Clause 1.—(CHARGES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN DENTAL AND OPTICAL APPLIANCES.) (Hansard, 7 May 1951)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from "patient," to end of line 16, and to insert: who is resident in a hospital at the time when the appliance is supplied and has been continuously so resident since the examination or testing of sight under the said Part II leading to the supply of that appliance. On the Committee stage there was a great deal of discussion on the provisions of Clause 1 (2) of this Bill which sought to exempt hospital in-patients from these charges. Two main issues were raised in the discussion. One was whether greater clarity could be obtained in the wording of this provision as to precisely where and at what moment of time the charge would lie; and a second point was raised by my hon. Friends, who sought to extend this provision beyond the exemption proposed in the Bill for in-patients in hospital to the wider categories of those who may be under treatment from their own doctor in their own homes, and other cases of that kind.
I said on the Committee stage that the provision as it stood in the Bill meant that where an appliance, either glasses or teeth, was supplied to a hospital in-patient while he was in hospital, the patient would be exempted from the charge. There was some doubt whether that was the case, but after taking further advice on the matter I can say that that is the position as the subsection is drafted. 1602 That still means that those who are in pay-beds or in disclaimed hospitals are not exempt from the charge; the charge would fall upon them as I explained in Committee.
After very careful consideration, we have put forward this Amendment which, we feel, somewhat clarifies the position. It has the effect, of course, of restricting the exemption to the category described by many hon. Members as "comparatively long-stay patients in hospital." It provides that the exemption would apply to a patient who is resident in hospital at the time an appliance is supplied and has been so resident since the examination or testing of sight under Part II which led to the supply of an appliance.
What we have sought to do is to make quite clear that the categories of patients which we are attempting to exempt completely and automatically from the charge are those I mentioned during the Committee stage, namely, those for whom the provision of spectacles or dentures is a natural part of treatment in hospitals and all those who are long-stay patients, such as chronic patients in hospitals or mental hospitals, most of whom, as I said in Committee, would in all probability anyhow be exempt under the provisions through which the National Assistance Board takes account of personal hardship. We have attempted to meet at least some of the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in order to make as clear as possible the position of the hospital in-patient and avoid creating large numbers of anomalies as between an in-patient and a patient who is treated at home. After careful examination of all alternative ways in which anomalies might be reduced we have come to the conclusion that this is the only proposal we could put forward which really makes the position clearer, having regard to the fact that the categories we were most anxious to exempt were the two I have mentioned, the group whose treatment is being provided in hospital, including the provision of the appliance, and also the long-stay chronic patient for whom we obviously have very special and real sympathy.
With regard to other categories of cases of which we would wish to take special care, we discussed during the Committee stage the work of the National Assistance Board and we have broadly agreed that 1603 that is the proper instrument for dealing with the possibly many other hardship cases that may arise.

