HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS FUND

HC Deb 19 April 1950 vol 474 cc261-78

9.57 p.m.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations. dated 24th March, 1950, entitled the National Health Service (Hospital Endowments Fund —Discharge of Liabilities) Regulations, 1950 (SI, 1950, No. 438), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, 1950. be annulled. These Regulations are made in pursuance, or purported pursuance, of Section 7 of the National Health Service Act, 1946. It is provided in Section 7 that Regulations shall enable the Minister to apply to such an extent as may be prescribed the assets of the fund for discharging any liability transferred to him in connection with the transfer of voluntary hospitals other than teaching hospitals. I have paraphrased the last part of the Section, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that I have done it quite fairly. Last month the Minister made Regulations against which we are now praying. He provides in those Regulations as follows: The Minister may apply the assets of the Hospital Endowments Fund for discharging any liabilities transferred to him under section 6 of the National Health Service Act. 1946, in connection with the transfer of voluntary hospitals (other than as teaching hospitals) …so however that securities of the value of not less than twenty million pounds shall be left in the Fund and shall form 'the net capital sum' within the meaning of the National Health Service (Apportionment of Hospital Endowment Fund) Regulations. 1949 I ask the House to note that the Act provides that Regulations shall be made by the Minister for discharging liabilities to such extent as may be prescribed, but these Regulations, contained in Statutory Order No. 438, although they prescribe a certain minimum residue to remain in the Fund, do not define the extent of the liabilities which the Minister may discharge out of the Fund. In other words. the Minister of Health is asking the House to give him a blank cheque upon the Fund. To that request I take very strong exception

In order to give a complete picture, I would remind the House that Regulations were made last year with regard to the apportionment of what was called "the net capital sum," that is to say, the residue of the Hospital Endowments Fund after the proper discharge of the liabilities. It was provided in those Regulations that the net capital sum should be divided into halves, one to be divided among regional hospital boards in propo[...]tion to the number of beds for which they were responsible, and the other among hospital management committees also in proportion to the number of their beds. In the Second Reading Debate on the National Health Service Bill, the Minister of Health dealt with the Hospital Endowments Fund and he told the House: Furthermore, something like £32 million, belonging to the voluntary hospitals as a whole is not going to be taken from them. On the contrary, we are going to use it, and a very valuable thing it will be; we are going to use it as a shock absorber between the Treasury, the central Government and the hospital administration. They will be given it as free money Which they can spend, over and above the funds provided by the State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 621 I must give one more quotation from the proceedings on the Bill. In Standing Committee, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, the present right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key), made a great point in the matter of the Hospital Endowments Fund that its control would not remain entirely in the hands of the Minister, because the House would have full control through the power to annul the Regulations. He said: As I have said, the Minister is bound by the fact that the Regulations which he has to make for the use of these endowments are to come before Parliament, and, therefore, it is Parliament, in the end, which will settle what the Regulations involve."—[0mciAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 28th May, 1946; c. 1282.] That is all right, but the question is how much information we have at our disposal at present to decide whether these Regulations are right or not. It is a singular fact that up to the present the accounts of the Hospital Endowments Fund have not been published. In the absence of those accounts, and unless the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to give us a great deal more information tonight, it is difficult to see how the House can properly allow the regulations to go through.

Before I pass to the more general aspects of the matter, there is a point to which I should draw attention. The Regulations only provide this limit to the Minister's power to use the Fund to discharge liabilities. It is provided that securities of the value of not less than £20 million shall be left in the Fund, but it is also provided that the values of the securities left in the Fund shall be taken as their current market value at 5th July, 1948. That is singularly reminiscent of the Gas Stock swindle. Therefore, I put down a Question to ask the Minister why this retrospective valuation was required. He gave this answer: The provisions of the Act about the setting up of the Fund, the discharge of liabilities out of it, and its apportionment among hospital boards and committees, take effect as at 5th July, 1948. The amount to remain in the Fund must therefore also be based on a valuation at the same date. That answer is wrong in two material particulars. The Minister said that the provisions for the discharge of liabilities took effect as at 5th July, 1948, but it is the Regulations against which we are praying tonight which provide for the discharge of liabilities out of the Fund. Therefore, the date was not 5th July, 1948, but the date of the making of this Order. Again, when he says that the provisions for the apportionment among hospital boards and committees took effect as at 5th July, 1948, he is wrong. [Interruption.]

