HL Deb 03 May 1923 vol 53 cc1060-76

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, public attention has recently been drawn to the question of lunacy law and administration, and early last year a conference consisting of the Chairmen of the Visiting Committees, medical superintendents of mental hospitals, and a number of specialists, was arranged by the Board of Control. The conference, which I attended, resulted in an interesting and illuminating discussion on this question of lunacy law. The first subject discussed was that of early treatment without certification; and the conference decided to ask the Government to obtain legislation permitting treatment without certification in institutions approved by the Board of Control. That resolution was adopted unanimously.

At present the lunacy laws may be divided into three definite parts. They deal, firstly, with the detention of lunatics so as to prevent them from injuring themselves or other people; secondly, they are devised to secure humane and proper treatment of lunatics in mental hospitals; and thirdly, to secure their property against fraud or misappropriation. The lunacy laws do not deal exhaustively with cure. Perhaps scientific knowledge of the treatment of mental disease was not sufficiently advanced in the days when the principal Act in regard to lunacy was passed to admit of this matter being usefully treated then, but the study of lunacy has advanced very considerably during the last quarter of a century.

The importance of this question of cure is realised when it is known that we have now some 120,000 certified lunatics in 172 institutions, costing six millions a year. To these are added 22,000 fresh cases every year, of whom about 32 per cent. are discharged as recovered In addition to certified lunatics we have another 150,000 persons who are feeble minded, and, in addition again, a percentage of the population (some people say as high as 10 per cent.) who are dull and backward mentally. Lastly, we have cases of neurasthenia and psycho-neurosis. All this is a serious drain on the capacity of the nation, and modern science tells us that much of it is preventable by careful watching and early treatment. A distinguished alienist told me the other day that his practice was scarcely at all with certified patients; it was mainly with young people in whom signs, or suspected signs, of mental disorder were detected.

But as the law stands at present, it is not possible, or it is, at least, very difficult, to provide for this treatment of incipient mental disease without certification, and very naturally, and I may say very properly, there is a strong feeling against certification in any case in which it can be avoided. The result of this feeling is that many people who may feel themselves mentally ill delay proper treatment until it is too late, the disease advances, and the incurable stage is reached, when, perhaps, if early treatment had been applied, a cure might have been effected. The chief purpose of this Bill is to provide that a patient suffering from incipient mental disorder may be received for treatment without certification. The reception and treatment of a patient in an institution without certification is a matter around which there has been some controversy, although I may say that it has 'been adopted for many years in Scotland, while in this country, under the Act of 1890, voluntary boarders have been allowed in private licensed houses.

Of course, everybody recognises how enormously important it is that no power should be given, and no loophole opened, for the improper use of provisions such as those contained in this Bill. Therefore, when we make these proposals, we surround, or endeavour to surround, the provisions with every possible safeguard and precaution against misuse. I will endeavour to enumerate the safeguards which we have introduced. First of all, the institution in which the patient is to be received must be one which is approved by the Board of Control and under frequent inspection by them. Secondly, there must be a recommendation from two doctors. And, thirdly, no patient can be admitted unless it is at his own request—a voluntary request.

But many cases of incipient mental disease are incapable of volition, and such cases very often, if taken and treated properly, are capable of complete cure. Clearly, such persons could not make the necessary voluntary request for admission into an institution, and before these patients can be admitted the recommendation of the two doctors has to be countersigned by a Justice of the Peace or a minister of religion personally acquainted with the patient but not related to him, and the person signing this document must have seen the patient and satisfied himself that he is incapable of volition or voluntary action at the time. A similar procedure is required in the case of minors and, of course, in addition, the consent of the parent or guardian must be obtained for the admission of a minor into one of these institutions. One of the doctors at least must be a medical man approved by the Board of Control.

The patient can come into the institution at first for a maximum period of six months which may be extended for another maximum period of six months, being one year in all. He cannot undergo this treatment for more than a year. If he is not cured when the year is over, the ordinary provisions of the existing Acts will apply, but at any time during the year he may leave the institution by giving 48 hours' notice, or he may be discharged by the superintendent, or by order of the Board of Control, which, as I have said before, will frequently inspect these institutions.

