CLAUSE 26. (Local Authorities.) (Hansard, 29 July 1913)

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move to leave out the word "and" ["of the county, and"].
This is an Amendment which will be explained if one looks at the consequential Amendments which stand in my name—to add at the end "and as respects the City of London be the Common Council," and then in Clause 32 to insert: "Provided that nothing in this Act shall exempt the City of London from contributing towards the expenses incurred by the London County Council under this Act, but the London County Council shall in each year repay to the common council for each mental defective maintained by that council a sum equal to the net average cost to the London County Council in that year of the maintenance of each mental defective for whose maintenance the London County Council are responsible, which cost shall be ascertained in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State." The meaning of it is simply this, that the City has an asylum already, which I think the Home Secretary will agree with me is an extremely good one, and is managed extremely well. They do not want to loose control of that asylum, and in order to keep the control in their own hands they are prepared, not only to pay their own share of the cost of this establishment, but to contribute their share of the rates raised by the London County Council.
It may be argued that the City of London has only a small number of residents, and that, therefore, there cannot be a very large number of persons in this asylum under this Bill, but the City has a large floating population, and they are prepared to take into their asylum any persons who are desirous of coming in, and if the cost should be greater than that contributed to them by the London County Council they will be prepared to pay it out of their own pockets. Really, the idea is that, having a building in their own hands at present, they shall have an opportunity of setting up an institution which shall be a model institution which shall cost no one any money except themselves, and which will enable them to maintain the authority they already have. I may say that my noble and gallant Friend (Captain Jessel), who has been a member of the London County Council, will second this, and I have had an opportunity of consulting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who says that he has no objection whatever to the Amendment. I understand that the hon. 452 Member opposite, who represents one of the divisions of St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), objects to the Amendment on the ground that he does not like any power to be taken away from the County Council, but this is a small Amendment which will take practically nothing from the County Council, and will enable a building already in use to be made use of under the Bill. I trust the Home Secretary will accept it.

§ Captain JESSEL
I beg to second the Amendment.
I moved this very same Amendment in the Committee upstairs, and I hope it will have a better reception now than it had on that occasion. Before I moved the Amendment I was careful to see that the City was going to pay its fair share towards the rest of London, and this Amendment amply safeguards the rest of London from the City not bearing its clue burden. The argument, of course, may be used that this is a Bill dealing mainly with children, and I may be asked what is the precedent of this very Clause. The answer is that in the Children Act of 1908 this very Clause is put in which safeguards the rights of the City. My hon. Friend the Member for the City is wrong in attributing to me the proud position of having ever sat on the County Council. I have never sat on that body and do not know what their attitude would be, but I should not like to think that any of us in this House would support a proposition which would put more expense on the ratepayers of London outside the City. I have satisfied myself that this Clause will help the ratepayers of London. It is a small matter, but one to which the City attaches considerable importance, and I hope, therefore, the House will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
As my hon. Friend has just said, this proposal was made in the Committee, and was not accepted by the Committee. This proposal is to put the City in an exceptional position with regard to mental defectives as regarded London and the rest of the country, and I have been asked, since I opposed it in Committee, by the London County Council itself to oppose it on this occasion. The Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded themselves recommended that the control of defectives should be in the hands of the County Authority, and they point out in Paragraph 239: There is in London a division of authority and a want of administrative accord which is fatal to any 453 successful treatment of the problem and which is the strongest argument for some such settled uniformity of procedure and unification of authorities as several of our witnesses have very strongly advocated. This Bill deals with defectives, and very largely indeed with defective children, and, as the House is aware, the London County Council is the authority for dealing with the education of children. The Council has special schools, it has every kind of school, including truant schools. From the point of view of administration it would be a great mistake to divorce any portion of the work from the Education Authority. The case of the imbeciles and idiots at present is in the hands of the Metropolitan Asylums Board; it is a county board which exercises jurisdiction over the whole Administrative County, including the City. It will be a mistake to deal with the City in any way exceptionally. The only reason why the City thinks it ought to have separate treatment is that it is the Lunacy Authority under the Lunacy Acts. It is, however, by no means exceptional in this respect.
There are twenty-nine or thirty different boroughs in this country that are lunacy authorities and none the less are situated within counties which themselves administer lunacy. Under this Bill all these boroughs are going to be left as forming part of their counties, and the mere fact that they are lunacy authorities is not taken into consideration in regard to mental defectives. And when one looks into the administration of the Lunacy Act by the City Corporation—I will not say anything whatever against the excellence of that administration—no one can say that they are carrying on a practice necessary for the City of London. The expenses of the City of London in this matter were £23,000, of which £20,000 was taken from private patients who paid for accommodation in the asylum in that way, and, as a matter of fact, only £3,000 fell on the City ratepayers for the purposes of the administration of lunacy. I quite agree that my hon. Friend has made a proposition which would, to a certain extent, do away with the financial injustice which would accrue to the county by reason of the change. If you made the change you would be actually benefiting the city financially at the expense of the county, but that would not take place when further Amendment is carried out. This is not really a financial question at all, it is one of administration. It is much better that mentally defective people should be catered for by the authority which has the jurisdiction over 454 the whole of the schools and over the whole of the county.