MINISTRY OF HEALTH

HC Deb 11 February 1947 vol 433 cc267-94

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health, including grants and other expenses in connection with housing, certain other grants to local authorities, etc., a supplemental grant in respect of medical benefit, salaries and expenses of the Local Government Boundary Commission, a grant in aid of the National Radium Trust, a grant in aid of the Women's Voluntary Services; and other services.

7.30 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key)

It is my duty to present this Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Health, and in so doing I will try to deal, very shortly, with the items involved. There is, first, the question of additional payments into the Building Materials and Housing Fund under the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945. The purpose of this fund is to meet the expenses of the Minister of Works in purchasing building materials and equipment and to arrange for the production of the necessary goods. Under Section 3 of that Act, the Minister of Health Is empowered to arrange with the Minister of Works that where the cost of a non-traditional house, built out of materials provided by the Ministry of Works, exceeds the cost of the same sized traditional house then the price to be charged to the local authority is to be reduced, and the Minister of Health has to pay into the funds of the Ministry of Works the amount by which the local authority's costs are reduced. The houses involved in the original Estimate were of a Swedish type, but since then this procedure has been applied to houses of the Howard type, and to meet the additional costs for those Swedish houses, together with the Howard houses, £800,000 is required.

The second item deals with certain nurseries run by local authorities. There was a big development, in wartime, of nurseries run by local authorities, the whole cost of which was, during that time and up to 31st March, 1946, met out of national funds. Afterwards, they were carried on by the local authorities. Because of the extra cost involved it was felt wise that there should be applied to these nurseries, run by welfare authorities, the same sort of grant as was provided to educational authorities for running nursery schools. The increase in the amount that is required for this arises from the greater number of such nurseries than was anticipated when the original Estimate was made. The additional sum required is £ 300,000.

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Southport)

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of children?

Mr. Key

Offhand, I cannot give the number of nurseries or children involved, but they are considerably more than was anticipated when we made the original Estimate.

The next item, dealing with the preliminary expenses of statutory bodies under the National Health Service, concerns a new service. The sum required is for preliminary expenses, between now and the end of this financial year, in connection with the bodies that we are now busy setting up, such as the Central Health Services Council, the Regional Hospital Boards and the Boards of Governors of teaching hospitals. The expenses will be largely to meet loss of remunerative time, travelling, and sub- sistence, as well as for some salaries in connection with some of those boards. The next item is for a new service, and arises out of the decision, after negotiations with the Insurance Acts Committee of the British Medical Association, to make an increase in the capitation fee, under the National Health Insurance Scheme, from 12s. 6d. to 15s. 6d. as from 1st. January, 1946.

This sum cannot be provided out of National Health Insurance funds and so it is necessary for it to be provided by the Exchequer. The estimated sum required is £4 million. Then there are certain miscellaneous services which I think I ought to explain. First, there is one in connection with emergency housing. This is a considerable increase on the original Estimate, and arises from a number of causes. One is the acceleration of the rate of receipt and settlement of claims over the years before 1st April, 1946. Attention was drawn by the Public Accounts Committee, particularly in their first Report for the 1945–46 Session, to the delay of local authorities in submitting their claims. Since then there has been a considerable speeding up of submission of accounts by local authorities, and that adds considerably to the amount of money that will be necessary. There has also been an expansion of housing requirements by the requisitioning programme being applied not only for those who were bombed out, but also for those who were inadequately housed. Another addition arises from the extension of accommodation by way of emergency provision in the camps that have been taken over by local authorities. As against this, I want to draw attention to an offset by the additional receipts from this, which amount to a considerable sum, namely, £1,715,000.

Next, we come to an additional sum necessary because of increases in the salaries of nurses. This arises because there has been agreement whereby 50 per cent. of the extra cost falling upon local authorities and other bodies for increases in salaries, following the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Report, should be provided out of national funds. Increases were made on 1st August, 1941, and 1st April, 1943—which, of course, are not included in this Estimate—and this additional sum is required to meet the increases which will come into effect from 1st January, 1946. The next item deals with wartime nurseries, which came to an end on 31st March, 1946, but which were continued after that date by local authorities. The increase in the original Estimate has been made necessary, again, by the acceleration on the part of the local authorities in the submission of their accounts in that respect.

As a set off against many of these subheadings, I would draw attention to the anticipated savings given in E1, F1 and G14 on page 35. The first is as a result of Section 3 of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, in respect of which the saving of the whole of the original provision of £300,000 is anticipated. It is very unlikely that the local authorities will be in a position to submit their accounts in this connection because of the high cost of the land used for temporary accommodation, and so that item, so far as this year's accounts are concerned, will be saved. It will fall, of course, to be met in next year's accounts.

There is also a saving in connection with the grants towards housing expenses under the Housing Acts. This is a considerable saving of £7,700,000, and results from two items. The first item is a saving of about £700,000 in respect of the actual subsidy that was payable under the various Sections of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, due to the fact that the number of houses completed was not so great as was anticipated when the original estimates were submitted. The second item is of much greater extent—£7 million under Section 17 of the same Act by which the Ministry of Health were enabled to make a contribution to the cost of non-traditional houses over and above what would have been the cost of traditional houses of the same size.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

Did I hear the Minister refer to savings?

Mr. Key

indicated assent.

