Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Debate between Mike Penning and Margaret Greenwood

Thursday 7th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate, and thank her for her outstanding work in leading this campaign in Parliament. I also pay tribute to all the families of children who were born with birth defects after their pregnant mothers took Primodos for the courage that they have shown. In particular, I pay tribute to Marie Lyon—who, I am pleased to see, is here with us today—for her tireless work.

Those affected should not have to fight for justice. I join colleagues in the debate in calling on the Government to acknowledge the fact that the recommendations in the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety review relating to Primodos-affected families have not been implemented, and to explain why; to implement those recommendations and to set up a redress fund for families affected by Primodos; and to withdraw the 2017 expert working group report on hormone pregnancy tests, which has been disputed by academics and is inconsistent with other more independent studies.

In their fight for justice, the families have suffered setback after setback. The latest came a few months ago when claims for damages against Bayer Pharma, Schering Health Care Ltd, Aventis Pharma Ltd and the Government were struck out in the High Court, partly owing to lack of funding for legal representation. That was a bitterly disappointing blow.

The Government have a moral duty to set up the redress fund for those affected. As far back as the late 1950s, concerns were raised that hormone pregnancy tests, the most commonly used of which was Primodos, could cause abnormalities in a developing baby. Further studies in the UK and elsewhere from the late 1960s to the early 1970s suggested a link between the use of hormone pregnancy tests and a wide range of serious birth defects.

It took until 1975 for the Committee on Safety of Medicines to recommend that hormone pregnancy tests should no longer be used. The committee said that there was “little justification” for them, as alternatives were available. It then sent an alert letter to all doctors in the UK, advising them of a possible association between hormone pregnancy tests and an increased incidence of congenital abnormalities. The letter recommended that doctors “should not normally prescribe” those products as pregnancy tests.

However, it has been reported that Primodos sometimes continued to be used as a pregnancy test within the NHS until it was withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer, Schering Chemicals Ltd, in 1978. By that stage, the damage had been done. Legal proceedings by the affected families began, but were discontinued in the early 1980s. It was not until early 2014, and the discovery of documents from the 1960s that reportedly showed that studies suggested that hormone pregnancy tests caused miscarriages and congenital abnormalities, that a new campaign called for an independent public inquiry into them.

Criticisms of the 2017 independent expert working group report on hormone pregnancy tests included the fact that it did not examine regulatory issues and that a number of documents had not been included in the review. Additionally, the methodology and findings in the report have been disputed by academics and are inconsistent with other academic reviews, as today’s motion highlights. One of those reviews was by a group of researchers at the University of Oxford, led by Professor Carl Heneghan. The researchers concluded:

“The evidence of an association”—

by which they mean between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects— “has previously been deemed weak, and previous litigation and reviews have been inconclusive. However, we believe that this systematic review shows an association of oral HPTs with congenital malformations.”

Despite that, the Government say that they currently have no plans to reassess the findings of the expert working group review. I hope that, today, we hear a different response from the Minister.

In 2018, the independent medicines and medical devices safety review was announced by the Government, led by Baroness Cumberlege. Despite the Cumberlege review’s finding that Primodos caused avoidable harm, and the clear recommendation for redress for those affected, the Government have refused to even acknowledge it. That is a grave injustice and an insult to those who have suffered. Let us remind ourselves of some of the adverse impacts that affected individuals and families have attributed to hormone pregnancy test use: congenital heart defects, dysmorphic facial features such as cleft palate and lip, digestive system and bowel issues, intellectual disability, limb defects and, tragically, death.

[Sir Mike Penning]

Could I add to that those who were told to have an abortion, and those who had a miscarriage or a stillbirth? Their families have been damaged almost as much, and the guilt is still with them.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Debate between Mike Penning and Margaret Greenwood

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mike Penning]

Thousands of people went in good faith to see their GP because they thought they might be pregnant. That is probably the most important time in any woman’s life. Certainly, as the father of two gorgeous girls, the most important time in my life was when my wife told me that she was expecting our children. It was so important to these families that often they went to their GP, which is a natural thing to do, so we had an NHS patient going to an NHS surgery to see an NHS doctor for advice about whether they were pregnant.

Look at the dates for when these potential mothers-to-be went to see their GP: between 1953 and 1975. That is quite a span of time. My mother could have gone to her GP then, because I was born in 1957. In many ways, it could easily have been me who was a victim of this—God forbid—and my mother would have been a victim as well. That is one of the reasons why I am so passionate about getting to the bottom of the disaster that happened to these ladies who went to their GPs.

