Type 1 Diabetes: Infant Testing

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship from the Dispatch Box, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate, following the petition related to funding for infants to receive type 1 diabetes testing and routine care. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part and for all the heartfelt speeches that we have been privileged to hear.

I am not surprised at all that the petition received 120,000 signatures after it was started, following—as we know—the tragic death of two-year-old Lyla Story from diabetic ketoacidosis mere hours after seeing her GP. I was deeply affected when I heard that a child so young had been taken so cruelly by a condition as common and manageable as type 1 diabetes. I thank and pay enormous tribute to Lyla’s parents, John and Emma Story, who have campaigned so passionately and powerfully at a time of such unimaginable grief. It is truly inspiring, and we hope that it will help to ensure that no other families will suffer as they have. I am so sorry, and I offer Mr and Mrs Story my deepest sympathies. No child or their family should be let down in this way.

We have started to make improvements to raise awareness, and this debate forms a very important part of that. During World Diabetes Day in November 2025, NHS England made a big push to raise awareness of the four Ts, which, as we have heard today, are the main symptoms of type 1 diabetes: thirst, tiredness, thinning, and an increased need to go to the toilet. This work was channelled via social media and a cascade to clinical networks, as well as by updating the nhs.uk pages to make them clearer. A RightCare toolkit was also published by NHS England, which is designed to support integrated care systems to design, plan and deliver high-quality treatment and care for children with all types of diabetes.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her place. I should declare that I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of three, so I cannot begin to imagine the pain that Mr and Mrs Story, and other affected families who are in the Public Gallery or watching this debate online, have felt—particularly my constituent Levi, who lost her beloved son Eli at the age of two after five misdiagnoses of viruses and infection. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that future guidance will be drafted to emphasise to clinicians that infections and viruses can be not only a symptom, but sometimes a trigger of type 1 diabetes, so that clinicians will have, we hope, the understanding to avoid the tragic losses that we have heard about today?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank the former Secretary of State for Health for her important intervention. I was not aware that she was type 1 diabetic herself, and the case of Levi that she mentioned is so pertinent to what we are discussing. Mr Story has been working with NICE, and that guidance is currently being updated. As the right hon. Member says, it is so important to get that information out there, so that all GPs are brought up to date and know that infections and viruses can be a trigger, so I thank her for that intervention.

The RightCare toolkit that is being brought forward also contains important information for clinicians in setting out what good quality diabetes care looks like for children and includes guidance on timely and accurate diagnosis. However, we recognise that more needs to be done, and that is why NHS England is working on how we can better support NHS staff to diagnose patients as quickly as possible and raise awareness of symptoms for parents and families.

[Tom Gordon]

The Minister is talking about how the toolkit will outline for GPs what good diabetes care looks like. That independent advocacy and scrutiny function often came from Healthwatch, which will be abolished in the changes to the NHS and rolled into DHSC. Can she outline how we will ensure scrutiny of services such as diabetes care, which have the patient voice at their heart?

[Mrs Hodgson]

If I may, I will write to the hon. Member on his important point, rather than giving a possibly unsatisfactory answer off the top of my head.

The NHS is exploring how IT can be better used to support GPs in making more accurate diagnoses. That includes how existing electronic patient record—EPR— systems could be used more effectively to provide prompts for GPs to consider type 1 diabetes when particular symptoms are added. I can update the House that clinical leaders in NHS England are also working with digital diabetes education providers to develop a primary care healthcare professional education module.

While we are working on options to improve type 1 diabetes diagnosis, a requirement for a mandatory finger-prick test for those presenting with possible symptoms of type 1 diabetes is difficult to enact and could not be delivered quickly. I hear the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) in her excellent speech—many others also made this point—about how all GP practices should have the necessary equipment and finger-prick testing kits, and several hon. Members raised the issue of NHS funding for point-of-contact testing kits. I can reassure them that there is good clinician access to those tests. What we need to do is ensure that their use is at the forefront of clinicians’ minds when the symptoms present, which is exactly what Mr and Mrs Story called for in their petition.

