§ 28. Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 6th April last Sir Reginald Brade wrote on behalf of the Army Council to the President of the National Union of Women Workers that under Regulation 40D, Defence of the Realm Act, it is necessary for the soldier concerned to give evidence in open Court against the woman; whether he is aware that in a large number of cases this has not been carried out; and what action he proposes to take?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe statement in the letter referred to contemplated the case in which a charge was laid against a woman by a soldier or sailor and in which, on the woman pleading not guilty, it would be impossible for the magistrate to convict without hearing the evidence of the soldier or sailor concerned. In this connection I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given him on the same subject by myself on 24th April and by the Home Secretary on 9th May, to which I have nothing to add.
§ 56. Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether he will issue instructions to chief constables that the consent which a woman is required to give before she is medically examined under Regulation 40D of the Defence of the Realm Act shall in all cases be given in writing?
§ Sir G. CAVEThe answer is in the negative.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence now that a number of these women only give their consent to this examination because they do not know that they are entitled to refuse? This Regulation is being illegally administered, and will the right hon. Gentleman not, at any rate, introduce this safeguard to prevent that recurring?
§ Sir G. CAVEI do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right, because these officers are specially informed that they must get consent before an examination is made. I am quite sure that they carry out that Regulation.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHWhat evidence is there that they have obtained this consent?
§ Sir G. CAVEThe statement of the officers themselves. They can be called before a magistrate and examined.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHIs it not a fact that a woman who objects would have to bring a case, and does he suggest that these women would actually bring their own case before the Court?
§ Sir G. CAVEThat is not so. If any woman alleges that she has been examined without her consent I am sure that the magistrate would go into the case at once, send for the officer concerned, and ask him to give the facts.
§ Mr. KINGIn view of the delicate nature of this matter, will the Home Secretary assure us that the women's rights are explained to them by other women and not by police officers of the male sex; and is it not clear that a delicate matter of this kind should be explained and their rights stated by their own sex?
§ Sir G. CAVEI will certainly inquire about that point.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHIf these women are examined without their consent, and they tell this to the magistrates, the 229 point I wish to make is that these women do not know when they go into the Court that they are entitled to this right.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSWhat is the objection to giving this consent in writing?
§ Sir G. CAVEIt never has been done. Of course, the woman is asked quite plainly and clearly, "Do you consent?" and if she says "Yes," I do not think that it is necessary to ask for her consent in writing.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSWould that not be a great safeguard?
§ Sir G. CAVEI do not think so. I am sure that no doctor would examine a woman who has not consented.
§ Mr. S. MacNEILLWill the right hon. Gentleman explain this in his propaganda for the General Election, in order to secure numerous women's votes?