, after the Debate that has taken place, that there are some features in the system they have established which women who desire equality were bound to resent and to resist. They could not ever agree that they should be put into a separate category in the Civil Service which was different from that of men and governed by different Regulations from those which govern men.

I now come to my right hon. Friend's actual proposal. I am bound to say that I think he has gone a very long way to meet the demand which has been made. In the first place he provides—and this is very desirable—that the temporary regulations shall be definitely confirmed by this House as temporary regulations. That is a desirable thing, as a matter of business, in order to put the matter on an established footing. Then he goes on to give to the women quite definitely and in express terms—following, indeed, the terms of my hon. and gallant Friend's Resolution—equality as far as admission to the examinations is concerned. That is very definitely conceded, and it is a very great point. Now we come to the qualification of the equality, namely, the provision that, after the examination, the Civil Service Commissioners shall be enittled to allocate to the successful candidates the places which are vacant, and in doing so shall have regard to the suitability of some places for women and others for men. That is not the exact wording of my right hon. Friend's proviso, but it is what I understand it to mean, as he explained it. It is quite evident that that may be used fairly or unfairly. It gives to the Civil Service Commissioners a power, no doubt, if they were disposed to do so, to discriminate unfairly against women. I do not think that anyone who has had experience of the Civil Service Commissioners will suspect them of unfairness. They never have been charged with that, and I do not think it at all likely that they ever will be. I confess—and I venture to submit this to my right hon. Friend—that it would be a very desirable thing if he could find it possible to appoint at least one woman as a member of the Civil Service Commission. I think that that would give great confidence, and would be a reasonable thing to do.

I will consider it.

I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend assure us of that.

I hope they will do no more than consider it.

I think that, after our experience to-day, we may be fairly confident that they will do more. I do not, as I have said, suspect the Civil Service Commissioners of any unfairness at all, but of course it is possible that, unintentionally and unconsciously, they will be biased against the women candidates. If any such thing were to occur this House is here to watch the carrying out of this plan and I think now that is the great difference which the extension of the franchise really has made. They may be perfectly certain that their claim to consideration will be fairly considered in this House. [ Interruption. ] I never have agreed with my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) on that, and I do not suppose we ever shall, but that is the view I put forward and I feel fairly sure women have much greater security now than before.

My right hon. Friend's further proposal adopts the greater part of what is paragraph ( b ) of the Resolution. That grants the principle, not only that women are to have an equal opportunity to enter the Civil Service, but when they are there they are to be treated in a position of equality. That is a great concession, but it is limited by two qualifications. It will not give them equal pay. He has a very strong case there on the ground of economy, and I think, some day or another, it would be a desirable thing if the Government and the House made up their minds what is to be the principle upon which the Civil Service, and indeed all salaried and wage-earning persons, are to be paid. At present we hold various theories. One is that they are to be paid the market rate according to the value of their services. If that is the criterion, women are clearly entitled to equal pay.

It depends on the work.

I say equal pay for equal service. If they do not give equal service they will not have equal pay. Then there is undoubtedly crossing that the doctrine that the wants of the person are also to be taken into consideration—I cannot say that is wrong—and that is the ground on which my right hon. Friend bases himself at present. I think he will be on much stronger ground if he abandons the theory altogether and merely says it will cost a great deal of money and he cannot at this moment sanction so large an expenditure. If he puts it on that ground I feel great difficulty in resisting the view he takes and I should certainly say, as he has conceded the principle, that the matter is to be re-considered within three years, that is a reasonable attitude for the Government to take in the circumstances in which we are now placed. I admit I have much more doubt about the exclusion of married women. That seems to me very difficult to defend. I am not deciding the question whether women ought or ought not to be in the Civil Service. I think primarily it is a matter for the women themselves to consider, and I have great difficulty in following the doctrine that a woman, because she is married, is to be excluded from the public service of the country when you certainly admit the unmarried woman and you admit the married man, and though I would not on that ground refuse the suggestion made by the Government. It is a matter which will have to be reconsidered in the future, and I desire to reserve the final decision which ought to be arrived at in regard to that. That really is the substance of the Resolution, and I am glad he adds to it a reasoned explanation why he cannot give equal pay.

