MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 11 August 1913)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, this Bill is exactly the same in its principles as the English Bill, but there are variations owing to the local authorities and other institutions in Scotland being different. Instead of a new Board of Control as in England, the existing Lunacy Board in Scotland, which is a large Board differently constituted from the English Commission, will be taken and additions will be made to it. Otherwise there is no substantial difference between the two 1751 Bills, and unless your Lordships desire me to do so I do not think it necessary to trouble you by going into the minutiœ of the clauses. I have been through the Bill and to the best of my judgment there is no departure from what I have stated, and I venture to recommend it to your Lordships as a thoroughly good and useful measure.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
My Lords, I am bound to say that the explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given us is one of unusual brevity. Probably he is right in saying that it is not necessary to go into the details of the Bill, but I wish to point out that, though the duty is imposed upon a district board or parish council to provide for these defectives, there are no means of enforcing it. If the noble and learned Viscount will look at Clause 26 he will see this proviso— Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on a district board of control or a parish council or a school board to contribute towards the maintenance of defectives in institutions or under guardianship where the contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Act is less than one-half of the net amount of the cost of such maintenance. And further on in Clause 37 there is a proviso to the effect that— Unless Parliament otherwise determines, the aggregate amount so paid"— that is by the Treasury— in any financial year shall not exceed£20,000. Therefore if the whole cost of these defectives exceeds£40,000 there is nothing to oblige the district board or the parish council to carry out the Bill. I should like an explanation of that, because it seems rather to go to the root of the Bill and to prove that it will not be of much value if those clauses remain as they are.

§ "THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The proviso in Clause 26 which the noble Earl has quoted is only a limitation where the contribution out of moneys provided by Parliament is less than half of the net amount of the cost of maintenance. When the State contributes half, the obligation attaches. As to the other point, it is calculated on a similar ratio. Although the machinery of this Bill is, of course, different, the principles are just the same as in the English Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
It amounts to this, that neither under the English Bill nor under the Scottish Bill is there any obligation to carry out the purposes of the Bill if the amount exceeds in the one case£150,000 and in the other case£20,000.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I did not say that. The£150,000 and the£20,000 are just to carry on with. It is the intention of Parliament to supply more money as and when it is required.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
This is the first time we have received that piece of information.