Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for having secured this important debate, and more widely for her leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on hormone pregnancy tests and her incredible campaigning on this issue. I pay tribute to all the families who, for many years, have been campaigning tirelessly to uncover the truth about Primodos, particularly Marie Lyon, who is an incredible campaigner. She has worked hard on this issue, and I hope we can do something to make sure we get to the truth about what happened all those years ago. I also place on record my thanks to Professors Neil Vargesson and Carl Heneghan, and to Sky News reporter Jason Farrell for his determination to get to the truth. Many of his reports have been seen by families who have come forward as a result of the testimony and campaigning of others.

One of the families affected by Primodos lives in my constituency. My constituent Steven Bagley was born severely brain-damaged after his mother was given Primodos as a hormone pregnancy test in 1967. Steven needs 24-hour care, cannot communicate, and suffers from a severe form of epilepsy, which means frequent seizures that have become steadily worse with age and happen throughout the night.

I have got to know the Bagley family over the past few years: Steven’s parents Pat and Ted, and his sister Charlotte, who has been a tireless campaigner for justice for her parents and brother. She has recently moved from Southampton back to Wolverhampton to help look after Steven. His parents have lovingly looked after him for 50 years, but are now in their 80s and 70s with their own health problems, and are finding it a real struggle. What I find particularly heartbreaking about the case of my constituents, which is similar to many others, is that like other mums affected, Pat still says, “If only I hadn’t taken those pills.” However, she was doing what we all do: trusting our GP and following their advice. Like many others affected by Primodos, Pat was not given a prescription, but was given the pills directly by her doctor.

It is thanks to the tireless campaigning of families such as my constituents, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East, that the Government asked the Commission on Human Medicines to set up an expert working group to examine the scientific evidence linking Primodos to birth defects. However, from the start, serious concerns were raised by the families, the APPG on hormone pregnancy tests, individual MPs and scientists about how that group went about its work. Those concerns have only grown as evidence of missing analysis has come to light, and questions have been asked about the methodology used.

I will raise four particular concerns about the expert working group. First, the group reinterpreted its terms of reference. It was asked to look at a possible association between the drugs and the foetal abnormalities. Despite that, it decided to look for a higher standard of proof of a causal association between Primodos and birth defects, even though it was not asked to find a causal link. It has never been clearly explained why the group chose to interpret and change the terms of reference in that way. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that when she winds up. If not, will she take that away, consider it and come back to us?

Secondly, the report was altered before publication in several ways. Apparently the draft report, provided to Marie Lyon, stated:

“Limitations of the methodology of the time and the relative scarcity of the evidence means it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion.”

That line was removed before the final report was published. The draft also stated that

“there is insufficient evidence to determine whether taking the medications at the doses found in Primodos tablets, for two days during the first trimester of pregnancy could have reached and had an effect on the fetus.”

However, in the final report, that was substantially changed. That uncertainty was replaced by the claim that the evidence indicated that any exposure

“was unlikely to have had an effect on the developing fetus.”

In short, the conclusion in the draft report changed from

“the evidence is insufficient to form a conclusion”,

to, in the final report,

“the evidence does not support a causal association”.

Again, there has been no satisfactory explanation for those changes. Will the Minister reflect on that in her winding-up speech or go back to the Department and convey to us why the changes were made?

Thirdly, there was no consideration of possible regulatory failures at the time Primodos was given to mothers by doctors as a hormone pregnancy test. That seems to be a huge omission. Will the Minister explain why such a vital question was excluded? It would surely help us to understand what concerns were raised or should have been raised about Primodos at the time.

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is taking us necessarily into the past. What we know about the past is that how the drugs were marketed in the 1960s and 1970s would be totally unacceptable today. Does she not find it concerning that the context of how the drugs were delivered has not been looked at properly by the report? Some of the potential consequences of that, such as what women took as gospel from doctors, have not been addressed either.

