Valproate and Foetal Anticonvulsant Syndrome

Debate between Norman Lamb and Liz McInnes

Thursday 19th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes]

That was probably the first research paper to suggest that it was not just coincidence and that there was a causal relationship, which is why it is seen as definitive.

The pharmaceutical company Sanofi, which many Members have mentioned, has stated that it has kept in line with scientific knowledge when reporting side-effects in a foetus. However, from as early as 1983 the CSM and the MHRA reported the problems caused by taking sodium valproate in pregnancy, but did not insist that Sanofi issue warnings in the form of a patient information leaflet.

Even now, to this day, epilepsy charities report that women are not aware of the potential risks when taking the drug in pregnancy. A survey has shown—I know it has already been mentioned, but it does no harm to reinforce these findings—that 18% of women taking sodium valproate were not aware of the risks during pregnancy, and 28% said that they had not been informed of any risks. That is despite the production by the MHRA of a valproate toolkit designed to help healthcare professionals to talk to women with epilepsy about the risks of taking valproate during pregnancy.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly valuable contribution to the debate. Does she agree that if it is clear during a period of time that the amount of a drug that is being prescribed is significantly more than the guidance suggests is appropriate, it is not acceptable for the drug company, the regulator and the Government simply to be passive and to allow that to continue? If we knew that this drug was being over-prescribed, which appears to be the case, why on earth was action not taken?

[Liz McInnes]

That is a very good point, and if we manage to establish an inquiry, it should look into the issue of over-prescribing.

I want to mention other agencies. The European Medicines Agency has also recommended a strengthening of measures to reduce the risk of harm to babies born to mothers taking valproate. Information from the House of Commons Library outlines a situation in France, which has already been referred to, with an estimate that between 425 and 450 children were affected by birth defects attributable to valproate from 2006 to 2014. The French Parliament this year voted to set aside €10 million for claims related to valproate. The Health Minister, Marisol Touraine, described this as a “starting point” and stated that compensation would ultimately be paid by those deemed responsible:

“I regret that Sanofi didn’t seek an amicable settlement as a matter of principle. I hope Sanofi will change its position.”

Sanofi had no comment to make on the Minister’s remark. A class action has also been brought by the French association for people affected by sodium valproate against Sanofi.

In the UK, in 2004 a class action was brought by a group of families under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which was expected to go to trial in 2011, but the litigation was discontinued prior to this after the Legal Services Commission withdrew funding. It is disappointing that this Government have said that there are no current plans to introduce a compensation fund similar to that in France, and I urge them to reconsider.

I fully support the remedial steps outlined in the motion, including the call for an inquiry, and this Government must bring forward a care plan and financial assistance for the victims of this national scandal.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between Norman Lamb and Liz McInnes

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes]

I accept that young people cannot do all those things at 16 without the consent of their parents, but the fact is that they can still do them.

Contrary to popular myth, young people are interested in political issues—from climate change to racism, and from education to crime. I meet young people in my constituency, as I am sure do many of my hon. Friends, who are studying politics at A-level and are completely engaged with the political process, yet this country still denies them a vote.

In a democracy, voting is the fundamental way for our young people to express their opinions. As the Power commission report put it,

“it is worth remembering that we enlist 16-year olds into the armed forces and expect them to pay taxes if they are earning so they should be able to participate in the selection of those who govern them. We believe that any reform to encourage young people to engage politically will be very severely limited in its effectiveness while the current constitutional, party and electoral arrangements remain in force.”

Given that Government decisions will naturally affect the future, it is arguable that the young are more likely to be affected than older people by some political decisions.

Preventing 16 and 17-year-olds from voting sends a signal to them and to society that their views are not valid or important. The next generation of voters are the first to have received citizenship education in schools, yet they are being denied their full rights as citizens. This seems particularly unfair and unjust. At a time when some people feel that politics is not relevant to them, young people need to be encouraged to take part in democracy, not kept out of it. The Scottish independence referendum showed once and for all that 16 and 17-year-olds are more than capable of taking important political decisions. If young people are registered early and get into the habit of voting, we will see lasting improvements in turnout.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) secured a Westminster Hall debate on this very subject last year. She argued that the time was right

“to open the democratic system even further and to include 16 and 17-year olds among the people who are able to vote.”

She continued:

“We cannot expect 16 and 17-year-olds to contribute to our society through various means—economically, physically, intellectually or socially—in a capacity where we recognise them as an adult, but then give them the democratic rights of a child… We trust our young people to contribute to society in many ways, so we should start to give them their democratic rights.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 7WH.]

I fully support that. I urge all Members to support the retention of clause 20, and to welcome our 16 and 17-year-olds to the democratic process.

Let me now say a few words about clause 21. I am very pleased that, on this issue at least, the Government are listening. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who is present, and who has done a great deal of work in connection with the issue of the Bristol mayor. As I am sure everyone knows, Bristol was the only city to vote “yes” in the mayoral referendum of May 2012. I think it fair to say that the current mayor has proved to be a somewhat controversial figure, but my hon. Friend has rightly said:

“This isn’t about whether you support the current mayor or would prefer a different person in that office, it’s about whether citizens of Bristol should be allowed a voice about the post itself.

It’s about democracy, and the right of Bristol people to decide how they are governed seems to be a fundamental aspect of democracy.”

She has also said that

“citizens of Bristol deserve the right to reverse that decision at any point”,

and that the Lords amendments

“offering Bristolians that opportunity are to be welcomed”.—[Official Report, 14 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 372.]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge of the issue of the Bristol mayor, but I am very pleased that all Members seem to support clause 21, and I look forward to our giving Bristolians the same democratic rights as those enjoyed by the rest of the country.

[Norman Lamb]

I strongly support the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords, and I am very disappointed that the Government are proposing to remove it from the Bill. The Minister’s argument seemed to be “It is all horribly complicated, and this is not the right place to discuss it”, but I could not identify any particularly strong argument for why it is the wrong thing to do, and why 16 and 17-year-olds should not be given the right to exercise the vote like the rest of us.

I was interested by the intervention from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). Indeed, I was encouraged by it, because the right hon. Gentleman appeared to recognise that there was some argument for 16-year-olds to have a say on some issues. However, he drew a distinction between referendums and voting in elections on a continuing basis. I think that he should go with his logic. If there is a case for young people to have a say in the future of their country, or on other big issues that are put before the country in referendums, surely there is a case for them to have the right to a say on who is elected as their local councillor. How on earth can the right hon. Gentleman sustain the logic of allowing a vote on a big national issue of enormous import while denying a vote on representation in a local community?