Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Prevention of Drug Deaths
(5 days, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the prevention of drug deaths.
I thank all Members for being here at this well-subscribed debate. With that in mind, I will try to work to a certain timescale to ensure that everyone gets in, as I understand that there are nine speakers. Preventing drug-related deaths is an issue that touches communities across all four nations of this United Kingdom.
It is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) in her place, and I look forward to her response. I said to her beforehand that there is another debate in the main Chamber, but even I cannot be in two places at the one time; it is impossible. This is the priority, and that is why I am here.
Over the last decade, drug deaths have increased by 85% in England and Wales, 122% in Scotland and 42% in Northern Ireland. It is an unacceptable situation by any measure. Northern Ireland has the second highest drug-related death rate in the UK, nearly five times the European average. Each one of those deaths represents a profound tragedy. The tragedy is not just the person who dies; it is also the families who are affected.
I stress that each and every one of those deaths is preventable, and the situation demands urgent action. Recent data from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency paints a deeply concerning picture. Drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland have risen again, albeit after a slight decrease in previous years. Behind the numbers are human beings—fathers, sons, mothers, sisters, daughters. Those are the people affected. Most alarmingly, young adults aged between 25 and 34 are dying at the highest rate. Even more stark is the fact that people in our most deprived communities are five and a half times more likely to die from drug-related causes than those in our least deprived areas.
My constituency of Strangford has not been immune to this crisis, but we have managed to stay resilient in the face of it by maintaining lower drug-related death rates compared with any other area in Northern Ireland. That is no accident; it reflects the dedication and compassion of local drug treatment service providers who, despite limited resources, tirelessly support our most vulnerable citizens. I put on the record my sincere thanks to them for their perseverance and expertise. Without their dedicated efforts, countless more lives would have been lost.
Frontline drug treatment providers in Strangford speak passionately about the daily challenges they face, and there are three key areas I wish to highlight as priorities for action. First, drug treatment service workers in Strangford stress the urgent need to integrate mental health support with drug treatment services. Drug misuse often masks deeper issues of trauma, anxiety or depression. In Northern Ireland, with our 30-year conflict, history has left a lasting impact on the current generation.
The problem is pervasive across the United Kingdom, however. Research indicates that 70% of people in community drug treatment have reoccurring and co-occurring mental health needs. An investigation into coroners’ records of people who died from drug poisoning found that a mental health condition was noted in at least two thirds of those cases, yet only 14% of the individuals were in contact with mental health services. A quarter had a history of suicide attempts, rising to 50% among those whose deaths were classified as suicide. Mental health is the No. 1 issue when it comes to drug deaths across this great United Kingdom.
The healthcare system and local authorities share a clear responsibility to provide comprehensive support. Far too many who suffer from both mental health issues and substance misuse are excluded from vital services. It is deeply concerning that mental health services often turn away individuals because of their substance use— I put it on the record that I think that is wrong—while drug and alcohol treatment services cannot accommodate those who are deemed to have mental health conditions that are considered too severe.
The cycle of exclusion disproportionately impacts people with serious mental illnesses, leaving some of the most vulnerable trapped between providers and unable to access the care they desperately need. The hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) made a similar point three years ago in a Westminster Hall debate that I attended. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I understand it is her third Westminster Hall debate as responding Minister. What progress has been made since that debate was held three years ago?
The other critical barrier is stigma. Stigma surrounding drug use isolates people, silences their cries for help and deters them from engaging with essential services and reintegrating into society. That compounds mental health struggles and prolongs their suffering. Let us not stigmatise drug users; let us help them—that is my big request. It is crucial that we challenge harmful attitudes in our communities, in our health services and, indeed, in the Houses of Parliament, among hon. Members and the Government, who have a responsibility. Addressing stigma means recognising that addiction is a health issue and not, as some people might think, a moral failing. I am not being disrespectful to anyone, but that is how I look at it and I hope that others will too.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. The last Government published a paper on this subject, “From harm to hope”, but it fell short of the vision set out by Dame Carol Black for how we get on top of the significant harm that people experience. Does he agree that alongside a public health approach to substance misuse, we need harm reduction units so that people who are drug users can access the care and support that they need to make their first contact with professional services?
Jim Shannon
I suspect that the hon. Lady and I agree on many things, and on this point we are also on the same page. I will come to Carol Black’s report and some of its recommendations. The hon. Lady has pre-empted me, but I thank her for setting the scene.
A 2022 YouGov poll found that two thirds of Britons believe that Government do too little to address addiction in our society. I respectfully believe that the Minister and the Government have an obligation to do something about this, because 66% of the nation want something to happen. Perhaps more tellingly, 49% of Britons—almost half—see addiction as a mental health issue that calls for compassionate, health-centred responses. That is very clear. In contrast, only 19% think that addiction should be treated as a criminal matter. That is something to think about. Without addressing the stigma underlying mental health conditions, we cannot hope to tackle drug dependency and its harms effectively. We must end harmful practices; we must ensure that integrated support is available to everyone who requires it; and we must ensure that our mental health care and drug treatment service systems are properly equipped and working with a joined-up approach.
That brings me to my second point, which will be quick, because I am conscious of time. Current practice is ineffective. It prevents services from planning ahead, denies them the security necessary to retain their staff and undermines the long-term progress of their clients. I am not being disrespectful to anyone—that is never my way of doing things—but before this Government came into power, the previous Government took an approach that involved short-term stop-gap budgets. We need something long term, with the continuity necessary to recruit and plan strategically. That is what we should focus on.
An National Audit Office report notes that short-term funding causes
“delays in commissioning services and recruiting new staff”,
leading to service gaps and workforce instability. Those workforces are on the frontline—on the coal quay, as we call it back home—the first person you meet, the first person you see and the first person you need help from. This instability, described by the NAO as a
“de-professionalisation of the treatment workforce”,
damages the quality of care. The NAO identified under- spending of £22 million, with 15% across the treatment and recovery stream. We really have to fix that.
Dame Carol Black’s review called for improved funding and rebuilding of the decimated drug treatment workforce, following the 40% real-terms reduction in funding that we witnessed from 2012 to 2020. She referred to disjointed approaches, struggling staff, increasing costs and decreased funding. Given those challenges, it is no wonder that services are unable to provide the quality that is needed. We must shift to a model in which people feel welcomed and cared for in drug treatment services; in which interventions foster engagement and trust between clients and key workers; and in which we uphold promises to reduce harm, lessen pressure on the health and justice system and ultimately strengthen our communities, helping those whom we represent.
Harm reduction is an essential lifeline for individuals and communities across Northern Ireland, and indeed across this whole great United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, it is evidence-based and compassionate, and it places people at its very heart, meeting them exactly where they are by providing accessible, low-barrier support services. Harm reduction saves lives by preventing overdoses, reduces the spread of infectious diseases—that happens with those who use needles—and significantly improves both physical and mental health outcomes. Harm reduction does not enable drug use; it enables the saving of lives, the restoration of dignity and the reconnection of people to their communities. That has to be our goal, through the Minister.
The harrowing statistics that I have laid out demand that we revisit the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which is now more than 50 years old and has never been formally reviewed. It is time we had a long, hard look at where we are and where we need to be, and moved forward with professional and compassionate methods. The Act restricts many harm reduction interventions that international evidence has shown to be effective, but that we cannot fully implement here. We must ask, in the face of an ongoing and real rise in drug deaths and the undeniable potential for more, whether this legislation remains fit for purpose.
Before the election—I say this respectfully for the record, because hon. Members will know it is not my form to attack anyone—the Prime Minister indicated on the campaign trail that he would not make changes to the drug policy. The point I want to make is that I think it is time we did. I have the utmost respect for the Prime Minister, but I think it is time we had more flexibility and meaningful change to adapt to a changing drug market.
In recent years, the UK has seen a surge in synthetic opioids, a dangerous and highly potent substance peddled by unscrupulous organisations that rob families of fathers, brothers and children. They must be stopped, and we need a drugs policy in place to do just that. It has become clear that simply classifying substances in higher categories or imposing longer sentences is not enough. If it is not enough, we must look at a different way.
Nitazenes, which are up to a thousand times more potent than morphine, have already claimed the lives of hundreds in the UK, and their presence in the illicit drug supply is rising. According to the latest drug-related death statistics, opioids were the most common drug associated with drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland, and I believe those figures are replicated on the mainland as well. If we do not act now, the statistics will only become more devastating.
Dame Carol Black’s review on drugs made some progress, so let us not be churlish. There have been advances and steps in the right direction, but have they gone far enough? I do not believe they have, and others will probably confirm that. The Government recently legislated to expand the provision of the lifesaving drug naloxone, which is used to reverse opioid overdoses. I welcome those changes and understand the need for them, but they are not enough. I am sorry to say that, but we really need to have a new look at the issue. We are falling behind our international partners in tackling the crisis, failing to safeguard our constituents and allowing criminal organisations to profit immensely from their illegal drug trade.
Harm reduction should not be controversial. It is simply about saving lives and mitigating the harms associated with drug use. Historically, the UK led the world in harm reduction, with Liverpool being the birthplace of efforts to reduce drug-related deaths and infectious disease. Every 90 minutes in the UK, someone dies a drug-related death, meaning that during this debate, at least one life will be lost. Only 10 years ago, the figure was one death every two and a half hours. The situation is becoming incredibly serious. We must act now if we are truly committed to ending the crisis, and we must go beyond the medical and behavioural solutions that some have suggested.
Another related issue is the serious concern of death by suicide. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), who had an Adjournment debate on Monday night, referred to suicide in his constituency. In Northern Ireland, 70% of the suicides are by men, and the majority of them occur in deprived areas. The very thing that the hon. Gentleman talked about in his Adjournment debate is happening in my constituency and across the whole of Northern Ireland. A new standard, BS 9988, has been drafted by people with expertise in the policy area, and comprehensive guidelines will be brought forward to support organisations in developing an effective suicide prevention strategy.
Those are some of the things that I wish to say. I am coming to the end of my speech; I am conscious that nine people wish to speak, and I want to give every one of them the chance to make their contribution.
In Strangford, a local drug treatment service and prevention programme has been designed specifically for the friends and families of people who use drugs. It provides a vital space in which they can support each other, learn from each other and realise that they are not alone—it is important that people are not alone, thinking that the whole world is against them and that they have to try to get through it themselves. It also trains the loved ones in naloxone administration so that they can save a life if necessary, and discusses the risks of drug use and how to mitigate them. Most importantly, it brings the community together in a team effort so that they can put their arms around people. That shared purpose enables them to care for those they hold dear and support them through the challenging journey of addiction. I am told that the response has been overwhelmingly positive.
I tell that story because, despite the darkness of what this debate is about, we also have to see that a light can shine and take us to somewhere we can be better. That is what I want to do. As a country, we must do the same and act collectively with compassion and purpose.
Drug-related deaths are not inevitable; they result from choices made—I say this with respect—in this House. The United Kingdom has the expertise and evidence, domestic and international, to act decisively. We have a moral obligation to safeguard our communities, reduce pressure on our strained healthcare system and spend money responsibly.
I call on the Government and the Minister—the responsibility for responding to this debate is on her shoulders, but I know she will not be found wanting—to prioritise the lives of our most vulnerable citizens, protect the healthcare system, act preventatively against drug-related deaths and commit to a fully funded, evidence-based harm reduction approach. This debate can be the first step in moving us forward, and if we do that I believe we will have done an honourable job on behalf of our constituents.
We must discuss the very difficult issue of drug deaths across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are too high, and they have to come down. We need a new strategy and a new way of looking at it. I have suggested some things from my constituency that we can do in Northern Ireland, and I very much look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ contributions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. There is a lot of interest in this debate. I will not set a firm limit on speeches, but I suggest that an indicative three minutes should get most people in, but probably not all. I remind Members that if they want to speak, they have to indicate that they wish to do so.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my good and honourable friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), on securing this really important debate. Not for the first time, I find myself agreeing with what he said.
Drug deaths are at a record high. They are mainly from opioids, but deaths from cocaine have risen by almost a third. As the hon. Gentleman said, synthetic opioids such as Fentanyl and the nitazenes present an increasing and alarming threat, which has not been properly quantified. We have seen the growth in the number of deaths across the Atlantic, and I suspect the problem is much bigger here than we think.
There is no doubt that this is a public health crisis. Sadly, the north-east of England has the highest rate of drug deaths in England—three times higher than London. In the latest stats, released in October 2024, the north-east recorded 174 deaths per million, compared with an England average of 90. Too often, in the communities I represent, I have seen people turn to drugs because of deprivation and despair. Once addiction takes hold, it often leads to crime. It is no coincidence that drug deaths are highest in the areas of greatest deprivation. The data is clear: communities struggling with poverty and inequality are those hit hardest by addiction.
This is not a new problem—certainly, it is complex—but it is being exacerbated by disinvestment in harm reduction and drug treatment programmes. If we are serious about tackling this problem, we need to do something different. To some, a tougher crackdown may seem the obvious response, but we have more than 50 years of evidence showing that punitive drug policies do not work. The war on drugs has failed, not just in the UK but globally. We cannot simply arrest our way out of this crisis. That is why today I want to offer a different perspective, which moves beyond outdated, one-size-fits-all approaches.
