HC Deb 03 July 1962 vol 662 cc291-4
Mr. Richard Marsh (Greenwich)

I beg to ask leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory examination and treatment of persons suspected of suffering from venereal diseases by the restoration of provisions formerly contained in Defence Regulation 33B. I make no apology for taking up still more of the time of the House this afternoon, despite the inroads that have already been made in it, or for raising a subject which is unpleasant and, indeed, one which most hon. Members regard with a degree of unhappiness. It is precisely because so many of us regard this as one of those topics which we do not wish to raise, think about or even discuss, that the situation has arisen whereby it is not realised by many people that this problem is now becoming a major and most serious growing social problem in this country. We all like to sweep these unpleasantnesses under a mental carpet, and as a result a situation has arisen which is deplorable and serious.

First, I want to give evidence why I think this has become a serious problem. In 1955, there were 94,698 new cases of venereal disease reported in this country. By 1960— these are the latest figures available— the figure had risen to 129,506. To give another example, the 1960 figures for new cases— not treatments or attendances— were 8 per cent. higher than the figures in 1959, and the 1959 figures were 12 per cent. higher than the 1958 figures. Consequently, the position is that the numbers have increased enormously, and, what is important, they are continuing to increase at a significant rate.

There are an even more serious facet, and to me a more tragic one. Our statistics are incomplete. The only figures I have been able to obtain from the Ministry of Health are for gonorrhoea, and they show that the most rapid increase is among children under the age of 19. Taking children between 15 and 19 in 1957, there were 1,767 cases, and in 1960 2,938 cases were reported. To take one area which happens to have carried out a survey, in Liverpool it was discovered that girls between the ages of 11 and 19 accounted for 37½ per cent. of all the cases notified of females with venereal diseases.

I do not think that it is possible to exaggerate the misery, suffering and unhappiness involved in these figures. Also, I do not think that it is of any great value to pass moral judgments. These are not wicked people. They may be stupid and often very selfish, and they are certainly very unhappy, but they are people many of whom will be crippled, blinded and even killed, because in 1960 there were in this country 637 deaths from syphillis alone. Even worse, as a result of all these figures there are children not yet conceived whose lives will be ruined by congenital syphillis. Therefore, it is a problem of such seriousness and magnitude that I have the temerity to interrupt the proceedings of the House this afternoon to bring before hon. Members a subject which I recognise is unpleasant.

Of course, we cannot solve the problem quickly. Fortunately, or unfortunately, sex is one of the things which cannot be controlled by legislation. But there are things which the House could do, and the small Bill which I ask leave to introduce seeks to do two things.

The first problem which arises, farcical though it may seem to hon. Members, is that when a person is diagnosed by a medical practitioner as suffiering from a venereal disease and gives the name of the person from whom he or she may have caught it, the medical practitioner is not able to notify that person that he or she should go for treatment, or even examination, because under our peculiar laws of defamation and libel no medical practitioner dare take the risk of writing perhaps to a girl of 18 or 19 whom he has never seen and saying, "Dear Miss So-and-So, I believe that you may have syphillis, and I suggest that you seek treatment." Therefore, the first thing the Bill seeks to do is to remove the risk of action for defamation to a medical practitioner in the process of notifying a suspected contact.

Secondly, there is what is to me an equally incomprehensible situation in existence. There is nothing in our law which prevents any person who is known to be suffering from venereal diseases at any level refusing point blank to accept treatment. Indeed, in every one of our prisons every year hundreds of people— not one or two— whom it is suspected may have veneral disease— professional prostitutes, for example— refuse even to be examined.

Therefore, the second thing that the Bill seeks to do is to give authority so that on the second notification of a belief that a certain person has infected someone else the medical practitioner may on behalf of the local authority require that person to attend for examination and treatment within a period of seven days.

This is not a novel idea. In 1941, when manpower was the main problem which faced the country, we introduced legislation on these lines and in 1941, at the height of the war, the figures were less than half what they are today. That provision was in Defence Regulation 33B, and we have, of course, since repealed it.

The only argument which, in my view, can be levelled against the Bill is that it infringes personal liberty. But we are faced now with a problem which affects not dozens, scores, hundreds or even thousands, but hundreds of thousands of our people. The moral judgments, the posters in the public lavatories and the little talks in the classroom by embarrassed teachers have not solved the problem. In the face of the figures which I have given, I believe that the House has no right to ignore the situation which exists and to allow a doctrinaire liberalism to be an excuse for doing nothing.

I again apologise for raising this issue at this stage in this way. Some of my hon. Friends for whom I have a great deal of respect suggested to me that it was not a very sensible thing for young politicians to talk about on the Floor of the House. But it is a tragic problem, and I seek leave to introduce the Bill in the hope that the House will make a contribution towards solving it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. R. Marsh, Mr. Ede, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, and Dr. Barnett Stross.