Surgical Mesh

Debate between Owen Smith and Sarah Wollaston

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Wollaston]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right, and his point applies not only to medical devices. When it comes to relatively rare conditions, we need to look at the widest possible population base in order to detect any complications. It is also important to use the widest possible population base when detecting rare complications. I thank him for highlighting that.

If we are to have informed consent for women, it has to be based on high-quality, balanced and evidence-based information, and that has been lacking. We also need to be clear that if a medical device is altered in any way, it must be part of a clinical trial. That was entirely lacking in this situation. The types of device, including the size and thickness, were changed without anyone properly recording or following up on those changes. That has to be the key lesson for the future.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an extremely important point. Does she agree that the issue here is that all one effectively has to prove for a follow-on device is its equivalence with the original device? There is therefore a fundamental flaw in how we license devices versus the far more rigorous way in which, for example, we license molecules.

[Dr Wollaston]

I absolutely agree. It strikes me that there has been a kind of wild west out there, with representatives saying, “Why don’t you try this one? This is probably going to be better”, without organisations setting up clinical trials from the start so that we could compare different devices, and without women giving properly informed consent that a different kind of device would be used. Lessons have to be learned not just for mesh surgery, but for other medical devices. Just because something sounds like it might be better, it does not mean to say that there will not be serious complications. Those complications may also happen at a late stage. We need databases such as EUDAMED so that we have access to the widest possible population base and clear device tracking.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Owen Smith and Sarah Wollaston

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Like her, I do trust the Prime Minister, and that is why I have taken a very reassuring line with my constituents. However, there is no substitute for a clear statement from our Prime Minister that, come what may, families such as this will not be separated, because that is the reassurance they seek. I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but I think we should get on and make that offer, because it can be nothing but good to do so.

I also hope the Prime Minister will take further action on the issue of those who work in our NHS and social care. One in 10 of the doctors who works in our NHS comes from elsewhere in the EU, and I would like to say thank you, on behalf of the whole House, to all those workers and to all those who are working in social care. It would also be very much a positive move if we could say, up front, that those who are working here will be welcome to stay and make it very clear that we will continue to make it easy to welcome people from across the EU to work in social care and in our NHS.

[Owen Smith]

I shall make a short, pointed speech, because a lot of other Members have been present throughout the debate and wish to speak. It is extraordinary that we are debating one of the most, if not the most, important economic, social and strategic decisions that this House has had to make—certainly in the six years I have been here and arguably for 70 years—in a few short days and hours.

I shall speak to new clause 51, which I tabled. It is a simple, good-hearted new clause that would get the Government to come clean with the country and explain what they think the effect of Brexit is going to be for our constituents and for the national interest. It refers to labour rights, health and safety legislation, environmental protections and, most importantly, the impact we are likely to see on our GDP and balance of trade—the fundamental metrics that dictate whether we succeed or fail as a nation.

I tabled the new clause before we saw the abject, lamentable piece of work that the Government produced last Thursday: the 70-odd skimpy pages of the White Paper, 10% of which is actually white or blocked out. It is the whitest White Paper I think the House has ever seen. I contrast that with the 200-odd page report that the Treasury produced ahead of the referendum, which detailed the minutiae of all the impacts anticipated as a result of the changes in respect of GDP—[Interruption.] They chunter on the Government Front Bench, but when the Prime Minister was sat on that Bench as Home Secretary, she signed up to every line of that Treasury report, so it is entirely legitimate for the country to ask whether she is now living a lie as to what she thinks the impact of Brexit will be. Is she deceiving the country about whether this is going to turn out well for us, or not?

Let us not forget that the Treasury report suggested that the net impact on GDP of our leaving the European Union was going to be in the order of £45 billion per annum within 15 years. That is a third of the NHS budget. It would require a 10p increase in the basic rate of taxation to fill that black hole. It may well be entirely untrue. Perhaps it was just an estimate by experts in the Treasury that we should no longer believe, but if so, the Government need to come clean and tell us the current estimate.

Now that we know what the Government are planning to do—now that we know that we are gunning for the rock-hard Brexit that they hate to hear about on the Government Benches—what will the impact be? What will be the impact on trade? The Government were very clear about that previously. Under any circumstances, leaving the European Union will reduce trade by this country. It will make us “permanently poorer”, according to the Treasury, as a result of reduced trade, reduced activity and reduced receipts, which will force the Government to increase and prolong austerity. Those are the stakes we are playing for on behalf of our constituents in this debate.

It seems to me entirely right that if this House is to be worthy of the name of the Houses of Parliament, and if it is going to do its job as it is meant to and as it has done for centuries, we need to see the detail. We need to be clear about what this is going to mean for my constituents and for my children. If it is anything like the black picture that was previously painted, we must have a final, meaningful vote in this House on the terms.

We cannot allow this country to drift out of the European Union on a bad deal—on World Trade Organisation terms—which would mean that the £45 billion black hole in our public finances was realised. We cannot allow that to happen for future generations, and we will be held accountable by those future generations if this House sits by, supine and pusillanimous, allowing this legislation to be waved through the House for political purposes—that is, to end the 30-year civil war on the Tory Benches. I cannot stand for that, and we should not stand for that in this House. We should see the detail and hold the Government to account, and I will continue to do that throughout this debate.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Owen Smith and Sarah Wollaston

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

I will not dispute that there may be occasions when it will be appropriate for the CCG to meet in private, but that is not what the Minister said. My point was to do with the tone and the misrepresentation that has been systematically applied by those on the Government Benches. That is the difference.

[Dr Wollaston]

rose—