| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
VOTE ON ACCOUNT 1999-2000
Class IV, Vote 1
Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,299,414,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Home Office on police; the Forensic Science Service; registration of forensic practitioners; emergency planning; fire services; the Fire Service College; criminal policy and programmes including offender programmes; the prevention of drug abuse; crime reduction and prevention; provision of services relating to the Crime and Disorder Act; criminal justice service research; criminal injuries compensation; organised and international crime; control of immigration and nationality; issue of passports; community and constitutional services; firearms compensation and related matters; and on administration (excluding the provision for prisons administration carried on Class IV, Vote 2).
Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £766, 651,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Home Office in England and Wales on prisons (including central administration and other costs arising from the detention of prisoners); placements in secure accommodation under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933; Prison Service colleges; the Parole Board; the storage and maintenance of equipment; transport management; grants to "Prisoners Abroad", and Welfare to Work Schemes.
Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £6,826,077,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Department for Education and Employment on voluntary and special schools; the Assisted Places Scheme; the provision of education for under-fives; City Colleges and other specialist schools; grant-maintained schools and schools conducted by Education Associations; music and ballet schools; the school curriculum and its assessment; the youth service and other educational services and initiatives; careers guidance and services; payments for or in connection with teacher training; higher and further education provision and initiatives; loans to students, student awards and other student grants and their administration; the payment of access funds; reimbursement of fees for qualifying European Community students; compensation payments to teachers and staff of certain institutions; expenditure on other central government grants to local authorities; the provision of training and assessment programmes for young people and adults; initiatives to improve training and qualifications arrangements and access to these; the promotion of enterprise and the encouragement of self employment; payments for education, training and employment projects assisted by the European Community and refunds to the European Community; events associated with the UK presidency of the EU; the UK subscription to the ILO; help for unemployed people; the promotion of equal opportunities, disability rights, childcare provision and co-ordination of certain issues of particular importance to women; the payment of certain fees to the Home Office; the Department's own administration and research and that of Capita; information and publicity services; expenditure via Training and Enterprise Councils and amounts retained by them as surpluses and spent by them on training; other initiatives within their articles and memoranda of association; expenditure in connection with the sale of the student loans debt; and on expenditure in connection with the Welfare to Work Programme and Millennium Volunteers.
10 Dec 1998 : Column 579
Class 1, Vote 3
- That a sum, not exceeding £782,937,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Employment Service of the Department for Education and Employment on: measures to help people, particularly people who are unemployed and people with disabilities, into work; the elements of the delivery of the Jobseeker's Allowance undertaken by the Employment Service; the administration of, and where appropriate the payment of allowances to people participating in, the Welfare to Work programme and other employment programmes, pilot programmes and new measures to help people into work; the payment of temporary subsidies to employers; the payment of grants to voluntary bodies and local authorities towards the provision of supported employment; and grant in aid and the provision of a temporary loan facility to Remploy Limited; assistance and advice on employment service and labour market issues to international organisations; research; publicity; and administration.
Class XII
- That a sum, not exceeding £22,716,706,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security.
ESTIMATES, 1998-99 (NAVY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1999 an additional number not exceeding 10 officers be maintained for Service in the Reserve Marine Forces.
Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £924,068,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges for civil services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1999, as set out in HC857 of Session 1997-98.
Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £69,610,689,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards
10 Dec 1998 : Column 580
- defraying the charges for civil and defence services in Class I, Votes 2 and 4; Classes II and III; Class IV, Vote 3; Classes V to XI; Classes XIII to XVIII; and Classes XVIII, A and XVIII, B for the year ending on 31st March 2000, as set out in HC1134, 1135 and 1136 of Session 1997-98.
- That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stephen Byers, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Dawn Primarolo and Ms Patricia Hewitt do prepare and bring it in.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
Ordered,
n made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Hill.]
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe):
At the outset, I should like to express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for their presence tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) have told me that they have engagements in their constituencies, which is why they are not here.
The subject of this debate is the most painful that I have encountered in the fifteen and a half years that I have had the honour to represent the Folkestone and Hythe constituency in this place. It will be necessary for me to deal, however briefly, with some of the individual cases involved--cases of women who placed themselves in the care of a consultant gynaecologist, who gave him their trust and who have suffered physical and mental anguish ever since. Those cases will be harrowing to recount and distressing to listen to, not least for those who have already suffered so much.