§ Dr. Hill (Luton)
The purpose of the definition is obvious and, I think, agreed; at least, the purpose of the definition. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer certain questions. The words "under the said Part II" govern the Amendment. I believe I am right in saying that if the treatment is given by a dentist appointed to the staff of the hospital in which the treatment is given or to the group of which that hospital is a part, all will be well under the Amendment. What will be the position when the dental treatment is given by a dentist not on the staff of the hospital but called in for the purpose? As I read it, the words "under the said Part II" will exempt the recipient of dental treatment from the charge if he is receiving the treatment in a hospital to which a dentist has been appointed as a member of the staff but will not do so where the dentist is called in ad hoc from outside to undertake the work. I should be grateful for the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary on that point.
The Committee will wish the Amendment to be as fair and reasonable as possible. Another point which occurs to me, taking dental care as the example, is that where the teeth are removed in hospital and the dentures arrive, with reasonable speed, while the patient is in hospital, the exemption is complete, but that where for one reason or another the patient, possibly because of his or her condition and possibly because of the tardiness with which the dentures arrive, goes home for one or two days between the extraction and the treatment, the exemption disappears.
Perhaps that is a point which can be applied with even greater force in the case of spectacles. Where the examination takes place and, because of the ordinary character of the optical defect, the spectacles can be speedily procured, there is no charge, but where, as may happen in a number of cases, the spectacles are slow in coming because of the complexity of the defect—the greater the need for the spectacles—it may well be that the exemption is of no value at all.
1604 So while approving the object in defining this, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether the words do not involve a gamble, a gamble in which the patient is innocent; a gamble, firstly, whether there is a dentist appointed to the staff, so bringing the case within Part II, and secondly, a gamble whether the appliance arrives during the stay of the patient in hospital. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what will happen in circumstances in which the delay beyond the patient's control is so great that the appliance arrives after the person has left hospital or where, under the ordinary commonsense arrangements there is an interval in which the patient goes home.
I am very concerned—I do not state any of these matters as debating points—lest there should be anything which encourages the relatives to prolong the stay of an old person in hospital for a material advantage. One of the difficulties of our day—let it be plainly stated—is that there is a reluctance on the part of some people to take the old people home, for reasons which we can readily understand. Let there not be added another and a financial inducement to leave old persons in hospital occupying valuable beds when, on medical and humanitarian grounds, they should be returned to their families at the earliest possible moment.

§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)
I do not wish to import any heat into this matter because my doctors have told me that I must not get excited; otherwise I should feel a little tempted to try the experiment. I want to make the point that on the Committee stage of this discussion, speaker after speaker from this side of the Committee criticised this Clause. From this side of the Committee from 3.30 in the afternoon until 2 o'clock the following morning there were only three speakers who tried to say that, on the whole, they had some sympathy with His Majesty's Government. I am told that I put it 50 per cent. too high but, so far as I know, all of them said they did not like the Bill and, furthermore, that they did not like the Clause. I said I did not, and I voted for it on what I think were constitutional grounds. [Laughter.] I did not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand the workings of democracy.
What is the reply from His Majesty's Government to this criticism? The reply 1605 to this criticism of the Clause as being too narrow is to bring, on recommital, an Amendment that narrows it down still further. I say we have a right to resent that and a right to ask for an explanation. As the Clause was drawn without the Amendment, the position is admittedly an anomalous one. A man who goes into hospital with a broken leg could get false teeth while in hospital. I do not defend that, but I do find myself, to my amazed surprise, in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) on this matter.
So far as ophthalmic cases are concerned, people who go into hospital for an ophthalmic operation of any kind are normally not in for long. It is the kind of treatment—maybe the removal of a cataract—which, unless it is for a serious ophthalmic condition, may very well take a comparatively short time. On the whole it is exceedingly unusual for very complex types of lenses to be available before the patient leaves hospital. Yet the Government come along to the Committee today and say "We want to cut that out." They want to say to the people, "If you go into hospital and are ordered to have your teeth out because you are suffering from a gastric condition, you will have to pay the money if you are discharged from the hospital before the teeth arrive."
That is a really serious point. I do not want to use a single word out of place because it was suggested in a highly humorous column that I did not regard His Majesty's Ministers as being in the brotherhood of man. I did not say that. I was only wondering if they had departed from the Socialist brotherhood. With respect, we ought not to have a proposal of that sort from these benches.
What is the difficulty? It is that His Majesty's Ministers, with the Parliamentary draftsmen, have considered the difficulty of prescribing a form of words making it clear that the Clause was limited to the sort of case for which it was intended. I think I shall have both sides of the Committee with me on this when I say that the sort of case we have in mind here is the case of the man who goes into hospital for treatment for gastric trouble or facial or jaw trouble involving dental treatment or extraction; or the case of the man who goes into hospital for ophthalmic treatment which 1606 may involve the prescription of special lenses or glasses for his use. I should have thought both sides of the Committee would agree in saying that they, at least, would be provided for and that there should not be any exception based upon the date of discharge from hospital.
We were in difficulty on recommittal in tabling an Amendment to an Amendment moved by His Majesty's Government, because the Committee stage itself took place only two or three days ago. So far as I know, it has not been on the Order Paper long enough for anyone to table an Amendment. However, while I was listening with great attention to the speech of my hon. Friend on this matter, I wrote out a form of words which I suggest would meet the case, and which might easily be accepted as a manuscript Amendment provided the Chair were prepared to accept it. I appreciate, Sir Charles, that is entirely within the discretion of the Chair, but I respectfully suggest that there are ample precedents for accepting a manuscript Amendment on re-committal if it is the general wish of the Committee and if His Majesty's Government are willing. I ask my hon. Friend to say what is wrong with the following words which I suggest, to make the matter clear, we should add: or who is supplied after his discharge from hospital with an appliance prescribed whilst in hospital and so prescribed as part of the medical treatment for the ailment which necessitated his hospital treatment. I have tried to limit it as far as possible.