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedfordshire)

May I interrupt my hon. Friend? As this very important Prayer deals with funds given to the hospitals through the thrift and generosity of our forefathers, should not the generation that is squandering them at least listen in silence to the arguments which are being put forward?

Sir J. Mellor

If one looks at the regulations made last year dealing with apportionment, one finds that the relevant date was not 5th July, 1948, but 31st December of that year. Therefore, the answer which I got from the Minister on 6th April was wrong in two points out of three. I also inquired of the Minister the value of the Fund at 5th July, 1948, and its value at the date upon which these Regulations came into force. His answer was: The Fund's estimated value at 5th July, 1948 (including assets still to be received), is £29,800,000. There is no occasion to value it at 27th March, 1950, but a valuation at the end of each financial year will be included in the accounts of the Fund presented to Parliament in accordance with the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1950; Vol. 473. c. 185–6.] We have not yet had those accounts and we want to know when we shall get them. because it seems to me that we are not likely to get them published until these Regulations are past praying against. I understand that these accounts have been transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. If that is right, the Parliamentary Secretary could quite well give the information to the House subject to audit, which at least would be helpful. Is he prepared to do that? It is a matter of importance. Since July, 1948, there has been a heavy depreciation in many securities, especially in Government stocks, and it may well be that a million or more may have been knocked off the value of this Fund since July, 1948.

Before the House agrees to allow these Regulations to proceed, we ought to have the following information from the hon. Gentleman: first, the present value of the Fund, perhaps subject to audit; secondly, the amount of the liabilities taken over by the Minister in connection with the voluntary hospitals.

Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)

Why did not the hon. Baronet put those questions down on the Order Paper?

Sir. J. Mellor

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to divide that information into two parts: first, the liabilities attaching to the endowments themselves, and secondly, the liabilities attaching to the hospital premises. An important distinction arises there because, while it is perfectly reasonable that the Minister should discharge in full out of the Fund the liabilities attaching to the endow- ments, he ought not to discharge to any appreciable extent out of the Fund the liabilities attaching to the hospital remises which he took over. I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell us to what extent the Minister proposes to discharge out of the Fund the liabilities in those two categories.

It is important that we should have that information because if the Minister intends to any large extent to discharge out of the Fund the general liabilities which he took over with the voluntary hospitals as distinct from the liabilities attaching to the endowments, he will be taking a concealed subsidy to the health services generally out of the Fund which, according to his original statement, was intended to be used by the regional boards and the hospital committees as pocket money.

Before I sit down I will recall once again what the right hon. Gentleman said on the Second Reading of the Bill: …something like £32 million belonging to the voluntary hospitals as a whole is not going to be taken from them. On the contrary, we are going to use it, and a very valuable thing it will be; we are going to use it as a shock absorber between the Treasury, the central Government, and the hospital administration. They will be given it as free money which they can spend over and above the funds provided by the State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1950; Vol. 422, c. 62.] Will the right hon. Gentleman honour that statement? Will he stand by it? I consider that he would be honouring it if he decided to discharge the liabilities attaching to the endowments out of the Hospital Endowments Fund, but no further liabilities. I hope this evening that we shall have a clear indication from the Parliamentary Secretary of the intentions of the Minister.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)

I beg to second the Motion which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor).

We are here dealing with millions of pounds' worth of money, voluntarily subscribed, largely in small sums, for the benefit of the voluntary hospitals before they were taken over by the Minister of Health. The Minister is now trustee of those millions of pounds' worth of money and it is our duty, as he is answerable to this House, to see that he exercises his duty as trustee in a seemly manner. I go so far as to say that it appears on the face of things—the matter is capable, perhaps, of explanation—that the Minister has behaved in a most extraordinary way so far which, had he been the trustee of an ordinary private trust fund, might well have got him into serious difficulties in the Chancery Court.

