§ Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary (1) whether his attention has been called to a communication addressed to the Lunacy Board of Control, dated 19th July, 1920, dealing with the case of a voluntary boarder at St. Andrew's Hospital, Northampton, the illegality of whose detention has been described at intervals during the last three years, in connection with which case the Board of Control have admitted that there were offences against the Lunacy Act, 1890, but in respect of which offences the Board refuse to prosecute the offenders; whether he is aware that the Lunacy Act provides in Section 325 that proceedings can only be taken, for offences against that Act, by certain officials or by their order, or with the consent of the Law Officers of the Crown; and, in view of the interference with the liberty of the subject disclosed by such admitted offences and the stigma involved, whether he will obtain the consent of the Law Officers to a private prosecution or, alternatively, bring before them their duty to prosecute;
(2) whether he is aware that the Board of Control, while admitting certain offences against the Lunacy Act, 1890, for example, an offence against Section 35. committed in 1917 in the process of certifying a voluntary boarder at St Andrew's Hospital, Northampton, have dismissed such offences as mere carelessness, even though the offence rendered valid a medical certificate and a reception order which would otherwise have been invalid, and concealed from the petitioner that a statement purporting to be his own had been illegally inserted in the petition at St. Andrew's the day after he had issued it; that it is by such minor offences as these that the gravest offence of all was effected, namely, an offence against Section 315, that is, the confining as a lunatic of a person received as a voluntary boarder, such detention extending from the hour of her reception as a voluntary boarder until the order for her reception as a lunatic had been obtained by such illegal procedure as that above indicated; and that the Board of Control, in their final adjudication on this case, dated 22nd July, 1920, have dealt with two only out of the 10 offences against the Act brought to their notice, ignoring the rest; and, 441W in view of the fact that the Board have failed to carry out a thorough investigation of the alleged offences, if he will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the desirability of inquiring into the matter or, alternatively, direct a full inquiry into the matter, at which the voluntary boarder can be represented, with a view to a prosecution?
§ Dr. ADDISONI have been asked to answer those two questions as the responsibility for the Board of Control has now been transferred from the Home Office to the Ministry of Health. The points raised by the hon. Member have been brought to the notice of the Board of Control, and a thorough investigation has been made by a Commissioner, who visited St. Andrew's Hospital, and by the Chairman of the Board. It is admitted that owing to war conditions and pressure of work there were certain slight irregularities in the filling up of the necessary forms, but they were not of such a nature as to invalidate the documents on the strength of which the patient in question was detained. I see no ground for any further enquiry.