NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE [MONEY] (Hansard, 2 May 1946)

§ Mr. Richard Law (Kensington, South)
The most remarkable thing about this Financial Resolution is that it covers a tremendously wide field, involving large sums of money, for a variety of purposes, and only once is any specific sum mentioned—that of £66 million. That is for a purpose which, as I hope to show the Committee, is not in itself necessary. In these days, when we consider the financial position of our country, I think that the Committee generally will agree that it is undesirable to spend great sums of money, unless the necessity of doing so can be proved absolutely. I hold that no necessity has been proved in this case. The £66 million is to be provided for compensation payable to medical practitioners in respect of losses suffered by reason of the Act. In other words, it is to be payable to medical practitioners to compensate them for the prohibition on the buying and selling of their practices. It seems to me—and nothing which I have heard in the previous Debate has altered my mind—that, whatever the arguments may be for or against the buying and selling of practices, it has not been demonstrated that the prohibition on the buying and selling of practices is necessary for any of the fundamental purposes of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as this Bill is concerned. The argument, as I understand it, is that the prohibition on the selling and buying of practices is neces- 419 in order to ensure an even and fair distribution of doctors throughout the country.

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
On a point of Order. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding to a discussion on the merits or demerits of the prohibition on the buying and selling of practices. I do not see anything in the Money Resolution about that. I would ask how far it is in Order on this Resolution to discuss whether the prohibition is wise or unwise. Is not the only question, whether or not the money should be provided for compensation?

§ The Chairman
The object of the Money Resolution is to provide finance for the items set out in the Motion. If the right hon. Gentleman goes outside that rather wide area, he will, of course, be out of Order.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)
Is it not in Order, Major Milner, on a Resolution of this kind, to discuss the merits of the case? Otherwise the Resolution would be perfectly useless. If the principle of the point of Order raised by the hon. Gentleman is to be accepted, why have this Resolution at all? How can we discuss the sum of money involved, without discussing the merits of the case?

§ Mr. Silverman
I do not invite you to rule, Major Milner, that there would be anything improper in saying either that compensation ought to be paid, or that compensation ought not to be paid. I invite you to rule that any discussion on the prohibition of the sale of practices, which leads to a question of whether compensation should or should not be paid. would be out of Order.

§ Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)
Is it not clearly in Order, Major Milner, under paragraph (b) of the Resolution to say that the whole of the expenditure under that paragraph would be unnecessary, if the Bill were more rationally drafted to achieve its objects? Does not that permit quite a wide discussion on the merits of the effect of this Bill on the doctor-patient relationship; and is not it rather significant that, at an earlier stage today, the Lord President of the Council called attention to the fact that there would be an opportunity of discussion on the Financial Resolution, to show how much time had been allowed for the discussion of the merits of the Bill?

§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)
May I ask, if the last submission is correct, what is the difference between a Debate on the Money Resolution and a Debate on the Bill?

§ The Chairman
The difference is that the present Debate must, of course, relate to the purposes set out in the Financial Resolution and to the desirability or otherwise of providing those moneys for those purposes. It would not be in Order to go beyond those purposes.

§ Mr. Law
I must thank you, Major Milner, for your Ruling. I do not think that I have so far transgressed it, and I hope I shall not transgress it in anything I have to say now. What I suggest that the Committee has to consider is whether this payment of £66 million is necessary. The argument put forward from the other side of the Committee is that it is necessary to prohibit the buying and selling of practices, because only in that way can a fair and even distribution of practices be secured throughout the country as a whole, and as between one district in the country and another district. The point I put to the Committee is, that there is little evidence to suggest that the machinery to do with the distribution of practices—

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of Order. I do not want to be persistent, Major Milner, but I should like to have your Ruling on this point. It is perfectly clear now that the right hon. Gentleman is inviting the Committee to discuss whether or not there should be a prohibition on the sale of practices. I submit to you with great respect that any such discussion at this stage would be out of Order. All we are entitled to discuss now, having decided that there should be such a prohibition, is. Shall we compensate or not?

§ The Chairman
On that point I think the hon. Member is quite right. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to discuss the merits of prohibition further.

§ Mr. Law
Surely, I may submit with great respect that the only reason that this payment is called for, is because the Government have decided that the buying—

§ Mr. Bevan
The House has decided.

§ Mr. Law
The House will have an opportunity of reconsidering it.

§ Mr. Bevan
May I submit respectfully that the House will get no opportunity on a Money Resolution of reconsidering the decision? What the Committee has now got an opportunity of doing, is to determine whether or not compensation should be paid, and if so how much.

§ Mr. Law
With great respect, I am not moving an Amendment to the Financial Resolution which would undo any decision to which the House has come. Indeed, the House has not come to any final decision on this matter, and, presumably, will not come to a final decision until we dispose of the Bill altogether. I cannot see how it is possible to discuss this principle of the payment of £66 million to medical practitioners unless one can also discuss the reasons which make this payment necessary.

§ The Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks arising out of the prohibition of the buying and selling of practices to the provision or non-provision of the money for compensation. If he can do that he will be in Order.

§ Earl Winterton
On a point of Order. In answer to the point made by the Minister of Health, would not the logical outcome of what he was saying be for the Committee to refuse to vote this money? In fact, if the Committee refuses to vote the money the Bill passes into desuetude and cannot be passed. Until the money is passed by the Committee the Bill cannot come into operation.

§ The Chairman
That may or may not be so because there are many matters in the Bill on which the question of money or compensation does not arise and discussions on those matters would not be in Order on this Motion.

§ Mr. Silverman
If the House did not pass the Money Resolution the only effect on the Bill would be that we would not pay compensation. It would not affect at all the prohibition on buying and selling practices.

§ Mr. Henry Strauss
In answer to the last point, there have been many cases in the past where the Rules of the House have not been so narrowly interpreted. In my submission, the discussion is not as limited as it would be if we were 422 moving to omit one particular part of the Resolution. I submit that the Noble Lord is right in his submission that we can take the merits of this Financial Resolution as a whole and discuss them. While I entirely submit to the Ruling you, Major Milner, have given that anything not involved in the Financial Resolution would be irrelevant, surely the merits of the Bill which lead to the particular financial provisions presented here are open for discussion.

