HL Deb 29 May 1930 vol 77 cc1199-207

After clause 16 insert the following new clause:

Accounts of licensed houses.

("17.—(1) The licensees of every licensed house shall cause such accounts to be kept as the Board of Control from time to time prescribe, and the accounts so kept shall be audited once a year in such manner and by such person as the Board direct.

(2) A copy of the accounts and of the report of the auditor thereon shall be sent by the licensees to the Board of Control and the Board may, if they think fit, publish in their report the whole or any part of any such accounts or report, and any information obtained therefrom.

(3) The licensees shall pay to the auditor such fee in respect of the audit as the Board of Control direct.")

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, as the noble Earl opposite is proposing the rejection of this clause, I will confine myself to moving formally at this stage that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendracnt.—(Earl Russell.)

THE EARL OF HALSBURY, who had given Notice that he would move that the House doth disagree, said: My Lords, it is difficult to see what the object of this clause is. It is quite clear that these licensed houses should have every proper supervision in order to see that the patients are properly looked after, and that there is no abuse, and that, when necessary, they should be let out. All that I can understand. But these are private ventures, and what excuse there for saying that the accounts of a private venture should be gone into? If it is to be said: "You know you ought not to charge a person more than a certain amount," where is that going to lead to? Is an auditor a proper person to say, in respect of food that has been purchased, what amount the patient should be charged for entertainment? See how the clause runs: The licensees of every licensed house shall cause such accounts to be kept as the Board of Control from time to time prescribe … Later on you will find that the wretched licensee has to pay for it— and the accounts so kept shall be audited once a year in such manner and by such person as the Board direct. In such "manner" as the Board direct. So they have a perfectly free hand to say what sort of audit is to be made. It may be a very expensive one.

Now you come to subsection (2), and that surely goes beyond everything. It says:— A copy of the accounts and of the report of the auditor thereon shall be sent by the licensees to the Board of Control and the Board may, if they think fit, publish in their report the whole or any part of any such accounts or report.… So the public is to be told exactly how a man is carrying on a perfectly private concern of his own. But it is even worse than that, because they can publish the whole or any part of the accounts or report; they can publish one part of the audit and suppress the other. The publication of part of a document may, of course, be very misleading. There is no opportunity for the licensee to supply the missing part, and any comment may be made on a part of the audit which the Board of Control choose to publish. Surely, that is an unwarrantable interference with a concern run for private profit. Then the usual consequences follow that— The licensees shall pay to the auditor such fee in respect of the audit as the Board of Control direct. This clause is not a Government clause. It was not moved by the Government in another place. It certainly goes too far, and I hope it will be left out.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I should like to take exception in the first place to a description, which the noble Earl used many times over in his speech, of a licensed house as a purely private concern. No concern which is officially allowed to have the charge of a certified lunatic can possibly be regarded as a purely private concern. It is clearly one in which the public has a direct and over-riding interest.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

I probably used an expression which was not accurate. What I meant was that it was a purely private concern so far as regarded the financial running of it, and this clause deals with the financial running of it, and with nothing else.

EARL RUSSELL

I was going on to say that it is a matter in which the public are profoundly interested, and it is, above all, a case in which duty may very easily conflict with interest. So much so, that your Lordships will remember that on the point of the retention of licensed houses at all the Royal Commission were divided half and half. Now, the Government's attitude is perfectly simple. The Government did not desire to deal with licensed houses in this Bill, and they did not really think it appropriate to have a clause relating to licensed houses pitchforked into the Bill; but it was put in on the advice, and with the great support, of friends of the noble Earl's in another place, and the Minister somewhat reluctantly accepted it. If the noble Earl desires this House to remove it, he must make his account with them.

