AIRCRAFTMAN (OVERSEAS POSTING) (Hansard, 22 June 1944)

§ Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)
I will not detain the House for many minutes to raise a question which, although it arises out of a particular case, may, I think, be said to involve an issue of sufficient importance to justify a general discussion. The case is that of an aircraftman whom it is proposed to post abroad and who has applied through the usual channels, and through other channels, for the post- 470 ponement of his posting abroad upon the ground that his wife is suffering from tuberculosis. There is no doubt about the condition of this man's wife. The doctor's certificate says this: Mrs. —[the wife of the above named airman] is suffering from chronic tuberculosis of the lungs, the immediate prognosis of which is not serious and, in my opinion, the man's posting overseas would not endanger the life of his wife. There may be, and I believe there is, some doubt as to whether that is not an unduly optimistic prognosis, but I propose to argue upon the basis that it is accurate, because my contention is that even on the basis that that prognosis is an accurate one, it is not necessary in such a case to post the man abroad. It is obvious that without expert medical knowledge it is difficult to speak with authority in such a case, but the best information I can get about the meaning of this certificate is as follows. If a woman is suffering from chronic tuberculosis it is, of course, possible that she may be cured. If she is cured, it will be by fairly drastic treatment, probably by a pneumothorax, which involves the collapse of a lung, and an illness of some sort of not less than three years' duration. I do not know, in this case, whether the treatment can, in fact, be applied. There are difficulties in receiving treatment of this kind and, in fact, the greater number of people suffering from chronic tuberculosis either do not receive it or are not able to receive it. However, I make this point, that if she is able to have that treatment it is clearly necessary or at any rate desirable that, except in the case of the gravest need, her husband should be available in the same country to visit her from time to time, or if her condition should deteriorate.
On the other assumption, that she is not able to have the treatment, I suggest that the case is more pressing still. As I understand the position it is this. No one can foretell exactly how long this woman has got to live. If she catches a cold, if she catches influenza, if she suffers from any of the complaints which affect most of us once or twice in a year, it is possible that the chronic condition may become an acute condition, that the infection will "light up." In those circumstances she would probably have about three weeks to live. Imagine the situation of her husband in those cir- 471 cumstances if he had been sent abroad. Let us assume she is lucky, let us assume, as is very often the case, that she goes on living without the condition becoming acute. Then, according to the advice I have received, she may go on living for a number of years.
An hon. Member of this House, who is a member of the medical profession, said that five or six years was the best she could reasonably hope for. It may be that she will live much longer, as some of these cases do, and one might hope that this would be the case, but five or six years more of life is not an unreasonable prognostication. After that, she would die of tuberculosis.
The contention I put before my right hon. and gallant Friend is this: That in such circumstances as this, doubtful, and at best not very hopeful for more than five or six years, it is not necessary to send her husband abroad. If he goes abroad to India, or further, he may be retained long after the end of hostilities with Germany. So far as we know he may be retained for about three years, three years out of five in which he might have lived with the wife he loves. One does not want to put a case like this on grounds which are too sentimental, because one recognises that in time of war if a person is exempted for the time being from being posted abroad it necessarily involves somebody else, with equally intimate ties, being sent in his place. One recognises, too, that in an acute emergency the safety of the country must be the first consideration.
But my contention is that the British Empire has now weathered the storm sufficiently well to be neither so weak nor so much in danger of defeat in this war that we need destroy family ties of this kind. Even in the midst of hostilities there are ties which one is bound to regard as sacred; even amid the concussion of high explosives the small voice of compassion may sometimes be heard. In my submission this is one of these cases. The tie between husband and wife is one which we regard as most sacred, and our country is not so weak or devoid of defenders that she must depend for her continued existence upon the severance of a relationship of this kind.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour)
I am 472 grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) for two things—for the very fair way in which he has raised this issue and for giving me the opportunity of putting another side, perhaps, of this case. As regards the general issue, I think my hon. Friend is drawing a wrong conclusion, when he says that from the successful and favourable trend of the war at the present time, it can be deduced that we have weathered our difficulties as regards man-power. Let me assure him that with the continued expansion of the Service for which I am, in part, responsible in this House, our need for men and women has never been greater than it is at present, and that our need for them overseas, as the theatres of war develop, is probably greater now than it has ever been.
As regards the facts of this case, I hope the House will allow me to give them in more or less chronological order. This man joined the Royal Air Force in January, 1941. On 14th January, 1944, he applied for screening from overseas service. The grounds were his wife's ill-health. On z6th January he was granted two months' screening from overseas service. On 26th February he applied through the appropriate channels for a further two months' screening, and the application was supported by medical evidence that The wife of the above-named airman is suffering from chronic T.B. of the lung, the immediate prognosis of which is not serious, and in my opinion his posting overseas would not endanger the life of his wife. Nevertheless, in respect of that application we granted him a further two months' screening from overseas service. At the same time we warned him that no further screening could be given on the same grounds because, sad as it may be, there are many men whose wives are ill, and we have to reconcile the desire to meet the compassionate element, such as this man put forward, with our requirements for overseas draft. Since 25th March no further application has been made by the airman through the appropriate channels. I have asked my hon. Friend in correspondence if he would ensure that the man would put forward any further application supported by any fresh medical evidence. The airman was not, for some reason, willing so to do, but I took steps to have the same doctor, the woman's doctor, consulted again when my 473 hon. Friend raised the case with me on 2nd June. The same doctor, who was consulted by the medical branch of my Department, confirmed his certificate of February last and stated that he had recently given a certificate in similar terms. I think the airman presumably did not wish to put forward this certificate with a further application as the terms were the same as those on which he obtained his second period of screening, after which he was warned that no further extension could be granted on the same grounds.

§ Mr. Hogg
Surely my right hon. and gallant Friend is aware that I made it plain to him that I should have advised an application from the aircraftman in this case but for one fact, that it was made plain to me by my right hon. and gallant Friend himself that, if such an application were made, it would be refused and that the matter was being discussed on a political level between him and me.

§ Captain Balfour
I think the man did not put forward an application because he could not produce any further medical evidence than that exactly similar certificate which the doctor said he could give if asked—the same in June as in February. The airman is not posted overseas. He is on the Preliminary Warning Roll only, and he is not likely to be sent unless there is some unforeseen call for men performing the duties on which he is engaged. Nevertheless, I should be less than frank with my hon. Friend and the House if I did not say that I am defending our right to send him overseas as and when required.
I come to the medical aspect of the case. My hon. Friend and I are laymen. We are embarking on fields of medical opinion which, I think, he and I must have some timidity about approaching. As well as making further inquiries of the medical adviser of this man's wife, I have fortified myself with the advice of the experts in the medical branch of my Department. The medical certificate uses the word "chronic." I am advised that the word "chronic" as used in medical terms is merely applied to diseases of long duration or those apt to recur; it does not mean that the disease cannot be cured. I am informed that this word is in common 474 usage to distinguish a disease which lasts a long time from an acute illness or from the acute commencing stages of a disease which later becomes chronic when the acute stages have passed. I am advised that "chronic" is frequently applicable to tuberculosis. The words "acute" and "chronic" have no reference to the curability of the disease apart from an occasional loose usage of the terms. Again, I am advised that as the doctor's certificate refers to "lung" in the singular it must be assumed that the wife has only one lung affected.
My hon. Friend talks about a pneumothorax. In this case a double or bi-lateral. pneumothorax will not be required. Indeed, each case of this unfortunate disease is different and not every case requires a pneumothorax. It may not be the treatment most suitable to any individual case. My hon. Friend did not produce any detailed medical evidence to show that in this case that specific treatment is the right one. He suggested to me in correspondence that some illness would occur during the cure. I am informed by my medical advisers that any individual, whether healthy or otherwise, may be subject to serious illness within three years or any other period from now. Then my hon. Friend said in correspondence that if this lady does not undertake treatment of this kind or some other suitable kind she will die of tuberculosis. My reply is that there is always a possibility that anyone who has suffered from tuberculosis may eventually die of it though death may occur many years later. My hon. Friend did not produce any substantial medical evidence to bear out his view of five years as the most optimistic time. My medical advisers agree that an individual who receives no treatment is not as likely to do so well as one who does. The medical adviser, who has again been consulted, states that in his opinion this lady's life would not be endangered by her husband's posting overseas. Many people who have had tuberculosis die many years later, not from that disease but from one of many other causes.
I hope I have proved to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend and the House that if there was any case of immediate danger or any case where we could say that this woman was likely to die from tuberculosis in the comparatively near future, we would obviously take steps to see, if we 475 possibly could, that the man would not go overseas. I was worried about this case, and as my hon. Friend said, it raises a general issue. I therefore consulted the War Office and the Admiralty to find out what would be their practice. The War Office referred me to their Compassionate Manual, which reads as follows: Withdrawal of a soldier from a draft or unit proceeding overseas and temporary retention in the United Kingdom is permissible only in the most extreme cases of hardship, such as the recent or imminent death or critical illness of a parent, wife or child, extreme domestic distress or urgent private reasons of an exceptional kind and not of a purely business nature in which the soldier's presence is shown to be vitally necessary. I gave this case to the War Office without any bias and they state that it contains no element of imminent death or critical illness or vital necessity for the airman's presence and that, therefore, if it had been a case of a soldier his application would have been rejected. As regards the Navy, there has never been such a thing as permanent screening from service afloat. Had this man been a sailor, in the circumstances described the maximum screening which might have been allowed would have been two months, in order that the naval rating could make arrangements for his wife's care. In this case, the House will note, the airman has 476 already had four months, with due notice that we must hold him available for overseas if our man-power requirements so demand.
I assure my hon. Friend that I am full of sympathy in this case. We have to look at it, however, not only as an individual case, but in relation to a standard which will exclude men from overseas service. If we were to accept a case such as this, with the medical evidence in front of us, I fear that we should be seriously jeopardising our ability to replace men who have been overseas for a long time and to reinforce vital theatres of war. We have standards which allow an airman to remain at home, standards which are, broadly, common to the Army and ourselves. This case does not come within those standards. My hon. Friend pleads the case with force, power and eloquence. I appreciate the way in which he has done it. I sympathise with him in his general wish that we should not send abroad hard cases, but I do not think that the House, with the facts before it that I have given, and having heard the medical evidence, will say that this is a case which comes within the standard which my hon. Friend and I would adopt and share in common.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.