HC Deb 01 August 1958 vol 592 cc1867-75

3.31 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Jones (Merioneth)

The subject that I am raising this afternoon is unique. It has to do with two young constituents of mine who are identical twins. I am sure that the House will respect my desire to shroud their names and addresses in anonymity and also that the Minister, when replying, will respect that desire. But since this subject appeared on the Order Paper I have been pestered by the Press for the history of these two young lads, and especially for their names.

I was also interested to find that the newspapers all asked me the same question—was I a twin? ft is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) happens to be my brother—

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

A very good brother.

Mr. Jones

I thank my right hon. Friend for that remark—but I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, never suspected us of being twins, especially identical twins. I wish you had, because on many occasions he has been called in preference to me. I am not complaining about that; let brotherly love continue.

Before I refer to the details of the case, I should like to describe its most pathetic domestic background. The twins' father has been an inmate of a tuberculosis sanatorium. He is still suffering from tuberculosis, and is about to undergo an operation. There were two other sons, who died of chest trouble, and were obviously victims of this wretched disease. There is also another son, aged 18, who has been in a sanatorium. Having stated those bare facts, I am sure that no words of mine are necessary to impress upon the Minister the sympathy and encouragement that this home deserves.

Identical twins were born to the family. I do not suppose that the Minister can understand this strange biological phenomenon any more than I. As laymen, we can only accept the fact that there is a very pronounced difference between ordinary twins and identical twins. In the case of the latter, we simply know that in every respect the two are one and the one is two. When one becomes ill the other is also stricken, and when one is in pain the other simultaneously suffers from the same pain.

Identical twins, I understand, are always of the same sex and are inseparable. The two youths to whom I am referring this afternoon have always been inseparable. They have slept together, attended school together, worked together and spent their leisure hours together. When they came of military age, they appeared before the National Service Medical Board. One was passed fit for service and the other was rejected.

It was at this stage that I was approached by the parents, and on 4th January this year I wrote to the Minister of Labour and National Service requesting that the accepted twin should be re-examined in the light of information which I gave the right hon. Gentleman at the time. On 16th April I received a letter from the Minister stating that this man had been re-examined on 30th January, as a result of which he had been downgraded to Grade II, but was still fit for service. The Minister concluded his letter with the following remarks: He must, therefore, be regarded as available to do his National Service. I should perhaps explain that in a case where both twins are fit we take every care to post them, wherever possible, to National Service on the same day and to the same unit, but when, as in this case, one of them is unfit I am afraid we cannot regard that circumstance as relieving the other of his obligation. In the case of identical twins, that last sentence could be regarded as a very callous observation indeed, but let me hasten to add in fairness to the Minister that I was not able to inform him when I wrote to him that these men were identical twins. It was after the one had been called up for National Service that I received the testimony of their doctor. He wrote: I have always regarded them as identical twins. I cannot tell them apart, and they were always together. Certainly if one was ill the other would follow suit. Since one has been called up for military service the other has obviously been suffering from the effects of the parting. He is dispirited and off his food. I am sure if you could check up that the other is not much use to his unit. I certainly hope that you can help these young lads. I want to make a strong plea to the Minister on behalf of these young men, and I can only hope that it will not be made in vain. I am very glad that it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service who is replying to this debate because, if I may be allowed to say so—and this is no flattery—there is no hon. Member of this House who is held in more affectionate esteem than is the hon. Gentleman. We know, too, that no hon. Member of this House has suffered in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has suffered, and that when pleas of this kind are made he is always responsive to them.

These two men are victims of an inexplicable biological phenomenon. I do not know whether the Minister can explain to us this afternoon—if he can, he will be doing something which I have been unable to find in any book—just what accounts for something of this kind in nature. These young men cannot help being inseparable and no psychiatric treatment can rectify the position.

When a murder is committed our passions are aroused and we stop at no expense to find the culprit and to avenge the death. To separate those two men—I am using my words quite advisedly—is to commit a slow murder. Indeed, if anything fatal should happen to one of them as a result of this separation—I do not know whether I am covered by Privilege, in view of what happened a week or two ago—I say that someone on the Government Front Bench must be charged with murder. To separate these two men in the circumstances which I have described is simply nothing but slow murder.