Mr. Rodney Ledward worked as a consultant gynaecologist in south-east Kent between 1980 and 1996. He worked both in the national health service and in the private sector. In 1996, Mr. Ledward was dismissed by South Kent Hospitals NHS trust and removed from BUPA's list of approved consultants. In September 1998, the General Medical Council found him guilty of several cases of serious professional misconduct, and withdrew his professional registration.
At the latest count, about 418 of Mr. Ledward's former patients have contacted the South Kent Hospitals NHS trust or the South East Kent community health council, or both, to express their concerns about the treatment that they received while under his care. The South East Kent community health council, to whose chairman, Paul Watkins, and chief officer, Jean Howkins, I pay tribute, has called on the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry into how these tragic cases were allowed to happen and into the lessons to be learned from them, both for the NHS and for the private sector. I support that call, and that is why I have asked for this debate.
To explain what happened, it is necessary to refer to some of the individual complaints that have been made. They include unnecessary and inappropriate surgical procedures, including hysterectomy, perforation of the bladder and the bowel causing incontinence and mental trauma following the discovery by women and their families that, unnecessarily, they could no longer give birth.
One woman was apparently left with a dead full-term baby inside her in the maternity ward for three days before being induced. Several women with mild stress incontinence had bladder repair surgery without the usual pre-operative investigation, which might well have led to alternative non-operative methods of treatment. Many patients are still grossly incontinent. I need hardly dwell on the blight that this has cast over their lives.
Many women had hysterectomies performed on them at an unusually young age. Some were in their 20s. Some have since been told that they were too young and that
their hysterectomy was unnecessary. The consequences for them and their families are obvious and final. Many still suffer from very bad adhesions and have had to have further operations--in one case, as many as 17 further operations. Many are still in constant pain.
One woman had an ovary removed. Shortly after the operation, something burst and she was found to have 38 abscesses. She was readmitted to hospital and had to have a colostomy. She still suffers great pain.
Some women had their ovaries removed without consent. A number have reported being seen in the course of a NHS consultation and being told, quite wrongly, that the treatment that they needed was not available on the NHS.
There is one case that I shall describe rather more fully. It is the case of Brenda Johnson. In September 1994, she went to her general practitioner with bladder problems that were causing her concern. Her doctor referred her to Mr. Ledward, who said that she needed a repair, but would need a hysterectomy in six months' time. He suggested that she had a vaginal hysterectomy, which he said was a simple operation with no stitching, and that she would be fine within a few days. She was told that the waiting time for an NHS patient would be two years, but she could have the operation carried out within a few days privately in St. Saviour's hospital.
Mrs. Johnson says:
That the following provisions shall apply to the Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill:
(a) at the sitting on Monday 14th December, proceedings thereon may continue, though opposed, until midnight; and
(b) at the sitting on Tuesday 15th December, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on Second Reading of the Bill at Seven o'clock.--[Mr. Hill.]
That at the sitting on Tuesday 15th December, Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents) shall not apply to any Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to fisheries, and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings thereon not later than Ten o'clock.--[Mr. Hill.]
Ordered,
That Mr. Russell Brown and Mrs. Linda Gilroy be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Michael Connarty and Dr. Nick Palmer be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Hill.]
10 Dec 1998 : Column 581
10.3 pm
"You put your life and body into these surgeons' hands so you have to trust. I didn't think it was so severe and went back to my GP who agreed with me but said, 'Trust the surgeon, he may have seen something I haven't.' I asked around and was assured by other people who had hysterectomies it would be fine after a few weeks. With great reluctance I went ahead."
On Thursday 13 September 1984, aged 37, Mrs. Johnson was operated on at St. Saviour's hospital. She was bleeding after surgery and became very seriously ill as the evening wore on. Her anaesthetist saw her and contacted Mr. Ledward to say that she was in mortal danger. He did not return for many hours. Mrs. Johnson was in a terrible state and unconscious. Eventually further surgery took place. Mrs. Johnson's husband was called into the hospital in the early hours of the morning and told that she was dying. For five days she was barely conscious. She says:
"I was in absolute agony and kept under sedation with morphine. I had a blood transfusion in one arm, a saline drip in the other and a catheter. When I started to regain proper consciousness, after five days, I could hardly move a muscle and was in sheer agony. I thought, 'You wouldn't let a dog suffer like this.'"
Since then, Mrs. Johnson has suffered constant pain. To add insult to injury, the action that she brought to receive compensation for her pain and suffering was dismissed by the High Court. She has obtained no redress. I hope it may still be possible for that to be put right.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |