§ 26. Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the fact that women doctors 2091 serving in military hospitals discharge similar duties, and receive the same pay as men doctors, and are entitled to wear the Royal Army Medical Corps badge, he will take steps to rectify the anomaly of their being refused even honorary commissions or to wear badges of rank which would be helpful to them in maintaining discipline; and if he can arrange that they obtain equivalent relief from Income Tax as is granted to men doctors under the Service rate?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)I have been into this question very thoroughly, and find that it is legally impossible to grant commissions in the Army to women. Legislation would be necessary. I should be glad to consider the granting of marks of distinction among themselves.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSMay I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any hope of his introducing the necessary legislation this Session; and may I further ask him whether the marks of distinction which he proposes to confer are such as would enable a woman doctor or a woman surgeon to maintain the necessary discipline in order to carry out satisfactorily the work in which she is engaged?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONAs regards the first part of the question as to the introduction of legislation, I will consult my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the marks of distinction, I personally am strongly opposed to the utilisation of the present Army marks of distinction for women, because if a woman has not the qualifications for a commission, it is no good camouflaging her with marks of distinction. I myself prefer the marks of distinction to take the form of the marks of distinction which are given to the administrators and directors of Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps and the Wrens.
§ General McCALMONTDid my right hon. Friend's reply cover honorary commissions when he said it was impossible to grant commissions?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes.
§ Mr. GULLANDDoes the right hon. Gentleman not think legislation, giving these commissions, could go through this House very quickly?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy personal view upon that particular point would be of no 2092 value. I have already told my hon. Friend that I will state the case for and against to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. ACLANDWill the right hon. Gentleman go a little further than that and use his best efforts to have legislation prepared and passed through this Session?
§ Mr. KINGFailing legislation, cannot an Amendment be inserted in the next Army Act which would cover this?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThat Act, of course, will not come up for reconsideration until March or April next year, and, as I understand the position, the body of opinion in this House seems to be favourable to some speedy action.
§ Mr. CURRIEWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of Question 26?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI have already answered that privately to my hon. Friend. It is purely a question for the Treasury.
Mr. CHANCELLORCould not this desirable and desired legislation be carried through under the Defence of the Realm Act, seeing so much undesirable legislation has been so carried through?