The Deputy-Chairman

We cannot discuss savings, but only expenditure.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

As you, Mr. Beaumont, were kind enough to allow the Minister of Works—whom we should like to congratulate on his new appointment—to deal with the first point, I presume you will be kind enough to allow us to comment on that so far as he went.

The Deputy-Chairman

I have only just awakened to the fact that the Minister was discussing savings. That does not mean that I shall not anticipate and prevent further references much more quickly.

Mr. Key

I am sorry, Mr. Beaumont, that my lack of the necessary knowledge has led me astray. I think, therefore, that I have come to the end of what it would be safe for me to say. The effect of all this is that it reduces the necessary amount of the Supplementary Estimate to£750,000.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman did not cut his speech a little unnecessarily as a result of your calling him to Order. I think that I am correct in saying that, although it is out of Order to discuss anticipated savings under subheadings E1, F1, and G14, it is not out of Order to discuss Z—Appropriations-in-aid. The House will observe that there is a considerable item of increase in appropriations-in-aid. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned part of it in his speech, amounting to £2,700,000.

The Deputy-Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman will not be in Order in discussing appropriations-in-aid.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

I understood, Mr. Beaumont, with all respect, that it has always been definitely out of Order to anticipate savings, but I have it on extremely good authority that it is in Order to discuss appropriations-in-aid.

The Deputy-Chairman

It is not in Order to discuss appropriations-in-aid.

Mr. Beechman (St. Ives)

I am sure that the Committee is very much obliged to the Minister for his explanation, and I should like to join in congratulating him on his new appointment. I am sure that any post he fills will be a key post, and that he will do very well in it. With regard to the item "Nurses, etc., grants in respect of salaries increases," I happened to be working at the Ministry of Health—

7.45 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

I am not calling the hon. Member to Order, and I regret having to interrupt his speech. I have now before me the reference with regard to discussion of appropriations-in-aid. It is definitely laid down in the Manual of Procedure: The Committee of Supply can reduce estimates of expenditure, i.e., can refuse to grant as much as the Crown asks for, but cannot reduce or discuss the application of appropriations-in-aid, these not being sums demanded by the Crown but sums, actual or estimated, received from other sources. Definitely, appropriations-in-aid cannot be debated.

Mr. Beechman

I was dealing with the estimate in respect of nurses' salaries, and I was mentioning that I was myself working at the Ministry of Health when this matter was put before the Rushcliffe Committee. I am sure that everyone in this House is very glad that nurses' salaries have gone up, because theirs is such an important mission, but I should like to know what is the meaning of "etc." I should like to be informed if that means that attention has been paid to the conditions under which nurses live, and that something has been done also in respect of their accommodation; or does it mean that, in addition, the right hon. Gentleman has found extra nurses, because they are badly needed, as we know, in tuberculosis establishments in particular? I should also like to know whether this covers foreigners, who are coming to this country to work as nurses, especially in tuberculosis establishments, about which we are all so concerned? Do these symbols cover domestic workers in hospitals and other such institutions, because the shortage of domestic workers has proved, and is proving, a most serious burden on the existing nursing staffs, and, in many cases, upon the matrons.

Another matter listed is "Emergency housing, etc., accommodation" I should like to know how much money is still being spent on looking after war evacuees. I raised this matter in the House before, and gave personal instances. In an hotel in St. Ives there are four or five families of war evacuees all of whom except one want to get back to their home districts, and I should like to have some knowledge as to how far money is being expended on people who are evacuees from the war, and who are so anxious to get back to their home districts. I know these are cases where their houses in London have been bombed, but they want to get back near London. They will be caught up in the next war if they are left where they are much longer. It is most unfair to the people who own these hotels, and which could be used for local purposes. In regard to the medical services in general, I should like to know whether these Estimates cover our expenditure on radiography for tuberculosis, because I know that this is a matter on which the health of the country greatly depends, and in which great interest has been taken by our most excellent Chief Medical Officer, to whom we all ought to be very grateful indeed.

Mr. Key

With regard to the first question, the item is covered only when dealing with the salaries of the real nursing members of the staff of the hospital from the matron down, through the staff nurse, the ward nurse, to the probationer, but it does not cover any of the domestic staff, and certainly it is not included in connection with the provision of actual accommodation by the hospital authorities, because power is only given to pay 50 per cent. of the additional expense of the increase in the nursing salaries. With regard to the item dealing with housing, that only covers the requisitioning of houses and I am afraid does not cover war evacuees. Therefore, I am not in a position to deal with evacuees, because it does not come under this item. In the same way there is no item here which deals with materials and equipment for hospitals. Therefore, I have nothing to say in that connection.

Mr. Marples (Wallasey)

In connection with the housing increase from £1 million to £1,800,000 under item F3, payments into the Building Materials and Housing Fund, there are one or two points I should like to ask the new Minister of Works, but firstly as a humble back-bencher, I should like to add my congratulations on his new appointment. On the Building Materials and Housing Account 1945–46, there is a report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which in some respects is a little disturbing. As the Minister is now asking for more money for this Fund, there are two explanations I should like to seek. On page 5 of this report it is stated that, in May, 1945, the Ministry of Works, with Treasury authority, issued instructions to a contractor, who was the promoter of a certain type of house, to proceed with the manufacture of 3,400 of these houses. This was when the Coalition Government were in power, but in November, 1945, when another Government were in power instructions were given by the Ministry of Works for a contract for 2,400 houses. They altered the original contract, and on my reading of it they altered it without Treasury consent.