The third part which he proposes to add to the Resolution seems to me a valuable statement, because it puts it on a very definite ground and does not shut the door, indeed, it opens the door to future consideration when economic conditions will be different. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a very fair pledge that women establishment officers shall be appointed wherever there are a sufficient number of women in the Department to make it reasonable to do so. That is all we can ask. I am not sure whether he appreciated the importance of the second part of the first sentence of paragraph ( c ). I understand that was inserted with the object of making it clear that the three years of the provisional period are not to be so employed as to prejudice the position of women at the end of the three years. It is conceivable that you might make the appointments in such a way as to make it practically impossible for any vacancies to occur for women at the end of three years. It is scarcely necessary to ask my right hon. Friend to give us an assurance that no such intention is in the mind of the Government.

I readily give that assurance.

I was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would give us that assurance that no attempt of that kind will be made. My right hon. Friend omitted, no doubt, because he regarded it as unnecessary, to refer to that part of the Resolution which makes it clear that there is to be no interference with ex-service men by this change. That is part of the Resolution. It is well understood that it is to be part of any arrangement that there is to be no interference with ex-service men, and I suppose he only omitted it because he thought it was so obvious that it was unnecessary to refer to it.

It is part of the regular system of the Civil Service to pay special regard to ex-service men, and the records which we have show how well that matter has been attended to.

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. On the whole—I do not know how it strikes my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills) and the Seconder of the Resolution—the Government have met us fairly. They have not given us everything we have asked for, they have reserved one or two points of some importance, but in this world of sin and sorrow you cannot get everything you want. The Government have given a good deal. It is possible that we might have got more by pressing the matter to a Division, but, on the other hand, our great advantage is in getting a settlement by agreement, which will be carried out ex animo by the Government. Therefore, if I may be permitted to offer any advice to my hon. and gallant Friend, I would recommend him to accept the Amendment and not to press his views further. I think the words proposed by the Government do, in fact, give by far the greater part of what he asks for. In view of such doubt as may lurk in the, minds of some of us that some parts of the wording are not very serious, and in view of the fact that this House can always, and has shown to-day and on previous occasions that it will always, insist upon the fair treatment of women in this matter, I think we can safely accept the proposal of the Government as meeting by far the larger part of what we desire to achieve.

The Noble Lord has told us that there is a great difference in the discussion of these matters in reference to the status of women nowadays as compared with former times, and he told us that those who urged the enfranchisement of women had now the opportunity of freely uttering their opinions. I think that the very opposite to what he has said was the case formerly. The Noble Lord and others who thought with him had every opportunity, and used it to the full, but any opposition that was offered to the enfranchisement of women was very apt to be met by the intolerance which my Noble Friend deprecates, but which he does not discard in practice towards those who differ from him. I have never opposed women's enfranchisement on grounds of their inferiority either intellectual or moral, and I have never doubted that, in so far as industrial and other employment are concerned, women ought to be given full protection. But a change has indeed come over the tone of the Debates in this House since the day when a House which by an immense majority threw out the enfranchisement of women completely changed its mind. I will not enter into the motives for that change, which was so amazing as to be almost cataclysmic. Since then there has been, for whatever motive, almost complete acquiescence. I am not ashamed to say that I hold by my opinions. I think that, from the point of view of women, a mistake was made, and that that mistake will work evil upon the whole position. That is my firm belief, and it is not changed in the least by frivolities and sarcasms about reaction and so forth. I am certain that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) from his seat as Prime Minister, said would be a disastrous mistake, will turn out to be not what he calls it now, but in the long run will turn out to be something which will disturb the deepest foundations on which society is built.

But I pass from that. What we are discussing now is a far more important question—how the public service of this country shall best be supplied. I have listened to this Debate, and in not one single speech have I heard a reference to that important question. One would think that the general view of the Civil Service was that it was merely a sort of pocket into which all people had a right to put their hands, to a certain extent, and that if one person got more than another that person had a right to complain. The last thing which hon. Members seem to consider is in what way we shall get the most efficient service. Possibly as a University Member I should be suspected of thinking a great deal of these competitive examinations. No greater mistake could be made. I do not believe in the supreme value of com- petitive examinations for the selection of public servants. I do think that character and other qualities have an immense deal to do with a proper selection, and that the competitive examination must be combined with a certain amount of selection. If you cannot trust the people in responsible positions to make that selection honourably and above board, they are no longer fit to be in those positions. My Noble Friend said that sex should be no bar to the absolute and complete adoption of competitive examination. He set aside special selection because—

I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that whatever system you adopt, it ought to be the same for men and women.

