It was hosted by the Trade Union & Employment Forum of History & Policy, and brought together practitioners, trades unionists and academics – including the University of Portsmouth History team’s Dr Mike Esbester. Mike’s research focuses on histories of safety, risk and accident prevention in modern Britain. Some of that has looked at the changing landscape of health and safety at work and beyond since 1960 – including the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act. The change of law was much needed; in the 1960s and early 1970s, UK workplaces were still killing and injuring large number of people. Their impacts were felt beyond the factory walls, too, as workplace incidents affected more than ‘just’ employees.
The principles underlying the Act had both radical and conservative elements. They extended the duty of care far beyond the boundaries of the workplace. At the same time, they modelled older ideas about who was able to prevent harm. Mike brought these tensions and contradictions out in his presentation to the symposium, which gave a long-term historical overview of the Act’s originals. He’s explored some of these aspects in this piece for The Conversation. This piece, written for History & Policy at the 40th anniversary of the Act, is also still relevant today. All of this work draws upon Mike’s research, including the ‘Changing Legitimacy of Health and Safety at Work’ project, funded by the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health.
The symposium brought together different approaches, from the historical to the present day, the philosophical to the practical. It wrestled with the question of how far the 1974 Act has kept pace with the world around it, and whether or not it might be time for a new means of approaching health and safety in the UK.
In this blog, written last year for the second-year Introduction to Historical Research module, second-year UoP student Jaina Hunt wrote about how minutes of government discussions reveal changing attitudes to women’s war work.
During the twentieth century, minutes were created and absorbed by the system of government, making them an important part of the political machinery of Britain.[1] The minutes of the Prime Minister Winston Churchill to his secretary of state for war show the importance of women’s war effort in changing attitudes towards women. Churchill placed great emphasis on the “immense importance of having a large number of women” in crucial wartime roles, such as positions in batteries and artilleries.[2] Analysing his personal minutes reveals how informal attitudes enriched the legislation produced during and shortly after the war. They show a very gradual shift towards allowing women into the masculine sphere and the beginning of changes to conceptions of women’s traditional gender roles, even though legal equality was not achieved. These minutes are limited in their usefulness to historians due to fragmentation, the effects of Churchills’ personal background and whether they represent personal views or government agenda.[3] Thus, these will be discussed but this blog contends Churchill’s minutes provide a unique angle into the slowly shifting attitudes of the 1940s.
Churchill shown in 1643 with his daughter Mary Soames.
State papers are the principal source of political history, according to Jane Cox.[4] These minutes directly portray the attitudes of the prime minister and thus the government, making them crucial to the exploration of the political views of 1941. Churchill’s statement of a “universal desire among all ranks” shows an interesting insight into the appetite within the forces to grant women serving in the Royal Regiment of Artillery an equal status to men in the same roles.[5] The phrasing “universal desire” indicates an undoubted and comprehensive shift in attitudes in artilleries but the language also suggests these attitudes may be extending to those outside of this department of the British army.[6] However, it is important to note that state papers do not represent ordinary people; they illustrate the views of the state which can often differ drastically to those outside of government. The nature of minutes induce a more “intimate” form of official document due to their personal nature, so they could be somewhat deceptive, as their representation of official attitudes is intertwined with the personal agenda of the author.[7] Therefore, as Readman asserts, the background of the author of such documents is of upmost importance to historical analysis.[8] Both of Churchill’s daughters worked in A.A. Batteries, which means the source could be portraying the thoughts of a proud father rather than the changing ideas of the state.[9] Although, with a third of a single AA Battery unit being female, the prime minister’s personal situation would have reflected a huge number of individuals in Britain.[10] Therefore, Churchill’s minutes present a picture of attitudes towards women that encompass the elite and the ordinary, offering a unique perspective of how war work changed attitudes towards women.
Moreover, state papers should be creditable sources due to their proximity to the subject.[11] Thus, memoranda are an essential part of political history allowing the historian to explore the ”motives behind policy”.[12] In 1943, Parliament’s changes to the 1939 Personal Injuries Act awarded women equal compensation for injuries attained in war.[13] Churchill’s minutes provide some motivations behind changes in legislation effecting women, expressing that women in combat units ”share in practice with the men the unavoidable dangers and hardships” of war, making equal compensation a matter of justice.[14] This shows a recognition of the shared experience of war between the sexes, so provides some explanation to the changes in legislation and demonstrates a developing attitude in the abilities of women in Britain. However, reliability is limited by the fragmentation of the minutes; they do not include the responses from the secretary of state for war, so they only offer one-side of the picture.[15] There is also a gap in historiography of twentieth century state papers. Although though there is an abundance of research focused on the early modern period, historiography is lacking on the subject for the twentieth century, thus the analysis of this document is limited by the lack of information on the importance and use of state papers at the time.[16] Therefore, there are some limitations to the value of Churchill’s minutes, but pairing them with legislation can deepen our understanding of the motives of politicians and offer an overview of attitudes towards women.
Caribbean women in the ATS during World War II
Even though Churchill’s minutes show an appreciation for women’s war efforts, legal equality was not achieved. This brings into question how far this source shows a change in attitudes towards women. When mentioning his desire for the equal status of women in combatant units Churchill notes that “this does not imply any alteration in their legal status”.[17] This accounts for the historically noted lack of legal equality for women achieved by WW2; for example, the amendment to the 1941 National Service Act (according conscripted women equal pay) failed to pass through Parliament.[18] There is huge debate among historians over the effects of WW2 on the status of women in Britain: some believe it emancipated women while others feel it entrenched traditional gender roles. While legislation supports the idea that women were not liberated, by not achieving equal pay, Churchill’s minutes provided a unique perspective to counter this argument. Churchill shows an acknowledgement of the importance of women’s war efforts and how both sexes shared a similar experience of war. Whilst legal equality was not on the agenda, attitudes were clearly changing and women in the Royal Regiment of Artillery “crossed gender boundaries” by doing the same skilled work as men and wearing military uniforms.[20] Therefore, exploring the documents behind legislation shows a gradual shift in attitudes towards women. The war may not have facilitated drastic changes in legislation, but it did facilitate a change in how women were viewed due to their entrance into masculine spheres.
This exploration of Churchill’s personal minutes illustrates the value of official documents in developing our understanding of attitudes towards women during WW2. Such memoranda enrich the story legislation portrays. While women had some legislative successes, they did not attain equal pay. Churchill’s minutes show the lack of interest in legal changes while also portraying changes in how women were perceived as war facilitated the crossing of gender boundaries. Overall, the source depicts the start of a gradual shift in traditional gender roles and thus attitudes towards women in Britain.
[1] Kristina Spohr Readman, “Memoranda,” In Reading Primary Sources: The Interpretation of Texts from Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century History, ed. Miriam Dobson and Benjamin Ziemann. (Oxon: Routledge, 2009), 123.
[3] Angela Raspin, “Private Papers,” In The Contemporary History Handbook, ed. Brian Brivati, Julia Buxton and Anthony Seldon. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996), 220.
[4] Jane Cox, The Nation’s Memory: A Pictorial Guide to the Public Record Office (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1988), 31.
[7] Miriam Dobson, “Letters,” In Reading Primary Sources: The Interpretation of Texts from Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century History, ed. Miriam Dobson and Benjamin Ziemann. (Oxon: Routledge, 2009) 59.
