72. Mr. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Mrs. Emily Deacon, of 53, Richmond Road. Barnsbury, was taken in March, 1922, to the Islington workhouse infirmary; that after three days a magistrate gave her husband leave to take her home, but instead she was consigned to Colney Hatch Asylum, in contravention of Section 22 of the Lunacy Act, against her husband's wishes and without his knowledge; is he aware that she was there detained in spite of his repeated applications under Section 79 for her release till the end of November, 1922, when she was discharged to her home on a month's trial, subsequently prolonged to 2nd March, 1923; that, on reporting herself at the end of this period, she was again, without reason given, taken into the asylum; that her husband, being much distressed, applied to the visiting committee on 29th March for her release, undertaking the entire responsibility, in accordance with Section 79, but was met with a refusal; and, in view of the fact that the provisions of this Section are continually disregarded, will he take steps to have it brought effectively before the public, and cause such inquiry to be made as shall result in the discharge of Mrs. Deacon to the care of her husband?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI have made inquiries about the case referred to by the hon. Member, and I will send him a statement of the facts. Applicants for the discharge of patients under Section 79 are required to give the visiting committee a satisfactory undertaking that the patient will be properly taken care of, and the visiting committee have, in my view, exercised their discretion properly in this case.