§ Mr. GILLISasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that Section 49 of the Lunacy Act constitutes the only efficient check upon the action of a petitioner who has kept his wife confined in Camberwell Asylum for 13 years, and that this Section empowers anyone (whether relative or not) to take the initiative in appealing for an order to have her examined by two independent medical practitioners, he is aware that the Lunacy Board, having apparently accepted the practitioners named in the application, subsequently changed their minds and substituted for them two mental specialists, nominees of the husband, who is desirous of her continued incarceration, thus rendering wholly nugatory the intention of Section 49 of the Act; and will he take steps to see that the present situation in regard to this lady is rectified and that the Board in future do not use their powers in such a manner as to play into the hands of possibly unfair petitioners or to put fees into the pockets of mental specialists by the practice of substituting their names for those of medical practitioners as prescribed in the wording of the Act?
§ Sir A. MONDIt is not the fact that Section 49 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, constitutes the only efficient check against the improper detention of persons in asylums. The Act contains a number of safeguards. The provisions of the Section referred to are permissive, and as to the practice of the board of control in regard to it, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 13th of last month.