HC Deb 09 December 1947 vol 445 cc927-31
The Chairman

I think it would be convenient if the four Amendments on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister were discussed together.

7.45 P.m.

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

I beg to move, in page 3, line 11 after "who," to insert: after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine. This Amendment, together with the following three Amendments, is to meet the case of the alien doctors who, although they have not served in His Majesty's Forces, have given valuable service in a civilian medical capacity overseas. As the Clause is being extended to cover civilian service, the date of 1st September, 1939, is inserted to ensure that only service during the war period shall count.

The first part of the fourth Amendment, that in page 3, line 14, provides for aliens who served with the Red Cross, the Friends Ambulance Unit, and similar bodies in co-operation with our Forces. The second part of that Amendment is intended to cover alien doctors employed as civilians who looked after the medical welfare of prisoners of war, internees, and the civilian population generally in British territories overseas, which were the scene of military operations, or territories, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, which were in enemy occupation. There may only be a few in this category, but we felt, on principle, that it was right that the claims of any such people should be recognised. The limitation which applies to doctors who settled in the United Kingdom applies to these people as well as to the others covered by the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities)

We do not propose to offer any objection to these Amendments. However, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, they do widen the Bill to some extent. In the first place, therefore, I wish to ask him if he had consultation on this point with the professional organisations concerned, because I know they thought they had been generous in opening the register to the considerable number of new entrants who will be inscribed upon it in consequence of this Bill. They wish to be sure that it will not be unduly widened by any subsequent step. I think the main case to which this Amendment refers, that of a doctor in Hong Kong, was raised during the Second Reading Debate by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). But I had some correspondence with the professional organisations thereafter, and they wished to be sure that it will not be unduly widened. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some assurance on that point.

Mr. J. Edwards

As far as I am aware, there is no difficulty with any of the professional organisations on this point. Although it may seem to be a widening, it will, in fact, cover relatively few people. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that we ought not to leave out people who have rendered quite meritorious service to us merely because they did not happen to be in the Forces. I think he may take it that there is no objection in any quarter of the profession on this point.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be churlish to niggle at admitting certain distinguished medical people simply because they had given service in one form of organisation rather than in another. I just wish to be sure that the Minister has reassured himself as to the assurance which he has just given, I understand he is able to give that assurance now with full confidence. In that case I would not delay it further. I think the general purpose of the Amendment, namely, to be sure that people are not left out simply because of some technical objection, is a sound one and that the liberality of the learned profession of medicine is displayed in their acceptance of this addition to the already considerable opening of the register to which this Bill gives effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 12, after "capacity," insert "outside the United Kingdom."

In line 14, leave out "outside the United Kingdom."

In line 14, at end, insert: or in any voluntary organisation operating in connection with any such forces, or have served in a medical capacity outside the United Kingdom for the care of British subjects or British protected persons in a place in His Majesty's dominions, a British protectorate or a country or territory under His Majesty's protection or suzerainty or in which His Majesty had for the time being jurisdiction during the carrying on of war operations in that place or its occupation by the enemy or the continuance of circumstances arising therefrom."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

I do not know how it stands in connection with this Bill, but in certain countries practitioners such as osteopaths who have diplomas are recognised and allowed to practise in those countries. I would like to know if under this Bill, and particularly under this Amendment an American osteopath, for example, who has a right to practise in his own country, and other such types who are outside the recognised medical fraternity in this country, can be included for the purposes of this Act.

Mr. House (St. Pancras, North)

I would like to deal with the same point. The Clause refers to recognition of members of the medical profession from the Commonwealth or foreign practitioners. I am not enamoured of the extension of recognised doctors in this country because I am of the opinion that they neither prevent ill health nor effectively cure disease. The facts are rather to the contrary, notwithstanding the praiseworthy opinion. I have of them socially. From a healing standpoint, I think they are falling down on their job in their use of medicines, drugs and injections and so forth. The statement here as to foreign practitioners is rather interesting because in America a qualified naturopath, that is to say, a person who follows the natural line of healing, is officially recognised. It is a crime to the health of our people in this country that such similarly qualified practitioners in this country are not recognised and that the health of the people should suffer as a consequence. I think the recognition of persons who follow the wrong line of health treatment——

Hon, Members

Order.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young)

I did not hear what the hon. Member said but I think he should remember that the point before the Committee is that the Clause should stand part and he should confine himself to that.

Mr. House

It is with that part of the Clause I wish to deal as far as practitioners are concerned. I am hoping the Clause does mean that we shall have the same standard of recognition for qualified health practitioners in this country as attains at present for medical practitioners. Doctors do not attend my family or myself, and I suffer minor illnesses frequently. I go to a qualified naturopath——

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is going outside the terms of the Clause which refers to persons who served in a medical capacity in His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. House

May I point out that the Clause refers to "a foreign practitioner"? I want to know if that practitioner means a health practitioner, that is to say, a person who is preventing ill-health and restoring good health? I think it is a very potent question indeed. After all, we need to look after the health of the people of this country and not merely to ensure qualification of persons who practise medicine. Thousands of people suffer premature death and millions unnecessarily suffer minor and serious illnesses due to the ineffectiveness of the medical profession. If this Clause does include qualified naturopaths who can effectively look after the health of the people, I agree that the Clause should stand part.

Mr. J. Edwards

I think the answer to the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. House), put simply, is "No." If the hon. Member will look at Clause 10 he will find there a definition——

Mr. Gallacher

Is it not a fact there are many osteopaths in America who during the war treated not only American but British soldiers?

Mr. Edwards

My hon. Friend need not have interrupted me in the middle of a sentence to make that point. I was saying that if my hon. Friend looks at Clause 10 he will find what this question of diplomas means. We are here not revising the right to practise medicine. We are dealing with a certain number of postwar problems arising out of the fact that we have a number of foreign doctors and pharmacists in this country who have not British, but foreign qualifications. All this Bill does is to put that right, to regularise the position and to clear up all the troubles arising from the war. There will certainly be no recognition granted to any other than those who come within the recognition of the General Medical Council as it is understood at the present time. It does not propose to do anything other than bring in the foreign doctors and put them on all fours with the others.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.