Hughes Report: Second Anniversary

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report.

Although it is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, I do so with a sense of déjà vu, because we have been here before, on the anniversary last year and in debates on the Cumberlege review before that. The issue of redress for the victims is a well-trodden road.

I start by paying tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned tirelessly for justice and change, and to prevent their experience from happening to others. I thank the Patient Safety Commissioner, Professor Henrietta Hughes, for the work she put into her report. She is with us in the Gallery today, along with many campaigners. I put on the record my thanks to Baroness Cumberlege for her exceptional work, before the Hughes report, to give voice to victims during the two years she led the Cumberlege review. I pay tribute to her for her continuing commitment to the victims.

We are here today because, two years on from its publication, the Government have still not published an official response to the Hughes report. No redress scheme has been implemented and no timeline has been announced. We have repeatedly been told that the recommendations are being carefully considered, yet there is no date, no framework and no mechanism for justice in place. To be clear, the Patient Safety Commissioner did not decide one day to write the report; she was asked to pull it together and to look at the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. The report was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care in late 2022.

In her foreword to the report, Professor Hughes was clear that, in accepting the commission,

“the case for redress had already been made by the First Do No Harm review so my report would primarily focus on ‘how’ to provide redress rather than ‘why’…Secondly, patients must not be subjected to an emotional rollercoaster, meaning that commissioning this work would inevitably raise expectations and that it would be profoundly unfair to do so if the government had no intention of providing redress.”

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I secured a debate on the Cumberlege report 18 months ago; I said at the time that I hoped it would be the last time we debated this issue, yet here we are again. Does the hon. Member agree that the emotional impact on the women involved is hugely important? I was approached by a number of constituents in my constituency, including Debbie, who joined me for my debate. It is so important that the review’s recommendations are acted on.

[Sarah Green]

The emotional toll is significant. It is a daily struggle for some of those affected, and they are battling a system.

Right at the start of her report, the Patient Safety Commissioner was clear that she should not be asked to look into the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and mesh if there was no real intention or desire in the Department to make a redress scheme a reality. Why commission the report and raise the expectations of thousands of families if there was never any intention to follow through on the recommendations?

As colleagues know, 30,000 women and children have been harmed, through no fault of their own, by valproate and pelvic mesh. They are paying the price of the failure to keep them and their children safe with immense pain, agony, fear and guilt. Five years on from the Cumberlege report and two years after the Hughes report, the Government have still not confirmed plans to provide financial redress. Financial redress is unfinished business, and it is past time that the Government responded.

Let us not forget that of those affected by valproate and mesh, 85% report not being able to work, 73% report that their finance has suffered as a result, 91% report that their mental health and wellbeing are adversely affected—as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) just said—and 88% report that their relationships have been negatively impacted.

Let me unpack that for a second. Those statistics represent my constituent Carol, a doctor by training who was forced to take long-term sick leave and see her health and her career deteriorate. They represent the valproate families who, on top of the physical effects, face the nightmare of child and adolescent mental health services and personal independence payment reassessments every few years, having to explain what foetal valproate spectrum disorder is to every clinician they encounter because it is not widely understood. They represent the heartbreaking situation of one victim who shared with me, in tears, the devastating impact that mesh has had on her ability to be intimate with the love of her life. The lack of a clear timeline for action by the same slow, dismissive system that harmed patients is further compounding their physical and mental pain.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Although financial redress is an incredibly important part of the Hughes report, it also lays out other important elements, such as healthcare and special educational needs and disability provision. My constituent Debra has two sons. It was only when her second son went to school that the school realised there might be something affecting both boys due to her taking sodium valproate. She had to battle against the system and is now having to drive her eldest son to university because, suffering from autism, he is unable to make that journey using public transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that those recommendations are also an incredibly important part of the Hughes report?

[Sarah Green]

I do agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

This is about so many different aspects of support. One of the recommendations in the Hughes report that has been drawn to my attention is the one on housing, which is so crucial. My constituent was prescribed sodium valproate during pregnancy. Her son, who is now 25, lives with foetal valproate syndrome, requires 24/7 support, and will do for the rest of his life. My constituent said that even relatively modest adjustments to their home and some specialist equipment could make a real difference, but she has not found any way of getting funding for that. Does the hon. Member agree that housing is also a really important area for us to look at?

[Sarah Green]

I do agree, and I thank the hon. Member for raising it.

I know that many colleagues present have been championing this cause for years. There is a string of parliamentary questions going back to the launch of the report two years ago, asking for progress updates. The Patient Safety Commissioner herself used her statutory powers for the first time, in October last year, to ask for more detailed answers from the Department of Health and Social Care. The responses were published in November and just a few weeks ago in January. We now know that there have been meetings, roundtables and briefings, but no progress on redress. If I am reading between the lines of these responses correctly, it is the dead hand of the Treasury that is the issue.

Before I conclude, I wish to mention Carol. I have shared Carol’s story before, and I return to it today because it lays bare the cost of years of Government inaction. When I first met her online—I hope she will not mind my saying this—she was a physical wreck. She needed assistance to get a visa to the US during the pandemic for urgent medical treatment following a hysteropexy and rectopexy using surgical mesh. A procedure that was intended to resolve her pelvic organ prolapse instead caused devastating harm.

Carol was left with a serious autoimmune disease, struggling to walk and unable to live her daily life. Her prognosis was bleak, and she needed to have the mesh urgently removed. That treatment was not available to her on the NHS. While suffering from chronic pain, and with limited mobility, Carol accessed private treatment in the United States. A combination of determination, medical knowledge and personal resources allowed her to do so, and Carol is now mesh-free following a successful surgery.

Carol attempted to pursue a clinical negligence claim against the surgeons who harmed her, but multiple law firms declined to act because the same surgeons were advising them on other cases. Those conflicts of interest blocked Carol’s access to justice. In one case, the surgeon who caused her life-changing harm acted as an expert witness in an unrelated mesh case. The judge in that case found that the surgeon selectively chose evidence supportive of the defence, failed to provide balanced evidence, and failed in his duty to the court. That finding is on the record.

Such conflicts are not isolated. Conflicts of interest and the closing of ranks among professionals remain a structural barrier to justice for victims. That is just one of the reasons why an independent redress scheme is long overdue. The current system is failing these women, children and families.

I have two questions for the Minister. What conversations are she, her Department and her officials having with the Treasury and Downing Street to make redress a reality for the victims? Will she meet some of the affected families to hear directly from them why redress is so important to them?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order. This is an incredibly important topic. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. Because so many Members want to get in, I would be grateful if you can try to stick to approximately four minutes each, to allow everyone to get a say.

09:41

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for bringing this issue to the House. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her tireless commitment to this campaign and for her leadership in chairing the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group.

Like many Members here, I was present in the debate a year ago on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. Although it has been two years since the publication of the report, the Government have sadly still not responded to it, and justice has still not been delivered for the many women impacted by pelvic mesh and sodium valproate.