In the first place, there has been the most extraordinary sequence of administrative events, as is revealed by the history of the three Orders which govern the disposal of these funds, the third of which we are now considering. I hope I shall not be out of Order if I refer very briefly to the other two Orders to show the sequence in which this Order should have come. The first of the three Orders was merely machinery. It was brought out in July, 1948, when the hospitals were transferred, and I make no comment about it except to show its place in the scheme of things. The second Order Statutory Instrument No. 482 of 1949—was brought out on 23rd March, 1949. I need only refer to the Explanatory Note to remind hon. Members that that Order provided that: after the discharge out of the Hospital Endowment Fund of certain liabilities …the balance of the Fund shall be apportioned between regional hospital boards and hospital management committees… That was a year ago, when we had that Order saying how the Fund was to be distributed. But we have had to wait a whole year before an Order comes out saying how and to what extent the liabilities are to be discharged. In other words, it was not until the publication of the Order against which my hon. Friend has moved this Prayer that the Order of a year ago was of the slightest effect, consequence or validity. This is a matter which requires explanation. The cart appears to be precisely 12 months in front of the horse, which, of course, is nonsensical.

My next point is this. As my hon. Friend has said, we were told by the Minister on Second Reading that the total amount of the Hospital Endowments Fund was likely to be about £32 million. He told us, in his customary glowing terms, what valuable use would be made of that money. We have heard since, in answer to the question to which my hon. Friend referred, that the amount might approach something like £30 mil- lion, but in the Statutory Instrument against which we are praying we find that the net amount which is to be left in the Fund after the discharge of liabilities is to be nothing like £32 million, not even approaching £30 million, but is to be possibly only £20 million. One would assume that that is the probable figure because great pains are taken in the Order to describe that that is the sum which is ultimately to be left.

That means that in some way or another liabilities to the extent of approximately £10 million are to be paid away very nearly two years after they were incurred. One wonders, incidentally, whether it has been entirely fair on all the creditors concerned that there should have been this delay, but I do not rest upon that. The point upon which I rest is that surely it is wrong, when the Minister has had control of these very large sums, that he should suddenly find that there are approximately £10 million worth of liabilities to be disposed of, which will not go to the laudable purposes of helping the new hospitals in the way that he described. He said that the money would find its way down to the hospital management committees.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop) indicated dissent.

Mr. Renton

I see that the Parliamentary Secretary displays a certain amount of doubt. May I remind him of what the Minister said in Committee, because he was not then the Parliamentary Secretary and may welcome the reminder. The right hon. Gentleman said: It is also obvious that when I take over the voluntary hospitals and their assets and liabilities, the overdrafts will be transferred with the hospitals. Of course, that is agreed. I do not, however, desire that that statement should indicate our wish that the hospitals should begin to pile up overdrafts. I would point out to them that if they do, they will get themselves into difficulties, not from the point of view of surcharge but, from the point of view that when we come to consider how much of the endowment funds are to be made available in the future the overdraft will,be under the hospital endowment scheme, deducted from the assets, and the assets will be far less if the overdrafts are too high. It is the net sum which will gc into the endowment scheme and, therefore, the voluntary hos- pitals will be eating into their own funds if. in the meantime, they pile up overdrafts. Then Sir Henry Morris-Jones, who was a member of that Committee. interrupted the Minister and asked: Is that for each region The Minister replied: When we come to the whole scheme, I think it will be seen that we are not only speaking for the regions, but, as far as possible, we shall try to push the endowments down into the management committees where they will fertilise the whole service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 23rd May, 1946, c. 1253.] Going back to the question of the overdrafts and possible liabilities, is it not surprising that something like £10 million worth of voluntarily subscribed money should have been whisked away in the short period between the passing of the Act, which was on 6th November, 1946. and the transfer of the hospitals on 5th July, 1948? During that interval the hospitals received by way of grants-in-aid no less than £15 million; the Minister requested that voluntary contributions should continue, and it will be within the recollection of hon. Members that most of these schemes, certainly all the schemes for small savings in favour of hospitals, continued during that interregnum. One cannot tell exactly what sums were subscribed, but they must have been very considerable and not very far short of the sums subscribed 'annually before the Act was passed.

