§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The question was as follows:
§ To ask His Majesty's Government, to state precisely the nature of the difficulty in administering the V.D. Acts and regulations which has led to the withdrawal of the statutory protection of secrecy from persons receiving treatment at V.D. clinics, and to state whether it is contemplated that in future information as to attendance or nonattendance of persons at V.D. clinics, or factual information as to the state of health of persons receiving treatment, will in any circumstances be able to be communicated to the police by the Medical Officer of Health or by a member of the V.D. services, and to ask His Majesty's Government to state the number of cases in which compulsory medical examination took place under Regulation 33B, now repealed, and the number of cases (men and women separately) in which the persons examined were found to be suffering from venereal disease.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)My Lords, the withdrawal of the provision to which the noble Lord refers results from the revoking of the Public Health (Venereal Diseases) 20 Regulations of 1916. These regulations placed upon local authorities the responsibility for the treatment of venereal diseases and have been revoked because under the National Health Service Act this responsibility now devolves on the regional hospital boards. It no longer appears necessary to continue special statutory provision to the effect that treatment for venereal diseases shall be regarded as confidential. The maintenance of secrecy does not depend for its force primarily on any statutory provision, but rather on the proper and normal relationship between doctor and patient. There is no reason to apprehend that the confidential nature of venereal disease treatment will not continue to be as closely preserved as it always has been. The number of cases in which compulsory medical examination took place under Regulation 33B was 13 men and 1,116 women. Information about how many of these were found to have venereal disease is not available.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, am I to understand that in regard to the second part of my question, the information will not be made available to the police or to the Services?
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThe answer to the noble Lord's question is in the affirmative.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHIt will be made available?
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELIt will not be made available.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMay I ask one other point? Is the noble Earl not aware that the inability to provide statistics about the cases in which infection was found, which must be upon record, is bound to lead the public to the conclusion that the procedure has given unfavourable results?
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI cannot accept the noble Lord's conclusion, because the facts have not been placed at my disposal. I will gladly ascertain the facts, and let the noble Lord have them, and he will see from them whether his conclusion is justified.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI am grateful for the noble Earl's promise and look forward to hearing from him.
LORD SALTOUNAs this is a matter of interest, will the noble Lord arrange to publish his reply in the Proceedings of the House according to the usual practice?
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, the questions and the replies will, of course, appear in Hansard, in the ordinary way.