§ (1) There shall be constituted a Board of Control consisting of not more than fifteen Commissioners, of whom not more than twelve shall be paid Commissioners, and of the paid Commissioners four shall be legal Commissioners (that is to say, practising barristers or solicitors of at least five years' standing) and four at least shall be medical Commissioners (that is to say, duly qualified medical practitioners of at least five years' standing) and at least one of the paid and one of the unpaid Commissioners shall be a woman.
§ (2) The Commissioners shall be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation, as respects the legal Commissioners, of the Lord Chancellor, and, as respects the other Commissioners, of the Secretary of State; and in making such recommendation regard shall be had to the desirability of the inclusion amongst the Commissioners of persons specially quali- 428 fied to hold inquiries amongst Welsh-speaking persons.
§ (3) The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the Commissioners to be chairman.
§ (4) The Board of Control so constituted shall be a body corporate by the name of "the Board of Control," with a common seal and with power to hold land without licence in mortmain for the purpose of their powers and duties.
§ (5) If the Secretary of State so directs and subject to any Regulations made by him, the Board shall appoint an administrative committee, and to such committee shall be entrusted such of the administrative powers and duties of the Board as are mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.
§ (6) Subject as aforesaid, any act or thing required or authorised by this Act to be done by the Board or the Commsisioners may be done by any one or more of the Commissioners as the Secretary of State may by general or special order direct.
§ (7) There shall be paid to the Chairman and such number, not exceeding eleven, of the Commissioners as the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine, such salaries or other remuneration as the Secretary of State, with the like consent, may fix: Provided that in the case of the Commissioners other than the Chairman such salary shall not exceed the sum of fifteen hundred pounds a year, but may begin at such lower sum as the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury may fix.
§ (8) The Chairman and paid Commissioners shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. The unpaid Commissioners shall hold office for such term as the Secretary of State may determine.
§ (9) The persons who immediately before the commencement of this Act hold office as paid Commissioners in Lunacy, shall, by virtue of their office, become as from the commencement of this Act paid Commissioners of the Board of Control, and shall, notwithstanding anything in this Section, continue to hold their offices by the like tenure and be entitled to the like salary as if they continued to hold the same offices as they held before the commencement of this Act.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "twelve" ["twelve shall be paid Commissioners"], and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven."
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to second this Amendment. Hon. Members know perfectly well when we increased the number of judges the Government proposed a Resolution and they found no difficulty in passing it. The position of these Commissioners is analogous, and the same pressure might be brought to bear to increase this Board of Control. It is important that we should retain the control of this House over finance, and if we hand over to the Home Office a vague power to increase the Board of Control as they think fit we are giving up a power which we have no right to surrender and which we ought to maintain. I think under the circumstances hon. Members ought to vote for the smaller number of Commissioners. When this Bill was going through Committee a concession was made by the Home Secretary which I was sorry he did make. It was that one of these three extra Commissioners should be a Welsh-speaking person. I think we might also have had one thoroughly acquainted with the classes with whom this Bill is going to deal. This Bill is to deal with the lower orders, and under these circumstances one of those Commissioners should be a person particularly associated with the lower orders who understands their feelings, rather than a person who merely understands the Welsh language. When one of these three Commissioners is to be handed over to Wales it makes out a stronger case for limiting the number. It may also be said that there is also need of a Commissioner for the trade unionists. I am confident that on every ground it is only right that "eleven" should be inserted in the Bill, and we should retain the power of checking any undue prodigality on the part of any future Government in this connection.
§ Mr. McKENNAI think that I can inform the hon. Member very briefly why it is necessary to take power to appoint twelve, although I undertake only immediatly to exercise power up to the number of eleven. There will at the beginning be a great deal of administrative work to do which will necessarily fall largely upon the new appointees. Later, when there will be less administrative work, there will be a great many more mentally deficient persons to look after. The probable limit of the immediate work under this Bill will be about 30,000 mentally deficient persons, but as years go by we shall have to deal with upwards of 100,000, and it is quite obvious, in 430 view of the necessity of personal inspection by the Commissioners, whose duty it is to safeguard the liberty of the subject, that it is essential we should have power to increase the number from eleven to twelve. I hope that answer will be satisfactory.