In the very first paragraph, Dr Henrietta Hughes makes it clear that the report must lead to Government action. We often hear that justice delayed is justice denied, yet we continue to deny justice to the women who have suffered. Redress must be delivered swiftly. The Hughes report recommends a two-stage non-adversarial redress scheme to provide both financial and non-financial support to women who have suffered avoidable harm due to pelvic mesh and sodium valproate.

Although financial compensation is of course vital—a two-stage scheme would involve a quick initial payment followed by a more tailored scheme for the payment of compensation—just as important is access to appropriate support, including specialist healthcare, and a formal acknowledgment, with an apology, of the harm endured by these women. Dr Hughes laid out in detail how such a scheme can be implemented, and it is for the Government to put one into effect as soon as possible.

Alongside delivering justice for the victims of the mesh and sodium valproate scandals, I urge the Minister and her Department to commit to doing everything possible to prevent future scandals of this sort and to better protect our constituents and communities. I also welcome the work of campaign groups such as Sling The Mesh, and urge the Government to consider making yellow card reporting mandatory so that potentially harmful products can be identified sooner, and action can be taken before damage is done.

I have a particular interest in this debate. Although I have constituents who have been affected, before becoming an MP I worked as a solicitor and specialised in representing women who had been given plastic polypropylene mesh implants for vaginal mesh surgery as a quick fix to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, without being properly advised by the doctors who gave the treatment. All those women did was trust a medical professional who told them they were receiving the gold standard of care, as we all would. The mesh then eroded, cut through vaginal tissue and caused chronic pain, loss of mobility and sexual disfunction, and often resulted in relationship breakdown. Many of those women were unable to continue working and suffered life-changing injuries. Their lives were ruined.

When pursuing legal claims for compensation for these women, I was always acutely aware that compensation and legal costs would ultimately fall on the NHS. A compensation scheme as recommended by the Hughes report would save the excessive costs of litigation that the NHS would have to pay out—money that could then be used for the treatment of patients. I would also like the Government to consider alternative approaches such as an insurance-style levy paid by companies when they bring new products to the market, which would create a dedicated fund for future claims and thereby protect our vital NHS resources while incentivising manufacturers to ensure that their products are of the highest safety standards.

We cannot leave these women in limbo waiting to receive the redress they so clearly deserve. I ask the Minister to please respond to the Hughes report, enact Dr Hughes’s recommendations and ensure that justice can finally be delivered for these women.

09:45

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I will try to add something new to the excellent start to the debate by both the previous speakers, who showed a great command of the overall situation, by quoting my constituent Emma, who got in touch with me yesterday after learning that the debate would take place. I will briefly summarise her concerns, which she set out in the following way:

“In the main, the point is that so many have been injured, left on NHS waiting lists, paying for prescriptions and transport to and from appointments. Not being able to work—or restricted working hours. Limited access to PIP…Very little support for those who had mortgages due to the benefit system not supporting mortgage costs”

and

“loss of pension contributions, as none of us is getting any younger.”

This lady is exceptionally strong. Despite the injuries she suffered personally, she has been a rock and a leader for other mesh-injured women in or near my constituency. I hold her in the highest esteem; in fact, I salute her courage. What she has to say is, in a sense, an argument that has already been won. The Cumberlege report won that argument, and the Hughes report wanted to recommend what should happen next. I am delighted to see Henrietta Hughes in the Gallery—and seemingly acknowledging that I am right about that difference between the two reports.

Let me briefly quote from Henrietta Hughes’s admirably concise list of 10 recommendations. Recommendation 1 was:

“The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.”

Recommendation 3 was:

“The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme.”

Recommendation 4 was:

“The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress. These payments should start during 2025.”

Recommendation 8 was:

“Both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme should be administered by an independent body which commands the confidence of patients.”

What is the point of an interim scheme? It is to recognise that there will be tremendous complexity in individual cases, but at least these mesh-injured ladies would get a minimum of help—I think £25,000 has been suggested—straightaway, while the more complex calculations can be done later. Yet despite that being the very point of an interim scheme—that we can do this quickly and work on the harder parts subsequently—we have seen no progress.

What does that remind us of? It reminds me of the Post Office. It reminds me of the infected blood scandal. What do all those things have in common? A large number of people who have been injured in some way or another—either physically, or with their character or freedom damaged, often beyond repair—and who are owed very large sums of money by way of redress or compensation. We know what happens in the end: there is enough public protest to ensure that there is action. I hope that the level of public awareness is no less for this cause than it is for other, similar scandals because all the victims were women. That would be even more disgraceful than that this all happened in the first place.

09:50

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing the debate.

On behalf of constituents who have written to me, I want to begin by quoting the comments of the Patient Safety Commissioner for England, Professor Hughes, to the BBC when her report was released two years ago:

“These families weren’t listened to by a system that really turned its back, and fobbed them off with information which led to them not only being harmed, but thousands of others being harmed.”

The Hughes report has still not received a proper response—from either the Conservative Government or current Labour Government—and that is the key. That is deeply disappointing and a massive let-down for all those women and children affected by this scandal. I appreciate that this is an important issue, and it warrants due process, but there has been a two-year wait for a response, not to mention that the wait for the families affected has been so much longer.

Although the Patient Safety Commissioner’s remit extends to England only, this is a UK-wide issue. The regulation of human medicines and medicinal products is reserved. The report said that the Department of Health and Social Care should

“engage with the devolved governments”

on where and how the two-stage redress approach should apply across the UK. The UK Government have indicated that those conversations are taking place. That is encouraging, and I hope that it continues, but we in Scotland have been disappointed by this Government more than once. The well-worn saying applies: justice delayed is justice denied.

This Government promised change, and here is a case in point. The unreserved apology offered by the previous Government in July 2021 was welcome, as was the invitation in December 2022

“to look at what a potential redress scheme could look like.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 478.]

But that was more than three years ago. Of course, this Government rightly deserve praise for acting to redress the problem and offer compensation, albeit slowly in some cases, following the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal. Please do not add this situation to that of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, the nuclear test veterans and others, where successive Governments have taken a negligent approach.

In summary, I am speaking up primarily on behalf of my constituents. We need urgent action on this report and a proper system of redress for the countless families affected by this scandal. Please let us get on with addressing recommendation 4 of the Hughes report without delay. I hope the Minister will address that in her response.

09:53

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing the debate.

I spoke in last year’s debate to raise the experience of my constituents Paula and Gillian, who had experienced the impact of having pelvic mesh fitted. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then, and Paula tells me she is still living with the devastation that pelvic mesh has caused in her life. She had the mesh implanted in 2012, and between 2020 and 2023 she experienced painful bladder stones that were linked to the mesh. She finally had surgery last year to remove a 3 cm bladder stone, which revealed that the mesh had completely eroded into her bladder. She will need further surgery to remove the remainder of the mesh, and will need to undergo a further recovery period. That story is like many others we have heard.

As I did when I spoke about valproate last year, I would like to thank Emma, Janet and the campaigners who are here today, who do so much in this area. With regard to the Hughes report, the Epilepsy Research Institute continues to ask the Government to allocate dedicated ringfenced funding for research into epilepsy drugs and to ensure that regulatory bodies act swiftly on safety concerns, and that pregnant women with epilepsy have access to the best possible information and care.

I will take us down a slightly different path now because, as some Members know, my wife and one of my daughters have epilepsy. When my wife and I tried to conceive, I saw at first hand the issues women have when they have to come off valproate. My wife was seizure-free for 12 years, and her life was turned upside down when she started having seizures again. Those resulted in her falling all the way down the stairs; falling into a bathroom cabinet and trapping her head—I had to try to disengage her; having a seizure in the bath, after which I had to resuscitate her on the bathroom floor; and having to surrender her driving licence. At one stage, she thought she would never go back to her teaching job, although she has now successfully gone back to it. She will be three years seizure-free this year, mainly because she has gone back on to valproate.

Those many years when she had seizures and other issues show why research is desperately needed for drugs to control epilepsy. Unfortunately, for many people, valproate is the only drug that allows them to lead a normal life. I have seen that; the rules are there for a good reason, but my daughter, who is 12 and who, as Members may know, has no mental capacity, has had to come off valproate because of the rules. We need to understand these issues and that wider issue, because for many people valproate is the drug they need to support them. That is not to disrespect Emma and Janet for the work they do to support those, including their children and families, who have been so desperately impacted by valproate.

I welcome the noises we have heard recently about forthcoming updates from the Department, but I also say, on behalf of my constituents and the wider community, that we need concrete measures for the implementation of financial and non-financial redress, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

09:57

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for this valuable and vital debate.

I pay tribute to all families who have suffered a miscarriage of justice, and in this case to all those who have been impacted by sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. I am especially grateful to my constituent Emma Friedman, and I salute her and her son Andy for educating me about this issue, and particularly about sodium valproate, but also for their real strength and perseverance and their unwavering commitment to justice.

Achieving justice should not really be so hard, but unfortunately it is. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, we have seen this all before: 30,000 people were infected and affected in the contaminated blood scandal in the ’70s and ’80s; 700 hard-working postmasters and postmistresses were falsely prosecuted and their lives destroyed; and billions and billions of pounds were wasted on unusable personal protective equipment during a national emergency.

Sodium valproate is an effective drug. It was developed in 1962, and it has transformed the lives of countless people with epilepsy and bipolar disorders. However, it has always been known to cause serious harm when taken during pregnancy, and the risks are stark: around 30% to 40% of children exposed in the womb develop neurodevelopmental disorders and approximately 10% suffer serious congenital malformations, including spina bifida, cleft lips and other lifelong disabilities. The sadness is that 20,000 children in the UK are estimated to have been affected.

The concern is that evidence suggests doctors were aware of the risks from the early years. However, according to the minutes of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, it made the extraordinary decision in the 1970s that fully warning women may cause “fruitless anxiety”. The warnings were not given, and the fact that that decision was made after the thalidomide scandal makes it all the more shocking.

Some parents report that they were warned about the possible side effects to themselves, but never about those to their unborn babies. That pattern appears to have been repeated again and again. Clear warnings did not emerge until the late 1990s and were only strengthened around 2010. The first GP toolkit was published as late as 2015—and it still did not mandate direct, informed conversations with patients, so GPs simply did not have to tell patients.

As has been mentioned already, women were often dismissed. No long-term study was ever conducted; even today, some women are only discovering through their own research why their 30 or 35-year-old child lives with a disability linked to valproate. That is truly shocking, and it is still ongoing—it is not history. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review chaired by Baroness Cumberlege published its First Do No Harm report in 2020. It concluded that women had been misled and ill-informed, and recommended an independent redress agency, specifically a compensation scheme for those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept those recommendations. In December 2022 the Patient Safety Commissioner was asked to explore options, and on 7 February 2024 the Hughes report clearly called for an independent two-stage scheme providing both financial and non-financial compensation. The Government have yet to respond.

Meanwhile, families continue to struggle. In many cases it is the mother, who may herself still be suffering with epilepsy, who is the primary carer of a disabled child. Many families are living in difficult socioeconomic conditions and they are barely surviving. We cannot even begin to imagine the emotional toll and the feeling of guilt that many parents talk about. Many feel that it is their fault. We cannot imagine their mental anguish.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I pay tribute to the people who have brought this issue so far. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the emotional toll he speaks of is living large in the lives of those families and that they deserve, at the absolute least, an apology and redress?

[Shockat Adam]

Yes—that is the least that we can do.

Sodium valproate is effective, as was powerfully demonstrated by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), and women must not abruptly stop taking the medication, as that can be seriously dangerous. However, this issue represents a serious failure of communication between regulators, GPs, specialists, fertility clinics and pharmacists. We must modernise the safety system, with better data sharing, digital alerts, clear warnings on packaging and, above all, mandatory one-to-one consultations so that every woman of child- bearing age understands the risks and the alternatives.

Mistakes will always occur in medicine, but how quickly we acknowledge them, learn from them and compensate those harmed is the true mark of a progressive society. The current Health Secretary, when in Opposition in February 2024, expressed frustration at how slowly justice was progressing. Those words must now be matched with action.

10:02

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve here today under your chairship, Ms Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.

I am going to focus on sodium valproate, which was prescribed for decades without proper warnings about the effect on unborn children. As a result, those children were harmed and, despite multiple Government-commissioned reports, families are still waiting for accountability and redress. Two years on from the Hughes report, that delay can no longer be justified.

Sodium valproate is a medicine used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder. It is a very effective medicine for many but, if taken while pregnant, it can cause serious harm. Those harms include major physical birth defects, developmental delays, learning disabilities and a significantly increased risk of autism. Many of the children affected will need lifelong care.

For years, despite those risks being known, women and prescribers were not given clear or adequate information about them. Even after the effects were more widely known, prescriptions continued without proper safeguards in place. At least 7,000 children have been affected by this medicine since it came on to the market in 1973, but the real number is quite likely very much higher because of the lack of awareness around foetal valproate spectrum disorder.

My constituent Nicola was one of the many women affected. Her children were profoundly harmed by exposure during pregnancy. Like so many others, Nicola trusted her doctor and followed proper medical advice. She was badly let down. She has explained to me just how immense the impact has been on her and her children and, of course, what a difference compensation would make to her kids’ lives.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate case for her constituent. My constituent Gill has told me how she has suffered for around 11 years as a result of the pelvic mesh scandal. She is a member of the Sling the Mesh group. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether on sodium valproate or pelvic mesh, such groups deserve to be listened to, and that we should pay tribute to them for campaigning for these courageous women?

[Lizzi Collinge]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This scandal follows a pattern that we have seen far too many times before: early warnings ignored, information withheld or downplayed, measures to protect people not effectively enacted, and public bodies closing ranks rather than being open and honest when things go wrong. I have done a lot of work on maternity safety, and I have seen those patterns again and again; the parallels are really clear. Had concerns been properly addressed at the outset, so much harm could have been avoided, and so many more children would not have been born with lifelong, preventable conditions.