§ Mr. Bevan
No.

§ Mr. Strauss
Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee seem to think we are not entitled to make our case, but in my submission we have a perfect right to do so Hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to prevent a discussion, notwithstanding the statement of the Lord President of the Council that there would be an opportunity on the Financial Resolution for discussion. I submit that the general merits of those parts of the Bill which are involved and are implicitly mentioned in the Financial Resolution are open to discussions and I should welcome your Ruling, Major Milner, on that point.

§ Mr. Bevan
May I make a submission to you, Major Milner, before you give your Ruling? I have taken part in many discussions on Financial Resolutions in the House. Many of those discussions have been exceedingly protracted and quite detailed, but they have been on occasions when the Financial Resolution has included such large portions of the Bill, that unless there were adequate discussion on the Money Resolution, there would have been no proper opportunity for discussion at all of the principles involved. On this occasion a different situation exists. When this Bill goes into Committee upstairs very wide discussion is permitted, because the Financial Resolution will not prevent discussion on a very wide range of principles. In my respectful submission, it would be an abuse of the procedure of the House if we had a wide discussion on the principles of the Bill, and on the principle of the buying and selling of practices on Second Reading, another long discussion on the Money Resolution on the principle of the buying and selling of practices, and another long discussion on the same subject in the Committee upstairs. Hon. 423 Members opposite, having got considerable latitude, ought, I think, to accept the limitation of the discussion now.

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Before we come to a decision, I venture to suggest that this is the position. The House obviously has not decided either that there shall or shall not be prohibition on the sale of practices, because if it had so decided, it would be incompetent to discuss it again in Committee. We are all agreed it is competent, in Committee, to discuss the Clause in the Bill which deals with the question of whether or not there should be a prohibition on the sale of practices. Therefore, it follows that the House has not yet decided that matter. The House has given general approval to the principles of the Bill, but has not decided in favour of any one of those principles. Any one of them can be omitted by the Committee upstairs without infringing the decision of the House. That is the first point. If the House has not decided this matter, it is open to us here to discuss the question of whether or not it is necessary or desirable to spend £66 million, or whether it is desirable to delete the provision in the Bill which makes that expenditure necessary. It is, therefore, in Order, I submit, to say that this expenditure is wholly unnecessary, because the purpose for which it is to be used is unnecessary. Surely, it is possible for this Committee to argue the question that this expenditure should not be authorised, because the purpose for which it is intended to be used is a bad purpose. There are two possible arguments, and only two, which would be open in this Committee. One is that the money to be spent is too much; the other is that the purpose is a bad purpose, and that no money should be spent. I have never heard that in a Committee dealing with the expenditure of money it is irrelevant to argue that money should not be expended, because the purpose was a bad one.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
If the arguments addressed to the Committee by the hon and learned Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) were correct, the logical conclusion would be that we could debate, on the Financial Resolution, every single point in the Bill. 424 We could have the Second Reading Debate all over again. If it is in Order to discuss the merits of the prohibition of the sale of practices, then we are entitled to discuss the merits of every other point in the Bill. That is the reductio ad absurdum of the argument. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says we are entitled to discuss whether the expenditure is necessary or unnecessary, I respectfully agree, but the question whether it is necessary or unnecessary arises out of the question whether it is necessary or wise to pay compensation after we have prohibited the sale of practices.

§ Earl Winterton
The assumption of hon. Members opposite seems to be that because a Bill has passed its Second Reading none of its provisions can subsequently be discussed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The whole purpose of the Financial Resolution and the Committee stage is, I submit—arguing from long historical continuity—not only to discuss the manner in which the money should be spent, but the purpose for which it is being voted, and Members are entitled to say that the purpose is a bad one.

§ The Chairman
The Noble Lord is quite right as regards his second point. The money is provided for, among other things, compensation for certain purposes, and the question of compensation is open to discussion. But the general merits of the Bill, or the question of imposing prohibition on the sale of practices, are not open for discussion

§ Mr. Law
I must accept your Ruling, Major Milner. I understand that I could argue, if I wished, that compensation should not be payable to medical practitioners, which is certainly not what I or any Member of the Committee would want to argue, but that I cannot argue at all about the set of facts which make possible payment of that compensation.

§ The Chairman
May I be more precise? The right hon. Gentleman cannot argue whether the sale of practices is or is not a good thing. He may argue that compensation should or should not be provided, and that the moneys should or should not be provided for the purposes of that compensation, but not that the sale of practices is or is not a good thing. I hope I have made the point clear.

§ Mr. Henry Strauss
Further to that point, Major Milner—

§ The Chairman
I have given my Ruling. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have had the opportunity of making representations to me on this matter, and I must ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) to continue his speech.

§ Earl Winterton
Surely you do not mean, Major Milner, that an hon. Member is not entitled to raise another point of Order. With respect, I. submit that that would be an entirely novel Ruling from the Chair. I have frequently seen the discussion on points of Order, arising out of a Financial Resolution, last for over two hours.

§ Mr. Strauss
I wished to put a question, Major Milner, as I did not quite follow your Ruling. I thought you said that it would not be permissible to discuss whether practices should or should not be sold, but cannot we discuss the wisdom of paragraph (b) of the Financial Resolution with regard to …provision of the said Act prohibiting the sale of medical practices …? Is it not in Order to discuss the merits of that paragraph? Before you give your Ruling on that, Major Milner, may I say, in answer to the point put by the Minister—for whose knowledge of points of procedure I have great respect, because I remember how he used to deal with them when he was on this side of the Chamber—that I do not complain of the narrowness of the terms in which the Financial Resolution has been drawn. But it contains the words which I have just quoted with regard to the Act prohibiting the sale of medical practices, and I would like to know whether it is your Ruling, Major Milner, that we must not discuss the merits of these provisions.

§ The Chairman
My Ruling was that the Committee cannot discuss the merits of such a prohibition, but can only discuss the question of whether compensation should or should not be paid in respect thereof.

