HC Deb 21 March 1940 vol 358 cc2143-5W
Sir E. Graham-Little

asked the Minister of Health why a distinction is made between the English and the Scottish representatives on the Committee of Consultant Advisers to the Emergency Hospital Service, seeing that the latter give their services without payment and the former do not?

Mr. Elliot

I think there must be some misapprehension. There is no committee of consultant advisers. The information which I gave in reply to my hon. Friend on 8th February expressly related only to England and Wales. I am satisfied that the time which the consultant advisers in England and Wales are required to give to their duties is such as fully to justify the payments made to them. The arrangements made in Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Groves

asked the Minister of Health what types of first-aid post medical officers are to be exempted from the payment of £75 a year, recently announced; and why the distinction is to be made?

Mr. Elliot

I am not aware that any particular type of medical officer is excepted from the payment referred to. The local authorities, who are responsible in the first instance for the staffing arrangements of first-aid posts, are authorised to make the payment in respect of each post in the more vulnerable areas as specified in Part III of the Civil Defence Act, in consideration of the performance of certain specified duties.

Mr. Groves

asked the Minister of Health whether emergency mobile surgical teams, to operate wherever needed, have been organised in England as well as in Scotland?

Mr. Elliot

Yes, Sir, these teams, which are essential in order to secure the necessary economy in medical personnel, have been organisd in both countries.

Mr. Groves

asked the Minister of Health whether persons injured in air raids, but not actually admitted to hospital, will be entitled to treatment by medical practitioners at the rate of 16s. a year?

Mr. Elliot

Such persons, if they have received out-patient treatment at a hospital, are entitled to further treatment under the conditions of the scheme, as set out in the memorandum already sent to the hon. Member.

Mr. Groves

asked the Minister of Health whether a medical practitioner will be entitled to refuse to attend an air raid casualty bringing the required certificate from a hospital on the ground that the individual casualty is well able to afford normal fees for his treatment?

Mr. Elliot

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question on this subject on 4th March, from which he will see that the scheme referred to is not binding on any individual practitioner.

Mr. Groves

asked the Minister of Health whether the services to be provided by medical practitioners for air raid casualties at 16s. a year will include psychological treatment?

Mr. Elliot

Subject to the conditions set out in the published memorandum already sent to the hon. Member the scheme to which he refers covers any domiciliary medical attention which is required as the result of the air raid injury.

Mr. Groves

asked the Minister of Health whether air-raid casualties, provided with the necessary hospital certificate, will have free choice of doctor for their subsequent treatment; and what steps he proposes to take if there is no doctor available who is willing to undertake the treatment for 16s. a year?

Mr. Elliot

As to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Questions on this subject on 4th March. I do not think that any steps are required to meet the situation suggested in the second part, which is, I hope, unlikely to arise, having regard to the acceptance of the scheme by representatives of the great majority of doctors concerned.

Mr. Groves

asked the Minister of Health whether the acceptance of 16s. in respect of the treatment of an air-raid casualty will create conditions which will prevent the particular casualty seeking the advice of another doctor, except at his own expense, if the services of the doctor accepting the 16s. should be no longer available or should be no longer agreeable to the patient?

Mr. Elliot

If the doctor accepting the fee is no longer available the patient will no doubt have the advantage of whatever arrangements are made for carrying on the practice. I am not satisfied that any other special arrangements are required to meet the other contingency mentioned by the hon. Member.