Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Ed Davey Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic communications regarding the due diligence and vetting.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your statement ahead of this debate.

The appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates have rightly stunned the whole world. The scale of Epstein’s operation was shocking—selling human beings for sex, turning hundreds of young women and girls into victims and survivors—and those women are at the front of our mind today as we finally seek transparency, truth and accountability.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor shamed our country and the royal family, but for too long, Members of Parliament were barred from even raising criticisms of him, let alone properly scrutinising his role as trade envoy, because of the outdated tradition that mentions of any member of the royal family in this House must, in the words of the previous Speaker, be

“very rare, very sparing and very respectful”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]

I encountered this at first hand back in 2011, when I was asked to respond to an Adjournment debate on behalf of Lord Green, who was then the Minister for Trade and Investment. The debate was led by the late Paul Flynn, but even he—an ardent and outspoken republican, as I am sure many of us remember, was not allowed to raise any actual concerns about Andrew himself. Paul called it “negative privilege”, and that is what it was. He said his mouth was “bandaged by archaic rules”, and that had very real and damaging consequences. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, because I know he was also constrained by those rules when he raised similar issues. In that debate, Epstein’s name was not mentioned once, and there was no chance to debate the substance. Standing in for the responsible Minister, I set out the Government’s position, as it had been for a decade, in support of the prince’s role as trade envoy. Looking back and knowing what we all know now, I am horrified by it. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for the survivors and their families to hear Andrew praised like that, as they did so often all around the world, so I apologise to them, and I am determined to change things.

I was struck by the words of Amanda Roberts, Virginia Giuffre’s sister-in-law, after Andrew was arrested last week. She said this could be a stain on the royal family for the rest of our history, or

“it could be a moment where they, and we, decide that this is the time when cultural change happens.”

As a staunch supporter of His Royal Highness the King and the royal family, I believe we must help to bring about that cultural change now.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The leader of the Liberal Democrats is making a powerful speech. I am sure he will agree that decades of deferential and, frankly, sycophantic treatment by Parliament and state authorities are being exposed as having enabled Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to behave as though he were untouchable. I am sure he will also join me in calling on the Government to introduce independent oversight of those members of the royal family who undertake official duties, and in requiring transparency and scrutiny of anything paid for by the state from now on, because apparently, they work for us.

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful for that intervention. We must build a culture of transparency and accountability; I think that is essential. I hope that we as a House will look at ending the archaic “negative privilege” rules that Paul Flynn spoke about, and remove the bandages from our mouths. Today, we are free of those bandages, when it comes to Andrew. Our motion focuses on finally getting out the truth about his role as a special representative for trade and investment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the right hon. Member and his party for bringing forward the motion, and for the way that he interviewed on TV this morning. Certainly, he speaks not just for this House, but for this nation. We are all greatly shocked at what has taken place, but does he agree that King Charles, Queen Camilla, Edward, Sophie, William and Kate are members of the royal family who need our support at this time? Does he also agree that now is perhaps the time to tell them that we in this House love them, and that this nation loves them? We understand the pain they are suffering, and we support those members of the royal family who are above reproach on this.

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I think he probably speaks for the whole House. Indeed, the intention of this debate is to bring this House together. The changes that we think are necessary would protect the royal family and strengthen the monarchy, which in some places has been criticised. That is important, and it is why we need these reforms.

The motion focuses on the start of this—on the appointment of the former Prince Andrew to this role back in 2001. We have seen reporting that says that the King, then the Prince of Wales, expressed his concerns about that appointment. More alarmingly, we have read that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as his former Trade Secretary, pushing for Andrew’s appointment—one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a job that might help Epstein enrich himself. We clearly need to get to the bottom of that appointment and the role that Mandelson played in it, and only the papers demanded by this motion will allow us to do that. We need them published as soon as possible, without delay.

There are many questions about Andrew’s conduct in the role, which is now subject to a criminal investigation. As you said, Mr Speaker, we clearly do not want to jeopardise that investigation through anything we say today. We must let the police get on with their work, especially for Epstein’s victims, survivors and their families, who deserve to see justice done at last. However, I would highlight one example of the way that Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew’s role as a trade envoy to enrich himself.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is talking about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s role as a trade envoy. When I was working overseas for the British Council, Mountbatten-Windsor came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep, which was a fine example of British scientific innovation, but he stood up in front of Japanese dignitaries and business people and said, “This is rubbish. This is Frankenstein’s sheep.” Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that that was a very poor example of promoting British trade interests?