One Member raised the abolition of NHS England. I can reassure Members that, as part of that change process, policy functions will transfer into the Department as appropriate. Clinicians follow clinical guidelines set out by NICE, which are advisory and not mandatory. They are not mandatory because they are designed as evidence-based advice to inform rather than to replace clinical judgment, allowing for tailored care for individual patients. Guidelines cannot cover every unique patient scenario, and clinicians must therefore maintain responsibility for treatment decisions.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. Before entering this place, I worked for Breakthrough T1D, and one thing that came up all too often was that clinicians did not feel that they had the funding to give people the treatment they needed. The Minister makes the point about giving them independence, but does she acknowledge that if they do not have the funding to do that, the guidance falls at the first hurdle?

[Mrs Hodgson]

That might be a fair point on some treatments more widely, but funding is not an issue for the finger-prick test—it is very affordable for the NHS, and I am told that funding is not the issue on the point we are debating today. I am pleased that NICE has been able to respond very quickly to Mr and Mrs Story. It has engaged with them in detail and listened to their concerns about how the guidance could be clearer.

I am very pleased that NICE has recently said it will update the guidance and guidelines on the diagnosis and management of type 1 and 2 diabetes in children, to raise the prominence of the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis in children with undiagnosed diabetes. I understand that the conversation Mr Story is having with NICE is ongoing, and that NICE is also considering an update to the adult guidance in due course. I know that Mr Story has raised further recommendations with NICE to improve that guidance. I am sure NICE will be considering it very carefully.

I would like again to put on record my admiration for the huge effort and determination of Mr Story in campaigning to raise awareness and advocating for improvements. The updating of NICE guidance is tangible proof of his efforts; his time has not been wasted.

I recognise that the immediate issue raised is point-of-care testing, but I should update the House in saying that, more broadly, we are also funding the delivery of research to develop and test novel approaches for diagnosing type 1 diabetes earlier and more accurately through the NIHR. That includes an investigation of the use of a new home test for type 1 diabetes in children and young people. Studies are also identifying ways to improve the diagnosis of type 1 and 2 diabetes based on genetics, making prediction more accessible and more effective.

We are also supporting the delivery of research into type 1 diabetes treatment, again through the NIHR. That includes supporting a new UK-wide type 1 diabetes cell therapy clinical trials network. The aim is to ensure all people with the condition gain access to the latest cutting-edge treatments as early as possible. The NIHR’s research delivery network is also supporting the delivery of a study that aims to identify infants at risk of developing type 1 diabetes, and to study new treatments with the aim of preventing the development of the condition.

In addition, following the publication of NICE’s guidance recommending the use of hybrid closed loop systems as a treatment option for type 1 diabetes in children, the NHS began a five-year roll-out of HCLs in 2024. For those who are not familiar with that technology, an HCL acts as an artificial pancreas that lets a person’s insulin pump talk to their continuous glucose monitor. I am sure that adults in particular with type 1 diabetes are very aware of HCLs, but the use of HCLs in children under 19 has now increased from 36% in 2023-24 to 70% in 2025-26. That is significant progress in making that life-changing technology available to more children and young people.

Returning to the issue of diagnosis, the NHS is exploring how IT can be better used to support GPs in making more accurate diagnoses. That includes how existing electronic patient record systems could be used more effectively to provide prompts for GPs to consider type 1 diabetes when particular symptoms are added. I can inform the House that clinical leaders in NHS England are working with digital providers of diabetes education to develop an education module for primary care healthcare professionals.

A few Members mentioned screening, so I would like to take this opportunity to set out the Government’s position. Although we know that screening for antibodies would sadly not have helped Lyla, screening tests may help to improve our ability to identify those who are most likely to develop type 1 diabetes in future. We are guided by the independent scientific advice of the UK National Screening Committee, as it is vital that screening programmes are evidence-based and evidence-led. The committee does not currently recommend screening for type 1 diabetes, due to a lack of evidence.

