| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.20 pm
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): There have been several health debates, and we will welcome others whenever the opportunities arise.
This morning the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) referred to the three cases of E. coli 0157 in Edinburgh. I extend my sympathies to the patients and families concerned, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's three constituents make a speedy and full recovery. The hon. Gentleman has had the benefit of a briefing from the local consultant in public health medicine and the deputy chief medical officer at the Scottish Office, so he should be familiar with the up-to-date facts.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the latest cases have been taken seriously by Lothian Health and by the city of Edinburgh council environmental health department. Urgent investigations are in hand to identify the source. As a precautionary measure, a butcher in Leith, from whose premises all three patients bought cold meat, has agreed to close his shop. Anyone who had bought cold meat products from the shop since 10 February was advised through a press release last night to dispose of them. A helpline has been established to give advice to anyone who is worried about the situation.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been delays in informing the public. The first case was confirmed on 20 February, the second on 24 February and the third yesterday, and action was taken to investigate each case as it occurred. It was possible to identify a likely common source only after all three cases were studied, which is what occurred. As soon as the possible source was identified, immediate steps were taken to inform the public in the way that I have outlined.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the implementation of the interim Pennington report. I assure him that the comprehensive action announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretry of State to the House on 15 January is well in hand. Although the debate is not about E. coli, I shall mention some of the on-going action.
First, a consultation paper on selective licensing of premises handling raw and cooked meat products was issued. Secondly, a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Cairns Smith is reviewing the existing Scottish Office guidance on the investigation and control of outbreaks of food-borne disease in Scotland. Thirdly, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food is reviewing its guidance on cross-contamination.
We are also taking urgent action to improve our arrangements for surveillance, data collection and analysis. I appreciate the other points that the hon. Gentleman made, and there will be a further statement to the House as soon as the Pennington inquiry reports its final recommendations.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East):
As this is a particularly Scottish problem and Professor Pennington is one of the world's leading experts in this area, will the issue be researched properly, so that we may get to the root of the problem?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Professor Pennington recommended further work in two areas: knowledge of the prevalence in livestock of the type of E. coli that caused the central Scotland outbreak, and more accurate laboratory methods of typing E. coli strains. We are pressing ahead urgently with turning those recommendations into research projects, in consultation with the relevant research bodies, including the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. United Kingdom health departments have also initiated a programme of research, costing more than £2 million.
I must respond to the points raised in this significant debate. We have heard some good speeches. An additional £15 million was allocated to health boards on 9 December 1996 to alleviate the problem of bed blocking, and I believe that it helped considerably. The findings of the acute services planning assumptions review showed that beds were being blocked principally because of delays in care assessment processes and budgetary pressures on social care.
I have the figures for local authorities in Scotland. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) referred to the position in Edinburgh. Edinburgh's community care provision has increased by 9 per cent. this year, which is above the national average of 8.5 per cent. Substantially more resources have been allocated to community care in 1997-98.
Research shows that most elderly people wish to remain in their own homes where practicable. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked about national standards. A working group is in the process of developing national standards for nursing homes, and guidance on standards in residential care is being prepared and will be issued for consultation very soon. I am glad that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is studying the matter, and we shall respond to its report as soon as we receive it.
I assure the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) that our aim is to provide a safe, seamless service to the user, involving care and support from a multi-disciplinary team, multi-agency working and the private and voluntary sectors, in order to meet the needs of constituents. We believe that the mental illness specific grant, which includes dementia and head injury cases, is important. Some £18 million has been allocated in that area in support of 370 projects.
We believe that it is important to develop respite care, and we have increased funding to £5.1 million. We are assisting organisations such as Alzheimer's Scotland and other voluntary organisations with a grant of almost £300,000.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) raised the issue of choice of accommodation. We encourage local authorities to improve choice by increasing the number of providers. Following consultation with local authorities, we shall issue directions on information that we hope will enable them to make the best decisions. The hon. Lady mentioned the
publication of inspection reports. That is currently a matter for health boards, but there is no bar to such publication. I shall reflect upon the hon. Lady's comments. I would prefer that the maximum amount of information be made readily available, but I shall consider that point further.
