Women’s Health Strategy

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the women’s health strategy.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to set out our commitment to the women’s health strategy and everything that this Government are doing to fix our broken NHS, clean up the mess that the Conservatives left after 14 years and get women treated on time again.

When we came into office we inherited record waiting lists. The gynaecology waiting list stood at just under 600,000 women. Let that sink in—600,000 women in pain, waiting to be cared for. Almost half the women on gynaecology waiting lists are waiting more than 18 weeks. That is why the Prime Minister kicked off 2025 with our elective reform plan, setting out how we will cut the longest waiting lists from 18 months to 18 weeks. Our new agreement with the independent sector will mean that, where there is spare capacity in the private sector, women will be treated faster for gynaecology care, paid for by the state.

The Government are also committed to rooting out the appalling inequalities in maternity care. We are supporting failing trusts to make rapid improvements, training thousands more midwives for the first time, and we will set an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gap. We are piloting a training programme to help avoid brain injury for babies in childbirth and, if successful, we will crack on with rolling it out nationally this year. In October, we extended the baby loss certificate service to help mums and dads who have suffered the heartbreak of pregnancy loss.

Let me also address the issue of women’s health hubs. There was a target in last year’s planning guidance to roll out pilot women’s health hubs across the country by last December. Today, there are at least 80 hubs, and at least nine out of every10 integrated care systems have an open women’s health hub.

Let me correct some fake news. We are not closing these hubs; we are not cutting them. The target to roll them out was in last year’s planning guidance. It was achieved in 93% of integrated care systems, which is why the target is not repeated in this year’s guidance—it has been met in 39 out of 42 areas.

Today, we have slimmed down the number of targets for the NHS so that we can focus on fixing the fundamentals —the system that the previous Government broke. We are instructing the NHS to prioritise: cutting waiting times for operations, A&E and ambulances; making it easier for people to see a GP or a dentist; and improving the mental health of the nation. That will mean around 60,000 women with suspected cancer are diagnosed earlier and treated faster; more than 200,000 extra women will be treated within 18 weeks, as we drive down long waits; and fewer women will be forced to wait 12 hours in A&E. That is the difference that a Labour Government are making to women’s health.

[Mims Davies]

For too long, a woman’s experience of the health service has been one of being pushed from pillar to post. Crucially, women’s voices have been ignored and responses to their pain, suffering, poor sex lives and traumatic births have been too slow. Overall, women have a sense of being forgotten. Some 2.4 million more women were in work under our Conservative Government. Pain and suffering were affecting too many women and their ability to remain in the labour market, resulting in early retirement or not having their true career potential fulfilled.

We took direct action, crucially, by listening to women’s experiences. We had almost 100,000 responses to our call for evidence on the gender health gap. We appointed Dame Lesley Regan as the woman’s health ambassador, and Helen Tomlinson as the cross-government menopause ambassador to find out the experience of women employed in different sectors. We delivered and funded new women’s health hubs and created joined-up services in the community. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists estimates that removing the requirement of integrated care boards to have a woman’s health hub will impact 600,000 women on waiting lists in England, creating longer waits, disease progression that could be prevented, and resulting in more women attending A&E, unable to work, care or live a fulfilled life.

Labour’s manifesto said that it will prioritise women’s health. Women are now reported to be a lobby group, relegated to being unheard once again. Will the Minister confirm whether it is true that the targets to deal with women’s needs will be dropped? If so, what is her justification for that? Will she be delivering on the roundly welcomed women’s health strategy from 2022?

A total of 1,300 families gave evidence to the all-party group on birth trauma. What are the plans to drive up maternity safety standards across the country? Will there be a response to that? Will Dame Lesley Regan be sacked, will she remain the women’s health ambassador, or will she be replaced, as Helen Tomlinson was, by someone who seems more interested in selling books than in delivering on the ground for women? What steps are being be taken on sex-specific language in health communications and guidance—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Minister will know that there is a time limit, which she has exceeded. I have been very generous. I call the Minister.

NHS: Independent Investigation

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on Lord Darzi’s investigation into the NHS.