Now I come to the places which will be provided for the treatment of these incipient patients. We provide in Clause 2 (3) for county and borough councils, acting through their visiting committees, to receive patients into their own institutions. We also provide in Clause 4 that visiting committees shall be able to arrange for general hospitals to receive patients of this kind and to work in conjunction with visiting committees. If this could be done, great advantage to patients might ensue by getting them away from contact with certified cases, and it would enable all the resources of medicine, other than those provided especially for mental disease, to be at the disposal of the patient. The patient, of course, could also be received in registered hospitals, which are mostly charitable foundations or licensed houses which are otherwise known as private asylums.

Another provision of the Bill enables visiting committees to provide outpatient treatment for persons suffering from mental disorder. They would be at liberty to do this either in institutions under their own control or by arranging for it to be done in general hospitals in the same way a6 they would be empowered to arrange for in-patients. I may say that an outdoor clinic for nervous and mental cases has been established at the Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, with the greatest possible success. No difference is made between nervous and mental patients. They all wait in the same hall for treatment, and they are all treated without difference or distinction. It has been found that patients and their friends are much more ready to come to a clinic of this kind than to a separate mental hospital, and altogether the results have been justified.

We also provide that visiting committees may make provision for the after-care of patients. It has been found that many patients who are discharged as cured are apt to break down again unless they are carefully and kindly looked after during the months following their discharge. This question of after-care, therefore, is of the utmost importance if we wish to make permanent the cures effected 'in our mental hospitals; and it is to be hoped that the visiting committee will give their most careful attention to the provision of this service.

I said at the opening of my remarks that progress in knowledge of mental disease had advanced greatly during the last quarter of a century. But it is still an unfortunate fact that many of the causes of mental illness are largely unknown at present. If mental disease can be systematically explored we may assume that much progress might be made in the prevention and cure of this disease. In Clause 2, subsection (5), provision is made for more systematic research and more opportunity is given for the expenditure of public money upon this research. Co-ordination, which, I think, is a most important point, is provided for by requiring that the researches should be undertaken with the approval of the Board of Control.

Now I come to that part of the Bill which deals with the question of visiting committees. In this measure we endeavour to extend the functions of the visiting committees to enable them to carry out their present duty more efficiently and also to cope with the new duties which will be placed upon them by this Bill. Firstly, we provide that a proportion, not exceeding one-third, may be persons who are not members of the Council. This is a principle which has been adopted in regard to education committees, maternity and child welfare committees, and so forth, and it is designed to enable the Committee to co-opt expert opinion among their members, and also to get the services of people who may not be members of the Council but who are willing to give their whole time or a large part of their time to the work of the Committee. Then we provide that two at least of each visiting committee shall be women, and we give the committees power to carry out their duties jointly with other authorities. The expenses of visiting committees are to be defrayed by the local authorities within the county or borough within whose area they operate.

I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the maintenance of cases which come in for treatment for incipient disease has no connexion with the Poor Law. There is no pauper taint. The local authority can either treat them or may make arrangements for their maintenance, the cost falling upon the general fund and not on the guardians of the union in which the patient happens to reside.

Lastly, I come to the question of inspection. The Mental Deficiency Act of 1913 greatly increased the amount of visiting and raised the number of Commissioners to eleven. At present there are seven Commissioners, one a woman who, being neither a lawyer nor a doctor, cannot pay statutory visits. The existing staff cannot cope with the growing work and, of course, this Bill will probably throw extra inspection upon the Board. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is quite out of the question to reduce the number of statutory visits, but a great many of these statutory visits and local work which now has to be done by Commissioners could, in the view of the Ministry of Health, be efficiently done by inspectors if the law allowed this, and so the most economical and practical method would seem to be to limit the number of Commissioners to eight and allow the visits and local work to be carried out by inspectors instead of Commissioners, where this can properly be clone. This is provided for in Clause 3, subsection 2, and, of course, it will require a sufficient number of inspectors to be appointed to enable the work to be carefully and efficiently carried out. We think that is the best method for providing for the proper inspection which will be required under this measure and is now required under the existing Acts. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, with the main purpose of this Bill I expect all your Lordships will agree. There is no doubt that up to the present tune much needless suffering has been caused by allowing people in an incipient state of insanity to remain entirely without control. Doctors have been unable to certify until the disease has so shaped itself that cure, if it be ever accomplished, is often accomplished only after a prolonged period of treatment. Medical men are, I believe, in agreement that if it were possible far them to secure control of mental disorder at an early stage in its development there would be far greater hope of recovery, and far less pain and suffering to the patient and to hip or her relations. I, therefore, feel slue that your Lordships will be glad that an attempt has been made to deal with this grievous—as I think most grievous—affliction that God has placed upon us, in a humane manner at the earliest possible moment.