§ Mr. STEWARTI think one good reason why the figure in the Bill which was put in after serious consideration both by the Committee and the Government should stand is that the three Gentlemen who have Amendments on the Paper seem to have five different opinions as to what number of Commissioners there should be. The fact that they ask for five different numbers shows that they do not know what they want. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) about the advisability of not spending public money unnecessarily, but he has forgotten that these three new Commissioners will have 66,000 persons, or 22,000 each, to look after. We ought also to remember that those we are looking after are children and people who are perfectly unable to look after themselves. You can spoil a ship for a halfpenny worth of tar, and I think that it would be a mistake to act parsimoniously with regard to the Commissioners who are to look after these people.
§ Mr. J. WARDI am bound to confess that the statement of the Home Secretary does not satisfy me. His statement, was to the effect that for some considerable time, for at least two or three years, there will only be about 30,000 people who will come under the control of this Board.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is in addition. There will be 30,000 additional under this Bill.
§ Mr. J. WARDI quite understand. That is what I mean. Later, there will be some 100,000 people to deal with. That does not seem to me in any way to justify the extension of the Commission to the extent proposed. There are eight Commissioners at the present time, and you purpose practically to put on a third. Really, I think in face of the opinions that have been expressed with reference to the way in which the Government have proposed to increase the employment of paid officials, that the Home Secretary and the Government should consider whether they are going to give their opponents another chance. I can quite understand that their opponents are delighted, espe- 431 cially if it is to be doctors and lawyers all the time. It is providing soft jobs for professional people, the very classes who support this kind of legislation. Considering the violent criticisms that have been passed during the last few years with regard to the number of officials the Government have brought into existence, I do think that the Government should not have asked for any more paid officials than were absolutely necessary for the time being. If necessity shows later on that other officials are required that will be taken into consideration. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is being led by the hon. Gentlemen opposite into a false position altogether. We recognise the necessity for organising this central body, but, on the admission of the Home Secretary himself, there will be no necessity during the term of the present Government for any more of these officials. Then why put them in the Bill?
Mr. POINTERI rise for the purpose of asking the Home Secretary whether he will tell us what number of persons are now under the control of the Lunacy Commission. We have heard taunts from the other side about appointments, but they do not trouble me in the least, if I am convinced of their desirableness. In this case, however, it does appear to me that the Lunacy Commissioners are a type of officials who are not in the least overworked, and I should like to know what will be the number of persons under the control of the Commissioners compared with the number now being dealt with by them, and the increase which is expected when this Bill becomes law. I think if the right hon. Gentleman could keep down the number of Commissioners it would be all to the good. My hon. Friend pointed out that if eleven are sufficient now, why not put eleven in the Bill, and wait until the working of the Act shows whether other Commissioners are necessary. It would be a very easy matter then to add to their number just as we have been adding to the number of judges as they were wanted.
§ Mr. McKENNAI can tell my hon. Friend at once. At the present time the
§ Lunacy Commissioners have something over 130,000 to deal with. We are appointing additional Commissioners in order to deal with a further 30,000, besides which they will have, in the early days, very heavy administrative work to do. We expect, also, that the 30,000 will be increased to 100,000, and we are making the additional appointments to deal with the total number.
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILIt does not seem to me that the Home Secretary's statement is really convincing. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has said, and I am very glad to see that he has been so much influenced by the speech of my right hon. Friend. It is eminently true that almost every constructive measure passed by this Government has resulted in an enormous addition to the Civil Service staff in one form or another. It is a very large departure from the old Liberal watchwords, "Retrenchment and Reform." Let me deal with what the Home Secretary has said. He tells us that the eight Lunacy Commissioners have to deal with approximately 120,000 persons. I am told there are 137,000 lunatics. He is adding three more who are to deal with 30,000, or, as others estimate, considerably less. The right hon. Gentleman assumes, I do not know on what ground, that they may ultimately have to deal with 100,000, but that is pure assumption based, so far as I can see, on no solid fact. If eight Commissioners are able to deal with 137,000 lunatics, surely it does not want three to deal with 30,000. One ought to be able to deal with 17,000, in the same way as each of the existing eight Commissioners does. I submit it is quite unnecessary to add this number of Commissioners to deal with the additional 30,000, and I would strongly urge from the point of view of my right hon. Friend, who does not wish to add unduly to the members of the Civil Service whom the nation has to pay, that we should resist the attitude of the Government in this particular matter and vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Question put, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 91.
