VENEREAL DISEASE (OVERSEAS FORCES). (Hansard, 25 June 1947)

§ Dr. Segal (Preston)
I must apologise to the House for detaining hon. Members at this late hour, but this subject is one over which a good many families in this country have lost a considerable amount of sleep, so if hon. Members who remain lose another half-hour of sleep, they may perhaps regard it as being justified. I think it is best to approach the problem from the medical angle. It cuts so deeply at the root of many of the bases of our national life that it is highly desirable to avoid, as far as possible, anything in the nature of scare-mongering or sensationalism. Many hon. Members have received representations from several 644 quarters since the publication of figures during a Debate which occurred recently in another place.
At the outset, I should like to state my conviction that the British soldier is less prone to venereal disease than the soldiers of any Allied force. I base this claim on medical experience overseas during the war in various theatres, extending over a period of four and a half years, and in various combined units where the personnel of no fewer than eight Allied and Dominion Powers were represented. I think it advisable in dealing with this matter to avoid quoting statistics. I believe the statistics that have already been given elsewhere are subject to certain fallacies because, whereas they deal with the incidence of venereal disease over a period of 12 months per 1,000 men in a given Command, I think they fail to take into account that these 1,000 men over a period of 12 months were largely in a mobile state, with various changes taking place through posting and replacement. Hence over a period of 12 months the numbers were probably considerably increased. There is another reason why it is largely inadvisable to quote statistics in this connection. I believe that the actual incidence of venereal disease, although the figures quoted already are grave, are only symptomatic of a far graver problem.
I believe the real problem that faces us today is how far risks of exposure to disease have been taken for every given case of disease which has been recorded. With the wide dissemination of knowledge on this subject among troops of all Services, with the well-known methods of prophylaxis and early treatment, with the high percentage of cures and the relatively low proportion of relapses and recurrences, I think that even if the figures had been less serious than those actually given, they would still occasion grave disquiet They are symptomatic of a state of affairs that has followed in the wake of every major war and are a result of a general loosening of moral ties which affects many other countries today besides our own
In so far as this problem affects our troops stationed at home, it is not primarily the concern of the War Office. It is, firstly, the concern of the Church upon whom lies the responsibility of preaching incessantly the ideals of self-discipline and self-restraint, of a high 645 standard of moral values and of the sanctity of family life. A heavy responsibility rests upon the State in making higher standards of education available to as large a proportion of the population as possible; a responsibility also devolves upon the State to lay special emphasis on the provision of houses for newly-married couples, and to establish a graded system of family allowances with a rising scale whereby the amount would increase with each successive child; and, finally, a heavy responsibility rests upon each individual to inculcate higher ideals of family life and human values in his own particular family circle.
But in so far as this problem affects troops stationed overseas, it is primarily the responsibility of the War Office. In that connection the War Office acts as trustee on behalf of the nation for the welfare of all the troops committed to its care overseas, and I would like to ask the Minister two questions. How can he explain the relatively high rate of incidence of venereal disease in the Far East at a figure no less than six times as high as the rate in the Middle East? How far can he explain why the rate of venereal disease in Germany and Austria today is almost five times as high as the rate existing in the Middle East? These are questions which have caused great disquiet among many sections of our community. I think they are matters which may be explained to some extent by the state of affairs immediately following upon six years of war, but there are several suggestions which I would like to bring to the notice of the War Office.
I feel very strongly that it should be the aim of the War Office to encourage the recruit to retain as far as possible his civilian outlook during the brief term of his military service. I feel that a great deal more can be done in regard to the branches of the Services that deal with the moral and cultural well-being of the man in the Forces, particularly the three branches, welfare, chaplaincy and educational. I think these three branches should endeavour to form their civilian counterparts in each of the three services. During the war incalculable good was done in many parts of the world through the medium of civilian agencies which voluntarily cared for the welfare of our troops. In Kenya there was a scheme by 646 which troops on local leave were offered hospitality on English farms in the uplands of Kenya. Throughout Egypt and Palestine, civilian agencies established service clubs, arranged hospitality for troops in private families and organised tours in certain districts, entirely on a voluntary basis.
Cannot the War Office try to encourage similar activities even in occupied territories like Germany and Austria, in Greece, in Palestine, in India, in Malaya and even in Japan? In British Colonies today there will, surely, be no excuse for civilian organisations not doing their utmost to assist the moral and cultural welfare of our troops, by giving them an opportunity of contact with the healthy side of family life in normal surroundings. During the war some of the most harrowing experiences that occurred were instances of highly placed officers, after three agonised years of separation from their families at home, finally reaching the point of breaking down, and then afterwards harbouring the suspicion that their wives away in England had also been unable to overcome the various temptations that surrounded them. There were cases during the war where the whole efficiency of a squadron suffered as a result of the shock that a senior officer might have sustained. If we concede a certain moral code to one sex today, it is surely difficult to deny it also to the other sex, and if we face the implications of an individual sowing his wild oats and accept this principle on a national scale, there is no doubt that we shall ultimately undermine the whole future of our national life.
I urge the Minister to give some assurance to the many families in England today who feel profound disquiet at the figures which have been revealed in another place; and I urge him to realise that, in so far as the welfare of our troops overseas is concerned, the War Office acts as a trustee on behalf of our nation. I would ask him to endeavour to take such steps during the coming months as will substantially reduce the very disquieting figures which have been given to the public on this grave problem, and see that in the very near future very much less ground for uneasiness will exist in this country.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman)
The few hon. Members remaining in the House at this very late hour will not, I think, seek to belittle in any way the importance of the subject which my hon. Friend has raised, and which he will be the first to admit can only just be touched on in an Adjourned Debate at this hour of the night. He has raised an issue of first-rate importance, and one which gives all of us who have any responsibility for the welfare of the Services considerable anxiety. Now, I would disagree with practically nothing which my hon. Friend has said. If I may say so with respect, I believe that his approach to the problem—and it is not a prophylactic but a positive approach, if I may put it in those terms —is the correct one. We shall only get over this difficulty by creating conditions in the Services overseas under which the temptation which leads to this particular scourge is less likely to arise. I applaud his decision not to get us involved this evening in a maze of statistics, which may be confusing; and I am certainly not going to rush in where he feared to tread.
I would, however, like to give the House one or two simple figures which I think may be instructive. There are two points I would like to make with these figures. The first is that, although I would not in any way under-estimate the seriousness of the problem, there is some ground for thinking that there is a periodic rise in the incidence of this disease which one tends to get after a war; and the second point is that we are perhaps past the peak period. I would like to draw the attention of the House to one specimen list of figures covering the four quarters of last year and the first quarter of this year for the Rhine Army. Serious though these figures are, it will be noticed that they build up to a certain point, and then go down. What we hope is that this decline will be accelerated. For the first quarter of 1946, the Rhine Army figures were 30.4 per thousand; for the second quarter, 41.8; for the third quarter, 44.6; for the fourth quarter, 41.8; and for the first quarter of this year 30 per thousand. The buildup in the middle of last year, and the reduction at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, are reflected substantially in the Commands.
648 It is perhaps also worth pointing out—although I need hardly say that I make no political point of this, it is an interesting statistic—that while these are terrible figures, they are on this occasion lower than they were for a similar period after the first world war Once again, one must be careful not to make too much of that, but I would remind the House that men are far more ready to report this disease than they were in the past when disciplinary action was taken against them, and we can have some modified satisfaction that the figures are not so high. My hon. Friend asks why the incidence of the disease in the Middle East should be lower than in the Far East and North Western Europe. His guess is as good as mine. I cannot give a clear answer, but I would say that the conditions under which men live in the Services in the Middle East, substantially removed from female companionship, has a great deal to do with it.

§ Dr. Segal
I spoke about the low incidence in the Middle East which is easy to explain, but I would ask why the figures are so high in the Far East and in Europe.

§ Mr. Freeman
The relative highness and lowness are converse in the same picture. But the fact is that in the Middle East the conditions are not conducive to venereal disease. In Germany and Austria and in the Far East they are, and in both areas the incidence of the disease among the civilian population is high. In the Far East it has been extremely difficult to control the sources of infection and only recently have we started to make progress in this side of the problem. I should like to say we recognise fully the importance of trying to give the Service man the opportunity of making civilian contacts during his Service life and I have obtained some figures which prove to my satisfaction that we have more civilians doing welfare work overseas than we had during the war. I do not say we could not use more of these workers, but in the Rhine Army—from which area figures of the disease were taken—whereas there are 187 N A.A.F.I. or Service canteens, there are 207 rest centres and canteens run by voluntary bodies, and there are 928 voluntary civilian workers operating. These workers are going a great job in helping to raise the standard of civilian life. My hon. Friend's remarks about the 649 work of the chaplains, and education, I can only endorse.
It is quite obvious that, while it is possible to take medical measures to limit the seriousness of this problem where it has started, the way to eliminate the problem altogether is by a moral, educational and welfare approach. We are doing the best we can in that direction and I do not want my hon. Friend to think we have overlooked the value of giving lectures to the soldiers before they leave their stations to go abroad. These obvious points have been thought of, and effect is being given to them. We cannot solve this problem merely by rule of thumb. It can be solved only if the War Office and the soldier co-operate and if the House and the public generally recog- 650 nise the seriousness of the problem in trying to cope with it. If any hon. Members have any suggestions to make that will help us in this problem I shall be only too glad to hear of them, and, if at all possible, put them into effect. In the meantime, I repeat that our view of this matter is that it is exceedingly serious and something that we cannot possibly afford to take lightly. We are doing our very best to cope with it, and on the figures we possess I think we have some ground for thinking, at the moment, that our efforts are being rewarded with, at any rate, a limited degree of success.