HC Deb 02 May 1960 vol 622 cc693-4
27. Sir J. Smyth

asked the Minister of Health what is the estimated cost of his proposal to replace the single-seater motor tricycles provided for war disabled pensioners by small two-seater cars; and what would be the additional cost of extending this scheme by legislation to the industrially injured and National Health Service patients with equivalent disabilities.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I estimate that the additional capital cost of the proposals I announced on 4th April will be about £200,000 and that the additional maintenance cost will be about £80,000 a year over the years. To provide small cars instead of powered tricycles to National Health Service patients, including the industrially injured, with equivalent disabilities, over a period long enough to enable full use to be made of the tricycles already issued would involve an addi- tional capital cost of at least £2½ million and, when supply was complete, an additional maintenance cost of about £1 million a year.

Sir J. Smyth

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the very helpful action which has been taken for the war disabled. Will he now clarify the position of National Health Service patients? The Parliamentary Secretary has consistently replied to questions on this subject by saying that she was debarred by the terms of the Act from treating such people in the same way as the war disabled. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what Section of the Act provides that insuperable barrier?

Mr. Walker-Smith

I do not think that my hon. Friend has ever said that it was an insuperable barrier. What she has done, with her customary candour and conscientious clarity, has been to point out that there is a possible legal difficulty which relates to the question whether a small car which can take passengers and which can be driven by somebody else can properly be said to come within the wording of Section 3 (1, b) of the National Health Service Act, that is to say, within: medical, nursing and other services required at or for the purposes of hospitals… That is the point of the legal difficulty. It is not an insuperable difficulty for Parliament, because, if it were necessary so to do, it would be possible at some time to amend the statutory provision.