§ Mr. SCURRasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the verdict of the jury in Harnett v. Bond, he proposes to suspend Dr. Bond from acting as lunacy commissioner pending the decision of the Court of Appeal?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYWithout entering into a discussion of a case which is stillsub judice, I would draw attention to the fact that Mr. Justice Lush, in the course of the discussion which took place in Court after the jury had returned their verdict, stated that he agreed that there was no evidence of any dishonesty or mala fides on the part of Dr. Bond. In view of this fact, and of Dr. Bond's long and distinguished record of public service, and his eminent position in the scientific world, I see no reason to take such action as is suggested in the hon. Member's question.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons the minutes of evidence in the case of Harnett v. Bond before any estimate is submitted to the House for the purpose of indemnifying Dr. Bond; and on what ground this case is being taken to the Court of Appeal at further cost to the public?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYThe transcript of the shorthand notes of the evidence is extremely bulky, and such copies of it as are available are, I understand, required for the purposes of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal. After the appeal has been disposed of, I will consider whether it is practicable to make the transcript available for the information of hon. Members. The answer to the second part of the question is that the case is being taken to the Court of Appeal in the public interest.