§ Mr. Iain MacLeod (Enfield, West)
I am very interested in this suggested Amendment, but would the hon. Member mind reading it again?

§ Mr. Hale
I will read it slowly so that it may get across.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
Order. Would the hon. Gentleman try to put it as an Amendment to the Amendment? I cannot accept it as a new Amendment since the Bill is only re-committed in respect of the one Amendment on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Hale
It is an addition to the Amendment, Sir Charles. In other words, if I were putting it on the Order Paper as a manuscript Amendment, I would start by saying, "at end add" and then go on with those words I have read out. In other words, if the patient goes in for treatment with a broken leg and has his 1607 teeth extracted, he does not get free teeth, but if he goes in with gastric or jaw trouble and, as part of his treatment it is necessary to take his teeth out, and order dentures, he gets them paid for.

§ Mr. Angus Maude (Ealing, South)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I should like to get at the reasons in his mind because I find it difficult to understand what is behind this. I appreciate that he disapproves of the principle of charges for appliances but, given the fact that the Bill is designed to introduce them, I do not see why a man should have to pay for appliances which are prescribed in the case of, say, ophthalmic trouble which does not require surgery but, if his case does not yield to treatment without surgery and he has to have an operation, he should then get them free. There is not sufficient difference——

§ Mr. Hale
I agree entirely. I have said before that I would prefer to see the Bill withdrawn altogether, but we are now considering a limited Amendment by the Government and a simple point made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister—I forget who it was who opened the discussion—[Laughter.] I was not trying to be funny. I forgot for a moment, and I apologise. What was said from the Front Bench was that the difficulty had been to draft a Clause which would open the door to the proper case but would not open the door so wide that improper cases could come in.
I have concerned myself with trying to draft a form of words which would remove the anomaly to which the hon. Member for Luton drew attention, namely, the man who leaves hospital before the appliance prescribed for him is delivered. My Amendment suggests a tightening—I do not like the tightening, but I am trying to be fair about it—that that should apply only to a prescription which is made for the disease for which the hospital treatment was incurred. If the man goes into hospital for eye treatment and is prescribed spectacles, then he gets them. If he goes into hospital for treatment for gout and decides whilst there to have a pair of spectacles, he will not get them paid for under the Amendment.
1608 4.30 p.m.
I suggest that that is a perfectly reasonable Amendment. It covers completely the point made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and, as a test of his sincerity on this matter, I say that it is widening the gate only a little.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
Oh!

§ Mr. Hale
I am not questioning the individual sincerity of my hon. Friend. We are speaking now on behalf of collective sincerity; this is a collective approach.
The words I have suggested would merely mean that a man who is prescribed an appliance as part of the treatment of the disease for which he went to hospital, would not have to pay for it merely because the appliance was not supplied until after he had left the hospital. I suggest, Sir Charles, that you might perhaps consider whether you would accept a manuscript Amendment on that point. It may be that you will consider this after hearing——

§ The Deputy-Chairman
If the hon. Member submits his Amendment in writing, I will look at it. In any case, of course, it could not be moved until after the Motion "That the words proposed to be left out," had been negatived.