However, the committee received a submission, via its 2024 open-call process, to consider screening for autoimmune type 1 diabetes through blood testing. Once NICE has published its recommendation on the drug teplizumab, which is expected this year, the National Screening Committee will consider whether a fresh review of the evidence for type 1 diabetes screening should be undertaken.

In addition, NHS England is looking carefully to see what further improvements might be made to the red book and to support increased awareness for parents and families so that they can see what the symptoms of type 1 diabetes are. I know that was an important part of the petition.

In closing, I thank all those present for taking part in this very important debate, as well as our constituents—all 120,000 of them—who took the time to sign the petition and press us all on this very important matter. I hope that the work that is currently being taken forward across diagnosis and awareness shows the seriousness with which this issue is being taken.

I am pleased that John and Emma Story will be meeting the Secretary of State for Health tomorrow to discuss this further, along with their constituency MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who is here for the debate. I am sure that will be a very emotional and powerful meeting for Mr and Mrs Story. I wish them well and, in closing, pay tribute to them again for everything they have done in Lyla’s name to try to ensure that no other family follows in their footsteps.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Gentleman will have noted that we have committed to tie-ins for future dentists going through the training programme. It costs the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds to train a dentist, and we believe it is absolutely right that a significant percentage of their time should be put into NHS dentistry.

In terms of improving access, in financial year 2023-24 there was a shocking £392 million underspend on NHS dentistry at a time when demand was going through the roof. I made clear that every penny allocated to NHS dentistry must be spent on NHS dentistry, and I am very pleased to report that we have got that underspend down to just £36 million. The decrease in the underspend is leading to an increase in NHS dentistry, but I accept that there is still a long way to go.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve access to tissue freezing for brain cancer patients in Washington and Gateshead South constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)]

I also put on record my condolences to the family and friends of Colin Pickthall, the former Member for West Lancashire. As the current Member for that seat, it is my privilege to build on his legacy.

We are committed to furthering investment to unlock new treatments and improve outcomes for brain cancer patients, including by investing in cutting-edge equipment to improve access to samples for research. Individual pathology services in England maintain their own standard operating procedures, and they outline local capabilities and practices, but we are continuing to invest in England’s pathology networks to deliver productivity and transformation improvements.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I welcome the Government’s focus on improving survival rates for cancer, particularly in the forthcoming national cancer plan. Will the Minister agree to attend the campaign for Owain’s law event here in Parliament on 3 February and meet the families, who will have travelled from across the country to brief Members of this House on the urgent importance of fixing the current tissue freezing postcode lottery?

[Ashley Dalton]

We are determined to ensure that everyone who receives a brain tumour diagnosis, regardless of where they live, has access to the latest treatment options. I look forward to meeting Owain’s wife, Ellie, later this month to hear more about their story and the next steps on this topic.

Baby Loss

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

I am very glad to be able to take part in this very moving debate and to follow so many excellent speeches as we once again mark Baby Loss Awareness Week, not least on behalf of myself and my story, and that of my beautiful baby Lucy, who I tragically lost back in 1998, but also on behalf of all the MPs in this place, women and men, who are not yet ready or able to stand and tell their story, as indeed I was not for so many years.

For almost 20 years I never spoke of my loss, and I never told anyone who did not know me back when it had happened, until I helped to set up the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss back in 2016, 11 years after I was first elected. That was along with a cross-party group of MPs, all of whom are no longer in this House, although Baroness Prentis of Banbury is now in the other place. I told them my story in the Tea Room, and I could point to the table that we sat around to share our stories through floods of tears. It was the first time I had spoken about it in any detail since it had happened two decades earlier. Baby loss was, and I think it may still be to a certain extent, the last great taboo that a lot of parents have to navigate their way through.