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which shows not only that we need to focus on the scandals we have heard about, but that even greater questions are raised if the trade envoy was actually speaking against British commercial interests. I hope that not just in this debate, but in other debates, and in Select Committees and elsewhere, we will get to the bottom of that issue.

As I was saying, I would like to highlight one example of how Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew’s role as trade envoy to enrich himself. Channel 4 uncovered emails in the Epstein files in which Epstein was trying to meet the Libyan dictator Gaddafi in the dying months of the Gaddafi regime, to help him find somewhere to “put his money”—something that the Minister raised at the time. In other words, Epstein looked at the deadly crisis in Libya and saw a chance to make some money, and he thought his friend Andrew could help. This is what he said in one of the emails:

“I wondered if Pa should make the intro”.

A few weeks later, Andrew wrote back, “Libya fixed.”

Although the Epstein-Gaddafi meeting does not appear to have happened, this shows clearly what these relationships were all about for Epstein: increasing his own wealth and power. The idea that the role of special trade envoy for our United Kingdom may have been used to help him do that—to help a vile paedophile sex trafficker enrich himself—is truly sickening. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister, who tried to raise this at the time, like his colleague, the late Paul Flynn. It shows again why we need to change the rules of this House that govern Ministers and the debate here.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. [Interruption.] Sorry, the leader of the Liberal Democrats—I stand corrected. [Hon. Members: “More!”] It’s coming.

I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister yesterday in this House about the speed of bringing legislation forward. Victims, Members of this House and Members of the Lords all want this process to happen as swiftly as possible. Does the right hon. Member agree with the Chief Secretary’s comments and that whatever happens with Andrew or anybody else, we must keep pushing to get legislation brought forward swiftly, not in the years to come?

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful for both the hon. Gentleman’s Freudian slip and his suggestion that we need to speed up action in this area.

Let me begin to conclude. In many ways, this is the first truly global scandal, from the White House and silicon valley to Oslo and Paris. But it is also a deeply British scandal, reaching right to the top of the British establishment. Can there be many people more symbolic of the rot that eats away at the British establishment than the former Duke of York and special trade envoy, and the former Business Secretary, First Secretary of State and ambassador to the United States? Their association with Epstein and their actions on his behalf, while trusted with the privilege of public office, are a stain on our country.

Today, we must begin to clean away that stain with the disinfectant of transparency. Whether it is the President of the United States and his Commerce Secretary, Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or Epstein himself, their victims and survivors have seen those responsible evade accountability and escape justice for far too long. I hope—I desperately hope—that is ending now, and I hope the House will approve this motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I completely respect my hon. Friend. He has made that point several times, not only in the Chamber but also to me privately, and I agree with him: that is the direction of travel we are going in, which is why we agree with the Humble Address presented today. We are not standing in the way, and we will do everything we can to comply with that as fast as we possibly can. I will come on to a couple of caveats a bit later, but I just want to pursue the point about what we knew in the past.

The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) rightly said that Paul Flynn had a debate on 4 May 2011, to which he responded, standing in for the Minister responsible. However, Paul Flynn initiated another debate, on 17 March in Westminster Hall. It was granted to him by the Backbench Business Committee, which had been set up relatively recently. Because he was finding it very difficult to make any of the allegations that he wanted to make because of the rules of the House, he concluded that

“there really is no point in continuing”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]

The then Deputy Leader of the House, David Heath—who was another Liberal Democrat member of the Government at the time—made the point, which I think has been made by both Mr Bercow and you, Mr Speaker, that if there were a “substantive motion”, such comments could be made. It would be necessary to find a means of tabling such a motion, like the one that we are discussing today.

Following that, Paul Flynn tried to secure a substantive motion, but managed to secure only a motion for an Adjournment debate, on 4 May. He struggled again, and this is what he said:

“The Speaker would quite rightly abide by the rules of the House and tell me that I was not allowed to make any derogatory statements that might affect the envoy, his personality or his name. It is an illustration of how demeaned we are as politicians and Members of Parliament that I am allowed to make any points about the damage that is done only in an oblique way, by discussing the effects of the holder of the office, his role and the comments that are being made.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 647.]

