Hughes Report: First Anniversary

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss in the Chair]

15:01

[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.

15:19

[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.

15:23

[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.

[John Glen]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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.

15:26

[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.

15:29

[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.

15:34

[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.

15:44

[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.

15:43

[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.

15:46

[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.

15:49

[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.

15:52

[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.

15:55

[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.

15:58

[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.

16:04

[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.

16:12

[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.

16:23

[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.

16:26

Sitting adjourned.