In February, 1946, an inquiry was made which revealed that only 40 houses had been completed. Therefore, a further alteration to the amended contract was made, this time with Treasury consent. Now the original contract was £1,272 per house, but owing to this series of alterations, the Ministry of Works was obliged to make the next contract direct with the sub-contractor, and a new figure of £1,515 was fixed. This showed a difference of £243 per house. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General says that part of the fault lay in issuing orders without Treasury consent and also amending them. Also on page 6 it says—and these are the actual words: It appears that some part of the increased cost is due to the modifications ordered by the Ministry of Works. Now one of the greatest causes of increased building costs lies in making modificiations to an agreed specification, and I should like to put two specific questions to the new Minister of Works. The first one is, why, if the Ministry of Works originally approved the specification, was it necessary to modify that specification; and, secondly, how much of the increased cost is due to the Ministry of Works altering this original specification?

Mr. Key

Is there not some misconception here? These are Ministry of Health Estimates, not Ministry of Works Estimates. The point should be raised on the Ministry of Works Estimates. We are merely considering the payments to be made by the Ministry of Health for houses provided. I am not in a position to answer any question about the increase in the specifications. We are merely dealing with the payments into the Fund on behalf of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Marples

The Minister is asking for an additional £800,000 for payment into the Building Materials and Housing Fund under the Building Materials and Housing Act. He is asking for more money for this particular Fund which is being discussed, and I submit it is in Order to discuss that Fund for which extra money is being sought.

Mr. Key

This increased Estimate. is for two types of house. The first is the Swedish timber house, and the other is the Howard house of which a definitely limited number have been ordered and no more. I am not dealing with any other type of house, which is being provided by the Ministry of Works and these two and only these two are in the Estimate.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

I am quite aware of that, but the Report presented to the House on 19th December last, from which the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) has quoted, referred specifically to these two types of houses which the new Minister has just mentioned. Paragraph 2 refers to the Swedish timber house and paragraph 3 refers to what I understand he calls the Howard house. He is asking for an increase over the original Estimate. The original Estimate was for £1 million to cover these two kinds of houses, and now he is asking for £1,800,000 to cover them. I honestly think we are entitled to ask him why he is asking for £1,800,000 instead of £1 million, in respect of the two sets of houses which my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Key

The explanation I give of that is that, first, there is a slight increase in the cost of Swedish houses over and above the estimate originally submitted. The other part of the extra cost is due to the inclusion of the cost of the Howard house since the first estimates were made. It is something like £ 1,380, and this is now included in the Supplementary Estimate.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Marples

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but the original contract price was £1,272 per house and the actual amount paid was£1,515, which is an increase of £243 per house. How much of that increase was due to modifications ordered by the Ministry? According to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it appears that some part of the increased cost is due to modifications that were ordered. How much of the increased cost was due to modifications which in themselves may or may not have been desirable? What were those modifications? Did they improve the house or increase its size?

Mr. Key

I must explain that I am speaking now as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, and dealing only with those things for which the Ministry of Health are responsible. The questions that have been put to me concern the activities of the Ministry of Works. I have not yet had an opportunity of taking over my functions at the Ministry of Works, or making myself familiar with the details that have been put to me in questions this evening. It may be that at a later stage I shall be able to give answers, but at present I cannot do so; and in any case, the questions do not arise on this Estimate, because they do not affect matters arising from it.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

I do not know, Sir Charles, whether I ought to seek to move a Motion "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." When Section (3) of the Building Materials and Housing Act was passing through the House, there was a long Debate in the course of which grave objections were raised from this side concerning the difficulty likely to arise over the House finding out exactly the cost of each of these houses. As I understand it, the argument put forward by the Minister is that, in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, he is not responsible in any way for any increased cost arising out of action taken by the Ministry of Works. All he did was to order the houses. He now suggests that the Ministry of Health having ordered the houses from the Ministry of Works, that is the end of their responsibility, and all they have to do is to pay the bill. Surely, that is not a situation which can be tolerated by the Committee, especially as Section (3) of the Act enables the Minister of Health to arrange with the Minister of Works for the provision of these houses and the Minister of Health, surely, share with the Minister of Works responsibility for them.

Mr. Key

The Ministry of Works provide the house, and the local authority has to meet the cost of the house and to pay the Ministry of Works for it, but where the cost of the house would be greater to the local authority than the cost of a traditional house of similar size, the Ministry of Health have to pay to the Ministry of Works the extra sum. All I am concerned about is the payment of the extra cost, and questions of the cause of the extra cost should be directed to the Minister of Works, and not to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Marples

On a point of Order, Sir Charles. Is it not clear from the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates that any sums paid out under Section (3) of the Act are definitely under the Ministry of Health Vote, subhead F.3? The question I am putting is how the money has been expended. Surely, it is in Order to discuss that. I do not want to be unfair to the Minister on his first day as Minister of Works, but I think the Committee is entitled to have an explanation.

Mr. Key

This is not my first day; it is my last day at the Ministry of Health, and I am speaking now as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

Perhaps I can simplify the matter. The Minister is responsible for the Estimate, and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) was asking for an explanation of why the original amount was not enough and another £800,000 was required. He is entitled to have that information.

Mr. Key

Yes, Sir Charles, and I have given it. First, there was a small increase in the cost of the Swedish house, of which there are something like 2,500; and secondly, there were brought into this Estimate 1,380 Howard houses which had not been included before. Those two items account for the increase of £800,000 in the Estimate.

Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)

Further to the point of Order, Sir Charles, surely the Committee is entitled to know why the Ministry of Health agreed to the higher price for these houses, because it is that extra cost which is, in part, the justification for the increase in the Estimates. Surely, the Ministry of Health do not blindly pay the bill when it is presented by the Ministry of Works? If the bill is in excess of what was anticipated in the past, surely the Ministry of Health ask why more has to be paid for the houses than was originally intended? I submit that the Committee is entitled to have an explanation of that matter.

Mr. Key

There was a small increase in the cost of the Swedish house—it rose in respect of transportation and erection —over and above what had been estimated.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

How much?

Mr. Key

I cannot give the figure.

Mr. Hudson

Why not?

Mr. Key

I have not got it.

Mr. Hudson

Why?

Mr. Key

It is not in my possession. I will ask for it and provide it. With regard to the Howard house, it is not a question of increased cost, but 1,380 Howard houses were brought into the Estimate that were not originally included.

Mr. Hudson

Even supposing that to be the case, surely the fact that extra houses were brought in does not stop us asking how the cost is made up, or why the cost is bigger than was anticipated. We have a report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General calling attention to certain short-comings, as we think. He does not do that for nothing. I submit that it is for the Minister, in explaining his Estimates, to explain why these things have arisen. The Minister cannot get away with it by saying that he has not the information.

Mr. Key

What I am saying is that the houses referred to in that report are not the houses referred to in the Supplementary Estimate. The only two types of houses dealt with here are the Swedish house and the Howard house.

Mr. Hudson

The Minister mentioned a figure of 1,380. It is precisely the 1,380 I am talking about which are included in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who stated that the Ministry decided to cancel the original contract and to enter into a contract with three subcontractors for the manufacture of only 1,380 houses as against 2,400 which it had originally proposed. Then the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in his report, goes on to call attention to the fact, as we think, that modifications were made in the original specification, without the consent of the Treasury, and that they led to increased charges. We are trying to get at the bottom of this matter and to press the hon. Gentleman for the reasons.

Mr. Marples

Perhaps I may add to my right hon. Friend's questions to the Minister. The Minister's exact words now are that there was no increase. The actual words used by the Auditor-General are that there was a revision of the contract resulting in an increase—these are the same houses that the Minister talked about—in the total cost of those houses. It is now estimated that the cost of these houses is £1,515 per house. Therefore the original estimate, of £1,272, was increased by £243 per house, which is an increase of nearly 20 per cent. That is a substantial increase in the cost of a house, and I am trying to find out from the hon. Gentleman why that increase was necessary.

Part of the increase appears to have been due to modifications ordered by the Ministry of Works, according to the Auditor-General. If so, may we be told what the modifications were? Did they increase the size or the amenities of the houses? If so, how much per house did they cost? Did the Minister of Health or the Minister of Works ask for those modifications? The second question is, why did the Minister of Works order a revision of the contract without the Treasury being first asked? The Auditor-General goes into that point as well. I want an explanation from the Minister of this increase of £243 per house. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask for that explanation.

Mr. Key

I still want to submit that the request should be made to the Minister of Works and not to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health is not in a position to give an explanation of the details that gave rise to the increases in the cost of the houses provided by the Ministry of Works—not for the Ministry of Health but for the local authorities who took the type of house that the Ministry of Works provided. When the cost has been arrived at as a result of the activities of the Ministry of Works and it has been proved that the cost is over and above the cost of a similar-sized traditional house, the function of the Ministry of Health is to pay to the Ministry of Works that extra cost. Questions about the reasons for that extra cost should be directed to the Ministry of Works, and dealt with on the Estimates of the Ministry of Works and not on the Estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

That explanation would be plausible, if we had an opportunity of cross-questioning the Minister of Works on this particular matter. We are not dealing with them today, nor do I think there would be any separate items in the Ministry of Works Estimates on which we could ask these questions. The right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as representing the Ministry of Health, is responsible for asking the Committee for additional money. We cannot ask the Minister of Works directly for this explanation, because his Estimate is not before us and I do not think this item would come into his Estimate. I was asking for your guidance, Sir Charles, as to whether we are not entitled to press this matter further. Look at the position in which we are placed. Here is the representative of the Ministry of Health asking for an additional Supplementary Estimate. Some of the details, at all events, are contained in this account of the Controller and Auditor-General. The Minister comes along and says that although he is asking for additional sums he is quite incapable of giving any answer to our questions.

Mr. Key

I have not said that.

Mr. Hudson

I asked the Minister the additional cost of the Swedish houses and the price of the Swedish houses. He said that he did not know why the cost was greater and that he did not know what the total numbers were.

Mr. Key

Yes, I do. The number is 2,500.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hudson

Will the Minister please tell the Committee the total number of Swedish houses in this Estimate, how many more Swedish houses he actually got than he expected, and how much is being paid by his Department to the Ministry of Works in respect of each of the houses? Will he also say what he is going to pay to the Ministry of Works for the total number of 2,500 Swedish houses?

Mr. Key

The total number of Swedish houses was 2,500; the number so far completed is 2,438. Between now, and 31st March, the order will be completed. The additional cost of the 2,500 houses involved is £124,000.

Mr. Hudson

Does the Minister mean £124,000 per house?

