The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) has set me quite a task. In other circumstances I might well have welcomed a longer debate to clear up the many points she has raised. I acknowledge at once her long interest in this matter. Apart from certain references in the Queen's Speech and at Question Time there has been little opportunity for a debate on this subject in the last few months, so I welcome even this truncated discussion.

Despite the terms of the motion, which bear a little investigation, it is gratifying that this is not a party political issue. I certainly accept, as the hon. Lady implied, that there is unqualified support on both sides of the House for the Act. The Government are behind it and there is no retracting from that position. I have made that position clear at this Box on many occasions.

I do not share the hon. Lady's pessimism as to the timing of the fulfilment of the Act. She will realise that I shall be unable to answer all her questions this afternoon and shall have to communicate with her in some other manner, which I hope will get as much publicity as her speech this afternoon will receive.

The hon. Lady made great play of the New Earnings Survey. She pointed out that—ostensibly—the difference between women's and men's earnings had widened in absolute terms. It is not the aim of the Equal Pay Act to equalise men's and women's earnings regardless of the work they do. Progress has been made in national agreements towards bringing men's and women's rates of pay closer together. In spite of what the hon. Lady said, the progress is reflected in the New Earnings Survey. Between April 1972 and April 1973, as in the corresponding period of 1971–72, average weekly and hourly earnings of women increased relatively more than those of men, both among manual and non-manual workers, when the effect of increased overtime working on the weekly earnings of manual men is discounted.

Between April 1972 and April 1973 weekly earnings, excluding overtime for manual men, increased by 15·1 per cent. The corresponding figure for women's earnings is 16·2 per cent. Similarly, the weekly earnings for non-manual men, excluding overtime, increased by 12·8 per cent., whilst women's earnings increased by 13·7 per cent.

The hon. Lady, perfectly understandably, mentioned the survey of the Institute of Administrative Management, to which her distinguished relative referred in Another place in a recent speech on the Gracious Speech. The hon. Lady said that the report showed that the gap between men's and women's rates in the higher grades of office workers had widened by between £27 and £70 a year in the 12 months to March 1973. I cannot deny that, but I stress that from that one cannot draw the conclusion that progress towards equal pay is not being made. It has to be remembered that a greater proportion of women than of men are employed in jobs in the lower earning bracket, even in the higher grades of office workers. If a small number of very senior staff obtain more substantial increases, the differential between men's and women's pay is likely to widen, and that may well have happened.

However, it is not the aim of the Equal Pay Act to equalise the men's and women's rates regardless of the work they do; it is to give equal pay where women are employed on the same or broadly similar work as men, or where particular jobs have been given an equal value under a job evaluation scheme.

The hon. Lady is of course aware that women are not yet to be found in large numbers in the comparatively better paid jobs traditionally associated with men. She referred to this when she spoke about equal opportunities. There are several reasons for this, including the unreasonable reluctance of some employers to employ women. We all know that that is so and it is no good trying to dodge it. There are also the limits which women themselves set on their objectives, and the general social attitude——