I am not certain, however, that the provisions of the Bill will enable the full beneficent effects of that work to be carried out, for this reason. Anyone who has had even the smallest experience of contact with people suffering from mental disorder know that, especially in the earlier stages of the illness, there is a peculiar, almost insane, resistance to any form of treatment and control. Consequently, I shall be surprised if, when people have been recommended and have been placed under control by virtue of this Bill, the forty-eight hours' notice is not given very speedily, and the whole benefit to be derived from this measure broken down. In other wards, I think that under proper safeguards, and with proper control, there ought to be greater power given than is given by this Bill for the treatment of these cases. After all, if persons are suffering from infectious disease you have power to take them away and isolate them in the interests of the general welfare of the community. I cannot help thinking that somewhat similar power might be given here.

I know, of course, the risk that every one fears, which is that such powers might be abused. The old fear of what happens in lunatic asylums still, no doubt, remains, and it certainly is a very dangerous thing to give power over the liberty of any person. Still, I merely mention that I fear very much that the real benefit of this Bill will not be reaped by reason of the fact that these unfortunate people, who have to be treated will be unwilling to submit themselves for any long period of time to the control and discipline which will, no doubt, be necessary if they are to be restored to health.

There is one thing further I wish to say. It is not directly germane to the purposes of this Bill, but it is germane to the subject with which this Bill deals, and it may not be out of place if I mention it now. A matter that has struck every thinking man in recent years is the appalling fact that the reproduction of our population is taking place in inverse ratio to the value of the people who are reproduced, and, beyond all others, the people who are weak-minded reproduce their species at a rate that can only fill one with alarm. Every one knows that insanity may, roughly, be divided into three or four classes. There is the person who is mad through the ineradicable taint of inherited weakness. There is the person who is mad by reason of a penalty incurred for his own misdeeds—a penalty which, I often think, is entirely out of proportion to the offence. Finally, there is the person who is mad by reason of accident occurring either at home or during the recent war in an act of heroism on the battlefield.

With regard to the first person, who, beyond all others, is suffering from the taint of lunacy, if he is left uncontrolled, as our law at present stands, there is no means whatever of preventing him from reproducing his species to any extent that he likes. Further, our Marriage Laws are such that if he gets into an asylum and returns home, his wife will be compelled to submit herself to him, even though she knows that the result will be that she will have to face the catastrophe of being the mother of a child whose intellect, from its birth to its death, she will watch with the gravest anxiety. I believe the time has come when the whole question of this perpetuation of the utterly unfit, mentally weak and unsound should be the subject of full investigation, and I wish the Government had had the courage to appoint a Commission to consider lunacy not merely in relation to this little matter of a temporary cure, but with regard to the wider and broader principle of seeing whether it is not possible by some wise and humane means to extirpate from our race the curse under which, if we do not conquer it, we shall ourselves be ultimately destroyed.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER

My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord who has just addressed you was quite so encouraging to this Bill as in his heart he meant to be. I can hardly conceive of a man who, when a Bill of this kind comes before him, would not say: "It may do some good and, for God's sake, go on and try. It may be that in course of time you will have to alter the details of your plan a little here and there, but in the meantime you are doing something to bring mercy and hope of recovery to what is the most pitiable section of our great community."

