§ [Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
§ Order for Second Beading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Sir JOHN SPEARI beg to move, as An Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I move this Amendment because I believe that the passage of the Bill would neither conduct to the interests of the mentally afflicted or promote the interests of efficiency or economy. At present the lunatics in the West Hiding of Yorkshire are in the charge of two institutions, that of the county council and that of the Poor Law guardians. The proposal in this Bill is to set up a third governing body, a body which, I submit, would have the power of spending large sums of money, but would not be in any sense responsible to the parties who have to raise the money. That is a principle which is not likely to conduce to either economy or efficiency. I may say, as president of the Poor Law Association of England and Wales, that the guardians are extremely strong in their opposition to this Bill. Of thirty-eight boards of guardians in the West Hiding of Yorkshire, thirty-one have petitioned against the Bill. These boards of guardians represent in population 2,983,228 out of 3,045,749, and the rateable value represented by these boards is £15,074,076, out of a total rateable value of £15,435,344. I think it may be said that the men who are practically responsible for raising funds to carry on local government in the West Riding of Yorkshire are opposed to the Bill under consideration. I would like, further, to put before the House the fact that the proportion of money raised by the county council and the county boroughs, who are moving in this matter, towards the cost of the maintenance of lunatics in this West Riding Division is £74,534, whereas the amount raised by the boards of guardians for the same purpose reaches £150,000, yet the guardians, under this scheme, have no voice in the administration, and this Bill makes no proposal to rectify this manifest injustice. We have, on the one hand, boards of guardians responsible for the lunatics in their 94 care, who contribute £150,000 per annum to their maintenance, yet under this Bill they will not have a particle of power in guiding the administration of the asylum or in the spending of the money which they contribute.
At present there is a working arrangement between the county councils of the West Riding of Yorkshire and the county boroughs for dealing with the asylums. The proposal is to delegate to a statutory board the powers now carried out efficiently, I think, by the two bodies I have mentioned. Our strong objection is that this board will have the power of spending money without any responsibility to the ratepayers, and that in other directions it will be a system which cannot work as efficiently as that now carried on. I know it is pleaded by the promoters of this Bill that we have in Lancashire an Asylums Board which works with a certain amount of efficiency. I venture to submit that the operations of the Asylums Board in Lancashire have been a failure, inasmuch as it has not provided sufficient shelter for those mentally afflicted. In proof of that, I would quote the fact that the asylums in the West Riding of Yorkshire to-day have received from 300 to 400 patients from Lancashire. By this Bill we are asked to do away with a system in the West Riding of Yorkshire which has been so efficient that it has afforded shelter, in addition to the mentally afflicted under their care, to some three or four hundred of the mentally afflicted in Lancashire. The House should hesitate before it does away with a system which is working with practical, efficiency in favour of an experiment which, so far as Lancashire goes, cannot be pointed to as a success. On broader lines I venture to ask the House to hesitate before it gives this Bill a Second Reading. The Government have recognised the importance and necessity of dealing with the case of the feeble-minded and the lunatic. We have a Bill before the House which shows, I believe, that the country is with them in feeling that the care of the feeble-minded and the lunatic is not at present in a satisfactory state, and that some steps must be taken to deal more efficiently with the misfortunes of this class of people, both in punitive and other directions. That being so, I appeal to the House to avoid dealing with just one corner of the country, as is proposed in this Bill. If it is desirable to take a step similar to that proposed by the Bill, surely it should be taken by the Government, and should be made applicable to all parts of the 95 country. With the fact before us that there is considerable anxiety as to the best method of dealing with the feeble-minded and the lunatic, and that we hope that some national scheme will be devised that will relieve these distressed ones, I do say it would be unwise to set up this Asylums Board in the West Hiding of Yorkshire, which would be a hindrance to any national scheme which might be, and, I hope, will be, formulated to deal with this distressing affliction.
