HC Deb 07 December 1955 vol 547 cc516-24

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]

10.49 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon (Leeds, South-East)

I wish to raise the case of a young National Service man who suffered serious medical neglect in the Army. He is Signalman Palliser, whose home is in Quarry Hill Flats, Leeds, and who is at present in hospital in Hindhead.

At the beginning of this year, Signalman Palliser was at Catterick, and on 18th January—and I stress that date because it is now nearly 18 months ago—he reported sick with acute catarrh. At that time his treatment consisted of nasal drops, he was put on light duties and ordered to do no physical training. It is strange that, despite that, during that time he was detailed to shovel snow outside the camp at Catterick. His condition got no better, and, indeed, during the whole of the time he was at Catterick after this he suffered from a very bad cough and catarrh. For a whole month after 18th January he continually reported the fact that he had pains in the shoulder and side, for which he was given Codeine tablets.

A month later, on 16th February—a month after first reporting sick on 18th January—while he was still at Catterick he reported sick again, and this time he spent a whole day and night in the sick bay. He wrote home to his parents at this time to say that again he had the usual cold plus the pain in the shoulder and side. He has never been really well since this.

On 2nd March he heard that he was being posted to Egypt, and after a short leave he had to report to Newton Abbot on 23rd March. Immediately he got to Newton Abbot he again fell ill and again reported sick. He was given Codeine tablets and a rubbing lotion, but this time he was put on night patrol when, according to the letter which he sent home to his parents, the pain was just about killing him.

On 16th April he was flown to Egypt, but after a few days he reported sick again with the same pain, in the same side, which he had then had for three or four months. He was given Codeine tablets for ten days and was told that the pain would not return, but of course it did. On 1st May he again reported for duty, but on this occasion was observed to be very ill by an N.C.O. and was taken to a medical officer. His own medical officer was off duty and he was taken to a medical officer in the next camp, who immediately sent him to hospital. His right lung was found to be completely out of action due to fluid.

It was subsequently found that he was suffering from empyæma. He had to have three operations and blood transfusions and was very ill. He was eventually flown back to this country, and he is still in hospital.

Those are the bare facts, but I have several questions which need answering this evening. Over the last few weeks I have been in correspondence with the Under-Secretary about this matter and I have also asked Questions in the House. It is because the letters which I have received and the answers to my Questions have not been satisfactory that I am raising the matter now.

At the end of September the hon. Gentleman wrote to me saying that at the time when the man was at Catterick there was no indication of the trouble for which he was admitted to hospital on 1st May while serving in Egypt and, from his inquiries, he did not think there were any grounds for complaint about the treatment when he reported sick at Catterick. The letter ended by saying: "I hope that this will reassure his parents." It certainly did not reassure his parents.

There are several questions which they have asked me and several which I should like to ask now. First, why was there no proper examination and X-ray of this man, even though he was reporting sick for the same thing time after time over a period of some three to four months? Secondly, are no medical records kept in the Army? I can well understand that on one occasion a man might report sick and it might be thought that his illness was not very serious, but surely when a man went on reporting sick week after week and month after month some records ought to have been available and some action ought to have been taken.

I have here a remarkable letter from the commanding officer to the man's parents. On the whole, it is a very sympathetic letter to the parents, explaining the boy's illness, but I should like to quote one part of it. On 15th May the commanding officer wrote to the boy's parents: It is a great pity that he did not see me and tell me that he was having trouble with this pain and that he was not getting satisfactory treatment. I could then have had a talk with the medical officer. Our main difficulty here is that so many people go sick to get out of work that it is often difficult to sort out the sick and the malingering. I should have thought that any medical officer, in the Army or elsewhere, should be able to sort out the sick from the malingering. What are medical officers for if they rely simply on what is told them and do not have any satisfactory examination?

In reply to my Question a fortnight ago, the hon. Gentleman said: Signalman Palliser showed no signs of serious illness when he reported sick in January, February and March … There is no evidence or probability that this serious illness was connected with the soldier's previous trouble. In answer to a supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman said: I am advised that on the previous occasions when this soldier reported sick there was no reason at all to suppose that his illness was anything which could not be dealt with by the treatment which he was given. With regard to the last occasion, it is equally clear that his illness bore no connection whatever with his illness on the previous occasions when he reported sick—the disease from which he is now suffering being one which develops very suddenly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 1238–9.] That may be so, but I just do not believe it. I think it is too much of a coincidence to suppose that his eventual condition was not in any way connected with his previous illness.