Abstinence-based recovery is one path, but it is not the only one. If we truly want to reduce drug deaths and support recovery, we must reduce harm, reduce stigma and invest in treatment provision, with protected, ringfenced and sustained long-term funding. That funding could support solutions such as opioid substitution treatment, which saves an estimated 1,000 lives annually; medically supervised overdose prevention centres, like the Thistle safer consumption facility in Glasgow; heroin-assisted treatment; and increased availability of drug testing. Those measures are crucial in addressing the current crisis and saving lives.
As chair of the drugs, alcohol and justice all-party parliamentary group—supported by treatment providers Via, Waythrough and WithYou—I recently had the honour of chairing a meeting at which Professor Sir Michael Marmot, the leading expert in health inequalities, laid out the stark reality. He told us:
“Social injustice is killing on a grand scale.”
He made it clear that areas of the greatest deprivation suffered the deepest cuts during austerity, exacerbating addiction and its consequences. I encourage the Minister and all Ministers to consider how we as a nation can adopt the Marmot principles—principles that foster a fairer, more equitable society in which everyone is given the best possible start in life and we work to prevent “deaths of despair”.
I am conscious of the time, but I want to mention a dear friend of mine who is no longer with us—the late Ron Hogg, who was the police and crime commissioner in Durham. He was a true pioneer of drug policy reform. He was bold, compassionate and unafraid to challenge the status quo. He introduced heroin-assisted treatment and diversion schemes at a time when they were far from popular, but popularity was not his goal. He was seeking to reduce harm, save lives and ease the burden on our criminal justice system.
The evidence is clear: investment in treatment works; harm reduction saves lives; and tackling stigma is essential. We must stop seeing addiction solely as a criminal justice issue and instead treat it as a public health emergency.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Short speeches mean that more colleagues get in.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the important issue that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has brought before us today. The UK’s outdated drug laws, intended to protect citizens, have deepened harm and opened the door to criminal gangs. That has led to a state in which in 2023 there were nearly 7,000 deaths from illegal drug use—a tragic failure to shield vulnerable people from the dangerous reach of the illegal market.
The so-called war on drugs, championed by successive Governments, has not halted the supply of harmful substances. It has neither reduced addiction nor prevented disastrous impacts on families and communities. The emphasis on enforcement has allowed underground networks to thrive, and ultimately neglected the fundamental public health challenges at hand.
We have clear evidence that we need to switch to a new approach, under which compassion and an understanding of addiction as a medical issue guide decision making. I have seen at first hand the impact that that switch can make, having recently visited the safe consumption facility in Scotland and two that are well established in Norway. That allowed me to see how such facilities not only save lives but help communities. They allow addicts to access services and get the care and support that they need. By offering a clean and monitored environment for those who are dependent on drugs, those centres have reduced open-air drug use in surrounding areas, helped more people to step on to the pathway to treatment and support, and saved the lives of users.
So, it is with the lives of users and our communities in mind that I urge the Government to focus attention on three vital reforms. First, transfer the policy lead from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care, ensuring that addiction is tackled as a health condition and not merely as a criminal matter. Secondly, invest in robust, evidence-based addiction services that make help readily available and eliminate waiting times. Thirdly, replace criminal penalties for simple possession with civil penalties where appropriate, empowering treatment options over punishment.
By enacting these reforms at a national level we can send a clear message, putting people’s health first, saving lives and restoring dignity to families and communities that have borne the brunt of drug-related harms. Most important, we will begin to break the cycle of ineffective criminalisation, offering hope and a genuine path forward to those struggling with addiction.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Dr Murrison, to serve under your chairship. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this vital Westminster Hall debate.
With your leave, Dr Murrison, I will begin by paying tribute to Christina McKelvie, MSP and Scottish Government Minister, who sadly died earlier today. Christina was taking leave for cancer treatment. She was the Scottish Government Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy in the Scottish Parliament. Our thoughts are with her partner, Keith Brown MSP, and her family.
In my West Dunbartonshire constituency, drug-related deaths increased this year. Figures released in August 2024 from National Records of Scotland showed that in Scotland 1,172 people died due to drug misuse, which was an increase of 121 deaths on the previous period. In the West Dunbartonshire local authority area, which is a very small one, the rise was from 20 to 26, comprising the deaths of nine females and 17 males. Opioids, including heroin, morphine and methadone, were implicated in 80% of those deaths. I pay tribute to Alternatives, a West Dunbartonshire community drug service. Its staff and volunteers do incredible work to tackle drug addiction, offering support across my constituency, as does the West Dunbartonshire Drug and Alcohol Partnership. Of course, as the hon. Member for Strangford said in his opening remarks, there are a person, a family and a story behind every statistic, and it is very important to remember that.
People in the most deprived areas of Scotland are more than 15 times as likely to die from drug misuse as people in less deprived areas, and I suspect that the same is true for Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government and the UK Government need to do more.
The “Evaluation of the National Mission on Drug Deaths” report, which was released last month, found that only one in three alcohol and drug partnership co-ordinators believed that Scottish Government leadership was effective. The report makes it clear that those who understand the drug deaths crisis best do not have faith in the SNP Scottish Government’s leadership. So, the SNP must listen to frontline workers and work with them to deliver the funding that this essential mission needs, properly fund local government, and reverse the cuts to our local health and social care partnerships, which fund and support the frontline organisations across West Dunbartonshire, such as Alternatives, and across our country.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate.
This issue is of great concern to me and my constituents in Brighton Pavilion. Between July 2023 and June 2024, more than 160 people attended A&E at the Royal Sussex County hospital in Brighton because of drug-related overdoses. There were 46 drug poisoning deaths in my constituency in 2023.
Every drug death is a preventable, devastating tragedy. The organisation Anyone’s Child: Families for Safer Drug Control amplifies the voices of those who have been directly impacted by drug policy failures, and it is now calling for the legal control and regulation of the drug market. For the past 12 years, drug deaths have increased each year in the UK, while the supply and trade have only become more violent, toxic and exploitative, especially for children. We should declare a public health emergency. Policing, stigma and criminal records cannot adequately address this crisis, but compassionate care, stability in housing and employment, and access to treatment can.
Preventive treatment is patchy across the country. Funding is inconsistent, and there have been inappropriate targets and cuts to public health budgets. When a person is defined as a criminal for using drugs, they will be deterred from seeking drug-related services and support. The reality is that people are using and supplying drugs, and instead of keeping them safe, Government policy stigmatises and criminalises them. The Government’s punitive law and order approach is having terrible consequences for marginalised communities that experience violent over-policing—especially black people, who are four times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched, mainly for drugs, despite this being completely disproportionate to drug-use patterns.
Like others, I urge the Minister to outline positive steps to take drugs out of the hands of organised crime and put them into the hands of health professionals through legal regulation. I want the Minister to outline steps towards significant and sustained increases in funding for drug treatment services, and towards removing legal barriers to harm reduction interventions, including drug consumption facilities like the one in Glasgow mentioned by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). I want to see steps towards the evidence-based decriminalisation of drug consumption and a longer-term road map towards legal regulation.
We have the evidence on how to address this crisis and save these lives, but do we have the will?
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing a debate on this serious and important topic.
Across England and Wales, there has been a 113% increase in drug-related fatalities in the last decade, and the impact of illegal drugs costs the Government around £20 billion a year. The number of deaths has been rising steadily since 2012, in line with the austerity measures introduced by the previous Government that resulted in a reduction in funding for treatment services. The National Audit Office reports that, between 2014 and 2022, real-terms funding for drug and alcohol treatment in England fell by 40%.
Deprivation leads to more drug deaths, but even in Wolverhampton West, which is not as deprived as some areas in the north-east of England, the number of drug- related deaths has risen sharply since 2021 to reach levels above the national average. What funding will be made available to deal with drug addiction? Public Health England recently found that 50% of those dying from opioid use had not been in contact with any support services in the previous five years.
We need a holistic approach to the problem of drug misuse that invests in our mental health services, reduces levels of deprivation and encourages those who use drugs to engage with services. Reducing the number of drug deaths would be incredibly cost-effective, resulting in a reduction in drug addiction and crime associated with drug usage. Dame Carol Black, who has already been mentioned this afternoon, found that every £1 invested in harm reduction and treatment services produces a £4 return to the health and justice systems.
We must continue to support and fund the amazing work of organisations that focus on the issue of drug abuse. Wolverhampton Voluntary and Community Action provides a service user involvement team in my constituency and throughout Wolverhampton. The SUIT is a peer-led service, led by people with first-hand experience of drug and alcohol abuse. It supports not only addiction recovery, but mental and physical health, wellbeing, homelessness, employment, welfare and housing, and tackling the stigma and discrimination around drug use. We need to invest in and support such organisations.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this crucial debate.
The statistics are harrowing, as other Members have said, but how have we got here? A decade-long disinvestment in drug treatment services, approaches more fit for scoring political points than actually solving a problem, a complete disregard for the expert guidance provided by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and an utter lack of expediency. Given those factors, it is little wonder that we have ended up in this position.
My work as the unremunerated chair of the Centre for Evidence Based Drug Policy has shown me that there are practical measures that can make a real difference. Diamorphine-assisted therapy, or DAT, has a robust evidence base for helping people who have not responded to other treatment modalities reduce their illicit drug use.
A DAT clinic in Middlesbrough demonstrated extraordinary outcomes: a 97% attendance rate, an 80% reduction in street heroin use, and a drastic drop in criminal activity—from 541 offences before treatment to just three in the same period following treatment. Those outcomes translated into an estimated £2.1 million saving across the health and criminal justice sectors, in addition to the lives saved.
Tragically, the clinic was closed due to fragmented, unsustainable funding—yet another example of short-term thinking undermining long-term gains. The enhanced drug treatment service in Glasgow, which offers a similar model, has estimated that its services have resulted in a 50% to 70% reduction in health service costs.
We are not alone in calling for these changes. A 2023 report by the Home Affairs Committee made it clear that harm reduction must play a far greater role in UK drugs policy. Its recommendations offer a pragmatic road map, and the Government must act on them if they are serious about reducing drug-related deaths. Most of the interventions require only minor amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which, after more than 50 years, appears increasingly unfit for purpose.
Currently, the 1971 Act blocks the establishment of safer drug consumption facilities and overdose prevention centres, and the distribution of vital harm-reduction paraphernalia by qualified drug treatment services. That includes safer inhalation pipes, which remain illegal under section 9A, even though corner shops can legally sell dangerous, poor-quality pipes with no health oversight, under the guise of ornaments.
A pilot is currently taking place in parts of England, with police support, and shows promising early results, including reductions in high-risk practices and increased awareness of the harms associated with drugs and how to reduce them. There are a number of services in my constituency that I am very proud of, but, to save the House’s time, I will not detail them. One of those is Change Grow Live, and I give massive credit to its work.
When stigma shapes policy, we see punitive laws, fragmented services and inevitably soaring mortality rates. When compassion and evidence shape policy, we see reduced deaths, safer communities, diminished profits for criminal organisations and better returns on public investment. This is not just a moral imperative, but a public health necessity.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing such an important debate.
We have seen some of the worst outcomes on drug-related deaths in Europe. In England and Wales, there was an 85% increase in drug deaths between 2013 and 2023. Meanwhile, spending on drug and alcohol services decreased by around 40%. In Stoke-on-Trent, spending on treatment for drug misuse fell by 21% between 2019 and 2023.
Preventive services must remain at the heart of our approach. As we have heard, an independent review reported that for every £1 spent on treatment, £4 is saved by reducing demands on health and justice services. In Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove, residents have been concerned about young people inhaling butane gas, aerosols and nitrous oxide. However, there is currently no public measure of deaths associated with these substances in England and Wales. The absence of a public measure of mortality makes it difficult to understand the depth of this problem. Another key local concern is monkey dust, which is the colloquial name for synthetic cathinones. The use of monkey dust in our town centres and parks worries people, and cracking down on its use is critical to our safer streets mission.
I want people like my mum and dad to feel safe when they are out and about. The community safety team at Stoke-on-Trent city council does excellent work in this field. It does regular walks of our towns and parks, alongside the police and drug service teams, offering support directly to those who need it.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has suggested a series of interventions to tackle the rising use of monkey dust. This includes expanding trauma-informed treatment for vulnerable people and encouraging stronger collaboration between housing, health and justice services.
We know that drug dependency is linked to deprivation, and that in the most deprived areas, men are six times more likely and women almost five times more likely to die from drug use. In Stoke-on-Trent, our annual rate of drug deaths was 10.8 per 100,000 between 2020 and 2022, which is double the rate for England. In Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, fantastic community organisations such as Walk Ministries and Expert Citizens work tirelessly to address the issues on the ground. I also thank the Stoke-on-Trent community drug and alcohol service for its critical work.
Finally, it is a devastating fact that Stoke-on-Trent has one of the highest rates of infant mortality anywhere in the country, and we know that parental drug use is linked to sudden infant death syndrome, as reported by the national child mortality database. More must be done to address the impact of drug harms on children and families. I therefore close by asking the Minister to consider the merits of a cross-departmental strategy to address the impacts of parental drug use on infant health and mortality.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing a debate on this important subject. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) about Christina McKelvie. I served in the Scottish Parliament with Christina for some 10 years, and she was, perhaps ironically, a real lover of life and a force for good.
