§ 37. Mr. Keeling
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the valuable expert testimony given by magistrates, probation officers and others, as to the conditions which should prevail in remand homes, he will publish the evidence given at the recent London inquiry, with such excision of names as he thinks advisable.
§ Mr. H. Morrison
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) on 7th December. I then said that the inquiry would be searching and comprehensive, and the report would include a fair and adequate review of the evidence given. When hon. Members have read the report, I am sure they will agree that these promises have been amply fulfilled and that there would be no justification for the labour and expense which would be involved if—contrary to the usual practice—the evidence were published as well as the report.
§ Mr. Keeling
As the Minister bases his negative reply on labour and expense, will he place one copy of the evidence in the Library, and give another to the Press Association?
§ Mr. Morrison
No, Sir. I should not be willing to give a copy to the Press Association, and I am very doubtful about putting one in the Library.
§ Mr. Morrison
I think one might get partial extracts in that case. It would be fairer for hon. Members to see the report, when they can judge for themselves. I cannot understand why I am being pressed to take an unusual course.
§ Mr. Molson
Will the Minister keep his mind open upon this subject until we have seen the report, and then, if we think right, we can make representations to him upon it?
§ Mr. Douglas
Is it not most unusual for such evidence to be published; and is the object of hon. Members to question the impartiality of the tribunal, or to make party capital out of the report?