Of course he was angry: he was furious. He wrote a great book about being an MP, which I commend to all hon. Members.

As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton knows, he responded to that debate. He said:

“I, for one, believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment. He promotes UK business interests around the world, and helps to attract inward investment.”

He continued at some length, and concluded:

“He has made a valuable contribution in developing significant opportunities for British business through the role, and continues to do so.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649-650.]

Let me say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that if he had followed the debates in the public domain at the time he would, I think, have known better than to make those comments.

[Ed Davey]

The Minister knows that I apologised for making that comment, having taken a brief from someone else. I really wish that I had not uttered those words, because I am thinking about the victims, and I have praised the Minister for the role that he took. I hope he will acknowledge that two months after that debate Andrew left the role, and it was right that he did. I was not privy to those discussions, but the Government did get rid of him.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, he left his post in, I believe, July 2011. It could not have come soon enough for many of us, and it is a regret to many that the Government were not able to listen faster and act faster at that time.

What this whole sorry saga shows is that deference can be a toxic presence in the body politic. Of course we always seek to respect others, and we look for the best in others. There is another instance in that Adjournment debate that illustrates the generosity that we often show. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), whom I told that I was going to raise this, and who is a gentleman to his fingertips and always a very magnanimous fellow, asked:

“Does the Minister agree that one reason why the Duke of York has considerable credibility is his distinguished record as a former member of the Fleet Air Arm who gave valuable service in the Falklands war? That shows a degree of commitment over and above any inherited responsibilities that he might be considered to have.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 650.]

Of course I understand the point that the right hon. Member was making back then, but the fear is that when deference tips over into subservience it can be terribly dangerous, because the victims are not heard, respected or understood in the same way as those with grand titles, and that—as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said—has implications for this House. The conduct of business in the House is entirely a matter for you, Mr Speaker, interpreting “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders with the Clerks. I only repeat the words of Paul Flynn in 2011, when he denounced what he called

“censorship on hon. Members discussing an issue of great importance”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]

I know that you too, Mr Speaker, would want to denounce such censorship.

Let me issue one caveat about the motion. The Government will of course comply with the terms of the Humble Address in full—as I have said, we support the motion—but, as the House will know, there is a live police investigation of the former Duke of York following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The House will also be aware that following that arrest on 19 February, Buckingham Palace issued a statement on behalf of the King. His Majesty emphasised that

“the law must take its course”,

and that the Palace would provide its

“full and wholehearted support and co-operation”.

The statement concluded with a commitment that His Majesty and the royal family would continue in their duty and service to the nation, and I am sure the whole House will support that sentiment.

As the police have rightly said, it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of their investigation is protected, and now that these proceedings are under way, it would be wrong for me to say anything that might prejudice them. Nor will the Government be able to put into the public domain anything that is required by the police for them to conduct their inquiries unless and until they are satisfied. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will agree with that point.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Ed Davey Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

This is a significant moment. How a country handles economic transitions is not about nostalgia for the past—we have to embrace the future—but how we help our people, our industry and our nation get to that point is key. My hon. Friend and I come from similar places, and we have not managed these transitions particularly well in the past. We are meeting this weekend to discuss the potential loss of thousands of jobs, which is what was on the line. The fact that we do not accept that, and that we will do things differently, is a welcome change.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

We will scrutinise this Bill today, but we want to do so in a constructive fashion. Given the huge damage that President Trump’s tariffs have done to the British steel industry, accelerating this crisis, does the Secretary of State agree that any Member of this House who actively campaigned for President Trump’s election and cheered him on has behaved shamefully unpatriotically and should apologise to British steelworkers?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Member and his party for their presence today. He will not draw me on the other principal issue that we have been dealing with at the Department for Business and Trade over the last few days, but to be clear, the issues around British Steel are about more than the imposition of tariffs. The tariffs are not welcome, and I do not think there is justification for them to be put in place. I believe that it is in our interests, but also in the US’s interests, to agree a position that removes those tariffs in the interests of steelworkers.

