S. of S. (through A.G.).
Certain general considerations arise out of your decision, and, as we have to report to the Treasury regarding the Chatham Hospital, it would be convenient to put the whole question to them. May I have your instructions on the points marked A. B. C. D. and E.?
The policy as regards the provision of Military Families Hospitals has hitherto been to establish them only at station where the garrison was out of proportion to the civilian population and civilian facilities were not, therefore, available for soldiers families, or else at stations where there were no civilian facilities at all. Thus a Military families Hospital has never been established in London, and a proposal to start one was negative by the Council two years ago.
Only families of soldiers on the Married Quarters Roll are entitled to admission to Military Families Hospitals, and then only of treatment in hospital is necessary and accommodation is available. No hospital stoppage is charged to families on the Married Quarters Roll.
Families of soldiers not on the Married Quarters Roll may be admitted to Military families Hospitals provided accommodation is available and provided that it is not required for families on the Married Quarters Roll. A charge of 1s/- a day is made.
At stations where there is no Military families Hospital families on the Married Quarters Roll may be admitted to civil hospitals at the public expense in special circumstances, which is usually interpreted as meaning when hospital treatment is necessary; but we do not provide treatment in civil hospitals for families not on the Married Quarters roll.
You have now decided that the Military Families Hospital at Chatham is to remain and that, while no increase of establishment of beds is to be made, families not on the Married Quarters roll shall have an equal right of admission with families on the Married Quarters Roll, the determining factor being urgency.
A) Is this decision intended to apply also to Shoeburyness and wool? The decision in the case of Chatham is based on the non-availability of civil hospital accommodation there, and it has not yet been established that such accommodation is not available in the neighbourhood of Shoeburyness and wool. Civilians from Wool go to the civil hospitals in Bournemouth or Dorchester.
Your decision will not increase the cost of the Families Hospital materially so long as the establishment of beds in not increased, but it will probably lead to increased expense because as it puts on an equal footing as regards hospital treatment the family not on the Married Quarters Roll and the family on the Married Quarters Roll (priority of admission being given on grounds of urgency) there is a danger that the family on the Married Quarters roll will find itself crowded out and that more families will in consequence have to be boarded out at the public expense in civil hospitals.
B) Further, if families not on the Married Quarters Roll are placed on an equal footing with families on the Married Quarters Roll as regards admission to military families hospitals, they will probably sooner or later claim to be put on an equal footing as regards medical attendance, admission to civil hospital and dental treatment. There is no logical ground for giving equal treatment as regards admission to a Military Families Hospital and refusing it as regards admission to civil hospital, medical attendance and dental treatment.
The occupation of the hospital at Chatham will not be increased by your decision, because families not on the Married Quarters Roll and already admitted to Families Hospitals provided that accommodation is available. The treasury and the Estimates Committee will doubtless comment on the expenditure of £3,000 a year for the maintenance of an average of 8 occupied beds, but we will explain this in the sense of your minute.
C) Your decision is also intended, I take it, to cover the case on 24/Southern/2500, on which file the wife of a civilian at Bovington Camp asks for the admission of her child to the Wool Military families Hospital.
D) The families of civilian employees are non-entitled persons as regards admission to Military families Hospitals and, if it is decided to admit them, they should pay the full rate of stoppage laid down, vis. 10s/- for an adult?
The admission of civilians will fill up the vacant beds and will increase the danger of Married Quarters Roll families being crowded out and having to be admitted to civil hospitals at the public expense. Further, there may be difficulty in collecting from civilians the amount due from them in respect of their treatment in our hospitals. They will expect to be treated as they would be by a civil hospital, i.e., pay nothing or as little as they can. At present civilian employees may be admitted to military hospitals under certain conditions. If their wives and children are admitted without any condition except availability of accommodation, it will mean that the families will be more favoured than the employees.
E) This is likely to create demand on the part of the employees for unconditional admission to military hospitals. Are we to concede this?
Treasury sanction will be required for the admission of families of civilian employees to military families hospitals and also for the admission of families not on the Married Quarters roll on an equal footing (with priority in case of urgency) to families on the Roll, though we do not need their sanction for admission of families not on the Married Quarters Roll where accommodation is available.
H.G.C.