Hughes Report: Second Anniversary

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.