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is incredible that the burden of proof seems to rest on the families. That is what is being suggested in debates—not our debates, but others—but the burden of proof actually lies with the pharmaceutical company that made the products in the first place and did not do the testing required. The drugs subsequently had horrific effects on the babies who were born, yet we still have not got a Government or a Minister to accept that there is a link. We are looking for the truth to be uncovered.

I am conscious of time and your advice, Mr Hollobone, but allow me to make a fourth point about the expert working group. The credibility of the group has been further undermined in the eyes of the families and of the Members here today by its not including a meta-analysis—a pooling of all the data from previous studies. It is not clear whether such a meta-analysis was carried out and not divulged, or was just not done. Marie Lyon obtained the raw data used by the expert working group though a freedom of information request. Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford University used the working group’s own data and found strikingly similar conclusions to his review. Both reviews showed significant associations of the use of Primodos with all congenital malformations and congenital heart defects. Both systematic reviews show that the use of Primodos in pregnancy is associated with increased risk of congenital malformations.

In conclusion, we know that Baroness Cumberlege is carrying out a wider review into independent medicines and medical devices safety. I place on the record my thanks to her and her team for listening to the testimony of Pat and Ted Bagley and their daughter Charlotte. For the first time, they feel like they have been heard and listened to sympathetically. I hope that the Cumberlege review will get to the truth of what happened, but before we do that, it would be useful for the Government and the Minister to get to the truth of why the expert working group has presented the evidence in such a way and to respond to the concerns I have expressed. The sooner we get to the truth of what happened in the ’60s and ’70s with Primodos tablets—they were taken not only by expectant mums in our country, but by others in countries around the world—the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

Those quotes are breathtakingly horrific. My constituent gave birth in the late 1960s to Steven, who had severe abnormalities thanks to Primodos, and she then went on to conceive two healthy daughters. My constituent wanted to be pregnant, and she wanted a family.

[Paula Sherriff]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Time has not been a healer in this case. We need to understand what has happened and we need to get answers for the affected groups.

The quote from Dr Dean goes on:

“In view of these findings tentative though they are, it would be my own view that, since there is in any event no very sound medical reason (in my opinion) for the use of such hormonal preparations, Primodos should be withdrawn from use.”

To suggest that women going through the pain of dealing with a miscarriage had perhaps taken steps to terminate their pregnancies is nothing short of abhorrent, especially given that Dr Dean went on to suggest that Primodos should be withdrawn from use. That indicates that he did see a link between the drug and the miscarriages. Sadly, the suggestion was completely ignored.

Then there are the poor women whose babies had such severe health issues that they did not survive. Reports from those women include the following:

“1971: the words ‘Monster child’ were written on my medical notes. My baby was born alive. I was not allowed to see her. I was drugged. My baby was taken away. I never saw her again.

1971: Anencephaly. Stillborn 2 weeks early. No funeral allowed. Not allowed to name her. My daughter was put in a coffin with a stranger. Searched for 18 years to find where her remains had been left.

1973: I was 16. Just married and excited about my first baby. Just before my baby was born the doctor said my baby did not have a properly formed head. She had no skull and no brain and would die at birth. I was then heavily sedated and my waters broken. I tried to wake up when my baby was born and begged to see her. They refused as her birth defects were too distressing to see.”

I am sure we all agree that those reports are nothing short of heartbreaking. They are incredibly demeaning for the women involved.

To be put through the most horrendous of situations and made to suffer for all these years without answers has been like a life sentence for some, and those living with complex disabilities face an uncertain future without carers or financial support, should their loved ones die before them. If Primodos and other pregnancy hormone tests were to blame, the answers need to come now, and financial support needs to be given before it really is too late to help those living day to day with the effects of innocently taking a drug after putting their trust in clinicians and drug companies all those years ago.