The receipts in favour of the hospitals continued up to the day of transfer, and I suggest that the outgoings were not likely to have greatly increased. They could not have increased very greatly because there was not the opportunity to spend very greatly.—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] No new hospital buildings of great importance were being built in 1946, 1947, and 1948. The costs were not rising as fast then as, unfortunately, they have risen since 5th July, 1948, and moreover, there was a scarcity of a considerable number of materials and finished goods still and the possibility of a continuous orgy of spending in the whole of that period was right out of the question. There may have been a stepping-up of the expenditure as the appointed day approached but—

Mr, Messer (Tottenham)

This money will not be spent on that. It is not for that purpose.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Member appears to know a great deal about this and perhaps he will enlighten us later. We shall welcome enlightenment, because the whole matter is shrouded in obscurity at the moment, and from the Parliamentary Secretary we seek some figures as to what is the total outstanding amount of liabilities taken over on 5th July, 1948. That is one specific question which I put to him, because it naturally affects the total amount which the hospitals are to receive. I do not ask for great detail at this stage—some kind of accounts will presumably be published same day—but it would be valuable if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us a broad idea of how these liabilities were incurred. Were they incurred mostly in an orgy in the last month before transfer? Were they due to a sudden increase in illness? To what were they due; how were they incurred?

The Minister promised, and was under the Act obliged, to ensure that the voluntary hospitals obtained the benefit of the redistribution of the Hospital Endowments Fund, and it was implied in the very nature of things that that Fund should be placed at the disposal of the hospitals in the manner provided as soon as reasonably possible. In 1946, when the Bill was before the House, no one contemplated that there would be a delay approaching two years between transfer and the distribution of the Fund or of its income. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some explanation of the delay in getting this necessary machinery in motion, the last step in which should have been the second step, and which has come to us after what was, in fact, the second step but should have been the third step. If we can have an answer to those questions, we may be able to see the light a little better than is now possible in regard to this Statutory Instrument.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Linstead (Putney)

Two questions arise on this Motion about which the House is entitled to have some further information. When these endowments were taken over, certain obligations were placed upon the Minister. The questions I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary really turn upon how far the Minister has discharged the obligations which were placed upon him by the Act.

The first charge against the funds which the Minister took over was to be the cost of administering them. We may take it for granted that the Minister will make quite certain that the cost comes out of the capital. The second obligation was that: to such extent as may be prescribed,… he was to apply the assets for discharging any liabilities of the voluntary hospitals. He was then to apportion what was left between the regional boards and the management committees. Finally, there is a provision permitting individual management committees to anticipate capital, to take capital out of the Fund and to sacrifice their share of income by so doing.

There is, however, one over-riding obligation which the Act placed upon the Minister. It is sufficiently important to justify my reading it to the House. Under Section 7 (7) of the 1946 Act: the Minister shall, in the case of any endowment transferred to him and the Hospital Endowments Fund under this section, secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the objects of the endowment and the observance of any conditions attaching thereto, including in particular conditions intended to preserve the memory of any person or class of persons, are not prejudiced by the provisions of this section. In these Regulations the Minister takes power to discharge liabilities and the further power to leave at least £20 million for distribution in the Endowments Fund. Assuming that £20 million is not only the minimum but the maximum, one can calculate an income from the Fund, at 3 per cent., of about £60,000 a year. That raises this rather important question.

There are 500 hospital management committees in the country and if this is to be distributed among them, they will get about £100 a year each as their share of the Hospital Endowments Fund. I put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary: Does he anticipate that £100 a year will allow these voluntary hospitals adequately to do what the Act says shall be done, that is, to secure that the objects of the endowment and the observance of any condition attached thereto are preserved? It seems to me that £100 a year is a totally inadequate sum of money.

Mr. Messer

It is not true that 40 or 50 per cent. of the regional boards' funds go to the management committees?

Mr. Linstead

If the regional boards are to receive any part of this money, it merely reduces the money which will go to the individual hospital management committees and makes it more difficult for the management committees to do what the Act contemplates should be done with the money which in past years was left to the voluntary hospitals.

The only other question I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. The Minister has used £10 million for the purpose of liquidating the liabilities of the voluntary hospitals. I think the House ought to know whether, in fact, with that £10 million he has liquidated the liabilities, and if not, whether those liabilities are being liquidated in some other way—presumably being met from the general Vote of the Ministry. Those are the two questions I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary before we agree to these Regulations.

10.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

I think it would be only right for me to reply at this stage to the points raised by the hon. baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) and other hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate because it is clear that there is some misunderstanding. It is perfectly true that the sequence of events in these Orders is unusual, and it is also perhaps a pity that we have not been able before now to present to the House the accounts that are provided for in the Act. We would have desired to have done so, and in point of fact the first of these accounts will be presented to the House very shortly. It is unfortunate, I agree, that it was not possible for them to be presented to the House before these Regulations were put forward.

First, may I point out that the National Health Service Act, as has been mentioned, provided for these Regulations being made to enable the Hospital Endowments Fund to be used to discharge the non-teaching voluntary hospital liabilitities after 5th July, 1948. Of course, 5th July, 1948, is the operative date for the assessment of both liabilities and assets. We cannot very well take different dates for one and the other.

It is true that the other two sets of relevant Regulations have already been passed. It has been properly pointed out that the Regulations presented to and passed by the House a year ago ought to have followed this set of Regulations, against which hon. Members are praying tonight, rather than the other way round. There is a sensible explanation for this. It was important that funds should be available to fructify in the hands of the regional hospital boards and hospital management committees as early as possible. Therefore, the other Regulations were presented last year to enable at least an interim distribution to be carried out. This was a reasonable and proper thing to be done, although it was not possible to define with any degree of accuracy the total size of the Fund, or indeed the total size of the liabilities to be taken over.

In spite of this, it was still a perfectly valid and proper thing to make a reasonable estimate—a conservative estimate—of the amount of the fund that would be available for distribution to the regional hospital boards and hospital management committees. That, in fact, was done. Even now we have not completed the transfer of assets: we have been dealing with many thousands of separate endowments and it has proved a complex and detailed matter to follow through. But still it is true that we are now in a position to estimate pretty accurately what will be the total amount of the liabilities we shall have to meet, and much of which has already been spent, as has been imagined by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. We can also estimate fairly accurately the total value of the assets that will be transferred into the Fund.

Sir J. Mellor

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a certain number of liabilities have already been discharged out of the Fund? If that is so, it is ultra vices, as these Regulations, which came into operation on 27th March, are not and cannot be retrospective.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Not at all. Certain of the liabilities have been discharged by the Exchequer, and our need to present these Regulations on the date we did was due to the fact that we wish to reimburse the Exchequer to the extent that they have met those liabilities, as was provided in the votes by appropriation for the financial year. It is perfectly proper to do this after the presentation of the Regulations, which is what we have done.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Norwich, South)

May I put a point? Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to have said a few moments ago that an interim distribution had been made from the Hospital Endowments Fund as defined by the earlier Regulations?

Mr. Blenkinsop

No, I think I can explain. It was merely that we took an estimate as well as we could at that time of the sum that would be likely to remain: it could not have been accurately estimated at that time, so we erred on the side of caution. We then made provision for the distribution of the income from that sum, as indeed those who are connected with regional hospital boards and hospital management committees will know has taken place. It is, in fact, an interim distribution which was arranged following the Regulations which were passed last year.

The point we are now dealing with is the fact that we are now in a position to state with reasonable accuracy what the precise sum will be after the payment of liabilities, and we estimate that that figure will be not less than £20 million, although it is still true that there are some assets which have not yet been transferred. As I think hon. Members will appreciate, there are some cases which involve rather detailed questions of apportionment. Among cases which come to mind is, for example, a case such as the Papworth Settlement, and other cases where difficult problems arise. There are also certain cases in which there is need of arbitration and, indeed, some few cases where legal action is necessary. So there is inevitably a time-lag in settling these cases finally.