Unlike the last holders of this office, this Government will be honest about the problems the NHS faces and serious about fixing them. That is why I asked Lord Darzi, an eminent cancer surgeon who served both Labour and Conservative-led Governments with distinction, to conduct an independent investigation into the state of our national health service. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking him for producing this expert, comprehensive report, a copy of which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I told Lord Darzi that we wanted hard truths, warts and all. His findings are raw, honest and breathtaking. He says:

“Although I have worked in the NHS for more than 30 years, I have been shocked by what I have found”.

He has uncovered an enormous charge sheet, too long to list in this statement, so these are just a few: the NHS has not been able to meet its promises to treat patients on time for almost a decade; patients have never been more dissatisfied with the service they receive; waiting lists for mental health and community services have surged; 50 years of progress on cardiovascular disease is going into reverse; and cancer is more likely to be a death sentence for NHS patients than for patients in other countries. It is not just the sickness in the NHS that concerns Lord Darzi, but sickness in society. Children are sicker today than a decade ago and adults are falling into ill health earlier in life. That is piling pressure on to the NHS and holding back our economy.

Those are some of the symptoms; the report is equally damning on the causes. First, a decade of under-investment left the NHS 15 years behind the private sector on technology, with fewer diagnostic scanners per patient than almost every comparable country, including Belgium, Italy and Greece, and in 2024 mental health patients are treated in Victorian buildings with cockroach and mouse infestations, where 17 men are forced to share two showers.

Secondly, there was the disastrous 2012 top-down reorganisation overseen by Lord Lansley. Lord Darzi’s assessment is damning:

“A calamity without international precedent…it took a ‘scorched earth’ approach to health reform”.

“By 2015…ministers were…putting in place ‘workarounds and sticking plasters’ to bypass the legislation”.

“Rather than liberating the NHS, as promised, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 imprisoned more than a million NHS staff in a broken system for the best part of a decade”.

“the effects…are still felt to this day.”

Just imagine if all the time, effort and billions of pounds wasted on dissolving and reconstituting management structures had instead been invested in services for patients—clearly, the NHS would not be in the mess it finds itself in today.

Thirdly, there was coronavirus. Everyone can see the lasting damage caused by the pandemic, but until now we did not know that the pandemic hit the NHS harder than any other comparable healthcare system in the world.

The NHS cancelled far more operations and routine care than anywhere else. As Lord Darzi writes:

“The pandemic’s impact was magnified because the NHS had been seriously weakened in the decade preceding its onset.”

In other words, it is not just that the Conservatives did not fix the roof while the sun was shining; they doused the house in petrol and left the gas on, and covid just lit the match. That is why waiting lists have ballooned to 7.6 million today. [Interruption.] If I were an Opposition Member, I would not complain about the diagnosis. I would take responsibility.

Fourthly—this sits firmly at Opposition Members’ door, so they should sit and listen—there was the failure to reform. From 2019 onwards, the previous Government oversaw a 17% increase in the number of staff working in hospitals. Did it lead to better outcomes for patients? No. At great expense to the taxpayer, the NHS has instead seen a huge fall in productivity. We paid more, but got less—a deplorable waste of resources when so many parts of our health and care services were crying out for investment. As Lord Darzi has put it:

“British Airways wouldn’t train more pilots without buying more planes.”

Doctors and nurses are wasting their time trying to find beds for their patients and dealing with outdated IT when they ought to be treating patients.

Too many people end up in hospital because they cannot get the help that they need from a pharmacy, a GP or social care. The effective reforms of the last Labour Government, which drove better performance and better care for patients, have mostly been undone, and that is why patients cannot get a GP appointment, an operation or even an ambulance when they need one today. That is what the Conservatives did to take the NHS from the shortest waiting times and highest patient satisfaction in history to the broken NHS that we see today.

Lord Darzi has given his diagnosis. Now it is over to us to write the prescription, and we have three choices. The first is to continue the Conservatives’ neglect, and allow the NHS to collapse. That is the path on which they set the NHS, and the path that it is on today. Or we could—as some of my critics on the left demand—pour ever-increasing amounts of money in without reform, wasting money that is not there and that working people cannot afford to pay. That would be wasteful and irresponsible, so we will not take that path. This Government are making a different choice: we choose recovery and reform. We are taking action today to deal with the immediate crisis by hiring 1,000 GPs whom the Conservatives had left without a job while patients were going without an appointment, and agreeing an offer to end the strikes that they allowed to cripple our health service.