On listening to stories from those affected and researching the issue, the greatest point that sticks with me is the uncertainty that surrounds all the reports that have been published—the lack of evidence used, the lack of research analysed, the lack of questions answered. I think 50 years is long enough for campaigners to wait. I hope that the Minister will today pledge that she will ensure an end to that wait, and that she will make sure that the findings of the latest review, when published, are acted on thoroughly and comprehensively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I am answering on behalf of the working group. That is an independent process and I will try to do my best. The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the meta-analysis and the suggestion that Parliament has been misled about why that was not done. The expert working group discussed the merits of doing a meta-analysis at its fifth meeting. In its view, the studies were very different, not sufficiently robust and suffered from extensive limitations. The group concluded that conducting a meta-analysis was not the most appropriate way to analyse this type of study. Instead, the group developed a set of quality criteria and presented its assessment of each study in a series of plots. To reconfirm, the data was not considered sufficiently robust for meta-analysis to be used. One of the real problems we have is that we are talking about data that, as we have mentioned, is 50 years old and not sufficiently robust.

There have been some suggestions that the expert working group has been less than transparent. In line with the Government’s commitment to publish the report of the review and all the evidence considered by the group, all documents have been available for public scrutiny since November 2017. We have been very grateful for the involvement of Marie Lyon throughout that process.

There has been some criticism of the lack of an external peer review of the expert working group report. The Government’s independent scientific advisory body on the safety of medicines, the Commission on Human Medicines, acts as the peer reviewer for all expert working groups. It reviewed the draft report on two occasions before it was published. I know that Baroness Cumberlege will be looking at whether there has been sufficient peer review of that report, and I look forward to receiving her recommendations. As with any issue, new evidence can emerge in the meantime. I reassure the House that the Government have made a commitment to review any important new evidence, and we have honoured that commitment.

[Emma Reynolds]

The Minister said a moment ago that the crux of the matter is what was known at the time about the balance of risks. Will she look at international comparisons? In other countries, this hormone pregnancy test was banned much earlier than it was in the UK.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. We have taken this work forward with the working group and have been looking at the totality of evidence around the world, particularly in Europe. Last year, Ministers asked the MHRA to convene a group of experts who have been completely without any agenda on this issue in the past, to consider the work by Professor Vargesson and ensure that it was sufficiently independent. That work, which has been referred to, concluded that Primodos caused malformations in zebrafish embryos. We have also asked for an independent European-level review of that evidence to be undertaken, so that everyone can have more confidence in the outcome. Both the UK and European reviews concluded that the results of the zebrafish study had no implications for the conclusions of the expert working group’s report, and the findings of both reviews have been published.

I turn finally to the data published by Professor Heneghan. Although this analysis does not contain any new data, it found the use of hormone pregnancy tests in pregnancy is associated with a small increased risk of certain congenital malformations. The Government have therefore asked for a completely new expert group to be convened in order to consider Professor Heneghan’s work, and for a review to be conducted in parallel with the European review. Those reviews are ongoing, and I look forward to receiving that advice.

I appreciate that I have not been able to satisfy all the representations made by right hon. and hon. Members this morning. As I said, the Government will continue to review evidence in this area. We are still considering the evidence from Professor Heneghan, and we look forward to implementing any recommendations that Baroness Cumberlege brings forward in this regard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the ability of the NHS to access medicines and medical equipment.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

20. What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the ability of the NHS to access medicines and medical equipment.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

The deal that the Prime Minister struck to leave the EU will ensure access to medicines and medical equipment, so it is another good reason to vote for the deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

We are currently an influential member of the European Medicines Agency, which gives patients access to new medicines six months sooner than non-members. Given that the political declaration reduces us to exploring the possibility of co-operation with the EMA, will the Secretary of State admit that there are no guarantees for patients and that it is very likely that they will have to wait longer?

