I beg to move, That this House, regretting the slow progress towards the implementation of the Equal Pay Act and the Government's refusal to activate section 9 of the Act, calls upon the Government to remove the restrictions to future progress which have been imposed by the Government's Incomes Policy, Stage Three. I have been talking in the House about equal pay for the past nine years, and I have noticed a slow improvement in the general atmosphere and climate of opinion on the subject. When I first used to mention it, for some reason it was a subject of amusement to hon. Members, not only to hon. Members opposite but, I regret to say, to hon. Members on this side of the House; but gradually, over the years, it has been taken more seriously.

The history is extremely long. More than three-quarters of a century ago, in 1888, the trade union Congress passed its famous resolution on equal pay, and I think that it has been passing similar resolutions every year since. Political parties have paid lip service to equal pay for women for many years and included it in their election programmes.

The industrial action of the women at Fords, which is now a famous milestone in the history of women's struggle for equality brought home to politicians and Members of Parliament not only the strength of the purpose among women who want the rate for the job, but the fact that they are indispensable to industry. That handuful of women who were employed stitching the covers of car seats were able to halt the whole export drive at Fords. They played a small but vital part in production. The Minister of the day had to go and talk to these women, uging them to resume work so that our export drive would not be seriously affected.

Finally, I am proud to say that it was a Labour Government who introduced the Equal Pay Act in 1970. This made it the legal responsibility of the Government of the day to see that equal pay was implemented by the end of 1975 There are about 9½ million women working in this country, 5½ million full time. They make up 38 per cent. of the labour force. It is now three years since the Equal Pay Act was put on the statute book. On the last day of October we had the findings of the new earnings survey of the Minister's Department. This revealed a shameful situation in view of the fact that the Act has been on the statute book for three years.

It revealed that the average weekly earnings from men in full-time work, including overtime, is now over £40 a week while the comparable figure for women is only £23·10p. This enormous gap is difficult to understand if the Act is being implemented. A few weeks before that a survey was carried out by the Institute of Administrative Management, which showed that the practical implementation of the Act is as far off as ever and that during the last year in some instances there has been a move away from rather than towards equal pay.

Is this gap because the Act has not been enforced or because women's jobs are paid at women's rates? Here I refer to the jobs that women are doing and men are not doing. We all know that there are jobs reserved for women which inevitably have low rates of pay. They are unattractive to men. So we have the two sections among the women's working force—those who are doing the same jobs as men, or their equivalent, and those who are doing women's jobs. Whatever interpretation is placed upon this gap it seems that nine in 10 women were not being paid the rate for the job when the Act was brought in. I want to know the proportion of women not being paid the rate for the job now, particularly in view of these figures.

The Government profess that through their incomes policy they want to help the low paid. But the low paid are the women, as these figures show. How can any incomes policy be fair if it clearly relies on the exploitation of a third of the labour force, as revealed by the figures in the earnings survey? Whom do we blame for the non-implementation of the Act? No doubt to some extent we could blame the trade unions for not urging its enforcement. To some extent we could blame the employers. But it is the Government's duty to see that the Act is enforced and it is the Government whom I primarily blame for this state of affairs.

In many countries there is a theoretical Equal Pay Act on the statute book, but often it is not enforced. I do not want this country to join those countries which feel that they have done their duty by legislating but are not bothering to implement the legislation.

The history of the Government's attitude to the Equal Pay Act is not attractive. It is three years since the Government had the opportunity to implement it. We have urged them again and again to introduce an interim order, which is possible under Section 9 of the Act, which would have made it possible by the end of this month for women to be paid 90 per cent. of the men's rates. Women's organisations, the trade unions and we in this House have urged the introduction of an interim order, but because of stage 2 of the stubborn incomes policy this is being refused.

We are now faced with stage 3 of the incomes policy, and again the Equal Pay Act will be affected, because it interferes with collective bargaining. It will prevent free negotiation of equal pay before the end of 1974. It will also prevent implementation of long-term phased collective bargaining agreements already providing for the achievement of equal pay in 1974. Therefore, it will interfere with what is already in progress.

Ironically, a few weeks ago, with a great flourish of trumpets, the Government introduced their consultative document on equal opportunities. But the basic discrimination against women is the economic one. We are told that the consultative document is an essential complement of the Equal Pay Act and is based upon the Act. It does not give much hope for implementation of any successful legislation if it is based on an Act which is clearly not being implemented as it should be.

I ask the Minister of State to answer three questions in the time available to him. Does he claim that there has been progress towards equal pay, in view of the shameful figures revealed in his earnings survey? If he does, how does he equate equal pay with the gap in earnings? Does he think that if the Act had not existed the gap would have been even greater than it is? Secondly, will he issue a second report on progress on the Act through the Office of Manpower Economics, because the first report was vague and unsatisfactory? Thirdly, can he confidently assure the House that the Equal Pay Act will be fully implemented by the end of 1975? If he can, how does he intend to ensure that it is implemented?