§ Mr. Alport (Colchester)
The only reason which prompts me to suppose that there was some error in the argument put before the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) was the immediate agreement which his views received from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale). It struck me particularly that the hon. Member's constitutional theories were obviously at fault. It may be that his logic in this matter is equally at fault, and when I heard him taking to task his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government for narrowing down the scope of the subsection, and then heard him solemnly propose an Amendment which would narrow down the scope of the subsection a good deal further, I thought that possibly he was becoming a little confused.

§ Mr. L. Hale
My Amendment does not narrow down the subsection at all—it extends it. It extends it, quite clearly, to people who get their appliances after leaving hospital. That is the only effect which it has.

§ Mr. Alport
It has that effect, I agree, but as far as I can see—I may have misinterpreted the purpose of the Amendment which the hon. Member read out——

§ Mr. Hale
The hon. Member has misinterpreted it.

§ Mr. Alport
—it would exclude those who were chronically sick in hospital——

§ Mr. Hale
No.

§ Mr. Alport
—and would apply only to that category to which my hon. Friend referred: that is, to those who were to receive dentures or spectacles as part of their treatment.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, that as the matter stands, it is impossible to ensure that those who really need and deserve spectacles as part of their treatment—or, indeed, for any other reason of principle that may be advanced either from this side or from the other side of the Committee—should get those spectacles. My hon. Friend says that the matter becomes a gamble—it depends upon the efficiency either of the dental mechanics concerned with the production of dentures, or of the opticians concerned with the production of spectacles.
If, as might quite easily happen, there were a considerable decrease in the speed with which, for instance, spectacles were being produced—as a result, say, of rearmament—then it might happen that the Amendment which the Government propose would have no effect whatever. I cannot believe that that was their intention when they put it forward. It does not get to the heart of the problem of definition.
The real problem, as I see it, is to define the meaning of "resident in a hospital." What does this term mean in the context of the subsection? Does it mean chronically ill? Does it mean those who are resident for a fortnight, or three months, or three years? If it is to apply equally to everyone who enters hospital, and if this is the definition of "resident," it will leave it open for anybody who is lucky enough, not only to be examined whilst in hospital for his teeth and to have them extracted, but to be examined whilst he is there for spectacles and to get them. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Amendment.
1610 I feel that the reason why we have the Amendment in this form is that the Parliamentary Secretary, when this question was put to him from these benches during our earlier debates on the Committee stage, improvised, not knowing the answer, and then had to produce an Amendment which conforms as nearly as possible to the answer he gave to the Committee. Not only is that most unsatisfactory, but it is adding to the anomalies which already exist in the Bill.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
I want to deal with the application of the Amendment and the Clause to Scotland. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not present, but perhaps the Minister of Health will be able to deal with this point. When the Clause was under discussion during the earlier Committee stage, the Secretary of State for Scotland justified the charges for dentures under the Clause by the argument that there had been a very considerable and sensational rise in the supply of dentures in Scotland. Hon. Members who were then present will remember that I put some questions to my right hon. Friend about those figures. I suggest that if they are wrong, the argument of my right hon. Friend was wrong.
The argument of the Secretary of State for Scotland, as I understand it, was that the cost of dentures had gone up considerably in the first quarter of this year. I quoted from figures from the report of the Department of Health dealing with dental treatment, which showed that far from a rise in the first quarter of this year, there was actually a considerable decrease.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That may be so, but the hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the Amendment.

§ Mr. Hughes
If you will allow me to expand my case a little, Sir Charles—I will not take up much time—you will understand it is a problem that I should like to have cleared up. If the figures of the Secretary of State for Scotland were correct, that would make a difference to our understanding of the Clause.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We are not dealing with the Clause but with an Amendment.

