HC Deb 29 February 1960 vol 618 cc815-6
11. Dr. Glyn

asked the Minister of Health, in view of the statement contained in his Department's official circular entitled the New National Health Service, published in February, 1948, that everyone could use any part of the National Health Service, why drugs are not available to all patients, whether treated privately or under the National Health Service.

Mr. Walker-Smith

The provision of drugs cannot properly be regarded as a separate part of the National Health Service. It is an ancillary part of the general medical service and this is recognised in Section 38 of the National Health Service Act, 1946.

Dr. Glyn

While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that his Department is bound by the pamphlet which it issued stating that patients could use all or any part of the Service? Secondly, since the Service is already mixed with amenity beds where a hospital provides the right of direct access and private patients can have X-rays, is there any justification for withholding this service from the public?

Mr. Walker-Smith

If the White Paper and the circular are read as a whole, they will be seen to make the same point as is provided in Section 38 of the National Health Service Act, which is the legislative authority on this matter at presented. Briefly, subsection (1) of that Section imposes a duty on executive councils to make arrangements for the supply of drugs and medicines to people who are receiving general medical services—that is to say, those within the National Health Service—as I think my hon. Friend will see clearly if he will refresh his memory with the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 38. Therefore, any change would require fresh legislation.

Mr. K. Robinson

Does the Minister appreciate that his Answer was precisely the same as an Answer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) to a similar Question many years ago? In view of that, will he do what he can to stop these wild charges of breach of faith on the part of my right hon. Friend in the interests of this campaign for free drugs for private patients?

Mr. Walker-Smith

It is always possible, as I know very well from professional experience, for people to take different views about the interpretation of Acts of Parliament, but I should have thought that Section 38 in this context was as clear as these things can reasonably be expected to be.

Dr. Glyn

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this pamphlet, which was issued in between the Act being made law and its coming into effect, directly contradicts the Act?

Mr. Walker-Smith

No. I would not have thought so. If the pamphlet to which my hon. Friend referred is the circular, the circular was a popular document containing a paraphrase of the statutory provisions and, therefore, would not be set out with the same nicety of language as we expect in an Act of Parliament. However, I do not think that there is any contradiction beween the two.