I will focus on the Scottish Affairs Committee’s ongoing inquiry into the operation of the safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow, which is the first of its kind in the UK. My contribution will be entirely factual, as I do not want to prejudice the inquiry in any way, or to pre-empt any decisions the Committee may make. It is an important issue and relevant to this debate.
To give some context to the rationale for the safer drug consumption room: Scotland has the highest number of drug deaths in Europe by some margin. The data tell us that some 1,172 people died in 2023 alone, which was up by 121 on the previous year. Much of the action that can be taken to address this problem comes under the powers of the Scottish Government, but that, of course, does not include issues arising from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The Scottish Government have introduced a variety of measures, but I am speaking specifically about the safer drug consumption space. There are now some 200 such facilities in 12 countries around the globe, and the Scottish Parliament’s information centre explains that:
“Several long-term evaluations indicate that attendees of SDCFs engage safer injecting practices and reduce public injecting, leading to significant declines in HIV and Hepatitis C transmission and fewer ambulance callouts for overdoses.”
The idea of such a facility in Glasgow was first raised more than 10 years ago, but a variety of issues, including the reluctance of the then Lord Advocate, meant that the pilot facility opened in Glasgow only in January 2025, following considerable public engagement and after the current Lord Advocate provided a statement of prosecution policy. Although the possession of drugs remains a criminal offence, the Lord Advocate has indicated that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute users of the facility for simple possession offences, subject to certain limitations. I stress that this applies only to the facility.
Last month the Scottish Affairs Committee visited the Thistle, as the Glasgow facility is known, and we saw for ourselves what was on offer. Users have access to a shower and can receive treatment for wounds and other health issues associated with their addiction. Discrete spaces where users can inject are also available, and staff can offer clean needles. Users bring their own drugs, but staff can give advice when they become aware that a particularly strong or pure drug might be in circulation, so that users are aware of potential dangers. Clients can choose to stay at the centre for a time after injecting. So far, two overdoses have occurred on the premises, but they were dealt with either on site or in other locations, and both individuals made a recovery. Staff can also signpost clients to other services.
Since the Thistle opened in January, there have been over 140 unique service users, more than 1,000 visits, more than 700 injecting episodes managed on site, and the prevention of some 700 to 800 items of drug-related litter in public spaces in the vicinity of the centre. Eighty per cent of the clients are male.
The Thistle is a pilot scheme and will be carefully reviewed and analysed over the next three years to ascertain whether it has helped to reduce bloodborne viruses and other drug-related harms and death. It has become clear to the Committee that the staff working at the Thistle are dedicated, committed, welcoming and non-judgmental. I encourage Members to look out for our report when it is published.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. I associate myself with the comments regarding Christina McKelvie MSP.
I stand here today to address a crisis that has devastated lives, families and communities across Scotland. It is a crisis that demands our attention, our compassion and, most importantly, accountability. I am speaking about the tragic rise of drug deaths in Scotland—a problem that for far too long has been exacerbated by failures in leadership and policy, particularly under the SNP Scottish Government.
At a constituency visit to the Patchwork Recovery Community in Kilmarnock a few weeks ago, I was starkly reminded of the enormity of the crisis during conversations with people who shared their thoughts about and experiences of the deaths of family members and friends due to drugs. They expressed the deep suffering and loss of those individuals.
The Scottish Government must start to deliver a genuinely joined-up approach to tackling the drug-deaths crisis, and ensure that every single person struggling with drug issues can get the care, support and treatment they need. For too long, the SNP Government have failed to address the crisis in a meaningful way. Despite Scotland’s long-standing recognition of its drug-death problem, the Scottish Government’s approach has been too slow, too reactive and too piecemeal. While other countries have taken bold action to tackle opioid crises and improve access to treatment, Scotland’s response has been inconsistent and insufficient. This stems from drastic cuts to public services over the last decade.
Glasgow is at the centre of the drugs epidemic, with the highest rate of drug-misuse death in Scotland in the 2019-23 period. The Thistle facility in Glasgow is the UK’s first official consumption room for illegal drugs. It is being appropriately scrutinised by the Scottish Affairs Committee as to its effectiveness in protecting Glaswegians who are impacted by drug abuse.
The SNP’s approach to harm reduction is inconsistent. There remain gaps in the availability of crucial services such as detox, rehabilitation and mental health support. It is no secret that drug addiction is often tied to underlying mental health challenges, yet too many people struggling with both have nowhere to turn for help. The lack of funding for rehab services and the slow pace of reform shows a Government who are not focused on the drug crisis or on prioritising the lives of their citizens.
Scotland’s drug-deaths crisis is not just about the statistics: it is about people. It is about mothers, fathers, sons and daughters whose lives have been cut short because the response from those in power was inadequate. After 1,171 deaths, how many more lives need to be lost before real change happens? How many more families must be shattered before the Scottish Government take full responsibility for the tragedy?
The SNP has had years to make meaningful change, yet we continue to see preventable deaths and suffering. We can no longer afford to ignore the crisis. We need urgent action from the Scottish Government. It is time for a comprehensive, compassionate and co-ordinated approach to tackling drug deaths that prioritises the health and wellbeing of those affected. We need better access to treatment, more rehabilitation services and a focus on addressing the root causes of addiction.
Scotland demands better from the SNP Government. The families who have lost loved ones, the communities that are hurting and the individuals who are still fighting addiction deserve better. They deserve a Government who are willing to act decisively without hesitation to save lives.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate, as the prevention of drug-related deaths affects many in all our constituencies across the country.
Drug misuse is a complex problem with many causes and impacts, but one thing is clear: the current rates of death are completely unacceptable. In 2022, there were 7,912 alcohol-specific deaths. In 2023, 5,448 deaths related to drug poisoning were registered in England and Wales. That is the highest number since records began and a tragedy that has to stop. We cannot allow this crisis to continue unchecked.
In last week’s business questions, I spoke about how important community services are in supporting people with substance misuse issues. One example that stands out in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages is Chase Recovery, a truly innovative, community-based, peer-led rehabilitation programme. I recently had the privilege of visiting and saw at first hand the incredible impact the programme is having on the lives of those seeking recovery from substance misuse. It is not just a treatment programme but a lifeline for those who need it most. It offers a holistic, supportive environment where individuals can recover, rebuild their lives and develop new skills and confidence. Truly, I could not describe it as anything more than a really welcoming and supportive community.
During my visit I had the pleasure of meeting Paul and Cara, who run the organisation. They are incredibly passionate people who lead the programme with incredible dedication. Their drive and commitment to helping others is truly inspiring. They are making a difference every single day, and I have no doubt that the work they are doing is helping people to achieve long-term recovery and to rebuild their lives in a meaningful way.
Programmes like Chase Recovery prove how community- based, peer-led services can play a vital role in sustainable, long-term recovery, but those programmes need support from the Government to ensure that they can continue their vital work and reach even more people in need. It only takes one helping hand to change someone’s life. I encourage the Minister to outline what the Government are doing not only on prevention but on community-led treatment.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate.
As colleagues have said, 5,448 drug-related deaths in England and Wales is truly a public health crisis, and we need a response that meets the urgency of that crisis. When the last Labour Government came into power, we were approaching 2,000 drug-related deaths a year, and that was considered serious enough at the time to implement a new national drug strategy, with funding, and to set up a national treatment agency to provide evidence-based treatment. That was at almost 2,000 deaths a year.
The effect of that intervention was that drug-related deaths, which had been inexorably rising for a decade or more, levelled out and stopped rising. Thousands of lives were saved and improved. I know a little bit about that, because it was the privilege of my NHS career to manage NHS drug treatment services in the north-east of England for three years when that strategy and system were in place. A harm-reduction approach was key to treatment, as other colleagues have said.
Drug deaths are horrific, and so are the wider harms, including the impact on crime. The amount of acquisitive crime in this country that is driven by addiction is really significant. The Government are focused rightly on tackling crime as well as wider health themes. This is an intervention that meets a lot of the Government’s missions. The harms around children are also significant. Many children are taken into care as a result of parental drug use. A prevention approach would reduce costs for the state by ensuring appropriate drug treatment.
Treatment, particularly for opiate use, must focus on substitution therapies. It was disappointing that in the last decade ideology against opiate-substitution treatment trumped the evidence base for it. There are people who could still be alive today if it were not for that ideology. The scale of the treatment gap is significant. In Sunderland, in my constituency, adult mortality from drug causes is about twice the average in England, but around 60% of opiate and crack users are not in treatment today. That must change, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that.
Under the last Labour Government, the policy and health landscape was rather different. As well as the policy urgency, there were clear national levers to pull, with a primary one being the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. Since then, we have moved to a more diffuse system that is not at the centre of Government but commissioned by each council individually through the public health grant. The provider landscape has fragmented. Whereas NHS treatment services used to be the norm, now there is a significant pattern of commissioning—in some cases there is competitive tendering every few years. That has not helped to tackle this issue with the urgency it needs.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I do not think legislation is required to improve treatment. This issue requires clear political will and focus, and I hope we will hear a lot more of that from the Government today and in the coming months.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I associate myself with the remarks from Scottish colleagues about Christina McKelvie.
Between 2010 and 2023, 333 people in Falkirk lost their lives to drug misuse. Our worst year was 2018, when 43 people died. Every one of those people was a family member—someone’s child or parent—tragically or prematurely taken. Part of the reason why that number is so high is that Scotland has the greatest number of drug deaths anywhere in Europe. I want to use my speech to talk about where we have gone wrong and what we have started to get right.
Although I acknowledge that it was only one tool in the arsenal of public health responses, medication-assisted treatment such as methadone has been shown to reduce overdose deaths significantly. The abandonment of Scotland’s 10-year drug strategy decades ago is a failure that should teach us the lesson of never returning to unscientific moralising drug policy. We should focus on real action and harm reduction. More recently, harm reduction policies such as naloxone distribution have saved lives by reversing opioid overdoses in Falkirk. The Falkirk Alcohol and Drug Partnership has taken incredible steps in encouraging the awareness and use of naloxone, and I pay tribute to its lead officer, Phil Heaton. We should go further on harm reduction.
Safer drug consumption facilities are proven to reduce overdose deaths in other countries. They have been piloted in Glasgow, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) explained. The sites provide medical supervision, sterile equipment and a gateway to treatment for those ready to take the next step towards recovery, instead of wrongly expecting people to go cold turkey, which does not work. Harm reduction saves lives.
Drug addiction is not a spontaneous phenomenon: it is deeply intertwined with social and economic conditions. People in Scotland’s most deprived areas are more than 15 times more likely to die from drug misuse than those in the wealthiest areas. We need a holistic approach that looks at root causes: poverty and deprivation.
When looking at drug deaths, we must also think about demographics. Many of those dying today in Scotland first became addicted in the 1980s and 1990s, during the economic shock of deindustrialisation, and are maligned with stigma and a lack of support. The average age of drug-misuse death has increased from 32 in 2000 to 45 today. Now in middle age, the health of that generation is failing fast, making them more vulnerable to fatal overdoses. We need to look at the demographic changes and where we are failing.
Addiction treatment, chronic disease management, financial support for the disabled and mental health services are all essential factors. I acknowledge that this is not an easy issue for Governments to tackle. It is wrapped in dozens of policy points and often involves those Governments find it the hardest to reach. Most of all, it is an issue of injustice, of lack of opportunities and of general social failure. We need to listen to our communities and take real action.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this important debate. I am particularly pleased to see the Minister in her place, which shows the Government’s recognition that this is a public health issue. Every drug-related death is a preventable tragedy. Every life lost represents not just statistics in a report, but families shattered, futures lost and communities left to pick up the pieces. As a Government and a society, we have a moral obligation to do better.
The reality is stark, and it has been laid out very well by Members across the House in the debate: drug-related deaths have reached record highs. They are not just the consequence of addiction but often the result of inadequate support, stigma—as has been mentioned by many hon. Members—and a failure to adopt evidence-based strategies. In 2023, more than 5,000 deaths related to drug poisoning were registered in England and Wales. That is the highest number since records began in 1993 and 11% higher than in the previous year. My local hospital, which is in Chichester, records hundreds of A&E attendances involving drug use.
For too long, the response to drug use has been focused on criminalisation rather than treatment. However, as hon. Members have said today, we cannot arrest our way out of the crisis. Those struggling with addiction need access to healthcare, not handcuffs. That means properly funding rehabilitation services, expanding mental health support and ensuring that no one seeking help is turned away due to lack of resources.
For me, it is personal. I have witnessed family members self-medicate with drugs when mental health support was unavailable to them. My own dear dad battled with alcohol addiction throughout his adult life. Although it was a related cancer that took him in the end, the addiction had taken him away long before that. In fact, one of the many reasons that I am proud to be a Liberal Democrat is that we pledged, in our general election manifesto, to provide mental health MOTs at key points in our lives when we are most vulnerable to a change in our mental health. I often wonder if my dad would still be here today had he ever had the opportunity to tell a professional that he was struggling.
Across the world, we have seen that harm reduction saves lives. I would like to acknowledge the role that hard-working GPs, nurses, community pharmacists and other health professionals play in supporting access to medication and safe consumption spaces, which is taking an evidence-based approach and using it to prevent deaths. In Glasgow, as many Members across the House have mentioned, where drug deaths are at crisis levels, pilots of safer consumption rooms are now under way. I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), as well as other colleagues from across the House, have visited those centres. We should be looking at those models with open minds, rather than relying on outdated ideologies, because the goal is simple: we need to keep people alive for long enough to access treatment and rebuild their lives. As the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said, the savings that we find across health and justice far outweigh the investment needed in those centres.