§ Mr. Hughes
We are dealing, as I understand it, Sir Charles, with an Amendment to the Clause. During the week-end I have checked these figures in the county of Ayr and I find that they completely contradict the argument of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which would influence me in the way I would view the Amendment. Far from a sensational increase in the cost of dentures in the county of Ayr, I find that for the first quarter of this year there was a decrease of £18,618. If this is right, then the whole argument brought forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland to justify the figures in the Clause disappears.

§ Mr. Iain MacLeod
This Amendment came as a surprise to some of us after the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer). It is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment and it was clear from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, that, whether desirable or not, it will normally reduce the value of subsection (2) of Clause 1. I find it surprising that the Government, which reacted with considerable sympathy to the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Tottenham, should have so soon and deliberately marched firmly in the opposite direction. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Tottenham would create more anomalies than the Bill itself. There was certainly truth in that. We knew when we were debating that Amendment that additional anomalies would be created, but precisely the same objection can be made to the Amendment now before the Committee. There is no question that a number of anomalies would be created as a direct result of this Amendment.
It is now proposed that the exemption under subsection (2) should be only in effect for those chronically sick. But last Wednesday a very different story was told from the Front Bench. I will quote a word or two from the Parliamentary Secretary: I want to make quite clear that it will apply to any patient under the hospital service who is resident in hospital, whether he is there for a short period or for a longer one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1298.] I need not labour the point, but merely say that we have gone a very long way and, in my view, a long way backwards, 1612 as a result of the Amendment now before the Committee.
I want to raise one other slightly different consideration. That is the question, which I have not heard answered, of what is a hospital. The question of what is a hospital is not defined in this Bill, and if we read it as defined in the 1946 Bill, we find an extremely wide definition. I will not read it all, but there it is said to mean: any institution for the reception and treatment…and any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or persons requiring medical rehabilitation, and includes clinics, dispensaries and out-patient departments and so on. If that definition is implied in this Amendment, we shall have very considerable difficulty reasonably to apply the suggestion put forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) called it a gamble, and so it is. It is a gamble whether the appliance will be finished in time, a gamble whether the appliance needed—and this is of the first importance—is one easily obtainable or not. We have of course the very difficult position in which an appliance may be specially needed, a particular form of bifocal glasses, for instance, which take longer to supply and may, therefore, because of the length of time which such special appliances take to supply, not be available by the time the person leaves hospital. Also, no doubt, it is a regional gamble, for supplies of these appliances vary considerably in different parts of the country.
I do not propose to enter what is to a large extent a private war on the other side of the Committee, but I do say that beyond any doubt at all, the Government, who have attempted to define in this matter, have only succeeded in narrowing.

§ Mr. Messer (Tottenham)
I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), but I do agree with him about this Amendment. Although I suppose I have not very much influence, if I were able I would go to any length to persuade the Minister to withdraw his Amendment. I can only see difficulties arising from it. It would appear that there is an intention in the Amendment, but it is difficult to understand how that intention can be carried out without greater difficulties arising as a result of it I would prefer 1613 to see the Bill in its original form, and such difficulties as may be inherent in it, dealt with administratively.
4.45 p.m.
Anyone who knows the sheaves of circulars, memoranda, instructions, directions and advices that the administrative body receive from the Ministry, would realise that there is very little the Minister cannot do by administrative action, unless strictly prevented by the Act itself. When we get to the position where so much depends on the particular circumstances of the case as to what should be done, it is properly a matter for administration.
What is going to happen if the Amendment is carried? It may well be that somebody suffering from a condition is advised by a general practitioner to go to a hospital and there they say, "We will have to draw your teeth, but you are the type of case we cannot ask to go to a dental surgeon; it is necessary for you to come into hospital to have it done." If they merely want their teeth out they can have their dentures supplied later and, under the proposed manuscript Amendment, such a patient would get away with it. Under the Amendment they would have to remain in hospital until the dentures were supplied, although the dentures are part of the treatment of the condition.
One has sympathy with the long-term case which would be covered by the Amendment, but what type of case would be in hospital when there is the examination of the mouth and then that very long period before the teeth are delivered? There would be very few to benefit from that, but there might be particular types of cases of those who go into hospital, have teeth out and are then discharged and go back to work. They would get an advantage over others.
These things cannot be dealt with by Act of Parliament and one of the difficulties of Acts of Parliament determining treatment of this description is the rigidity of the law. Someone has to be vested with a measure of discretion and an Act of Parliament is an instrument which does not itself imply discretion, unless there is power given to certain bodies to use it. I suggest that the Minister should withdraw the Amendment, let the Bill stand as it is and consider by what administrative 1614 means he can deal with the difficulties which will arise.
I make no apology for having moved an Amendment which created further anomalies. I think the simplest way out, would be to withdraw the Amendment altogether and have everyone treated alike. Strictly speaking I cannot see why someone who is ill at home should not get the benefit which people get when they are ill in hospital. The only way of dealing with these things is to have that degree of elasticity which can be vested in the administrative machine. I beg the Minister, if he does not want to make things more difficult for those managing the job, to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
It might be as well if I intervened at this point, because it seems to me that there are one or two matters which have been raised by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite which should be taken into account. The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) raised the question of what the position would be of a dentist brought in from outside, presumably someone under contract under the National Health Service. If he were under contract under the National Health Service, even though he might not be full-time but only part-time in the hospital, I understand that the position would be that he could provide the service required.