It is true that reports on the Hospital Endowments Fund, and upon its condition, are required, under Section 56 of the Act, to be laid before the House. I have already mentioned that we are sorry that it has not proved possible before these Regulations were issued to lay these annual reports; but the first of these reports will be laid before the House very shortly indeed. That will be for the period ending 31st March, 1949. Reports for the year ending 31st March, 1950, should be laid nearer the end of this year.

Hon. Members may say that it should have proved possible to present these accounts earlier, but hospital management committees, on which we had to rely for the bulk of the information, have not been able to provide, until the last few weeks, the final figures for the period ending 31st March, 1949. In view of the many other urgent problems with which the hospital management committees have had to deal, I think it is not unreasonable that a considerable time had to be taken over the production of these figures. It is unfortunate, but nevertheless I think that in the circumstances it can be readily understood how difficult it was for the hospital management committees to complete the details which had to be made available to the Ministry.

We are now able to say that the gross value of the fund should be approximately £30 million. There will be a sum of approximately £11 million required to meet liabilities. As some hon. Members have shown an interest in some of the principal items, although I do not think it would be right for me to go into details at this time, I should say that the £11 million includes more than £6 million for bank overdrafts.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon South)

May I ask whether the figure of £30 million is based on the 1948 value or the present-day value?

Mr. Blenkinsop

It is, of course, based on the 1948 value.

That would suggest that there was a net sum to be held available for distribution in income to regional hospital boards and to hospital management committees of £19 million. In fact, however, there are sums owing to hospitals, as at 5th July, 1948. It is still not possible to say with complete certainty the amount which will be available; but after making a reasonable estimate for that, we think we shall have a minimum figure of £20 million for distribution to regional hospital boards and hospital management committees. There is no danger of that figure being in any way diminished. I hope that, in view of the figures which I have given and of the promise that the first of the series of accounts will be made available to the House shortly, and that further accounts will not be delayed, the hon. Baronet may find it possible to withdraw the Motion.

10.45 p.m.

Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)

In view of the jealous regard which this House has for the expenditure of public money, whether raised by taxation or—and in this connection even more so —when raised by private subscription, I think that hon. Members ought to thank the hon. Baronet for having raised this matter. It is well that the matter should be fully explained to the House this evening. The hon. Baronet has put a number of questions to which the Parliamentary Secretary has replied at least to a considerable extent. He has said that the assets of the Fund as at 5th July, 1948, amounted to about £30 million that, as I understand it, is an accurate estimate, although one appreciates that an exact figure cannot be quoted.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I said "as accurately as possible "; as accurate as it was possible to make it, but some items of the assets have not yet been settled and it may still be some little time before certain legal matters, arbitration and other matters, are dealt with; and these may slightly alter the figure.

Commander Galbraith

These, I understand, are minor items, and do not alter the position very much one way or the other. Liabilities as at July, 1948, amounted to £11 million. The hon. Baronet who raised this subject put one or two questions, and I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could not give some further explanation. The hon. Baronet's view was that there should be some differentiation of liabilities applying actually to the endowments. Does the Minister offer any means of discovering what these are? Then the hon. Baronet said that he considered that we should be told the amount of the liabilities applying to the hospitals generally as apart from the endowments themselves. Cannot we be given some idea of what these differences are?

Mr. Blenkinsop

I cannot give the figure which is asked for, but it is quite clear that a very large part of the liabilities is made up of these bank overdrafts which I have already mentioned, and in speeches made in Standing Committee by the Minister, it was made quite clear that we should use this Fund to meet this type of liability.

Commander Galbraith

Then, as I understand it, what is happening really is that the money is being used to discharge liabilites whch have accrued to the hospitals generally and which really have little or no connection with the endowments.

Mr. Blenkinsop

The non-teaching voluntary hospitals?