[Matt Hancock]

No, because in the event, under any circumstances, we will make sure that there are no further burdens on ensuring that medicines can get licensed here so that patients can use them, but it is another reason why the hon. Lady should vote for the deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady was standing. She has changed her mind. All right, never mind. We can always have another go later.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effect of the planned closure of Telford Hospital’s A&E department on other A&E departments in the west midlands.

[The Minister for Health (Stephen Barclay)]

The planned temporary overnight closure of the Princess Royal Hospital’s A&E in Telford is necessary to ensure that patients continue to receive safe care. The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust is working closely with colleagues in neighbouring provider trusts and the ambulance service to develop plans for key clinical pathways to minimise the impact.

[Emma Reynolds]

The proposed closure of Telford A&E would pile even more pressure on New Cross Hospital in my constituency. If the Government will not step in to stop the closure, as it sounds is the case from the Minister’s answer, will they give New Cross the resources it needs to recruit upfront the nurses, doctors and other staff they need so that patients do not have to suffer longer delays?

[Stephen Barclay]

The current modelling suggests that about 11 ambulances will be diverted from the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust between the hours of 10 pm and 8 am during closure. Of the patients who go to Wolverhampton, any admitted as in-patients will return to Shrewsbury and Telford and any who are discharged will be discharged from Wolverhampton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend is an assiduous supporter of his constituents. I look forward very much to taking up his invitation to visit. I have looked into some of the details of the proposal on the table and, indeed, at some of the other proposals that may benefit the Hillingdon area. I look forward to discussing them with him.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

T9. I welcome Baroness Cumberlege’s ongoing review of the impact of the use of Primodos pregnancy tests, but for the families affected to have confidence in this review they must be given sufficient time to give evidence. Will the Health Secretary ensure that that happens?

NHS Funding

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I am sure that no one could do a better job of loving and maintaining community hospitals than my hon. Friend. Community hospitals have an important role to play. I have three excellent ones in my constituency. At best, they represent the change we need to see in the NHS, which is personalised care closer to home, but that does also mean that they sometimes need to change the way they deliver services within a building even if the NHS logo remains firmly on the outside of that building.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I was proud to sign the cross-party letter to the Chancellor on NHS funding, in which we quote the Care Quality Commission saying that

“adult social care…is approaching a tipping point”

and that is having an impact on those who rely on it and on “the performance” of the NHS. Does the Secretary of State recognise that this Government’s cutting social care funding by over a third was a false economy, that there will still be a gap in social care funding even if all councils took up the precept and that, for as long as we have that, we will have hospital deficits and delays?

[Mr Hunt]

I do recognise the pressures in the social care system, but, in an era of very constrained national finances, funding for the social care system is going up by £3.5 billion a year by the end of this Parliament, which is a significant and important rise. I say to the hon. Lady that it is this Government who have set the CQC free to tell us the honest truth about the quality of care in our hospitals, GP surgeries and social care system, and it is because of that that we are able to have the kinds of questions and answers we are having today.

Community Pharmacies

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

As I said, that is our intention. Our belief is that the package in its entirety, which we will announce shortly, will actually enhance the role of pharmacies in providing services.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

How many community pharmacies will close as a result of these cuts?

[David Mowat]

We do not believe that any community pharmacies will necessarily close as a result of these cuts. That will depend on a number of factors. [Interruption.] I will answer the question, which is fair. It depends on the margin they make from their pharmacy activities and on the additional margin they make from their retail activities. Given that 65% of all pharmacies are owned by public companies or private equity, it depends on the position those organisations take to their businesses. That is very hard to predict.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate, and for championing in Parliament the concerns of families who have been affected by hormone pregnancy tests. I also pay tribute to all those families who have for years been involved in the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests.

One such family lives in my constituency. Stephen Fensome is a constituent of mine. His mother went to the GP early on in her pregnancy to see if she was pregnant, as any woman would. She was given Primodos. Like any of us, she trusted her doctor, and her doctor, in turn, trusted the advice he had been given. It was only months later when Stephen was born, in 1967, that his parents discovered that he was severely brain-damaged, would suffer a severe form of epilepsy all his life, which would get worse with age, and that he would suffer from daily seizures, often in the middle of the night.

I have met Stephen. He came to my surgery with his parents. He requires 24-hour care. His parents, now in their mid and late 70s, have cared for him all his life, and they love him, just as they love their two healthy daughters, but they struggle to find respite because of the severity of his seizures. It was years before the family discovered that the medication that Pat had been given was equivalent to taking 40 contraceptive pills in one dosage. One does not have to be a medical professional for that to ring alarm bells.

It also became apparent that, as early as the 1960s, and into the 1970s, research carried out warned of the toxic and, in some cases, lethal impact of the drug. Indeed, in 1975, GPs were sent advice not to prescribe it any more, but it was several more years before the drug was withdrawn from the market. Research suggests that it is likely that many women who took the medication suffered miscarriage or stillbirth. Babies who survived this toxic medication were severely affected by abnormalities or disabilities.

I was pleased to learn, as was the Fensome family, that the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), agreed to the establishment of an inquiry. However, as the Minister has heard from all the speakers in this debate, the families have serious, deep and genuine concerns, and I understand that they do not have confidence in this inquiry.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I would like to put on record my thanks to Stephen’s family, including Charlotte, who lives in West End in my constituency. She came to see me to thank the all-party parliamentary group on oral hormone pregnancy tests for its work on the issue, and to explain how her care for Stephen carries on, as her parents age.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Charlotte has been a tireless campaigner for the truth of what happened in the 1960s and 1970s.

I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will answer a number of questions about the inquiry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said, we want him to get a grip on the inquiry. Will he guarantee that all the relevant evidence will be put before the inquiry? As the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) suggested, there is great concern that evidence is being cherry-picked. Will he guarantee that the inquiry is independent, full and transparent, and will he give a commitment today, to the House and the families present, that he will do everything in his power to ensure that the inquiry gets to the bottom of what happened, including: why evidence in the 1960s of the harmful—indeed devastating—impact of the drug was ignored for so long; why it continued to be prescribed; why there seemed to be a medical cover-up; why it took so long to be banned; and what was behind the continuous regulatory failure?

The family whom I represent would, although they might not admit it, of course like more help caring for Stephen, as any family would, but they are not driven by a desire for compensation. They are driven by a long and anguished search for truth and justice. They do not want a whitewash. They want to have confidence in the inquiry, but regrettably they do not have it. I urge the Minister to ensure that they get the truth, and justice. Surely they deserve nothing less.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Despite the fact that we are late, I am keen to try to satisfy the inquisitorial appetite of colleagues, but can do so best if they are each now very brief.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

What is the Health Secretary doing to ensure that the NHS gets the £350 million a week that it was promised during the referendum campaign?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

I am a little stumped, because I was never really sure whether we would see that money. All I can say is that I am committed to successful negotiations with the EU, and I am delighted that a number of people who championed the Brexit vote have said that any extra funding should go to the NHS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I applaud my hon. Friend for being a champion of public health in his community. We have had several conversations on this issue. As he says, there are historical differences, of which I am conscious, in the levels of local public health spending. They mostly arise from historical primary care trust spending priorities. We have made some progress in addressing the matter, but, as regards future allocations, we are considering a full range of factors, including the impact on inequalities and existing services. Those will be announced shortly. As I have told him before, the chief executive of Public Health England is happy to talk to him about the specific challenges facing his community, and that offer remains open.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The NHS “Five Year Forward View” states that

“the future health of millions of children, the sustainability of the NHS, and the economic prosperity of Britain all now depend on a radical upgrade in prevention and public health.”

How will the in-year cuts this year and the future 4% real cuts in public health help to achieve that objective?