§ Mr. Reid
Further to that point, Major Milner, would it be in Order to argue on this line, which seems a feasible line of argument, but which I do not want to open until you have given your Ruling? Suppose I say, as I am entitled to say, "You ought not to prohibit the sale of practices except in areas which have been proved to be over doctored; that those areas are much less than half the country, 426 and that we could, therefore, save much more than half of the £66 million if you limited this prohibition." Suppose I were to say, "You could save much more than half this £66 million if you would adopt the line of limiting the provisions in the Bill which deal with this point to the areas where they are necessary, and in that way save the country £30 million or £40 million." Surely I would be entitled to argue that?

§ Mr. S. Silverman
May I submit, with respect, Major Milner, that that would be a perfectly good argument on the Second Reading, or in Committee, when our minds were being directed as to whether there ought or ought not to be prohibition of the sale of practices, but that it is completely irrelevant on the question of whether we ought to provide money to compensate.

§ The Chairman
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may of course argue that compensation should be limited in some respects and give reasons. He would then be in Order, but he would not be in Order in arguing that prohibition, as such, should or should not be imposed.

§ Mr. Reid
I am afraid I have not quite followed your Ruling, Major Milner. The only reason I want to argue to limit the sum of £66 million is because the provisions under the Bill should he limited to areas of proved necessity. I want to argue that £66 million is extravagant on that ground. I am not sure, Major Milner, whether your Ruling allows me to develop the argument, and to ask the Minister for information about the extent of the areas of proved necessity, and so on; but I submit it would be relevant to raise this matter, because it is very directly relevant to the expenditure by the nation.

§ Mr. Bevan
Further to the point of Order, I submit that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were permitted to put an argument of that sort to the Committee and I were expected to reply to it, I should have to argue that in a given area it was desirable to prohibit the sale and purchase of practices and that in another area it was not desirable to do so, and therefore, there would be an argument as to why it would be desirable in one area and not in another, and before we knew where we were, we should be arguing whether or not it was desirable to prohibit 427 the sale and purchase of practices. My submission is that the position that is now being taken up by hon. Members opposite is one of considerable intransigence.
I have heard earlier discussions about Money Resolutions, and the Noble Lord will have heard them on many occasions. There was very considerable difficulty before the width of Financial Resolutions was altered in the time of the late Mr. Speaker Fitzroy. Objection was taken over and over again on the ground that Money Resolutions embraced so much of the Bill as to deny effective debate on the Committee stage of the Bill, and at that time Mr. Speaker Fitzroy said that it would be extremely difficult for him to give Rulings on the discussion of a Money Resolution if so much was embraced in it, and he asked Members of the Government to consider drafting Money Resolutions as narrowly, or as widely—one can take whichever word one pleases—as possible, leaving as much as possible of the Bill out of the Money Resolution in order not to prohibit discussion on the Committee stage. This is a very important matter concerning the freedom of the House. That was done. The Government have taken very good note of it, and this Money Resolution is drawn in such a fashion as hardly to curtail at all the power of the Committee when it comes to consider these principles; but if hon. Members opposite want to have it both ways, if they want to have a Money Resolution so drawn as to give them wide discussion on the Committee stage and so interpreted as to give them wide discussion on the Money Resolution, the Government will have to reconsider the whole drafting of Money Resolutions.

§ Mr. Henry Strauss
With everything that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said, until he came to the end of his remarks, I respectfully agree. Money Resolutions, when they were drawn too narrowly—I think that is perhaps the better word—did curb discussion on the Committee stage of the Bill. We do not accuse the Government of doing that in this Money Resolution. But the idea that we have to be limited in this discussion astonishes me, when it comes from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, who is an able debater, and has hitherto shown no anxiety at the pros- 428 pect of an evening's debate. May I point out, in substantiation of the submissions that have been made from this side of the Committee, that the Money Resolution is in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is very seldom on the Bench to take any part in the proceedings on a Financial Resolution, for the reason that, although it is in his name, it is well known that the Minister in charge of the Bill is the Minister who has to be prepared to deal with all the subjects arising under it? As far as I know, from some experience in the Government, every Minister, coming to the Committee with a Financial Resolution, comes armed from the Department to discuss the merits of anything in the Bill that may arise on the Financial Resolution, which would be wholly unnecessary if the discussion were so limited as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

§ The Chairman
I am sorry but I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Henry Strauss) appreciates that whatever brief the Minister may have must be a brief relating to the matters contained in the Money Resolution, and not, as he said, on the merits of anything in the Bill. The Committee may discuss the question of compensation, but it may not discuss the prohibition of the sale and purchase of practices which was the point originally raised and the point to which the right hon. Gentleman was relating his remarks.

§ Mr. Law
I will not pursue the merits of this proposal concerning the sale and purchase of practices any further, because obviously it would go against your Ruling under this paragraph, Major Milner, but it seems to me extremely odd that the Government should have provided half a day for the discussion of this Money Resolution, and that, at the same time, they should have been so determined that the real merits of this payment of £66 million should not be discussed. I accept your Ruling, Major Milner, but what strikes me as odd, is that the Government, having given the Committee a half day to discuss the Money Resolution, should then seek, as the Minister is seeking, and as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) is seeking, to stifle and limit discussion.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I inter- 429 vened on my own initiative and that none of my hon. or right hon. Friends knew that I would do so. I did not myself know I would do it until the right hon. Gentleman began his speech. As to stifling discussion, on the contrary, I want discussion to go on, but I want it to be relevant to the point whether we ought to provide £66 million of public money to compensate people for the loss of something which they never had.

§ Mr. Law
I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in that, and it would, in fact, be out of Order to do so. I think it is fair to comment that the Government have not allowed this Bill to go to a Committee of the Whole House, although it is a Bill which affects every member of the population. The Minister has been very careful to limit discussion of this particular proposal. However, I will leave paragraph (b), and I would like to deal with paragraph (e) of the Money Resolution. This paragraph makes provision for expenses incurred by other bodies constituted under the Act. One of the bodies for which provision is made is the Medical Practices Committee. it seems to me that it is unnecessary to make provision for the Medical Practices Committee because that Committee is not in itself necessary to the Bill and to the constitution of a comprehensive health service. Am I in Order in arguing that, Major Milner?

