LUNACY BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 4 May 1911)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN)

This is a Bill the substance of which I hope to be able to explain to your Lordships in a few minutes. The Bill is proposed in pursuance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Feeble Minded. That Commission reported in 1908, and recommended a large scheme which contained no fewer than ninety-six recommendations with regard to England and Wales alone, there being also others with regard to Scotland. The Commissioners very naturally appreciated that there would be much difficulty in the preparation and also in the passing of a Bill of that magnitude, and accordingly they made a temporary recommendation—Recommendation XXIV—in urgent terms, which runs as follows— That for immediate purposes, and pending the establishment by the Legislature of the proposed central authority and local authorities, it is expedient that the Lord Chancellor, in pursuance of his power under Section 337 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, should at once— Amalgamate the office of the Chancery visitors and their duties and staff with the office, duties, and staff of the Lunacy Commissioners; (2) appoint two additional medical Commissioners to the amalgamated office, at such salaries as, with the concurrence of the Treasury, he may think reasonable. There is a section—Section 337—in the existing Act which purports to give the Lord Chancellor power to do this under his own hand without any legislative authority, but questions have been raised with regard to the sufficiency of that section to justify an act of that kind. It would be a great misfortune if, after an order of that sort were made, it were to be in any jeopardy of being lawfully made; and I have therefore thought better to ask the consent of Parliament to do that which was evidently contemplated as long ago as 1890, and which is strongly recommended by the Commissioners, with whose recommendation I entirely agree.

The second point in the Bill is this. Unfortunately the Commissioners in Lunacy have been shorthanded for a considerable time, and I have, in the hope that some fresh scheme might be started, put off from time to time asking Parliament to grant two more medical Commissioners. It has 162 been found necessary to make orders in three successive years diminishing the number of visits each Commissioner had to make, and I do think the number is at present insufficient. The Commissioners in Lunacy remain the same in number as they were in 1845, though the number of patients under their care has increased from 25,000 to 120,000. I think this ought to be dealt with now. I believe that a Bill was introduced by my predecessor, Lord Halsbury, before the late Government went out of office, for the purpose of adding two new Commissioners.

The scheme in this Bill also provides that the unpaid Commissioners may include women. To my mind it is almost essential that women should be associated with the central administration of the Lunacy laws. I may state to your Lordships that this was suggested in the Report of the Royal Commission—Recommendation XX—and that I went so far as to ask one lady whether she would serve as one of the unpaid Commissioners and she was kindly willing to do so; but the Law Officers advised that under the framework of the Lunacy Act, 1890, women could not be appointed Commissioners. This, I hope, will be remedied by the clause in the present Bill.

The remaining clause as to vesting orders is a small and technical matter. It is a minor detail in the administration of lunatics' estates, strictly belonging to Chancery practice, and it is desirable to place that branch of the work in the hands of the Chancery Judges, though it cannot be done without an Act of Parliament. I may say that the whole administration of these estates was recommended by the Royal Commission to be transferred to the Chancery Court. A Committee, of which the Master of the Rolls was a member, inquired into it, but found that it would not be practicable to do this except in so far as vesting orders were concerned, and accordingly this Bill is limited in that form. That is all I have to say with regard to the substance of this Bill, but I am glad to be able to add that Lord Halsbury authorises me to say that he heartily concurs in the Second Reading of the Bill, which I need hardly tell your Lordships gives the Bill great, additional authority.