HC Deb 29 July 1913 vol 56 cc454-9

(1) Every local authority shall constitute a committee for the purposes of this Act, to be called the committee for the care of the mentally defective, consisting of such members of the council appointed by the council as the council may determine, and of such persons, not being members of the council, but being poor law guardians or other persons having special knowledge and experience with respect to the care, control, and treatment of defectives, appointed by the council as the council may determine, and of the persons so appointed some shall be women, and of the whole committee the majority shall be members of the council.

Provided that where a local authority has appointed one or more visiting committees or asylums committees under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, then if the council so determine—

  1. (a) such committee or committees shall act also as the committee for the care of the mentally defective, and in such cases there will be added to each committee at least two women; or
  2. (b) the members of such committee or committees shall be the members of the council appointed by the council to be members of the committee for the care of the mentally defective.

(2) All matters relating to the exercise by the local authority of their powers under this Act (except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money) shall stand referred to the committee for the care of the mentally defective, and the local authority before exercising any such powers shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the committee with respect to the matter in question. The local authority may also delegate to the committee, with or without any restrictions as they think fit, any of their powers under this Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money.

(3) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the committee for the care of the mentally defective who by reason of holding an office or place of profit, or having any share or interest in a contract or employment, is disqualified for being a member of the council appointing the committee, but no such disqualification shall apply to a person by reason only of his holding office in a school or college aided, provided, or maintained by the council, or who would be disqualified to act as a Commissioner on the grounds stated in Section 22 of this Act.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "some" ["of the persons so appointed some shall be women"] and to insert instead thereof the word "three."

This Clause decides the sort of committee to be set up by each of the local authorities for looking after mentally defectives, and in describing these committees it is said that a certain number of persons may be co-opted. I desire to secure that three at least of the co-opted members of a committee shall be women. After all this Act will deal rather more with women than with men. Unfortunately at the present time there are very few women who have been able to get seats on local authorities. It is therefore very necessary that we should insist that some of the co-opted members should be women. "Some" is the word in the Bill, and I think it is better to have two women at least. These are not paid jobs, and there is no money in them. I am not going to waste time talking about the question. I have not wasted much time up to now. Those who think that there should be two women on each committee will vote with me.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I think it is better that we should leave it to the local authority and that we should not prescribe any number to them or compel them to appoint three women. It may be that more than three would be competent to serve upon the committee. On the other hand, there may be districts where there are no competent women. The great thing is to get competent people to serve, whether they be men or women. It is far better that they should be all men when there are no competent women. We have said "some" in the Clause, and I hope the hon. Member will think that sufficient indication.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

There is much more indication in the case of Insurance Committees. I think that three is the very minimum we should have.

Mr. McKENNA

I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out paragraph (a).

I wish to explain in a single sentence that this is merely a drafting Amendment. The need for the omission of the paragraph arises in this way. In Committee upstairs when Sub-clause (b) was inserted it was stated that it would be necessary when we came to consider the Bill on Report to leave out paragraph (a) as the two are very similar, if not precisely identical.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that paragraph (b) is exactly the same as paragraph (a). If the Home Secretary will look at the two paragraphs he will see that under paragraph (a) the Asylums Committee of the Council can act also as the committee under this Bill, and under paragraph (b) he will see that the members of such committee "shall be the members of the council appointed by the council to be members of the committee for the care of the mentally defective." In the first part of Clause 27 it is laid down that the committee for the care of defectives shall consist both of members of the council and of certain co-opted members who are to have experience with respect to the care, control, and treatment of defectives. It is quite possible that the council may wish that its own asylums committee should be the committee under this Bill, and by omitting paragraph (a) we are taking away from the council the possibility of having its asylums committee as the committee. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, is aware that the asylums committee is a statutory committee—a committee which has spending powers quite independent of the council. It has not, so far as maintenance expenditure is concerned, to get the consent of the council at all, and the asylums committee may be very anxious not to have on the committee any co-opted members who are not responsible to the ratepayers. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will not take away the alternative contained in paragraph (a). I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a very strong feeling among persons acquainted with the question of asylums and defectives that it is desirable to have the services of co-opted members, and especially co-opted members who are known to be experts.

Mr. A. ALLEN

I quite agree with the hon. Member for Stowmarket (Mr. Goldsmith) that these two paragraphs do not mean the same thing. There is another point beyond that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman to which I wish to draw the Home Secretary's attention. In paragraph (a) provision is made for the addition to the committee for the care of the mentally defective of at least two women, and I may remind the House that in Committee upstairs a strong opinion was expressed that there should be women on the committee. I cannot see in paragraph (b) any provision at all that women should serve on the committee, and, therefore, if we omitted paragraph (a) it would make a serious difference in that it would do away with women on the committee.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I think we ought to have a reply from the Home Secretary on the question of the difference between the paragraphs, at least as regards the two women.

Mr. McKENNA

It must be understood that when this Clause was reached in Committee it was not in its present form, but words were inserted in the first part of the Clause dealing with the constitution of the committee for the care of defectives by which it has been provided that "of the persons so appointed, some shall be women, and of the whole committee the majority shall be members of the council." Then later, in the proviso, certain Amendments were made with the result that you have paragraphs (a) and (b) doing the same thing twice over. Under the circumstances it seems the obvious thing to do to omit one or other of the paragraphs.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

I would venture, with all respect, to say that is not the opinion which is held by the chairman of the Asylums Committee of the London County Council. That committee is really very anxious to retain paragraph (a) and I can see no harm in keeping it in the Bill.

Mr. McKENNA

The only objection I have to the paragraph remaining in the Bill is of a drafting character. I do not really mind it being in, and as there is some desire to keep it in I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I beg, in Sub-section (2), to move to leave out the words "The local authority may also delegate to the committee, with or without any restrictions as they think fit, any of their powers under this Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money."

I move to strike out these words because I object very strongly to the local authorities delegating their powers to the committee for the care of the mentally defective. Wherever a county council delegates its power to a committee the council ceases to have any control, practically speaking, over the work of that committee. Take, for example, the education committee. The county council have the very smallest powers over the education committee of the council, and the committee do all the work. The committee for the care of the mentally defective will be nothing like so important as the education committee, and it is certainly not more important than the small holdings and allotments committee, or the public health committee. I do not see why the council should surrender its powers to the committee for the care of the mentally defective any more than it does on other questions to the two committees last named. It seems undemocratic to delegate powers to a committee largely co-opted and thus surrender practically all control over the question of the treatment of the mentally deficient. I do not know whether the county councils asked for the power to delegate their authority in this way, but it is, I submit, very undesirable that any further powers should be delegated than is the case at the present time.

Amendment not seconded.

Mr. McKENNA

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "or who would be disqualified to act as a Commissioner on the grounds stated in Section twenty-two of this Act."

1.0 A.M.

The reason for moving the omission of these words is that in committee the preceding three lines were introduced on an Amendment at a place which made the last two lines of the Clause not read. An Amendment was introduced a few lines higher up, beginning with the word "but" ["the committee, but"] that "no such disqualification shall apply to a person by reason only of his holding office in a school or college aided, provided, or maintained by the council." Then it goes on, "or who would be disqualified to act as a Commissioner." These words originally followed after the word "committee" ["appointing the Committee"]. They are quite out of place and meaningless, where they stand now. In any case, I propose to omit them altogether, as they are unnecessary, by reference to Clause (23) which deals with everybody who is disqualified, and a Commissioner is already disqualified under the original system.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.