But the Noble Lord must see that in many cases there is a difficulty of discipline and that there are certain cases in which the administration of affairs ought to be in the hands of men, who must therefore be chosen not on the ground of sex, but because they are the most fit. With regard to pay there is a fact which seems to be overlooked. It is suggested that we should by Civil Service rules fix a scale of payment which cannot be altered and that it should apply equally to men and women. But we must remember that the Civil Service is in a peculiar position, and does not fluctuate with market value. The market value of a woman in the open market of employment is not as high as that of a man. In this connection let me give my own experience. I happened to preside in 1917 over the first Commission for the regulation of teachers' pay. It was a Commission representative of local authorities, of women teachers and of men teachers. The great object was to get a unanimous report. The report was unanimous, and although there were women on that Commission, the report recommended a difference in the pay of men and women. It was shown that if local authorities were compelled to pay the same salary to women as to men, the local authorities would select men. There had long been a desire on the part of local authorities to have more men teachers; they thought they were overdone with women teachers. The women on the Commission saw the possible danger—that they would ultimately be excluded from the profes- sion. With regard to the question of justice, if anyone says that the bread winner in the vast majority of cases is not the husband rather than the wife, I fail to follow him in his imagination, and it is useless to argue. As to married women, does the Noble Lord (Lord E. Cecil) contend that they are in the same position as men? There are the duties they have to perform or ought to perform. Are those duties to be neglected? Is it "all the same" whether we employ a married woman or a married man?

In other employments, where there is free choice, equal pay would certainly drive women out.

I can only say that the first thing we have to do is to look to the interests of the public service, and in the interests of the public service there must be selection according to suitability, fitness for the work, and general adaptability to positions in the service. It is not merely a matter of counting heads, and of saying that women shall have so many places. It is not merely a matter of having a competitive examination, and taking all who come out at the top, men or women, regardless of their fitness or otherwise. Our duty is to make the public service more efficient, and that can only be done by selecting the people, whether men or women, who are most suitable for it. I say for myself—looking at other occupations—that just as in other work the average pay of man's work will be greater than that of women, and looking to the nature of the work required, the immense majority must be men, because the immense majority of duties which have to be performed are duties best performed by men. I think the compromise proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will prevent some of the evils which might otherwise follow from the proposal made by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham. I do hope that the Chancellor and the Government will remember that this is not to be fought out as an outcrop of this miserable sex controversy, but that the one duty for them is to fill the Civil Service with the most competent and suitable people available.

I am in a difficult position in this Debate, inasmuch as I agree in principle with the object of the Motion which was origin- ally moved, but I think the House is in danger of putting itself into a false position and creating a dangerous precedent. That objection applies both to the original Motion, and to the compromise which has been suggested. I have no objection to the compromise, on its merits, but as has been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare)—and I think it was referred to, on a previous occasion, by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury —caution is required, having regard to the danger of selection in the Civil Service. Another danger is that of undue Parliamentary interference with the discretion of the Executive in managing the details of the organisation. That is a very grave danger, not only to the morale of the Civil Service itself, but also to effective Parliamentary control. There is an insidious threat to real Parliamentary control over the Executive, involved, if Parliament should in any way make itself directly responsible by limiting enactments, for the internal regulations of the Civil Service. That is what we are doing here. It is not a question as to the employment of women; it would be the same if only men were concerned. What the House is doing is, making itself directly responsible—as the result of some hurried arrangement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—for the internal arrangements of the Civil Service and resigning the power in the future, to criticise the Government for extravagance in the Civil Service, because it is tying the hands of the Government. I believe that that is a very dangerous precedent both to the morale of the Civil Service and to Parliamentary control. As a civil servant, I distrust receiving, before a Debate of this kind, letters signed on behalf of associations of civil servants. I agree with the letter of which I am thinking. I agree with the attitude which they take on this particular question, but if you once get the Civil Service, by having Debates of this kind in Parliament, into the habit of writing such letters, it must be detrimental in the long run. We think much of the importance of Parliamentary control at the present moment. It is equally important to have a strong Administration, because without a strong Administration Parliamentary control is impossible, and while I cannot, I confess, say that we have got a strong Administration at the present moment, we are setting a precedent to-day—for I have no objection to what we are doing on its merits— which may very seriously affect the possibility of having a strong Administration in the future.