§ Dr. Hill
Under Part II?

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
Part II applies to the hospital itself and to the patient in the hospital. We realise perfectly well the anomalies created as between the patient who is diagnosed for treatment which includes a set of dentures and gets them fitted while in hospital, and one who gets them fitted after he has left hospital and is at home. Then, of course, if we consider the further Amendment suggested in manuscript by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), we find a further anomaly, and no doubt he had this in mind, as between the person who had been in hospital and had received his dentures, completely free, at home, and someone else, living next door, who had been at home all the time and who had received dentures for which a charge was made.

§ Mr. Leslie Hale
Let us have this point quite clear. That anomaly is created either by the original Clause or the Minister's Amendment. It has nothing to do with my Amendment. My object was to clear up one obvious anomaly and not to create another.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
I am trying to point out that, having made it possible for someone at home, but who had been in hospital, to secure completely free dentures, my hon. Friend would no doubt take the opportunity of insisting on the stupidity of having done that and of leaving out the person who was at home throughout the period of his treatment.
In view of the comments which have been made, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) during the discussion on this Amendment, which we have put down quite sincerely as an effort to try to get greater clarification, we feel, on balance, that it might be as well to accept the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and for us to withdraw the Amendment and leave the proposal as it stands in the Bill. As I explained, the Bill as it Stands does, in our view, make quite clear the position that any dentures supplied while a patient was in hospital would be free even though his period of stay might have been very short. In view of the comments both of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, I suggest that, by leave of the Committee, I should withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston)
The anomaly that has been created is only a small one compared with the many anomalies which the Bill is creating. While the Minister may withdraw the Amendment, I can only say that to my mind what has happened here is most discreditable. Members have referred to the speeches made in last Wednesday's debate on the Clause about just this type of case that we have tried today to rectify. It shows the mean and contemptible frame of mind—some one was going to get through in the process, and then there was to be a re-examination to make sure that if possible no one got through by any process—that is shown all through the Bill.
Even though the Minister is withdrawing this Amendment, it is not because of any generosity on his part. It is 1616 only because he sees that the whole thing is so unworkable—that a patient going into hospital with stomach trouble, whose teeth are taken out on doctors' orders, would be deprived of free teeth if he went home before the dentures were ready. Although this Amendment is withdrawn, it has shown all through that mean contemptible kind of attitude, and it is shown right through the whole of the Bill.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)
I am sure that by this time the Minister is asking to be saved from his friends. The result of a great deal of talk on the occasion when we last considered this Measure was that the Minister brought forward an Amendment. His hon. Friends, having examined it, say that it is not satisfactory to them, and they ask that the Amendment should be withdrawn, whereupon the Minister asks leave to withdraw it, leaving all the anomalies of which his hon. Friends originally complained. All of those anomalies are still in the Bill. The whole of that long argument was a beating of the air and meant nothing at all. Hon. Members say: Sooner than accept the Amendment we resile from the position we urged with so much length and eloquence on the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed they did.