A good deal of what the noble and learned Lord has said is cut away by the fact—of which this Bill is an excellent instance—that we have at last got rid of the narrow and unhappy associations which cluster round the word "asylum." We are going to put in its place the expression "mental hospital." I do not know by what trick of history or language the word asylum, which has, of course, sacred and ecclesiastical associations of a peculiar kind, has come to be narrowed down to a place in which you segregate those for whom, up to a while ago, you had practically no hope of doing anything. This excellent Bill is an instance of the fact that we are beginning to realise that diseases of the mind cannot be separated from diseases of the body in their study, in their treatment and in their cure. Therefore, the kind of dread, to which the noble and learned Lord rightly referred, which is in the mind of every person in danger of being treated in such an institution, will gradually disappear when you get it into his mind that he is not going to what has hitherto been called an asylum, but into a hospital, a place of cure.

My right rev. Brethren and I are accustomed to have dealings with these great and glorious institutions. It occasionally happens to them, and to me, to minister in the great chapels of these mental hospitals, to talk to the patients as if they were an ordinary congregation. It is one of the most hopeful things that a man could possibly do, and the chaplains of these institutions, who are not any more than I am technical students of these matters, are doing a very wonderful work. The man who started the After-Care Society referred to by the noble Earl who introduced the Bill was himself chaplain of a great mental hospital in London.

But I want to say something on behalf of the medical staff of these homes. There is a great danger, if you do not exercise care, that you will take all the heart out of some of the very best of them. Reference has already been made to the general opinion, that which may be called the daily newspaper opinion, of a mental hospital as a horrible place of unspeakable cruelty. But think of the man who is at the head of such an institution and who is liable, with his entire staff, to be attacked in the most grievous way either by a patient or by people acting, as they suppose, in the patient's behalf. We have not yet, so far as I can gather, done anything like all that we could do to protect people who are giving their lives to the study of these cases. They certainly are not going to make great fortunes out of it. If they had put into an ordinary practice anything like the ability and zeal which they are devoting to the work on which they are engaged they would unquestionably have been rich men in a comparatively short time. But they gave themselves to this work, and if there is an effort, particularly in certain sections of the Press, to cover them with abuse on the ground that they are monsters of cruelty, there ought to be some better system to protect them than at present exists.

On a slightly lower scale may I refer to something which comes within the speech made by the noble Earl, when dealing with the question of expense. You put at the head of one of these great institutions such a man as I have described—keen, earnest, capable, always at his job. It is part of his duty every day, so far as he can, to see those who are committed to his care, and, as has been already explained, he has to observe not merely the state of their minds but also their physical condition. He is very often entirely alone in that job. Perhaps he has no assistant at all, and when he has concluded his round he has to make his notes. I think I am right in saying that there are not a few cases in which assistance in that respect has had to be cut off from met, who are doing this splendid work. I do not suppose that any of your Lordships would listen to a word against economy, and yet, if there be an exception to be found, if there be a single ease in which we should all of us be glad that just a little more should be spent on staff in order that a medical officer may be relieved of some of the drudgery and may have his wits quickened by relief from that kind of work, we should be willing to say that economy can go a little too far. I earnestly hope that whatever defects of detail there may be in this measure your Lordships' House will thankfully accept it as a rather wonderful instalment of fresh hope for those who have had been suffering in these sad ways and who hitherto have had no hope at all.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I desire 10 congratulate the noble Earl and the Government upon the introduction of this Bill, and I hope we may be assured that he will spare no effort to press it forward, not only here, where there will, I think, be no difficulty, but in another place, and to ensure its being placed upon the Statute Book. Before I come to the main features of the Bill I should like to say a word or two about some of the minor, but by no means unimportant, provisions which it contains.

Amongst these, almost the most important, to my mind, is that which allows—I think I am right in saying for the first time—of the expenditure of public funds upon after-care. That used to be a matter of private charitable enterprise, so far as it existed at all. During the time when I had much to do with these institutions on the London County Council, Sir John McDougall, whose devotion was unflagging and whose interest in these unfortunate people never ceased, explained to me a great deal of the important work that was done by after-care associations, which, I believe, at that time were entirely voluntary. I entirely agree with those who have promoted this Bill that after-care is in itself as important as treatment, because if you discharge a person who has been cured, or apparently cured, after the rest, the attention and the seclusion of an asylum, and he is plunged again into those difficulties and those distractions which have upset his mind before, it may very well be that his restored equilibrium will be again destroyed, and you may have a case for certification once more upon your hands. I do not think too much importance can be attached to these aftercare associations, and I am very glad to think that they are to be allowed to receive public money, to be put upon an official basis, and to exist all over the country.

