BRITISH ARMY (WOMEN MEDICAL OFFICERS) (Hansard, 20 April 1943)

§ Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)
I wish to raise a matter concerning the Army which I hope the House will take in serious vein, because I want to present it only in that way. It concerns a series of Questions I have been putting to the three Service Departments. As regards the War Office, the answer I have had so far is a legal answer, and I now ask my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to give me what I call a human answer and to ignore entirely the legal side of the matter. It concerns the question of the 1638 routine medical examination—and I want to stress that point—of men serving in the Army, by women medical officers, I want at the outset of my remarks to read a letter which brought this matter prominently to my notice and which I hope the House will agree is a very sensible and reasonable letter. It is from a non-commissioned officer who tells me that he is 40 years of age. I do not know whether he served in the last war but he is a married man with grown-up children. He states that on a certain morning he was detailed to go along with seven other soldiers for what is known in the Army as an "F.F.I.," which means a "Free From Infection" inspection. Service Members of this House will know the type of inspection. It is more than an inspection; it is a parade. In other aspects of our medical life we are trying to induce civilians who may be suffering from venereal disease to go voluntarily to hospitals to be treated for that very terrible disease. In the Army they make a parade of it, and if any man is found to have this disease at these routine inspections, he has to answer questions in company with his comrades at the inspection.
I may say that it is the custom in the Army—and possibly in all the Services, I do not know—for men, when they come back from leave, to have a routine inspection of this nature to see whether they are free from infection. The letter from this non-commissioned officer goes on: On entering the medical inspection room I was surprised to discover that the medical officer was a young lady of about 24 years of age. I ask the House to interpret his estimate of the young lady's age with a certain amount of margin, because naturally it is somewhat difficult always to tell the age of young ladies or even old ladies. He goes on: I stripped to the waist, but when she requested me to drop my trousers, I was so embarrassed I just could not do it. I suggest seriously that there are many men in the Forces who, whatever the reason may be—it may be the result of an age-long inhibition—would resent such a request as that by a lady, whether a medical officer or otherwise. He says: I asked t be seen by a male medical officer and was told to return in the afternoon. I saw the male medical officer who refused to examine me. Instead he rousted me in front of the others—— 1639 I do not press that part of the letter, although it is strictly against King's Regulations for any officer to admonish a non-commissioned officer before some of his subordinates— and then threatened to put me on a charge if I did not submit to this F.F.I. inspection by the lady medical officer, in spite of the fact that he was present himself and also a corporal of the R.A.M.C, who was quite capable of carrying out the inspection. Perhaps it would be as well to mention I have three daughters, the oldest being 19½ years of age. Am I in order in refusing to be examined by a lady only a little older than my own daughter? The Secretary of State has answered that question by saying that if an order is properly given a man must submit—and I believe an officer, too—to a medical inspection whether it be by a male or a female medical officer. Some hon. Members have objected, and possibly still do object, to the point of view I have put, not understanding perhaps the sensitiveness, if you like, of many of these men on the subject of being examined by women medical officers. The argument has been advanced that if a man goes into hospital he is quite often nursed by a female nurse, and he may even be treated by a female medical officer. That is quite true. But if a man is ill or wounded, he is generally in a more or less prostrate condition, and in those circumstances a quite different situation arises from that which arises in the routine medical inspections, which I do not wish to describe in detail, but which hon. Members must know. That is the substance of my argument. It is not that I want to do away with female medical officers. Female medical officers have treated my own children, and both my wife and I have been quite satisfied with their diagnosis and with the care and attention they have given to the children. I speak as a married man and a father. I say quite frankly that I would not obey any order, whatever the result, to undergo such an inspection, even if it were given to me by a superior officer. That is not something I would ever advise members of His Majesty's Forces to do, but on such an occasion as this, I would not obey an order of that sort. It is because I feel so strongly on this matter and because I know that many of my comrades, both officers and men feel the same, that I want my hon. and learned Friend to consider the matter from the humane angle and not on the basis of the legal interpretation of Rules and Regulations.
1640 To those who say that members of the Auxiliary Services, the A.T.S., the W.R.N.S. and the W.A.A.F., have to submit to an examination by male medical officers, I reply that I do not think this is so in the case of these routine inspections. I am given to understand that such routine inspections in the Auxiliary Forces are carried out by female medical officers. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will correct me if I am wrong in that. I am also informed that if members of the Auxiliary Services go into hospital, they may, if they feel strongly on the matter, even ask for the services of a female medical officer. Whether that be true or not, the type of examination which a member of the Auxiliary Services would have to undergo on such an occasion would be quite different from that carried out on men, and I would say that it should appropriately be, and ought to be, carried out by women medical officers in those cases.
I have put similar Questions to the First Lord of the Admiralty and to the Secretary of State for Air. The First Lord of the Admiralty replied that as things stand at present it would be exceptional for women medical officers to examine personnel other than members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the nursing services, although he went on to say that the legal position was the same as in the Army. The Secretary of State for Air gave more or less the same reply. If the Navy and the Air Force do not press the legal point too far, but work from the angle of expediency, I suggest that the Army might very well adopt the same course. If members of the Armed Forces have any objection to going into a church other than one of their own denomination, they may refuse to enter it, and King's Regulations uphold them so much that men are not forced to go into churches other than those of their own denomination. If a man wishes to refuse to be vaccinated in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, he may do so, and he cannot be proceeded against on a charge. I suggest we ought to put this question of the routine medical inspection on the same basis.
I make this further suggestion to my hon. and learned Friend, and he might bear it in mind when he comes to consider the whole question. I do not think it is desirable to make a parade of these 1641 medical inspections. It happens that when coining back from leave, or even on other occasions, men may be suffering from venereal disease. Just as civilians have some desire to conceal this disease, so do men in the Army, although when they are in the Armed Forces they must not conceal it, and it is a crime to do so. But I think it is carrying things a little too far from the hygienic and health point of view to make a man own up in front of his comrades, because it amounts to that. I suggest that the routine medical examinations might be conducted a little more privately. I know the Army conditions, from experience in the last war and this war, in the ranks and in the commissioned ranks. I know that things are not the same in the Army as in civilian life, but I suggest we have gone a long way from the old traditional Army when the man in the ranks was an unemployed man and perhaps uncouth. We have a civilian Army comprising men of all shades of opinion and all sorts of convictions and views, and we ought to pay some attention to their points of view. When calling up men of the older ages, the fathers of families, it is not sufficient to say, "Well, you are in the Army now, and must submit to Army conditions." I hope the House will agree with me, in regard to the letter I have read, that the father of a family, with daughters himself, is quite justified in saying, "If must go through this form of indignity, something which I would not have to submit to in private life, then make it as private as you can, and at any rate do pay some attention to some of my feelings on these matters."
One of the things that disturbed me most when I enlisted in 1914 was not so much the danger of the whole business as the lack of privacy. The same feeling prevails to-day, and I think we should pay a little attention to these things. This is not a matter we can write off by saying it is prudery. It is not. It is a matter that deeply concerns a lot of men, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will give me an answer which will satisfy not only my correspondent, and many others who have written to me, not only in the Army but outside, but a large number of men in the Army who are hoping that, even though they may be ordered to do all sorts of things, at least they shall be preserved from this wounding of their feelings.

§ Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Epsom)
I think it would be fair to say that there is no officer or man in any of the Services who, in case of accident or emergency, would not be perfectly satisfied to be attended by a female medical officer, and indeed very thankful that there should be at hand someone with medical skill to meet the emergency. But the case the hon. Member has raised is something quite different. This is a case of a routine medical inspection of an exceedingly private nature. I think the serving man is entitled to have his feelings of decent modesty—because that is what it comes to—respected. I do not know why it should not be possible in the Army for men to be given medical examination in circumstances where they are curtained off. Certainly an examination of the character that I think my hon. Friend meant is one where there should be proper privacy. I cannot, however, conceive of there being any circumstances which would make it proper for a woman medical officer to carry out a routine examination of the character to which the hon. Member referred. It is true, of course, that it is a punishable offence to disobey a properly constituted order, but it seems that in this case, if the facts are as stated—and I have no reason to suppose that they are not—a most improper order was given. No senior medical officer has a right in common sense or decency to suggest that a female medical officer, young or old, should carry out a routine examination of this exceedingly private and intimate character as has apparently been done in this case. There are certain diseases—venereal diseases—where it is manifestly undesirable that a female medical officer should carry out the inspection. The question of treatment in hospital is quite a different thing. Nor is it right to say that the sexes are on an equality. They do not happen to be so. It may sound unreasonable, but the fact remains that women in the main prefer to be treated by a male doctor rather than by a doctor of their own sex. Except in cases of emergency or accident, or some case of a non-confidential kind, it is obvious that a man should not be treated, unless he so wishes, by a medical officer of the opposite sex.
The hon. Member raised another point which is worthy of consideration. I think attention should be paid to the fact that in 1643 the Navy, Army and Air Force there are at present men who have come from civil life who have not been brought up, as people who join the services as their profession have been brought up, in circumstances where they have learned to do without the privacy which is the lot and privilege of people in civilian walks of life. To those men life in the Services comes in the nature of a very considerable shock, more honour to them for the way they survive the shock. A man of 40 or 45, the father of a family, should never have been subjected to this kind of blow to his innate sense of modesty. I suggest that a rule might be made that this kind of inspection should not be carried out by any female doctor except in circumstances of the most extreme urgency. It would be impossible as regards certain matters to allow a man to choose as he wished whether he would be treated by a male or female doctor—inoculation or something of that kind. In those circumstances no one but a fool would object to being treated by a female medical officer. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to pay considerable attention to what has been said because a serious case has been raised and it is a good thing that the matter has been ventilated.