§ Mr. Messer
Does the right hon. and gallant Member mean that it is giving way, if an alternative suggestion, which is worse than the original one, is offered, to say that we will have the better of the two?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Surely it is giving way, if after all the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and the rest, they now lie down to the whole thing and say, "Let us have the Bill as it stood"——

§ Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)
No.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Yes. The hon. Lady who makes rebel speeches and then votes for the question, has no locus standi in this matter. I can sympathise with the fighting rebels and with the sitting rebels, but the rebels who rebel and then vote for what they rebel against, have really no place in this discussion at all.
The Minister is now in the position of remaining completely the master of the 1617 stricken field. All the arguments brought forward have gone for nothing. Hon. Members say, "In spite of the mean and contemptible attitude of the Minister, we hand over all this power entirely to him. Parliament cannot define anything, ought not be asked to define anything, is not to be asked to define anything but the same people against whom we launched these denunciations are the people to whom we leave the authority." I hope those hon. Members are proud of the result of their efforts.

§ Mrs. Braddock
I had intended to leave the matter where it was, until the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) made a washerwoman's speech about it. There is no question that in the case of the Amendment which is now being withdrawn we are submitting to any of the proposals suggested to which we take exception. We have taken the steps that we thought necessary to draw the attention of the Minister to what we considered would be the inability to administer this Clause. The suggestion in the Amendment would make its administration more difficult than ever. Now that proposal is being withdrawn, we still say that it is almost impossible to administer this matter on the basis of the Clause as it will be without the Amendment.
The hospital service is experiencing difficulty over beds, and the question of deciding who is going to remain in hospital or who shall obtain the dentures under this Clause by remaining in hospital is still one that requires a good deal of administrative explanation. Many of the matters referred to which might have been discussed if consideration of this Amendment had been continued, have never yet been answered by the Government Front Bench. The anomalies which this Bill creates, and the difficulties which the Bill will create have been raised in debate, but the points have never been answered. We shall require answers when regulations are made dealing with matters arising out of the Bill.

§ Mr. Leslie Hale
I wish to reply to the unnecessary and unprovoked attack made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), which showed clearly that he has not heard the discussion to which both sides of the Committee have contributed, or, if he has, that he has completely 1618 misunderstood it. The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) might have the right to resent the remarks made by his right hon. and gallant Friend because the hon. Member for Luton first put to the Committee the point now accepted at the request of almost everyone on both sides of the Committee who has spoken.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been in this House for a long time but he does not appear to understand the Rules of the House. We have had the Bill re-committed to us in Committee and we are discussing only the Amendment which is before the Committee. We can discuss only that, and the only question before the Committee is whether we accept the Minister's Amendment. Scotland is famous for its bracken but the right hon. and gallant Member seems to be aspiring to be called the Brendan of the North, without the ability to sustain that modest part. Every Member who has spoken has merely suggested that, on the whole, this Amendment would have meant a limitation of the benefits of the Clause. I desire to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for taking the course he has indicated. I appreciate it.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
One has now and again to correct the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), who has the reputation of speaking faster than anybody in the House and thinking slower. The fact is that we are now dealing with an Amendment brought forward by the Minister to deal with objections raised by hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) drew attention to the difficulties which this Amendment would create, as indeed he did on previous stages of the Bill. But it was hon. Members opposite who made all the fuss about this matter and eventually forced a Division on the Clause itself. The result of all their talk is, as I say, that the Minister remains master of the field, all the talk has gone for absolutely nothing and the hon. Member for Oldham, West, thanks the Minister as a result.