A FAMILY who have waited more than three years to find out why their daughter died after surgery will have to wait longer.

A much-delayed inquest into the death of 33-year-old Elaine Basham in November 2001 - which was due to start next Tuesday - has been postponed.

Elaine died after a routine operation to remove her tonsils, which involved controversial disposable surgical instruments.

Lawyers representing the Basham family, from Loftus, east Cleveland, have been told the inquest, which was due to last five days, has been adjourned. The latest date was confirmed only last week.

Because the case concerns public safety, the inquest will be held before a jury.

It had been hoped that the outcome could shed light on whether the Government's medical advisors were right to tell surgeons to use the new disposable surgical instruments.

The instruments were introduced because of fears that ordinary surgical instruments might be spreading the human form of mad cow disease.

After Miss Basham's death, and reports of problems with the new instruments, surgeons in England and Wales were told to go back to using traditional instruments, although some are said to be still using the disposable type.

Last night, the family's lawyer, Richard Follis, from the Alexander Harris law firm, launched an attack on the Department of Health, blaming it for the hold up.

"The Department of Health have known about this inquest for a very long time and appear by all accounts to have done nothing until the last minute," said Mr Follis.

"It is now three years and three months since Elaine died and her family continue to suffer enormously from constantly having long-ago events revived and discussed."

What the family really wanted to know, said Mr Follis, was why Miss Basham died and what the Department of Health was doing when the instruments were introduced and then withdrawn, following two deaths and reports of problems with the disposable instruments.

He added: "As far as hospital staff are concerned, an enormous number of hospital witnesses were ready to attend court next week, it must be a tremendous trial and stress for them as well."

Mr Follis said there should have been a proper risk assessment before the instruments were introduced.

He said: "There is a suspicion that these instruments were introduced for political reasons, that is for the minister to demonstrate that something was being done about he theoretical risk of variant CJD transmission.

"Such a step should not have been taken without a firm basis in evidence."