We also need a joined-up approach across the country, which lays out the most effective pilot projects so that they can be rolled out to other areas. In its February 2024 report, the Public Accounts Committee identified that there were delays in allocating funding from the 2021 drugs strategy to local authorities, and a continued lack of understanding about what works to prevent people from using drugs. It is unacceptable that there was a 14% underspend in the funding allocated to the strategy in 2023-24, when it is clearly desperately needed across the country to prevent deaths.
Of course, prevention must also mean cutting off the supply of dangerous drugs at the source. We need stronger action to stop organised crime groups profiting from misery. That includes tackling county lines operations, which exploit vulnerable young people and push deadly substances into our communities. It is not a partisan issue; we must work together across the House to ensure that harm reduction, prevention and rehabilitation are at the heart of our national strategy. At the end of the day, it is not about politics; it is about people and ensuring that families do not have to endure the heartbreak of losing a loved one to drugs. At its core, it is about saving lives.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I pass my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Christina McKelvie. I know she meant a lot to many of the people in this room.
Members on both sides will recognise the vital importance of the topic before us today in relation to our health and wellbeing as a nation. Let us be clear: deaths across the UK remain too high and in many cases, trends are moving in the wrong direction. Therefore, I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on bringing this important debate so we can talk about it further.
The Office for National Statistics notes that 5,448 deaths related to drug poisoning were registered in 2023 across England and Wales—93 deaths per million people—but those headline figures tell only part of the story, of course, because behind each one is a tragedy for a family.
There is a significant gender imbalance in drug deaths. Of the nearly 5,500 deaths in England and Wales, 3,645 were men and 1,803 were women. There is also an imbalance among the English regions, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said. The north-east of England remains the region with the highest rate of deaths related to drugs—London has a third of that rate. What steps are the Government taking to understand the epidemiology of drug use? How are they using that information to develop policies to reduce drug use and drug deaths?
Another key demographic trend relates to age. ONS survey data for 2024 shows that 16.5% of people aged 16 to 24 reported using at least one drug in the year to March 2024, and approximately 150,000 in the same age bracket considered themselves frequent drug users. Education will clearly be a vital element of any strategy designed to prevent people from becoming addicted to drugs and going on to cause harm to themselves and their community. Education needs to be clear about the damage that drug consumption does to individuals and society, through antisocial behaviour, environmental pollution and serious organised crime committed by gangs. What steps are the Government taking to ensure schools and colleges provide effective, targeted education to young people? What conversations has the Minister had with education Ministers about that? What are they doing to extend that education to those who are lost to the system—those who are not attending school and are therefore at greater risk of developing addictions and being exploited?
As has been mentioned, we also need to understand the changing patterns of use around particular drugs. Fashions change, and we must confront today’s challenges proactively, rather than yesterday’s ones reactively. Deaths involving cocaine rose by 30% in a single year in 2023, and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl pose another emerging risk. We know that such substances have caused catastrophic harm in other countries, where they are already a fixture of the drug supply chain. What lessons have the Minister and the Government learned from other countries’ experiences with synthetic opioids? What steps are they taking to ensure the risk does not develop into the sort of crisis that we have seen in other countries?
Behind the statistics, there are people who use drugs and people in our communities who suffer the impacts. We need to look at both, and at the patterns of drug use. Inner-city areas suffering multiple forms of deprivation may face greater problems with substances such as heroin. As Members said, the Scottish Government recently opened the UK’s first drug consumption room in Glasgow, with the intention to address that kind of drug use. Long-term evidence about the effectiveness of such rooms is not clear at this stage, so I am pleased that the UK Government’s position is not to implement the strategy more widely. Treatment must be evidence-based, compassionate and effective, and it must not be done in a way that undermines the law, risking more people thinking that drugs are safe or not risky.
Grahame Morris
That is the status quo, but should we not be challenging that and looking at the evidence from, for example, prisons? One might assume that someone who is incarcerated due to crimes resulting from drug addiction would receive treatment in prison and rehabilitated, but in practice they are actually worse when they come out, and Buvidal, a long-lasting drug that could be very effective, is not readily available. Does the shadow Minister have any views on that?
Dr Johnson
I completely agree that we need evidence-based policy, and that, in whatever policy area we are looking at, we should challenge and probe policies to ensure we are doing things in the right way. Drugs should not be available in our prisons. People should receive treatment if they have gone into prison due to a drug-related offence, or if it is a non-drug-related offence but they are a drug user, but they should not have access to drugs. Prisons are controlled environments, so we should be able to prevent that. The Minister might be able to update us on what the Government will do to reduce the amount of drugs available in prisons.
We must also look at the effects on the local area around drug consumption rooms. What effect does allowing people to use drugs have on the numbers for violent gang crime, acquisitive crime and drug use? The evidence needs to be looked at closely.
There are other contexts in which drug use causes problems. Media coverage in recent years has highlighted the problem of so-called middle-class drug taking in family homes or at dinner parties. That is a different pattern of use, with different problems, and may risk setting precedents and norms, particularly for young children who may witness it, that might have damaging effects in years to come. Such drug use may be occurring in middle-class homes, but it still fuels organised crime and violence elsewhere. What are the Government doing to address the nuances in different habits and social contexts of drug use, and how do those figure in policy development?
We should also think about the prevalence of drug use in contexts such as workplaces. Some workplaces, such as the police, use intermittent drug testing. Police can use stop and search powers to investigate misuse, but there are other opportunities to interrupt harmful behaviour. What is the Government’s position on random drug testing in employment settings?
Regarding people in communities blighted by the effects of drug use, it is important to enforce the law as it is. In 2021, only 20% of drug-related offences recorded in Home Office data resulted in the user being charged or summonsed, and 34% of those offences resulted in an out of court or informal settlement. Some today have seemed to suggest that treatment and law enforcement are an either/or, but both are very important. Minimising the criminal offence could increase drug use, derisk the first trying of drugs among young people, embolden drug dealers and further harm neighbours who suffer drug-related harm. According to ONS data for 2024, 39.2% of respondents to the crime survey for England and Wales said it would be very or fairly easy to obtain illegal drugs within 24 hours. How do the Government intend to reduce the availability of illegal substances?
The last Government implemented a 10-year drug strategy following the publication of the independent review of drugs undertaken by Dame Carol Black in 2020, and they committed an additional £523 million up to 2025 to improve the capacity and quality of drug and alcohol treatment services. This strategy set out aspirations to prevent nearly 1,000 deaths and deliver a phased expansion of treatment capacity, with at least 54,500 new high-quality treatment places for sufferers of addiction.
The present Government need to set out a coherent and viable plan for tackling the problems that the previous Government had begun to address. On 26 November last year, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Baroness Merron noted that the Government
“continue to fund research into wearable technology, virtual reality and artificial intelligence, all in a bid to support people with drug addictions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 594.]
That cost £12 million in the period from the election to 26 November. Will the Minister update the House on the evidence for the effectiveness of those measures? How do they intend to measure the value of the outcomes of that £12 million investment, and does she have any results on how effective they were?
Drug use continues to cause substantial harm to individuals and communities across the UK. The Government must commit to evidence-based interventions and plan the UK’s drugs strategy in a manner that limits the opportunities for individuals to distribute or consume drugs, reduces the likelihood that young people will develop an addiction, and prevents communities from suffering the impact of ineffective policing and sanctions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. He raised a number of important points, and I agree that the rise in drug-related deaths across the UK is deeply concerning. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
We in the Department of Health and Social Care are aware of this issue, even on a personal level. Just last month, a homeless man known as Paddy died of a drug overdose just around the corner from 39 Victoria Street. Paddy was known to many civil servants and was noted for the gentle way he looked after his dog. His death, less than a 10-minute walk from this place, should remind us of the stark realities that many people face every day. It serves as a painful reminder that, while we in this Chamber discuss policies and politics, real lives are at stake on our doorstep.
Paddy’s story is not an isolated one; it is a tragic reflection of the systemic issues that continue to affect vulnerable people in our society. His death has brought home most vividly to us that behind every statistic is a human being who deserves dignity, care and support. My family, too, has been affected by drug-related death. As I rise to speak, my cousin Stephen, who we lost in this way, tragically young, is at the forefront of my mind.
There is no doubt that illicit drugs have a devastating impact on communities across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Drug misuse deaths have doubled since 2012. More than 3,300 people died in England alone in 2023, the highest rate since records began in 1993. Drug and alcohol deaths are the leading cause of premature mortality in those aged under 50.
These deaths are preventable, and this Government are committed, through our health mission, to ensuring that people live longer, healthier lives. We recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and others, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), pointed out, this is a public health issue. That is why I, as the Minister responsible for public health, am standing at the Dispatch Box today.
We are determined to make our communities safer, more secure and free from the violence caused by the illicit drugs market through our safer streets mission. Although the Opposition seem to have sent the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), here to speak almost entirely about criminal justice issues, I will focus most of my comments on the public health areas and write to her afterwards with some of the details that she raised.
We know that many people struggling with drug addiction are already at the sharpest end of inequality and often have multiple and complex needs. The links between homelessness, deprivation and people who have spent time in prison with addiction are profound. Tackling the blight of illicit drugs is an issue that cuts across our four nations. It is crucial, now more than, ever that we work together and share learning to tackle the harms that drugs cause. My Department continues to work very closely with our colleagues in the devolved Governments, and I am grateful for that ongoing collaboration.
I also want to take this opportunity to put on record and add my voice to the condolences to the family and friends of Christina McKelvie. I look forward to meeting ministerial counterparts in the devolved Governments later this year to discuss how we can continue to work together to reduce drug-related deaths.
On the harms caused by drugs, the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) raised some issues about the Home Office and public health. This is a mission-led Government and, although I stand here as a Public Health Minister, we will continue to work closely with the Home Office and the Department for Education—indeed, across Government —on the drugs agenda. I met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention just last week to discuss this complex issue. Although we have no plans to decriminalise drug possession—prohibiting drug possession helps to reduce the availability of drugs and sends a clear signal that using drugs is not normal—we support programmes that divert drug users away from the criminal justice system and into treatment.
If we are really to shift the dial on drug-related deaths, we must ensure that anyone with a drug problem, wherever they are, can access the help and support they need. That means providing evidence-based, high-quality treatment. Those dedicated drug treatment services reduce harm and provide a path to recovery. My Department is continuing to invest in improvements to local treatment services, which faced significant cutbacks during a decade of disinvestment, and the local authority funding allocations for 2025-26 will be announced imminently. I recognise the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) about the importance of community-based treatment.
Grahame Morris
I am very pleased with the Minister’s response. I appreciate that she has an awful lot on her plate, with cancer services and piloting a Bill through the House of Commons yesterday, but, given that we are looking at evaluating the evidence on what works best, will she agree to meet me and a small group of representatives from the treatment providers, so that they can explain in person what they think is the most effective way to tackle this issue?
Ashley Dalton
I would be delighted to do so. As my hon. Friend knows, consultation and engagement are at my very core. I would be happy to meet him and others.
My Department has invested an additional £267 million in 2024-25 to improve the capacity and quality of drug and alcohol treatment services, alongside £105 million made available by the DHSC, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to improve treatment pathways and recovery specifically for people who are sleeping rough, and housing and employment support. The Government have also awarded £12 million to projects across the UK that are researching innovative technology to support people with addictions and to prevent drug-related deaths.
As of January this year, there were 43,500 more people in drug and alcohol treatment, including more than 4,500 children and young people, and 12,500 more people in long-term recovery. There are around 340,000 people in structured treatment in England, which I am pleased to say is the highest number on record.
The hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire and for Brighton Pavilion, and my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), all referred to drug consumption rooms. This Government recognise the exercised prosecutorial independence of the Lord Advocate of Scotland in respect of the pilot drug consumption room known as The Thistle in Scotland. Along with the Home Office, we will consider any evidence that emerges from the evaluation of that pilot and report on it in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) talked about safe inhalation pipes; I will write to her with further information on them in due course, because there is an academic research study under way to test their effectiveness. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is part of the advisory group and is waiting to see the findings.
Mental health issues and trauma often lie at the heart of substance use issues. People with co-occurring mental health and substance use problems find it hard to engage with support, and services too often fail to meet their needs. That must change. We are committed to ensuring cohesion between mental health services and substance use services, which will mean that people no longer fall through the gaps of treatment. Jointly with NHS England, my Department has developed a mental health action plan to tackle this issue, which I hope will be published soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked about naloxone, which other hon. Members also mentioned. I know that tackling drug-related deaths is a key priority for all four nations, and I am proud that together we have legislated to widen access to naloxone, the lifesaving medicine that reverses the effects of an opiate overdose. We know that over half of the people struggling with opiate addiction are not engaged in treatment at all, which means that significant numbers of an incredibly vulnerable population are at increased risk of overdosing and dying. The UK-wide naloxone legislation that came into force in December 2024 enables more services and professionals to supply the medication, which in turn makes it easier to access for people at risk and their loved ones. We are also working to set up a registration service in England that will further expand access to naloxone.