Budget Resolutions

Ed Davey Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

What we heard from the Chancellor was a Budget that reeks of desperation and deceit from a Government who know that they have lost the trust of the British people. It is a bottom-of-the-barrel Budget, with nothing to make families truly better off after the catastrophic fall in living standards under the Conservatives, and no plan for long-term economic growth, no real extra support for the NHS and our public services, and no end in sight for the years of unfair tax hikes—just a last ditch attempt from the Conservative party to cling on to power.

People have had enough of this Government’s empty promises. What they want is a general election to get this out-of-touch Government out of Downing Street. They are sick and tired of a Government who promised in last year’s Budget to grow the economy only to plunge it into recession, who promised to bring down NHS waiting lists only to let them continue to go up and up, and who promised to cut tax but have instead hit families with years of unfair stealth tax rises.

Never before have I seen a Government deliver weaker public services, higher taxes and zero growth all at the same time, and all in the middle of a cost of living crisis. I fear that, by designing his economic policy to give a short-term sugar rush to Conservative Back Benchers, the Chancellor is condemning millions of families to high mortgage rates for much, much longer. The House need not take my word for it; just look at the OBR, which forecast mortgage rates staying at 4% or more for the next five years at least. That is a disaster for homeowners across the United Kingdom.

Let us look at taxes. The Chancellor seems desperate to convince people that he is letting them keep more of their own money, but he is fooling no one. Everyone can see his supposed tax cut for what it really is: a badly executed conjuring trick, giving with one hand but taking away twice as much with the other. Since last April, a typical household has already paid £1,500 extra because of his stealth tax on income tax thresholds. That is money that they are simply not going to get back. Even after today’s announcements, that same family will pay an additional £366 in tax next year because the Chancellor has frozen their tax-free allowance. On top of that, they have soaring mortgage payments, food prices and energy bills to worry about. This tax cut had already been wiped out by the time the ink dried on the Chancellor’s speech.

People were also looking for investment in our public services, especially our NHS. Across our country, I see more and more frustration that nothing seems to work anymore under this Government. People cannot get a hospital appointment in time, they cannot see their GP in time, and they cannot get an ambulance on time. In Hampshire, the local NHS is so stretched that there is a proposal to close the A&E at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital. In Manchester, Stepping Hill Hospital has had an entire out-patient ward closed for months because it is unsafe for patients and staff. In south London, St Helier Hospital has been left to crumble, with no sign of the investment promised by the Government, and A&E and maternity services are at risk of closure. When the Chancellor makes cruel cuts to vital services, it does not just affect numbers on a spreadsheet; it affects people’s lives. Either he does not get that, or he just does not care.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about investment, but from 2010 to 2015 he was part of the coalition that savagely cut services in the north-east, including expenditure in local government and health. The consequences are now having to be addressed because that austerity has continued. Does he take any responsibility for his role in our crumbling infrastructure?

[Ed Davey]

First, I say quite gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the spending plans proposed by the Labour party going into the 2010 election were worse than what actually happened. Moreover, when in government, we fought the Conservatives on maintaining education spending, which we did maintain. They then cut it after 2015.

Let us look now at the economy. Perhaps the most out-of-touch claim by the Chancellor is that the economy is “turning a corner.” The only corner the economy is turning under this Government is from stagnation to recession. They have left our economy smaller than it was in 2022, when the Prime Minister took office. The best growth rate they have achieved in the past three quarters of 2023 is 0%. GDP per capita—people’s share in our country’s wealth—has been falling for nearly two years in a row. That is the longest stretch on record, and it has left the average household £1,500 poorer. There is worse to come. Nearly 5 million mortgage holders will soon see their repayments skyrocket by an average of £240 a month because of the high interest rates.

That is the Government’s real track record: a recession made in Downing Street with no hint of a chance to turn things around. The Chancellor could have stood up today and given people a fair deal. He could have cancelled the unfair tax hike that he has planned for April, and raised the tax-free personal allowance. He could have properly funded the NHS, to bring down waiting lists and let more people return to work, helping to grow our economy. He could have championed unpaid carers and raised the carer’s allowance. He could have supported people with the cost of living and those struggling with their mortgage payments by reversing his tax cuts for the big banks. He could have presented a serious plan for economic growth by launching an industrial strategy, reforming business rates and standing up for our small businesses. Instead, he went for one last roll of the dice in a desperate attempt to cling on to power.

