Report of the Royal Commission on the care and control of the feeble-minded, Volume VIII.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded.
Date:
1908
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report of the Royal Commission on the care and control of the feeble-minded, Volume VIII. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    422/552 (page 388)
    V.—Certification and General Administration. Question of iho sufliciency of the present system of ])i'oviding for the mentally defective. I’o.ssibility of developing ilio Parish Council system. Tlie Lunacy (Scot land) Act, IHOO, Secs. !), 10, 11. The Lunacy (Scot- land) Act, LSO'2, Sec. IS. Development of the District Boards of Lunacy recommended. Uecoiiiniendation VII. scope of the work which would now devolve on it; also that an Act be ])assed amending the 8cotish Lunacy Acts and bringing them, with provisions for the mentally defective generally, into one legislative measure. 1005. We have now to turn to a difficult question—the sufficiency of the Scottish system, as it now stands, to provide for the mentally defective of all classes. Our conclusion was that there were some not unimportant short- comings in the present administration ; that there was on the part of the parish councils a disinclinction to deal with cases, for which provision might be made under the law as it is now interpreted and applied ; that there was a want of unity between the administration of the District Boards of Lunacy and that of the parish councils ; and that this led to want of economy in the use of asylum accommodation for persons who might be otherwise treated, and, generally, to divided interests and responsibility. If, as is alleged and as we are led to believe, this state of things prevails, the alternative lies before us of making such recom- mendations as would tend to promote greater activity and the recognition of a larger responsibility on the part of the parish councils, or of making recom- mendations which would have for their object the transference of responsibility to some other body. ^ 1006. Now it is obvious that though the administration of the Lunacy Acts, so far as they refer to pauper lunatics, is part of the recognised work of the parish councils, these councils are mainly engaged and interested in the admini.stration of poor relief ; and the duty of ascertaining who are mentally defective and for whom provision should be made and in what manner is a different and special department of work. But it may be argued that in Scotland the administra- tion of poor relief and, in connection with pauper lunacy, the administration for the care of the mentally defective is so inextricably fused iuto one that no transfer of the duties of caring for the mentally defective to any other body, whose sole business and concern they should be, can be carried out success- fully. In that case, in the new circumstances that have now arisen—namely, the necessity of dealing not only with persons certifiable under the Lunacy Acts, but with other classes of persons who cannot now be so certified—it is a question whether any supplementary proposal s can be advocated which would lead to greater attention being paid to these cases and would in some measure meet the difficulties which we have mentioned. If then the present system be retained, by which the parish councils maintain the mentally defective, settle who should be boarded-out and control the discharge of unrecovered patients, we would suggest : (1) That there should be inquiry made by the General Board of Lunacy in regard to the number and the nature of cases of mental defect in the several parish areas or the districts of the District Lunacy Boards, n,nd especially in regard to the cases of persons who are mentally defective but who do not now come under the Lunacy Acts; (2) that there be a system of noti- fication of all cases of mental defect by local authorities to the General Board ; and (3) that the Board be authorised to enforce a proper treatment of all these cases by the parish council from the point of view of maintenance and by the District Board from that of suitable provision. The General Board have already a similar power under Sec. 18 of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act of 1862, By that section, if a parish council “ after requisition by the Board, shall refuse or neglect for twenty-one days after such requisition to provide for the removal of a pauper lunatic to an asylum, house, or lunatic ward of a poorhouse, the Board may take such measures as may be necessary for the removal . . . and the whole expenses . . . shall be recoverable by the Board ...” This power is applicable to “lunacy” cases only under the present law ; it might, we suggest, be extended to all other cases of mental defect. 1007. The other method of administration which we recommend and which in our opinion would best meet the difficulties to which we have alluded is the extension of the powers of an existing administrative body in such a way that it should become the sole local authority in each district for dealing with the mentally defective, providing for them and maintaining them. In Scotland the local authority under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, is the council of any county or burgh ; but, so far as our evidence goes, it does not seem that the proposal has ever been made that the council of the county or burgh should