§ Mr. Bevan
Before you give your Ruling, Major Milner, may I say that the decision to constitute the Medical:Practices Committee has been determined provisionally by the Second Reading decision. What would be in Order, in my respectful submission, would be to discuss the amount and the form of the expenses to be paid, but not the principle of having a Medical Practices Committee.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
I submit that it would be just as much out of Order to discuss the merits of the Medical Practices Committee as to discuss the merits of the prohibition of the sale and purchase of practices. What we are discussing on the Money Resolution is the financial consequences of what was decided on the Second Reading of the Bill.

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
Surely, Major Milner, there is this essential difference between the two. One can knock out the £66 430 million and still leave operative the parts of the Bill which deal with the prohibition of the sale and purchase of practices The two things do not necessarily go together although we think they ought to do so in equity, and so does the Minister; but if one knocks out the expenses of the Medical Practices Committee, one destroys the Committee, because the Committee cannot go on without expenses. Therefore, there is a much closer linking here between the provision of the money and the purpose than there was in the other matter. The two things necessarily go together, and if one is to do more than say, "We think these expenses should not be paid at all by the Government," one cannot utter another sentence on that question without raising the matter of the existence of the Committee, and that means reference to the functions of the Medical Practices Committee.
It may be that your Ruling, Major Milner, will be that we cannot utter a single sentence relevant to this paragraph of the Financial Resolution without getting out of Order, but I submit that, unlike the other case, any Ruling which bars any discussion of the functions of the Medical Practices Committee completely stifles the discussions of this Committee on this part of the Resolution.

§ The Chairman
If that be so, so be it. In my view, the discussion is clearly limited to the desirability or otherwise of paying the expenses, and should not deal with whether the setting up of a Medical Practices Committee is or is not a good thing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me, I am sure, that it is correct to say that even if the expenses were not paid the Medical Practices Committee might conceivably not disappear. In any event, it might be a voluntary Committee. It is quite clear that the merits or demerits of having such a committee cannot be discussed here, but only the question of whether or not the expenses should be paid.

§ Earl Winterton
Could you elaborate this point at a little more length, Major Milner? Is it possible to discuss whether or not money should be voted if one cannot, at the same time, discuss the purpose for which it is being voted?

§ The Chairman
A hypothetical question like that hardly needs an answer, but it 431 is quite clear in my mind that it is not appropriate at this stage—particularly as we have discussed the Bill for two and a half days—to deal with the merits or demerits of proposals which do not directly affect the desirability of paying or the amount of the compensation, which may or may not be authorised.

§ Mr. Reid
I do not know whether you meant to use the word, Major Milner, but you said that in view of the discussions over the last two and a half days it would not be "appropriate" to have a discussion now. I had thought that it could be either in Order or out of Order, and that it was not a question of whether it was appropriate or inappropriate. I should not like that phrase to stand, if you really meant it was out of Order and your reference to what had taken place during the last two and a half days was irrelevant to your Ruling. If that is so I suggest that you should put your Ruling on another point.

Hon. Members
That is an insult.

§ The Chairman
The right hon. and learned Member is quite right and the phrase I used was not a happy one. The question as to whether the discussion lasted two and a half days or not was not relevant, and I have to consider the rule of relevancy, and it is on that that I base my Ruling.

§ Mr. Law
Perhaps I may be allowed to say, in respect of paragraph (e) of the Financial Resolution, that it seems to me that to vote expenditure for some of the bodies which are set up by this Bill is perhaps an undesirable and unfortunate thing to do, because though it may be perfectly true, as you have indicated, Major Milner, that these bodies might continue without any financial support behind them, I think the probability is that they will be much less harmful if they continue on that basis. From that point of view I feel that in some cases it would be desirable not to provide for their expenses, and one of these bodies I suggest is the Medical Practices Committee for which I can see no necessity, because I do not believe that it is an effective method of distributing doctors throughout the country. I think it would be interesting before we leave the Financial Resolution if the Minister could tell us a little more than he was able to on Second Reading—although 432 I do not know if he can—about the functions and scope of some of these bodies.

§ The Chairman
That is precisely what I do not think I can allow the right hon. Gentleman to do in detail on this Resolution.

§ Dr. Morgan (Rochdale)
And the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

§ Mr. Law
Once again I must, naturally, accept your Ruling, Mayor Milner. I find it very difficult within the limits laid down by the Financial Resolution to make such criticism of some of these expenses as I would be able to make if the Resolution were differently drawn. I can only say that we shall discuss these matters which I am prohibited from discussing now at another stage in the Bill and, I hope, at full length.

§ Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern)
I have listened for two and a half days to discussions on the general merits of the Bill in which I took no part, because the Bill applies to England and Wales but not to Scotland as yet, although it is a prototype of what is in store for Scotland some day. On the Financial Memorandum and on the Financial Resolution I am more ready to say a word or two because Scotland is affected to some extent. Personally, I have never heard of any Bill of such a revolutionary and far-reaching character presented to the House of Commons with such a grossly inadequate estimate of its ultimate total cost to the nation. All the way through the Financial Memorandum there is complete and utter vagueness on what the scheme is likely to cost. Neither the Government, nor the Minister, nor the Department, nor the nation, nor the taxpayer have the slightest idea of the vast expense which this huge revolutionary Bill is likely to cost the nation early and late and in years to come. All the way through the Financial Memorandum this vagueness is exemplified. In the second paragraph there is this statement, typical of many others with so many unknown factors: any estimate of the cost of the new Service is necessarily conjectural. That is characteristic of the whole estimating in the Financial Memorandum and the financial part of the Bill which we are discussing now. Paragraph 3 of the Memorandum says: 433 No estimate of the capital value of these [hospital] assets can be made, and further on in the same paragraph we find: No precise estimate of the net value of these endowments"— that is, the endowments which are being "pinched" by the Minister from the hospitals of the country, very much in the same way as Henry VIII "pinched" and sequestrated the endowments from the monasteries.

§ The Chairman
The hon. and gallant Member no doubt appreciates that there is nothing on that subject in the Financial Resolution, and that therefore his argument is not only inappropriate but irrelevant.

§ Major Lloyd
I accept your Ruling, Major Milner, but—

§ Mr. Butcher (Holland with Boston)
Surely the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is covered by the final words of the Financial Resolution: To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Minister of Health under the said Act.