I think people have already made up their minds. The Government must do the right thing and call a general election right now before they do even more damage to our wonderful country.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Ed Davey Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the debate, and most of all I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing it. She has been an intrepid campaigner on this issue over many years, as have other Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who has another important debate later this afternoon on fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive. I am afraid I will not be able to attend, but I recognise the significance of that issue.

I will focus on three issues in the time available to me. I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Bolton South East: it is a pity that we have to be here yet again, making these arguments to Government. Up until recently, the Government have been able to say in debates that they could not do or say anything because a legal case was going through the courts. Well, that case is no longer in the courts, as a result of the decision taken by Lady Justice Yip, so the Government’s position today should be rather different. We will wait and see in the Minister’s response.

The other thing that the Government have done is hide behind the expert working group report, which the hon. Lady referred to. Many issues have been related to the expert working group report, which of course found in its overall conclusion that

“the available scientific evidence, taking all aspects into consideration, does not support a causal association between the use of HPTs, such as Primodos, during early pregnancy and adverse outcomes, either with regard to miscarriage, stillbirth or congenital anomalies”

Given that conclusion, it might seem rather strange to the Minister and the House that it was that very report that led to my setting up the Cumberlege review. The reason I did so was that earlier in the report it says:

“The totality of the available evidence from pharmacology, non-clinical, epidemiological and adverse event reporting data was very limited and did not, on balance, support a causal association between the use of HPTs, such as Primodos, by the mother during early pregnancy and congenital anomalies in the child.”

To me, “on balance” means that there was an argument against a causal link and, on the other side, an argument for a causal link, so the strength of the absolute decision that the expert working group came out with was, I think, a misrepresentation of what they had put earlier in the report. It was that sense of a balanced argument that led me to call for the Cumberlege review.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the work that she did as Prime Minister to set up the Cumberlege review. May I take her back to her first point? She said rightly that the Government have been refusing to take forward the recommendations of the review because of the legal case, and that that case has now come to an end. Is she aware that the defendants in that case, including the Government, have sent letters to some of the applicants saying that they must sign away their right to take forward any further legal cases or be faced with, and pressured by, millions of pounds in legal costs? Does she agree that for the Government solicitor to be part of that process, and threatening those families, is quite atrocious?

[Mrs May]

I was not aware of that. I am very concerned by the situation that the right hon. Gentleman sets out, and I hope that the Government will urgently consider the position that their solicitors have been taking on that issue.

The second issue I will raise is the very important matter of redress. Let me refer first to the timeline. The report that everybody looks at as, in a sense, the first report of a potential causal link between Primodos and birth defects was, of course, the report led by Isabel Gal in 1967. There had been earlier indications of potential problems, and there have continued to be indications up until most recently. But it is not just that the NHS, through its various regulatory regimes, did not act on the basis of the 1967 report; later, even when Primodos was being withdrawn in other countries, it continued to be available to women here in the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead rightly said in his intervention, we are not talking about some private clinics and doctors; we are talking about GPs in the national health service. It is that issue of responsibility that the Government need to address; that is important in relation to redress.

The Cumberlege committee said that the independent redress agency

“should be created based on models operating effectively in other countries.”

There are other countries where this issue has been recognised and redress is available. A redress scheme is being worked on for sodium valproate and for pelvic mesh. Why not for Primodos? I sincerely hope, now that the constraints of the legal case have been removed, that the Minister will be able to give a positive indication at the end of the debate that the Government will indeed consider redress for those who took Primodos and those who have suffered as a result.

My final point is one that was made to me recently by Marie Lyon. Women who took Primodos, and who saw their children suffer, often feel guilty; they feel somehow that it was them and their fault. It was not. They have no reason to feel guilty at all. The drug was given to them by their GPs. I hope that the Minister will stand up and say very clearly that women who took Primodos and whose children suffered were not in any way at fault and should not feel guilty at all. The fault lay with the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb). I think the whole House is grateful to her for telling the story of her constituents and their daughter Beccy. It is so important that the Minister and colleagues hear the impact that Primodos has had on ordinary families, and why we need justice.

I have been involved in this campaign for nearly a decade, but there are three women who have been critical in leading it. The first is the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has chaired the APPG, but who has also done many more things: she has had more meetings, asked more questions and sent more letters, and we are all grateful to her. She is one of the greatest campaigners this House has seen in recent times. Like others, I also pay tribute to Marie Lyon and her husband, who have campaigned with more courage and bravery than I have seen from anyone outside this House in my time here. They are relentless, representing the interests of thousands of women and their families. They are not going to give up until they get that justice, and neither should we.

