22 FEBRUARY 1946, Page 9

THE DOMESTIC PROBLEM

By GWENDOLEN FREEMAN

THE Government this month has announced its intention to establish a " National Institute of Houseworkers " whose most important aim will be to raise the prestige of domestic employment and attract more workers to the profession. Although it is eight months since the report by Miss Violet Markham and Miss Florence Hancock on the " Post-War Organisation of Private Domestic Employment " was published, and the report itself was made in 5944, the Minister of Labour has stated in Parliament that the plans for the new institute there recommended are " not fully worked out." And, indeed, the Government may well hesitate in attacking the domestic-service problem. The existing chaos is not the fault of any legislation ; it is the result of social change. Up to the last few years domestic' service has been cheap because women's work itself has been cheap—and limited in scope—and the public, without any particularly evil intention, has taken advantage of this.

The drawbacks of domestic service are well known. The " servant" is looked down on. One girl from a• very happy home, sent to night-school by her mistress, returned to say that the other girls, from shops and offices, scorned her. Miss Violet Markham, in a recent interview, told how maids she knew concealed their occupation when they went on holidays lest they should be avoided by the rest of •the company. Domestic service is also often lonely ; and hours and conditions are quite uncontrolled. There have been many good and thoughtful mistresses, but many the reverse. Miss Markham mentioned the case of a girl of seventeen or eighteen who some years ago was brought south from a distressed area in Durham. Her new mistress had made no preparation for her in the way of a meal or a bed, and the next morning went straight out •to play golf, leaving her with a baby to look after. Readers of Miss Monica Dickens's entertaining One Pair of Hands will recognise that even if her report is slightly exaggerated there is a good deal wrong.

It has, of course, always been only a minority of the population who could employ a resident maid. Before the war only 4.8 per cent. of all private families employed resident domestics, and rather more than three-quarters of these had only one each. Why, then, has such an outcry arisen? Because this 4.8 per cent. is the vocal part of the population ; the woman living in a slum does not write to the papers. It is also the part with the large houses to keep up ; the part that performs public duties (as well as entertaining) and sets a standard in health, and, to a certain extent, culture and taste. This 4.8 per cent. deserves consideration, and, indeed, the matter was already occupying the Government in 5923. In that year, after the first Great War had taught many women the comparative free- dom of factory • and business life, the Minister of Labour, Sir Montagu Barlow, appointed a committee of women to inquire " into the present conditions as to the supply of female domestic servants." This committee, as the Markham-Hancock Report recognises, made some excellent recommendations on training and status, but it had little effect. The decline in numbers of domestics continued, and this last war has put an end, probably, to the " servant " as the Victorians knew her.

During the later years of the war the Ministry of Labour found domestic service one of its most pressing problems. In the first years, women were directed into war factories at the expense of civilian services. Then, suddenly, hospitals and similar organisations began to complain desperately that they could not remain in existence without domestic staff, and from here and there all over the country came urgent notes to Members of Parliament and other influential people from families where there were young children, the sick, the old—and no maid. The Ministry of Labour then began to reverse the process. It invited girls in factories to volunteer for domestic service. Advertisements were inserted and articles were written for the Press. It was suggested that domestic helpers should be given new and non-derogatory names—such as household assistants. (" But it doesn't work," said a hospital matron. " We put up a notice on our board for our domestics—calling them houseworkers—and none of them understood who it was for.") Local authorities were urged to set up or increase their groups of Home Helps—women in municipal employment who go for so many days to help in homes where there is maternity, sickness or some other emergency. Appeals were also made through such bodies as the W.V.S. for women to offer only a few hours' service a week to families in trouble. But all the posters, leaflets, advertisements, articles and other appeals had very little effect.

The cessation of the war has in some ways eased the domestic position. A good many women who were doing casual part-time work in factories and offices have left and are now available for cleaning. Their standards are not always very high, but they can do what is called the " rough work." But the prospect is no brighter as far as resident domestics are concerned. England will remain short of labour—particularly of what one might,_ perhaps snobbishly, call " working-class labour "—indefinitely, so that women will have plenty of choice of jobs. Nor, with the housing shortage, will house- wives be able to offer much in the way of accommodation ; nor, with high taxes and costs of living, much in the way of wages. Miss Violet Markham, commenting on the situation, said she could see no easy solution. It is the end of an epoch ; we cannot put back the clock. The chief factor operating against domestic service, she thinks, is snobbery ; and it will take a long time to remove that. A National Institute of Houseworkers may do something to improve the status of the work and thereby decrease girls' resistance to it. But it will not be easy to find candidates for training, and a forceful publicity campaign will be necessary.

It is quite possible that the ordinary housewife will not be able to pay the rates required (by the Institute's regulations) for a resident domestic. Were she writing her report now, Miss Markham said, she would lay far greater emphasis on the day or shift worker. Some residential maids will obviously be needed—for households where there are children, the sick and the old—but for the majority of homes the day-worker may be a better solution. The girl feels freer when she is away from her work at night ; so, often, does the mistress. The Government has said it will establish " a few selected centres " from which assistants can be hired on an hourly basis. This idea might be developed, and would save the housewife the expense of some meals and laundry, so that she could afford a fairly high hourly rate. Some women might be available to assist for dinner in the evening, though that would mean extra expense. Also, Miss Mark- ham thinks, England might well follow America's example and have " sitters "—generally secondary-school boys and girls—to come in when the children are in bed so that husband and wife have a chance to go out together. But the sitters would have to be paid. The Home Helps scheme should also be developed. So far these give assistance only in emergencies. If there were enough of them they could be used to relieve the housewife on normal occasions— when she wanted a holiday or to go out.

The employment of young girls—school-leavers—as resident domestics is feasible ; indeed Miss Markham has found that they settle down better than older girls. On the other hand, the homes would have to be carefully picked. Young girls must not be vic- timised by inconsiderate mistresses. Meanwhile, whatever scheme the Government formulates, the present casual unorganised system of " chars "—married women wanting to earn a few shillings weekly —will continue, and will be the standby of the ordinary housewife. (It might be added that as hygiene and houses improve and women are taught household craft by contact with Infant Welfare Centres, schools, Women's Institutes and similar organisations, the standard of this casual labour will rise.) Labour-saving devices, Miss Markham thinks, will continue to make life easier for the housewife—but gradually. In comparison with America, of course, we are hopelessly out of date. Also, incon- venient old houses which should be pulled down are having to remain because of the shortage. Also, it will be a long time before gadgets are easily and cheaply available. Nevertheless, the process of lightening household tasks by invention and better arrangement does go on ; even the new temporary houses have been appreciated from the labour-saving point of view.

But there is no speedy solution to the problem. With or without Government intervention relief will come only gradually. The nation has been told that it must work steadfastly after the war. The house- wife will be among the workers.