Commander Galbraith

Yes; those are the only ones in question under these particular Regulations. That is the situation. It may well be that funds subscribed for a particular purpose have been used for another purpose; but, speaking for myself, it did appear to me that the Minister gave a warning that he would discharge liabilities, without specifying which liabilities, from this Fund. It seems that we have to be content wth the explanation; but we hope that we may have a very full account rendered in the early future, because it is not good enough, after a period of more than two and a half years, that this House should have no account of the matter in which this Fund has been used in that period.

10.49 p.m.

Dr. Hill (Luton)

May I seek an explanation on one point which is puzzling me? It is the proviso which is to secure that securities of not less than £20 million shall be left in the Fund. It is the Minister's obligation to discharge the liabilities, and I find some difficulty in finding why that proviso is attached. If he knows the size of the liabilities and he knows that at least £20 million will be left in the Fund, there is no need for that proviso. If on the other hand, he is not sure and does not know the true figures which will enable him to judge what will be left, it seems to me that it is impeding the Minister in discharging the function of meeting the liabilities if he is allowed to meet them only provided that not less than £20 million are left in the Fund. No doubt the explanation is quite simple but it eludes me, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain the point.

Mr. Blenkinsop

The point is reasonably simple. We have very carefully set there a value of not less than £20 million which does mean, of course, that we cannot make at this moment a precise and final estimate to the nearest pound, shilling or penny, and we have therefore taken this figure, being quite satisfied that it could not drop below that figure. But it is possible that the liabilities or the assets may be slightly different from the figures that we estimate to-day and that particular proviso is put in for that reason.

Dr. Hill

With respect, 1 am afraid I have not made myself clear. If I am a man in debt and I say that I intend to pay my debts but to make certain I have £100 left, it is possible that I qualify my original statement to the extent that some of my debts will remain unpaid. If there is a guarantee in this that there shall be left at the end no less than £20 million, it seems to me to he a qualification of the Minister's obligation to meet the debts.

10.53 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what is the value of the securities today? This Statutory Instrument says that the values of the securities left in the Fund shall be taken as their current market value at 5th July, 1948. Can the Parliamentary Secretary state what the values of these securities are at the present time, because that has an important bearing on the position? Have they depreciated in value as much as £1 million or £2 million, or not?

Mr. Blenkinsop

I cannot give that figure because, as I have explained already, reports are to be presented very shortly to the House both for the period ending 31st March, 1949, and later for the year ending 31st March, 1950. 1 cannot go further than that.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Norwich, South)

The Minister has very frankly stated that these two sets of Regulations have been made in the order which the Statute did not contemplate. He has dealt with this in a most' disarming manner and done his utmost to give us information on many points.

The only point I should like to raise is the difficulty in which the House has been placed by the lack of information before it when this last set of Regulations was produced. It is quite clear to anybody who studies the Statute, and in particular subsection (5) of Section 7 of the principal Act of 1946, that the whole object of providing for these Regulations was to give the House some control over the quite extraordinary powers that the Minister was taking under the Statute. One of the most important elements in the Regulations which are the subject of this Prayer is the figure of £20 million. We cannot judge the wisdom of these Regulations at all unless we know whether the figure so provided is a good figure or not.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving the fullest information he was able to give tonight. In determining whether or not to set down a Prayer against these Regulations, we were entirely in the dark until the Minister made his speech. There was no means of judging whether these Regulations were improper or not. That is really an intolerable way of treating this House if it is to have any proper control over the matter.

If I may come to the aid of the Minister in answering the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), I do not think that the Minister has in any way qualified his obligation to discharge his debts. The second paragraph of the Regulations says that The Minister may apply the assets of the Hospital Endowments Fund for discharging any liabilities, subject to the proviso. If he cannot use these particular assets for the purpose, it does not mean that he will escape any part of his liability.

Having come to the aid of the Minister in answering my hon. Friend, I would urge the Government in any future case to try to give us such information as will enable us to judge the wisdom of Regulations, not merely as a result of their being compelled to do so by a Prayer being set down, but by publishing the necessary information before they produce the Regulations.

Question put, and negatived.