The third woman I want to mention is a lady called Sue Ilsley, the constituent who brought this issue to my attention. Sadly, Sue died earlier this year. I actually got to know her before this, because she was a campaigner on mental health issues in my constituency; as far as I was concerned, she was the best campaigner. I think that was partly because her mental health had been impacted by her experience of having taken Primodos as a teenager and then giving birth to a daughter—a wonderful daughter, but a daughter who had serious deformities as a result of Primodos. She campaigned on mental health, and later she brought the Primodos issue to me. When I used to speak to her, I could obviously feel her hurt and her anger, but just as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, I could also feel her guilt. She should not have had any.

There are guilty people. The right hon. Lady mentioned the NHS, but I want to take it back: Schering, the original drug company that has now been bought by Bayer, bears a lot of the guilt. All the professionals and the various medical regulators who have looked at this issue over the years bear the guilt. We should not finish campaigning until those guilty people are brought to justice. Experts and judges have looked at this recently and said, “They are not guilty”—well, they are. Look at the evidence. The expert working group was shocking, and when the right hon. Lady was Prime Minister, she was quite right not to accept its report and to go for the review. We had a debate in 2019 in which that report was pulled apart, and we have seen the work of Carl Heneghan, Neil Vargesson and others, who have proved as scientists and statistical experts that the evidence is overwhelming.

I am not a scientist or a medic, but I can sort of understand legal notes, and when I spoke in this House in December 2017, I read extensive extracts from the minutes of meetings held on 20 and 21 December 1977 at the Goldsmith Building, Temple, London. Schering, the original pharmaceutical company, was getting legal advice from a Mr Clothier QC. I will not repeat that speech today, but I will repeat a few of the things that I mentioned:

“Mr Clothier felt, if the case were tried to the end by a judge, the chances were that the company would be found to be in neglect of its duty.”

This was in 1977.

“Clothier stated that there seemed to be a 5:1 chance that, if there were a malformation in a child and the mother took Primodos while pregnant, it was the fault of the drug”,—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 707.]

so Schering knew that. That was its legal advice decades ago. Page 7 of the memo from the Berlin archives, which this note came from, states that Mr Clothier told Schering that

“there were 2 alternatives open to us—one is to establish a voluntary scheme of compensation in which a justifiable claim will be given compensation without proof of liability but simply accepting moral responsibility.”

The company’s review came to that conclusion. Decades later, why has it not happened?

The other alternative was to take the claims to court. What I found really interesting, and what I want to focus colleagues’ attention on, is that according to the memo, the Schering representative, Dr Detering, said that he was

“hesitant in establishing a scheme as the product is marketed world-wide. If we introduce this scheme in one country, we should introduce it in other countries.”

This product was marketed in 81 countries. That is the issue here; that is why there has been a cover-up for decades. That is why the medical regulators have stood behind the pharmaceutical company in question, because they know this would cost the company a fortune. Its shareholders would have to cough up—possibly cough up billions. In my view, this is potentially one of the biggest cover-ups of a pharmaceutical outrage that the world has ever seen.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful contribution. Does he agree that the recent drama documentary on Netflix, “Painkiller”, highlights just how this kind of issue happens and keeps on happening, and that if we do not get to the heart of it—if we do not stop pharmaceutical companies flooding the markets unregulated and drugs getting to patients, including our constituents, and doing them damage—it is just going to continue?

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I did not see that particular programme, but I am sure she is right. The key thing is that we need to make sure that those large organisations are held to account. That is our job, and we have been failing, because we have not held them to account—we are still here, many years and many debates later. We have had a Prime Minister on our side, and these people still have not been held to account.

[Sir Mike Penning]

Actually, the records show that this issue did get to court in America, and the drug company did a deal—as happens in American courts—on a non-disclosure. Why would a drug company do that unless it was trying to cover up? It settled in the American courts, as I understand it, but on the basis that all the information was destroyed and would never be disclosed. Those are the sorts of things we are dealing with.

[Ed Davey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind me and the House of that particular case. Interestingly, an American law firm was helping the campaign and was going to take the issue to court because of what had happened in America. For some reason, it pulled out.