These women went to their NHS GP in an NHS surgery as an NHS patient, and very often that GP would open the drawer and give them a tablet—two sometimes—with no prescription or advice, and no concern about the consequences or side effects of the drug. The GPs handed the tablets over to the ladies, and many of them took them there in the surgery. The GP simply said, “If your period starts tomorrow, you’re not pregnant. If your period doesn’t start, you are.” In good faith, which we all have for our GPs, the ladies followed that advice, even though the Department of Health and the drug companies knew that there were issues with this drug.

I am going to use a tiny bit of privilege, because every time I look around for information to do with this subject, including in the House of Commons Library debate pack “Hormone pregnancy tests” and the “Report of the Commission on Human Medicines’ Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests”, I see the phrase “hormone pregnancy tests”. The drug was Primodos. It was made by a drug company and often given free to GPs, who then handed it out without a prescription to determine whether a lady was pregnant.

Other companies in the world knew that there were issues. I will not go into all the evidence that was given to the so-called review, but let me just touch on some of the things that Ministers asked for when the group was set up. The first point was that the Government should set up an expert working panel “inquiry”. No such inquiry took place. At the third meeting, as I understand it, the barrister to the inquiry advised that the word “inquiry” should be changed to “review”. Under whose authority? When a Minister sets up an inquiry, should there not be an inquiry? Perhaps those people did not want an inquiry, but who cares? They should have come back to the group—the victims—and, more importantly, to the Minister. They could have spelled out their advice and the Minister could have made a decision. Some might think that this is just semantics, but it is not. If people are trying to get to the truth, it is vital that they know what a group can do. Even when the report came out—not the original report, because that was removed and draft was changed, as others will mention—it did not say “review”, because it was not a review.

There should be full disclosure and a review of all the evidence. That “review” said that it did that, but it did not. The Royal College of General Practitioners, to give just one example, informed the Department and the drug company that it had concerns way back in the 1960s, but its evidence was never sought. If Members read the report, they will find that no evidence at all from the Royal College of GPs was given to this review, which should have been an inquiry.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Mike Penning]

I will give way, but I will only give way on a couple of occasions because I am conscious of the time and I want everybody to have the opportunity to speak.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that The BMJ reported that most of the scientific evidence considered by the working group was from the 1960s, ’70s and early ’80s. One expert in the field, Dr Neil Vargesson of Aberdeen University, told The BMJ that there were not that many scientific studies available. Does he agree that the Government should fund new research with the aim of enabling a definitive conclusion to be reached?

[Sir Mike Penning]

Yes, I do, and I will come on to that point. It is vital that we have proper evidence, not some historical evidence that was used by the report. More modern evidence was rejected because it had not yet been peer reviewed. The whole point about having all the evidence is one reason why the motion under debate today, which I hope will be passed unanimously, actually says that there should be a judge-led inquiry so that all that evidence can be considered.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

Debate between Mike Penning and Margaret Greenwood

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Of course, not all areas of the country receive that level of grant, but to us it is massively important. These cuts are real, and they are being felt already. We have already lost 300 firefighters. I am losing all the fire stations in my constituency. These cuts have not been magicked out of a small percentage; they are real cuts we are seeing.

I commend the Minister for paying tribute to the way in which the FBU has responded to modernisation, but I wonder what more he wants. The FBU has gone a long way to meet the cuts dealt to it already. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, with the fire services having made those concessions and responded so valiantly to the scale of the cuts last time, there is nothing left to cut without detriment to services.

Finally, I would like to welcome the Minister to come to Merseyside and urge him to look at the figures very closely indeed.

[Mike Penning]

I will look at them before I come.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I therefore urge the Minister to consider the possibility of dropping the cuts. If the cuts are of the scale that we have presented today, which I believe they are, there is a strong case for cutting them. Merseyside deserves a fire service that it can rely on and that is well funded, well resourced and does not put its firefighters at risk.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the funding of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mike Penning and Margaret Greenwood

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

Although this is a matter for the local government department, I want as much capability as possible on the streets in every constituency. I do not think issuing parking tickets is a role for a police officer.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is anticipated that Government cuts to Merseyside police could reach £27 million next year. This has been brought to my notice by the police and crime commissioner for Merseyside. Police community support officers and the mounted police section are under threat of disappearing altogether. Teams tackling sex offences, hate crimes and serious and organised crime are also likely to be seriously affected. Does the Minister share my concern about the impact the cuts could have on crime rates?

[Mike Penning]

Can I first say to the hon. Lady that my thoughts and prayers are with the family of the police officer lost on Merseyside? I had the honour and privilege of going to Merseyside to pay my own respects, as well as meeting with officers.

I fully understand different PCCs trying to negotiate a position, but scaremongering is not the best way forward. I will come back with further ideas—that is what the consultation is all about, and that is what I promised I would do when I started it.