| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Dec 2002 : Column 1051—continued
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady. She said at the beginning of her remarks that her proposal could be achieved without a great tap on NHS resources. Does she agree that the National Audit Office report on this issue suggested that up to 5,000 lives a year could be saved in this area, not by putting one tap on NHS resources but by putting one tap on each ward, so that nurses were able to wash their hands each time they touched a different patient?
Mrs. Browning: Absolutely. Those practical measures are so simple and low-budget that I do not know why someone does not get a grip and implement them tomorrow.
MRSA is a killer, as are some of the other hospital-acquired infections. I do not agree with those who say that people who acquire an infection in hospital or whose treatment in a public service causes them pain, injury or even death should not have the same rules applied to them in terms of compensation. I realise that vexatious complainants exist, and that there must be a sense of balance in terms of the public purse to make sure that people do not bring forward negligence and compensation claims that create an industry that benefits only lawyers who want to fly kites, but as in any other business, professionals must be accountable for the work that they do and the service that they provide. People who, in all innocence, go into a hospital expecting routine treatment and come out with a different problem that affects the rest of their life or even kills them should not have to put their houses on the line to battle through legal action for fair and just compensation. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
3.23 pm
John Cryer (Hornchurch): Like most other hon. Members who have spoken today, I want to raise one or two constituency issues.
Problems related to antisocial and criminal behaviour have occurred in the Elm Park area of my constituency, near a tube station, which is the main issue. A few months ago, a constituent of mine called Chris Ingrouille was almost beaten to death in the Elm Park area by a group of people who seemed to have travelled into the constituency by tube. My point is that whenever I use Elm Park tube station, which is on the District line in outer east London, the barriers are always open. The station is either completely unstaffed or there is just one member of staff sitting in the kiosk by herself or himself.
If there is antisocial behaviour in the station, which reverberates around the area outside, that individual is not in a position to try to prevent it.What sticks in my throat is that, in a long correspondence going back many months and probably even a year or two, London Underground Ltd. seems to have an obsession with trying to convince me—and, I assume, other London Members who have had this problem, particularly in outer east London—that the station is adequately staffed for, say, between 96 per cent. and 97 per cent. of the time. Clearly, that is mendacious, according to my experiences and those of my constituents. Conjoined with that is the fact that, often, trains travelling out of central London, particularly late at night, stop at either Barking or Dagenham East, as I know full well. Travelling back late at night to my constituency and my borough, I have often been turfed out of a tube train at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night at either Barking or Dagenham East. That raises a safety fear, as women in particular—and, to some extent, men—travelling back late at night and abandoned on a platform for perhaps half an hour at Dagenham or Barking could be left vulnerable to attack. At times in the past they have been attacked.
The second constituency issue that I want to raise is that of the c2c railway line, which I have raised probably two or three times on the Floor of the House in previous Adjournment debates. The line runs from Fenchurch Street in central London out to Shoeburyness; at least, it should run from Fenchurch Street, but, late at night, after 10 o'clock, the trains run from Liverpool Street. After 10 o'clock, therefore, people catching trains to, say, Upminster, Shoeburyness or West Ham, must go to Liverpool Street. Occasionally, however, c2c, in its wisdom, decides to run all its trains from Fenchurch Street, so people arrive at Liverpool Street to find out that trains are running not out of Liverpool Street but out of Fenchurch Street.
I recently received a letter from one Dominic Booth, the managing director of London Lines, the parent company of c2c, which contains this explanation:
- XThe reasons for the arrangements are the need to maintain the line between Fenchurch Street and Lime House, an intensively used stretch of line."
Bob Spink (Castle Point): Dominic Booth has told me that the reason why c2c switches to the Liverpool Street line occasionally is to maintain driver familiarity and training on that line, so that when they need to switch, the drivers are able to do so.
John Cryer: Mr. Booth gave me an entirely different reason. There we go—let us renationalise the lot. Do not just play around with Railtrack. Take it all back into public ownership. That is what we want.
The next issue that I wish to touch on briefly is policing in the borough of Havering, which I represent. I have outlined before on the Floor of the House the problem faced by the people in my area—particularly those in Rainham, Elm Park and Hornchurch—because of the number of night clubs in Romford. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) is in his place, and he will be aware that night club capacity in Romford is between 12,000 and 14,000, which is the biggest in the south-east of England outside the west end. That draws police officers away from other parts of the borough and particularly from my constituency. The rest of the borough is bereft of policing. If there is an emergency late on a Friday or Saturday night in my constituency or that of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), there are often not sufficient police officers to deal with it.
The Government should seriously consider charging night clubs for the policing of the disturbances that emanate from their premises. I know that legislation is coming up to cover such matters, but we should tell night clubs that we will charge them for the 60 or 70 police officers who are needed to deal with the criminal and antisocial disorder that emanates from their premises. Police and local authorities should also be able to tell night clubs that they will withdraw their licence. That could be done for a trial period of two or three weeks. We could then see how the night clubs get on, and we could return their licence to them provided that they behave more decently and keep an eye on the behaviour of the people who use the club.
The length of GP lists in Havering, Barking and Dagenham is another constituency issue. My health area tends to have fairly lengthy lists, and there are historical reasons for that. There is no doubt that more resources are going into primary care, but we do not seem to be attracting the younger GPs that we need. We have many older GPs who are coming up for retirement. Many of them have done a very good job, but they obviously want to retire at a decent age. Many of them will retire within the next five years, and that will present us with a serious problem. I hope that the Department of Health will deal with that specific problem in the Barking, Havering and Brentwood health areas.
I recently tabled a written question to the Department of Health about the length of GP lists, but it refused to provide me with the details. It said:
- XWe are not able to provide information on which individual practices have list sizes higher than the national average and what the size of the list is in each case. The GP census data held by the Department is collected for the purposes of research and statistics, as defined by section 33 of the Data Protection Act 1998. As such, we are unable to release identifiable data on GPs where it is possible the data could be used for purposes other than research and statistics."
I know that elected Members are a bit of a pain and that they put down awkward questions that need answering. They can make life difficult. However, such questions should be answered. To hide behind the Data Protection Act is absolutely absurd. I want the answers to those questions for the benefit of my constituents. I represent them and they send me here. I hope that the Department of Health will take notice of that.
I wish to raise the local and national issue of medals for the servicemen and women who served in Suez between 1951 and 1954. [Interruption.] That got a cheer from the Liberal Democrats. There is a first time for everything. I raise the issue because I recently attended the unveiling of a memorial at the Larkhill base near Salisbury, with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and the former Member of Parliament, Geoffrey Johnson Smith, who campaigned for a long time on the issue. It was a unique ceremony because the plaque is to the people who served in Suez between 1951 and 1954 and not just to those who were killed.
Those who served in Suez in 1956 received a campaign medal at the time, but those who served there between 1951 and 1954 did not receive any sort of campaign medal. I have many constituents who are still around and who are still campaigning strongly. They want that omission rectified. Historically, we do not treat our former servicemen and women particularly well in this country. The sovereign's head on campaign medals from past eras often dates the medal at 20 or 30 years after the campaign took place. In this case, the campaign took place nearly 50 years ago. About 200 servicemen were killed in Suez in the early 1950s, so the idea that has been put around that it was not much of a conflict is illusory. It was a serious conflict, but international sensibilities at the time meant that it could not be recognised as such and that a campaign medal could not be issued to the people who served there. That point should be recognised.
The issue is now before the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. I hope that it gets on with its consideration—it has had enough time to do so—and issues a medal to put right a folly of many years ago. It just remains for me to wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the servants and Officers of the House a good Christmas.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |