INCREASE IN BORROWING POWERS OF GENERAL PRACTICE FINANCE CORPORATION (Hansard, 2 May 1984)

§ The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 61, 71 and 107.

§ Mr. Clarke
The new clause and consequential amendments are necessary to extend the borrowing limits of the General Practice Finance Corporation to enable it to continue with its valuable work.
The General Practice Finance Corporation is a nonprofit making, entirely self-supporting, independent body controlled by eight members appointed by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Social Services. It was established in 1966 with all-party support—which it has retained — to make loans available to family doctors working in the National Health Service to provide and improve surgery accommodation for their patients. There is still great scope for improvement in the accommodation from which doctors are obliged to provide the family doctor service to patients. The loans play a valuable part in ensuring the steady improvement of the quality of the stock. General medical practitioners are independent contractors, responsible for providing surgery premises. The corporation provides one of the most valuable sources of finance for that purpose.
The borrowing powers have been fixed by statute and amended by regulations over the years. They currently stand at £100 million after a decision of the House on a statutory instrument on 9 April. If the corporation continues to receive loan applications at the current rates, the increse to £100 million will allow it only to continue with its activities to about December 1985. The new clause is being introduced to avoid any possibility of the corporation being unable to enter into new business after that date. The new limits will enable the corporation to continue its work well into the 1990s.
As I said when we debated the statutory instrument recently, there has been a review of the corporation, and we have examined that method of financing improvements to the surgeries of family doctors. As a result, my Treasury colleagues and myself are fully satisfied that it is an effective and cost-effective way to enable doctors to carry out those improvements, from which doctors and patients 366 throughout the country benefit. I commend the new clause and consequential amendments to the House so that that work may continue.

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)
Not starting off as we mean to continue throughout the whole proceedings, it is safe to say that the Opposition welcome the proposal in the new clause. We welcome the extension of funds to the General Practice Finance Corporation, and we recognise the continuing need to improve doctors' premises.
We note that the work of the corporation has been reviewed by the Government. It is a matter of regret that when I asked the Minister to publish the evidence on which they had conducted their review he said that he could not do so because it had been supplied—presumably by the merchant banks in the City—on on a confidential basis. That is understandable because the evidence clearly would embarrass the Government.
In an era in which the DHSS is busily privatising, it appears that it cannot privatise a public sector bank designed to lend money to doctors. That shows that, even at its heart of money lending, the City is incapable of providing money for socially useful purposes such as improving general practitioners' premises. However, it is quite capable of raising money to invest abroad, or in pornography, video nasties or—in deference to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)—in glue produced in such a way that it lends itself to glue sniffing. The City can do all that and many other things, but it cannot provide the funds necessary to improve doctors' premises.
That fact was recognised a long time ago, and the Government's review has confirmed it. We welcome the recognition by the extremely ideological Government that there is a public sector function for a public sector bank to continue to provide the funds necessary for doctors.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, he sought desperately for and found a slight note of controversy in his comments about the proposal, even though he supported it. In case he misleads himself, I must tell him that private banks have increasingly come into this area in recent years. It is precisely because many doctors were having recourse to borrowing from the bank that we held a review to decide whether there was a continuing role for the corporation. We are satisfied that there is a role for both methods, and that is an advantage to doctors, patients and taxpayers. It shows what a flexible and non-ideological Government we are. The hon. Gentleman should have confined himself to supporting our proposal.