Their families have been waiting for far too long. There were initial recommendations for redress six years ago in the Cumberlege review, but the previous Government failed to act. Through the Hughes report, we have an even more comprehensive examination of what needs to be done to support those families, but they are no closer to getting even a formal response to that. That constant delay increases the cost, delays support and builds up ill-will with affected families, who have already spent their lives fighting for their kids.

I urge the Government to provide an interim payment for those families. We know that that is possible; Dr Hughes has outlined how to do it in this case, and we have seen it in the infected blood scandal. The main question for the Minister is this: when will we get a full response to the Hughes report? When will we actually see some action?

Like so many of my colleagues, I pay tribute to Emma and Janet from the Independent Fetal Anti-convulsant Trust, who are here today. Their children were affected by sodium valproate, and they have been tireless campaigners for compensation for affected families—I have known them for many years now. They have been invaluable in raising awareness about foetal valproate spectrum disorder. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who has worked with In-FACT for many years on this and has been a staunch advocate for their campaign.

Despite all their hard work, progress from the Government’s side seems to have stalled yet again, and families are left waiting. We know that things go wrong in medicine, and that all drugs have side effects, but when a harm that is caused was preventable, and when the state fails to act on warnings, the Government must step up. We should do what we should have done years ago, and give justice and support to the families who have already paid a heavy price for our failings.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that it is discourteous not to attend for the opening speeches and then to make interventions. As a result, those Members who have been here from the start and will be here until the end will now have a shorter time limit imposed on them. Because of the number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am imposing a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three and a half minutes.

10:07

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for giving us the opportunity to contribute, and allowing me to mention Northern Ireland and what is happening there. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I thank her for all she does.

The Hughes report was for England only, but the ripple effect is UK-wide. As of February 2026, Northern Ireland victims remain in limbo. The Northern Ireland Department of Health has stated that its approach will be informed by the final position of the UK Government—right here—but their final position has not been determined. Because nothing has been done here, nothing happens in Northern Ireland, so we are being affected. I know that the Minister will be responsive, but I ask her to give us some indication of the timescale.

Patients continue to contact me and Members of the Legislative Assembly in an attempt to see the adoption of the report’s recommendation, and the phrasing is that families feel abandoned by the lack of progress and financial compensation. I can understand that the Department of Health (NI) needs guidance from Westminster; the UK as a whole is waiting to see what implementation and redress will look like. While financial payments are stalled, some progress has been made on the non-financial report, with the continued operation of specialist mesh centres and improved clinical guidelines for prescribing valproates. That is welcome but—to put it simply—it is not enough.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Women have been left in lifelong pain; children have been born with preventable disabilities; families have endured financial and emotional stress; many women have lost their jobs, their homes and even their marriages. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although financial and non-financial support are important, to prevent such issues in the future it is also important that the dots are joined up early and that early warning signs are not buried in bureaucracy?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. A specially accredited unit operates at Belfast city hospital, featuring a multidisciplinary team to treat mesh-related problems. If complex removal surgery is required, there is also the option to perform it locally, so we are doing our best in Northern Ireland to address the issue. Even so, advocacy groups such as Sling the Mesh Northern Ireland have expressed concerns over the conflict of interest in requiring the original implanting surgeon to sign off on referrals for outside treatment. All those factors must be taken into consideration, which was the very point my hon. Friend made.

Between 1998 and 2018, some 11,000 vaginal mesh implants were performed in Northern Ireland. Other Department of Health figures indicate that nearly 7,000 procedures occurred between 2005 and 2015 alone. With conservative estimates suggesting that between 5% and 10% of those patients experienced significant problems, the scale of the issue is clear.

For children affected, while the UK-wide estimate is roughly 20,000, specific Northern Ireland figures often have to be extrapolated. Reports for the Republic of Ireland, for instance, estimate that there are some 1,250 children affected there; those significant numbers down south are separate from Northern Ireland figures, but based on similar prescribing patterns. As of 2023, the Patient Safety Commissioner noted that even now, across the UK, an average of three babies a month are born having been exposed to the drug.

I will not take an extra minute for the intervention, Dr Allin-Khan, because I recognise that others need time to speak.

All those people, including the 600 members of Sling the Mesh NI, are awaiting action. On this, the second anniversary of the report, the stagnation of action is not acceptable. I take this opportunity to speak on their behalf, as well as on behalf of my and my hon. Friend’s constituents in Northern Ireland: I ask that we stop waiting and start moving on the compensation, providing help for those who are suffering this very minute, even as this debate takes place.

My request for the Minister is that we hurry the process, so that we in Northern Ireland can fall in behind what happens here in Westminster. Let us not see a third anniversary without fulfilment of the recommendations and of our word in this place.

10:12

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan, but it is not a pleasure to be here marking two years since the publication of the Hughes report. Sadly, in that time, those recommendations seem to have been in a holding pattern somewhere in the Department for Health and Social Care.

Other Members have rightly spoken about the victims. Today, I think mostly about one of my constituents, who contacted me more than five years ago, raising concerns about the tragic loss of her son when he was 30. She believes that the sodium valproate medication that she took during his pregnancy was responsible for his learning difficulties and, ultimately, his early passing. Quite understandably, she feels let down by the state. She is also concerned about the profound effect that it may have had on her other children, and the fact that she was not alerted to the risks of this by the authorities.

What I find particularly disappointing, having contacted numerous Secretaries of State during that time, is that we have had no more than vague commitments and assurances that this issue will be addressed in due course. That does not cut it for my constituent; nor, sadly, does it do anything to assuage the guilt that she—wrongly, in my opinion—feels.

With other national scandals, such as infected blood and the Post Office Horizon system, the Government have eventually provided funding for mechanisms to compensate those affected, but they too had to wait decades. It is disappointing that the recognition that we all had at the time, that those systems were introduced that those delays had compounded the injustice, has not translated into any visible progress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh.

I agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that, in those schemes, the interim payment system has been seen as a way to get at least some measure of redress. I am disappointed that we have not been able to learn from that experience and use a similar system for the people we are talking about today. I have sympathy for the view set out by the Secretary of State that redress must be considered alongside that for other patient groups, but that does not justify inaction.

Those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh are frustrated by the delays and the obfuscation. The state has acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It has commissioned and published two reports on the matter, both of which have recommended that redress is provided to patients, but we have reached the point where reports and recommendations are not enough. It is time for the Government to act, and to provide the support that the many victims of this scandal deserve and need to manage their ongoing conditions. The can has been kicked down the road for too long; campaigners and those affected are understandably frustrated and anxious for change.

I would like to ask the Minister two things, echoing the questions raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green). First, can the Minister confirm whether there has been an estimate of the total cost of providing redress? If so, can she share that today? That might, at least, give campaigners some hope that things are actually moving forward. Secondly, can she confirm whether she has discussed funding redress with the Treasury for inclusion in future fiscal events? I look forward to the Minister’s response—or, if she is unable to provide specific answers today, to a commitment that she or a colleague will do so in future, and a clear sense those who have suffered are now being listened to.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order. I know that people are keen to hear from the Minister, so I will bring the speaking time down to three minutes. If there are any interventions, I will have to bring it down even further.