Returning, for a moment, to the question of the position of the guardians, I say it will be a most anomalous one if this Bill is passed. The responsibility for the feebleminded and lunatic pauper rests with the guardians, yet, if this Bill is passed, the board of guardians would not have any power to compel the Asylums Board to make provision for the imbeciles and lunatics of whom they have care. That seems to me most unreasonable. The guardians contribute £150,000 per annum to the cost of lunatics in the West Riding of Yorkshire, yet if this Bill is passed, while the law of the land places upon boards of guardians the responsibility for the care of pauper lunatics, boards of guardians would have no power whatever to insist that this Asylums Board should offer opportunities to the guardians to place the lunatics under their care. Under these circumstances I feel that to give this Bill a Second Reading would be injurious to the interests of the afflicted themselves, and would be a stumbling block in the way of that national scheme which we hope to see devised to deal wisely and on curative principles, as far as possible, with the feeble-minded and the lunatic. It is most unjust to boards of guardians, for the law places upon us the responsibility of the care of the lunatic, to set up an Asylums Board over which boards of guardians would have no power to insist that they should make provision for the suitable care and protection of those whom the guardians could not care for in the workhouse. I hope the House will refuse the Second Reading, feeling that to deal with just one small area in the Kingdom, when we all know that this great question must be dealt with on a broader and more national basis, would be to set up a difficulty in the way of the great scheme which we hope to see established before very long.
§ Mr. BOOTHI beg to second the Amendment. It is inconvenient that a private Bill of this important character 96 should be placed before the House without any explanatory speech. That may be the usual custom, but I have not very much respect for a thing merely because it is old, and I should have thought this is a case, seeing that it is an attempt at general legislation under a particular form, which would have merited some explanatory speech from some Member in charge of it. I want to urge one or two considerations upon the House which may be, in a degree, different from those which have fallen from the Mover of the Amendment. The House recognises the dignified and responsible position which the hon. Member holds in the country and the general esteem in which he is held by those connected with local government, and it was natural that he should have put forward the view of the Poor Law guardians of this country. It is a view which has not always received justice. It is almost fashionable now-a-days for politicians to commence their public campaigning with the general phrase that they are in favour of a great reform in the Poor Law, but there is not one in a hundred who uses that phrase who knows what he means by it. I look forward to some general reform upon this question, and one of my main objections to this Bill is that it will be a stumbling block if it is put upon the Statute Book to the general reform we all hope to see. The work of the guardians is laborious, and they give a great many hours of really faithful service to the community which is not always recognised. Why should we be asked to legislate in this piecemeal way? There is nothing that this Bill deals with that is peculiar to the West-Riding. There is no more rhyme or reason in passing this for the West Riding than for the black country or for the county of Durham. Hon. Members may think it should be extended throughout the whole country. If so, do they expect each county or group of counties to come with private Bills of this description, interfering with the proper progress of criticism of Government Departments on the allotted days? Surely the commonsense way, if it is right to deal with the question on these lines, is to give one evening for the whole subject, and give a Second Reading to a Bill which will apply to the whole country. There will be a fight on every one of these Bills, and an evening at least would have to be given to each, and we should have a prospect of twenty, thirty, or perhaps forty of these Bills coming forward in this way before we 97 get round the country. Piecemeal legislation of that kind cannot commend itself to this House. It is a point that is shirked, and it will be shirked I am too much afraid in this Debate. Members will concentrate themselves on something they want to do in the West Riding, and I do not think it is fair to ask the House to consider it in this fashion; therefore without saying whether I am for or against the details of the Bill I ask, in the interests of business, that we should not encourage parts of the country to come forward and ask for legislation which, if it can be justified, is the lawful possession of every other part.