I am making an appeal in the best manner I possibly can to whomsoever is in a position to bring these two together. They are not men who are dodging Army service. Had the two been accepted I would not be speaking here this afternoon on their behalf. Both submitted themselves readily for examination. One was accepted and the other rejected. In the light of the circumstances, and particularly in the light of the background that I have described, I believe that these two men should not be with others in the Army, if only because of their medical history. Their grandmother died of tuberculosis.

I am sure that the British Army will not fall because one of these men has been released on compassionate grounds and brought out of the Army. That is my plea, and I hope that the Minister who is to speak will not give a reply, if it is not favourable, which is irrevocable. Yesterday, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs gave me very pleasant, joyful news. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will follow his example. Surely it is not too much to ask. We hear a good deal in these days about "Honey in the morning, honey in the evening"—how does it go? I am asking the hon. Gentleman to give me news this afternoon that will bring hope to this family in its plight. It is a family of pure Welsh people. If I were making an appeal for someone in Uganda I am sure that every effort would be made to deal with it, but these people are from Wales. I will not give their address, but they are good constituents of mine.

3.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood)

I was very glad that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) made it clear at the beginning of his speech that he had no personal interest to declare. I feel that after the announcement yesterday to which the hon. Gentleman referred about Trawsfynydd his standards are naturally set extremely high. I hope that I have something to say to him which will not be altogether disappointing.

He has transported me for a few minutes into that lovely constituency of his which, I am ashamed to say, I had never seen before I visited it this last June. When I first arrived at it I remember thinking that, given a good storm and lots of thunder and lightning, it would not be an unsuitable setting for some great drama of the world. The subject to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention of this closely-knit, united family and these rather peculiar circumstances is one which raised deep issues, as he has pointed out, and which might perhaps find their way into that great drama if ft is ever staged among the hills and valleys of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

I ought to explain why I am replying to this debate and not my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. In many ways that would have been rather more suitable, because the hon. Member has been pleading for a compassionate release of this twin, whom perhaps I should refer to as the military twin. Naturally that is a decision which only my hon. Friend can reach. Another advantage enjoyed by my hon. Friend is that he happens to be the father of twins. I do not know whether they are identical. But my hon. Friend would perhaps be better able to understand some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.

My hon. Friend and I agreed a few days ago that this discussion would turn largely on our decision a couple of months ago to call up the military twin for National Service. I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the points he had in mind to raise. It is obviously right that, as the Minister of Labour and National Service is responsible for that decision, I should try to give the reasons which led us to it. The hon. Gentleman told us about the call-up and about the medical board and grading. I do not think I need go into very much detail about that, except to say that it was after the hon. Member had written to my right hon. Friend that it was decided to re-examine the military twin. Although reports from two consultants showed no abnormalities in his physical condition, the board thought it prudent to put him into Grade II, which meant that he was liable for call-up but would serve under less exacting conditions than if he had been placed in Grade I.

This military twin enlisted in the Royal Artillery about two months ago. I believe that he has since transferred to the Royal Engineers. In this connection, I think it is relevant to point out that the Army medical authorities did not disagree in any way with the National Service medical board's assessment. Naturally, I have given careful thought to this case, and my right hon. Friend gave careful thought to it when the hon. Member wrote to him, and we have both considered the medical evidence.

I must admit that this sort of case is even more interesting than some other cases which one has to consider. In this case we had to consider two things. Firstly, we had to consider whether the medical evidence and the grading of both the civilian and the military twin could have been wrong. I cannot find any medical evidence to suggest that the military twin was not rightly placed in Grade II as fit for service and the civilian twin was not rightly placed in Grade III and, therefore, unfit for service. The conclusion is therefore that, other things being equal, the military twin should be called up and the civilian twin should not.

