MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) BILL. (Hansard, 27 November 1919)

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird)

I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Although this is merely a financial measure, the effects of the Bill are more far-reaching than merely financial. The 1999 problem with which we have to deal is, in effect, the necessity, in the light of experience of making it possible to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed in 1904 to report on the question of the feeble-minded. Hon. Members who have read the Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Control for the year 1917 will realise that these measures which we have been able to take up to the present moment are wholly inadequate to deal with this very important question. Not only have the few years which have elapsed since the passing of the Lunacy Act of 1913 been disturbed by the War, and therefore circumstances have made it impossible to devote as much attention as should have been given to this very important question, but the increase in the cost of everything has made it quite impossible for the local authorities to carry out their functions under that Act unless they received a larger sum from the State. There is also the further point, and it cannot be overlooked that many feeble-minded persons were able during the War to obtain regular employment. They, unfortunately, are perhaps the first to lose their employment under present conditions, and it is advisable, in the interests of these unfortunate people themselves no less than in the interest of the community, that no steps should be spared to deal with the matter in a humane and efficient manner. In order to do that, it is necessary to afford the local authorities financial support, without which it is impossible for them to deal with this important and complicated question. Furthermore, it is necessary to stimulate the activity of some of the local authorities who have not seen their way to throw as much energy into this branch of their duties as the importance and seriousness of the subject demand. It is hoped, therefore, that by increasing the contributions—that is to say, by removing the limit of the total sum which the Treasury can pay in the shape of the 50 per cent, grant to the local authorities towards the sums spent by them in dealing with the feeble-minded, to enable these local authorities to embark upon a much more thorough scheme of work than has been possible in the past. It will be readily understood that the difficulty of estimating the work required to carry out this 1913 Act has been very great when the authorities have not known what sum they could rely upon from the 2000 Treasury, and since the total amount that the Treasury may pay to the country as a whole was limited, it was impossible for any one authority to know what share would come to them.

Briefly, the experience of the working of the Act of 1913 has been to show that that Act is not carrying out the work for which it was passed by Parliament, and that the moment has arrived which appears to have been contemplated when that Act was under discussion, for the very Clause (Clause 4) which we desire to amend contains the phrase "there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament," and so forth, and then the phrase ''unless Parliament should otherwise determine." Therefore it was obviously and wisely contemplated that there should be no finality in dealing with a matter so important as that which we now have under consideration. I, therefore, come to the House to ask that the financial limit, imposed by the Act of 1913 on the total amount of the Treasury Grant both as regards England and Scotland, should be removed. The White Paper, which has been in the hands of hon. Members for some days, shows that the total expenditure contemplated eventually will be £1,400,000. It is not anticipated that the total sum will be expended in any one year before, at least, five years from now, and, of course, the gradual increase of expenditure cannot be accurately estimated. In the remaining months of the financial year not a very large sum, unfortunately, can be spent but it is very important that the House should sanction the policy embodied in this Bill, which is not merely a policy of humanity towards a most unfortunate section of the community, but a really wise social reform which, I think, all sections of the House will approve and support.

As regards the Clauses of the Bill, Clause I hardly requires any explanation. Under the Act of 1913, the Treasury is limited to a Grant of £150,000 to the English and Welsh local authorities in connection with, measures taken by them to deal with the feeble-minded Since the local authorities are not called upon to deal with these cases beyond the point where they can receive from the Exchequer half the total sum expended, the limitation imposed on their activities is very clear. That limitation is very unfortunate, and has had a most hampering effect on this very important work. The same thing applies to Scotland, with the difference that the limit 2001 there is smaller, being only £20,000. It is estimated that in England and Wales the number of people who ought to be dealt with is something like 21,700. In Scotland the number is 4,000. It is estimated that each case will require something like £60 per annum for treatment. The necessity, therefore, for removing the limit, which exercises so hampering an effect, I think hardly needs to be dwelt on at any length. Clause 2 of the Bill has reference to the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857, which imposed a limit to the interest which might be paid by Scottish local authorities on the sums borrowed by them. The interest was 5 per cent., which was, no doubt, an adequate and proper amount in 1857, but which can hardly be considered a proper sum now. Therefore, it is sought to obtain the removal of the limit on the amount of interest payable by local authorities on borrowed money. Clause 3, again, has reference to a purely Scottish matter—the power of district boards in Scotland to borrow for current expenditure. The rates imposed annually to provide for the ordinary current expenditure of district boards are not usually levied till about the middle of the local financial year (which runs from 15th May to 15th May) and the collection takes place about two months later. Thus about eight months of the year have gone before the rates, are received, and meantime the boards have to provide for current requirements, such as maintenance of patients, administrative expenses, etc. The power proposed to be conferred on district boards by the present Clause, to finance themselves temporarily in anticipation of the collection of the rates—by means of bank overdrafts, or otherwise, such overdrafts, etc., to be repaid as soon as the rates are received—is already pos- 2002 sessed by all other local authorities in Scotland, and the extension of the power to district boards has become necessary by reason of the increased activities of these boards in recent years under the Mental Deficiency Act, and the consequent increase in their annual financial requirements. All that we seek by this measure, for dealing with this unfortunately relatively large section of the community, is that the local authorities should be put on the same footing as they are with regard to the treatment of tuberculosis and venerial disease. In both these cases there is a contribution, in one case of 50 per cent, and in the other case of 75 per cent., towards the total sums spent by the local authority, but there is no limit to the total amount of the Exchequer grant. What we ask is that the House should agree to put the treatment of mental defectives, from the financial point of view, on the same footing as the treatment now accorded to the other cases I have mentioned.