As we have a minute or two before the debate on the Vote that we left over has to be resumed, may I be allowed to make a personal explanation in regard to a matter raised on the Office of the Minister for Justice? In fact, I am craving your indulgence to do something more, as my explanation is not of anything said by me but of a serious misinterpretation of my remarks as made. I find that I am reported, as far as one newspaper is concerned, with having criticised the person who gives expert medical evidence in the courts. I have in my hands a transcript of what I actually did say and I find that I passed no such criticism. Indeed it was far from my intention to pass any criticism of such a type that the representation as to what happened would be possible. The matter arose in this way; that that particular paper left out the praise I gave but published a remark of the Attorney-General in reply. It is somewhat impudent on my part to praise a person who is an expert and who gives such expert help and the very efficient medical testimony that he gives. At any rate, I ventured to praise him. The newspaper left out the things I said by way of praise and gave prominence to a comment made by the Attorney-General that it was not right for me to criticise him. Three times I reiterated that the country had the security, and indeed was entitled to that security, that, as far as medical testimony was concerned, it was getting very efficient service and that impartial and honest evidence was being given by people of the very highest capacity and experience. That has been incredibly construed in some way into criticism of that individual. Lest there should be any doubt about it, and lest any word of mine might be construed as a criticism, I want to withdraw it; but before I do so, I would ask people to read what I said, and if they do they will find that what I said was entirely in terms of praise.
