Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Debate between Nigel Evans and Allan Dorans

Thursday 7th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Allan Dorans]

I would welcome that type of inquiry and the opportunity to view the outcome.

Despite serious concerns being expressed by the eminent paediatrician, Dr Isabel Gal, in 1967 indicating the possible dangers of Primodos, no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years later. There is strong and compelling evidence of systematic regulatory failures, demonstrating that the committees tasked with safeguarding the health of pregnant women failed in their duty of care.

When I was elected in 2019, I had never heard of the drug Primodos, and I suspect that is the case for many Members. I had heard of thalidomide, as it received far greater coverage in the media at the time. However, since then I have learned much about the horrors caused by Primodos—the devastating effect it had on unborn babies and on the babies born with horrendous birth defects, and the continuing, unimaginable tragic consequences for the mothers and families whose lives have been so cruelly affected by the drug. It is an absolute disgrace and shameful that those families have not only been utterly abandoned and ignored by the drugs companies responsible, but also by successive Governments, who actively put up barriers to avoid accepting the consequences of the manufacture, approval, prescribing and giving out of Primodos.

The drugs companies involved in the production of Primodos, the medical authorities at the time who failed to protect people and successive Governments are all liable for the suffering caused to the victims of Primodos. They are all culpable and guilty of negligence, for failing to put right this horrendous wrong put upon innocent people. It cannot be right that the fight for justice in these circumstances has been left in the hands of a few determined individuals battling against a huge global pharmaceutical conglomerate with millions of pounds of resources and our own Government.

I highlight the case of my constituent, Nan. I have her permission to share her experience and the effect that Primodos had on her and her daughter, Michelle. In January 1975, Nan was a recently married, healthy young woman. Feeling sick and suspecting she may be pregnant, she went to her GP for a pregnancy test, expecting—as was normal at that time—a urine test. Instead, her doctor gave her two Primodos tablets. By 1975, Primodos had already been banned for use as a pregnancy test for five years in Norway and Sweden. Nan put her utmost trust in the knowledge, experience and expertise of her GP. It was subsequently confirmed that she was about seven or eight weeks pregnant. She had a very uneventful pregnancy during which she neither smoked nor drank alcohol.

On 28 August 1975, Nan’s daughter, Michelle, was born. It was immediately discovered that Michelle was born with a hole in her diaphragm, which had allowed her bowel and spleen and part of her liver and kidney to be forced in to her chest cavity, crushing her lung. She was not expected to live, but through the exceptional skills of our national health service she survived and is now 48 years of age. Throughout her life, she has endured numerous operations and surgeries and long periods of hospitalisation. She has suffered severe health issues, including breathing difficulties, a weakened immune system, numerous bowel obstructions and inflammatory bowel infections, and she has been unable to conceive children. The horrendous effects of the debilitating physical, psychological and medical conditions and the extremely challenging health conditions suffered by Michelle and her parents for the past 48 years just cannot be adequately described by me with words.

When Michelle was born in 1975, Nan was unaware that the drug that she had been given to test for pregnancy had been associated with birth defects for the previous eight years. It was not until some two and a half years later that she read an article in the press that reported on a number of cases linking birth defects to Primodos, including internal organ damage similar to that suffered by Michelle. Since that time, Nan, along with many other women, has been fighting the injustice, where no one has ever been held responsible for the damage caused to so many lives through prescribing Primodos, which had been approved by the Government.

In February 2018, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced that Baroness Cumberlege would oversee an independent medicines and medical devices safety review. This review was, among other things, instructed to consider the consequences of Primodos. One of the conclusions in the report by Baroness Cumberlege is that Primodos should have been withdrawn from the market in 1967, after the first report by Dr Gal. However, the Government refused to accept responsibility for the effects of Primodos without a proven causal association, but admitted later, in a Sky TV interview, that there was a possible association. There was a moral duty for Government representatives on the Committee on Safety of Medicines to protect patients, but they failed in their duty of care by suppressing the evidence of harm caused by the drug. Even today, the Government continue to deny that they suppressed evidence, while supporting the flawed conclusions of the 2017 expert working group.

The damage to individuals, lives and families caused by Primodos, successive Governments’ lack of action and the failure to prevent, is immeasurable. This could be a far greater tragedy than thalidomide. Apart from frustration at the pharmaceutical companies and the glacial pace of Government in righting this tragic, historical wrong, the most chilling words we hear, increasingly regularly, are: “We have recently lost another of our Primodos family.” The tragedy is that we all know that those people died without receiving the justice they deserved. Even if compensation were paid, it would never fully compensate the families who were so tragically affected, or take away the immense guilt experienced by mothers who feel that they were in some way to blame for the defects that their children suffered.

It is well past the time for the current Government to put right this historical wrong, end the scandal and give some security to those who have suffered so much, thus allowing the mothers, fathers and the children who have survived some dignity and compensation for the tragedy that was caused through no fault of their own. The very least the Government can do is accept responsibility for the tragic circumstances, immediately issue a full apology to everyone affected by Primodos and compensate the victims. I and my party urge the Government to accept and commit to implementing the full recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety review and to set up a redress fund for families affected by Primodos.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

When we get to the winding-up speeches, it will be six minutes, eight minutes, eight minutes and then we will leave two minutes for the proposer of the motion.

Paid Miscarriage Leave

Debate between Nigel Evans and Allan Dorans

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

I welcome the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) and to speak in favour of her Bill.

Currently, legislation exists for paid parental bereavement leave where a baby is stillborn after the 24th week of pregnancy, but no such provision is made where a miscarriage occurs before that time at any stage during the pregnancy. The Bill would right that wrong. Whereas this debate will quite rightly focus on the care and rights of women, there are others who are clearly affected by these circumstances. I therefore wish to speak particularly from the perspective of the father or partnership in the relationship.