435| Division No. 225.] | AYES. | [11.23 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Agg-Gardnar, James Tynte | Arnold, Sydney |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Ainsworth, John Stirling | Astor, Waldorf |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O'Dowd, John |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Malley, William |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Barton, William | Hayward, Evan | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hazleton, Richard | O'Shee, James John |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hemmerde, Edward George | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Henry, Sir Charles | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Higham, John Sharp | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hills, John Waller | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hinds, John | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Boland, John Pius | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Brace, William | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Brunner, John F. L. | John, Edward Thomas | Radford, G. H. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Reddy, Michael |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Joyce, Michael | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Cave, George | Keating, Matthew | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Kelly, Edward | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Kilbride, Denis | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | King, Joseph | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Clough, William | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lardner, James C. R. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Rowlands, James |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Leach, Charles | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Cotton, William Francis | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lundon, Thomas | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Cullinan, John | Lyell, Charles Henry | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lynch, A. A. | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Sheehy, David |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Shortt, Edward |
| Dawes, James Arthur | McGhee, Richard | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Delany, William | Maclean, Donald | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Devlin, Joseph | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Macpherson, James Ian | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Sutherland, John E. |
| Dillon, John | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Doris, William | Manfield, Harry | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Duffy, William J. | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Tennant, Harold John |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Meagher, Michael | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Middlebrook, William | Webb, H. |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Millar, James Duncan | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Molloy, Michael | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Field, William | Money, L. G. Chiozza | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Mooney, John J. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Morrell, Philip | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Wiles, Thomas |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Muldoon, John | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Munro, Robert | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Glanville, Harold James | Murphy, Martin J. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N) |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Needham, Christopher T. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Nolan, Joseph | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones | Norman, Sir Henry | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. G. Howard. |
| Hackett, John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, William | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Barnes, George N. | Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset,N.) | Barnston, Harry | Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Gwynne. R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Bird, Alfred | Harris, Henry Percy | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Boyton, James | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hodge, John | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hogge, James Myles | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Butcher, John George | Hohler, G. F. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Cassel, Felix | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Stanier, Beville |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Horner, Andrew Long | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Hunt, Rowland | Sutton, John E. |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jessel, Captain Herbert M. | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Kellaway, Frederick George | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Clynes, J. R. | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Malcolm, Ian | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| De Forest, Baron | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Newman, John R. P. | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Nield, Herbert | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Falle, Bertram Godfray | O'Grady, James | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Gibbs, George Abraham | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Parkes, Ebenezer | Younger, Sir George |
| Grant, J. A. | Perkins, Walter F. | |
| Greene, Walter Raymond | Peto, Basil Edward | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Wedgwood. |
| Gretton, John | Pointer, Joseph | |
| Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Pringle, William M. R. |
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and four at least shall be medical Commissioners (that is to say only qualified practitioners of at least five years standing.)"
