§ 1 Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out "five" and insert "seven"
§ The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
§ 2 Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2. This Amendment was considered at length both here and in another place. When we discussed it, I did not advance the Reason to which the Commons have now drawn attention, that of privilege. Perhaps I should have reminded your Lordships that as the effect of Amendment No. 1 would have been to increase the expenses of the Health Services Board to the Exchequer, the size of the Board is very much a matter affecting the privilege of the Commons. I do not think that there is any need for me to say anything more, other than that the Commons Reason is that this would involve charges on the public funds and that the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that their Reason may be deemed sufficient by your Lordships.
§ Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which 1694 the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, I suppose that the only thing that can be said on this matter is that we should congratulate the Government on having thought up this Reason which was not produced during the Committee or the Report stages. We shall of course accept what has been said, but I am bound to comment that, on the question of the use of public funds, if one considers the amount of money that will be lost to the National Health Service by the phasing out of pay beds and the terrible loss to teaching and research which will be a tragedy for the country, I find it extraordinary that it should be thought that there could be financial reason for not having two extra members of the Board.
§ On Question, Motion agreed [...].