The question of pauper lunatics touches another sphere of legislation. We have already given a Second Reading to one Bill dealing with the feeble-minded, and we have had introduced by the Government another Bill dealing with the same problem, and the House generally would expect these two Bills to be considered in Grand Committee together. We hope they will result in a general measure acceptable to all parts of the House, not conceived in any party spirit or passed by any party vote, but something which shall advance the popular administration of the lot of the feeble-minded in the United Kingdom. You cannot possibly, here on the floor of the House, see clearly the line of demarcation between the feeble-minded, the mentally deficient, and the insane or the idiot. No doctor can do it, much less amateur legislative meddlers like we are. We are not putting ourselves in the best light before the country in passing legislation of this kind for the whole of Great Britain, and then coming back on to a measure of this kind simply to deal with the West Riding. The question of the treatment of the pauper lunatic and of the feeble-minded generally baffles a great many investigators. I would not willingly criticise any effort which was made in a right spirit from any quarter of the House to try and meet the situation. Those who give time and thought to framing a Bill or to setting up machinery to lighten the lot of these unfortunate people and to protect the general community from the increase of their numbers, because they are unfortunately fertile, would be treated in a sympathetic spirit; but this is not legislation of this kind at all. This is being brought forward by interested parties. It is being largely thrust upon the House by an agitation of the paid servants of the municipalities. It is a sort of compact between 98 the county council and town clerks, on the one hand, and the clerks and officials of Poor Law guardians, on the other. Members of the House cannot deny that they receive their communications from these town and county council clerks, wire-pulling them to support this method. When you get many authorities the tendency is for an authority to champion its own particular sphere. I do not blame them. My sympathies lie largely with the guardians, because I am a guardian. My sympathy is with my own class, who are giving time and ungrudging service to the community. The fact that this Bill incidentally seems to put a stigma upon the guardians—[An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] It seems to me that the effect of it is incidentally, though not intentionally, to do so, and naturally that does not make the Bill one which I would like to look upon with any great favour. The guardians are to be good enough to find the money, and to take care of the pauper lunatics, but the idea seems to be that while they have to stand the racket with the ratepayers, some other authority will spend the money. You are proposing to set up a statutory body which will spend the ratepayers' money, and the guardians, who will have to go back to the ratepayers and defend the rate, will get blamed for levying a rate which they have very little share in spending. I do not go against the Bill because I am a guardian. That would be a very poor way for any Member of Parliament to determine what action he should take.
I was privileged to give evidence on this Bill in another place, and the line I took was very simple. I consider that this is an attempt by certain public men and public officials in the West Riding to forestall general legislation. I think it will make it more difficult for that legislation to come. It will be said that there has been this special legislation already in regard to Lancashire. I think some hon. Members who know very little about Lancashire will get up and talk of the great success of the system. I have been a Lancashire public servant for a good many years, and I have not the slightest confidence in that system. It is largely because I think it does not meet the case and that it is a failure I took sufficient interest in this question to go and give evidence. I have never thought that the position in Lancashire justified any other place in exactly following the precedent there. I do not see any good in going to Lancashire for a scheme which is not entirely successful in order merely to apply it to the West Riding. 99 The West Hiding is composed of county boroughs, non-county boroughs, and urban and rural districts. I cannot see how you can justify this legislation for the West Riding without similar legislation for the East and the North Ridings. If you were to bring forward a Bill to deal with the whole country my attitude would be very much altered. But I would warn social reformers in this House, and especially Poor Law reformers, that by supporting this Bill they will be setting up an authority which would form another vested interest in their way. I do not go so far as Mr. Sydney Webb in support of the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission. There is some good in the Minority Report, but I think there is more good in the Majority Report. None of us would take up the position that we do not want legislation. I am looking forward to the time when a large step in advance will be made, and I look upon this Bill as another obstacle in the way. There is no pressing and immediate difficulty to justify this measure. In fact, before the thing could be thoroughly under weigh we expect a general Bill to be brought before the House. I do not oppose the Bill on the ground stated by the Mover of the Amendment, but from a different standpoint and on the general grounds which I have stated. I consider that in view of future legislation I should not make the mistake of supporting a measure which would add another difficulty to the passing of general legislation, and applying to a particular area legislation which should be applied to the whole country.
§ Mr. MIDDLEBROOKI rise to support the Bill now before the House. I think it is well that we should understand the circumstances under which the Bill has been brought forward. The charge of lunatics throughout the country has been committed by Parliament for many years past to the county authorities. Originally Quarter Sessions had to discharge the duty. The duty passed from Quarter Sessions to county councils upon their constitution, and it is now their duty, and not that of the guardians, to provide and manage asylums. This Bill does not contain the slightest suggestion to in any way alter the duties, powers, and responsibilities of any existing authority. Its proposals might be summed up almost in one sentence. At present in the West Riding there is a voluntary arrangement between the county councils 100 and the seven county boroughs existing within the area of the county councils [An HON. MEMBER: "Six county boroughs."] I think there are seven, but let us say six county boroughs. Under that voluntary arrangement they agree to unite in managing the asylums existing. These asylums were provided by the West Riding County Council, and there is no authority and no power to make provision for any additional asylum not existing, under the voluntary arrangement. There are other difficulties. The growth of the population of the West Riding is such that new county boroughs are constantly being created. Since the origin of this, arrangement two have come into existence—Rotherham and Barnsley. A third one will probably be created before long, and the only method by which these new county boroughs can come into this arrangement is by voluntary agreement between them all. It is found in practice that the discharge of their duties under the voluntary arrangement is extremely difficult. The estimates for new building proposals for any new asylums must be sent to every one of these separate authorities, must be discussed by everyone separately, and must be accepted by the whole of them in a concrete form before they can be carried into practice.