The Noble Lord who has just resumed his seat need not be unduly alarmed about the question of precedent, because I think the House of Commons has been very usefully occupied this afternoon in seeing that an Act of Parliament which was carried with almost complete unanimity is functioning in the Civil Service. If it is not functioning, this is the right place, to have it out. I am certain that the result of the discussion to-day, and the good humour, and, I think, the most useful agreement which has been arrived at, will be, not only to remove a source of great irritation within the Civil Service, but also to allay a very large amount of social unrest amongst women. I think that is a very useful occupation for Parliament. I am quite certain that, coming at the end of a strenuous and very tiring week, it is a very happy occasion on which we find ourselves, not entirely, but very nearly unanimous. I should like, on my own part and certainly, I think, for a very large number of other Members of the House, to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) and those who work with him, because he has taken up this subject with the very greatest loyalty and great tact and persistence, and I congratulate him on the success which has attended his efforts. I would only make one general observation before sitting down. Women are not asking for equality in pay, they are not asking for equality of status, they simply demand and are getting equality of opportunity, and, given equality of opportunity, then all they ask for is to receive the rewards on their merits.

I quite recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone a long way to meet me, and though my hon. Friends and I would have preferred our own Resolution, I do not think I ought to put the House to the trouble of dividing. I therefore propose, if I may, to accept the Amendment which the Government has moved, but may I just say two things in regard to that matter? In the first place, I suggest that the Government would be wiser if they inserted a proviso as to ex-service men in the Amendment.

I will agree to do that.

The other point is this. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the position of married women, and may I especially say the position of women who are separated from their husbands or who have divorced their husbands? I shall not argue the case now, but I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider their case. Finally, I want to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary for the very close attention they have given to this matter, and the very real desire they have shown to meet the wishes of the women, and though they have not met them over the whole field, they have granted the opportunity of the waiting period.

There is just one suggestion I venture to make, and it falls in with what has just been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham, namely, that we should adopt the end of the Resolution—

"Provided that arrangements in hand for the inclusion of ex-service men on special terms be not by these Resolutions prevented or delayed."

[HON. MEMBERS: "That is agreed."] I beg to move that those words be adopted.

I will take that Amendment when we get to the substantive Question.

I am very sorry the hon. and gallant Member for Durham has seen fit to withdraw his Resolution, or, at any rate, to accept the Amendment of the Government. I wish he had held to the terms of his Resolution, and had not seen fit to accept the Government Amendment. After all, what is the principle for which he has been standing out most? It is to get equal opportunities and rights of admission for women, and, when they are there, equal pay for equal work. We hear a lot about women not being able to do the work as well as men, and therefore that they ought not to have the same pay. We are all agreed that if they do not do the same work we do not ask that they should have the same pay, but the Government will not accept the principle of equal pay for equal work, that is, assuming the same capacity and the same service. The Government have not accepted that principle, which, I maintain, was the most important principle embodied in the Resolution. As regards the regulations for admission applying to women the same as men, that is to be postponed by the Government for three years. We have had the history of this question given to us by the hon. and gallant Member who proposed the Resolution, and by the hon. and gallant Member who seconded it. We had explicit pledges from the Government at the last General Election in 1918. The Women's Enfranchisement Bill, which was brought forward, I think, by a Labour Member, was passed by the House against the Government, and was shelved by the Government in the House of Lords, and the Government brought forward an attenuated Measure in the House of Commons called the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill. It has been shown by the hon. and gallant Member himself that the Government are not even carrying out the terms of that Act.

We had the explicit promise in 1918, the principle carried in a Bill which went through all its stages in this House and was shelved in the House of Lords, the principle again carried in one of the Government's own Measures, and the principle carried in the Resolution moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham, in May, 1919. This has been happening all the time since 1918, and now the Government say that they will admit the principle three years hence. I submit that that is not a promise which ought to commend itself to the protagonists of the women's cause. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) gave us one of his customary and agile feats of balancing on the tight rope, when he squared the strong principles he held on this question with the compromise which has been suggested by the Government. I do submit that those are vital matters; and I am certain that if the hon. and gallant Member will stick to his original Resolution he will get a very large majority of this House and do far more towards the advancement of the women's cause than by accepting this very attenuated Amendment of the Government.

It is a little difficult for some of us to understand what the long and complicated Amendment really means. As I understood the Secretary to the Treasury, everything is proposed for three years. Is that so?

Oh, no.

If that is not so, then I am not sure I shall not have to divide against the Amendment. That is one of the difficulties of not having these long and complicated Amendments on the Paper. The Government have had plenty of time and opportunity to consider the whole position if they were going to do it. I understand that the effect of the Amendment is that the present system should continue for three years and that then something should be done.