At the same time, we will introduce the fundamental reforms needed to secure the future of our NHS. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that the Government would publish a 10-year plan for change and modernisation, on the foundation of Lord Darzi’s report. Our plan will deliver the three big shifts needed to make our NHS fit for the future. The first is from analogue to digital, giving patients proper choice and control over their own healthcare, and finally realising the untapped potential of the NHS app. There will be fully digital patient records so that your surgeon can see the notes that your GP writes. By marrying our country’s leading scientific minds with the care of more than 1.5 million NHS staff, we will put NHS patients at the front of the queue for cutting-edge medicines and treatments that we can only imagine today.

Secondly, there is the shift from hospital to community, turning our NHS into a neighbourhood as much as a national health service so that patients can get their tests and scans on their high streets and be cared for from the comfort of their own homes. That means bringing back the family doctor and building a national care service that can be there for us when we need it, able to meet the challenges of this century.

Thirdly, there is the shift from sickness to prevention, which means taking the decisions that the Conservatives ducked to give our children a healthy, happy start in life. It means stopping the targeting of junk food ads at children, banning energy drinks for under-16s, reforming the NHS to catch illness earlier—starting by offering health checks in workplaces and on smartphones—and delivering the Tobacco and Vapes Bill that the Conservatives failed to pass, to tackle one of society’s biggest killers.

Lord Darzi’s diagnosis is that the NHS is in a “critical condition”—unless we perform major surgery, the patient will die—but he also finds that

“its vital signs are strong”:

an extraordinary depth of clinical talent, and a shared determination to improve care for patients. This is a public service, free at the point of use, so that whenever we fall ill we never have to worry about the bill. The NHS is broken, but it is not beaten. Every person I have met in the NHS during my first two months as Health and Social Care Secretary is up for the challenge. It will take time, but this party—the party that created the NHS—has turned the NHS around before, and we will do it again. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

How long has the hon. Member been here? Points of order come at the end—you cannot intervene in the middle of these proceedings.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

It sticks in the craw to hear the carping and criticism from the Conservatives, and their obvious bitter resentment that we were able to do in three weeks what they failed to do in over a year. All the while they complain about the costs of solving the strikes, they say nothing about the costs they racked up—the direct financial costs of covering the strikes, as well as the untold costs of misery to patients whose operations, procedures and appointments were cancelled, even as the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and her Ministers had not even bothered to meet the junior doctors since March this year. The Conservatives have no grounds to complain.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

I thank those who daily work in NHS services across our country. If the Secretary of State is truly serious about assisting and supporting the whole of our NHS in England, across all our constituencies, “warts and all”, as he says, will he explain thoroughly why the health outcomes and experiences of families across Wales, over the last 25 years, do not merit this attention equally? Is it perhaps because Wales is Labour-run?

[Wes Streeting]

I have never denied, nor have the Welsh Government, that our health and social care systems are in crisis across the United Kingdom, and that waiting times and patient outcomes are not where they should be. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not wish to acknowledge the truth, and even now, without a shred of humility or acceptance of the responsibility of their record in government, they carp from the sidelines. They will not admit or accept that different parts of the United Kingdom have different strengths and weaknesses.

Regardless of the fact that there is a Scottish National party Government in Scotland or a unique arrangement in Northern Ireland, as well my friends in the Welsh Government, I am proud that in my first weekend as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I made it my business to phone my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I made it clear that we will always work constructively, whatever our parties and however hard we will fight each other at the ballot box. Rather than pointing fingers at other parts of the United Kingdom, as the Conservatives did when they were in government, this Government are determined, just as the last Labour Government were, to create a rising tide that lifts all ships. I look forward to working with every devolved Administration to improve health and care outcomes across the whole of our United Kingdom.

Points of Order

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are all passionate about our hospices, our hospitals, our GP practices and the other health services that our constituents get. Coming to this place is not for the faint-hearted, but is it appropriate for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to adopt the tone that he brought to the Chamber earlier? As I say, we are all passionate, but perhaps his tone—his bedside manner, may I say—needs a new approach on occasion. I noted his more collegial tone later in the statement, but to tell Opposition hon. Members—we are all hon. Members in this place—to sit down and listen, or to liken some previous holders of his role to arsonists and similar paraphernalia, is not befitting of this Chamber.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I like the hon. Lady very much, and I will just say two things in response: first, she has been around in this Chamber a long time. Conservative Members cannot sit and heckle, then get cross when Ministers respond robustly. Secondly, I think that was a perfectly legitimate analogy; indeed, I might say that the arsonists should not complain about the fire brigade.

Government Policy on Health

Mims Davies Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

It is not for me, thankfully, to answer for the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; it is just my responsibility to clean up her mess.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State please illuminate the House about any conflict of interest concerning the gentleman in question? Did he head into the ministerial floor or access the Department? Many of us want our constituents to access health services and GP appointments. Did the right honourable gentleman, who is the Secretary of State’s friend from the old days and with whom he has worked with previously, have a day pass or a departmental pass? Beyond the bluster, can the Secretary of State assure hon. Members that there is no conflict of interest?

[Wes Streeting]

My right honourable friend, Alan Milburn, does not have a role in the Department. He does not have a pass to the Department. I am asked whether he has accessed the ministerial floor. I do not know where the Conservatives held their meetings, but I tend to hold them in my office on the ministerial floor.

Ambulance Pressures

Mims Davies Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The principle of subsidiarity is that, as part of the extreme heat plans, local trusts make decisions locally on targeting resource, whether that has an impact on outpatients or other services, to meet the increased pressure. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is significant increased pressure, as we see in the call volumes coming in to 999 and 111. Part of the contingency plans that are in place is to surge resource, but it is also partly about being clear where risk best sits. At the heart of the letter from NHS medical director Stephen Powis on Friday was the importance of not pushing risk out into the community where it is an unmet need, or into the ambulance, where it is best that patients are, but having that risk more on the ward, where a patient is known and can receive care. Local contingency plans are in place to allocate resource to meet that.

[Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I pay tribute to all my Mid Sussex constituents on the frontline of all our emergency services in this extreme heat. They are absolutely continuing their heroic efforts, whether on the NHS backlog, managing discharges, as we have heard, or managing the impact of covid. Following recent media reports, will the Secretary of State note the constraints in certain ambulances, which my constituents have also raised, with cabs being too small and seatbelt use impacted for those over 6 feet tall? The impact of those new ambulances is on the agenda at a meeting for West Sussex MPs with SECAmb—South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Trust—this Friday.

[Steve Barclay]

First, I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of the local staff in her ambulance trust. She raises an important point about the fleet, and I was very interested in this issue four years ago when I was ambulance trust Minister and discovered that there were, I think, 32 different types of ambulance. When I was out with crews over the past fortnight, one of the issues we discussed was the merits of tailgates so that people are not suffering work absence and musculoskeletal injuries because they are trying to push heavy loads on to an ambulance. I am interested in exploring with her and colleagues how we get the right standardisation and the right fleet in place. Indeed, we have been targeting additional money to support that work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mims Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

I know this is a subject about which the hon. Lady cares greatly. I would be very happy to meet her and to bring together the people I work with from Public Health England to see how we can make the best of this new leaflet and ensure it is the best and most important Christmas present.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s focus on reducing stillbirths, and I welcome the maternity safety strategy. I particularly welcome this focus on group B strep. Will the Minister outline how he is working locally with hospitals such as Southampton to make sure they are aware of this new focus?

[Steve Brine]

I thank my parliamentary neighbour for that question. Public Health England is one of the most effective arm’s length bodies with which we work in government, and it will be working with commissioners and trusts across our country to make sure that this new information is out there with pregnant mums and the most at-risk groups. Members of Parliament have an important role to play with local commissioners and trusts, and I know my hon. Friend will play her part in that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Christmas cheer. Let me just say to him that if that were the Government’s intention, we would not have found an extra £2.8 billion for the NHS in the Budget, including £1.95 million for Chesterfield Hospital, which will benefit his own constituents.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Some 50% of young people do not use a condom with a new partner and one in 10 young adults never uses one, which means the chance of an unwanted pregnancy or, indeed, a sexually transmitted disease. Please will the Department do something to ensure that people are aware of the benefits of condoms?

[Steve Brine]

Men may not be very good at wrapping at this time of year, but they need to get this one right. I welcome Public Health England’s “protect against STIs” campaign, which was launched last week and aims to reduce rates among 16 to 24-year-olds, and I encourage young people having fun this Christmas to do so sensibly.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Mike Penning]

I will give way to my hon. Friend and then I will make some progress.