§ The Chairman
Incidentally I think I am right in saying that the sums to which the hon. and gallant Member was referring are not authorised by this Resolution for payment into the Exchequer.

§ Major Lloyd
Perhaps I might now continue my line of argument, which was relevant, namely, that the estimates of expenditure are grossly underrated and that, in fact, Parliament is being asked once again to buy a pig in a poke. I want to point out still further vagueness. The Memorandum says: The net value of the investments of the voluntary hospitals which will he transferred to the Fund has not been ascertained.'' Nobody knows what money is coming into the Exchequer in this connection. Later, paragraph 7 of the Financial Memorandum states: Scales of salaries and payments have not yet been settled so no exact estimate is possible but it is anticipated that the annual cost of these services at the commencement of the schemes will be about £45 millions. Nobody knows, in any form or shape, how much that £45 million will be increased in due course. Later, to continue this part of my argument, the Memorandum says: No estimate can yet be made of the expenditure to be incurred in respect of the pro- 434 vision for superannuation or compensation but as explained in paragraph 7 it may be necessary to make certain payments.
So again, there is complete vagueness. Finally, there are these words: The total annual expenditure falling on the Exchequer and the local authorities during the early years of the operation of the service is.… In the early years only. Later on, nobody knows; but if I were to predict that the expenditure outlined in the White Paper as £152 million in the early years, might even be doubled before the next 10, 15 or 20 years, nobody would know and nobody would care whether that statement was true. I protest that a Bill so vaguely estimated and with such far-reaching social and financial consequences to the country should be presented in this way to the House of Commons. Scotland is deeply affected. To have a Bill presented for England and Wales—"

§ The Chairman
I must point out that Scotland does not come into the Bill, and therefore is not covered by the Financial Resolution

§ Major Lloyd
I agree with that, of course, Major Milner, but if the sums of money that we are now being asked to pass are grossly under-estimated for the cost of a Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading, I am entitled to protest. I do suggest that the sums that we are being asked to pass are grossly under-estimated. They may not be 50 per cent, of what the taxpayer will eventually be called upon to pay. I accordingly protest from this side of the Committee. If the Scottish Bill, when it comes along, is to be estimated—

§ The Chairman
rose—

§ Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)
Why not get someone on that side of the Committee who can speak without getting out of Order?

§ Major Lloyd
I appreciate your anxiety, Major Milner, but I desire to express the greatest apprehension with regard to what may be in store for Scotland in future. I conclude by making my protest on behalf of Scotland at the abominable way in which England and Wales have been treated.

§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
After the rather inglorious attempts of 435 two Members opposite to make speeches that were in Order upon this Financial Resolution, I venture, with some diffidence, to rise to present one or two points which I hope will be in Order, and in respect of which I hope the Committee will receive assurances from the Minister. There are certain matters which are raised in this Bill, and not ventilated during the Second Reading Debate, that are of vital concern to local authorities. I believe that the points I wish to raise in connection with them can be properly discussed at this stage of the proceedings.
The White Paper which preceded the Bill pointed out that the proposals of the Bill would affect not only the activities of local authorities but also radically affect their financial relations with the Exchequer. As I understand the Financial Resolution, one of its objects is to authorise the payment, out of money provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Minister of Health in the exercise of his functions under the said Act. I want first to refer to the expenditure which will all upon the Minister in fulfilling his obligations under Cause 6 (2) of the Bill, which provides that, on the appointed day, there shall be transferred to the Minister all hospitals vested in a local authority immediately before the appointed day, including all property and liabilities held by the local authority, or to which that authority were subject, immediately before the appointed day, being property and liabilities held or incurred solely for the purposes of those hospitals or any of them I apprehend that when questions come to be discussed between the Minister and local authorities owning hospitals which will be transferred, differences of opinion may well arise as to the liabilities which shall be taken over by the Minister, or for which compensation shall be provided out of moneys provided by Parliament. I want to ask for assurances from the Minister regarding matters which will concern a number of local authorities.
Let me take the case of the London County Council, with which I am most familiar, and which, being the owner at present of something like 100 hospitals, including mental hospitals, will have to consider a financial problem which will no doubt, in various degrees, face other local authorities. The problem is this: A local 436 authority owns a considerable amount of property—offices, hospitals, schools, depots and property of other kinds. None of these institutions are specifically mortgaged or charged in the sense that liabilities are incurred solely in respect of them. The assets and liabilities of the London County Council are treated as a whole. Their debt obligations are charged on the whole of their assets and on their rates. Of course they have, like other corporations, an internal book-keeping system which records for internal purposes the relative obligations and loan charges still outstanding in respect of various assets. But I can understand that an argument may well arise between the Minister and a particular local authority as to the extent of the liabilities which shall be taken over under Clause 6.
8.0 p.m.
I want therefore to ask, first, whether it is contemplated that regulations will be made to provide some independent arbitration for solving disputes of this kind which do not prove susceptible of agreement between the parties. Clause 6 (5) empowers the Minister to make regulations for certain matters and finally provides for the determination by arbitration of any matter arising "as to any of the matters aforesaid." As I understand it, Subsection (5, d) is limited in its application to Subsection 5 and does not provide for arbitration on disputes of the kind I have in mind under Clause 6 (2). May I give a specific illustration of a problem which will produce hardship and inequity unless it is dealt with? The London County Council, which has enjoyed a Labour majority for a number of years and has, therefore, had its financial affairs governed by prudent and well-organised methods, has over a long period met direct out of revenue considerable capital sums in respect of the property now to be transferred. In other words, it has met, in advance, capital expenditure out of revenue account and has provided out of the rates a certain sum of money every year not merely for revenue purposes but for capital expenditure.
No doubt, other local authorities have adopted the same method, which has been encouraged and welcomed by successive Governments. The result is that by reason of having provided these sums out of revenue, the present liability on loan charge and so forth due from the London County Council in respect of their 100 or so hos- 437 pitals is some £3 million less than it otherwise would have been. I hope we can receive an assurance from the Minister that the London County Council and other authorities in similar circumstances will not be prejudiced by the sound financial methods they have adopted in the past. It would be most unfortunate if local authorities were to be penalised for the soundness of past financial policy. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance on that matter.
The second point I wish to raise arises under Clause 53. I apologise for the fact that it is a little complicated. Under Clause 53 (4), provision is made for local authorities to pay to the Exchequer certain sums of money, namely: a sum equal to the loss on account of the grants mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1929. Put shortly, the position is this. Prior to 1929, local authorities were responsible for certain health services such as tuberculosis, mental deficiency, venereal diseases, maternity and child welfare and other matters, in respect of which they received a contribution or subvention from the Exchequer equal, in most cases, to 50 per cent. of their expenditure, and in the case of one or two items, such as venereal diseases, 75 per cent.
In 1929, when the block grant system was introduced, these specific contributions from the Exchequer disappeared. The global amount which the Exchequer had hitherto paid to local authorities was added to or merged into the block grant, and, therefore, being in the block grant, that amount was then spread out among the local authorities according to the formula provided under the block grant system for the distribution of money among local authorities. The result was that some authorities got less and other authorities got more than they had before. If the provisions of Clause 53 (4) stand as at present, the result will be that all local authorities have, in future, to make a payment to the Treasury of the sums which they lost in 1929, although some of them have received more by way of their share out of the block grants and others have received substantially less. I hope this matter will also be dealt with during the Committee stage.
Finally, while local authorities have no doubt noticed and welcomed the para- 438 graph in the White Paper, paragraph 103, which indicates that the whole question of Exchequer grants in aid of local authorities is under consideration by the Government, I think it is appropriate at this stage to make this comment. The net effect of this Bill is, of course, to transfer hospital and other medical services from local authorities to the State. To that extent it involves an Exchequer burden and a further contribution by the taxpayer, but local authorities and ratepayers will expect, by reason of no longer being responsible for providing health services, that there will he a corresponding reduction of the burden on the ratepayers. It would be unfortunate if any suggestion were to get abroad that the savings which will result locally to local authorities by reason of the transfer of these functions to the State will not be fully available to them. I hope we may also receive assurances from the Minister about this.

§ Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) upon staying the course without having objection raised against him. I am a mere Parliamentary yearling; the course is not very well defined, and I have never been over it before on a Financial Resolution. The point which I have to raise is a severely practical one and it arises from the fact that the appointed day under this Bill, or the day on which the Order in Council is to be made, will not be for a very long time, sometime at the beginning of 1948, it is hoped—so the White Paper says. In that time a great deal can happen, and I am sure that the Minister would wish that when he takes over the voluntary hospitals, he should take them over in at least as flourishing a state as they are now and possibly we may wish to see them improved. I regret to say that in my ignorance—I shall be grateful for enlightenment—I do not know whether there are arrangements already existing under the authority of Parliament whereby the Minister, if he finds that a voluntary hospital is in severe need of funds, can immediately pay out money to it. If there are not such arrangements, it remains to consider whether any help can be given under the terms of this Financial Resolution. I submit that that matter arises for consideration whether funds continue to be received by the voluntary 439 hospitals or not. We naturally hope that they will continue to receive them both before and after the appointed day, but in the unhappy event of some of the funds falling off, it is desirable to see that in the considerable intervening space the voluntary hospitals will not suffer.
My second point is this: Presumably the Financial Memorandum as an introduction to the Bill should be read with this Financial Resolution, and Parliament, when deciding whether or not to pass the Financial Resolution, must look at the Financial Memorandum in order to see what, roughly, is the extent of its commitments. We are gravely handicapped in considering what our commitments will be because of the fact that in the Financial Memorandum some of the most important items are the merest estimates and are dependent upon the publication of the Spens Report. I know it would be contravening my humble position to suggest that consideration of this matter should be adjourned in order that we may await the Spens Report, but nevertheless I am sure the Committee would appreciate it if the Minister could give some indication whether he considers himself already bound by the approximate figures given in the Financial Memorandum, or whether he will be prepared, when he sees the Spens Report, to modify them, as may be necessary, upwards or downwards.

§ Major Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
I wish to go back to the question of the £66 million under paragraph (b) and, on the Ruling which we have just had, I shall be in Order because I wish to delete it from the Financial Resolution. I do so to draw attention to the tactics of the Socialist Government in trying to put over their Socialist nationalisation theories. In the past, the idea of State ownership has been advocated by the theorists on the other side. It has had very little appeal to the masses of the people. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. The reason they are on that side of the Committee is because of the promises of demobilisation, and—

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)
The hon. and gallant Member, very early in his speech, is departing from the Financial Resolution. Will lie come back to it?

§ Major Roberts
I am sorry, Mr. Beaumont. I was provoked by unnecessary laughter from the other side. The second form of criticism to such a Resolution as this has been, of course, the voices of those technical or professional people in the various industries or professions which are taken over. Now the Government have changed their tactics from confiscation to compensation. This is very relevant because it is on this question of the £66 million compensation which I wish, if I am in Order, to speak. The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, referring to this question of compensation, said that he did it out of fairness. I wish to state quite definitely that that, in my opinion, is humbug and hypocrisy. The reason why he has put this in is that I do not think, knowing him so well, that he would lose an opportunity to strike a blow in the battle of class hatred unless he had some very subtle motive behind—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I do wish the hon. and gallant Member would make his points on the Financial Resolution and not continue to depart from it.

§ Major Roberts
I submit, Mr. Beaumont, that I am trying to point out the reason why the Minister has put in this £66 million and the reason why I want to take it out. With respect, it is not out of Order, because I am trying to argue that this should be taken out—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I hope the hon. and gallant Member is not challenging my Ruling.

§ Major Roberts
Oh, no.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That being so. he may continue.

