HC Deb 23 May 1952 vol 501 cc842-9

Amendment made: In page 2, line 36, at end, add: (2) This Act (except subsection (2) of section two) shall come into force three months after the passing of this Act; and the said subsection (2) shall come into force on the passing of this Act.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

11.14 a.m.

Mr. Reeves

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

In view of the fact that there are two Bills to follow this one, I do not propose to occupy the time of the House, except for a few minutes, on this Motion. I have every confidence that the House will approve of the Bill being read the Third time.

A number of people have felt that the Act of 1902 was getting out-of-date, and the Home Secretary appointed an Inter-Departmental Committee to go into the question in May, 1947. A good deal of research work was undertaken and many of the proposals of that Committee have now been embodied in the Bill.

I should like to say that I have received from the officials of the Home Office every assistance in the preparation of the Bill. I am very grateful to them for their kindness and patience in helping me in my amateur attempt to produce a Bill of this kind. I am also indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for his kindness in assisting me during the various stages of the Bill. I am sure that his help has expedited the passage of the Bill and has resulted in a very much better Bill than was originally drafted. I am very pleased to have been associated with him during the various stages of the Bill.

11.16 a.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton (Batley and Morley)

I beg to second the Motion.

Although it is a small Bill I think that it will serve a very useful purpose. I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) on having introduced this Bill, and on having piloted it so successfully through its stages up to the Third Reading. I hope that it will receive a sympathetic passage in another place, and soon be on the Statute Book.

I have read the Bill with care, and I found it interesting. A Clause which, think, is important is Clause 3 (1), which reads: The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make regulations prescribing the fees which may be charged in 'respect of the issue of any medical certificate required under section seven of the Cremation Act, 1902. I was not on the Committee which considered this Bill. Therefore, I hope that I may be forgiven if I now ask the Joint Under-Secretary a few questions, and express some of my views on this particular part of the Bill. I have read the OFFICIAL. REPORT of the Committee stage, and I gather from that that my professional colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) were then not very happy about the form of words used in this subsection.

They held the view, which I share with them, that it would be desirable for the Home Secretary to state what should be the maximum fee for medical certificates required for cremation. I think that the maximum fee should be stated to protect the public from being overcharged. At the same time, while there should be, in my submission, an upper limit which cannot be exceeded, I think that doctors should be permitted to charge what they choose within that upper limit. Some doctors may wish to charge reduced fees in certain cases. There may be cases of poor families when the doctor wishes to charge no fee at all. I think that it should be left to the doctor's discretion as to what the fee should be within the maximum prescribed. I should like the assurance of the Under-Secretary that this will be done.

The next point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House concerns the word, "may." The subsection states that the Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing these fees. Is it possible for us to have an assurance that the Home Secretary will prescribe the maximum fees? I ask that because I think that the public should be defended against any possibility of excessive charges.

A short time ago, I received a letter from a constituent of mine, complaining about the high cost of dying. He wrote about the price of coffins and the cost of burial or cremation and went so far as to ask whether it would not be possible for an inquiry to be held into the general expenses of a funeral. Certainly, heavy expenses do fall on the bereaved. For the sake of the bereaved and also for the good name of the medical profession, I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that the maximum fee will be prescribed to prevent any possibility of exorbitant fees being demanded. If this upper limit is not fixed, I fear that there is some danger of excessive demands being made.

I wish to draw attention to a case which is not immediately related to the Bill but it will illustrate the importance of prescribing a maximum fee. I had a letter dated 5th May, 1952, from a schoolmaster friend of mine who wrote that for two or three years the proprietor of a small garage had been suffering from chest trouble for which his doctor had been treating him. The patient understood he was suffering from bronchial asthma. As his condition was deteriorating, the doctor arranged for him to be seen by a consultant, who advised an operation.

I agree, Mr. Speaker, that this has not much to do with the Bill, but I mention it so that the House can appreciate the background of the case before I draw attention to the matter of fees. The patient was told that if he had his operation under the National Health Service he would have to wait 18 months for a bed. The man therefore decided to be treated as a private patient, and he underwent his operation. The letter I received from my friend says: What infuriates me is that he has had to pay altogether well over £200, and a very fat slice went to the surgeon.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is getting too far beyond the scope allowed on the Third Reading of a Bill. We are dealing with cremation. I do not think an operation necessarily results in cremation.

Dr. Broughton

I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that an operation does not necessarily result in cremation. I merely mention this case to illustrate the importance of fixing a maximum fee for professional services, and I hope I have succeeded in making that point.

I understand that a scale of fees is laid down for solicitors, and so there is nothing unprofessional or unethical about it. Can the Under-Secretary give an assurance that the maximum fee for a cremation certificate will be prescribed by the Home Secretary? I assume that in deciding upon the fee the Minister will consult representatives of the medical profession. I have already stressed the importance of prescribing a fee in order to protect the public, and I urge that the figure should be a fair and reasonable one in order to do justice to the medical profession.

Doctors who fill in medical certificates for cremation undertake a heavy responsibility. Two certificates have to be completed before the form goes to the medical referee. One certificate is completed by the medical practitioner who has been in charge of the case and the second by a medical practitioner who has had at least five years' experience in his profession.