[Mims Davies]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I must acknowledge my constituent, Charlotte, and her family, who are here on behalf of her brother, Stephen, who has been greatly affected by this drug. One of the biggest issues is the way in which the drug was handed out with absolutely no discussion of the risks.

Jackie lost her baby, Louisa, 19 years later—in 1977. At that time, the product had been on the market for two years with Government warnings, but still GPs did not point that out to patients. There is a lot of evidence here, so why is it not in the report?

[Sir Mike Penning]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. One thing that has surprised me is that although, on average, every single MP will have a victim of Primodos in their constituency, many of the victims think that what happened was their fault and that they are on their own. In the fantastic documentary on Sky, people came forward to say, “I have been affected by this, but I thought that I was on my own. I thought that I was the only one.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Six years ago, I met my constituent Nichola Williams, who shared with me her struggle with her health over her lifetime. Her mother had been prescribed Primodos. From there, I carried out my research, searching for answers and going through thousands and thousands of pages of documents.

One document was a 1969 study by a Dr Norman Dean, who worked with the Royal College of General Practitioners. He found that when women used this hormone pregnancy test, there was a higher incidence of malformed babies, miscarriages, stillbirths and infant deaths. He found the findings so alarming that he wrote to the manufacturers advising them that Primodos should be withdrawn. However, it took another eight years for it to be finally taken off the market, unlike in Norway and Sweden, which apparently acted very swiftly.

In the last six years, I have exchanged countless letters with Ministers and Department of Health officials, working alongside Jason Farrell from Sky News, who has dedicated an enormous amount of time to exposing this issue, and Marie Lyon, the chair of the victims association, who has tirelessly campaigned for justice. I have raised this matter on the Floor of the House many times. I raised it with the Prime Minister several weeks ago, and I also met her predecessor to discuss it.

In 2014, after a debate in this Chamber, we were informed by the then Minister that an inquiry would be carried out, and we were very excited about that. We were promised that the inquiry would be fair, open and transparent, would have the trust and confidence of all the victims and would look at all evidence. Instead, we found that some experts on the panel had conflicts of interest and close ties with the manufacturer, which is now Bayer.

The victims who were invited to give evidence were treated appallingly and were given a very short period—I think it was two hours—to explain what had happened to them. Ms Lyon, who had been appointed as an observer to the panel, was forced to sign a gagging clause, which meant she could not raise with us any of the concerns she had about how the inquiry was going.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the interest our Prime Minister has shown. She met Conservative Members recently, and she is watching with interest. However, the issue I would like to reiterate on behalf of my constituents and many other MPs is the treatment of the campaigners during this process. We had unacceptable timescales, and some of these people were caring for very ill children. The treatment of the campaigners, at the very least, needs some kind of apology.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on this matter.

The inquiry was intended to look at a possible association, not a causal link. That is very important because a different burden of proof is required for a possible association as opposed to a causal link. That was changed, and nobody can tell us who gave the authorisation to do that. The EWG was asked to look at regulatory failures. There are thousands of documents from archives in Berlin and Kew that show that there was a link between the deformities and these drugs. The Committee on Safety of Medicines looked at these documents and decided not to do anything with them. Why was that? When the report came out, the initial draft said that it was impossible to reach a definitive conclusion. However, the final document was changed to say that it could reach that conclusion. When the chair of the inquiry was asked why this happened—by Jason Farrell, by me and by other colleagues in a recent discussion—she said that the Commission on Human Medicines looked at the documents very thoroughly and told the panel that

“we should strengthen the wording and put a greater clarity on it.”

It is unacceptable for the commission to have asked the panel to change its conclusion.

When I raised the report with the Prime Minister recently, one of the reasons she said that there was confidence in it was that Nick Dobrik had said that he endorsed it. However, he has said:

“I was very angry when I was informed that my name was used to endorse the conclusions of this report.”