I must point out this further difficulty which he has to meet, that the clause, as it is in the Bill, does agree almost word for word with the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission. Although they were divided, six and six, as to the continuance of licensed houses at all, they all twelve agreed that if licensed houses continued it was proper that a power of this character should exist. Why the noble Earl should think it likely that it would be misused I do not know, but it is apparent, I think, from the Report itself that the Commission were driven to that conclusion by facts which came to their knowledge in the course of their inquiry. Many licensed houses are excellent; some licensed houses are not, and it is undoubtedly a wise thing to keep some control over them; and I have very little doubt that if my right hon. friend had been introducing a Bill dealing with licensed houses he would have introduced this clause. Whether it is to remain or not I must leave to your Lordships after that explanation.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl has given us any explanation of the reason of his Motion. He has told us the clause was inserted in another place largely by friends of my own, and that the Minister had grave doubts about it. But what is the object aimed at by this clause? We all know that there are certain institutions which may be called private licensed houses, which receive patients who can afford to pay sometimes rather large fees for their accommodation therein. I do not know that there is any accusation made against them with regard to the amount of the fee, or the mode in which those houses are run. We know many of them are remarkably successful and well conducted establishments. I could understand if the noble Earl said these were bad establishments, and ought to be swept away; but he also says that, while the privately conducted institutions are left in existence because they supply a public want, the Government insist on their accounts, which are private, being submitted to the Board of Control and published. Now, really, what advantage is there in that? If the noble Earl can show the advantage I would ask my noble friend behind me not to press his Amendment. But what advantage can it be to the administration of the Lunacy Law to publish what are (I still consider this the proper expression) private accounts of the running of an institution which is run under supervision in regard to certain respects, but which merely takes in private persons whose friends pay for them what they regard as a reasonable fee for accommodation in a private home? What reason is there for submitting them to the Board of control for publication in their Report? Perhaps the noble Earl can give us that information.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I must first apologise for having forgotten to mention a point on this clause which I should have mentioned. The clause says that the accounts shall be audited once a year in such way and by such person as the Board direct. In another place it was stated that it was intended to use the services of district auditors in this work, but the Minister thinks there may be a legitimate grievance and, therefore, is quite prepared if it can be shown that a private audit has been carried out effectively and has proved effective, to agree that the work should not necessarily be withdrawn from the private auditor, but that the public auditor should only be appointed if that were not the case. That does not answer the point that was asked me by the noble Viscount, but I ought to mention that to the House.

The noble Viscount asked me what the reason was for this. I was not present at the discussion in Committee, but I think the sort of reason is this. I do not think it has so much to do with the fees to be charged to the patient. There is no particular reason why it should have. Those fees are a matter of bargain between two sane persons, the friend of the patient and the keeper of the licensed house. He may charge what so ever he is able to get and there is nothing improper in it. I do not suggest that there is any impropriety in that for a moment. But the sort of question that did come to the notice of the Commission, and they thought it really very undesirable, was a case where the superintendent of a very important house of this character was paid partly by commission on the profits. It is pretty obvious that a provision of that kind does at once bring into action a rather direct conflict between interest and duty, and it is not a very desirable thing.

Then there were other cases in which various articles had been supplied to patients while there, extra articles which, of course, they were entitled to purchase, and prices had been charged for them in excess, sometimes considerably in excess of their cost to the institution. There were two possible views about that. One view, of course, was that the keeper of the institution was an hotel keeper and was entitled to charge his guests anything he could make out of them. I think your Lordships will agree that the better view rather was that he was not entitled to charge his patients more than the cost price plus something, perhaps, for establishment or overhead charges, and that in any case the excess over included in the prices charged, if more than the sums actually paid, ought to be disclosed to the person paying the accounts. The case, which was gone into as a matter of fact by a special audit by the Royal Commission, was rather a bad case and raised some apprehension in their minds.

As to the publication of the accounts, I cannot conceive and I am sure your Lordships will not conceive that any portion of those accounts is likely to be published unless there is something which amounts to a perfectly definite public scandal which ought to be shown up and held up to public odium and execration. I cannot imagine that they would be published even in a casual way for any casual reason, nor is there any idea of doing that. But it is thought they ought ultimately to be audited. I can only tell your Lordships that the whole of the Royal Commission agreed to that and apparently everybody in another place agreed with it. It was put in at the instance of Sir Boyd Merriman and was discussed at considerable length. I must leave the matter to your Lordships with that information. I really do not think I can carry it any further.

LORD CARSON

My Lords, I do not profess to have followed the course of this somewhat extraordinary Bill; indeed, attention was only called to it quite recently. But so far as this Amendment is concerned it occurs to me that the real meaning and object of it is to put an end altogether to these private homes or houses where people prefer to send their friends very often if they are mentally deranged or affected. Would it not be better and more in accordance with straight legislation—if we ever get such a thing—to say that these private homes are not to exist at all? A person selects a home because he knows its reputation or because he does not want the public generally to know, as it may be only a temporary matter, that the person confined in it is mentally deranged. Assuming that such a home is to be allowed under our law at all look at what this clause says you are to do. It says you are to keep such accounts as the Board of Control may from time to time prescribe. Why? Are you enacting that the parties cannot arrange between themselves what those who enter into a mental home are to pay?