Do not let us forget that the symptoms from which this man suffered were pain in the side and shoulder, and that he was eventually found to be suffering from a lung complaint in the same side of his body. It is quite clear that this illness and this pain had gone on for four months. It is clear that there had been no adequate examination and no proper treatment. I am not a doctor, but I think any layman would be being asked to stretch his imagination too far to suppose that there was no connection whatsoever between the four months of reporting sick and the soldier's eventual illness.

Not only was this soldier not examined and not properly treated, but on one occasion, just after he had reported sick, he was set on shovelling snow. On another occasion he was put on night patrol, and on the third occasion he was sent abroad. I believe that his serious illness could have been avoided had there been adequate medical examination and proper care.

There are two subsidiary questions I wish to ask the Minister, although the main one concerns the lack of medical examination and treatment. First, are boys sent abroad without a medical examination, as happened in the case of this boy? Secondly, what arrangements exist for notifying the next of kin when anyone is seriously ill?

I have a letter from the hon. Gentleman dated 6th September, in which he says that only in cases of very serious illness or when a man has been a battle casualty are the parents notified. This boy's parents were very anxious because they received no letters from their son. Surely, it is reasonable that if a serving soldier is unable to write home to his parents, there should be some way of notifying his parents of his illness. In asking these two subsidiary questions, I do not want to cause the Minister to lose sight of the main point, which is that in this case there has, I believe, been gross medical neglect.

The other comment I should like to make is that after listening to Questions to the Secretary of State for War during the last few weeks, I have realised that this is not the only case of this kind. A number of similar matters have been raised. If our young men are to be conscripted and sent abroad, then they should be properly looked after.

In conclusion, I would say that the parents of this boy have been particularly reasonable. When I asked them whether or not it was their desire that I should take the matter further, they said that while they did not want any unnecessary publicity, and while they knew that it could not help their son, they were most anxious that the matter should be brought forward so that other boys could be better cared for in future. I hope, therefore, that, while we cannot help Signalman Palliser who has been suffering this illness for eleven months due to neglect in the Army, in future the War Office will be a little more careful with some of the other National Service men.

11.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State far War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) for raising this matter. I hope that when I have spoken she will agree that there has not been neglect. Also, I should like to try to reassure her that we do look after our soldiers as well as is possible.

It might be useful if first I give a chronological account of Signalman Palliser's medical record. He was first examined on 1st July, 1954, by a medical board of the Ministry of Labour. No evidence of disability was found and he was placed in Grade 1. He joined the Army on 2nd September. He was again medically examined, this time by the Army medical authorities, and the previous assessment was confirmed. On 20th September his chest was X-rayed by mass miniature radiography and found to be normal.

Therefore, right at the beginning of his service he was given several thorough medical examinations and found to be perfectly fit. He joined the Army on 2nd September, and on 18th January we have the first sick report when he reported sick at Catterick. He was examined and his complaint was diagnosed as suspected influenza. He was put on light duties for three days. The hon. Lady has mentioned that during this time he was put on work shovelling snow. I had not realised that, and I will certainly look into the matter and write to the hon. Lady about it.

After he had been put on light duties for three days and given treatment he returned to duty on 21st January, and it was considered that his health was all right then. On 3rd February there was a routine medical examination at the conclusion of his basic training, and this again confirmed his fitness and his medical record was again confirmed. On 16th February, a fortnight later, he reported sick with a sore throat and was kept in the regimental sick bay for two days. On this occasion he had a cough, a cold and a pain in the left shoulder. He had a slight temperature, but there was no serious disability to be found and he returned to duty on 18th February—two days later.

On 7th March, Signalman Palliser was again medically examined. The hon. Lady asked whether soldiers are examined before being sent abroad. The answer is that they are. Signalman Palliser was so examined on 7th March and found fit to proceed overseas. At the examination he made no complaint of a medical nature. On 25th March, while waiting to go overseas, Signalman Palliser again reported sick and complained of a pain in his side. He was again given treatment and allowed to report for duty. On that occasion, the hon. Lady said, he was sent on a night patrol. I will look into that and endeavour to ascertain the circumstances in which it happened. But at first sight it appeared that the pain was not very serious and that he had got over it.

Between 1st July and 25th March Signalman Palliser had had five medical examinations. I think that shows that there was no neglect and that, in fact, there is no neglect in the medical treatment of our soldiers. During those months this man was examined by different medical authorities, the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the Army unit and so on, no less than five times. The hon. Lady said that he had gone on reporting sick week after week and month after month and that this illness had gone on for four months. She also said that Signalman Palliser was ill for a whole month. I understand that she meant from 18th January to 16th February. We have no record of that. We simply have the record of the sick reports which I have given.