Now we get to the main point raised by the hon. Member, which is whether in the case of identical twins other things are equal. The hon. Member rightly pointed out that only those who are identical twins can fully understand the peculiar relationship which exists. Those of us who are "laymen" and not identical twins can understand that twins have particularly close ties. Unlike other members of the family, they pass through the various stages of life together. They are therefore likely to have more in common with one another than with other members of the family. Where twins are identical, it can be suggested that those ties will be even closer. But we come up against something which I think the hon. Member ignored in what he had to say. In the case of most identical twins there will come a time when separation is inevitable.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as we all know, a great many identical twins get married and live quite separate lives. I do not think, therefore, that one ought to overstate the case, or suggest that identical twins will never be, or want to be, separated during the whole of their lives. Here again, I am told that identical twins are often more attached to other members of their family than to each other. That is an opinion which I have received from a doctor, and I can only place it against the opinion expressed by the hon. Member.

I am advised that they do not differ medically from other brothers and sisters of the same parents, and any stress of separation between identical twins can be compared with the stress of separation between them and other members of the family. There is nothing biologically different between the two, but there is a further point. We have to call up a great number of young men who are already married. If we were to do what the hon. Member suggests and not separate identical twins by calling up one if only one happens to be fit for National Service, it would be very difficult for us to make a case for separating a man from his wife. I think there would be a great many difficulties in adopting the general lines of the suggestion of the hon. Member. Apart from my right hon. Friend not having power to exempt the military twin in this case from call-up, if we allowed the exemption because close ties existed between a man called up and some member of his family at home. I should think almost everyone might claim very close ties with someone, and, I am informed, some might well be found with even closer ties than exist between these two brothers.

That is the reason why we took the decision last May to call up the military twin even when we knew that his brother was not fit. The question the hon. Member has raised is whether this military twin should not now be released from the Army in order to be able again to live in the family and remove the difficulties which the civilian twin is said to be facing. I understand that the military twin was interviewed by his commanding officer last Wednesday and on that occasion applied for a compassionate release from the Army. As the hon. Member probably knows, the machinery to be followed after this is that an inquiry is made into the circumstances of the family. That inquiry will take place, and a report will be given to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War as soon as possible.

I am bound to admit that I have not heard, either in the hon. Member's correspondence with my right hon. Friend or the letters which he passed on from the father of the twins, about the other two sons who have died. If that is so, it is no doubt something which the inquiry into the family circumstances will take into account. I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member an answer today, even on behalf of my hon. Friend, because, as I say, this inquiry must take place. Directly it has taken place the letter which the hon. Member has written to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War will be answered saying whether or not a compassionate release is possible. There is nothing I can usefully add at the moment, and I have no wish to prejudge this matter which, as I hope I have explained, is not at the moment within my field of decision.

I should like to make two points, however, because I think they are relevant in this case. The first is that the standards which the Armed Forces adopt in deciding questions of compassionate release are, for obvious reasons—and must be—similar to the kind of standards which are laid down by the umpire in deciding the question of whether or not on hardship grounds a man should have his call-up for National Service postponed. The second point is that, even if compassionate release were granted to this twin, it would remain the duty of my right hon. Friend and the Ministry of Labour to keep the case of the twin under review with a view possibly to having to re-enlist him at a later date. I wanted to make those points quite clear so that there should be no misunderstanding.

Finally, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Member to some psychiatric advice which was given—not in this case—I wish to be perfectly honest—but in a similar case of identical twins. This is the advice we were given. The doctor who was asked to advise in a very similar case to this said: The situation will not, of course, be improved if the parents and doctor continue to emphasise the emotional and sentimental features of the separation, but if they can all he encouraged to take a mature view and to concentrate their attention on the fact that these twins are already different and that the final maturity of their personalities must come through the development of their differences as well as their similarities, then there is little likelihood that permanent harm will result. It is a principle such as that which we believe justifies the original decision to call up this military twin.

I do not want to prejudge in any way what the answer of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War may be about his compassionate release, but I would repeat that the separation of these young men must happen sometimes in their life if they are to live normal, healthy lives. Probably they will marry and go different ways. I am only anxious that harm should not be done by emphasising the dangers of separation too much so that the chance of normal development and each living a healthy mature life should be as great as possible