Is the Minister aware that the EWG refused to look at the most up-to-date study on Primodos conducted this year by Dr Neil Vergesson? It said that the study had not been peer-reviewed, yet it looked at 44 other non-peer-reviewed studies, some of which had been produced by the manufacturer itself, Schering. Dr Vergesson found that Primodos deformed fish embryos, and if given in high doses actually killed them. Dr Dean apparently carried out a study and wrote to Schering telling it what his findings were. He also informed the Royal College of General Practitioners about this. That study has also been ignored, and there is no record of it at all. We know that it exists only because a letter was found showing that he had discussed this matter and told all the parties concerned what was going on, but again nothing happened.

The man in charge of the Committee on Safety of Medicines—its chief scientist, Dr Inman—also conducted a study and found that there was an adverse reaction. Instead of dealing with the issue, he contacted the manufacturer and told them to

“take measures to avoid medico-legal challenges.”

Documents from Berlin show that he later said that the documents on which he based his investigation were going to be destroyed. He made that admission at a meeting with a Schering scientist in Bermuda. A Dr Greenberg carried out a study that showed a significant twofold increase in risk of malformed babies being born to women who took this drug. Eventually, in 1977, the Committee on Safety of Medicines wrote to doctors saying that the drug should stop being given. It said that “the association is confirmed” between Primodos and deformities. It was “confirmed”, unequivocally—and that was in 1977.

Why does the EWG seem to have disregarded all these studies, not to have bothered to take any interest in what was happening and failed to look at the regulatory failures? It is vital that further scientific research is carried out not only to establish an association, but because the EWG report says that the component parts of Primodos are currently safe to be used. That is very worrying, because it is being used in many contraceptive pills. Studies and independent research should be carried out on this, because we might find that even though the drug is being used, it might be harmful to women, and we could prevent further problems from occurring. I am asking for an independent inquiry into the regulatory failures. We must put the families first.

Maternity Safety Strategy

Mims Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I absolutely undertake to look into that case and ensure a proper investigation into what is happening. The hon. Gentleman is right; in the end, we need to be much more open about this data, so I commend the trust for sharing the data publicly. Until we access such data, we will not know where the issues are that we need to solve.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

With this vital new focus on safer births, will there be an opportunity to look at group B strep and other issues that if undetected in the later stages of pregnancy can result in baby loss?

[Mr Hunt]

I am very happy to undertake to do that.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

Yes, of course we all want to get to the correct answers. Science and clinical practice have moved on significantly since the 1970s. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been far-reaching advances in the regulation of medicines. One of the reasons that the report has been delayed is that it was felt that it needed to contain far more human-speak, rather than official-speak. That is why I said that Ministers now had confidence in the report and the review process and that we are now going to focus on implementing the report’s recommendations.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

This is simply a matter of confidence. My constituent, Charlotte Fensome, her parents and her brother Steven simply do not have confidence in this report. I trust the Minister, who I know is thoughtful about these matters and wishes that all the families and parents had had their concerns properly taken into account, but the report that was brought forward yesterday falls incredibly short when it comes to inspiring confidence. That is a great shame. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the complete lack of transparency and with the preparation of the report. We had only 24 hours’ notice of this. Will he meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group, so that he can hear from the campaigners and truly listen to their concerns?

[Steve Brine]

I take the comments of my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour on board. As I have already said, my hon. Friend Lord O’Shaughnessy is meeting the all-party group on 6 December, and I am sure that she will be more than welcome to attend that meeting.

Valproate and Foetal Anticonvulsant Syndrome

Mims Davies Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for securing this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us time in the main Chamber to consider this issue. I also pay tribute to campaigners who have done so much to raise it.

As one who works closely with constituents so gravely affected by the use of Primodos as a pregnancy test, I recognise the huge importance of airing such concerns on behalf of our constituents as widely as possible so that all can hear. There is so much work to do on Primodos, and I hope to bring those concerns to the Prime Minister shortly. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament and a former member of the Women and Equalities Committee, I want to take the time today to note, along with colleagues, that many Backbench Business and Westminster Hall debates seem to focus on women’s health issues: Valproate, Primodos, vaginal mesh. It is great to see such an issue raised in the main Chamber.

[Dr Whitford]

I come back to the point I made earlier. We seem to see these themes. Rather than having multiple separate inquiries, should we consider issues such as Primodos and valproate together? Common learnings need to come out of them.

[Mims Davies]

I absolutely agree. I hope to pull that issue together as I go on with my remarks. It is really important that we raise the case of sodium valproate, which, as we have heard, is still in use. All of these issues need to be looked at.

Common to this debate—and in all such cases, including Primodos—are the hidden, missing and lost documents, along with a delay in education and information. That was raised again today by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk. I pay tribute to Sky News for its exposés on valproate and Primodos, because this really matters to the families affected.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

My hon. Friend raises a valid point about media coverage. I congratulate right hon. and hon. Members on raising the issue in the Chamber today, but I am concerned that it might make some women nervous about taking medication if they are pregnant, or are considering whether they would like to become pregnant and are on medication. Surely one of the messages we want to send out today is, “Please consult your doctor and do not respond to everything you read in the press if you are taking epilepsy medication.”

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Many of us have constituents, friends or family who are affected by epilepsy, which, in itself, is very serious, or by bipolar disorder. Appropriate use remains very important. For the vast majority of patients, treatment can be effective and useful if it is done right—if managed, if educated and if understood. The argument, therefore, should not be about ceasing use, but about telling the truth and looking at appropriate use during pregnancy. Men use the drug too, so we need to take a balanced approach and reflect all situations.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Lady is making really good points. I totally agree with her that the drug is appropriate for most people. I just want the guidance to be followed. The guidance is clear that for women of childbearing age it should not be used unless there is no alternative. We just need to stick to that guidance and make sure it is implemented everywhere.

[Mims Davies]

Absolutely. Speaking about this issue in this Chamber will empower our women constituents, before and during pregnancy, so they can be informed and make the right choices. That is the outcome we should all be hoping for.

Similar issues were raised yesterday during a debate in Westminster Hall on mesh implants. New mothers in particular had taken the advice they were given without hesitation. A woman’s first pregnancy can be an unsettling time with all the changes their body goes through. I would imagine that for people suffering from epilepsy or bipolar disorder that time is even more nerve wracking. It is absolutely right that we are measured when we talk about these issues.

It is important that our specialists ensure that women are given the correct and proper guidance. Patients need knowledge and they need it more than anyone. They live with the consequences if things go wrong and they will always look back on their decisions. If they have not been given the right information, how can they truly know they have made the right decision for themselves and their family? Siblings are often impacted as well.

The Government and MPs have a really important role to play in raising awareness of medical issues during pregnancy, including those concerning sodium valproate. I recognise the efforts that have been made, with labelling on packages. I am sure the Minister will agree, however, that more needs to be done. This drug, introduced in 1974, has been crucial, but support for families affected is also crucial. I welcome the fact that young people who have been affected are to be included in the new framework for health and social care for children and young people. It has been a real battle, but clinical commissioning groups and local authorities are getting to grips with it. It is really important that they receive support on a local level. I welcome the Minister’s forthcoming meeting with the all-party group, and I know that Ministers are taking this matter seriously, but I ask the Department for assurances on similar health issues affecting women, such as those relating to Primodos and mesh implants. We have moved to an incredible place on blood contamination—some of my constituents were affected by that—and constituents have written asking me to raise this issue too. We want more action, and there is a common denominator.

[Teresa Pearce]

Two years ago, I asked the Minister to extend the Primodos inquiry to include valproate, but my request was declined because, I was told, the two issues were very different, yet they seem to be quite similar. Does the hon. Lady think that that was a missed opportunity?

[Mims Davies]

As a woman in Parliament, I think that any opportunity not taken to raise women’s issues is a missed opportunity, and I know the Minister is listening intently.

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) raised a point about the seemingly cosy relationship the MHRA has with the drugs companies, when it suits it, and sometimes the laissez-faire attitude it adopts, when it suits it. It is incomprehensible that greater independence cannot be injected into this area. We need openness and reform. I would like the Minister to take a look at the position in France and consider setting aside some funding for compensation for medical accidents.

Few in the Chamber can imagine the hardship, guilt and heartbreak of the impact of taking a simple prescription drug during pregnancy and finding out later that it might have had an effect on one’s child. I am lucky to have two healthy beautiful daughters. We are all at the mercy of decisions we take during our pregnancy and the professional guidance we receive. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to raise awareness among people in this situation, but there are those not lucky enough to be sufficiently informed. This is an important debate, therefore, and I urge the Department to work with the MHRA to give patients full confidence in it on all pregnancy matters.