The hon. Lady said that the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 does not extend to those aged over 65. It was considered that authorities should not be overburdened in the development of direct payment schemes in the first instance. However, we have undertaken to review the matter during the first year of operation. People who are already receiving direct payments will continue to do so after their 65th birthdays.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who initiated the debate, raised some extremely important matters arising out of Glenglova. Ministers have responded positively by setting up a working group comprising representatives from local authorities and the voluntary and private sectors, as well as user representatives. It has made many recommendations, but I make it clear that many of them--notably, preventing a general practitioner from being a home owner as well as a resident's GP; a single registration system of residential and nursing homes; and improving the registration system--require legislation. They also raise some complex issues.
I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that we shall make a statement next month about our intentions regarding many of the working group's recommendations and related matters. We have in hand draft guidance to authorities covering the many topics noted in the group's report, which will go out to consultation next month.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to consultation on core standards. That matter is separate from consideration of the issues arising from Glenglova. The Government have issued model guidelines for the registration and inspection of nursing homes for the elderly, for people with dementia and for those with learning disabilities. All health boards are expected to comply with the national guidance.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) raised the issue of carers and respite services, and I acknowledge the debt of gratitude that we owe them. The sums made available have increased to £5.1 million for this year.
The hon. Member for Leith mentioned charging. I can tell the House that we intend, in the near future, to issue for consultation the draft Community Care (Residential Charges) Bill, which will enable those who require residential care immediately, or who may require such care in the future, to protect more of their capital above the current disregard limit of £10,000.
We intend the Government to act in partnership with those who wish to protect their assets, and we are committed to the principle of cascading wealth within the family. The Scottish Office issued guidance to authorities on 16 January about discretionary charging--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
Order. We must move to the next topic.
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva (Brentford and Isleworth):
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to raise an important issue concerning the responsibilities of the Department of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority.
It is part of the historic traditions of the House that a Member of Parliament can raise on the Floor of the House an injustice that has befallen one of his constituents. This is just such a case.
On 15 June 1993, at 9 o'clock in the morning, my constituent, Mr. Constantinos Kashieris, was in his garden in Isleworth when a block of ice the size of a sack of potatoes fell from an aircraft. He subsequently suffered a serious injury. His general practitioner, Dr. Kaikini, of 19 Harvard road, Isleworth, reported that when Mr. Kashieris
Dr. Kaikini continued:
Now nearly in his 80s, Mr. Kashieris has been battling with the CAA and British Airways for more than three and a half years to get compensation and recognition of his injury. What has been the reaction of the CAA, which should have been more assiduous in pursuing this case? In a letter dated 15 September 1993, the CAA told him:
The CAA says that it cannot identify the offending aircraft. Of course it can. At Heathrow airport, the landing and take-off times of each aircraft, its route and guide path, are logged. National air traffic control services have a recording system to determine--the gap between each aircraft is one to one and a half minutes--which aircraft is coming or going, on which route and at what time. Additionally, because of the need for environmental protection, noise monitoring systems and microphones are placed all over the airport and its surroundings to monitor at precise times the aircraft that are flying overhead. All those aids should have been used to identify which aircraft was responsible for the block of ice.
As well as having his arm broken, my constituent has suffered from poor nerves, stress and sleepless nights since the incident. I repeat that he is an elderly gentleman nearly in his 80s. His case has been going on for the past three and a half years. The time taken to-ing and fro-ing between solicitors afterwards--all to no avail--has not helped either.
The CAA initially said that it was able to identify some 30 aircraft and that it was a British Airways flight. British Airways has denied that. The CAA should be able to identify exactly which aircraft was to blame, because the exact time of the incident was recorded by the Metropolitan police from the call that was made to report it. They have an official logged entry, recording the time the areoplane flew over Mr. Kashieris's garden in Isleworth. Just how many areoplanes could have been responsible? Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of the CAA to find out which one.
My constituent has been told that he would have to identify the aircraft before trying to claim compensation, but that is akin to telling the victim of a hit-and-run accident that the police cannot do anything to help unless the victim gives them the registration number of the car. If one is to apply commonsense logic or common law logic to this matter, to ask Mr. Kashieris to give the registration number of the aircraft, which is what the CAA is telling him--that is impossible for him to do--is absurd.