What I regard as the principal danger of this Bill is the control of this Board by the medical profession. Eugenist doctrines are at present confined, more or less to doctors and bishops, and I certainly do not want to see a close corporation formed in control of all the mentally defective persons of the country in the hands of this Eugenist Society. We know perfectly well what their views are. They are that the working classes ought to be better bred, like poultry, by careful selection of parents. I do not believe that view has yet, at any rate, been accepted by the House of Commons, whatever it may be by the bench of bishops. Certainly we are giving an opportunity to the medical profession which I do not think we have a right to put into their hands by stipulating for a Board of Control. After all, the Board of Control is the Board which will mould the whole future of this Act. It will not apply to the Home Secretary or the House of Commons. The future of this Act is the future of all these people, and it will be in the hands of this Board of Control, and if that Board of Control is overwhelmingly in the hands of these people who have this bee in their bonnets that everything is to be sacrificed to the future of the race, and that the first and most important thing is to see that mentally defective persons of all sorts are carefully segregated so that 436 they cannot breed, I think it a bad look out for the country. After all, these doctrines of heredity, which are so popular among some persons at the present day, are not universally accepted. We all know perfectly well that views which are in great favour with medical practitioners one year are out of favour with them a few years afterwards. Medical science is subject to changes, and we do not desire to put defective persons under the charge of a set of doctors who might hold opinions on mental defectiveness unfavourable to the working classes. So, far from stipulating that a certain number of members shall be of this character, we should at all events leave the Government to choose whom they will rather than select doctors for this job.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith)My hon. Friend has rather a prejudice against doctors just as some people have a prejudice against lawyers. [An HON. MEMBER: "And against bishops."] My hon. Friend thinks that these doctors will be Eugenists. There is really no reason why he should come to that conclusion at all. The House knows that the Lunacy Acts have worked wonderfully well. Very few cases of mistake have occurred in the difficult administration of these Acts. I should have thought that if there was one class essential on a Board of this kind that class was the medical profession. Lawyers may or may not be necessary. They generally are. My hon. Friend says that medical 437 science changes. So do the doctors. He says a doctor may have a bee in his bonnet. I think that is the last word of reproach which should be directed against a doctor. Let the hon. Gentleman remember that the Bill says that four-fifteenths of the Board shall belong to the medical profession. Does he not see that if there are four with bees in their bonnets the other eleven, who have beeless bonnets, will be free from prejudice? I think the hon. Member is sincere in his opposition to the Bill, but if he wishes to protect the poor as well as the rich the best way would be to get medical men on the Board in order to bring to bear on the great questions with which the Board will have to deal knowledge as to whether persons are properly placed in institutions and whether they should be retained there.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe stipulation is that there must be at least four members of the medical profession, but there might be far more. Why stipulate that there should be four? There was a long letter in the "Times" the other day, signed by doctors, suggesting that there should be means provided for experiments on the mentally defective to see if they could not be cured. I believe a great many vivisectionists are opposed to experiments on these people. I think it extremely undesirable on that ground also that there should be an overwhelming representation of the medical profession.
§ Amendment put, and negatived.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move to leave out the words "hold inquiries among Welsh-speaking persons," and to insert instead thereof the words "possess the confidence of the working classes."
However desirable it may be that one of these Commissioners should be acquainted with the Welsh language it is more important that one of them should be of a class in touch with the working classes. Doctors and lawyers will certainly not belong to that class and it is desirable to have at least one Commissioner who is intimately connected with a trade union or a friendly society. You have got to have this measure worked to a certain extent in connection with the Insurance Act, the Poor Law authorities and the county councils, and in creating a Board such as this you should have people of broad sympathies and wide ideas who are in close sympathy with the people with whom they have got to deal.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. McKENNAMy hon. Friend has misunderstood the last three lines of the next Section. There is no proviso that one of the persons to be appointed should speak the Welsh language. What is said is that in making recommendations for future appointment by the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary, regard should be had to the desirability of the inclusion among the Commissioners of persons who are specially qualified to hold inquiries among Welsh speaking persons. It is obviously desirable where these conditions allow that one or more Commissioners should be qualified to hold enquiries among Welsh speaking persons. Of course that does not include any guarantee that one of the Commissioners to be appointed will be a speaker of Welsh. With regard to the necessity for being in touch with the working classes, it is quite clear that every Commissioner who is appointed ought to possess the confidence of the working classes, but it is not in our power to command their confidence, and I do not think it would be desirable to include in the qualifications of any person what other persons may think about him.
§ Amendment put, and negatived.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move, in Sub-section (7), after the word "Chairman" ["Chairman and such number"], to insert the words "a salary of one thousand five hundred pounds a year."