Mr. Key

What I have said is that, in the original Estimate, the 2,500 Swedish houses was estimated at £1 million. As the result of the increase in the costs of transport and assembly, those 2,500 Swedish houses will cost roughly another £124,000, or just under that sum. That is to say, that they will cost more than the £1 million included in the Estimate. The other part of the £800,000 increase is because of the inclusion in this Estimate of 1,380 of the Howard type of house.

Mr. Marples

What has caused this increase in the cost of the Howard house? Why has it been increased. The cost was originally going to be £1,272, but the amount to be paid by the taxpayer is £1,515. That amounts to an increase of £243. Is that correct? If so, why has there been this 20 per cent. increase in the price of this type of house.

Mr. Key

Again I must say that this is a matter for the Ministry of Works and not for the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health comes into this picture only when the house has been completed for the local authority by the Ministry of Works and when it has been proved, for whatever cause, that the cost is higher than the cost of a similar-sized traditional house that might have been provided by that local authority for whom the Howard type of house has been provided. Where that cost is greater, the money that the local authority will pay to the Ministry of Works is made up by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Works must be responsible for the, increased cost in the Howard house, and not the Ministry of Health, because the house is not provided for the Ministry of Health but for the local authority.

Mr. Marples

The Minister is appearing before the Committee and is asking for extra money for these houses but he is not prepared to take the responsibility of giving to the Committee an explanation why he is asking for the money.

Mr. Key

I come here on behalf of the Ministry of Health to say that we expect there may be 1,380 Howard houses provided by the Ministry of Works. The Ministry of Works inform us what they think the cost of these Howard houses will be, we estimate what would be the cost to the local authority of a traditional house of the same type, and therefore, since the Ministry of Works is asking for x, and the local authorities are providing y, we come here for an Estimate for x minus y in order to make up the total sum we have to pay.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

It goes considerably further than that. All the evidence we have to go on at the present moment is in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and a rapid and not very detailed arithmetical sum which I have just done shows that the cost of these houses has increased not only as shown by the Auditor-General but, if the figure which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned for the difference between the original total of £1 million for the Swedish houses and the present total of £1,125,000 is right, he is now asking for £125,000 more for the Swedish houses. If that is taken from the £1,800,000, it leaves roughly £675,000, which is the contribution to be made by the Minister of Health to the Minister of Works for these 1,380 Howard houses. That looks very much as if the increase in the cost of these Howard houses is more than double the extremely big increase to which the Auditor-General called attention in his report of 19th December. Not only is the right hon. Gentleman asking for something new, but he is asking for something considerably bigger even than the figure to which the Auditor-General called attention, and which he by implication condemned. I venture to suggest that we are entitled to ask the Minister of Works to come and give an explanation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

He is here.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for his help, but if he had been in his place the whole time he would have heard his right hon. Friend say that he was sitting there in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, not as Minister of Works. I, therefore, suggest quite seriously that this is a matter of great importance about which the House is entitled to be informed. We accept for the moment that he says these 1,380 have been added on, but we are entitled to know why they cost so very much more than the original estimate. I suggest, with all respect, that we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the Debate which is bound to continue for a little time, either to send and get the information from his new Department and let us have it, or send for the Parliamentary Secretary, who is presumably aware of this. I think we are entitled to do that and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree. I think he ought to. If he does not, with all respect, I shall seek to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, in order to call attention to the fact that we just cannot get the information we require.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 276.