On that point I had intended to say a word on exactly the same lines as that which was said by the noble and learned Lord before me on the question of the procreation of insane persons and the addition of fresh cases of insanity to the population. In my comparatively few years at Hanwell Asylum I recollect one particular case in which a woman was readmitted three times, if not four, having each time given birth to a child to her husband during the time when she was at liberty. I think I should hardly exaggerate if I said that there could scarcely have been a member then serving on the Asylums Committee of the London County Council who would not have been strongly in favour of the sterilisation of such people, and who did not know from constant experience the terrible evils to which it led, the enormous number of cases, the history of which showed hereditary taint, and also, unfortunately, the prolific character of the breeding in these cases.

I recognise that this matter is outside the scope of the present Bill, which is comparatively modest, but I should like to add my humble views to those of the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench in suggesting to the Government that the time has almost come when this question might be the subject of examination by a special Commission appointed for the purpose, or by some other suitable body. I do not think it can be suggested that we are showing any kindness to those who are likely to be born under these conditions, and it certainly cannot be suggested that we are showing any kindness or forethought for the taxpayer and the ratepayer who have to maintain them. Further, we are adding to the insane population, and also very often, through defective mental control, to the criminal population of the country. I think the question is one of very great importance, and that it has to be dealt with.

Under this Bill there is also a provision, under the last subsection of Clause 2, allowing for research to be undertaken. In these days we all recognise that what I may call empirical methods are not really the best method's for arriving at the truth on scientific matters; that directed, controlled and continuous scientific research is the only way in which we can arrive at true conclusions, and that this can be done only by the expenditure of a certain amount of time and money. We can all recognise in this matter, as is now recognised by people in business matters, that this time and this money will be well expended, and will produce an ample return in the results which it gives in the way of increased ability both for prevention and treatment. Something in the way of research was, of course, done by the London County Council. Exactly how the money was provided for it I should not like to say, but I dare say it had to be done by a side wind. I think it is very important that these methods of research should be established.

Now I come to what are really the principal clauses of this measure—namely, Clauses 4 and 5. They deal with a subject in which I have been interested for a great many years. Some years ago I ventured to bring a Bill into your Lordships' House to deal with it, but I made no attempt to carry any further. One of the best known and ablest alienists made a comparison to me which I have always thought was a very just one, and which I should like to repeat to your Lordships, as to the early treatment of mental disorder. He said that under the present system, unless the patient is willing to be treated, you cannot treat him; and even if he is willing to be treated, you cannot treat him properly. If a doctor takes him into his house and keeps him under observation, he is, as the noble and learned Lord is well aware, exposed at any moment to the risk of prosecution under a section of the Lunacy Act for harbouring an uncertified lunatic who ought to be certified, although vigorous early treatment is so important that without. it treatment largely fails, particularly among the poor and less well cared for.

My friend the alienist put it to me in this way. He said: "Our treatment in lunacy is just about as sensible as if we did not begin to treat a patient for scarlet fever until he was in the peeling stage." I think your Lordships will recognise that that is a very just analogy, and I think that, so far as this Bill provides that we shall be able to deal with mental disorder in the incipient stage, and, if possible, prevent its ever reaching the certifiable stage, it will do a great deal of good.

I share the views of the noble and learned Lord below me that these provisions really are very largely nullified by the forty-eight hours' notice under Clause 5. I recognise that a delay of forty-eight hours may prevent a woman who is in a temporary fit of hysterics, or a man who is in a temporary fit of passion, from giving a notice which they might perhaps be inclined to withdraw before the forty-eight hours were over. But it is perfectly true that people in this early stage are often very impatient of restraint., and if they are to have liberty to discharge themselves even when the medical superintendent does not think they should be discharged, and when the Board of Control, if it were consulted, would not think they should be discharged, it seems to me that the benefits of the treatment will very largely be lost. No doubt, the policy of the framers of the Bill was dictated by fear of that very large and uninformed public opinion which still thinks that you are apt to throw people into dungeons filled with straw when you commit them to lunatic asylums and that atrocities and cruelties take place. I think it would be well to make some effort to inform public opinion a little more on the matter. In this House I am sure that the noble Earl will not meet with that feeling, and I think it is possible to combat it with argument in another place.