As things stand, Mr. Kashieris has been denied justice, and the same thing could happen again. How is anyone to identify an aeroplane when they have just been knocked to the ground by something that has fallen from it? I must
put on record the letter that I received from Sir Malcolm Field, chairman of the CAA, dated 4 December 1996, which is what prompted me to ask for this Adjournment debate. I was incensed by it, and by the fact that Mr. Kashieris had been battling on his own with some help from me for the past three and a half years.
The letter says:
I have also received letters from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport regarding this matter. I would argue vigorously that the Civil Aviation Authority exists not only to promote the aviation industry, but to protect the people who live around airports and who suffer injuries because of aircraft. I speak as an aeronautical engineer: I am not anti-aircraft. I am one of the few people in the House who understands the constraints and difficulties of running an airport or an airline, but I recognise that people have suffered as a consequence of living near a huge airport such as Heathrow. It brings benefits to the locality, but it also brings disbenefits.
12.30 pm
"was in the back garden of his house and was about to enter the house through the back door . . . a huge piece of ice fell off a passing aircraft and crashed on to the spot he was standing moments before."
The ice shattered.
"The shock made him jerk violently and fall against the back door, injuring his right shoulder."
All shoulder movements were limited thereafter. Mr. Kashieris
"was given a course of NSAID and was . . . referred for Physiotherapy."
As a result of persistent pain in the shoulder and limitation of movement, he was referred to
"Mr. G. E. T. Raine, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at the West Middlesex University Hospital, on the 30th of November 1993. X-ray of the right shoulder taken on 23.11.93 was reported as showing a translucent line running along the upper surface of the glenoid fossa,"
resulting in a fracture.
"Mr. Kashieris was seen by Mr. Raine on 24.12.93 confirming the limitation of the range of movements of the right shoulder. He was offered M.U.A. of the shoulder. He was reviewed again but the movements of the shoulder did not show any improvement."
Because of his complaint, he was seen again in the surgery on 27 March 1995 and 24 April 1995.
"I am pleased to advise you that our investigation is now complete.
26 Feb 1997 : Column 298
Examination of the relevant Air Traffic Services movements record identified a number of aircraft in the vicinity of Isleworth at the reported time of the event. It has now been established that one of those aircraft had a defect which could have resulted in the build-up and subsequent shedding of ice in flight. The operator has now taken appropriate action to prevent a recurrence.
The aircraft in question was a Boeing 747, registration G-AWNA, which was operating British Airways flight no. BAW218 into London Heathrow Airport on the morning of 15 June 1993. Therefore, any further correspondence regarding this event should be addressed to British Airways".
Much to my surprise, I then received a letter from British Airways on 27 February 1995, referring to Mr. Kashieris's case, saying:
"It seems that the information given in the Civil Aviation Authority's letter of 15 September 1993 is incorrect in that the CAA were referring to a fault found on one of our aircraft which arrived at Heathrow on 15 July 1993. A technical log is completed following every flight and it seems from the logs of aircraft operated by BA and in the vicinity of Isleworth at the relevant time on 15 June 1993, there is no record of any reported fault which could have caused a large block of ice to fall."
I find that very unsatisfactory. In effect, Mr. Kashieris has been told that he is not entitled to compensation because he did not note the aircraft's registration number as it passed over. That is mind boggling. Aircraft do not have their registration numbers on their undercarriage or the underside of their wings--only on their side and tail. Was Mr. Kashieris expected to carry a pair of binoculars while suffering from the shock of a large block of ice that fell near him, injuring his shoulder, to look at the aircraft's tail fin to try to get the registration number?
"Dear Mr. Deva,
Mr. Kashieris had got fed up and had tried to take the CAA to court. Sir Malcolm Field says:
Thank you for your letter of 15 November 1996 concerning your constituent, Mr. Kashieris.
The Civil Aviation Authority believes that it has done everything reasonably possible to assist your constituent in this matter and accordingly does not propose to take any further action."
"Since your constituent has commenced proceedings against the Authority in relation to this matter, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment in any more detail."
The CAA had more than three years to find out who was responsible for this accident, to enable Mr. Kashieris to obtain compensation. It did nothing except give the wrong date, the wrong time and the wrong flight when it accused British Airways of being responsible. That is not good enough.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |