HC Deb 05 May 1959 vol 605 cc245-7
Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to move, in page 2, line 46, at the end to insert: or will be so incapable when of an age to do so". I can best explain the Amendment by calling attention to two of the definitions in Clause 4. The first is the definition of "severe subnormality" contained in subsection (2), which says; In this Act 'severe subnormality' means a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes subnormality of intelligence and is of such a nature or degree that the patient is incapable of living an independent life. Then follows, in subsection (3), the definition of "subnormality" which, the subsection says, means a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind (not amounting to severe subnormality) which includes subnormality of intelligence and is of a nature or degree which requires or is susceptible to medical treatment or other special care or training of the patient. It emerges from that, that the main differentiation is in the capacity for living an independent life in the case of the severely subnormal patient.

At present, the criterion of difference is the present capacity of the child. This definition was criticised in the Committee, more particularly by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), in columns 71–74, on the ground that it led to confusion in the case of children. He said that the young subnormal child was incapable, in the fullest sense, of living an independent life, and, therefore, any subnormal child could, on a strict interpretation of the Clause, be brought into the severely subnormal category. I undertook to see whether words could be found to safeguard the position and put it beyond doubt. The Amendment gives effect to my undertaking, and achieves what the hon. Gentleman was seeking to do by the Amendment which he tabled in Committee.

4.45 p.m.

The effect of my Amendment is that the criterion for severe subnormality in the case of a child or young person will be arrested or incomplete development of mind … of such a nature or degree that the patient is incapable of living an independent life or will be so incapable when of an age to do so. This definition involves an element of prognosis, which I think is inevitable. The prognosis of the child's future development will obviously take into account the likely effect of the training and treatment of the child. Obviously, that is a matter of medical practice, as it were, and need not be spelt out in the Bill.

I think that we have met the hon. Gentleman's point as well as could be by puttting it into a statutory form. I would remind him and the House that there is a procedure in Clause 38 for reclassification if in any case it should appear that, in spite of this safeguard, somebody who should properly be classified as subnormal has got into the severely subnormal category.

Mr, K. Robinson

I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the point I raised in Committee. The matter is small, but by no means unimportant. The words that he has moved achieve the result which I sought to achieve in the Committee. I am happy to accept this assurance that they do so in terms which are rather more appropriate for a Statute than my effort in the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out from "be" to "from" in line 13 and to insert: dealt with under this Act as suffering from mental disorder or". This is a drafting Amendment, to meet a point made in Committee by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). He suggested that there might be confusion between the word "treated", in the sense in which it is here used, and the word "treatment" used in the technical sense in other parts of the Bill, meaning the treatment given in hospital. The Amendment puts the matter beyond doubt, and the hon. Gentleman may think it uses a better phrase than the word "regarded" which he originally proposed.

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)

I may be a little stupid here, but does not this wording seem to be a little tautologous? As I read the Amendment it will make the subsection read: Nothing in this section shall be construed as implying that a person may be dealt with under this Act as suffering from mental disorder or from any form of mental disorder described in this section, by reason only of promiscuity or other immoral conduct. Does not that repeat itself?

Mr. Walker-Smith

No. There is "mental disorder" as a comprehensive term, and then there are various forms of mental disorder which are set out in Clause 4 covering the various grades of mental illness, such as severe subnormality. These words are necessary to ensure that they will apply right across the board to all the forms of disorder there set out.

Amendment agreed to.