We are highly alert to the growing threat posed by synthetic opioids, which were raised by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Easington. Synthetic opioids such as nitazenes and fentanyl are often more potent and deadly, but naloxone is an effective medicine for synthetic opioid overdose. The Government are undertaking a range of actions to prevent the rise of these dangerous drugs and working with colleagues across the devolved Governments, including on increased surveillance and enforcement.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) for raising the important issue of children affected by parental drug use. Our mission-based approach will ensure that every child has the best start in life and that we create the healthiest generation of children ever, which includes supporting the children of parents with drug problems and those suffering adverse childhood experiences.
My Department is leading work to improve the health system’s ability to respond to and support the needs of those people who have drug addiction and multiple and complex physical health needs. Intervening earlier and treating co-occurring physical health conditions will reduce drug-related deaths and improve recovery outcomes.
The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has an action plan in place to reduce drug and alcohol-related deaths, and I was pleased to announce that on 1 May this year my Department will host a national event on preventing drug and alcohol-related deaths, where we will work with the sector to agree priorities.
I again thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate. I can assure everyone that this Government are committed to reducing the harms illicit drugs pose to both individuals and across wider society. These deaths are avoidable, and I am confident that the Government’s mission-led approach will put us in a stronger position to tackle this complex issue. Harm reduction and strong public health approaches are at the heart of this Government’s work to prevent drug related deaths.
Jim Shannon
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I have secured numerous Westminster Hall debates, but I have never had as many people at a debate as I have had at this one, and that illustrates the deep interest that there is from all Members. Some of the ideas that they have put forward could be replicated, such as the centres where people can come with an addiction and they can be weaned off, supported and given the help that they need. Most of those examples have been from Scotland, although we did do something similar in my constituency back home.
I also thank the Minister, in particular for her reply. I genuinely think none of us could fail to be impressed by her response. It certainly encapsulated the feeling of us all in this Chamber and what we are trying to achieve. The Minister referred to Paddy, who lost his life just a few steps away from this place—an example of just how real this issue is for people—and she also mentioned Stephen, a relative who is suffering problems as well. She also referred to the public health issue, and recognised it in her response, along with tackling the blight of drugs. I welcome her commitment to having discussions with devolved Governments and bringing us all together—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and getting a strategy.
Drug addictions should be directed to treatment rather than criminalisation. That is the thrust of what I was trying to put over, and everybody put over the same idea as well. I welcome the £250 million commitment for drug treatment pathways that the Minister mentioned; she also spoke about £12 million for research on drug-related deaths in the UK. The Minister reminded us about children, as did another hon. Member; sometimes when we look at the addict, we do not see the child. Forgive me; I do not remember which hon. Member said that, but it is really important for us all to remember there are sometimes children left when parents go astray, and the Minister committed herself to addressing and giving support on that as well. I thank all hon. Members for their significant contributions to a debate that needed to be had in Westminster Hall, for the questions asked and the answers given.
The Minister said that this is a mission-led Government, and I am really impressed: well done. We will look to keep an eye on her and make sure that they will be mission-led, but we look forward to helping and supporting her in the pathway that she has chosen to take us forward on. Thank you so much.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the prevention of drug deaths.
Hughes Report: First Anniversary
(5 days, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the first anniversary of the Hughes report on valproate and pelvic mesh.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. It is a delight to see such a well-attended debate and a packed Public Gallery, as this is a very important topic. Last month marked the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Hughes report. Thanks to that report, we now understand what the potential compensation schemes for women and children impacted by the mesh and valproate scandals could look like.
I will briefly break convention to say how grateful I am for the passion and hard work of our Patient Safety Commissioner, Henrietta Hughes, who—gosh!—has not managed to get into the public Gallery. Somebody might want to tell her there is a spare chair. Can somebody make sure she is allowed in, because it is her report we are discussing? [Interruption.] There she is. I thank our wonderful Patient Safety Commissioner, who has thankfully now been let into the room.
It is great to see so many campaigners, who have been a great help and source of expertise and support to me over many years. I particularly thank Kath Sansom from Sling the Mesh, and Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the Independent Fetal Anti-convulsant Trust, or In-FACT, as well as many more—too many to name.
I am also glad to see Charlie and Lesley Bethune, who have tirelessly campaigned on behalf of their daughter, Autumn. They have travelled all the way down from Scotland. Their MP, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), cannot be here today, but he sends his sincere apologies. They would welcome an undertaking from the Minister and the UK Government to engage with those affected in Scotland, recognising that this is a UK-wide issue. Like so many others, they would also welcome progress on a response.
Every Member present will have a constituent who is affected by one of these health scandals. At least 7,000 children have been harmed by the drug valproate since it first came on to the market in 1973, with an estimated further 28 per month exposed to it, and at least 40,000 women across the country have been injured by mesh.
It is important to note that the actual figures are likely to be much higher due to a lack of awareness and many parents being reluctant to label their children. Putting an exact number on these things can therefore be extremely convoluted and difficult. Regardless, these are not just statistics: behind each number is the story of a woman who trusted a healthcare professional and was horrifyingly let down, a woman or a child who has been damaged irreversibly, a woman who has had to alter her life to accommodate for the physical, mental and financial toll of these scandals.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that any inquiry and report looks into the fact that the products that were used, particularly in the mesh scandal, were properly licensed for the procedures they were used for?
Mrs Hodgson
Yes, I agree. That is a huge part of the problem, especially with regard to medical devices. The Cumberlege report looked into the medications, but also medical devices, which is what mesh comes under. Often they are put into use for one thing and then used for something else without any further testing or investigation. I agree with the hon. Lady that that has got to stop.
After all that these women, families and children have been through, compensation would help at the very least pay to their bills if they cannot work any longer, or help to ease the constant worry about how their child will be able to survive independently when they are gone. I have a constituent impacted by her mesh implant who is unable to work—like most of those affected—and therefore cannot afford the day-to-day necessities. She is in constant pain, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and has lost all trust in medical professionals. Compensation would not reverse her physical or mental pain, but it would at least make her life easier. There are thousands just like her, including my very own mam, who is now aged 80. I have spoken in detail about her journey previously. The damage to her body and health from mesh is something she says she will regret to her dying day, which I hope is still many years off, even though mesh has ruined her long-awaited and hoped-for retirement by ruining her health.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She is making an excellent speech. My constituent Susan Cole is in the Public Gallery. Her daughter was affected by sodium valproate. It is now 14 months since the Hughes report was published. The time for the payment of compensation is now. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could provide interim compensation even if they do not have the timeline for implementing in full the measures in the Hughes report?
Mrs Hodgson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I commend him on all the work he does to represent his constituents. Interim payments were provided to victims of the contaminated blood scandal, as we know. Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner, has detailed how to do it in her report. I ask the Government to look at that in detail when considering their response.
If the Government are not moved by the moral case in respect of these health scandals, surely they cannot deny the economic toll they have taken on our public and mental health services. Although compensation would require finding money in what we all appreciate is a very tough fiscal situation, if we do nothing we will still need to find money: one payment will be given directly to the women and children harmed; if we do not do that, another will be have to be made for the provision of mental health services, for the NHS and for out-of-work benefits. We have a decision to make and, for me and the thousands of women and campaigners, the answer could not be simpler.
I know from conversations with campaigners and constituents that the Government’s recent announcement on personal independence payments and welfare reform have caused anxiety for mesh and valproate victims who rely on those payments to survive. It is vital that we understand that the physical complications and illness caused by mesh and valproate are going to be with them for life, so they should not be forced into work if they cannot work.
I spoke to the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) recently, and he told me about his constituent, Julie Robinson, and her family’s experience of sodium valproate. Julie’s daughter Samantha has been severely impacted by the epilepsy drug that was prescribed during Julie’s pregnancy. They both live in Market Weighton, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He sends his apologies and asked me to raise the case of his constituent.
I hope Members will allow me to list the seven complications Samantha has following the damage done to her by valproate while in uterus. She has neurodevelopment issues, including autism; memory difficulties; speech and language impairments; hearing and vision problems; heart defects requiring major surgery; a cleft lip and palate that led to a year in hospital; dysmorphic facial features at birth; and fine and gross motor challenges. It is quite a list. These conditions have significantly affected Samantha’s health and education and will persist throughout her life. There are thousands just like Samantha who will require lifelong care, which will also affect her parents’ ability to work.
If a person can never work again because of mesh or valproate, they deserve support and to be treated with dignity. If they want to try to work, they should never be penalised or forced to go through reassessments and put under excessive anxiety or fear if it does not work for them and their family. Even prior to the welfare announcements, I have long argued for better education and empathy from the Department for Work and Pensions when assessing mesh and valproate victims. I hear from constituents impacted by mesh, for example, who would rather struggle financially than go through the gruelling and dehumanising process of explaining their condition and trying to claim the benefits they are entitled to. There needs to be proper and effective education among DWP staff about these health scandals, so that assessments are humiliation-free and quick for these women.
While the valproate and mesh scandals differ in the specifics of the cases, the crux of them and the flags that they raise remain the same. Both affect women; both exemplify what happens when there is a lack of honesty and communication about the risks of medical procedures; and both highlight the need for increased transparency on the payments made to health professionals. They show the damage that is done when profit is put before people, when big firms avoid accountability and transparency and when—I have to say it—medical misogyny is allowed to run rife. I intend to emphasise those points, which I imagine colleagues will also touch on.
Let us consider the valproate scandal. If warnings had been given at licensing, or in 1987, when Sanofi asked for information to be added to the patient information leaflet, the women and children impacted by valproate would not be in this position. Likewise with mesh, if women had been properly informed about the risks of adverse effects rather than being fed a false image, as my mam was, of “In and out; a quick 20-minute procedure that will change your life”—boy, did it change her life, but not for the better—we would not have thousands of women harmed on an irreversible scale.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Before I became an MP, I specialised exclusively in dealing with compensation claims on behalf of women who had suffered from the use of vaginal mesh. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the mesh was sold to patients as a gold standard, and they were misled. Does she agree that a proper Government-backed compensation scheme will save the NHS money in the long run? As a solicitor, I was always conscious of the fact that, in pursuing these claims, it was ultimately the NHS that had to pay out the compensation and legal costs.
Mrs Hodgson
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which perhaps nobody else but him would have been able to make in this debate, so I thank him for it, and I do agree.
The people harmed by mesh and valproate did nothing other than trust a medical professional’s judgment. The very least we should do is offer them compensation to help them navigate their now damaged lives, which they have had inflicted on them, most horrifyingly, by our very own NHS.
The fact that the victims of these scandals are mainly women is no coincidence. I have recently spoken in this place about medical misogyny in our healthcare system, and some colleagues here were in that debate. I said then—and I say it again—that had the thousands of women impacted by these scandals been men,
“I do not believe that dismissal on such a scale would have occurred.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 499WH.]
We hear stories of women seeking advice from medical professionals, only to be told it is all in their head—that it is just their menstrual cycle or the menopause—or being gaslit into believing it must be anything other than the devices or medication they were prescribed.
Women not being listened to by medical professionals not only perpetuates structural misogyny; it endangers lives. It is so heartening to see so many male colleagues in this debate, because it proves that we can change things and that it does not have to be this way. Issuing compensation to these women would, at least and at last, confirm that they were right to be concerned and that they were not being hysterical—we know why it is called a “hysterectomy”—which is something women have been accused of for many hundreds of years when it comes to our health.
As well as medical misogyny, part of the defensiveness and dismissal stems from the huge sums given to the healthcare system by the industry, which creates bias. Knowing that that is the case is not enough: the UK needs to adopt sunshine legislation to ensure that this information is fully declared, in the same way that all of us in this room, as MPs, have to make declarations. That information should be presented via a centralised public database that is totally independent of industry. As we all know, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we need to act now to prevent future scandals.
I am conscious of time, and colleagues will have a lot to say and experiences to share, so I will end my remarks by leaving the Minister with a few quick questions—sorry, Minister. Will she provide Members and campaigners here today, and the no doubt many victims of these scandals watching at home on the internet, with a timeline for when we can expect a Government response to the excellent Hughes report? If she is unable to do that today, will she commit to writing to Baroness Merron to ask for a timeframe?
Will the Minister explain what scope there is for the Government to implement a sunshine-style piece of legislation to ensure the transparency of payments made by industry to our healthcare sector? In the spirit of cross-departmental working, which I know the Government are committed to, will she write to the Work and Pensions Secretary for reassurance that victims of the valproate and mesh scandals will not be subject to reassessment and forced into work, given their physical and mental complications? Finally, in her new role, will she commit to meeting campaigners, many of whom are here today, to hear at first hand about the valproate and mesh scandals, if she did not do that in her previous role as a Back-Bench MP?
I thank the Minister in advance for her consideration, and I look forward to her answers. I will end with this: we have rightly seen compensation for the infected blood scandal, which I mentioned at the start of my remarks, the Post Office scandal and the Grenfell disaster. Those all involved innocent people whose lives were turned upside down, whether physically, mentally or worse, through no fault of their own. I fail to see how the mesh and valproate scandals do not meet the same criteria, and I encourage anyone opposed to compensation to consider that.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. At this stage, there are a lot of you to get in, so we are limiting speeches to four minutes.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate, Ms Furniss. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for the work she has done on this matter to date and for her powerful advocacy this afternoon.