§ Major Roberts
I wish to pass, then, to my second point. The Minister, in my submission, by putting in this amount of £66 million was hoping to stifle the criticisms which might be levelled against him had he not put it in. Can the Minister deny that he raised the "ante" day by day, million by million, until he reached this figure? I put that to him. I put to him further that this figure of £66 million is practically the top price which the taxpayers are being asked to pay, and the fundamental point is that the Government are using the taxpayers' money, mey are using the consumers' money in other industries in order to put over their 441 Socialist ideas. I submit that that is one example—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Really, if the hon. and gallant Member does not keep to the Financial Resolution, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

§ Major Roberts
I bow to that Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, but I find it very difficult to put over the arguments why I wish to reduce the £66 million. Those are the arguments to which I am addressing myself and I hope, with your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, that I shall be able to keep in Order. I do not wish to be taken up by the Minister and misrepresented in what I am saying. I am not saying that if such a scheme with compensation in it is to go through, that compensation should not be paid; I am saying that this Financial Resolution, as drafted, can perfectly well work for a universal national health scheme without this provision in it. The reason why I want to reject this £66 million is to make the Minister reconsider, which it is his duty to do, other ways and means by which he can bring about this comprehensive health service which we all want without putting this enormous capital amount upon the taxpayers and the consumers of this country.

§ Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)
There are four points I want to raise which are the financial consequences of the principles which have been approved in the Second Reading of this Bill, and I hope the Minister, in his reply, will be able to give the answers to my points. In this Financial Resolution moneys will be expended for equipment at health centres. Will private practitioners be able to use that for their private patients or will a charge be made for the use of such equipment to reimburse some of the moneys spent under this Financial Memorandum? I do not know whether I have made myself clear, but it is an important point. This equipment will be right up to date. Will fee-paying patients of practitioners be able to use it? Such patients have already, in the payments they make under this scheme, become entitled to the advantages of the public service and if they pay extra to some other practitioner for other treatment, surely they ought to be entitled to the use of it. If the Minister could give some information on that point, it would be very helpful. My second point is this: In the moneys to be spent under the Financial Resolution 442 is a substantial amount to be set aside by way of scholarships or in any other way, to enable young men to qualify as medical practitioners, as they are not now able to qualify? This point was raised on the Second Reading and if the principle is approved it is of the utmost importance that every young man who wants to qualify and has the promise of ability to qualify—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am rather puzzled as to how the hon. Member relates what he is saying to the terms of the Financial Resolution. Perhaps he will indicate to me to which section of the Financial Resolution he is now referring?

§ Sir W. Wakefield
I am asking if this position will be covered, I think it is under paragraph (e): Expenses incurred by other bodies constitued under the said Act. What I am trying to obtain from the Minister is information as to whether some of these moneys will be expended in this very important initial educational work. Otherwise, I do not see how the principles which we have approved, can possibly be implemented in the way the Minister indicated in his opening speech in the Second Reading Debate.

§ Mr. Bevan
This, in my submission, is quite out of Order. The Minister of Health has no direct responsibility to provide money for training of doctors. That is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education.

§ Sir W. Wakefield
That has answered the point on which I was seeking information. We now know that what we approved in Second Reading cannot be fully implemented.
The third point is, can the Minister give some information as to whether some moneys will he provided under the Financial Resolution for compensating people who have contributed to various sick funds and hospital savings schemes? Money has been subscribed to such schemes and credits have been given to those people. Is any provision made for the reimbursement of those contributors, when the Bill becomes an Act? In the meantime, could the Minister indicate whether contributions should be continued?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am sorry but I cannot see that what the hon. Member 443 is saying now is in Order at all. It does not come within the terms of the Financial Resolution. We are discussing, moneys to be provided by Parliament.

§ Sir W. Wakefield
With respect, I am trying to find out whether money will be provided under this Financial Resolution for this purpose, which is very important. People want to know the position. The very vagueness of this Measure, to which the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) referred, is my justification for raising this point.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is dealing with a point which should have been brought up on Second Reading, or which can be brought out on the Committee stage. It cannot be dealt with on the Financial Resolution.

§ Sir W. Wakefield
My time was somewhat curtailed on the Second Reading Debate and I thought that in the circumstances, because of the importance of this matter, I would be in Order in mentioning it now.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in Order in a discussion on the Financial Resolution to make all the speeches we would like to have made on Second Reading?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
It would not be in Order, and it would not be permitted. The hon. Member has had a fairly long run. Will he now deal with any points arising out of the Financial Resolution?

§ Sir W. Wakefield
I think, with respect, that I was sticking very closely to the Financial Resolution. I am not dealing with points of principle raised on the Second Reading. I am trying to deal with the financial consequences of the principles approved on the Second Reading of the Bill.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The Financial Resolution does not deal with consequences, but with provisions.

§ Sir W. Wakefield
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made a statement a little earlier, and I understood from your predecessor in the Chair that it would be in Order to discuss the financial consequences of principles approved in the Second Reading.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I cannot allow this point to be discussed. I have given a Ruling, and the hon. Member will please accept it.

§ Sir W. Wakefield
Thank you, Mr. Beaumont. I pass on to my final point on this Financial Resolution. Could the Minister state under what paragraph payment will be made to people who are now engaged in the work of staffs of hospital contributory schemes? That work has to go on, and it relates very much to the points raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) as to the unavoidable delay in bringing this Measure into operation. This affects certain sections of people now working in connection with the hospitals, and it is causing anxiety among them. Could the Minister say whether, under the Financial Resolution, provision is made, and also under what heading, in order that compensation may be paid, or continuity of work provided?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Unless the hon. Member can indicate to me where in the Financial Resolution this point arises, I will not be able to allow the Minister to reply, even if he wishes to do so.

§ Sir W. Wakefield
I thank you, Mr. Beaumont, and I have been trying to find under which paragraph of the Financial Resolution this provision could be made.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
If the hon. Member cannot find it, I certainly cannot help him, and he cannot continue.

§ Sir W. Wakefield
I conclude by saying I cannot think that the Minister can be so hard hearted as not to make provision for these people under this Financial Resolution.

§ Mr. Moyle (Stourbridge)
I want to raise one or two points under paragraph (g) of the Money Resolution, which are related to Clause 63 of the Bill. As the Minister knows there are other bodies of health workers affected by this Bill besides doctors. I would like to be clear on what the position of these health workers will be, when they become employees of the regional boards. There are gaps to be filled in this sphere of superannuation, which are as urgent to the welfare of the scheme as are matters in the field of medicine. Two things are required if the Minister is to obtain an efficient nursing service. There has to 445 be mobility of labour as between one hospital and another, and if the Minister wants, as I know that he does, an efficient nursing profession, there will have to be interchangeability from one hospital to another. I would like to ask the Minister whether in the event of nurses wanting to qualify—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The point which the hon. Member is raising should be raised in Committee, not now.