[Jane Ellison]

The challenge of being serious about prevention is one for the entire health and social care system. We acknowledge that, like many parts of government, public health grants have had to absorb some of the fiscal challenge. We are dealing with the problems we inherited at the beginning of the coalition Government. Despite that, local authorities will receive £16 billion in public health grants alone over the spending review period, but that is not the only way we invest in prevention. On my many visits, I have seen some of the great work being done to work with local authorities, and I am confident of the great things they can do with that money.

Sugary Drinks Tax

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the voluntary approach to the food and drink industry is not working? Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has suggested, the industry is not taking responsibility for reformulating sugary drinks, some of which contain as much as 14 teaspoons of sugar—double the daily recommended amount. That is why we need a regulatory approach.

[Helen Jones]

That is a reasonable approach, and I will come to that in a minute. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) mentioned the shrinking size of Mars bars, but I think that has more to do with maximising profits than with concern for people’s health.

As a result of all that I have outlined, our risk of serious diseases is increasing. We are much more at risk than we used to be of cardiovascular disease, certain types of cancers and type 2 diabetes, which is increasing rapidly in this country. In fact, the British Medical Association has estimated that problems with our diet lead to 70,000 premature deaths a year. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government were seeing 70,000 deaths a year from something such as a flu epidemic, they would act. This is just as serious.

Serious diseases are not the only problem. The biggest cause of childhood admissions to hospital is dental decay. If we talk to people who operate on those children, we hear horrific stories of young children having all their teeth removed because of decay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Wollaston]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In our report, we highlight that the single biggest cause of admission to hospital for five to nine-year-olds is the need to have rotten teeth removed. Are any of us happy with that situation? It is absolutely woeful that we are not doing more to tackle it.

As I said, the primary purpose of the tax is not to be a pointlessly punitive measure; it is to nudge people towards healthier choices. However, if the Government went down that route, I think it would be more acceptable to the public if every penny from the levy was directed to helping the most disadvantaged children, who suffer the most harm. That would also answer the point about whether the tax is regressive. We must be able to demonstrate what can be achieved with it. At a time when public health budgets are being squeezed and we are possibly looking at a 3.9% reduction in the public health grant, we must not cut back on the very measures that could make the greatest long-term difference.

[Emma Reynolds]

Does the hon. Lady agree that efforts to improve the education of parents tend to reach middle- class parents, not working-class ones, nor the parents of deprived children, whom we really need to reach? A tax on sugary drinks would send out a clear signal to those parents that they are doing their children harm by buying too many of these products for their children.

[Dr Wollaston]

Yes. As I pointed out, we could end up inadvertently widening health inequalities. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that a tax would send a clear message—right in front of people, on the shelf—that certain products are cheaper because they are not as harmful. That is the clear beauty of it.

I ask Members to consider what could be achieved with such a levy. If it might raise between £300 million and even £1 billion a year, the possibilities are extraordinary in terms of what we could do to improve the health and wellbeing of the nation’s children. We should not miss that opportunity. I hope that the Government will accept all the points and concerns raised by hon. Members and reconsider their policy, giving serious consideration to how much could be achieved for the benefit of our nation’s children and their health.

Immigrants (NHS Treatment)

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. Of course I want to do a good job for taxpayers, but also for the 3 million British citizens who use the NHS every week and who find a service that, although the Government have protected its budget, is under increased pressure. I want to ensure that the system whereby people from other countries access those same services is one thing, and one thing only: fair.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It would be useful if the Secretary of State provided clarity and accuracy on the numbers we are talking about. The Prime Minister’s spokesperson said that unclaimed costs amount to £20 million, but the Secretary of State seems to be saying £200 million. I wonder whether he can account for the difference. Did he just add a zero?

[Mr Hunt]

I explained where the figure of £20 million came from, and why I believe that it is probably the tip of the iceberg. If the hon. Lady really wants to know the answer, we do not know the full extent of the abuse of NHS services because the previous Government left them in such an appalling mess.