The hon. Member for Pontefract stated that this matter had its inception in some rivalry between the paid officials of the County life and those of the Poor Law life. That I deny unhesitatingly. The proposal originated solely in the difficulties that were found to exist in the practical management by the authorities themselves, and not by one single authority, but by the whole of them in the West Riding, the county council representing the whole of that great area and the six county boroughs now existing, including Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, and Huddersfield. They have promoted this Bill and have asked this House to pass it. In substance the only proposal is to make what at present is a voluntary arrangement a statutory one. The objection is that the Poor Law guardians should have a voice in the management of asylums when they pay contributions for the maintenance of patients. That is a question upon which I have no opinion to express. I know a great deal of the valuable service rendered by boards of guardians, and I attach very great importance to this service, but that question is a national question, and is that to block a local question, which is purely a domestic one, and which does 101 not in any way interfere with the national question? Parliament has seen fit, whenever this question has come up, to put upon the county authorities the responsibility of the management of the pauper lunatics, and it is with Parliament only to alter it. The second objection to this proposal is that it deals with one corner of the county only. I feel sure that the Mover and Seconder who urged that point cannot have grasped the facts as they exist. They say that a proposal of this sort for the West Riding should apply equally to the North and East Sidings. I believe that I am absolutely correct in saying in the North Riding there is not a single county borough, and therefore that proposal would not apply. In the East Riding I believe there is only one county borough—Hull—and therefore it scarcely applies there either.
§ Mr. MIDDLEBROOKIt is on the borderland of both. I will accept that if you wish. It is only in the case where there exists a county area and within its boundaries a number, and a not inconsiderable number, of county boroughs, that this question becomes a practical one. Already Parliament has sanctioned an identical scheme for Lancashire, and, although in the Committee before the other House charges were first formulated by opponents of this Bill against the administration in Lancashire, those charges were absolutely withdrawn, and it was accepted that the administration in Lancashire under the scheme identical with this had worked most satisfactorily and most beneficially. I believe, though I speak without certainty, that Dublin has a similar scheme under identical conditions. I am conversant with the administration of the Public Health Act in regard to provisions for infectious diseases and for small-pox, and they are somewhat analagous. Although one is bodily and the other is mental, there is identical provision for the creation of, and there is created, a considerable number of statutory powers similar in effect to what is now proposed. Therefore, on the ground that this does not in any way trench upon the duties or responsibilities of the Poor Law guardians, and that it is urgently needed for administration in the West Riding, and that the whole of the responsible authorities there are united in supporting this Bill, I urge the House to accept it.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXI think it a high testimony to the value of this Bill that the 102 opposition should not have been able to secure the support of the vast majority of those who represent the West Riding of Yorkshire. I think that if anybody who talks about the opposition of the guardians at the same time had taken the trouble to inquire from individual guardians what their views on this subject are, must have realised that a great many guardians have been influenced by an organisation brought against this Bill, but have not themselves any very personal or intimate knowledge of the facts with which it deals. The hon. Member for Pontefract has said that this Bill casts a stigma upon guardians. I am anxious to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Middlebrook) that no stigma was ever intended to be cast upon them, that this Bill does not interfere with the functions of the guardians, and that, not only was no stigma intended, but that no effect of the kind is produced. I speak as the only Member of this House who is also a member of the West Riding County Council. I would like the hon. Member for Pontefract and others who are opposing this Bill on behalf of the guardians to realise that the ratepayers of the county in the West Riding are going to benefit considerably by this Bill, and that the whole Bill is in the nature of a deal between the county council and the county boroughs, which will certainly not be disadvantageous in any way to the ratepayers in the county, but will set the matter on a very much fairer basis than it has hitherto been. Another statement has been that this was due to the agitation of county officials. I can only say, in view of the fact that it has been the result of a deal between these parties, and that the result will be a considerable advantage to the ratepayers of the county, that that statement should not have been made. I am sure it was not made with the intention of inflicting any stigma upon these officials, but the hon. Member ought to see that this is purely a business transaction, to which all the parties in the West Riding have agreed, and therefore it should not be treated merely as a matter of organisation of officials.
§ Mr. BOOTHI do not gather what statement the hon. Member attributes to me. I never suggested that this Bill was due solely to the agitation of paid officials. What I said was that the controversy was largely between the paid officials of the guardians and the paid officials of the county.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXI am glad to hear that explanation, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House in pursuing the matter. It has been said that a private Bill is not suitable for creating a board of this kind. If it is not suitable to make the comparatively small alterations secured by this Bill, it is far more difficult to secure by private Bill that the guardians henceforth should be the authority to administer lunacy. That would be a far greater breach of existing conditions than anything contemplated under this Bill. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill complained that guardians under it cannot secure provision for imbeciles, but no different system at present exists. That observation also affords a reply to the point of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), that the guardians raise the money and that other bodies spend it. In those matters the Bill makes no difference whatever in the system existing at the present time. The Bill has simply the effect that it alters the constitution of the body that is to administer the lunacy provisions in the West Riding in future. Under the system which prevails, some county boroughs pay on the rateable value, some on population, but none on the accommodation which they require in the asylums, and the county ratepayers are getting very much the worst of the bargain. In 1908, the county only required 44 per cent. of the accommodation in those asylums, and the remaining 56 per cent. was occupied by patients from the boroughs. The county was paying 54 per cent. of the expenditure, and the result of that was a deal between the two parties and the Bill which is now before the House. There was a unanimous agreement between the county council and the county boroughs, and this proposal was the result.
9.0 P. M.
In the West Biding, I am sorry to say, there is such a rapid increase in lunacy that, roughly speaking, a new asylum is required every fourteen years to hold some 2,000 patients, and costing something like half a million of money. In the comparatively near future we shall have to face a very large capital expenditure in the West Riding. What happens under the present system? The county council have entire control of the capital expenditure, and contributions are given voluntarily by the various county boroughs, but if there were disagreements between the various authorities, a great deal of very serious delay might occur, with consequent injury to the service of the public. The advantage of 104 having a statutory body as proposed by the Bill will be that such a body will have power to act of itself. Anybody who has taken the trouble to read the evidence given before the Committee in another place on this matter will realise that the opposition has not been very strong or effective. It has been suggested that the Bill ought not to pass without some Clause making it optional for any county borough to come into the scheme. I am authorised to say on behalf of the county council that such a proposal could not possibly be entertained, and it is one which is not desired by the county boroughs, which are unanimously in favour of the Bill being passed in its present form. I am perfectly sure that the opposition of the guardians is perfectly honest. It is, I believe, based largely upon their dread of the extravagance they think likely to occur with the county council and the county borough, which are richer bodies than many of the rural boards of guardians from whom the opposition comes. I am very loth to oppose anything which the guardians wish, but I am perfectly certain their opposition is largely based on insufficient knowledge and information of this subject, and I do not think that we ought to give it the full weight which is claimed. I am perfectly certain that this Bill embodies the best deal and the best arrangement we can make, and that the ratepayers are going to benefit from it. I do not think it is an ideal arrangement to have a body which is not directly representative of the ratepayers, but I would point out that the authority proposed by the Bill will be appointed by councils who are themselves directly elected. It seems to me to be the only possible way to obtain a body which will represent all these various authorities, and I do not see how you could possibly include among those representative authorities smaller bodies like the guardians. The first opposition which the guardians made to this proposal was directed to obtaining joint representation of themselves on the board, but that proved to be perfectly unworkable, and the opposition was then changed into one for obtaining complete control by the guardians. As I have already pointed out, that suggestion involved an absolute departure from the existing practice, and it was impossible to arrange anything of that kind. Boards of guardians are small bodies with already a great deal of important work of their own to do, and I do 105 not believe they are the bodies which should control an enormous machinery of this kind. When you add to that the fact that the ratepayers of the county are going to be benefited, and that it is a matter of general agreement between all parties concerned, I think there ought to be no difficulty whatever in the House passing the Second Reading, and allowing the Bill to go before the Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS DUNCANI hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill. It has been brought forward by the county boroughs and the County Council of the West Riding in the hope that it would be passed. The objections to it are divided into two distinct kinds. The first is that it is a partial Bill, and the second is as to the representation of the guardians. In regard to its being a partial Bill, we in the West Riding have had experience of a partial measure in regard to river pollution which has done excellent work. During all the years in which it has been at work there has been a desire throughout the country to have a universal Rivers Pollution Prevention Bill, yet the exigencies of public time and one thing and another have prevented such a Bill being brought forward. During all this time the work has been going on beneficially in the West Riding, and I am quite sure that it has set a good example to the rest of the country, and has given experience which will be valuable for larger legislation that may be required. That the Bill is a partial one is really no argument against it. What has to be considered is whether it is a valuable Bill in the provision it makes for the mentally defective. The Government have provided a Bill, and a Bill was brought in by a private Member about a fortnight ago, and given a Second Reading, while a very large and comprehensive Bill dealing with the same question was brought in by the hon. Member for Durham. But in not one of those Bills is any provision made for any class of mentally defective people being handed over to the control of the guardians. The guardians have been excluded from all those larger measures.