I am drawn to this issue as a result of my recent experience as a Minister in the last Government, where I was responsible for bringing forward the infected blood compensation scheme and passing the legislation to set up the authority that would pay out compensation. I do not presume to be an expert on the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh issue, and nor do I seek to draw direct parallels, but I thought it would be helpful to make some observations about what I experienced in Whitehall when trying to come to terms with the infected blood compensation, and to offer some perspectives on how we might move forward.
It has been my privilege to meet Janet Williams and Emma Murphy, two victims of sodium valproate, who have briefed me on their long campaign going back many years. They have seven children between them, with disabilities consequential of valproate. It seems to me that we have already gone down a familiar path, with the Cumberlege review and then Henrietta Hughes’s work last year. As the Patient Safety Commissioner, she suggested a way forward, with a two-stage redress scheme and some clear next steps setting out what must happen, what should happen and what the Government need to do. We look forward to hearing a response from the Minister in a short while.
However, there are three things I have taken from my experience. Constant delay will increase the cost and build up ill will. Lessons need to be learned, and they cannot be platitudes that are recurrently uttered in a well-meaning way by various Ministers who do not get to the heart of the matter. I say that with the greatest respect, but we must move on these things.
We must also not underestimate the complexity of delivery. A vast amount of work has been done on trying to understand the population involved, the range of suffering and the medical conditions consequential of valproate. It is important to recognise that there are ways of putting in compensation schemes very simply and clearly and in short order. That is what happened last year with infected blood, and it can happen in this case.
It is also important to improve communications with stakeholders, so that they are taken on a journey to where this will head to. There will be vast institutional blockers in Whitehall to stop this moving swiftly to a point of resolution. That will primarily be from the Treasury, and there will be sensible conventions on processes that will delay progress—unless the Minister can grip this and recognise it as a top priority.
Lots of things go wrong in medicine—we all understand that—but when things go wrong that could have been avoided, the state must step up, come to terms with it and clearly state the way forward. I urge the Minister to use the power of her office, for however long she has it—I hope she has it for a long time so that she can deliver, because it is very satisfying to be able to do—to address this matter urgently.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate. The Hughes report makes for grim reading, as we have to read about the twin scandals of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Both scandals have one thing in common: the lack of provision of timely, accurate information to patients about the benefits, as well as the risks, of the treatments offered to them.
Many people rely on treatment with sodium valproate to effectively manage their epilepsy, and for many it is a remarkable drug that allows them to control their condition and lead a life free from the worry of epileptic seizures. However, a constituent experienced severe side effects from it, with no warnings and no information on the risk to pregnancy from taking it. In my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, a family approached me to press for action on compensation for families impacted by sodium valproate.
My constituent’s daughter was born with autism as a direct result of the sodium valproate she was prescribed to control her epilepsy. She has been left feeling guilt and self-blame for her daughter's condition, as many mothers would, given the challenges her daughter has had to endure growing up and managing in an education system where getting the right adjustments was a constant battle. My constituent and her family have faced the consequences of the lack of information and advice for pregnant women regarding sodium valproate. It is not fair, it should not have happened and it could have been prevented.
It is depressing that we have seen an array of similar medical scandals, as well as the scandal of the Horizon system in post offices. All of those have one significant factor in common: information being withheld, with public bodies showing a complete lack of transparency, rather than being open to addressing serious issues from the outset. The latter would have prevented much distress and anguish and, in the case of sodium valproate, many children from being born with lifelong medical conditions.
But here we are again, after the event, looking quite rightly at a public wrong, and with the Hughes report, published in February 2024, outlining options for redress. The previous Conservative Government did what they always did: kicked the cans down the road, leaving impacted women and families in limbo and making no financial provision to pay for the redress that families rightly deserve. It is a scandal that Opposition Members should be apologising to all affected families for.
The Labour Government are faced once again with the responsibility to pick up the mess left by the Tories, by responding to the Hughes report. I will continue to press the Government to do the right thing, which I know they want to do.
Lillian Jones
Sorry, I must go on—other people want to speak.
I know that the Labour Government want to do the right thing. It is in our Labour values to right wrongs and injustices such as sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. But I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Government to do more and to look to change the culture in Government bodies that enables such scandals to happen in the first place. Transparency and accountability are what hard-working tax-paying families demand of the Government. Today, I call for fairness for all those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh, and for them to receive recognition and redress to ensure that their needs are met.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for leading the debate, as she always does, in such an expert fashion. This issue has impacted thousands of people, including many in my constituency. It is something I have spoken on many times. It is crucial that it is given recognition and time. I look forward to giving my constituents a voice and explaining how this has impacted them. As the DUP’s Westminster health spokesperson, I am here to join the call for justice, because that is what the hon. Lady asked for, and that is what I wish to see as well.
Between 2007 and 2015, 5,255 women in Northern Ireland underwent vaginal tape procedures for stress urinary incontinence. In June 2017, the media reported the challenges and difficulties faced by women in Northern Ireland, leading to a pause in the use of mesh there. In addition to mesh being used for women, men have also been affected by it—it is important to add that to the debate—and it has been used particularly for hernia repairs. Research has shown that some 10% to 15% of men experience chronic pain post surgery.
I was contacted by a male constituent in 2020 who told me his experience of excruciating pain. His GP denied that it was due to the mesh, and he faced many infections, numerous antibiotics and extremely limited day-to-day life. He informed me that, for many years, his problems got worse, and he contemplated taking his life, not because he wanted to die, but because he did not want to struggle with the pain. The sad reality is that that will be the case for many people, not only across Northern Ireland but across the whole nation. Both men and women have been directly affected by something that was supposed to do good. It clearly did not, so people deserve some form of redress and, more importantly, an acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the NHS and Government Departments.
Similarly, the Hughes report highlights the need for redress for women who were prescribed sodium valproate during pregnancy, even though it had long been known to pose risks to unborn children. A conversation must be had around compensation and better regulation of the use of drugs that are known to have impacts on women, especially during pregnancy. It is said that some 20,000 children were exposed to the drug in the womb, leading to many living today with neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism.
I have spoken to many parents—many constituents—who have said that their ultimate feeling is guilt. There is something seriously wrong when a mother feels guilty for taking something she was told would do no harm, for not asking enough questions and for taking medication for which due diligence should have been done. More research and double-checking should have been done to make sure that the medication was suitable for pregnant women. Many find it difficult to cope both mentally and physically with the long-lasting pain, along with the trauma, anxiety and guilt that rack them over what they have done.
On the first anniversary of this report, I look to the Minister on behalf of my constituents for a commitment to put things right. These matters must not disappear, and we must not forget the thousands of people suffering to this very day. From Primodos to thalidomide, from pelvic mesh to sodium valproate, we must do better by all our people so that they know they are not forgotten. I await the Minister’s response. I will be grateful if she can provide an update on any compensation scheme in relation to this matter. I hope she will do all she can to ensure that due compensation is awarded. My constituents and those who suffer as a result of pelvic mesh want that, and I want that today on their behalf.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate and on her tireless work on this issue.
I have come fairly late to the issues surrounding mesh implants. I became acutely aware of them when a constituent in Leeds South West and Morley who had suffered because of this procedure came to see me at my surgery. I would like to highlight her experiences. I have her consent; she has asked me to do so. Her story starts 17 years ago, when she had mesh implants offered by the NHS. Little did she know that years later she would face severe health problems, despite being assured that the implants were the gold standard. The mesh would hang out of her body, and would be trimmed to try to prevent that. She eventually had it removed, but it was far too late: some of the mesh had disintegrated and could no longer be removed. It caused hernias and incontinence, and more recently she believes it had a role to play in her cancer diagnosis, as she has tumours in and around the areas where the implants were inserted.
My constituent tells me that the implants have completely ruined her life. She has had to give up her business, and now has to deal with the health impacts every day while having ongoing treatment for cancer. The one bright spot from our meeting is that it was so clear to me that she and her husband were a team. He has been there, and will continue to be there, throughout everything she has had to go through. I was moved by that.
Quite understandably, my constituent is seeking redress, and that has led to another issue that she and people in the Public Gallery have had to contend with. The NHS complaints policy states that for clinical negligence the time limit for any claim is three years from the date of injury. Although there are some exceptions relating to knowledge of the injury, that has been absolutely no comfort to my constituent, who is yet to receive any acknowledgment that she could be entitled to redress.
That was partially addressed by the Hughes report, which presented options for compensation for those harmed by pelvic mesh implants. It is disappointing to those impacted that, more than a year on, there has still been no response to the report. Although some good steps have been taken in treatment and support, we must at least address the calls for financial compensation. I therefore encourage the Minister to give whatever outline she can about when the families and the victims will be updated. With time so short, that is the one point that I ask the Minister to respond to.
In the words of the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Hughes:
“Patients and families are suffering right now, and whilst the Government reviews my recommendations, it does not put their problems on hold.”
I know the Minister is aware of that, and I remain grateful for the Government’s positive work so far. However, I urge them to do all they can to reassure those who have been impacted by this scandal, and to respond to the Hughes report at the earliest opportunity.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I must say, the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) has done us all a service by outlining in detail one case out of what are understood to be a minimum of 10,000; some estimates put the number of people damaged by mesh as high as 40,000. We should bear that statistic in mind when we think about the limited redress that people have had so far through the courts.
In the time available, I wish to touch briefly on the topics of research, legal cases, waiting lists and financial support. I make no apology for coming back to the question of research, because as we have heard, the victims of the mesh implant scandal are still suffering today, and there is no definitive gold standard of how to remediate their suffering.
I did table a question in February that drew attention to a particular world-leading expert called Dr Dionysios Veronikis, who, I gather, has developed extremely effective mesh-removal methods in Missouri. I believe that he has, in the past, offered to give the benefits of his research and successful practice to members of the NHS. I would hope that the Minister would take this away and consider whether an effort should be made to reach out to the best practitioners worldwide on mesh removal and take advantage of their expertise.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
On the question of treatment, one of my constituents, who I will call Louise, endured years of pain and suffering due to the complications from mesh implants. After facing delays caused by local hospitals, she had no choice but to pay for private healthcare that would remediate the issue in one operation. That would not have been available on the NHS. She would have had to go through three separate, painful and lengthy procedures. Does the hon. Member agree that her experience underscores the urgent need for investment in urogynaecology services, as well as the justice that everybody is rightly calling for?
Sir Julian Lewis
That is exactly right. The problem is that people are going back for partial remediation time and time again, and it is not achieving the desired outcome.
When we move on to the question of how someone can get financial redress other than by virtue of a Government scheme, we find that of the 1,252 legal cases initiated between 2014 and 2024, only 356 were settled in or out of court with damages, but 678 were concluded without any such damages being awarded. I understand that many of those rejected were rejected because they were out of time, which leads me back to a point that I highlighted during the previous debate we had on this, in December 2024, in which it was pointed out that the 10-year limit on initiating action arising out of medical devices needs to be extended because, in this particular case, the limit has often long passed before it can be established that the victim was damaged by mesh in the first place.
I said we should remember that minimum figure of at least 10,000 mesh-damaged women and bear in mind that out of that pretty large figure—and the real figure is probably much larger still—only 1,200 legal actions were initiated. That is hardly surprising because of the extra burden placed on someone initiating a legal action.
I would also like to look at the question of removal centres. There are nine of these specialist centres, and we have established that people who are justifiably extremely worried about going back to one of them that might be run by the very person who inserted the mesh, do have the option of visiting other centres. However, when it comes to waiting times there is a huge variation. The waiting time for Bristol, which has a particularly high reputation, is much longer than for some of the other centres.
Finally, on the question of financial support, we know that the Government have had to take moves to deal with the question of personal independence payments. We hope that will not affect these victims adversely.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
After the next speaker, we will limit speeches to three minutes. That means that your microphone will be cut off at that time, so I would appreciate it if you looked at the clock while speaking.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for securing this important debate and for all the work she does on this issue.
As I mentioned earlier, I specialised in pursuing clinical negligence claims on behalf of women who had had mesh implants, and I have seen many examples of the type of life-changing injuries described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). As the Hughes report confirmed, these women were in debilitating pain after the implants; they were forced to stop working and faced a lifetime of uncertainty. The implants had a major impact on their relationships. My hon. Friend’s client was lucky in the sense that she had a supportive husband, but I had many clients whose marital relationships had broken down because of the inability to have intimate relationships following the mesh implant.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said that 10,000 women had been affected by pelvic mesh implants, but the campaign organisation Sling the Mesh has argued that that figure could be as high as 40,000. Before the Hughes report was published in February 2024, we had Baroness Cumberlege’s report in July 2020. She said that there should be a Government apology, a scheme to meet the cost of providing additional care and support to those affected, and a network of specialist centres.
A patient engagement survey carried out by the Patient Safety Commissioner found that more than half of those impacted by pelvic mesh or valproate said that it had had a very negative impact on their ability to work, and that it affected their financial situation. More than three quarters said that it had a very negative impact on their mental health.
It is essential that the Government provide a redress scheme. The right hon. Member for New Forest East said that delay will not help matters, and we have all heard the phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied.” The clients that I dealt with just wanted to move on with their lives. It is essential that we have a redress system that works quickly, so that these women can try to rebuild their lives and move on. The redress scheme must provide not only financial compensation but non-financial compensation.