Division No. 73.]	AYES.	8.25 p.m.]
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Headlam. Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.	Pickthorn, K.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Hogg, Hon. Q.	Prescott, Stanley
Baldwin, A. E.	Howard, Hon. A.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Barlow, Sir J.	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Raikes, H. V.
Beechman, N. A.	Hurd, A.	Rayner, Brig. R.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Jarvis, Sir J	Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Bower, N.	Jennings, R.	Renton, D.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.	Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclecall)
Butcher, H. W.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Ropner, Col. L.
Challen, C.	Lenox-Boyd, A. T.	Scott, Lord W.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Lindsay, M. (Solihull)	Shephard, S. (Newark)
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Lipson, D. L.	Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)	Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Digby, S. W.	Maclay, Hon. J. S.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)	Maitland, Comdr. J. W.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Drayson, G B.	Marningham-Buller, R. E.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Drewe, C.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Marples, A. E.	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Fox, Sir G.	Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)	Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M	Maude, J. C.	Vane, W. M. F.
Gage, C.	Mellor, Sir J.	Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Glyn, Sir R.	Molson, A. H. E.	White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.	Morris-Jones, Sir H.	White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Grant, Lady	Neven-Spence, Sir B.	York, C.
Grimston, R. V.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Hannon, Sir P. (Mossley)	Orr-Ewing, I. L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)	Osborne, C	Mr. Studholme and
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O	Major Ramsay.
Haughton, S. G.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
NOES.
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Champion, A. J.	Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)	Chetwynd, G. R.	Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Alpass, J. H.	Clitherow, Dr. R.	Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)	Cobb, F. A.	Evans, John (Ogmore)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Coldrick, W	Ewart, R.
Attewell, H. C.	Collick, P.	Field, Capt W J.
Austin, H. Lewis	Collins, V. J.	Fletcher, E G M. (Islington, E.)
Awbery, S. S.	Colman, Miss G. M.	Follick, M.
Ayles, W. H.	Comyns, Dr. L.	Foot, M. M.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Cook, T. F.	Forman, J. C.
Bacon, Miss A.	Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.	Foster, W. (Wigan)
Baird, J.	Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N W.)	Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Balfour, A.	Corlett, Dr. J.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Barstow, P. G.	Crossman, R. H. S	Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Bechervaise, A. E	Daggar, G.	Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Berry, H.	Daines, P.	Gibson, C. W.
Blenkinsop, A.	Davies, Clement (Montgomery)	Gilzean, A.
Blyton, W. R	Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Boardman, H	Davies, Ernest (Enfield)	Gooch, E. G.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Goodrich, H. E.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Granville, E. (Eye)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Bramall, Major E. A.	Deer, G.	Grenfell, D. R.
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Delargy, Captain H. J.	Grey C. F
Brown, George (Belper)	Diamond, J.	Grierson, E.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Dobbie, W.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Dodds, N. N	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Buchanan, G.	Donovan, T.	Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Burke, W. A.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Gunter, R. J.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)	Dumpleton, C. W.	Guy, W. H.
Byers, Frank	Durbin, E. F. M.	Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Callaghan, James	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hale, Leslie
Carmichael, James	Edelman, M.	Hall, W G.
Chamberlain, R. A	Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Mellish, R. J.	Smith, C. (Colchester)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Middleton, Mrs. L.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Mikardo, Ian	Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Mitchison, Maj. G. R.	Sorensen, R. W.
Herbison, Miss M.	Moody, A. S.	Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Hewitson, Capt. M.	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Sparks, J. A.
Hicks, G.	Morley, R.	Stamford, W,
Holman, P.	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Steele, T.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)	Mort, D. L.	Stephen, C.
House, G.	Moyle, A.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Hoy, J.	Murray, J. D.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Nally, W.	Stross, Dr. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Naylor, T. E.	Swingler, S.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)	Neal, H. (Claycross)	Symonds, A. L.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)	Taylor, R. J, (Morpeth)
Irving, W. J.	Noel-Buxton, Lady	Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Isaacs, Rt, Hon. G. A.	O'Brien, T.	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Janner, B.	Oldfield, W. H.	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Oliver, G. H.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)	Orbach, M.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)	Paget, R. T.	Thurtle, E.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)	Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)	Tiffany, S.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Titterington, M. F.
Keenan, W.	Pargiter, G. A.	Tolley, L.
Kendall, W D.	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)	Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Key, C. W.	Paton, J. (Norwich)	Ungoed-Thomas, L.
King, E. M.	Pearson, A.	Usborne, Henry
Kinley, J.	Peart, Capt. T. F.	Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Lang, G.	Plans-Mills, J. F. F.	Viant, S. P.
Lee, F. (Hulme)	Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)	Wadsworth, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannook)	Porter, E. (Warrington)	Walkden, E.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)	Porter, G. (Leeds)	Walker, G, H.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Price, M. Philips	Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Lindgren, G. S.	Proctor, W. T.	Warbey, W. N.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)	Pryde, D. J.	Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	West, D. G.
Logan, D. G.	Randall, H. E.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Longden, F.	Ranger, J.	Wigg, Col. G. E.
Lyne, A. W.	Rees-Williams, D. R.	Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
McAllister, G.	Reid, T. (Swindon)	Wilkes, L.
McEntee, V. La T.	Ridealgh, Mrs. M.	Wilkins, W. A.
McGhee, H. G.	Robens, A.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
McGovern, J.	Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Mack, J. D.	Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)	Williamson, T.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)	Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)	Willis, E.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)	Wills, Mrs. E. A.
McKinlay, A. S.	Sargood, R.	Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
McLeavy, F.	Scott-Elliot, W.	Wilson, J. H.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)	Segal, Dr. S.	Wise, Major F. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Shackleton, Wing.-Cdr. E. A. A.	Woodburn, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.	Sharp, Granville	Woods, G. S.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)	Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)	Yates, V. F.
Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)	Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Marquand, H A.	Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)	Zilliacus, K.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)	Simmons, C. J.
Mathers, G.	Skeffington-Lodge, T. C	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Medland, H. M.	Skinnard, F. W.	Mr. Collindridge and
		Mr. Popplewell.

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health, including grants and other expenses in connection with housing, certain other grants to local authorities, etc., a supplemental grant in respect of medical benefit, salaries and expenses of the Local Government Boundary Commission, a grant in aid of the National Radium Trust, a grant in aid of the Women's Voluntary Services; and other services.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Marples

Before the Question is put, there are one or two more queries I should like to address to the right hon. Gentleman, and this time perhaps he will give the Committee some explanation of why he is asking for an increased sum of money. This all has to do with the Building Fund. In the fifth Report from the Select Committee on Estimates it is stated, on page eight, that the £1 million which was the original estimate would cover the extra cost of 2,500 houses. That is the difference between a non-traditional type of house and a traditional type, and amounts to £400 a house.

