HL Deb 17 December 1929 vol 75 cc1379-98

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:

Power to receive voluntary boarders.

(2) Any unmarried person under the age of eighteen whose parent or guardian is desirous of submitting him to treatment for mental disorder may, if the parent or guardian makes a written application for the purpose accompanied by a medical recommendation, be received as a voluntary boarder under this section, but such a person shall not be so received on his own application.

(4) Any person received as a voluntary boarder under this section may leave the institution, hospital, home or place upon giving to the superintendent or other person in charge, or to the person with whom he is residing in single care, seventy-two hours' notice in writing of his intention to do so, or if he is an unmarried person under the age of eighteen upon such notice being given by his parent or guardian.

If any voluntary boarder by or in respect of whom such a notice has been given is not allowed to leave the institution, hospital, home or place at the expiration of the notice, he shall be entitled to recover as liquidated damages from the person in charge of the institution, hospital or home, or the person with whom he was residing in single care, ten pounds for each day or part of a day during which he is detained.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the expression "parent or guardian" in relation to an unmarried person under the age of eighteen includes any person who under takes or performs towards that person the duty of a parent or guardian.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL) moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "unmarried." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to meet the point that was raised in the discussion as to minors between sixteen and eighteen. It must be read with the next Amendment. The effect of that will be to reduce the age at which these people can be treated at the request of their guardians from eighteen to sixteen. In those circumstances it is unnecessary to keep the word "unmarried" because now by law they cannot be married under that age. This, I think and hope, will meet the objections that were raised in Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, leave out ("unmarried").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("sixteen").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the next two are only drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 4, after ("shall") insert ("(a)")

Page 2, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("a medical recommendation under this the last subsection,") and insert ("such a recommendation").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, the next Amendment, in subsection (3), to leave out "this," is covered by the last Amendment of the noble Earl. I therefore do not move it.

EARL RUSSELL

There are two further drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 11, leave out ("Such recommendation shall,") and insert ("and (b)")

Page 2, line 13, after the first ("person,") insert ("and").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT moved, after subsection (3), to insert as a new subsections:— (4) The medical recommendation referred to in the last two subsections shall cease to have effect on the expiration of fourteen days from the last date on which the person to whom the recommendation relates was examined by the medical practitioner.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to ensure that a young person shall not be sent to an institution on a recommendation of a doctor which is old or out of date. It is founded upon the analogy of Clause 5 (5), which makes provision for putting a man into a place of mental treatment if he is incapable of volition. The recommendation of the doctor under Clause 1 has to state that the person is likely to benefit under treatment for mental disorder. That might be true at or very shortly after the time when the person is examined, but if the recommendation were used a month or two months after the examination, the statement might be quite untrue, because he might have recovered and, possibly, no longer be likely to benefit by being put in a place for mental treatment. Therefore my proposal is that the medical recommendation shall cease to have effect at the expiration of fourteen days from the last date of examination.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Danesfort.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, this Amendment is perfectly proper. The object is to avoid a stale recommendation, but we want a little alteration in the words. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept it in this form:— The medical recommendation shall cease to have effect for the purposes of this section on the expiration of fourteen days from the last date on which the person to whom the recommendation relates was examined by the medical practitioner for the purposes of making the recommendation. I would move it in that form.

LORD DANESFORT

I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 16, at end insert as a new subsection: ("(4) The medical recommendation shall cease to have effect for the purposes of this section on the expiration of fourteen days from the last date on which the person to whom the recommendation relates was examined by the medical practitioner for the purposes of making the recommendation.") (Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "superintendent or other person in charge, or to the person with whom he is residing in single care," and to insert "person in charge." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the first of a series of Amendments which are purely of a drafting character. The object is to substitute in each case the words "person in charge," who is defined later in the Bill, for the words in the subsection defining particular persons. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 19, leave out from ("the") to ("seventy-two") in line 21, and insert (" person in charge").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, there is an Amendment which is not on the Paper, but is purely formal. It is simply to omit in line 22 the words "an unmarried" and to insert "a."

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 22, leave out ("an unmarried") and insert ("a").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 23, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("sixteen").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "eighteen includes any person who undertakes or performs towards that person the duty of a parent or guardian," and to insert "sixteen includes any person having the charge of the person under sixteen." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these are all drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("charge") to ("ten") in line 31.

Page 2, line 34, leave out ("parent or")

Page 2, line 34, leave out ("an unmarried") and insert ("a")

Page 2, line 35, leave out from ("of") to the end of the clause, and insert ("sixteen includes any person having the charge of the person under sixteen").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 [Notice of reception, death and departure of voluntary boarders and provisions as to boarders who become incapable of volition]:

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the first two Amendments in my name are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 43, leave out from ("the") to the end of subsection (1), and insert ("person in charge").

Page 3, leave out line 8, and insert ("person in charge").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, after subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection:— (4) If a person who is under the age of sixteen and who has been received as aforesaid ceases to have any parent or guardian, or if his parents or guardians are incapable of performing, or refuse or persistently neglect to perform, their duty as such, the person in charge shall send to the Board of Control a report as to the circumstances of the case and the condition of the boarder, and the Board shall forthwith consider the report and give such directions with respect to the case as they think fit.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this deals with the question of the parents and guardians which was raised in Committee. I think the subsection we propose meets the point that was raised. The Board of Control will accept the guardianship.

Amendment moved— Page 3, after line 19, insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

Perhaps I ought to thank the noble Earl for having met that point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Visitation of voluntary boarders]:

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, leave out from (" the ") to end of line 33, and insert ("person in charge").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5:

Provision for treatment without certification of persons temporarily incapable of volition.

(3) The application shall be accompanied by a recommendation in the form set out in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, signed by two registered medical practitioners, of whom one shall be either the usual medical attendant of the person to whom the application relates, or a person who has been approved for the purpose of making recommendations under this section either by the Board of Control or by the local authority within whose area the said person then is.

(12) Where it is anticipated that a person who is undergoing treatment as a temporary patient under this section will not recover within the period of six months, but his early recovery appears reasonably probable, that period may from time to time be extended tended for further periods of such length not exceeding three months as may be specified in directions given by the Board of Control upon the application of one of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, accompanied by such evidence or recommendations as the Board may by rules prescribe, provided that such further periods shall in no case exceed six months in all.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "either" and to insert "a medical practitioner (not being the usual medical attendant of the person to whom the application relates) approved by the Board of Control for the purpose of making recommendations under this section and the other shall be, if practicable." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is intended to meet the question that was raised as to an additional safeguard in this clause. It now sets out that one of the medical practitioners shall in any case be a person approved for that purpose by the Board of Control, and therefore a perfectly independent person so far as the patient is concerned. It will merely be a doctor who from the point of view of the public protection is an official person, who has no interest except his proper official one. I hope that will meet the point raised in Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 38, leave out ("either") and insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, the original drafting of the Bill said it should be the family doctor, or if not, then a person approved by the Board. In the event of there being no family doctor, are two doctors approved by the Board?

EARL RUSSELL

I think the clause will read that it shall be a medical practitioner approved by the Board and if practicable a family doctor.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

And if there is no family doctor?

EARL RUSSELL

Then it will be any doctor that can be obtained.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, the noble Earl will not imagine he has met all my objections to this particular clause, but the Amendment is an improvement on the original drafting.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I should like to say that I am sure that the noble Earl is justified in what he is doing. I was very much surprised yesterday among various communications from medical men to receive one from a medical man with, I suppose, as large a private practice as there is in relation to matters of unsound mind and defective mentality, endorsing the insistence that there should be some additional safeguard. I hope this additional safeguard will be thought sufficient.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 4, line 40, leave from ("relates") to the end of subsection (3).

Page 5, line 28, leave out from ("the") to ("to") in line 3D, and insert ("person in charge")

Page 5, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("medical superintendent, or such other person as aforesaid") and insert ("person in charge")

Page 5, lines 41 and 42, leave out ("such medical, superintendent or other person") and insert ("person in charge").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 18, leave out from ("the") to ("but") in line 21 and insert ("person in charge").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 6, line 28, after ("11") insert "subject to the provisions of this section").

Page 6, line 29, leave out ("Subject to the provisions of this section")

Page 6, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("save as hereinafter provided").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, after subsection (11), to insert as a new subsection:— (12) A person received as a temporary patient shall not be detained as such for more than twenty-eight days after the date at which he regains volition unless in the meantime he again becomes incapable of volition. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to give effect to Lord Cranbrook's proposal to ensure that a temporary patient shall be discharged twenty-eight days after recovering volition unless he relapses in the meantime. The effect is to give him more avenues of discharge than any other patent. The Amendment has the same effect as that moved by Lord Cranbrook, but it is in a simpler form. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved in subsection (12), after "section", to insert "made in such form and." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, but I ought to sell your Lordships that the Schedules row at the end of this Bill will require a little recasting before Third Reading. They are not now applicable to the changed conditions.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 41, after ("section") insert ("made in such form and").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 43, after ("rules") insert ("made under Section three hundred and thirty-eight of the principal Act."—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved to insert as a new subsection:— (16) Section one hundred and sixteen of the principal Act (which relates to the extent of the administrative powers of the Judge in Lunacy) shall have effect as if there were added at the end of subsection (1) thereof the following new paragraph: (g) To every person received as a temporary patient under Section five of the Mental Treatment Act, 1929. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which your Lordships may remember I withdrew in Committee because it wanted re-drafting. It is now in the proper form. The words of my Amendment are intended to give persons who come under this Bill the benefit of that section of the principal Act.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 17, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)

LORD DANESEORT

Could the noble Earl tell us briefly the purport of Section 116 of the Lunacy Act?

EARL RUSSELL

It is a section that gives an opportunity for protecting the property of a person who is under treatment. It applies now only to person specified in that section, and it is desired to apply it also to protect the property of people treated under Clause 5 of this Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Provisions as to visiting committees];

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 19, leave out ("of") to ("so") in line 20, and insert ("that authority").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15:

Power to make rules.

15. The power of the Board of Control to make rules under subsection (1) of Section three hundred and thirty-eight of the principal Act shall include power to make rules for any of the purposes specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.

Earl RUSSELL moved to insert as a new subsection: (2) The following shall be substituted for subsection (6) of the said Section three hundred and thirty-eight: (6) Rules made under this section after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any such rules have been laid before it, praying that a rule may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new rule.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment puts in a more appropriate place a subsection which was accepted in Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 26, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD had given Notice of two Amendments to the proposed new subsection—namely, to leave out "after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-one" and to insert at the end:— Provided that where any such rule modifies or adapts this Act or any other enactment the rule shall not come into force or have any effect unless within the said period of twenty-one days it has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament. (3) Subsection (2) of this section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act".

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will accept the first of my Amendments to leave out the words "after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-one." The point I want to put to him is that we have now decided, or we shall decide if we pass this subsection, that rules made under this Bill shall be submitted to Parliament after it comes into operation in 1931. I think lawyers in the House will bear me out in saying—I am afraid the noble Earl must have forgotten Clause 37 of the Interpretation Act, 1889—that power to make rules begins before the Act otherwise comes into operation.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— In lines 4 and 5 of the Amendment leave out (" after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").—(Viscount Brentford.)

EARL RUSSELL

I will accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, the second Amendment to the Amendment which I have on the Paper raises a point which my noble friend who moved the original Amendment for me at the Committee stage reserved. The noble Earl would not accept the Amendment then, but my noble friend reserved my right to bring the matter up again if I thought fit on Report. I want to ask the noble Earl seriously to consider whether it ought not to be accepted. My Amendment provides that the rules which not only the Minister but, under other clauses, the Board of Control are empowered to make, shall not come into force where any such rule modifies or adapts this measure or any other enactment until the rules have been approved by each House of Parliament.

Parliament and the country are getting increasingly jealous of the power given to State Departments to make rules, but here we are giving power to make rules altering the very Bill which we are now passing. The only proviso we make is that they shall be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for twenty-one days. I do not know what is the practice in your Lordships' House, but I do know that in the other House it is almost impossible to get a debate on rules laid on the Table of the House. I see the noble Earl opposite agrees with me on that point. While I agree that in the case of ordinary rules which are necessarily made by the Board of Control or the Minister dealing with the administration of institutions, with the forms which have to be filled up in institutions, and so forth, there is no need to get the assent of Parliament, I think that where you are actually giving power to alter clauses of the very Bill you are now passing you are going too far. If we want to alter it, now is the time to make the alteration ourselves and not leave it to the Minister or the Board of Control to make those alterations.

I do not see the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, here, but certainly if in the face of his recently published book we pass an Act giving power to the Minister not only to make rules which will have the binding force of law, but to alter the very Act of Parliament itself, I think the noble and learned Lord would bring out a new edition with a special chapter on, I will not say the stupidity but the incapacity of your Lordships to benefit by the advice he has given. I really think that both from the legal and Parliamentary point of view we ought to preserve the right of making alterations in our own legislation.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— At end of the Amendment add ("Provided that where any such rule modifies or adapts this Act or any other enactment the rule shall not come into force or have any effect unless within the said period of twenty-one days it has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament. (3) Subsection (2) of this section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act").—(Viscount Brentford.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the noble Viscount said that this rule-making power which it is proposed to give will enable us to alter the very Bill we are passing. That is not so. My Amendment is intended to give power to adapt the old Act. The only object of this so far as it alters an Act at all is to adapt an old Act to the present conditions, as I told your Lordships in Committee. It does not give power—

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

Will the noble Earl allow me to say that if he looks at Clause 22 of this Bill he will see that subsection (2) reads:— For the purpose of enabling this Act to be carried into effect….the Board of Control may….make such adaptation, and modifications of the provisions of this Act as they may consider necessary. I beg my noble friend to believe that I did not make the statement without having read the Bill.

EARL RUSSELL

Neither did I make my statement without having read it. The noble Viscount left out rather material words—the words "by order." If this stands there will be no rules made altering this Bill and when we come to Clause 22 I shall be able to show that "by order" means temporary adaptation to local conditions and docs not involve any rule-making power. It docs apply only to adapting the old Act. The matters referred to in Clause 22 are only of local interest. Orders will be made in connection with the hospitals boards. We do not really mean regulations to change anything except details applicable to the conditions of the locality. By his Amendment the noble Viscount requires an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I should not mind accepting the last two lines of his Amendment.

It is true, as he says, that rules can be made before the Act otherwise operates and that is why I accept the first part. But here we are asked to wait for an affirmative Resolution, which is really very unusual, and that Resolution applies only, I think, to a rule which "modifies or adapts this Act or any other enactment." It would be very difficult to divide the code of rules into two parts, one making some adaptation of the Act of Parliament and the other merely making ordinary working rules. This would be difficult and might even prove impracticable. To require a positive approval really makes an unnecessary demand, as we think, upon Parliamentary time. The rules are laid upon the Table and it is open to anybody, either in this House or, I understand, in another place, to move that they be disapproved of and annulled, and then they come to an end. To require a positive Resolution of Parliament is a thing that is hardly ever done except where you are making new laws in some sense, or effectively limiting the Act with which you are dealing. The rules under this clause, apart from the administrative rules, which would not come under the noble Viscount's Motion, will not be making new laws. They will be the most trifling adaptations of an old Act to new circumstances. They will not in any sense alter anything that Parliament has agreed to. They will only make it make sense in new conditions. I hope the House will not insist on this Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I hope the House will insist upon this Amendment. I have spent many years in the House of Commons and I can confirm that which my noble friend Lord Brentford says as to the protection, or supposed protection, that a rule should lie so many days on the Table of the House being absolutely illusory. The matter can come on only after eleven o'clock, it is very difficult to keep a House and it is very difficult to find out whether there are any rules lying upon the Table or not. It took me many years before I knew, where to look and see if there were any rules or not. I do not believe five members of the House of Commons know where to look, or what to do if they find that new rules have been laid. If they do, they cannot do anything except after eleven o'clock, and the consequence is that nobody stays, the Government keep a House and whoever endeavours to alter a rule or to see that a Resolution is passed is met by a solid phalanx of Government supporters who have been told to stay and see that no harm is done—no harm, I mean, from the Government point of view.

Why has the noble Earl, Lord Russell, changed so suddenly in the last two or three days? It was only two or three days ago that he told me that he could not possibly forbid a boy of sixteen to drive a cycle because, under an Act of ten years ago, he was allowed to do so now, and we could not alter the old Act. My noble friend below me now wishes to prevent the alteration of an Act, and the noble Earl says: "You must alter it; it will be a trouble if you accept this Amendment in favour of an affirmative Resolution." I do not understand these sudden changes. They seem to me to be very curious. One day the noble Earl is a protector of property and of the rights of the community and of Parliament and will allow nothing retrospective, and another day he is all for making changes and allowing the Minister to do whatever he likes. In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend will insist upon his Amendment.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, the noble Earl has spoken as if the power to make rules is only a power to make rules adapting the former Act to the purposes of this Act, but he will see that this power is not only one of adapting the old practice but also of modifying. This is expressly stated in the clause that is under consideration, which says that the Board of Control shall have— power to make rules for any of the purposes specified in the Third Schedule to this Act. If you will look at the Third Schedule, you will find, in the fourth paragraph, that rules may be made "modifying and adapting…the principal Act." I could understand the argument if it were suggested that rules merely adapting the old practice to this Act need not be laid upon the Table and obtain the approval of Parliament, but the "rules modifying this Act "—which means altering the Bill that we are now passing—ought surely to be sanctioned by Parliament. Possibly my noble friend might alter his proviso, if he thought fit, so that it would merely read:— Provided that where any such rule modifies this Act…. and so on.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, I wonder whether with the indulgence of your Lordships, I might call the noble Earl's attention to another Act of Parliament. This same question arose in regard to the Local Government Act of this year, in which a very important power was given to the Minister of Health to make rules modifying the previous Act "so far as may appear to the Minister necessary." This provision caused, if I may use a colloquial expression, a great disturbance in another place. Probably my noble friend Lord Passfield remembers that. Parliament decided that— Every Order made under this section shall come into operation upon the date specified therein….but shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made and shall cease to have effect upon the expiration of a period of three months from the date upon which it came into operation"— unless it has been approved by Parliament. That, of course, is a via media which enables the rules to come into operation but, if they modify or alter the Act of Parliament, while they may still for purposes of convenience come into operation, they must not last more than three months. That is the precedent that I would bring to the noble Earl's attention. They cannot be continued unless during that period the Minister has a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. I speak with great deference, but if the Minister wants to make rules of his own motion that are not merely administrative rules but which do modify the Act and alter it (for modification means alteration) the least he can do is to agree—I am offering this as an olive branch to the noble Earl—to a clause similar to that which I have brought to your Lordships' attention. I should be prepared to agree to that.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept the last suggestion. It does seem to me a reasonable compromise after the discussion that has taken place. We had an important de-bate on this matter when the Local Government Act, 1929, was before us. I think it was the view of all of your Lordships that some provision of the character referred to should be introduced. I regard it as a very salutary clause, and I hope that the noble Earl will accept it.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I too hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept this, on more than one ground. It is quite true, I think, as the noble Earl has said, that what is proposed here is within narrow limits, but there are strong reasons of principle, as many noble Lords think, against permitting, and still more against encouraging, the administrative Departments to take upon themselves the exercise of legislative functions. That is the business of Parliament. Many pro tests have been made on this score. It is quite true that there have been many mistakes that have escaped attention. The noble Viscount has called attention to this proposed mistake in good time. Really that which is proposed to the noble Earl is not a difficult proposition. All that it involves is that at some time within three months, if it is a common-sense proposal, it shall be subjected to a single vote in each House of Parliament. Those who have more recent recollection of the House of Commons than I have will know whether there is any greater difficulty than there used to be in His Majesty's Government saying to their followers: "This is a matter of common form; we are going to propose it and it must not be opposed." Nobody else would have the courage to oppose a common-sense proposal. So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, I cannot conceive what difficulty there can be in bringing forward a Resolution to sanction rules. If it is a common-sense Resolution it will be adopted at once in the same generous spirit as that in which the noble Earl's excellent proposals have been received in amendment of this Bill.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I can only speak again with the leave of the House. The Minister does take a very strong view about this. I really think that your Lordships have exaggerated it. If you look at the Third Schedule and the matters to which it applies you will see, as the noble and learned Lord said, that the matters really are very trivial.

LORD MERRIVALE

I did not say trivial; I said within a limited area.

EARL RUSSELL

I see that the feeling of the House is that some other provision should be made than we have made. Would your Lordships allow this matter to stand over until the Third Reading and I could consult the noble Viscount opposite? We have been so successful in satisfying him in other matters that I think we might possibly meet him on this and draft a proposal which would be workable and at the same time meet the constitutional position in which your Lordships feel so much interest. If your Lordships would accept that I would undertake that words should be brought up on Third Reading which would meet this point.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, I can only speak again with the leave of the House; but I have been into the noble Earl's parlour once and the spider got the better of the fly entirely. My proposal here is approved by the noble Marquess and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale. I think and hope that your Lordships' House is prepared to accept the suggestion I have made in this case and I think that the noble Earl ought to accept it. The mere verbiage, I agree, could be altered on Third Reading, but I think he ought to accept the principle of the Local Government Act of 1929.

EARL RUSSELL

I am afraid I cannot say any more on the point.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

Does that mean that he will accept it or not?

EARL RUSSELL

What I mean is that we must be allowed to consider it before Third Reading—I hope in conjunction with the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

Then I hope the House will accept my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)

Does the noble Viscount insist upon his Amendment?

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

It must be so. I understood that the noble Earl would not resist it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

In order to consider whether he will adopt the noble Viscount's verbiage or not.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

If the House accepts it, as I think it intends to do, in the form I have given it. I am willing to give the noble Earl the option between now and Third Reading of amending it on the lines of the Act of 1929.

EARL RUSSELL

Hear, hear.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

Amendment of Section 338 of principal Act.

17. Subsection (6) of Section three hundred and thirty-eight of the principal Act shall cease to have effect, and the following subsection shall be substituted therefor:

(6) Rules made under this section after the Mental Treatment Act, 1929, comes into operation shall be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any such rule has been laid before it praying that the rule may be annulled, the rule shall be annulled and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new rule.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved to leave out Clause 17. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is possibly an omission on the part of the noble Earl, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Leave out Clause 17.—(Viscount Brentford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 [Interpretation and adaptation]:

EARL RUSSELL moved to insert in subsection (1):— The expression 'person in charge' in relation to a person received under this Act or any local Act as a voluntary boarder or as a temporary patient in an institution, hospital, or home, means the medical superintendent or other person in charge of the institution, hospital, or home, and in relation to a person received as such into single care means the person with whom he is residing.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the definition of "person in charge" to which I called your Lordships' attention before. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 26, at end insert the said new definition.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "order" and insert "rules made under subsection (1) of Section three hundred and thirty-eight of the principal Act." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if your Lordships will look at subsection (2) of Clause 22 you will see that for the purpose of enabling this Act to be carried into effect in certain areas the Board of Control may by order make such adaptation and modifications of the provisions of this Act as they may consider necessary. I agree that it is only for a particular purpose relating to the institutions in two of the Northern Counties. At the same time to give the Board of Control, which is an authority non-ministerial, power, not by rules laid on the Table of the House but by a simple order from which there is no appeal, and which needs no sanction from any quarter whatever, to make adaptations and modifications in this measure, is really going too far. Any Minister, any authority, still more any Board of Control wanting to adapt and make such modifications in the provisions of an Act of Parliament as they consider necessary ought really to do it by rule and not by simple order. I hope your Lordships will stand for the rights of Parliament to control these bodies even in a small matter like this. If you allow such a body to make orders and modify Acts there is no telling where the mischief will end. I beg to move and I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page18, line 1, leave out ("order") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Brentford.)

EARL RUSSELL

This really refers to a very trifling matter. It is simply power in connection with joint hospital boards to make the Act fit the purpose. The effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment will be that any order made under this Act will have to be approved by an affirmative Resolution of Parliament—that will be the net result—on this trifling and local matter. I think that it is unnecessary and I am afraid that I cannot accept it. Of course I think it is of no use, in view of the line that has been taken, my asking your Lordships not to accept this. We take the view that an order is a far more proper means of dealing with trifling and local matters of this sort than a regulation which ought to be of general application. As I say, if your Lordships take that view I do not propose to waste any more time in discussing it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule [Matters with respect to which rules may he made by the Board of Control]:

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, my Amendment to the Third Schedule is simply to enable the sections of the principal Act which apply to absence on trial and change of residence of single patients to apply. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 34, after ("received") insert ("Sections fifty-five and fifty-six (which relate respectively to absence on trial or for health and to the change of residence of single patients) ").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.