The salary of £l,500 a year seems to me to be sufficient. The person who at present performs the functions of chairman of the Lunacy Commissioners gets £l,500 a year and I do not see why any change should be made in that respect. £1,800 a year is a very big salary. If you can get what you want for £l,500 I do not see why you should give £300 more. I am against paying bigger salaries than are necessary to public officials as we should not be generous at the expense of the taxpayers of the country. The House should remember that the salaries are by no means the full amount of remuneration, as there are travelling expenses and remuneration, and most of the work is, I believe, travelling work. We are in this case unnecessarily generous.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI beg to second the Amendment.
439 I was astonished to hear the hon. Member say that if we get a person at £l,500 we ought not to pay more. The country used to get the hon. Member's services for nothing and now they have got to pay £400 per year. I wish to support this Amendment because the right hon. Gentleman told us that the ordinary Commissioner was going to get £1,200 and therefore I think it is sufficient for the chairman to get £l,500.
§ Mr. McKENNAI said at the beginning.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHThe present Lunacy Commissioners get £l,000 and I see no object in increasing the salaries of the new Commissioners.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHThere is no fixed salary in the Bill in respect of the chairman. If the right man is obtained and does not want £1,800 per year, we shall be very pleased to take it back. The chairman of the present Commissioners gets £1,800 and the others a thousand, so that relatively he gets a much higher salary than is proposed under this Bill. I suggest to the House not to fix a salary, and it is not likely that the Treasury will sanction £l,800 where a man suitable for the post takes less.
§ Mr. J. WARDI wish to support the hon. Member, especially after the statement of the Under-Secretary that if the proposal is carried it will not give the opportunity to the Home Secretary to appoint some one of sufficiently high qualifications at a less salary than £l,800 if he is prepared to take it. The experience we have had of doctors during the last year and the statement having been made by the Some Secretary as to £l,800 per year, what sort of chance is there when the Chancellor of the Exchequer with all his ingenuity failed to cut them in the price, for the Home Secretary to get a man at a less figure than that he has mentioned to the House. Therefore I shall support the Amendment.
§ Mr. GRETTONI beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "of one thousand five," and to insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding eighteen."
This subject was discussed in Committee, but it was never satisfactorily explained why a limit should not be placed in the Bill. If the salaries of the Commissioners are to be fixed in the Bill, it is only right 440 that the salary of the chairman should also be fixed. As the Bill stands the Home Secretary, or his successor, can pay an unlimited salary to the chairman. The Bill is going to cost a great deal of money, and we ought to be careful that we do not overpay the officials. The Home Secretary has said that he does not require a larger maximum than £1,800.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI shall have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The Home Secretary has given no reason why a maximum should be fixed in the case of the subordinate officials and not in the case of the chairman. It is alarming to some of us to find this continual increase in the number of well-paid officials. We shall soon be a nation of officials paid by someone. I do not know whom. The Home Secretary says he will not pay more, than £1,800. That statement binds the right hon. Gentleman, but it in no way binds his successors. Therefore, the words should be in the Bill.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'a salary of not exceeding eighteen hundred pounds a year' be there inserted."
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHThis is the intention of the Home Secretary; therefore I am quite content to accept the Amendment.
Mr. POINTERI should like to understand why any departure from the custom that is at present observed should be made. I have been informed—and I would like to be corrected if wrong—that the present chairman not only has no extra salary, but is an unpaid man. If that is so one would like to know why the present position cannot be continued, and why it is necessary to introduce another man of a higher status above his colleagues, and pay him an extra £300 per year? I should have thought that the same salary as his colleagues, coupled with the fact of the public service rendered, would have been quite sufficient recompense for him with the £1,500 a year.
§ Amendment put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (8) and to insert instead thereof the words, "The Commissioners shall hold office for such term as 441 the Secretary of State may determine, provided that they retire at the age of seventy years."
I do not wish us to have the Clause tonight, and I do not propose to move either of the Amendments down in my name, I only propose to move this last one here. The idea is that the Commissioners shall hold office on the same lines as ordinary members of the Civil Service, and not in the way that the judges of the High Court hold their office.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is in the Bill.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIn that case, I do not move my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.