[Sir Mike Penning]

What a surprise!

[Ed Davey]

Yes, what a surprise. All these examples add up to show that a lot of powerful people are trying to stop justice being done in this country and around the world, so I am so pleased to see cross-party support here today, in a very powerful way, to make sure that is put right.

Justice should come before the interests of the shareholders and justice should come before the professional reputations of the medical people on the regulatory bodies, and that is why the Minister should listen to the House today. Absolutely we should see the recommendations of the review come forward and absolutely there should be the compensation fund. She should get up at the Dispatch Box today and announce that. The offer that was made, I am told—I have not seen it in writing, but I am told an offer was made—was a £1 million total pot for all the families, which would have been a few thousand pounds per family. I hope the Minister does not suggest that that will be good enough. We need a proper compensation fund, and we will not stop fighting until that the Government provide for that. I hope she will respond to the answer from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead to my intervention about why Government solicitors are threatening the families and telling them they have to sign agreements that they will not continue any legal action, which goes exactly to the point that the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) made.

I want to see that action and I want the recommendations of the review to be implemented, but I want to put on the record that I am a bit suspicious. I think those involved are going to try to wriggle out of this in some way. They are going to make sure that no liability is mentioned, but they were liable. They knew it in the 1960s and they knew it in the 1970s: they are liable, and everyone who has been looking at this case knows it. I want the review to be implemented because the families need the money now. Individuals are dying, such as my constituent, and people are worried about their adult children and need their adult children to have the money now. I want the Government to go ahead and do that now. But I will tell the House what I really want: I want a public inquiry. I am fed up with these reviews. The review was great, but because this is such a scandal—a global pharmaceutical scandal—we want more. All this will come out only if the lawyers cannot threaten people and have non-disclosure agreements, so I want an inquiry in public—a public inquiry so that these people can be properly held to account once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

To be specific on that point, the Government are involved in a second claim. We are not sure whether that claim will go forward—discussions about that are ongoing. As the appeal timed out on 11 August, I am happy to commit today to looking at the evidence and the Cumberlege review. Baroness Cumberlege is my constituent, and I am sure she will be pushing me for that.

[Ed Davey]

To follow on from the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the Cumberlege review has concluded. There are recommendations. Is the Minister saying from the Dispatch Box that the Government are not accepting those recommendations? We want to hear that they are going to implement those recommendations, not hear more evidence—implement them!

[Maria Caulfield]

Finger pointing is not exactly effective. As I set out at the beginning of my remarks, we have accepted the majority of those recommendations. We could not accept the Primodos ones while there was an ongoing court case. I have given my commitment from the Dispatch Box to review the outstanding recommendations in relation to Primodos, because I want to get to the bottom of this once and for all and provide justice for the families. I have heard from Members across the House about their concerns and the outstanding recommendations of the Cumberlege review, and my commitment is to look at those now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Davey Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of our commitment to scaling up renewable energy sources. Renewables make up nearly 40% of our electricity supply, which represents a fourfold increase since 2011. My right hon. Friend will know that I cannot and will not pre-empt Budget decisions, but he is a powerful champion for the environment in this House, and I have no doubt that he will make his views known to the Chancellor.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Following the tributes relating to International Women’s Day, I want to pay a special tribute to the women in the House, past and present, who have helped to shape the future of our country.

When Jean rang 999, she was told that she would have to wait at least eight hours for an ambulance, so she got into her car and drove herself to Eastbourne District General Hospital. She paid for parking and made it to the entrance to A&E, where she collapsed. Jean died an hour later. No one should lose their mother or their grandmother like that. Will the Prime Minister apologise to Jean’s family, and to all those who have lost loved ones owing to the Government’s appalling ambulance delays?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course my thoughts and condolences go to Jean’s family. It is absolutely right that we continue to make progress on improving performance in urgent emergency care. We outlined plans to do that just the other month, and I am pleased to say that we have been seeing a marked improvement over the last few weeks in comparison with the peak pressures that we saw over the winter, owing to covid and flu, both in waiting times in A&E and in ambulance performance times. Because of the investments that we are making in more ambulances, more doctors and nurses, and more discharges, I am confident that we will continue to make progress towards securing the care that we all expect and need to see.