MIDWIVES [MONEY].

HC Deb 07 May 1936 vol 311 cc2017-22

Resolution reported, That—

1. (a) for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Midwives Acts, 1902 to 1926, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—
   1. (i) to such local authorities (in this. Resolution referred to as 'authorities') as may be determined by the provisions of the said Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on which additional expenditure is imposed in respect of any year in the third fixed grant period by the provisions of the said Act requiring an authority to secure the provision of a service of domiciliary midwives which is adequate for the needs of the area of the authority, of a grant in respect of that year calculated to the nearest pound by multiplying half the amount of the said additional expenditure by the weighting factor and dividing the product by the aggregate weighting factor; and
   2. (ii) to every authority of an amount equal to one-half of the aggregate expenditure incurred by the authority in each financial year in paying, by way of compensation to midwives who surrender or are required to surrender their certificates in pursuance of the 2018 said Act, such sums as will be sufficient to provide compensation equal, in the case of midwives who are required to surrender their certificates, to five times, and in any other case to three times, the average net annual emoluments derived from their practices as midwives or maternity nurses during such Herod as may be provided in the said Act;
2. (b) for the purpose of sub-paragraph (i) of the last foregoing, paragraph—
   1. (i) expenditure imposed as therein mentioned on an authority in respect of, any year shall be deemed to be additional if, and to the extent that, it is estimated to the satisfaction of the Minister of Health (in accordance with directions given by him as provided in the said Act) to exceed the expenditure incurred by that authority and any welfare councils as defined in the said Act in employing or providing for the employment of domiciliary midwives in the area of the authority in the financial year ended on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-six:
   • Provided that the said directions shall require the amount of the expenditure imposed as aforesaid on an authority by reason of its employment of midwives to be estimated by reference to the estimated average net annual cost incurred by authorities in employing a midwife in pursuance of the said Act;
   2. (ii) the expression 'weighting factor' means, in the case of an authority being the council of a county or county district, the quotient obtained by dividing the weighted population of the county constituting or containing the area of the authority, as determined at the commencement of the said Act for the purpose of the apportionment of the General Exchequer Contribution, by the estimated population of that county as so determined, and in the case of an authority being the council of a county borough, the quotient obtained by dividing the weighted population of the borough as determined as aforesaid by the estimated population of the borough as so determined;
   3. (iii) the expression 'aggregate weighting factor' means the quotient obtained by dividing the aggregate weighted population of all the counties and county boroughs as determined as aforesaid by their aggregate estimated population as so determined;
3. (c) in this Resolution the expressions 'fixed grant period' and 'General Exchequer Contribution' have the same meanings as in the Local Government Act, 1929."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.15 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT

I desire on this Resolution to touch upon two points which were touched upon rather lightly on the Committee stage of the Resolution, and on the Second Reading of the Bill no doubt because of the disarming nature of the Minister at the time. On further consideration, I think that they are really extremely serious points. The first is the nature of the Resolution itself. It is far too comprehensive for a Money Resolution of a Bill of this kind. There are two main points upon which this Bill may be criticised. One is the question of the operating authority, and the other is that of compensation. As the Resolution was originally drawn both these points would have been excluded from discussion on the Committee stage of the Bill. I supported the Government on both, but they would have been ruled out of discussion in Committee. It is true—and we thank the right hon. Gentleman for the fact—that he withdrew the Resolution and substituted another one which will enable discussion on the question of the authority to take place in Committee, but no discussion can take place on the subject of compensation. On a Bill of this sort, the most controversial points should be decided by the Committee to which the Bill is referred. Otherwise, there is no point in having the Committee stage.

It is entirely new practice, and one with regard to which you have expressed your disapproval, namely, having these complex Resolutions which freeze out discussion on Committee upon important points. It is entirely wrong.

In the old days, even in the days of which I have knowledge, a very few lines were deemed adequate on a matter of this kind. All matters of principle were not raised on the Financial Resolution but on the Committee stage of the Bill. That was the original intention of the Rules of Procedure of the House and one to which we should adhere. There is no conceivable justification for this new procedure of complicated financial Resolution. There was some justification for the new Rules of Procedure. In those days it was possible so to cover an Order Paper with Amendments as to waste an enormous amount of time. The Rules of Procedure have been changed and Chairmen upstairs now have the same power of selecting Amendments as are possessed by you, Mr. Speaker. It is unnecessary that Stand- ing Committees should be deprived of their right to discuss the main principles of a Bill. If the Standing Committees are not to be allowed to discuss these matters there will have to be protracted debates on Financial Resolutions and that will satisfy nobody. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary and all the Members of the Government to press upon those who draw up Financial Resolution that they should be drawn in the widest possible terms so that this kind of point should not have to be discussed after 11 o'clock at night. I make no apology for detaining the House on this matter.

I now turn to the point which this particular Financial Resolution is going to stultify, and I come back to the unfortunate word which occupied so much of the time of the House on Second Reading arid the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution—the word "net." I am informed that the word "net" has no legal significance. My learned Friends tell me that they could not define it in a Court of law. That being so, the compensation is to be based on a system which depends upon somebody's net earnings, the word "net" must be define I. No one can say what Ruling may be given by the Chairman in the Committee upstairs, but it seems probable, from all the information that I have been able to ascertain, that he may rule that only the very narrowest interpretation of the word will be allowed to be put into the Bill. I have taken the trouble, but I will not weary the House with the details, to get the exact figures of income and expenditure of a practising midwife who will come under the Bill. I have taken the word "net" in its various interpretations. The gross earnings are about £215 a year, the net average takings on a reasonable basis would generally be agreed to be about £130 a year, but owing to the fact that in this particular ease a move had to be made in order to bring her nearer to her work and new instruments had to be bought the additional expenditure incurred meant that the net earnings were brought down to £35 a year. There is the case of whether laundry bills incurred by a midwife should be regarded as expenditure for the purpose of arriving at the net income. I think it is the wish of the Government and of the House that they should not be regarded as expenditure. The Government and the House want to give a reasonably generous and broad interpretation of compensation in these cases but as the Financial Resolution is drawn, the Government will be precluded from giving an interpretation to the word that they and the House would wish to give. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary specifically whether he can say that as the Financial Resolution is drawn he is certain that we shall be able to put a definition into the Bill in Committee which will enable us to give effect to the Government's declared intention. If he is not so convinced, is he prepared to withdraw the Financial Resolution and submit another which will enable us to give that interpretation?

11.24 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare)

My hon. Friend has raised a question of great importance. Let me say, quite frankly, that on principle I agree that the Financial Resolution should be so widely drafted as not to exclude free discussion of the Bill, but I think there is a difference on the point of finance. The Financial Resolution should be so drafted as to carry out the main financial structure of the Bill. It would be improper if the basis of compensation in the Bill was different from that in the Financial Resolution. It is in accordance with precedent that what we do in the one we do in the other. We are following the ordinary practice of the House, and the Financial Resolution has been drawn as widely as possible. The hon. Member will realise that I cannot anticipate the Rulings of the Chairman of the Committee, but I should imagine that the fullest possible discussion will be possible on the Clause standing part. I do not wish to go into the question of the interpretation of the word "net" but I can assure the hon. Member that it has no legal significance. It has been frequently used, but no doubt we shall hear more about the matter from the hon. Member when the time comes.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

c2022
1. ADJOURNMENT. 16 words