It is not a suspension, but a continuance of the present system for three years; then the alterations will come into force, with minor amendments.

Once again I happen to be right. The result is what generally happens: that the Government have not the courage to take a strong position one way or the other. They therefore postpone the matter for three years. Meanwhile there will be a General Election, and they will be able to say to the women: "We did what you wished." If anybody else comes in it will be quite open for them to refuse the whole thing. On the whole, I think we may go away with the assurance that nothing will be done for three years. If there is a sensible House of Commons at the end of three years, well and good; if there is not, I do not know what will happen to the country. If there is a sensible Government we will be able to refuse this, and put the whole thing on a proper footing.

One thing should be safeguarded. There is nothing, I hope, in the Amendment which in any way binds the Government to make competitive examination the determining test in the Civil Service. The experiment has been tried in various Departments—and, I think, successfully—of a qualifying examination and then selection by a board of six or seven. That has worked well in many cases, and I should be very sorry if any Resolution of this House should have the effect of preventing the spread of that very admirable system, which has been tried in the selection of candidates for the Navy.

My second point is that although a proviso has been added to safeguard the rights of ex-service men, I am sorry that I have not heard anything that shows that there is any such safeguard in existence. I have heard a good deal about this subject in other branches of the Government, and certainly the rights of ex-service men have not been guarded in the way which was intended. A person who has been to the War is not in the same position as those who have not, because they have not had the same opportunity of reading up for examinations. We have only had the pious hope ex-pressed that ex-service men will not be interfered with, and I should have much preferred some definite statement as to the way in which the rights of these men were going to be observed. The object of the Resolution is to get equal treatment for women in all respects. Last night we were seeking to give exceptional privileges for one sex and to-day we are asking for equality. Our experience last night shows that it is very difficult to have absolute equality of the sexes. The difficulty I feel in passing a Resolution of this sort on a Friday afternoon—a proposal which is not on the Paper and which requires an exceedingly able man to follow—

I do not think it is quite fair to say that these Resolutions are not on the Paper, because a great mass of them are on the Paper in the form which has been proposed.

The Amendments which the Government have accepted are not on the Paper and therefore the whole question is difficult to follow. Even Mr. Speaker had some difficulty in reading them out to the House. I do not profess to be able to dogmatise as to the effect of these Resolutions, but I think it is a serious precedent for us to pass Resolutions purporting to bind Parliament to do something three years hence. I should have thought the House would have been satisfied with the discussion that has taken place, and I am sure that there is a general feeling in the House that it is not desirable to pass any Resolution at all. Probably, that would be the best way of dealing with the matter. Surely it would be better to do that than to pass a Motion of the kind which proposes to bind the Government three years hence, though whether it can do that I do not know. I should have thought that the House would have been satisfied after the Debate to leave the matter as it is now without any Motion being passed at all.

I want to express my disappointment that the hon. and gallant Member (Major Hills) should have accepted this modification proposed by the Government. Apparently this reform is to be postponed to the Greek Kalends. If it were certain that my right hon. Friends were going to be in power three years hence, I should be satisfied that the proposal would be carried into effect; but that is by no means certain, and I think, therefore, that it is a regrettable weakness on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should be content with a sham thing of this sort.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Amendment made to the proposed Amendment: At the end, add the words

"Provided that arrangements in hand for the inclusion of ex-service men on special terms be not by these Resolutions prevented or delayed."—[ Colonel Sir J. Greig. ]

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"(1) That this House approves of the temporary Regulations for competitions governing the appointment of women to situations in the new reorganisation classes in the Home Civil Service.

Provided that after a provisional period of three years women shall be admitted to the Civil Service of His Majesty within the United Kingdom, under the same Regulations, present or future, as provide for and prescribe the mode of admission for men.

Provided further that the allocation by the Civil Service Commissioners of such candidates as qualify at the examination shall be made with due regard to the requirements of the situation to be filled.

(2) That women shall be appointed to and continue to hold posts in the Civil Service within the United Kingdom under the same Regulations, present or future, as govern the classification and, in so far as regards status and authority, other conditions of I service of men.

(3) That, having regard to the present financial position of the country, this House cannot commit itself to the increase in Civil Service salaries involved in the payment of women in all cases at the same rate as men; but that the question of the remuneration of women as compared with men shall be reviewed within a period not exceeding three years.

Provided that arrangements in hand for the inclusion of ex-service men on special terms be not by these Resolutions prevented or delayed."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, till Monday next (8th August), pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Four o'clock.