Then it goes on to say that the accounts so kept shall be audited once a year in such manner and by such person as the Board direct. Then comes the most extraordinary part of the clause:— A copy of the accounts and of the report of the auditor thereon shall be sent by the licensees to the Board of Control and the Board may, if they think fit, publish in their report the whole or any part of such accounts or report, and any information obtained therefrom. Was ever a more extraordinary provision put into an Act of Parliament at all, assuming that you are allowing private homes The noble Earl says that there are scandals connected sometimes with these homes. So there are with all nursing homes. So there are with lunatic asylums. So there are with poor houses: there have been many. So there are with almost every Government Department that has tried to run any of these things.

EARL RUSSELL

They all publish their accounts.

LORD CARSON

Scandals are connected with all of them; but you say that anybody sending in accounts is to run the risk of having the whole of them published with the report of the auditors as sent to the Board of Control. Then the licensee, I suppose to make it cheaper, is to pay "such fee in respect of the audit as the Board of Control direct." That is a tax that you put upon the licensees in order that they may send forward their accounts, which may be published in the manner that I have mentioned to your Lordships. This is really one more of those persistent attempts to get everything under the control of Government Departments. You find it in every Bill that is brought forward now.

I remember when I was at the Bar defending certainly three different doctors who were prosecuted for having uncertified lunatics, as they were called, in their houses. I am glad to say that in those three different cases the whole of them got off, because the people were not lunatics at all. The truth of the matter was that the Board of Lunacy, like every other board, thought that the greatest benefit that could ensue to any subject was that he should come under their control. They always do. One of the cases was that of a young girl who had just reached puberty and who used occasionally to get a little hysterical. This doctor was treating her and they prosecuted the doctor for having a lunatic under his care. Another was a case of a woman who had just passed a critical period at middle age. I remember the cases perfectly well. These doctors had to stand their trial, one at the Old Bailey and the other down in Surrey. I was brought down specially to

defend that case. I came to the conclusion—and the more I have seen of public Departments the more that conclusion has been confirmed—that every public Department considers that the greatest advantage to any British subject is to be put somewhere or other under the control of that Department.

Many people select these homes because they are known to be conducted by kindly people who look well after the patients and make a reputation for themselves. Here you are saying to these people: "No; you must put down every egg that is given to the patient, and every egg that is given to everybody else, and the whole accounts must be kept as if it was a great business." The noble Earl says there has been a scandal. Well, if there has been a scandal, or anything like scandal, the thing to do is to stop the licence. You have the fullest possible control over the matter by the licence, which you can take away. For heaven's sake do not let us, under these pretexts, put an end to these private homes which, in my opinion—and I have had a good deal of experience of various kinds of cases that have had to be dealt with by the Courts—have been of great service. Do not let us think that everybody must be put under this Board of Control. For my own part I think if this Amendment is left in the Bill these private places had better be shut up altogether, and we had better get on to another sort of compulsory Coal Bill which, instead of making coal dearer, will make the houses for the mentally afflicted dearer. It is all the same thing. I hope the House will consider well before they allow this Amendment to stand.

On Question, Whether the Lords should agree with the Commons in the said Amendment?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.
Sankey, L.(L. Chancellor.) Mersey, V. Erskine, L.
Gainford, L.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.) Hereford, L. Bp. Marks, L. [Teller.]
Marley, L. [Teller.]
Beauchamp, E. Ashton of Hyde, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
De La Warr, E. Clwyd, L. Rathcreedan, L.
Russell, E. Darling, L. Thomson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Sutherland, D. Salisbury, M. Halsbury, E. [Teller.]
Lauderdale, E.
Linlithgow, M. Bathurst, E. Lindsay, E.
Lindsey, E. Carnock, L. Lloyd, L.
Plymouth, E. Carson, L. Melchett, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Danesfort, L. [Teller.] Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Brentford, V. Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.) Russell of Liverpool, L.
Hailsham, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Shandon, L.
Joicey, L. Templemore, L.
Annaly, L. Lamington, L. Teynham, L.
Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.) Lawrence, L. Trenchard, L.
Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.