10:15

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this vital and timely debate. First, I want to recognise the victims of the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals, their families and especially the women who are yet again, through no fault of their own, another example of the UK’s unacceptable gender health gap.

I have spoken about my constituent Mary on several occasions in the House. It is a pleasure to welcome her and other women affected by these scandals here to watch this debate. I thank Mary and other campaigning mothers, such as Karen and Deborah, who have already been mentioned, for their tireless work to bring foetal valproate syndrome to my and other Members’ attention, and to keep this injustice in the spotlight. Mothers such as Mary have had to reckon not just with looking after their children with complex needs, who regularly require round-the-clock care, but with continuing their exhausting campaign work to try to keep the focus on the plight of their children in an attempt to receive better support.

One of the points that Mary and other mothers with children affected by foetal valproate syndrome are clearest about is that this is an evolving disability. No one knows the true damage that the drug may be causing victims as they grow older; those symptoms are evolving as they do, and children’s complex conditions often deteriorate. That can make appointments with GPs and other healthcare specialists incredibly difficult and complex. The lack of awareness and understanding about the situation among the medical community simply exacerbates the issue, and makes it even harder for mothers to get on with helping their children. It is vital that measures are brought into the clinician training curriculum, and those absolutely must feature testimonies from victims of medical scandals so that the medical community truly understand what they are facing.

It cannot be underlined enough that all these challenges are not hypothetical questions to these women and their families; they are their everyday realities. For that reason, it is incredibly frustrating—and, to be quite honest, angering—for those mothers that, more than two whole years after the publication of Professor Henrietta Hughes’s report into sodium valproate and mesh implants, the Government have not only not responded but have, of late, been stating that they

“will respond in due course.”

I am sorry, but what a totally rubbish, useless and uncaring answer! Much is said about distrust in our politics and our politicians in this country; that sort of mealy-mouthed answer, I am afraid, does absolutely nothing to restore that trust. We must do better.

I have so much more to say, but I am conscious of time. I will just say that Mary told me this morning, “We are exhausted from fighting.” Her plea is for MPs to find out more, to do more and to raise more awareness. I leave that plea with the House. The Government have an obligation to support families like Mary’s, and I hope that they will do the right thing.

10:18

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for introducing the debate. Like other Members, I was here last year on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. It is a stark reminder of how issues can drift. For those who have suffered, the passing year has not just slipped by quietly, yet we still hear the same language from Ministers about a response coming “in due course”. Those words ring very hollow to the victims whose patience has long since run out.

Ministers have previously said that this is a complex issue requiring action across multiple Departments. I readily accept that, but that is precisely why Professor Hughes recommended the interim scheme and those payments in 2025—and 2025 came and went with no response and no payments. Professor Hughes wrote that report, as she said, to drive action; she would not have done it otherwise. It is about how the compensation is paid, not whether it is paid, and it is extraordinary, frankly, that she felt she had to use statutory powers to go to No. 10 and the Prime Minister to drive progress on the issue.

In the debate last year, I spoke about my constituents Colleen and Andy, and other families who have been blighted by the scandal. When I met them they talked about their son, Byron. Colleen has epilepsy and was prescribed sodium valproate, but she was never warned that it could harm her unborn child. Byron lives with autism, learning disabilities, communication difficulties and epilepsy. The family’s experience is far too common. Families like them deserve decisive action from the Government. When I pressed the Health Secretary at health questions last month, he said that we were

“right to hold the Government’s feet to the fire”,—[Official Report, 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 753.]

He said that work was happening across Government and promised updates. But there have not been any updates.

The Health Secretary has previously spoken about the failure of the state to recognise and put right wrongs and its mistakes, yet two years on we are still waiting for some action. Victims do not need any more words; they need action. As Professor Hughes has said, the lack of a response feels devastating to those families. For the sake of the families who have suffered, the Government need to act now. There has been plenty of time to learn from other compensation schemes, to secure funding from the Treasury for compensation and to set out even just a timeline for redress.

I ask the Minister: when will interim payments finally be made to those affected and give families the relief they urgently need? At the very least, can the Minister commit that the Government will make interim payments this year? Otherwise, it would be an utter disgrace.

10:21

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Thank you for your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on securing this debate. I will put one family at the heart of my response: my constituent Catherine and her son Matthew, whom I mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions last February, 12 months ago.

When she was pregnant, Catherine did what any parent would do: she trusted the medical advice that she was given. She was prescribed sodium valproate, a medicine used to treat epilepsy. Matthew is now 24 years old, and as a result of that medical advice he has lifelong needs and a learning disability. He has done incredibly well, securing a part-time job and maintaining a level of independence while walking around the village where he lives.

Matthew was also incredibly proud to take part in the 2024 general election, and he voted in the hope that there would finally be redress for those affected by the valproate scandal. Matthew has since written to the Prime Minister; I put on the record my frustration at seeing how his correspondence was passed from pillar to post. It was only after several chases by me that Matthew received a response—a response entirely inappropriate for somebody with a learning disability.

Catherine and her family provide significant support to Matthew, and his life is all the richer for it. But that is not the case for all children impacted by sodium valproate, and there will come a point in time when Catherine will not be able to provide that support any longer. Catherine, and other families in the Public Gallery today, fear that day, and they want the state to ensure that specialist assessments, therapies, adaptations, lost earnings and round-the-clock care are provisioned for now, so that a secure future for their children is guaranteed.

That is why the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report is so important. It sets out a clear and workable route, and it is the responsibility of this Government to acknowledge that. Every month of delay is another month when parents are left to patch together support, fight for diagnoses, battle through fragmented services and carry costs that should never have landed on their shoulders.

Today I ask the Minister directly, as I asked the Prime Minister 12 months ago: will the Government commit to a clear timetable for implementing the Hughes recommendations? For Catherine and Matthew, the argument that the situation is complex simply does not land. Their lives are already complex—more complex than most of us can even imagine. What they are asking the Government to do is simple: accept responsibility for the scandal and act now while the redress can still be meaningful.

The question today is whether this Government—the Government who both Catherine and Matthew were desperate to see when I first met them, as a candidate—will match that urgency with action. I hope that the Minister will take seriously all the representations made today.

10:24

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.

We have had the findings of the Hughes report for over two years now. It called on the Government to provide financial redress to patients and families affected by the use of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The previous Government refused to act and increasingly it feels as though the current Government are also burying their head in the sand rather than confronting the scale of this injustice.

My constituent Nick is one of those living with the consequences of that inaction. His son Oliver was born with foetal valproate syndrome after Nick’s wife took valproate during pregnancy to control her epilepsy. Tragically, Nick’s wife has since died, leaving Nick to raise Oliver alone. Nick told me that it is hard for him to adequately explain how difficult Oliver’s life has been and how much he worries about his son’s future.

Valproate has changed Oliver’s life forever, and all Nick wants is answers and meaningful action from the Government. Quite rightly, Nick continually chases me for answers on when the Government will make a decision on the Hughes report. On behalf of Nick and Oliver, I ask very directly: can the Minister say when we will finally get a response to the Hughes report? How much longer do the Government need to “carefully consider” recommendations that have already been scrutinised, evidenced and endorsed? Families such as Nick’s cannot wait indefinitely while the Government deliberate.

