§ 39. Mr. BASIL PETOasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the Report of the Trevethin Committee has been published for over two years and that the Ministry has accepted the Report in principle, with the exception of Clause 14, which has been under their consideration for a prolonged period, a date may be fixed for giving a definite reply to the Ministry of Health's acceptance or rejection of the recommendations contained in Clause 14 of the Trevethin Report?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to his question of the 7th May, and to the further answer which I gave on this subject to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Fareham Division (Major-General Sir J. Davidson) on the 22nd instant.
§ 56. Mr. BENNETTasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that 1712 Colonel L. W. Harrison, of the Ministry of Health, at the Congress of the Royal Institute of Public Health at Brighton, on 29th May, objected to Mr. H. Wansey Bayly, honorary secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, quoting from the evidence of witnesses before Lord Trevethin's Committee of Inquiry, on the ground that such evidence was confidential; whether the Ministry of Health had received from the Committee of Inquiry any communication to the effect that the evidence of witnesses before that Committee would be treated as confidential; and, seeing that typewritten copies of evidence are being supplied on application to those who gave it without any stipulation being made that such copies are confidential, what is the reason for the non-publication of the evidence before this Committee?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. I understand that the Committee decided not to ask for the publication of the evidence.