When Signalman Palliser reported sick on 18th January he was returned to duty as cured after three days. He again reported sick on 16th February with a sore throat and was kept in the sick bay for two days. In between, on 3rd February, there was a routine medical examination which confirmed his fitness. It is not unusual for anyone to be sick with what appears to be a cold, and in this case it was apparently cured in two or three days. To be sick three times in the course of the winter is a thing which might happen to most of us, and the symptoms were compatible with a feverish cold or slight influenza on those occasions.

In April, Signalman Palliser left the United Kingdom for the Middle East. The hon. Lady mentioned that he reported sick before 4th May, I think she said between the time he arrived in the Middle East and 4th May. My first evidence of a sick report is on 4th May, but if the hon. Lady has records that Signalman Palliser was sick before that, I should be only too glad to investigate the matter further. My information is that the first occasion on which he reported sick after reaching the Middle East was on 4th May. According to the reports which I have received, he then told the medical officer that he had been well up to about one month previously—that would take us to the beginning of April—when he had noticed a pain in his right side which he thought was due to strain. In his own words, this had caused little trouble until about 1st or 2nd May when the pain became worse. In addition, he had a cough and catarrh.

Signalman Palliser was then examined by the medical officer who diagnosed empyæma with pleural effusion, which means fluid in the chest, and he was then admitted to the British Medical Hospital at Fayid. On entering hospital, there was a further examination and empyæma was then diagnosed. Following this, two operations were carried out and one blood transfusion was given. On 15th June, Signalman Palliser was considered fit to return to the United Kingdom by air, and on 22nd June he left the Middle East and arrived in the United Kingdom on 24th June. He was then sent to the Army Chest Centre at the Connaught Hospital at Hindhead, and there on 5th July a further operation was carried out.

Since then, Signalman Palliser has had further treatment, and I understand that his condition has greatly improved. The hon. Lady has suggested that empyæma, the condition from which we know that he was suffering in May when he entered the British Hospital at Fayid, ought to have been diagnosed or forecast during his earlier medical examination in January, February and March.

Miss Bacon

No, I think that what I intended to convey was that had he been properly looked after at that period empyæma might never have developed.

Mr. Maclean

As far as the question of proper treatment is concerned, we have not got anything to confirm what the hon. Lady has said which was that he was constantly ill. Our records simply show that he had what appeared to be at the time—and I say advisedly "appeared to be"—a feverish cold on three occasions in the course of last winter, which is something that thousands of soldiers and civilians have in the course of a winter. They were treated and he was found to be perfectly fit.

The hon. Lady has said that she is not a doctor, and I suffer from the same disability. I am not a technical expert, and I hope that the House will therefore bear with me if I do not perhaps explain these technical points as well as I should. I am advised that empyæma is a collection of infected fluid in the chest between the lung and the chest wall. It appears that it is rarely a primary condition. It is usually a secondary condition, that is, I understand, it arises out of an existing infection of the lung.

The commonest and most likely infection is pneumonia, and in the present case the germ which was present and which caused the infection is called staphylococcus pyogenes. That is the germ from which the onset of pneumonia is particularly rapid, and, because of this rapid progress of pneumonia, it is unlikely that empyæma was present at the time when Signalman Palliser reported sick in January, February, or March. Therefore, the case appears to be a typical example of empyæma as a complication of acute pneumonia which we know occurred in early May. He first had pneumonia and, from that, empyæma developed.

In short, the main burden of the medical reports of this case is that Signalman Palliser did not have either empyæma or pneumonia before May, 1955, and that all that he had at the earlier sick parades was what he appeared to have, namely, quite minor complaints such as feverish colds or slight influenza, which were almost certainly not connected with his subsequent serious illness. In support of that he was carrying out normal duties, and he does not seem to have complained, although, as I have already said, I shall be glad to look further into that aspect of the matter if the hon. Lady lets me have more information. My advice, however, is that between September and March he reported sick on only three occasions.

I feel bound, in conclusion, to tell the House that my medical advisers are not able to say categorically on such evidence as is available at present that there is no connection at all between the earlier illnesses and the attack of empyæma. There is a remote possibility of such a relationship, but what they are satisfied about is that the doctors who saw Palliser in January, February and March did take all reasonable care, on such evidence as was available to them at that time. Therefore, there can be no question of negligence on their part.

As regards Signalman Palliser's future—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.