§ Mr. Hutchinson (Ilford)
I, too, agree that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has done a service to the House, and I think to the Army, in raising this matter. I think he was right to raise it on the sort of plane on which he has raised it. He presented it to the House as a matter which was likely to give great offence to the quite natural and proper feelings of a very large number of men serving in the Army. I thought he was quite right in drawing a distinction between inspections of the character which he described and treatment which is given by female medical officers in hospitals. They are two quite different things. I see no objection whatever to normal treatment in hospitals being given by female medical officers. Indeed, in the present situation with regard to medical officers in the Services, it is probably essential that in many cases hospital treatment must be given by female medical officers. But these inspections are an entirely different matter. I agree, too, that we ought to draw a distinction between the ordinary routine examination and a special 1644 examination of the sort to which the hon. Member opposite was referring.
I trust that the Minister will be able to say that all these inspections shall in future be carried out by male medical officers, otherwise I do not think that we can be sure that the natural and healthy feelings of the soldiers in this matter are going to be met. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not listen too long to the advice that he will get from the administrative branches. I know that the tendency is to whisper into the ears of the Minister that it is not administratively practicable to arrange that a male medical officer shall always be in attendance. I am not convinced that that is so. It may be more administratively convenient not to have to discriminate between male and female medical officers at particular stations. That is not the point. This is one of those matters in which the House ought to say clearly—and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will say clearly—to the Department, "We think that this method of carrying out inspections is wrong, and, therefore, because it is wrong, it ought to come to an end, even if it is administratively difficult to bring it to an end." I know that my hon. and learned Friend has a way of taking his own line in administrative matters, and I hope that he will take his own line about this, and not be too much affected by the atmosphere—I sometimes think the rather enervating atmosphere—with which he may be surrounded by his fellow members of the Army Council. I ask him to take the more robust and masculine line in matters of this nature which is taken in the profession to which he and I belong. I hope that he will tell us that, whether it is convenient or not, inspections of the type which have been described will take place no longer.

§ Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)
I only want to say a word of caution after the three speeches we have heard. There are numerous people asking for second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth fronts. In all of them male doctors will be required. It will be a pity if my hon. and learned Friend gives any pledge that will mean that there will be too few doctors on the fighting fronts. There was a time, about nine months ago, when we were very short of doctors in a part of our operations, and we had to send from this country a supply of doctors to serve in 1645 the field. If these inspections by female doctors are stopped in all cases, it will deny the troops who are fighting the medical assistance they require. I agree that many soldiers will have an objection to being inspected on routine inspections by female medical officers, and I can see that there may be a case for it, but let us not lay down any rule that will do such grave disservice as to stop the medical profession in the fighting areas having their full complement.

§ Sir William Wayland (Canterbury)
I should like to support the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and I hope that the Minister will not give way. It is a question whether you are satisfied in a great measure with the skill of the woman doctor. I doubt whether there are many Members here who would object to examination by a woman. I should not, if I had confidence in the skill of the woman. We have to remember that we shall want an immense number of doctors, and we should not cut out the woman doctor from the medical examination of the candidate who is being taken into the Army.

§ Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain how anybody can have confidence in a woman doctor whom he has never seen in his life?

§ Sir W. Wayland
I should have confidence in her as long as she had her degrees in the same way as I should have confidence in a man doctor. A great many soldiers have the thought that a woman is not as capable as a man, but in the position we shall have to face we shall need every doctor and many more. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Army that we should put the female doctor wherever possible on a par with the male doctor.

§ Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Maryhill)
I want to deal with one particular point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), with regard to the necessity for male doctors when we enter on large-scale operations. I have some little experience of this matter, having been in the Army and in Army hospitals. There is a great difference between a woman doctor or a nurse treating a wounded man and a man deliberately going up to a woman doctor for a medical inspection of the type necessary to pass him into the Army and 1646 to grade him into his category. That is the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). The War Office are asking for something to be done that has been opposed by the whole family life of this country in the past. There is no doubt about it, there is a recognition of the difference of the sexes, and you are placing the average soldier in an invidious position. It is a position which the War Office has recognised in many cases, even in the field, by issuing out certain juices and medicines to the soldiers who are actively engaged. My hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, from his own large experience, knows that this is a fact that has been recognised in the past. We are not objecting to women being employed to assist wounded soldiers or men weak from wounds. We are objecting to the cold-blooded examination by women, to their undertaking the thorough examination which is necessary in order to grade men in their proper categories. On the wider aspect, there is no opposition to the female doctor or nurse, but on the narrower point of the medical examination it would be a bad thing for the country if examination by women doctors was tolerated.

§ Mr. Driberg (Maldon)
I feel that, however unpopular the case may be, I must say a word for what seems to me the rational as opposed to the purely emotional side of this argument. I am sorry to have to differ from my hon. Friends on this side of the House, but when they make the distinction between the routine inspection and the treatment in hospitals for actual diseases, for which they say soldiers will be willing to be treated by women, I do not think it is a valid distinction. There are many diseases, including perhaps complications of venereal disease, for which men will have to be treated in hospitals, and if they started saying that they would not have women doctors for this or that, it would create an impossible situation.
We must keep some sense of proportion. The first consideration, surely, is that diseases, and in particular perhaps venereal disease, about which we have been talking in this House recently, should be prevented and cured; and the second consideration is the acute shortage of medical man-power. We have been clamouring and pressing from this side of 1647 the House for pensions appeal tribunals, and we have been told that the delay in setting them up has been chiefly caused by the shortage of doctors. Surely medical man-power, whether male or female, must be used in the most economical way possible. To my mind, when we accept women in a profession, we must treat them in an absolutely cold-blooded way as equal professional partners: we cannot introduce, or allow to remain this emotional sort of complex about them—which is really going part of the way to the Nazi idea of sending women back to the kitchen and not allowing them a public career at all. We must try to see this thing rationally and coolly: even if there is a sensitive minority of people who object, I think they have far worse hardships than this to put up with in the Army.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)
I want to put in one word of warning. Of course, it would not be in Order to discuss pending legislation on the Adjournment, but I think I shall be in Order if I say there is considerable talk of a State medical service, and I would solemnly warn my hon. Friends on both sides of the House that this is a most inappropriate moment for differentiating between male and female doctors and their duties, even if this particular case may be a good one, because it is certain that no State medical service can ever be created except on the basis of complete equality betwen the sexes. I also want to protest, not because I have ever been at the War Office or have had anything to do with the War Office, against the kind of bromide, if I may use the word, which is constantly used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and was used by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) about the Army Council. We are always told that they are an enervating and impossible body. No, I am not going to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I heard what he said. I want to say publicly that there is no controlling body of any Army in the world which has achieved such remarkable results as the War Office and the Army Council have achieved in this war. They have produced the finest Fighting Force in the world, the Eighth Army.

§ Dr. Russell Thomas (Southampton)
Speaking from my experience as a doctor, 1648 I can say that among men there is a tremendous resentment against being examined by women. It is no use the hon. Gentleman opposite talking about putting emotion on one side. That emotion is in our very soul, and I approve of the point of view of the soldier which was put by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). We cannot get rid of that emotion. On the other hand, it is a curious thing that the majority of women, although they do not like being examined at all, are quite able to accept being examined by men. Hon. Members opposite spoke about the shortage of doctors and the second front. In the last war when we were losing men at a rapid rate in France it was quite common for military camps to employ civilian doctors for this purpose, and there is not the slightest reason why that should not be done in this war. I think the Secretary of State will probably have to consider extending the services of civilian doctors in camps in this country when second fronts are opened in Europe, they can easily perform this function, and not allow men to suffer the indignity of being examined by a woman in cold blood. An hon. Member opposite says, "nonsense," but those who have a streak of masculinity in their nature would not agree that such an examination was desirable. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who so often entertains this House, will allow other people to say a quiet word, I shall be very pleased.
We have been told to-day that treatment in hospital is a different matter from what we are talking about. It only differs in this sense, that if a man is very ill then he does not mind being attended by a woman doctor, but if he is not feeling too ill then he has that natural resentment which he tries to overcome. It is only when illness overpowers everything else that most men are willing to put themselves into the hands of a doctor of the other sex. That is my experience. I should like to say I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, and I think that in bringing forward this matter he has done a service to the Army and to these men, and I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us that he is going to do away with this undesirable kind of examination of men in cold blood by women doctors.

§ Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Financial 1649 Secretary will not take too much notice of the red herring of the skill of the doctor, which has been drawn across the path. That was never mentioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite when he raised this question. Everybody accepts the fact that doctors are skilled if they have passed their examinations, whether they are male or female. What we are objecting to is the infringement of the susceptibilities and decencies of life.

§ Earl Winterton
Oh.

§ Sir J. Lamb
My Noble Friend is always willing to make interjections. Will he allow others to express themselves as well?

§ Earl Winterton
I suppose I can say "Oh."

§ Sir J. Lamb
My Noble Friend says it so often.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)
Will hon. Members please address the Chair and not each other?

§ Earl Winterton
On a point of Order. Is there anything disorderly in saying, "Oh"? It was all I said. If not, may I ask whether you will protect me from the attack of the hon. Gentleman opposite?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
There would be no need for me to intervene if hon. Members restricted their observations to "Oh."

§ Sir J. Lamb
I should be the last person to wish to criticise my Noble Friend, because it is not my duty to do so. I was referring to the matter before us, and that is the susceptibilities of people in this country, and I believe I have a right to say that in the vast majority of people in this country there is still a strong feeling on this matter of sex. It is true that there are some people who do not have that feeling. They consider themselves very advanced. I am not one of them, and I think the vast majority are on my side. This may sound irreverent, but in hot countries how is the female doctor going to be dressed? What is sauce for one is sauce for another. I hope we shall remember that the Army to-day is very different from the Army of peace-time. It is composed of those who have been trained in civil life, and perhaps have had a point of view which is different from that of some who have spoken to-day. There is undoubtedly a sensitiveness among 1650 people on the differences between the sexes and about the decencies of life, and we ought to preserve it as far as we can. At any rate it is not our duty as a House of Commons to impose upon people an infringement of those things which they hold as being sacred.

§ Dr. Morgan (Rochdale)
As one who has had considerable experience in all branches of medicine—general practice, hospital, Army, consulting practice and now industrial diseases—I should like to say that I think the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas)—and here is where doctors differ—is quite wrong in his approach to this question. It is not a question of any infringement of common decency, or want of appreciation of sex differentiation, nor of any violation of the ordinary amenities of civilised life.

§ Sir J. Lamb
Was the hon. Member in the House when the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made out his case?

§ Dr. Morgan
No.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I thought not, because the one point which I——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member cannot carry on a series of questions or a discussion.

§ Sir J. Lamb
May I ask one question, Sir? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I have not asked the question yet.

§ Dr. Morgan
Unfortunately I was not in the House, because I was called to a hospital.

§ Sir J. Lamb
That is not the question I was going to ask.

§ Dr. Morgan
But I knew what was going to be said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. I have a fair idea what was said. It is very strange to the trained medical mind that the treatment by nurses of men of all grades, shades, colours and races——

§ Sir J. Lamb
That is not the point.

§ Dr. Morgan
It is the point. It is a question of medical examination. I have seen it done in the Colonies, in Great Britain and on the field of battle. It is simply a question of whether the ordinary soldier should be examined by a trained, qualified, registered, lady medical prac- 1651 titioner as part of her Army medical duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "In front of other people?"] It does not matter about dozens of other people. I have seen male medical officers examine females in front of other females. These things are done quite unemotionally by the trained doctor. We are trained in medicine and that is part of our training in medicine.

§ Mr. Davidson
I am sure the hon. Member will recognise that the point worrying us is not the effect upon the trained female doctor but the effect on the untrained, ordinary man and woman in the street.

§ Dr. Morgan
I am sorry this heat should be engendered over a very simple problem. The hon. Member suggests that because the trained medical man approaches a problem in a certain way, it influences other persons. It is suggested the approach of a doctor, whether he is a fussy, emotional, confused doctor or a calm, trained, unemotional person, with a view to diagnosis and the proper medical examination, makes a complete difference to the patient. Sex does not matter. From my point of view there is nothing in this case at all. The female medical officer has her duty to do and she does it simply as part of her duty. She has no emotional reactions herself.
Let us take the other point, which is whether a male soldier being examined by a lady doctor has an emotional reaction. The ordinary, common or garden normal individual has no reactions of any kind, or, if he has, suppresses them immediately. It is conventional for a man, if he feels that way, to do so; but there is a minority of individuals, a very small proportion, who cannot. I tackled the matter a long time ago, and I put the proportion at 2 per cent., males and females. They do not like medical examination, or being in a state of comparative nudity, with people of the opposite sex. It is a very small proportion of people, but if people who have certain definite psychological reactions really object upon the first examination, or even on the second examination, an appeal can always be made. A statement has been made that men may suffer from certain diseases due to adoration at the shrine of Venus. [Laughter.] Yes. I am referring to venereal disease, and am simply using 1652 the name of the goddess instead of using the adjective. I am not pretending to be learned but am only using the ordinary parlance of medicine. It is suggested that a woman medical officer should not be able to examine a man in that condition; but men do it, in the opposite direction. Is there an emotional reaction? Has the medical officer a reaction? These things are common in ordinary society. We are not savages. We have certain suppressions and certain conventional approaches to problems.
This whole thing is an exaggerated problem. It does not arise in common medical practice or in hospitals. It is absurd to say that it will arise in a parade. If hon. Members are asking for special exception for certain men who are moved in certain ways, I hope that the Minister will decide to hold his ground and insist that, upon grounds of equality, training and public decency, the medical officer should be allowed to perform her duty and the men in question stand up to the ordinary common discipline of the Army and the routine examination.

§ Captain Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)
I do not agree with the way in which the hon. Member has just approached this matter. It is not a question of abnormal people. There is a real case. Nobody in his senses would say that any man objects to being nursed by a woman or being examined by a woman doctor when he is ill, or having a routine examination of heart, throat, lungs or feet by a woman doctor. It is merely a question of fact and of whether or not a considerable minority—personally, I think they are a majority—of men in the Army object to being examined in a most personal and intimate way for venereal disease by a woman. Although the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) gave us a little pontifical lecture about the Army Council—if the Noble Lord objects, I will give way——

§ Earl Winterton
I only referred to the Army Council because an hon. Member opposite had made moving references to them, and I was endeavouring to reply to them.

§ Captain Nicholson
Whatever the advice given to the Minister or to the Secretary of State, I feel that it is a confession of gross inefficiency if, except in very exceptional circumstances, men in the Army 1653 are ordered to submit to this most personal examination by a woman. I certainly should dislike it exceedingly, and almost every hon. Member in this House would dislike it exceedingly also. I should not disobey, but I should dislike it exceedingly. The Minister has control of the administrative side of the Army, and I hope he will most certainly lay it down not only that it should be avoided if possible, but avoided as an order, except in cases of actual illness when a soldier has to be treated. I hope he will be aware that most of this Debate has been sidetracked by hon. Members.

