HC Deb 05 May 1959 vol 605 cc303-5
Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to move, in page 39, line 11, to leave out "State institution" and to insert "special hospital".

This Amendment is linked with a large number of other Amendments, and the object of all these Amendments is to change the title of the institutions provided under Clause 96 of the Bill for people who— require treatment under conditions of special security on account of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities", from "State Institutions" to "special hospitals". I think the House will welcome this change. I have made it clear on a good many occasions, and I said several times in the Committee, that these places are hospitals. That, indeed, is why they are vested in the Minister of Health and come within the definition of hospital in the interpretation Clause 145. It is therefore appropriate that that should be reflected in the collective title by which they are known, though in practice, no doubt, they are likely to be referred to by their individual names, such as Broad-moor Hospital, Rampton Hospital and so on. I think that on an occasion when a generic term is required it would be more appropriate that they should be referred to as "special hospitals" rather than as "State institutions". I therefore ask the House to make this change in the Bill.

Mr. Blenkinsop

We certainly welcome this change of wording, and this is a suitable moment to make some reference to the wider point, of which this is a part. In the discussions in Committee, we had quite a lot of expresssions of view about the future status of these special hospitals, as we are now to call them. A good deal of anxiety was expressed both about the precise way in which they were to be used in the future and some anxieties about the way in which they have been used in the past, to some extent.

Strong feelings were expressed from both sides of the Committee that the opportunity should be taken for some wider inquiry into the whole position of these special hospitals, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after some vigorous exchanges in the Committee, showed that his mind was not closed to this point of having an inquiry. I understand—indeed, I know—that he has taken the opportunity since the Committee stage of writing to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) about this matter. I do not necessarily wish to take this opportunity to develop the argument at any length, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he might say something further about it later in our proceedings—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but the Amendment only changes the name.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I recognise that this is a change of name, but it is pertinent to the wider point. It might be said that this is one of the matters which might well come under review for examination by the inquiry, although I agree that it would be a relatively minor point. I merely wish to establish at this moment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to say something further about the necessity for further inquiry into the position. I hope that it will be something which we can welcome as much as we have welcomed so many of his Amendments today. If he can give such an indication I shall be willing to follow it up later rather than now.

Mr. Walker-Smith

As you have pointed out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Amendment deals simply with nomenclature. You listened to the hon. Member with that exploratory tolerance which the Chair always so properly shows on these occasions, but it would be trespassing on your indulgence for me to ask for the same for myself. I will content myself with saying that I hope to make some reference to the subject which the hon. Member has in mind on Third Reading tomorrow, which I apprehend will be a more appropriate time than now.

Amendment agreed to.