I suggest that the noble Earl should at any rate, if he is not prepared to meet me, extend this provision by making the discharge subject to an order of the Board of Control. They are a public body and can have no pecuniary interest and no personal interest in the detention of any person who should not be detained. I scarcely think that even the most apprehensive member of the public who was still in his senses would think it likely that the Board of Control either would or could sanction the detention of a person who ought properly to be at liberty. I hope that the noble Earl will take that into consideration before the next stage of the Bill.

There is another point, quite a small one, to which I should like to call attention before I sit down. It is as to the certificate which is to be given in regard to these people. The certificate, in addition to the medical information, has to be signed either by a Justice of the Peace or by a minister of religion. The expression "minister of religion" is very vague and undefined, and would include, I imagine, a captain in the Salvation Army or an itinerant preacher. It seems to me that if you include anybody besides a Justice of the Peace it would be more reasonable to include a householder, because I do not see that any additional protection is given by these very large words. I would suggest that, seeing there is an ample supply of Justices of the Peace, who, we understand, in these days are very active in the performance of their duties, it would be advisable to leave these words out. I scarcely see how the addition of the words "minister of religion" adds to the security.

It also seems to me that there is a little difficulty in the form of the certificate, because the certificate says that the person signing has a personal knowledge of the patient. I do not know whether a Justice of the Peace is expected to say that he has a personal knowledge of a patient who has been brought before him for the first time. It may be that that is the reason the minister of religion is introduced, but there may be patients of whom neither a Justice of the Peace nor a minister of religion has any special personal knowledge. I think we all recollect —I forget whether it was in a book or a play—a character the height of whose ambition was to be the friend of a fully-licensed publican, and it may be that there are some people who have not attained the personal acquaintance of either a Justice of the Peace or a minister of religion. Although the provisions of the Bill may do some good even with the 48 hours' provision, I think that it may be necessary to strengthen that provision a little.

Then I should like to say something upon the administrative point, of view mentioned by the noble Earl—namely, upon whether this treatment should be separated from the existing lunacy system. Upon that point I am entirely in agreement with the policy of the Bill. I think it is all a matter of health. We know that many a breakdown is due to bad health, arising from malnutrition or overwork, and these cases should clearly all be under the same authority, because, undoubtedly, a certain percentage of these voluntary six months' cases will prove proper cases to be certified before the end of the six months, and to introduce two authorities would be to cause confusion. There is a great deal in the belief that to place the cases under two authorities would be to divide them into the hopeless and the curable. That, I think, would be very inconvenient. It would be far better that all these cases should be kept in one hand, and I hope that the noble Earl will consider, between now and the next stage, the suggestion which I have urged upon him and will then tell us whether anything can be done on those lines.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I am grateful indeed to noble Lords who have spoken and for the, reception which the Bill has received from the House. I trust that its passage may be as smooth in another place as it seems likely to be here. The noble Lord who has just sat down, and also the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench opposite, made one suggestion which would, of course, go a very great deal further than the Bill proposes to do, and that is to introduce compulsion in retaining a patient in an institution longer than forty-eight hours. This would be a very considerable step forward from what is proposed in the Bill, and I she old cc t like to say anything about it at present. I hope that the Bill will receive very careful consideration from those interested in the subject in this House, and also outside the House, and perhaps when we conic to the Committee stage noble Lords will put down Amendments. Of course, I cannot say that the Government will adopt what has been suggested, because it introduces a new principle, but they will be willing to consider any proposal which may be made. Therefore, I suggest that the Committee stage might be delayed, in order to give time for the putting down of Amendments.

LORD BUCKMASTER

Will the noble Earl tell me whether he will consult with the Government upon the possibility of appointing a committee to consider the whole question of the reproduction of the mentally unfit?

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

If the noble and learned Lard will make a suggestion of course the Government will consider it, with any other suggestion coming from that Bench, although I think that this is a matter which has nothing whatever to do with the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord will understand.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.