The right hon. Member mentioned PIP. Lots of these women struggled to apply for PIP and other benefits after they had been injured. They had little or no access to mental health services, and they were exposed to an inaccessible and adversarial legal system that was complicated to navigate. There are often delays in legal claims, and we need to move away from that. We need a Government-backed compensation scheme that is similar to the infected blood compensation scheme that this Government are properly pursuing. Only with such a scheme will we have proper redress for these women and ensure that justice is given to those impacted by this tragedy.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Sodium valproate is currently the third most prescribed epilepsy treatment for many women, and it is very effective in combating epilepsy. What they do not tell people, of course, is the damage that can be caused if someone is pregnant. The damaging effects have affected thousands of women over the years.
The alarm bells about the damage sodium valproate could do to the unborn child were going off in 1973. Indeed, there was a legal claim between 2004 and 2010 that sought compensation for those affected; sadly, it was dropped when legal aid was denied. When I was elected in 2010, I took up the cudgels, as it were, on behalf of the poor women suffering from this problem.
One of my constituents, Karen Buck, who is in the Public Gallery, is a mother of four children, all of whom have been affected as a result of her taking sodium valproate during pregnancy. Her daughter Bridget was born with severe brain damage, spina bifida and a condition directly linked to this drug that has also affected others. Sadly, Bridget’s case is one of many similar cases across the country. Karen has dedicated her life to serving Bridget and looking after her, but she should never have been prescribed this drug in the first place.
On 13 November 2024, Karen and other campaigners took a petition with over 1,000 signatures to Downing Street. I ask the Minister to follow up on that petition, because so far the petitioners have not received an answer and they deserve an answer at least. They have asked for compensation, and for the removal of this drug from the market. They have campaigned for years for a redress scheme and I am proud to support them. That campaign is not just about financial restitution; it is all about accountability. I understand that the drug companies—in particular Sanofi, which pushed this drug —are withdrawing the high-strength drug in September, but the rest of the drugs will continue to be available. This process is all about ensuring that the campaigners get the support and assistance they need.
The previous Government listened to the recommendations of the Cumberlege review, appointed Dr Hughes as the Patient Safety Commissioner in 2022 and asked her to produce a report. She produced that report and then, before the election in July, Ministers wrote to ask her what needed to be done, highlighting the need for primary legislation to provide compensation for those who have suffered. We need that primary legislation, so that victims can get the compensation they are due. All this campaigning has clearly had an effect, but we need the Government to step up because progress has stalled.
I remain committed to helping and assisting victims, to ensure that they get the justice and support they deserve.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate.
My remarks will principally focus on mesh and the experience of my constituent Bev, but it is disappointing that the issue of sodium valproate and its risks to women of childbearing age and their children, which had seemingly been resolved in an earlier Parliament in which I served, is anything but resolved. Sometimes, our Parliament and our politics are too much process and not enough progress—too much rhetoric and not enough record. I hope for a full resolution for the women and child victims of this historic injustice, on which I spoke and worked at length between 2017 and 2019. I send my solidarity to the victims in the Public Gallery today.
I want to speak to the experiences of the victims and survivors of all these appalling scandals, but I will particularly speak about my constituent, Bev. These victims and survivors have been courageous campaigners in bringing these issues to the forefront, turning personal trauma into activism. These women, who were never told of the risks and trusted the advice of medical professionals, now live with life-changing consequences.
Bev endured years of crippling pain before the mesh was eventually “dissected”—that is her word—out of her body. She walked into my office, sunken by the immobility of this pernicious scandal and its effect on her. She is physically weighed down by the legacy and trauma of the pain she has experienced, yet she remains infectiously good company, and I am proud to stand up and speak for her.
Bev should not have needed this surgery, as she never needed this device, which should never have harmed her. The loss of mobility and continence, and the permanent nerve damage that Bev suffered, are compounded by the years of missed time with her family. She gave up her career, indeed her vocation, as a midwife. She has to navigate life with emotional and psychological trauma that she should never have endured.
Bev, you are not alone. The attendance in this Chamber and the Public Gallery are testament to how many people are in our thoughts today. These victims demand redress from this new Government.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for securing this important debate.
Like other hon. Members, I also have constituents who have suffered from the scandal. Colleen and her husband, Andy, are in the Public Gallery today. They first contacted me about their son, Byron, in February 2024. Colleen has epilepsy and, like so many others, was prescribed valproate. Throughout IVF and her pregnancy, Colleen and Andy were not warned of the potentially harmful side effects of remaining on the medication, despite repeatedly being asked what medication they were on. We know that valproate use in pregnancy leads to neurodevelopmental disorders in 30% to 40% of cases.
Colleen and Andy have told me about Byron, about what a lovely person he is, and particularly about his love for “Star Wars”. He has autism, learning disabilities, and speech and language development issues, but he is happy at school. Sadly, we know that this is not an isolated incident, and that around 20,000 children have been harmed. Parents like Colleen and Andy deserve redress, but they have had to fight to get the support for Byron. They went to a tribunal to get assistance with his education, and they are still battling to get an updated diagnosis to ensure that he gets support as he moves into adulthood.
Following the Cumberlege review, my former colleague Maria Caulfield commissioned a report from Dr Hughes. That report was published a year ago, setting out the options for financial redress, with an interim and a main scheme. The interim scheme was meant to be up and running, with compensation payments being made this year. The main scheme was to follow with more bespoke support, based on assessment of individual circumstances. We need to get on with it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about the experience of other inquiries and redress schemes, and we need to use that to get this scheme up and running.
I regret that the previous Government did not solve the issue before the election, but what happens now is what is important, and that is the priority. When I asked Colleen and Andy what they wanted to hear from the Minister, they said that they wanted a commitment to getting the scheme up and running, and a timeframe for the Government to deliver the interim compensation, and then the final compensation, as well as an apology from all those who are responsible for the scandal.
It is seven years since the Cumberlege review began, but people have been fighting for justice for much longer. Colleen and Andy, and thousands of parents like them, need progress and redress so that they can be confident about their children’s future. I know that the Minister is relatively new in post, but I hope she will be able to give those families some of that assurance today.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to my constituents Paula and Gillian, who have experienced the impact of pelvic mesh. I raised Paula’s experience in a debate on 5 December, but not much has changed for her. She is still living with the devastation that pelvic mesh has caused to her life and wellbeing. As we have heard, Paula and Gillian are not alone in their experience. According to the Patient Safety Commissioner, the lower-end estimate suggests that 10,000 women have been harmed.
I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned for many years on the issue of sodium valproate. My good friend Teresa Pearce, the former MP for Erith and Thamesmead, worked very closely with many of the families over many years. She knows that the issue is close to my heart.
The Epilepsy Research Institute welcomed the Hughes report’s recognition of the vital role that research plays in understanding and mitigating the risks of anti-seizure medication. It continues to raise its key asks on how we can move forward with the report’s recommendations. The institute’s view is that Ministers need to provide a clear timeline for implementing the redress schemes and research funding that are recommended in the Hughes report. There is a need for dedicated, ringfenced funding for epilepsy research, particularly into the effects of anti-seizure medications taken during pregnancy.
My wife and daughter are both on sodium valproate. I know that sodium valproate did not affect my daughter, even though she has cerebral palsy from a brain injury at birth. However, I saw what happened to my wife: being taken off sodium valproate turned her life upside down. She went from being 12 years seizure-free to having to surrender her driving licence and not being able to work for some periods. I saw what it does to women in that situation, even though she had the correct advice. She eventually had to return to sodium valproate because of the number of seizures she was having and the impact it had on her life. I cannot imagine for a moment what the families present have gone through, but I know the impact that sodium valproate can have on women’s lives.
The Epilepsy Research Institute’s asks include:
“Ensuring that regulatory bodies act swiftly on safety concerns and that pregnant women with epilepsy have access to the best possible information and care. Working alongside experts and patient groups to ensure policies reflect the needs of those affected.”
I ask the Minister to address those recommendations.
We need to consider the people impacted by mesh and sodium valproate, as well as the wider impact. Sodium valproate continues to be prescribed, and we need a continuing review of how that affects women through their lives.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I warmly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for securing this important debate.
It is a national scandal that pelvic mesh has been used in thousands of operations, often without a thorough explanation of the side effects. It is also a national scandal that this matter is not at the forefront of public awareness and attention. As we have heard, at least 10,000 women were injured by pelvic mesh implants, and it could be many more. Their lives have been permanently altered. They now live with chronic pain, they find it difficult to work and live their lives well, and they suffer from a number of serious health conditions. These women have been badly let down. How can it be acceptable that so many women now live with debilitating pain?
This scandal also speaks to a wider issue: the continuing neglect of women’s health. It is unacceptable that we still hear so many accounts of women feeling like their health concerns are not being adequately addressed. I place on record my thanks to all those in the room who have campaigned tirelessly on restoring justice to women, and a special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South, who has raised this issue on so many occasions over such a long time. We must push for redress for the victims of this scandal.
Sadly, like so many other hon. Members here, I must raise the case of a constituent who has told me she feels let down by failed medical advice when receiving a procedure. She told me that she was not told about the nature of the operation, and that she was not given consent forms. She was later told she had not needed the procedure at all.
My constituent described her level of pain as “horrendous” and that
“passing stool or water felt like passing glass.”
That should never have happened to my constituent, nor to the thousands of women up and down the country. Those harmed deserve better. They deserve proper redress, and they deserve it now.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing today’s timely and important debate on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. She has been a tireless champion for those harmed by pelvic mesh and for children born with birth defects as a result of sodium valproate. I commend her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on first do no harm, mesh, Primodos, valproate—that is a mouthful and could have been a bit shorter—of which I am also a member.
In 2024, the Patient Safety Commissioner estimated that at least 10,000 women in England have been harmed by vaginal mesh implants, some involving the mesh slicing into their bladder, bowels or vaginal wall, leaving them in permanent pain, sometimes unable to walk, work or have sex, leaving their lives changed profoundly. As multiple hon. Members have mentioned, including the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the campaign group Sling the Mesh believes that the true number could be closer to 40,000 women.
When Dr Henrietta Hughes agreed to produce this report, she made one thing very clear: this was not to be another review that just gathers dust—this report must lead to action, not just words. We are now a year on and the people affected are still waiting.
The Hughes report makes the case plainly: there is a clear need for redress. These women were, in most cases, not failed by a single doctor or a one-off error. They were failed by the system, by healthcare structures, by regulators and by Governments who did not listen when they should have. The redress we need is not about blame but about restorative justice. It should be co-designed with the patients, and it should be distinct from adversarial court proceedings where, as other hon. Members have mentioned, women have to relive their experience and their trauma, time and again.
The Hughes report recommended establishing an independent redress agency. The lack of clarity on creating a bespoke redress scheme has left patients in limbo, which is deepening the harm—on that point, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) shared his useful insight and learnings from the infected blood scandal. Several women in my constituency of Chichester have shared their stories with me: stories of being dismissed by clinicians, of medical records being incomplete, inaccessible or not reflecting the true circumstances that these women are in, and of suffering through chronic pain and ill health even after the mesh has been removed. I have met two of those women in person. I met one at her home because she is so profoundly injured and traumatised that she no longer leaves her property for any reason. With no access to social media or the outside world, my constituent had no idea that there were others like her, or that there is a national campaign for justice. She felt alone, embarrassed and broken by her circumstances, so I promised to stand by and with her, and with the thousands of others, up and down the country, who have been failed.
I take this opportunity to mention Paula Goss: a national campaigner, and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). Paula was affected by a mesh procedure that was not covered by the original Cumberlege review. The surgeon involved was found guilty of serious misconduct but only suspended for six months. Of the 462 patients harmed at the Spire private hospital and the Southmead hospital, just five were called as witnesses to the General Medical Council. When Paula tried to complain, she was—as many hon. Members, from both sides of the House, have noted in this debate—told that she was out of time, and that it was not in the public interest to waive the deadline. How can we call that justice? It is not justice or accountability. Cases like that of Paula, and those raised by my constituents in Chichester, are why we Liberal Democrats believe that the entire set of recommendations in the Cumberlege report must be implemented without further delay.
This scandal is not limited to mesh and sodium valproate. The same approach must be extended to other medical scandals, such as Primodos. We cannot continue to treat each crisis as an isolated issue, and need a system-wide approach to patient safety and accountability. That means a duty of candour on public officials. The Liberal Democrats would achieve that by establishing an office of the whistleblower so that safety concerns can be raised without fear or delay. It also means embedding patient voices in the heart of our healthcare system, not as an afterthought but as a fundamental principle. Earlier this year, 100 women secured a financial settlement from mesh manufacturers, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of women who deserve redress. Every single woman affected by this scandal deserves proper compensation, not just those women able to pursue lengthy and difficult legal claims.
Warinder Juss
The Hughes report actually recommends that women affected by pelvic mesh should receive an initial interim payment of £25,000, followed by a main payment. Does the hon. Member agree that that interim payment would be of some comfort to the women she has mentioned, and mean that they could at least begin to try to get redress, and make some improvement in their lives?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Member says that from a place of experience and knowledge. Who am I to speak against anything he says as the expert in the room? I totally agree that that would provide those women some reassurance that their cases have been heard and recognised by the Government.
