§ Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he is aware that two ex-service men, J. Wickenden, at Long Grove, and C. S. Norris, at Banstead, 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 refuses his release, the wife's refusal being backed up by the Pensions Minister, who has decided that they must remain where they are and continue to be imprisoned as lunatics on pain of loss of dependants' allowances; that neither of these men can be proved to be dangerous or unfit to be at large; that in the case of C. S. Norris the decision of two independent doctors, under Section 49 of the Lunacy Act, which is the sole instrument of defence against the action of unjust petitioners, has been overridden by referring his case to a self-constituted tribunal, viz., the London County Council Central Committee; whether these two unfortunate ex-service men are at present ranked as private patients or as paupers; and, in view of their long and very prejudicial deprivation of liberty, and the indignation thereby excited in the public mind, will he take steps to see that their immediate 1542W discharge is secured, and that they are indemnified for their sufferings by a substantial sum to enable them to find their way back speedily to self-supporting life.
§ Major BOYD-CARPENTERThese patients are treated as private patients. 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. 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. My right hon. Friend 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. These cases are being kept under careful observation, but my right hon. Friend regrets to say that, having regard to the present condition of the patients, it is both necessary and desirable that they should continue to be kept in institutional care.