§ Sir J. SPEARThe guardians have never asked for complete control being handed over to them. What the guardians object to is that an outside body should be created which is not responsible to the ratepayers.
Mr. H. DUNCANI think the hon. Member is mistaken in saying that the guar- 106 dians do not ask complete control. So far as the guardians are concerned, their position is not in any way affected by this Bill, and their relations with the asylums will proceed exactly in the same way as at present. What they have done in the past and made statutory provision for will still be in their hands. The four asylums which this Bill affects in the West Riding are all county asylums. That is, they are all, so far as their capital provision is concerned, under the entire control of the West Riding County Council. It is desirable, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, that a rearrangement of the contributions, and of the representation on the committee should be made. It will be, I am quite sure, a considerable gain to the West Riding County Council area that this proper readjustment should be made. It is absolutely necessary that we should have this Bill passed at once, because we are already on the way to require a further provision for lunatics in the West Riding. I have been for many years a guardian, and for many years also a member of the West Riding Council. I quite sympathise with what the guardians say in regard to their fear of the extravagance of a large body such as this in the provisions of asylums; but having had something to do with one of the largest of the West Riding Asylums, I know that the extravagance is not in the county council itself, but that it is the demands which are made by the Lunacy Commissioners that are the cause of the expense of the asylums.
Something has been said about the body remaining as it is at present, a voluntary association. One of the great features of all county councils, and particularly of the County Council of the West Riding, where towns are growing up very quickly, is that there is a continual demand, not only for the creation of new county boroughs, but also for the enlargement of existing borough areas. There are areas which have been rapidly increasing in population and in value, and which are being abstracted from the county council area. That is one of the continual difficulties of readjustments of taxation and of many matters of local administration. I think that the statutory establishment of an authority of this kind, which would hold the balance, both of expenditure and of representation, to adjust as population increased in the different areas, is one which should be of very great value. If the House passes this Bill, as I hope it will, 107 and should it prove, as I venture to hope it will, an effective instrument, not only for dealing with the present provision for lunatics, but also for dealing with all those new departures for treating the mentally afflicted which are in process of being passed, then I am sure this new body would be an example which may well be applied to other parts of the country.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSI quite agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) with regard to the position of the guardians. This Bill is one which is an absolute necessity for the administration of the asylums in the West Riding. I have had the honour of being a, guardian myself, and I wish to associate myself entirely with what has been said with regard to the eminent services rendered to the country by boards of guardians. I know that in some quarters their work has not been appreciated, but it deserves to be commended. This Bill does not alter their position in any way whatever. It simply does this: it reconstitutes an unworkable authority. It has been found in the West Riding by the County Council and the six county boroughs under the Lunacy Act of 1890, that it is impossible to work in future and provide the money for the carrying on of these large asylums. This Bill was opposed in another place by the boards of guardians. In this House I understand they have no locus standi. They have not petitioned against the Bill, and if they had their petition would have been ruled out. Therefore their position now is simply an appeal to the Members of this House on Second Reading on behalf of the status generally in the country of boards of guardians. Their opposition really has nothing to do with the operation of this Bill. This Bill establishes a permanent board to be constituted by fifty members, composed of twenty-two elected by the county council and twenty-eight by the county boroughs. At the present moment the number of members are just the reverse. There are for the asylums committee fifty-seven members appointed by the county council and twenty-six by the county boroughs. That cannot continue for this reason, that the county boroughs are now contributing less than they ought to. They are sending more lunatics and they are not paying their proper contribution for the use of the asylums. That has created the initial difficulty. That was 108 ascertained a few years ago, and the county councils turned round and said that the county boroughs ought to contribute a large quota towards the expenses. The county boroughs replied that they were quite willing to do so; but, they said, if we do we must have greater control over the capital expenditure. At the present moment, the entire control of the expenditure is in the hands of the county council, and unless this Bill passes you have got an impasse, and you cannot get beyond it. You have got a deadlock.