I take this opportunity to say that it is also vital that we recognise the devastating impact of Primodos, a hormonal pregnancy test used until the 1980s. Primodos was not considered by the Hughes report, but it was part of the Cumberlege review of hundreds of children born with foetal abnormalities. Many of those affected are now older; tragically, some of them are dying without ever receiving acknowledgment, accountability or compensation.

The pelvic mesh, valproate and Primodos scandals are some of the most significant health scandals of modern times. They have disproportionately affected women, yet time and again we see the same pattern: warnings being ignored; evidence being dismissed; and victims being left to fight for justice on their own. These scandals have gone on for far too long, with little action from successive Governments. Those affected by valproate and Primodos are not asking for the impossible; they simply want those responsible to acknowledge the mistakes made and to take responsibility for the harms caused.

If we are serious about restoring trust in our healthcare system and serious about supporting women, we must start by delivering justice to those who have been failed so profoundly.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call Caroline Voaden.

10:27

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.

Last Saturday marked two years since the publication of the Hughes report—two years since Patient Safety Commissioner Dr Henrietta Hughes set out clear and compassionate recommendations for redress for those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Yet two years on, families are still waiting, women are still suffering, children are still living with devastating disabilities, and the Government are still silent.

Like many other speakers this morning, I salute the courage of all those who have campaigned so hard on this issue for so long, many of them doing so while living with devastating injury. I would like to share the human cost of this scandal by giving an example of a life destroyed by a medical procedure that was badly performed and that went horrifically wrong. That has been the experience of my constituent, Susan. In 2009, Susan underwent a transvaginal tape procedure for mild stress urinary incontinence. The mesh was catastrophically misplaced, causing immediate and lasting harm. Within months, her health had deteriorated so badly that she was forced to close her Care Quality Commission-registered medical clinic, and to abandon a professional career that she had built up over three decades.

Believing the mesh to be the cause of her poor health, Susan sought help and was referred to a surgeon presented to her as an expert in mesh removal. She gave clear written consent for the removal of all remaining mesh. Instead—unbelievably—an additional reconstructive procedure was carried out without her knowledge or consent. It was never discussed beforehand and never explained afterwards. It was not even disclosed to her GP. Susan was then told that the mesh was “probably all removed”. It was not. Years later, specialist MRI imaging confirmed that substantial mesh remained embedded in her pelvis and abdominal wall. However, by the time the truth became clear, she was out of time to pursue a legal claim.

Recently, when Susan tried to pursue her case again, the legal system demanded over £10,000 for a barrister’s opinion. Given the loss of her high-end professional career, she no longer had the financial means to proceed. The financial ruin caused by the mesh injuries effectively barred her from accessing the courts and seeking the compensation that she so rightly deserves. Today, she lives with constant pain, severe incontinence, chronic infection and profound psychological trauma. Her financial losses run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds, and she is still waiting for a Government response that should have come two years ago.

I will share another constituent’s experience. In 2016, Caroline underwent mesh insertion. Within just three weeks, serious complications began, but what followed was not prompt medical care; it was six years of being repeatedly dismissed and gaslighted by multiple healthcare professionals, including the very surgeon who had implanted the mesh. When Caroline expressed concerns during an internal examination, the surgeon’s demeanour changed significantly for the worse. Her symptoms continued to be disregarded and for 12 months she had to self-advocate persistently before finally being referred to a specialist mesh complications service.

The specialists identified that the mesh had twisted, leaving Caroline with no option but full mesh removal surgery. That surgery took place in July 2023, more than seven years after the original procedure. The impact on her life has been devastating. She has endured years of significant physical pain and declining health. She has been forced to become financially dependent on her personal savings, as her ability to work has been severely limited. Universal credit and NHS travel support are means-tested, leaving her out of pocket for essential medical travel and other related expenses.

Susan’s story is not just one person’s story, and neither is Caroline’s. Across the country, thousands of women are living with that reality every single day. Women are living with chronic pain, infections and life-altering complications from pelvic mesh implants. That mesh was supposed to help them, but instead it eroded into their organs, caused urinary problems and bleeding, and left them unable to work, exercise or have intimate relationships with the people they love—in short, unable to live normal lives.

As well as that, children are living with devastating neurodevelopmental disorders and birth defects caused by sodium valproate exposure in the womb. Parents are at breaking point, struggling with the emotional, practical and financial burden of caring for children whose conditions were entirely preventable. As Janet Williams and Emma Murphy, two mothers of children with foetal valproate syndrome, wrote to the Prime Minister and Chancellor:

“Families affected by sodium valproate exposure do not have the luxury of time. The children are growing, their care needs are increasing, and their families are at breaking point.”

Let me remind the House of the timeline of this shameful delay. In July 2020, the Cumberlege review recommended urgent redress. The Government refused. Two and a half years later, they finally tasked the Patient Safety Commissioner to look at the issue again. On 7 February 2024, two years ago last Saturday, Dr Henrietta Hughes published her report. It was unequivocal in calling for an independent redress scheme, including £100,000 interim payments for valproate victims, and comprehensive medical and financial support for mesh survivors.

Those were not radical demands; they were the minimum response required to address preventable tragedies that have devastated thousands of lives, yet the response remains a hollow promise of careful consideration. There was no published response from the previous Government, and 18 months into this one, we are still told that action will come in due course. The delay is not just a bureaucratic failure, but part of a disturbing pattern seen in the Primodos and infected blood scandals. It is a pattern where women and vulnerable patients are ignored, evidence is dismissed and recommendations are left to gather dust. Running through it all, as Susan and Caroline’s cases demonstrate so starkly, is a persistent culture of cover-up and denial. Compensation alone is not enough. We must ensure that such harm is never inflicted again.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a policy response that protects patients from the horrors of mesh implant side effects in absolute terms, with a full and continuing moratorium. Far too often, the recommendations from inquiries into medical scandals are neglected. There should be annual reporting to Parliament on progress, including on how the Government are addressing every issue highlighted by the Hughes report.

Central to preventing future scandals is ending the culture of cover-up that has been exposed time and again by medical scandal inquiries—the culture that allowed Susan to be told her mesh had been removed when it had not, and Caroline to be gaslighted for six years by the very professionals who should have helped her—and the doubtful legal procedures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham.

That is why we support the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which will enshrine a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities and provide bereaved families with equal legal representation at inquests. The collapse of the Bill at the eleventh hour was deeply disappointing. Ministers now need to listen to the Hillsborough families and urgently bring forward a solution that ensures that everyone, including the security services, is covered by this law.

However, a duty of candour must go hand in hand with protection for brave individuals who speak up when they see harm being done. We strongly oppose the Government’s decision to scrap key patient safety organisations, including whistleblowing and speak-up programmes such as the National Guardian’s Office. We also oppose moves to remove patient voice, including the proposed abolition of local Healthwatch organisations.

The sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals represent fundamental failures of our healthcare system to protect vulnerable women and children. It was a major failure of the previous Conservative Government not to deliver compensation, which was recommended by not only the Patient Safety Commissioner, but the Cumberlege review that preceded it. The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for every recommendation from the Cumberlege review to be accepted and for a full response to the Hughes report setting out how the Government will provide redress for these terrible injustices.

Two years since the Hughes report is long enough to wait. Four years since Cumberlege is far too long. For women like Susan, who have been waiting since 2009 for justice, 16 years is unconscionable. Families deserve answers. Women deserve compensation and corrective surgery where appropriate. Children deserve the support and care they need. They all deserve justice. Everyone affected by the valproate and vaginal mesh scandals should have an apology, compensation, corrective surgery where needed, and psychological support.

I ask the Minister again: what active conversations are currently being held with the Treasury about redress payments? I urge the Government to commit today to publishing a full response to the Hughes report, implementing its recommendations in full and ensuring that no family or individual affected by medical negligence ever has to fight this hard or this long for basic recognition of the harm that was done to them.

10:37

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing today’s debate. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, giving a voice to thousands of women who have been let down by the state. I also thank Henrietta Hughes for the Hughes report.

Thousands of pregnant women were prescribed sodium valproate between 1973 and 2017 despite growing evidence of harm. In 1972, scientists found in animal studies that it was harmful to foetuses, and in 1984, foetal valproate syndrome entered the medical literature. Studies in the 2000s highlighted the link between valproate and birth defects. I remember, as perhaps you do, Dr Allin-Khan, learning about it at medical school. Yet it was only in 2018 that the valproate pregnancy prevention programme came into force, which was too late for more than 20,000 children with entirely preventable disability.

Over 10,000 women in England were harmed by pelvic mesh. Mesh kits were issued in the 2000s to treat urinary incontinence and prolapse, despite a lack of long-term safety data. Women suffered hideous complications: mesh tearing through tissue, bleeding, infection and sexual dysfunction. Shockingly, it took until 2018 for NHS England to suspend the routine use of these implants.

I want to raise the case of a lady, now in her 30s, who had a mesh implant put in to prevent a hernia in her abdominal wall, something that is often missed from the discussions about mesh. She describes how she is unable to leave her home because there is a hole in her stomach wall where the mesh has eroded. It cannot be removed. The surgeon described it as being stuck in there like chewing gum. She described her wish for a family. She described the smell of the constant infections. She described the fear of waiting for the next infection and wondering whether the sepsis from it will kill her. Yet there seems to be no way for her to get this mesh removed.

The previous Government did not sit on their hands. The former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), commissioned the independent medicines and medical devices safety review after hearing from over 700 affected people and medical stakeholders. The previous Government issued a formal apology to victims and appointed a Patient Safety Commissioner. They began to establish a network of centres to provide treatment, care and advice for those affected by the implanted mesh. I would be grateful for an update on that from the Minister, particularly in the light of the case that I described.

In 2022, the previous Government asked the new commissioner to report on options for compensating victims. Dr Henrietta Hughes did so in February 2024, a full 24 months ago, and that report set out what justice should look like for victims: an interim redress scheme and a permanent one to follow. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, it was a package of clear, practical steps to right the wrongs done to so many women. Yet two years on, we are no further forward.

After the 2024 election, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked the Government when they would respond to the Hughes report. The response was that the Government would consider the recommendations and meet with the commissioner. In January 2025, when asked by Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, the Government said they were “carefully considering” report and would provide an update “at the earliest opportunity.” In March, in this very room, a Government Minister said that recommendations were being actively considered and that a report was coming “at the earliest opportunity.” In that debate, the Minister suggested that research by Dr Rebecca Bromley was material. Can the Minister update us on that research?

In October, when the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) asked whether funding had been allocated for redress, a Minister said that recommendations were being carefully considered and a response would come at the earliest opportunity. In December, when the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), asked whether financial support was forthcoming, the Government said that recommendations were—still—being carefully considered. Last month, when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked whether funding was forthcoming, a Minister said the Government were “carefully considering” the report and an update was coming “in due course”.

What we have heard from Ministers is so frustrating. For 18 months, Members have asked what is being done, and time and again, this Labour Government have refused to give a clear answer. I note that the previous debate was responded to by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and both she and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), have answered questions on the matter. We have a different Minister today, and it is a delight to see her, but perhaps she can confirm which Minister takes responsibility for this issue in the Commons.

I have some further questions for the Minister. On which date did work begin on a response to the Hughes report? How many civil servants are working on the response? Have there been any conversations with the Treasury about the costs of the redress scheme? If work has been taking place, why is it invisible? If, in fact, nothing has been done, why have the Government persisted in telling Members that a response is forthcoming? Why, despite Dr Hughes visiting the Department in December, has nothing materially changed? Will the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asked, make an interim payment this calendar year?

Over the weekend, the Patient Safety Commissioner told ITV:

“This is a disgraceful way that patients and families are being treated by those in power.”

She is absolutely right. The state’s No. 1 duty is to protect the public from harm, yet after inflicting harm, the state has failed to make things right. This is part of a pattern under Labour whereby systemic failings, particularly those affecting women, go unresolved. Every day that victims of mesh and valproate do not receive justice, confidence in health professionals is undermined.

We know that the Chancellor is fast running out of other people’s money, but it is wrong to balance the books on the backs of those who are suffering. Justice is the state’s duty. It is not optional. It is not something just to be carefully considered for years on end, indefinitely, while women and children suffer. The Government can respect the victims and the work of the Patient Safety Commissioner today by answering our questions, or they can continue their parade of platitudes and evasions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

10:44

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House following the second anniversary of the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes. I pay tribute to her work and, as others have, to Baroness Cumberlege for her work in the lead-up to that report. I also thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate. It has been a thoughtful and constructive debate on an issue that is highly sensitive for Members across the House, for campaigners and people who are here today, and for people watching online.

To answer the question from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). He is the lead Minister for this area, but unfortunately cannot be here today—as Members will understand, that is often an issue, but I am happy to stand in. This is a matter of great interest to him personally. As colleagues know, he is a clinician, so has valuable insight into patient safety and how it works from a clinical perspective.

My hon. Friend wanted me to be clear that he is very happy to meet campaigners, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked, to discuss our work in more detail. He met the Patient Safety Commissioner in December to discuss the Department’s ongoing work in relation to her report. Since then, he has continued his engagement with the commissioner on how we can do more to address the immediate needs of those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. As we have heard, and as many of us know from constituents—I know that many other Members have affected constituents but were not able to attend the debate—some of these women’s lives, as well as those of their families, have been changed forever because they were misled about the effects of sodium valproate and surgical mesh.

Many examples have been given in the debate, and constituents of mine have shared the most intimate details of the impact of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. It has been truly harrowing for me and many other Members to listen to those details, as I am sure it was for those women who bravely shared them with a stranger, their Member of Parliament. That point was made well by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who spoke on behalf of her constituents.