It also says on the same page of that Report that the cost of each traditional house is £1,250, and if the £400 extra is added to that figure, the price per non-traditional house, according to the estimate, becomes £1,650. The question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, if in the original £1 million which was asked for, the total cost of a non-traditional house came to £1,650, what will be the cost of a house when the extra £800,000 he is asking for today is allowed for? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that £1,250, really represents the cost of a traditional house as stated in the report of the Committee? I would be very grateful if he would reply.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)

The questions I desire to ask arise under the heading, "Preliminary expenses of statutory bodies." As I understand it, this section of this Estimate refers to expenses which have already been incurred or will be incurred before the end of the year in connection with the National Health Service Act which was passed last November. The total amount expended so far appears to be on the small side, and the Parliamentary Secretary gave no explanation as to the exact purposes on which this sum had been expended. It may be that progress has been very slow indeed. Under Parts I and II of the National Health Service Act, the only bodies which can so far have been affected by the estimate are the Central Health Service Council, possibly the standing advisory committees, and, of course, the regional boards. I would like some statement as to what progress has been made with any of these bodies. It is a matter of great interest not only to the Members of this Committee, but to the whole country, to know what progress is being made under the provisions of that Act, and we would like to know on which particular bodies these expenses have been incurred and for what precise purpose. How many of these bodies have actually met as bodies? Has anyone so far been nominated? If no one has yet been nominated, how has the sum of £5,000 been expended? Those are questions to which we would like answers at the present stage.

In the course of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of travelling and salaries, but he did not specify who had been doing the travelling and who would receive the salaries. If this travelling is simply travelling by officials of his Department, it seems to be excessive for the results so far visible. I would like to know, also, who has been receiving the salaries, if any of this sum has been expended on salaries in this connection. I think we are entitled to ask for an explanation of that item. Then I would like some explanation of "W.3. Emergency Housing, etc. Accommodation." Again, the right hon. Gentleman gave a brief mention to that item, and I think he suggested that it was incurred in some respect by reason of expenditure on camps, and other places taken over from the Services, for housing those who cannot, unfortunately, be provided with other and better accommodation. Does that item include any figure in respect of the episode which recently received a great deal of publicity, when squatters went into various houses in London and elsewhere? Will he say whether any part of this item includes expenses incurred by his Department, either to put right houses that suffered at that time, or for modifying houses or otherwise in connection with the squatters?

Mr. Key

In reply to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) I said that the additional cost as far as the Swedish houses were concerned was roughly £125,000. That covered the 2,500. Taking the average, the increased cost of the Swedish house will be £50 per house. That, of course, is only the average, because the additional costs will vary according to the difficulties of transport and erection on given sites, but that is an increase of £50 over the estimated cost when the original estimates were submitted.

With regard to the questions asked by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), I must have failed very much in my explanation, or the hon. Gentleman cannot have been in his place when I gave the information. I think the latter is probably the right explanation of the situation. I made it quite plain that no sums had been expended; that these were for anticipated expenditure in connection with the Central Health Services Council and the Regional Hospital Boards—I named them quite definitely—and the money would be involved because we have agreed to pay the loss of remunerative time to the members who serve on those bodies, travelling, and subsistence allowances for members so serving, as well as some salaries and expenses with regard to any staff that those bodies will need between now and the 31st March which ends this financial year.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Does the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made mean that none of this expenditure has yet been incurred—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has just said it."]—and that none of these bodies is yet actually in existence but will come into existence definitely between now and 31st March?

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Key

I think I said quite definitely that no money had been expended. That is because there is no body so far to receive money, but it is anticipated that this amount will be required between now and 31st March. We have circularised all the bodies that we were required to circularise under the National Health Service Act for their recommendations, suggestions, nominations, and so on, of people to serve on the bodies that I have named. We have not yet decided what the position of these bodies will be, but it is expected that that will be done soon. Then, particularly the hospital regional boards, will start functioning, because it is on their recommendations that we have to take the further steps in regard to hospital management committees, and things of that sort. The £5,000 is the anticipated expenditure between now and the 31st March, 1947.

In regard to Subhead W.3, I went into a very careful explanation of what those items were. I gave several items, and mentioned the emergency provision in the camps taken over by the local authorities. They were camps occupied as a result of squatters taking possession, and afterwards the local authorities took them over, or there was expenditure as a result of the services supplied as a result of releasing them to local authorities. There was increased expenditure by the local authorities in making the necessary adaptations in camps taken over. When approved by us, those costs fall on the Ministry of Health, and they are included in the item W.3.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

Can we have any details? A very considerable sum is involved; it is several millions sterling. I imagine that the right hon. Member, or the Department, is able to put down a figure of some sort as a result of having received accounts from the local authorities concerned. We should be glad to know in greater detail how this sum is made up. What have the local authorities spent, in round figures, on camps, either as a result of squatters, or of taking over from the Services? In his introduction, the right hon. Gentleman was giving a general picture, and I did not interrupt as I thought he would fill it in in answer to questions. He mentioned adapted flats, and houses which were requisitioned. Some of the expense, presumably, has fallen on the local authorities, or the Ministry of Health, or he would not have mentioned it as an item requiring a Supplementary Estimate. We would be glad to know roughly what the figure represents.

Mr. Key

The squatters problem arose as a result of what happened in August last year. By mid-December some 977 camps had been brought into use. Of those only 29 have been taken over by local authorities on a housing subsidy basis, and the other 948 have an occupancy potential for 14,000 families. The actual occupancy on 15th December was 12,330 families. In addition, there are 777 empty camps, with accommodation for some 9,000 families which have also been offered to local authorities for housing purposes. So far 40 per cent of those have been accepted. It is in anticipation of the expense to be involved in providing that extra accommodation that an item is included in this Subhead.

Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)

Is it in anticipation of additional expenses of putting into condition camps which have not been accepted, or is it in respect of those which have been accepted?