What the six county boroughs and the county council ask is to make an arrangement similar to that in Lancashire of a permanent board. I should like to say in passing that the Lancashire Board has given great satisfaction. It was mentioned in the Committee of another place that it was extravagant, but that was proved not to be so. It was proved that the expense of lunatics in Lancashire was the lowest in the country—9s. 2d. per person. It was also proved by evidence that the reason of the complaint as to Lancashire not having sufficient accommodation was simply this: that the population in Lancashire was increasing so rapidly that the county authorities had not been able to for see that increase of population, and unfortunately also, with the increase of population, the increase of lunacy; and that therefore they had not been able to provide sufficient accommodation; but that at present they were providing new asylums which would meet all the needs of the case. The new authority will be constituted with a majority for the county boroughs. Therefore, speaking on behalf of one of the large county boroughs, our position is going to be improved by this Bill. We shall have greater representation, and the Bill will also give us control over the capital expenditure, which we have not at the present moment. There is one further reason that I will urge, namely, that further accommodation for lunatics will unfortunately be required in the West Riding in the very near future. It is a lamentable fact, but it is so. But unless this Bill is carried there will be a difficulty, and the accommodation will not be provided. I should like to read what Sir John Horsfall, chairman of the West Riding County Council, said in another place when giving his evidence:—
If things went on as at present, with the committee constituted as at present, although the county boroughs would be contributing more than half the funds, the county councils would have then the sole control over expenditure?—Yes, and I may say that whatever you do, without a fresh Bill the county council have the 109 sole control over the expenditure on buildings, and will have in the future unless we get a Bill to remedy it. That is the crux of the whole thing to my mind.I think Sir John Horsfall was perfectly right. The crux of the position is that in order to obtain the necessary capital from the county boroughs new powers from Parliament are necessary. For these reasons I hope the House will not hesitate to give the Bill a Second Reading.
§ Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELSo far as I could learn from the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill, those Members have not read its provisions. They endeavoured to make out a case for the boards of guardians to have control over and the power of erecting asylums. If this control and power were handed over to boards of guardians throughout the country it would certainly lead to much greater extravagance than will obtain under this Bill. The Bill is a very simple one, and I am a strong supporter of it. I have had some experience in the management of asylums, having been a member of an asylums committee for the past twenty-three years. We have had the same difficulties in the county of Durham as they have had in the West Biding of Yorkshire, but we have not solved them in the manner proposed in the West Riding. It has been stated quite truly that this Bill does not propose to alter in any way the Act of 1890, which places upon county councils and county boroughs the responsibility of providing asylums. That responsibility is not upon the guardians. They have nothing to do with it. I think the Bill is a very wise one, because it will save the ratepayers a large sum of money. It is proposed that instead of county boroughs undertaking to provide asylums for themselves they shall amalgamate with the county council in a joint scheme. It is a very simple matter considered from that point of view. At the present time every county council has power, if the accommodation for lunatics is insufficient, to give notice to the county boroughs to terminate the agreements they have with them, so that the county boroughs must provide asylum accommodation for their own unions. The county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, instead of giving the county boroughs notice to provide asylums for their own areas, have invited them to join with them in a scheme for making the asylum accommodation sufficient to meet the requirements of the whole of the county area and of the county boroughs. That will save the ratepayers an enormous sum of money, 110 because if the county councils gave notice to terminate the existing agreements you would have ten asylums where four now exist. Anybody acquainted with the work of an asylum knows that the larger the asylum the cheaper is the working cost. If instead of one large asylum you have two or three institutions you run up the standing charges enormously. From that point of view it is much the cheaper system to amalgamate.
