§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that two ex-service men, J. Wickenden at Long Grove, and C. S. Norris at Ban-stead, are being detained in these two asylums, respectively, while their parents in each instance are exceedingly desirous to undertake complete responsibility in regard to them and to give them comfortable, homes and every care; that the wife of each, for reasons of her own, refuses their release; that the wives' refusal is backed up by the medical official of the Pensions Ministry, who has decided that they must remain where they are and continue to be treated as lunatics on pain of loss of dependants' allowance; that the Board of Control has referred the case of these two private patients to the visiting committee, which has by the Act no power over the discharge of private patients; that the attempt to bar their discharge is inoperative, since the medical superintendent has failed to prove (in accordance with Section 74 of the Lunacy Act) that they are dangerous and unfit to be at large; that the delegation of powers of intervention to the Pensions Ministry is contrary to the provisions of the Lunacy Act; that, in the case of C. S. Norris, the decision of two independent doctors under Section 49 has been 1906W over-ridden by illegal reference of his case to a visiting committee, whose function is restricted to dealing with paupers; and, in view of the indignity thus perpetrated on ex-service men, will he take steps to see that they are not any longer deprived of liberty, and that they are indemnified for the injury done them by a lump sum to enable them upon immediate discharge to find their way back to a self-supporting position in life.
§ Sir A. MONDI am fully acquainted with the facts of these two cases. The Ministry of Pensions are empowered to pay an allowance to the wives while the husbands are detained under institutional care. But if the patients are discharged contrary to medical advice, that allowance would cease. The visiting committee has power in regard to the discharge of all patients, whether private or public, by virtue of Section 77 of the Lunacy Act, 1890; there has been no occasion for the issue of a certificate under Section 74 of the Act, because no application for the discharge of the patients has been made by the person entitled to do so under Section 72 (2) of the Act. The recommendation of one of the doctors who examined the patient Norris, under Section 49 of the Lunacy Act, was that he should be given leave of absence on trial. This was properly referred to the visiting committee, in whom rests the power to permit such leave of absence under Section 55 of the Act. I cannot concur in the view that any indignity has been perpetrated on these ex-service men, and the hon. Member is in error in regard to his interpretation of the legal points. I am satisfied that the patients are, at present, properly detained, but their cases will be kept under careful observation.