§ Captain Nicholson
I feel certain that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) who raised this question represents the views of the country as a whole and of the Army.

§ The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson)
The very interesting discussion to which the House has listened has shown a somewhat wide divergence of opinion on the problem which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I think, however, there will be general agreement when I say that our nation owes a real debt of gratitude to the large number of women doctors who have come forward and to-day are rendering the most important service to our cause. The House knows perfectly well that we have a large number of mixed regiments of anti-aircraft artillery, and it is obvious that we require the services of a considerable number of women doctors to cater for the needs of the women serving in that branch of the Army. My hon. Friend raised a particular case. I, of course, have not had the particulars, so I am not in a position to deal with that particular case to-day.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I do not ask my hon. and learned Friend to do so, or I should have given him previous notice. I want him to deal with the general issue.

§ Mr. Henderson
My hon. Friend wants me to deal with the general issue, but he has given particulars to the House rather 1654 suggesting that one or more officers have committed an act, certainly to which he takes exception, in forcing a man who has written to him to undergo a physical examination when there was a male medical officer available. If he wants me to deal with that case, he will have to supply me with particulars of it. I think the House should appreciate also the difference of the position in the Air Force and the Navy in regard to the use of women medical officers, because, as I have already indicated, the problem that applies to the mixed regiments of anti-aircraft artillery does not exist either in the Navy or the Royal Air Force. My hon. Friend referred to the medical inspections which have hitherto taken place on a routine basis. The House will be interested, perhaps, if I tell them that these medical inspections to which my hon. Friend referred are designed mainly to detect cases of skin disease or infestation as early as possible, and they have been carried out as a routine on all personnel returning from, or proceeding on, leave, or when men are being transferred from one unit to another in the United Kingdom. In view——

§ Mr. Hutchinson
Is it not the case that the routine examinations do involve examinations of the character described by my hon. Friend?

§ Mr. Henderson
If my hon. and learned Friend will be patient, I shall come to that point. In future such inspections will take place only when the medical officer in charge of troops or the senior administrative medical officer considers it necessary. Such inspections are really required only when there is reason to believe that cases such as those to which I have referred are present in a unit, and that the sufferers are not reporting sick. Fortunately, the experience of the War Office during the last three years has shown that, with the modern Army, this very seldom happens. The inspections, as my hon. Friend said, are known in the Army as F.F.I. inspections—Free from Infection inspections. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that in future they are to be called health inspections. It is true, as my hon. Friend indicated, that these inspections involve a complete examination of the individual soldier. That, of course, accounts for the request that was made to the man concerning whom my hon. Friend has raised this discussion.
1655 In future, when such inspections are required, soldiers and auxiliaries will have the right to be examined by medical officers of their own sex, if they so desire it. If this is not immediately possible, the full inspection will be postponed until it is possible. In the interim a partial inspection will be carried out, at which men will be stripped to the waist, and women will wear the equivalent of a bathing costume. In addition, at all inspections a third person of the same sex will be present. In the case of women, this will normally be an A.T.S. medical orderly, and in the case of men, an R.A.M.C. orderly. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that these inspections take place at what is called a parade. The medical authorities of the Army have been concerning themselves with this aspect of the problem, and it is proposed to do what is possible to encourage the conception that the accommodation provided for the inspection of numbers of men at one time shall be such as to produce, as far as possible, the atmosphere of the clinic, rather than that of a parade. In view of what I have said to the House, I hope it will be generally agreed that the War 1656 Office have taken a very reasonable and commonsense attitude.

§ Sir A. Southby
Will it be an instruction that, so far as is reasonably possible, examination of an intimate character should be done in privacy, and not with other men in the room?

§ Mr. Henderson
I think that that is involved in what I said.

§ Mr. David Adams (Consett)
Is the same privilege to be extended to women who require examination?

§ Mr. Henderson
My hon. Friend probably missed what I said. I tried to make it clear that auxiliaries—that is the term for members of the A.T.S.—and male soldiers will have the right, if they so desire, to be examined at the full inspection by doctors of their own sex.

§ Mr. Bellenger
With the permission of the House, I would like to say that I am deeply grateful for the complete and satisfactory manner in which my hon. and learned Friend has dealt with the question.