In a BBC report in September 2021, a woman who had lost her baby at only nine weeks said about the possibility of paid leave:

“I think a lot of people would find paid leave very useful because it would give them time to be there with their partners who are going through a difficult experience.”

It is understandable, given her traumatic experience, that she sees paid leave for her partner as being useful, essentially, for the mother. I am not suggesting that she was unaware of the shared nature of the trauma, but it reveals a common view that can obscure the suffering of fathers or partners. More recently, in an STV report in January 2022, a woman who had lost 10 unborn babies revealed her awareness of how vital it is for both parents to be allowed the time to understand what they have gone through, and regretted that she and her partner had not had time for themselves because they could not afford not to work. In a recent American research study report based on 386 partners, speaking of the effects of a miscarriage on a partner, an experienced senior social worker commented:

“We often deny and dismiss partners’ vulnerable feelings of loss and sadness. It’s very easy then for partners’ often subtle feelings of grief to get lost in the more obvious and physical experience of loss their partner has experienced.”

There is, regrettably, little research on the emotional reactions of partners after miscarriage. However, a study by University College London in 2014, with 160 partners, found as many as 85% suffering grief, sadness and shock, with nearly half of them saying it had caused sleep problems and had affected their work. Sadly, perhaps because of the need to return to work immediately, a quarter did not talk about their feelings at all with their partners, and nearly half did not share their full feelings for fear, they said, of causing their partner further upset. An earlier American study in 2010 found that couples who did not find the time to openly discuss the loss with each other were more likely to break up as a consequence. Current NHS UK advice on coping with a miscarriage reinforces the importance of partners being able to express their feelings openly, even, or perhaps especially, when they hold a more traditional view that their main role is to support the mother.

More recent research by University College London in 2020 suggests that for some the problems can be even more serious. Of 192 cases studied, 34% of the women suffered symptoms that could be described as post-traumatic stress disorder. While partners do not appear to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder as often as the mother, the research points out that with about 250,000 miscarriages in the UK every year, there could still be many thousands of partners living with it and requiring help and support.

All of this points to a need for greater attention and care for partners, but I feel sure it also points to the importance of paid leave and pay, regardless of the stage of pregnancy in which the miscarriage occurs. That would enable both partners to have the time to discuss fully with each other the shared trauma they have experienced and where necessary make arrangements for further medical assessment and treatment, free of the pressure to return to work.

The Scottish Government are committed to three days of paid leave for parents in the public sector who suffer miscarriage at any point during the pregnancy. While the Bill asks initially for only three days of paid leave, it is hoped that, as we become a more enlightened society, the Government will recognise the benefits not only to the couples and families involved, but to society in general, and in due course consider extending the three days of paid leave even further. However, as the matter is reserved to Westminster, it cannot be imposed on the private sector without UK Government legislation. With full fiscal autonomy, countries such as New Zealand and Australia have already put in place paid leave for all parents affected by miscarriage at whatever point the tragedy takes place. The Northern Ireland Assembly has also recently given a commitment to introduce paid miscarriage leave following a consultation, with the policy due to come into force no later than April 2026.

In conclusion, it is time for the United Kingdom to have the vision to support this Bill, and I therefore urge the Government to do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just before we start the wind-ups, I would like to say that, as the House knows, there will be a statement following this debate on P&O Ferries. It was anticipated that it would come at 5 o’clock. It is now likely to be way before 5 o’clock, so any Members wishing to take part in that statement should make their way to the Chamber now.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Allan Dorans

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) [V]]

I join others across the House in extending my sincere condolences to the family and friends and all affected by the horrific murder of Sarah Everard last week.

The House has heard many passionate speeches objecting to certain aspects of the Bill that impose disproportionate restrictions on our freedom of expression and right to protest. Those are fundamental human rights and a cornerstone of our democracy, and they must be protected. I totally support those objections to the restriction of our liberties. The right to peacefully protest on any issue must not be interfered with by the Government.

Part 2, chapter 1 of the Bill deals with duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence. Specifically, it places a legal duty on local authorities, police, criminal justice agencies, health authorities, fire and rescue services and others to collaborate through sharing data and intelligence with one another to prevent and reduce serious violence and a duty to plan together to prevent and reduce such violence. In particular, they must identify the kinds of serious violence that occur, identify the causes of that violence and prepare and implement a strategy to prevent and reduce violence. Without any doubt, it is imperative that the impact of violence by men against women, the prevalence of that violence—particularly domestic violence and sexual violence—controlling and coercive behaviour by men and the impact on the community are included in that strategy to reduce violence against women and girls.

I want to highlight the outstanding work of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, funded by the Scottish Government. It has reduced homicides in Scotland from 137 over a number of years to 64 last year, using an innovative, proactive public health partnership approach to violence reduction, driven by the conviction that violence is preventable and not inevitable. A number of police services across England and Wales have sought advice from the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit and are at varying stages of setting up similar schemes.

It is therefore very welcome that the Bill will pave the way for the police service and other agencies to adopt schemes and strategies based on that model, which has proven to be highly successful. That approach must be included in the formal strategy mentioned by the Home Secretary yesterday for the reduction of all forms of violence by men against women and girls. This will, of course, come at a significant cost, but whatever that cost is, we simply cannot afford not to take this action, as by not doing so, we will continue to fail to protect women and girls now and in the future. We must act, and we must act now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The clock has not been started, because I did not want to eat into your time, Tracey, but I want to say that it is fantastic to see you back in the House of Commons where you belong.