Mr. Key

It is in anticipation of both, those which have been accepted and expenditure involved, and those remaining after the 40 per cent. which local authorities may later take up and use for additional accommodation. We are not yet in a position, because the local authorities are not yet in a position, to submit what the actual costs involved are, but we make an estimate of what the actual cost may be, and include it here. The requisitioning here concerned is the requisitioning of habitable houses. It is not a question of the cost of adaptation. When we requisition, we have, of course, to make payment to the person who owns the house, from whom it has been requisitioned. Then, in the accounts with which I was not able to deal, there is the income that comes from those houses.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the lucid account he has given the Committee. As he has got detailed particulars about what the local authorities have done about camps, perhaps it would be of general interest if he would give us details, which I am sure he has, about the nurseries. I well remember that in his opening remarks he referred to Subhead G.6 which relates to grants to welfare authorities in respect of certain nurseries which they will take over as from 31st March. It appears from what the right hon. Gentleman says that the local authorities have taken over more nurseries than was originally anticipated, which accounts for the increase from the original Estimate of £600,000 to the revised Estimate of £900,000, for which the Government are asking. Then, Subhead W.10, which relates to wartime nurseries, shows an increase from the original Estimate of £600,000 to £2,050,000. He explained that that was because accounts were coming in more rapidly than was estimated. I imagine that it is not beyond the resources of his officials to divide up the figures given under Subhead W.10 and also under G.6, and tell us the number of nurseries which local authorities are actually proposing to take over.

Mr. Key

Subhead W.10 results from the maintenance of the nurseries during the war period, and the accounts that have been coming in from the authorities should cover the delayed accounts. The number of nurseries that were in existence during the war period numbered roughly 1,350.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

That was the peak?

Mr. Key

That was a kind of peak at the end of the war.

When the end of the war came, it was put to the local authorities that they could continue these nursries as day nurseries, or numbers of them could be handed over to the educational authorities and run as nursery schools, and that if they were so run as nursery schools they would rank for the education grant of roughly 50 per cent.—varying from 29 per cent. to 60 per cent., according to the local authority. In other cases they could be continued as day nurseries, and run by the welfare side of the local authorities. We then agreed that in that case, since this was a really big addition to the expenses of local authorities, the average 50 per cent. grant should be paid in respect of the day nurseries as well as of the nursery schools. We did not quite anticipate that local authorities would continue so many as day nurseries. We rather anticipated that more would be used in an educational capacity and come under the education authorities. The number of day nurseries fell from 1,350 to 920, some of the remainder being closed altogether because of lack of demand; in other cases they were turned into nursery schools. There are 920 of them operating as day nurseries. Their occupancy is roughly, on an average, about 30 per day nursery, so that the total number of children being provided for in day nurseries is about 27,000.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

I am not quite sure if it is a fair question, but I should be very grateful if the Minister could tell us what, in the period covered here, was the cost, per child, per week, of these nurseries. Was it about the same as I remember it to have been in 1942? What is the average rate, per child, per week, now, or at the latest time available?

Mr. Key

I am afraid that since my scholastic days my powers of mental arithmetic have declined, and I am not in a position to answer at the moment. If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will see that an answer is given.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

On behalf of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, I would like to thank the Minister for the information he has given, or, perhaps I ought to say, for the information which we have extracted. At all events, we got it in the end. While renewing my congratulations to him on his promotion I commiserate with him on his bad luck on the coincidence that his last day in office has involved him in presenting Supplementary Estimates which, if he had been allowed to finish his explanation which was out of Order, would have demonstrated to the country at large the failure of his Department to produce the number of houses that he anticipated.

Mr. Key

With regard to that last remark, I want to say that quite a little time ago on an Adjournment Debate with regard to the B.I.S.F. house, and other types of houses, I gave an adequate explanation. The explanation was that having made an arrangement as a result of which we anticipated that we should get 30,000 B.I.S.F. houses—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Butcher)

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should raise the question of B.I.S.F. houses in connection with this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I do not wish to say anything about the post-war programme for houses. Earlier the right hon. Gentleman mentioned one thing which puzzled me but at that moment I could not catch his eye. It was with regard to the delayed nature of the charge on nurseries. He said that it covered some of the wartime nurseries. How are we to get some finality in this matter? What steps have been taken to appeal to local authorities to wind up these affairs, as far as wartime expenditure is concerned, so that at some stage we can get a final picture? All Departments are in rather the same trouble, but this is an outstanding case. Are we to get more of this for another 18 months or two years? We all know that local authorities are heavily engaged, because of the tremendous burden which has been put upon them by the Minister's Department. This is a point which should have been un-ravelled before now. I was worried when I heard him introduce the phrase that this still carried a considerable weight of wartime expenditure.

Mr. Key

Again I must say that this question arises because an hon. Member was not in his place when I gave a reasonable explanation with regard to it. I said that the expenses of wartime nurseries came to an end on 31st March, 1946. The increase in this Supplementary Estimate is due to the fact that local authorities have speeded up with regard to the submission of their costs. It was that speed-up which made essential the submission of this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. The only reason why I speak now is because the last time he mentioned this, he said it in an entirely different form.

Resolved: That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Health, including grants and other expenses in connection with housing, certain other grants to local authorities, etc., a supplemental grant in respect of medical benefit, salaries and expenses of the Local Government Boundary Commission, a grant in aid of the National Radium Trust, a grant in aid of the Women's Voluntary Services: and other services.