In my judgment this reasoning does not lead to the conclusion for which the PCT contends. First, in deciding whether a service is reasonably required or is necessary to meet a reasonable requirement, the PCT is bound to have regard to the duties imposed by section 1 of the 2006 Act – see paragraph 24 to 26 of Lord Woolf’s judgment in Coughlan. It follows that the PCT must have regard to the target duty to provide a comprehensive service free at the point of delivery. Secondly in reaching a decision the PCT is bound to have regard to the NHS Constitution for the reasons already set out above. It is therefore bound to have regard to the principle that access to NHS services is based on clinical need not on an individual’s ability to pay and that a person who is otherwise eligible for treatment is entitled to receive it free of charge. Thirdly in my judgment in reaching a decision in a case such as this, the PCT is bound to have regard to and indeed to carry into effect the policy set out in the national framework document. This document established the national policy to be applied in deciding on eligibility for future healthcare. Paragraph 47 and 49 of the framework document in particular cannot support the notion that a person should not be treated as eligible by reference to the ability of the person concerned to access funding for such care from another source. Indeed, paragraph 49 of the framework document plainly contradicts such an approach. The reality is that this claimant’s need for continuing healthcare will only be removed for so long as a private package has been successfully established and implemented. Unless and until that has occurred, the principle set out in paragraph 47 of the framework document cannot apply.