§ Sir W. Wakefield
Further to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have not called upon the hon. Gentleman. Does the hon. Member wish to raise a point of Order?

§ Sir W. Wakefield
On a point of Order. Further to the Ruling you have just given, I understand that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Moyle) was trying to make the same point as I was, that this matter is covered by paragraph (d).

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member will have observed that the hon. Member for Stourbridge was no more successful than he was.

§ Sir W. Wakefield
You asked me, Mr. Beaumont, if I could indicate on which paragraph I was speaking. I do so now; it was paragraph (d).

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I asked the hon. Member that question some time ago, and he could not then indicate with which paragraph he was dealing. He cannot raise the matter again.

§ Mr. Moyle
I apologise for detaining the Committee. I shall try again and perhaps meet with greater success. The Minister proposes in the Bill—and paragraph (d) of the Money Resolution provides the expenses—to amend, in certain conditions, the Superannuation Act of 1937. To the regional board will come bodies of health workers, nurses who are subject to certain superannuation schemes and certain insurance policies, and who will carry with them certain acquired rights under existing superannuation law. I wish to ask the Minister whether he has provided in this Money Resolution sufficient financial scope to enable him to maintain the existing superannuation 446 rights, endowment assurance rights, which have been acquired by nurses under the federated insurance schemes of the voluntary hospital managements. For example, the acquired rights of mental nurses under the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act and the rights of Class I Nurses under that Act entitle them, in certain circumstances, to retire at 55. Will this paragraph of the Money Resolution provide sufficient money to enable him to maintain those rights of such service under these various Superannuation Acts and insurance policies, if and when those concerned are brought under the Superannuation Act of 1937? In other words, will there be a continuity of rights on transfer from their existing managements to the new employer provided under this Bill, the Regional Board? Secondly, assuming for a moment that there are nurses—and there are hundreds of them—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I hesitate to rule the hon. Member out of Order, but I really think that the point with which he is dealing could be dealt with much more suitably on the Committee stage.

§ Mr Moyle
I bow to you Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, but I wish to raise these points, because I desire some clarification in this matter. I do not want to find, when the matter reaches the Committee stage, that I am ruled out of Order, in view of the fact that money is not provided for the particular matters with which I am concerned.

§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)
I am suffering under a considerable disability, because so many questions which are out of Order have been aimed at me, and I would be out of Order at once if I attempted to reply. I hope that hon. Members who have been making most engaging efforts to keep themselves in Order will forgive me if I am unable to make any reference to their exertions. I have, however, been asked one or two questions which were in Order, and I am delighted to have an opportunity to reply. My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) made reference to the difficulties of severance in the transfer of hospitals and other equipment from local authorities. It will be difficult in many instances to establish the line of demarcation, especially when the funds of the hospitals are merged in a general 447 local government fund. It may not be possible always to identify a particular sum of money. Where there is a loan outstanding against a hospital the position is perfectly clear. The obligation of the loan will be taken over with the hospital itself. Where the hospital has been constructed and paid for out of revenue, I am afraid there is no redress at all. We shall just have to take it. Reference was also made to the alteration which will be necessary in the block grant—

§ Mr. House (St. Pancras, North)
Would the Minister deal with the point whether, in the event of difference between the local authority and the Minister, arbitration might be available?

§ Mr. Bevan
That is, of course, an entirely different question. I think it is a matter that could quite properly be dealt with in Committee. It is not invalidated by the Financial Resolution, if the Resolution is carried. However, I am perfectly prepared to consider the question. I hope the relations between the Minister of Health and the local authorities are so cordial that it will not be necessary to go to arbitration over any dispute. It is obvious that the taking over of this obligation from the local authorities will materially disturb the financial relations between the local authorities and the Exchequer. The block grant itself will have to be revised. In fact, the block grant would have to be revised in any case. In the revision the services transferred to the Exchequer under this Bill and the new services created by the counties and county boroughs will materially affect the distribution of the block grant. I propose to start discussions almost immediately with representatives of the local authorities to try and get the new block grant formula agreed.
Reference has been made to what is to happen in the meantime to the voluntary hospitals. That is a very important question indeed. One of the inevitable consequences of a Measure of this sort is that there is an interregnum between the passing of the Act and the establishment of the new service. Therefore, I hope that all those concerned with voluntary hospitals will maintain their exertions. I imagine that the weekly contributions will be paid until they are no longer necessary. I hope the various voluntary hospital activities will be carried on. 448 Furthermore, I trust that the contributions of the public will be kept up to enable the services of the voluntary hospitals to be maintained at the highest possible standard until the new service is established.

§ Mr. Renton
I am sure the Committee is grateful to the Minister for his clarification of this matter. What it amounts to is that the voluntary hospitals will not in the interregnum receive any financial assistance other than that which already they are entitled to receive, and that they will continue to remain dependent upon charitable subscriptions. Will the Minister take every step that he can to help in this respect and to give publicity to the need which he has mentioned? Otherwise these hospitals may feel the draught.

§ Sir W. Wakefield
That was the point I was trying to make about the hospital savings association from which comes so much of the voluntary hospital funds.

§ Mr. Bevan
I am glad that I have had the opportunity to make the matter public on this way. I certainly will take advantage of other opportunities to make it clear to the public that hospital services would gravely deteriorate unless contributions are maintained in the meantime and the whole machinery kept up to date. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) asked one question which was, I believe, either in Order or on the frontiers of being in Order, though I am not certain which side of the frontier it was. He asked whether it would be possible for a general practitioner to use the health centre for his private patients and to use the equipment of the health centre. The answer is, "No." It would be wholly unacceptable that we should provide public money in order to enable the general practitioner to obtain fees from persons who would normally be entitled to avail themselves of these services freely, and I think that all hon. Members would agree that this is a perfectly proper conclusion. I am unable to answer the question on superannuation, but I should be delighted to do so on a further occasion. I hope that, with these observations, the Committee will allow me to have the Money Resolution.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.