The first certificate may be filled in by a doctor who has been qualified for only a short time. While the responsibility in that case is heavy, the responsibility in connection with the second certificate is far greater. It might be worth while for the Minister to consider prescribing two fees, the fee for the second certificate being higher than that for the first. I am sure the Minister will not make up his mind on this alone but will consult representatives of the medical profession.

I wonder if the Minister has yet come to an agreement with representatives of the medical profession about the size of the fees? Have consultations started, and, if they have, has any decision yet been reached? I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary would be good enough to answer my questions.

11.25 a.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Part of the speech of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) was really the penultimate paragraph before we come to the Bill. It is a pity that the final paragraph has to be written in the final journey of life that brings us to the Bill, but there it is.

The passage of the Bill through the House is a tribute to the procedure of the House. We have had interesting discussions upon it. A sympathetic Joint Under-Secretary has shepherded the Bill through, and the result is that it is here in good time. I hope it will have a speedy passage through another place.

Clause 1 is a very good Clause. It is right to have it placed clearly on record that the Minister of Local Housing and Government must certify the siting of such buildings as these. They must be put in the right place and it must be the over-riding authority of the Minister responsible for planning to see that they are properly sited. That part of the Bill is particularly good, and the sooner it comes into operation the better it will be from every point of view.

I support the hon. Member for Batley and Morley in the hope that some means will be found of keeping the cost as reasonable as possible. Whether or not it can be done by incorporating a maximum I do not know, but I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will treat the suggestion with sympathy. We want to be assured that the cost of cremation will be such that it will encourage people to take advantage of it. If it can be done by putting in a maximum price, that will be the easier and simpler way. If that cannot be done, I should like my hon. Friend to use his powers to see that prices are reasonable.

We congratulate all who have taken part in the Committee stage of the Bill and express the hope that the Bill will soon be in full operation.

11.29 a.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) on the success which has attended his efforts to get the Bill this far on its journey towards the Statute Book. It is a subject in which he has taken an interest for a considerable time. The fact that the previous Act on the subject was passed 15 years ago indicates that there was some need for the law to receive attention.

I am particularly glad that this Measure has had so easy a passage through the House, because it is the result of the deliberations of a Committee which I appointed when I was Home Secretary, and I should like to pay a tribute to the work done by Mr. Strutt, one of the officials of the Home Office, who acted as Chairman of the Committee and who brought to this task all the tact and discretion for which he is well known, at any rate inside the Home Office. I congratulate him upon having found a Member of Parliament, like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, willing and ready to undertake the task of putting the Measure on the Statute Book.

I hope there will be no difficulty with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) about Clause 3. Surely there are many scales of fees which are prescribed and which say, "A sum not exceeding. …" I sincerely hope that that may be the case with this Measure. My hon. Friend said Solicitors were allowed to charge prescribed fees in certain cases. When I was a young man there was a story about a solicitor who was charged with making unprofessional charges, it being alleged that he had not charged as much as the prescribed scale authorised. It is said that his answer was, "I took as much as the fellow had, and surely I could not have done anything more professional than that." I hope that when my hon. Friend's profession see the maximum charges they will not follow a similar line of conduct.

Undoubtedly, the subject of cremation deserves more public attention than it sometimes gets. One must face the fact that there are certain people who have strong religious scruples on this matter, but clearly, for others, this is undoubtedly a very sanitary method of dealing with the problems which death creates in the community. I know of nothing more melancholy than to go through a churchyard which has been disused for several years. It is almost a cynical reflection on one's attitude towards human life and people who have lived in the past to see the neglected and overgrown state of some of these places which were once acres where the affections and memories of people lingered.

I hope that the passing of this Measure will lead to an extension of the practice of cremation among those sections of the community which are not inhibited by religious scruples. If my hon. Friend's Bill does anything in that direction, I am sure it will be of benefit to the community at large. I congratulate him on the success he has had, and I sincerely hope that this Measure will reach the Statute Book.

11.33 a.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I shall deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). In the course of the Committee stage, I said that it was certainly the desire of the Government that the fees which were to be prescribed should be maximum fees. The question was raised in Committee, and I have checked up on the point; and I can assure the House that the fees will be maximum fees and that it will be open to a doctor to charge a lower fee in appropriate circumstances.

The hon. Member for Batley and Morley asked for an assurance that the Home Secretary would implement Clause 3 by prescribing. I think that on a moment's reflection he will realise that it is necessary to make the Clause permissive, because it is obviously desirable, if possible, not to compel doctors but to reach agreement with them as to what will be an appropriate maximum fee to be charged. Indeed, the hon. Member himself indicated that when he asked whether the Home Secretary would consult the doctors before prescribing the fees.

The position is that discussions have been started, but clearly it is not possible for them to be brought to fruition until the Bill is on the Statute Book. I hope and believe that it will be possible to reach an agreement and that no regulations will be necessary, therefore, because the agreement will be binding and satisfactory to everybody concerned.

Before parting with the Bill, may I say that I agree with all that was said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). In particular, I want to join with him in congratulating the officials who made this Bill possible and also the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves), who was the promoter of the Bill and who has piloted it through with such skill and grace, if those words are applicable to such a Bill as this. Perhaps I might add that it may be appropriate that the last words on the Bill in the House should be uttered by the Member who includes Golders Green in his constituency.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.