We owe honesty, transparency and contrition to all the women affected, and we are determined to make sure that the lessons are learned and to keep patient safety at the heart of the reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly highlighted the issue of trust in the system, which is so important as we go forwards. Our focus remains on building a system that listens and that acts with speed, compassion and proportionality. Everybody who has suffered complications from sodium valproate and pelvic mesh implants has my deepest sympathies. I express my gratitude to Dr Hughes and her team for the report that was published two years ago, and I am grateful, too, for her continued engagement with the Department as Patient Safety Commissioner.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will, but I do want to respond to Members’ comments.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Minister said that she supports a system that acts with speed. Could she give us an idea of when there might be a response to the report?

[Karin Smyth]

I want to address the main concerns and, as I said, the Under-Secretary of State is very keen to talk with Members and campaigners.

We remain committed to working alongside Dr Hughes and her team to better support patients and ensure that steps are taken to prevent similar harm in the future, both in this area and across the wider patient safety landscape. That is obviously crucial. Many Members mentioned the importance of women’s voices being heard in this area, and many of us were involved in the campaign in the previous Parliament. We must make sure that women’s voices are better heard in the health system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, the campaigners are doing that, and I pay tribute, as she did, to In-FACT, as well as Sling the Mesh and the very many other patient groups that have raised this on behalf of women. They should not have to, but I commend their work.

I assure Members and people listening to the debate that we remain committed to advancing this work across Government and to looking at lessons from any cases in which patient safety has been affected. I fully understand why colleagues are asking for an official response to the Hughes report here and now. It is important that we get it right, and we need to carefully consider all options and the associated costs before coming to a decision on the report’s specific recommendations. I am sure that many Members have seen the letter that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wrote to the Patient Safety Commissioner in November, and I reconfirm, as he wrote, that that work includes looking at the costs.

We must take forward the lessons learned from this work—including, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) highlighted, work on similar areas—and the Government are doing that. We must ensure that our approach provides meaningful, often ongoing support to those who have been so profoundly affected.

The Government have to consider options for financial redress collectively, with input from a number of Departments, and we started that work immediately. As was mentioned, the previous Government did not respond to the report when it was published, but we have picked up that work. Initially, Baroness Merron was the lead Minister, and it is now the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West.

I assure the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) that my hon. Friend recently met the devolved Government Health Ministers to discuss their respective positions further. He will continue to do so across all devolved Government areas; as Members have said, patients there are affected too. We have to proceed with care to ensure the correct approach. We are committed to providing updates at the earliest opportunity, once all relevant advice and implications are considered.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will continue, if I may.

On non-financial redress, the Department is committed to meeting the needs of current patients with clinical requirements via three principal avenues. The first is improving clinical services and treatment to patients, and the second is commissioning further research and development programmes on sodium valproate and pelvic mesh to address the remaining knowledge gaps. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for sharing again his personal experiences and for laying bare the deep complexity and the need for more research and development, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is committed. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), with his clinical knowledge, also added useful experience to the debate. That is absolutely what my hon. Friend will be taking forward. The third avenue is initiating longer-term preventive measures that will help ensure that the system can pick up on adverse trends in patient care and act more quickly in the future.

I will take each avenue in turn. On improvement of clinical services, although the number of women up to the age of 54 who have been prescribed sodium valproate has nearly halved since 2018, there is a significant group of patients already affected who have complex and varied needs, and the health system has to ensure that that cohort receives high-quality and tailored care. NHS England has committed to a pilot project on foetal exposure to medicine in the north of England, involving multiple clinical specialties and a wide range of clinical experts, that will undertake a comprehensive review of the service. Eighty patients have been seen as part of the pilot, representing 560 appointments and 650 clinical hours. We have received feedback from patients on the value for their quality of life of being seen by clinical experts and wider multidisciplinary teams. We are considering options to commission this service further nationwide.

NHS England has also completed an internal review of mesh centres across England. Mesh centres undoubtedly offer a valuable and impactful service, with nearly 3,000 patients now seen since their introduction. However, as a relatively new service, distinct areas for improvement remain, and we will look closely at the results of the internal review and promptly deliver the necessary improvements.

With regard to further research and development, the National Institute for Health and Care Research has been commissioned for a £1.56 million study to develop patient-reported outcome measures for prolapse, incontinence and mesh-complication surgery. In the longer term, those measures will be integrated into the pelvic floor registry, which monitors and improves the safety of mesh patients. Further research is also taking place in this area, and we will ensure that future work takes into account the recommendations of the pilot project and of the mesh centre audit.

On longer-term prevention work, recent discussions with NHS England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency indicate that longer-term improvements in digitisation will help position the UK as a world leader in reducing valproate-exposed births and applying the insights to other teratogenic medicines. The Department will explore increasing centralisation and visibility of the annual risk acknowledgment form across care settings, as highlighted in the Hughes report, and may consider expanding the medicines and pregnancy registry to better link data with research outcomes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karin Smyth]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East.

[Seamus Logan]

I appreciate the complexities of the steps that the Minister is outlining. Nevertheless, in repeated contributions, Members have asked for a timescale, so will the Minister respond by the end of the Session? Will she respond by the autumn? Will she respond by the end of the calendar year? Can she give us some clarification, please?

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to answer that at the end of my comments, but first I will take the intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I appreciate that the Minister does not have primary responsibility for this area, but it worries me that we are hearing an awful lot about process. What I fear is really going on is that Ministers have been told at the highest possible level, by the Chancellor or a Treasury Minister, that the money for redress will not be made available and they have to take that as their starting point. She may not be able to confirm this now, but I would like an answer as to whether a conversation of that sort has taken place.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank both Members for their comments. Experienced parliamentarians will know what I will be able to say. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, outlined in his letter, costs—I think that is what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East was alluding to—are part of the overall consideration, along with the complexity, in the work that he is leading on behalf of the Department across all Government Departments.

[Marie Goldman]

Will the Minster give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I am going to close by emphasising again that we are profoundly sorry, of course, for the enduring harm experienced by women affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Their pain, which we keep in our minds at all times, and the life-altering consequences they have suffered are truly heartbreaking. We recognise the immense toll, much of which we have heard about again today, that this has taken on them and their families. We have listened closely to calls for clarity, speed and decisive action on the report’s recommendations. To be very clear, we are committed to setting out our response at the earliest credible opportunity while ensuring that it is both robust and deliverable. I think that, as we have heard again today, Members here and people listening recognise the complexity of that. I assure those listening that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is determined to progress this matter, and he is willing to meet campaigners and discuss that in more detail, as Members have asked us to do today.

10:56

[Sarah Green]

In his November letter to the Patient Safety Commissioner to which the Minister referred, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), states in reference to redress:

“Additional information is still required on the practicalities of further action on this area. This includes approaches to cost and affordability, legislation and scope of any potential redress. No final timetable has been agreed at present.”

The thoughtful and insightful contributions we have heard today show that Members are not going to stop asking the question. In tribute to the many families and campaigners, who are so inspiring and yet exhausted, I hope very much that we are not here in 12 months’ time dusting down the same speeches and chasing for progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report.

10:56

Sitting suspended.