Under Section 169 of the Act of 1890, I believe, the county boroughs cannot send more than two representatives unless they make some private arrangement. If that is so, the county boroughs under this scheme will increase their representation, and Leeds or Sheffield will obtain eight representatives in proportion to their responsibilities. That is an enormous advantage, and will give greater security to the scheme than if they were under the existing law, as it will remove the cause of the friction which exists almost everywhere in connection with the visiting committee appointed by the county councils and the county boroughs. From some remarks which has been made to-night it would appear that the county boroughs have no representation upon the visiting committee. Every county borough is represented. The fact is that the scheme of this Bill is in existence to-day. All you are doing is to give greater security, and to treat the county boroughs more justly than you have done in the past. That is all it does under the scheme before the House. There is another reason which I should like to advance in support of the Bill. The asylums committee has charge of a very large number of lunatics. Where you have a county borough, or two or three county boroughs, attached to an asylum, there is always a great uncertainty existing, because the asylums committee is uncertain as to whether they can make future provision or not. The members of the committee are uncertain whether the county boroughs will withdraw from the scheme or not.
That is a factor which is affecting very seriously the administration of the asylums in this country. It is, therefore, a great advantage, in my opinion, if you remove that uncertainty, so that the county and county boroughs know exactly their responsibility. Let me illustrate: In the county in which I live we have two county boroughs attached to our asylum. They have both given notice to withdraw from the county asylum. Each of them proposes 111 to build an asylum of its own. I consider that that is a very costly system, because we could work that one asylum, or an addition to the existing asylum, very much cheaper in the interests of the ratepayers than we can work three asylums in a county such as ours. I have looked into this scheme. I think it is an admirable one from a practical point of view. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed, because it appears to me to be an absurdity that the guardians in a county should claim, owing to the amalgamation, such as we have heard of, of the county boroughs and the county councils under this Bill—an amalgamation which exists at present, or which may exist at present—should claim that they should have a right to erect and control asylums. If the guardians desire to do this, then the Act of 1890 must be repealed. That Act places the responsibility upon the county councils and the county boroughs to provide an asylum, and this Bill does not in any way affect, but simply consolidates that position.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith)I think all who have listened to this Debate will have come to the conclusion that we have had a very interesting and practical discussion. Something has been said about the work of the Asylums Board of Lancashire. I may say, with great respect to those who have used that argument, that it is not very relevant or conclusive. Where Lancashire may have failed, Yorkshire may succeed. The point really that we have to consider is: Does the present system work well, and is the change proposed by this Bill likely to work better? My hon. Friend who spoke last mentioned the fact that under the Act of 1890 an arrangement had been made between the county councils and the six county boroughs. That arrangement has two defects, one from a county council point of view, and another from a county borough point of view. The defect from the first point of view is obvious, and it is that this arrangement is terminable by notice. How can a county council really consider as a public authority that it should spend those vast sums on asylums when the county boroughs may remove themselves from the arrangement? From the county borough point of view the disadvantage is that at the present moment it is the visiting committee that decides 112 what the expenditure shall be. The visiting committee is made up—that is the larger portion, of county council members; and really it is they that decide what expenditure shall take place, and whether it is necessary, and except, so far as the county boroughs are represented on the visiting committee, they have no direct control. From both points of view, then, the present system in force is unsatisfactory.
That being so, there is really only now the question as to the arrangements of this Bill. Does it suggest a better system than that which now prevails? In both respects I submit to the House that it is an improvement. In the first place, the arrangement with the union is permanent. The county council now will be represented in proportion to its contribution and its contribution will be in proportion to the patients it sends to the asylum. In the second place, there will not be that delay in referring things to the county council on the one hand and to the county boroughs on the other hand. The Asylums Board will be able to have some regular control, and that without any undue delay. It is quite unnecessary to draw boards of guardians into this discussion. They have nothing to do with the merits of this particular proposal from the West Riding of Yorkshire. I think the West Riding is entitled to have separate treatment in this matter, and this is to be remembered so far as the board of guardians is concerned that their position at any rate is no worse than at present. There have been two Reports of Royal Commissions, one on the Poor Law and the other on the Feeble-minded. The Report of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded considered and rejected this application of the guardians to have direct control over matters of this kind. The supreme test of this Bill is: will it do something for the poor people concerned? At any rate this one joint board having control over these Poor Law institutions will afford opportunities for a classification and that discrimination that is at the root of all reform in matters of this kind. I think the matter has now been really very thoroughly discussed in the House, and after hearing the arguments on both sides, I appeal on behalf of the Home Office that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
§ Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a Second time, and committed.