Finally, we are still waiting for a formal response from the Government to the Hughes report. In August, that response was promised “in due course”, but “due course” has come and gone. These women have waited long enough. People who have already suffered for years should not be forced to wait any longer for the compensation and recognition that they deserve. Let us end this culture of delay, disbelief and denial and do what we should have done years ago: listen, apologise and act.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Ms Furniss. As a GP who has seen patients with valproate and mesh injuries, standing here with a chance to raise this issue is humbling for me.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for proposing this debate. It is yet another important topic that she has brought to the House. She is in danger of rivalling the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing so many Westminster Hall debates on health. The fact that we have two worthy champions fighting it out to be the person in the country doing the most for health is a true testament to the dynamics we have; I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South on that. I remember her powerful contributions to last month’s Westminster Hall debate on women’s health, and she has done the same today. With her personal experience of her mother’s situation, and as the chair of the APPG first do no harm, she is a true champion.
Now that we are past the first anniversary of the Hughes report, this debate is an important opportunity for the women and families affected by valproate and pelvic mesh to get clarity from the Government on what progress is being made on the recommendations of the report and a way forward more broadly. It is heartening to see how the Chamber has come together to ask unanimously for that progress. I welcome the fact that the previous Government took productive steps and asked the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes, to undertake work in this area. Her report was issued a year ago, and it is clear that the victims are anxious for some form of redress for the harms that have been caused. The report states:
“The first point to make clear is that the Commissioner thinks that there is a clear case for redress based on the systemic healthcare and regulatory failures revealed by the First Do No Harm review in 2020. The Commissioner supports a restorative practice-based redress scheme, co-designed with affected patients, and which is, therefore, very different from court proceedings which seek to attribute blame.”
Of course an election halts progress, but now, with new Ministers and a new Government nine months in, it is right to continue keeping the spotlight on this topic. To that end, my questions echo many of those raised by others. Could the Minister clarify the Government’s position on the recommendation for financial redress, and could she give a timeframe for when they will respond to the report? Has the Minister met with Dr Hughes and campaigners to discuss the report, and will she commit to communicating with all those affected, as that is so important to help reduce some of the anxiety? It has already been a long and painful journey for victims, so continuing to take steps forward to address the fallout is important.
Further to the Hughes report, I am glad that the last Government took several actions to begin addressing the injustices suffered by victims of valproate and pelvic mesh. The former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), established the Cumberlege review, and significant progress was rightly made before the election on implementing seven of Dr Hughes’s recommendations. Those included an unreserved apology to the women and children affected, and their families, on behalf of the healthcare system, for the time the system took to listen and respond. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), the new Minister at the time, reiterated that apology when these issues were last debated in December 2024. Progress also included the appointment of Dr Hughes as the first Patient Safety Commissioner to advocate for patients and improve the safety of medicines and medical devices, and a network of specialist centres established to provide comprehensive treatment, care and advice for those affected by implanted mesh.
Hon. Members have already referenced the Westminster Hall debate on these issues last December. Looking at the record of that debate, I was pleased to see from the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton that the Government were committed to implementing the remaining three recommendations as a priority. He said:
“It is a priority for this Government. We are working at pace, and we remain focused on making meaningful progress. This is a complex area of work, involving several Departments, but we are committed to providing an update at the earliest opportunity. I have heard the desire for urgency today, and I hope that we can make the progress that Members want to see.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 175WH.]
I know that there has been a change in personnel in the ministerial team since that debate, but can the Minister confirm that it remains a priority for the Government regardless? Given that it is now four months since the last debate, and the Minister recognises the desire for urgency, what new update can she provide on the progress that has been made in implementing these recommendations since December?
As stated, I was in the debate on women’s health last month, in which the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South raised the issue. The Minister’s response was:
“On sodium valproate and pelvic mesh, the Cumberlege review made nine recommendations, of which the then Government accepted seven. I can confirm that the national pause remains in place.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 518WH.]
I also note that the Minister frequently quotes the following lines in her response to written parliamentary questions from colleagues:
“The Government will be providing an update to the Patient Safety Commissioner’s Report at the earliest opportunity.”
So could she say whether today is “the earliest opportunity”? If it is not, would she be kind enough to give an estimate of when that might be?
During that December debate, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), also raised concerns about the experiences of some of the women within the specialist mesh centres, and urged Ministers to look into that. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether she shares those same concerns. If so, what steps has her Department taken to address these and look into them?
Finally on sodium valproate, we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about the difficulty we have when it comes to valproate, given the damage it can cause but its importance as an epilepsy drug in supporting people to keep seizure free. The report itself states:
“However, the Commissioner continues to have concerns about incomplete adherence to the Pregnancy Prevention Programme requirements. As a result, in November 2023, she recommended that NHS England create a fully funded and resourced system for improving the safe use of the most potent teratogenic medications, beginning with the safe use of valproate.”
With that being said, could the Minister update this House on the workstream regarding teratogenic medications? More importantly, given the news of the abolition of NHS England, what safeguards are being put in place to ensure that this system is resourced adequately?
“One year on” is a milestone to be celebrated—for getting this far after such a torrid journey in raising concerns, having them heard and getting them responded to—but it is just that: a milestone on a journey, not a destination. For those so affected, and their families, they will be keen to know what redress they are due and the mechanisms to deliver it, so that their cases might finally be fully rectified. After all, we cannot undo the past, but we can make amends for it, and I hope that the Government will continue to act on the recommendations to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their powerful words on this emotive topic.
I know that my hon. Friend met with the Minister for Patient Safety, Baroness Merron, last November to discuss the transparency of industry payments to healthcare practitioners, one of the nine recommendations that the independent medicines and medical devices safety review put to the then Government in 2018. This is something that the Government take extremely seriously. We must ensure that lessons are learned, and that is why we are putting patient safety at the heart of improving our health and social care system. I will continue to build a system that listens, hears and acts with speed, compassion and proportionality.
I want to repeat the apology that the previous Government made, which was echoed by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), and by Baroness Merron. I say to all of those mentioned today—to Samantha and her family; to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South’s mam; to the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller); to Karen from Harrow East; to Bev from Bury North; to Colleen, Andy and Byron from North West Norfolk; to Paula and Gillian from Bexleyheath and Crayford; to Paula Goss; and to all those affected in the Gallery and across the country—we are sorry. We are sorry for the time the system took to listen to you and to your families. Everyone who has suffered complications from sodium valproate and pelvic mesh implants has our deepest sympathies and our assurance that we have listened and will continue to listen to those affected.
I am grateful to the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes, and her team for the Hughes report, which was published just over a year ago. It built on the important work started by Baroness Cumberlege in 2020. We will continue to work closely with Dr Hughes on how best to support affected patients and prevent future harm, on both this issue and a number of others.
The independent medicines and medical devices safety review was among the first of its kind, shining a searing spotlight on the harmful side effects of certain medicines and medical devices, including sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The Cumberlege review revealed grave systemic issues in our health system that needed to be addressed with urgency. They covered areas ranging from the healthcare system’s lack of engagement with patients to the lack of safety monitoring for devices once they are on the market. That is why we are working to improve how the system listens and responds to concerns raised by patients; to strengthen the evidence base on which decisions are made; and to improve the safety of medicines and medical devices.
Recommendation 8b of the IMMDS review stated that there should be mandatory reporting for industry payments made to the health sector, akin to the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in the US. The previous Government accepted that in principle and held a six-week consultation. I recognise the importance of transparency and trust in the health system, and the Department is considering options regarding payment reporting, with an aim to publish a response later this year.
I absolutely understand why colleagues are pushing for clarity on our response to the Hughes report. I am acutely aware that this is a difficult and sensitive topic, and I appreciate frustrations about timescales, but this should not be rushed. The Government will need to consider carefully all the options and the associated costs before responding to the report’s recommendations. I assure Members that we will continue to progress this work across Government, ensuring that lessons are learned, and I will commit to writing to Baroness Merron on the timescales, as requested by so many Members today.
Sir Julian Lewis
I think it is true to say that the author of the Hughes report anticipated that the Government would want to take their time over these matters, but that is why Dr Hughes—and Baroness Cumberlege, I believe, as well—recommended an interim payment. If at least that interim payment could be made, people might be more patient about the bells and whistles that have to be added to the response later.
Ashley Dalton
I do appreciate the frustrations. Since we came into government last July, patient safety has been, and I can confirm that it remains, a top priority for this Government. Although it has been a year since the publication of the Hughes report, this is a complex issue involving several Departments, and it is important that we get the response right. As I have said, I will commit to writing to Baroness Merron on timescales, as requested, to get further clarification on that, and we are committed to learning from other instances in which patient safety has been impacted. The infected blood inquiry was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen).
John Glen
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I was not trying to suggest earlier that her tenure in office would be short-lived; I wish her every success in her endeavours. I think the spirit of today has been about cross-party consensus, not seeking to make political points about this matter, but what I will say to the Minister is that she can go back to her officials and say that there are two very recent precedents for interim payments, under the infected blood compensation scheme, of quite significant numbers. They were maximised, so that there would be no loss to the public purse—that is to say, they were entitlements that everyone would have been able to receive. That mechanism is there, so this can happen sooner. I recognise what the Minister is saying and I wish her well in her endeavours, but she should be able to do something with that information.
Ashley Dalton
I assure the right hon. Member that we are working at pace on this. It is a complicated matter, and we are taking note of previous similar situations. I assure him and the rest of the House that we will be updating the Patient Safety Commissioner at the earliest opportunity. I appreciate that it is frustrating that I cannot give an exact date or timescale in this debate, but we are working to make sure that we get this right.
Bob Blackman
The Minister is absolutely right in saying that patient safety must be at the forefront. However, we know that 40% of babies whose mothers took these drugs have developmental problems and one in nine have severe handicaps following birth, yet the drugs are still being prescribed to pregnant women. Will the Minister have a look at what can be done to make sure that pregnant women who suffer from epilepsy can at least be advised about the position and then decide whether they want to take the risk or not?
Ashley Dalton
I am encouraged that the number of women still being prescribed sodium valproate has reduced significantly following the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s introduction of the valproate pregnancy prevention programme. In April 2018, 27,441 women aged under 55 were prescribed valproate in England, but in March 2024, that number had come down to just under 16,000—a reduction of 42%. Nobody should stop taking valproate without advice from their healthcare professional. Beyond lowering prescription rates, I am also grateful to see Dr Rebecca Bromley, who is in the Public Gallery, heading up the foetal exposure to medicines service pilot study. The study is running for 18 months and was commissioned by NHS England. It is a multidisciplinary clinical service that is providing expert assessment, diagnosis and advice to individuals harmed following exposure to sodium valproate. We recognise those concerns.
Patients know what support they need. The Government are determined to make sure that patients feel, and are, truly heard, and to give them more choice and control over their healthcare. The Patient Safety Commissioner rightly sought views from those affected about the issues they are facing with service provision and what support they feel would be most valuable. Hearing from patients is at the heart of our consideration of the Hughes report, which is why Baroness Merron held a roundtable in December with groups representing patients impacted by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. I know she remains extremely grateful to all attendees for sharing their stories and those of the patients that they represent.
I am aware of the time, and there are many issues that I have been unable to cover in the short time available. However, I commit to writing to all hon. Members who have raised specific concerns. Words cannot express how sorry we are to the women who have suffered from severe and life-changing complications from both sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. We are actively considering this issue, and I wish there were more I could say at this time. I have heard the calls for swiftness, clarity and boldness in the commissioner’s recommendations, and I shall bring that forward at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that this is not the last time this important topic will be discussed, and I know that colleagues will continue to hold our feet to the fire until this gets done.
Mrs Hodgson
I sincerely thank everyone who has made the time to come along and speak on this most vital issue. They have all made such valuable contributions to this debate, and it is really heartening for me to hear such a great degree of consensus across the House that there is a wrong to be righted and that this new Labour Government have the opportunity to do just that.
There are so many hon. Members who would have liked to be here today. Indeed, while I was on my feet, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) messaged to send his apologies, so I said I would make sure that was on the record. I thank the Minister; the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans); and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for listening and for their intelligent contributions. There is so much expertise on this issue across the House. If we cannot get this sorted, nobody can.
I am particularly pleased that the Minister apologised on behalf of the Government again so fully and movingly. She actually moved me to tears—I do not know about anybody else—but I am a bit soft in that regard. I hope she will agree to meet campaigners to continue this conversation, as I know Baroness Merron has done in the other place. I am sure that everyone watching both from the Public Gallery and at home will have appreciated the empathy and the understanding that the Minister has shown in this debate.
With a new Government, we have new opportunities and the chance to make a real difference to the thousands of women and children who were wronged through no fault of their own. We have all the information we need, thanks to the amazing Baroness Cumberlege and our fantastic Patient Safety Commissioner, to ensure that such scandals never happen again and that families are given compensation to help to rebuild their lives. We now have to act, as Members have said. I hope that this debate has highlighted to the Minister the urgency of that—I am sure that it has—and that she will have the conversations required to make this happen so that these wrongs can be righted at last and as soon as possible.
If Members are willing, I ask that they gather at the bottom of the stairs outside this Chamber to join campaigners for a photo to mark this occasion, and to spend a few moments talking to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the first anniversary of the Hughes report on valproate and pelvic mesh.