Not long thereafter, I was approached by one of the officers of the new all-party group regarding the private Member’s Bill introduced by the former Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, Tim Loughton. As those Members who were around at the time will remember, part of that Bill covered baby loss and the lack of any recognition for stillborn babies born before 24 weeks—what are, in law, still called late-term miscarriages. His private Member’s Bill tried to address this through what would become known as baby loss certificates. He had been approached by his constituents Hayley and Frazer, who gave birth to their son Samuel at 19 weeks. Tragically, he was stillborn, and they had been horrified to receive no official recognition and—even worse—to learn that their child was entered in the official records as a miscarriage, as indeed my Lucy was at 23 weeks and four days, just a few days short of the legal definition for recognition.

Tim also cited another tragic case, that of twins born either side of that 24-week threshold. One thankfully survived and was given a birth certificate, but the other—born just a day or so earlier on the wrong side of 24 weeks—tragically did not survive, received no official recognition, and was entered in the official records as a miscarriage. This felt grossly wrong to all those parents and to Tim, as it did to me and my husband when it happened to us. Tim set about trying to change the law, hence approaching me to see whether I would be brave enough to stand here—on the Opposition Benches as I was then—and tell my story, as it was so relevant to the case he was trying to make. Somehow, I managed to do it—it is all down on record for anyone to read or watch, so I will not repeat it today—and it involved an awful lot of tears. Those who have spoken today have somehow managed not to be in floods of tears. I did it, as lots of Members have done today, and I commend them all for sharing their heartbreaking stories. We should remember, though, that for every Member who bears witness in this Chamber, there are no doubt many more who are not yet ready to do so.

I was very proud of myself back in February 2018 to give mine and Lucy’s story in detail in that private Member’s Bill debate, and for my experience and Lucy’s all-too-brief life to perhaps have made a difference in helping to change the law and bring about the baby loss certificates, which are now much treasured by so many parents. It is something I am still very proud of.

After that debate and all the publicity it garnered, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt)—who was Health Secretary at the time, and who I pay tribute to for everything he did—set up an official Department of Health expert working group, which Tim and I sat on, to consult on what a change in the law would look like and how the baby loss certificates would work. I was very glad when in February 2024, just before the election, the last Government announced the roll-out of the first ever baby loss certificates.

As welcome as those certificates are, I worry that there are still some unintended consequences, as there often are when first enacting new policies. I have been contacted by Catherine, whose much-wanted baby died at 12 weeks. Through the grieving process, she found comfort in knowing that she would get a baby loss certificate for her son Matthew. However, when she applied for that certificate, she found that she was not able to add her partner’s name to it, as he was registered with a GP on the Scottish side of the border. While relationships across the English-Scottish border are not common, neither are they unheard of. Catherine asked me to ask the Secretary of State—I am very happy that he is in the Chamber in person tonight—what steps could be taken to enable both parents’ names to be included on baby loss certificates where those parents are registered with GPs in different countries in the UK. I am sure that what I have described is an anomaly, and I hope the Secretary of State will address it in his response.

Due to time, I will leave my remarks there, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your grace.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I appreciate the hon. Lady finishing her remarks. Members will have noticed that I indulged the hon. Lady, but unfortunately after the next speaker I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes so that I can get all Members in.

Hughes Report: First Anniversary

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the first anniversary of the Hughes report on valproate and pelvic mesh.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. It is a delight to see such a well-attended debate and a packed Public Gallery, as this is a very important topic. Last month marked the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Hughes report. Thanks to that report, we now understand what the potential compensation schemes for women and children impacted by the mesh and valproate scandals could look like.

I will briefly break convention to say how grateful I am for the passion and hard work of our Patient Safety Commissioner, Henrietta Hughes, who—gosh!—has not managed to get into the public Gallery. Somebody might want to tell her there is a spare chair. Can somebody make sure she is allowed in, because it is her report we are discussing? [Interruption.] There she is. I thank our wonderful Patient Safety Commissioner, who has thankfully now been let into the room.

It is great to see so many campaigners, who have been a great help and source of expertise and support to me over many years. I particularly thank Kath Sansom from Sling the Mesh, and Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the Independent Fetal Anti-convulsant Trust, or In-FACT, as well as many more—too many to name.

I am also glad to see Charlie and Lesley Bethune, who have tirelessly campaigned on behalf of their daughter, Autumn. They have travelled all the way down from Scotland. Their MP, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), cannot be here today, but he sends his sincere apologies. They would welcome an undertaking from the Minister and the UK Government to engage with those affected in Scotland, recognising that this is a UK-wide issue. Like so many others, they would also welcome progress on a response.

Every Member present will have a constituent who is affected by one of these health scandals. At least 7,000 children have been harmed by the drug valproate since it first came on to the market in 1973, with an estimated further 28 per month exposed to it, and at least 40,000 women across the country have been injured by mesh.

It is important to note that the actual figures are likely to be much higher due to a lack of awareness and many parents being reluctant to label their children. Putting an exact number on these things can therefore be extremely convoluted and difficult. Regardless, these are not just statistics: behind each number is the story of a woman who trusted a healthcare professional and was horrifyingly let down, a woman or a child who has been damaged irreversibly, a woman who has had to alter her life to accommodate for the physical, mental and financial toll of these scandals.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that any inquiry and report looks into the fact that the products that were used, particularly in the mesh scandal, were properly licensed for the procedures they were used for?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes, I agree. That is a huge part of the problem, especially with regard to medical devices. The Cumberlege report looked into the medications, but also medical devices, which is what mesh comes under. Often they are put into use for one thing and then used for something else without any further testing or investigation. I agree with the hon. Lady that that has got to stop.

After all that these women, families and children have been through, compensation would help at the very least pay to their bills if they cannot work any longer, or help to ease the constant worry about how their child will be able to survive independently when they are gone. I have a constituent impacted by her mesh implant who is unable to work—like most of those affected—and therefore cannot afford the day-to-day necessities. She is in constant pain, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and has lost all trust in medical professionals. Compensation would not reverse her physical or mental pain, but it would at least make her life easier. There are thousands just like her, including my very own mam, who is now aged 80. I have spoken in detail about her journey previously. The damage to her body and health from mesh is something she says she will regret to her dying day, which I hope is still many years off, even though mesh has ruined her long-awaited and hoped-for retirement by ruining her health.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She is making an excellent speech. My constituent Susan Cole is in the Public Gallery. Her daughter was affected by sodium valproate. It is now 14 months since the Hughes report was published. The time for the payment of compensation is now. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could provide interim compensation even if they do not have the timeline for implementing in full the measures in the Hughes report?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I commend him on all the work he does to represent his constituents. Interim payments were provided to victims of the contaminated blood scandal, as we know. Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner, has detailed how to do it in her report. I ask the Government to look at that in detail when considering their response.

If the Government are not moved by the moral case in respect of these health scandals, surely they cannot deny the economic toll they have taken on our public and mental health services. Although compensation would require finding money in what we all appreciate is a very tough fiscal situation, if we do nothing we will still need to find money: one payment will be given directly to the women and children harmed; if we do not do that, another will be have to be made for the provision of mental health services, for the NHS and for out-of-work benefits. We have a decision to make and, for me and the thousands of women and campaigners, the answer could not be simpler.

I know from conversations with campaigners and constituents that the Government’s recent announcement on personal independence payments and welfare reform have caused anxiety for mesh and valproate victims who rely on those payments to survive. It is vital that we understand that the physical complications and illness caused by mesh and valproate are going to be with them for life, so they should not be forced into work if they cannot work.

I spoke to the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) recently, and he told me about his constituent, Julie Robinson, and her family’s experience of sodium valproate. Julie’s daughter Samantha has been severely impacted by the epilepsy drug that was prescribed during Julie’s pregnancy. They both live in Market Weighton, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He sends his apologies and asked me to raise the case of his constituent.

I hope Members will allow me to list the seven complications Samantha has following the damage done to her by valproate while in uterus. She has neurodevelopment issues, including autism; memory difficulties; speech and language impairments; hearing and vision problems; heart defects requiring major surgery; a cleft lip and palate that led to a year in hospital; dysmorphic facial features at birth; and fine and gross motor challenges. It is quite a list. These conditions have significantly affected Samantha’s health and education and will persist throughout her life. There are thousands just like Samantha who will require lifelong care, which will also affect her parents’ ability to work.

If a person can never work again because of mesh or valproate, they deserve support and to be treated with dignity. If they want to try to work, they should never be penalised or forced to go through reassessments and put under excessive anxiety or fear if it does not work for them and their family. Even prior to the welfare announcements, I have long argued for better education and empathy from the Department for Work and Pensions when assessing mesh and valproate victims. I hear from constituents impacted by mesh, for example, who would rather struggle financially than go through the gruelling and dehumanising process of explaining their condition and trying to claim the benefits they are entitled to. There needs to be proper and effective education among DWP staff about these health scandals, so that assessments are humiliation-free and quick for these women.

While the valproate and mesh scandals differ in the specifics of the cases, the crux of them and the flags that they raise remain the same. Both affect women; both exemplify what happens when there is a lack of honesty and communication about the risks of medical procedures; and both highlight the need for increased transparency on the payments made to health professionals. They show the damage that is done when profit is put before people, when big firms avoid accountability and transparency and when—I have to say it—medical misogyny is allowed to run rife. I intend to emphasise those points, which I imagine colleagues will also touch on.

Let us consider the valproate scandal. If warnings had been given at licensing, or in 1987, when Sanofi asked for information to be added to the patient information leaflet, the women and children impacted by valproate would not be in this position. Likewise with mesh, if women had been properly informed about the risks of adverse effects rather than being fed a false image, as my mam was, of “In and out; a quick 20-minute procedure that will change your life”—boy, did it change her life, but not for the better—we would not have thousands of women harmed on an irreversible scale.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Before I became an MP, I specialised exclusively in dealing with compensation claims on behalf of women who had suffered from the use of vaginal mesh. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the mesh was sold to patients as a gold standard, and they were misled. Does she agree that a proper Government-backed compensation scheme will save the NHS money in the long run? As a solicitor, I was always conscious of the fact that, in pursuing these claims, it was ultimately the NHS that had to pay out the compensation and legal costs.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which perhaps nobody else but him would have been able to make in this debate, so I thank him for it, and I do agree.

The people harmed by mesh and valproate did nothing other than trust a medical professional’s judgment. The very least we should do is offer them compensation to help them navigate their now damaged lives, which they have had inflicted on them, most horrifyingly, by our very own NHS.

The fact that the victims of these scandals are mainly women is no coincidence. I have recently spoken in this place about medical misogyny in our healthcare system, and some colleagues here were in that debate. I said then—and I say it again—that had the thousands of women impacted by these scandals been men,

 “I do not believe that dismissal on such a scale would have occurred.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 499WH.]

We hear stories of women seeking advice from medical professionals, only to be told it is all in their head—that it is just their menstrual cycle or the menopause—or being gaslit into believing it must be anything other than the devices or medication they were prescribed.

Women not being listened to by medical professionals not only perpetuates structural misogyny; it endangers lives. It is so heartening to see so many male colleagues in this debate, because it proves that we can change things and that it does not have to be this way. Issuing compensation to these women would, at least and at last, confirm that they were right to be concerned and that they were not being hysterical—we know why it is called a “hysterectomy”—which is something women have been accused of for many hundreds of years when it comes to our health.

As well as medical misogyny, part of the defensiveness and dismissal stems from the huge sums given to the healthcare system by the industry, which creates bias. Knowing that that is the case is not enough: the UK needs to adopt sunshine legislation to ensure that this information is fully declared, in the same way that all of us in this room, as MPs, have to make declarations. That information should be presented via a centralised public database that is totally independent of industry. As we all know, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we need to act now to prevent future scandals.

I am conscious of time, and colleagues will have a lot to say and experiences to share, so I will end my remarks by leaving the Minister with a few quick questions—sorry, Minister. Will she provide Members and campaigners here today, and the no doubt many victims of these scandals watching at home on the internet, with a timeline for when we can expect a Government response to the excellent Hughes report? If she is unable to do that today, will she commit to writing to Baroness Merron to ask for a timeframe?

Will the Minister explain what scope there is for the Government to implement a sunshine-style piece of legislation to ensure the transparency of payments made by industry to our healthcare sector? In the spirit of cross-departmental working, which I know the Government are committed to, will she write to the Work and Pensions Secretary for reassurance that victims of the valproate and mesh scandals will not be subject to reassessment and forced into work, given their physical and mental complications? Finally, in her new role, will she commit to meeting campaigners, many of whom are here today, to hear at first hand about the valproate and mesh scandals, if she did not do that in her previous role as a Back-Bench MP?

I thank the Minister in advance for her consideration, and I look forward to her answers. I will end with this: we have rightly seen compensation for the infected blood scandal, which I mentioned at the start of my remarks, the Post Office scandal and the Grenfell disaster. Those all involved innocent people whose lives were turned upside down, whether physically, mentally or worse, through no fault of their own. I fail to see how the mesh and valproate scandals do not meet the same criteria, and I encourage anyone opposed to compensation to consider that.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. At this stage, there are a lot of you to get in, so we are limiting speeches to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I sincerely thank everyone who has made the time to come along and speak on this most vital issue. They have all made such valuable contributions to this debate, and it is really heartening for me to hear such a great degree of consensus across the House that there is a wrong to be righted and that this new Labour Government have the opportunity to do just that.

There are so many hon. Members who would have liked to be here today. Indeed, while I was on my feet, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) messaged to send his apologies, so I said I would make sure that was on the record. I thank the Minister; the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans); and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for listening and for their intelligent contributions. There is so much expertise on this issue across the House. If we cannot get this sorted, nobody can.

I am particularly pleased that the Minister apologised on behalf of the Government again so fully and movingly. She actually moved me to tears—I do not know about anybody else—but I am a bit soft in that regard. I hope she will agree to meet campaigners to continue this conversation, as I know Baroness Merron has done in the other place. I am sure that everyone watching both from the Public Gallery and at home will have appreciated the empathy and the understanding that the Minister has shown in this debate.

With a new Government, we have new opportunities and the chance to make a real difference to the thousands of women and children who were wronged through no fault of their own. We have all the information we need, thanks to the amazing Baroness Cumberlege and our fantastic Patient Safety Commissioner, to ensure that such scandals never happen again and that families are given compensation to help to rebuild their lives. We now have to act, as Members have said. I hope that this debate has highlighted to the Minister the urgency of that—I am sure that it has—and that she will have the conversations required to make this happen so that these wrongs can be righted at last and as soon as possible.

If Members are willing, I ask that they gather at the bottom of the stairs outside this Chamber to join campaigners for a photo to mark this occasion, and to spend a few moments talking to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the first anniversary of the Hughes report on valproate and pelvic mesh.

Women’s Health

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate, and for her excellent opening speech. There are so many things that I want to talk about, but for time’s sake, I will focus my remarks around the importance of women being believed by healthcare professionals, and the detrimental effect on women when that is not the case.

The UK has the largest female health gap in the G20, and that is attributed in part to the misdiagnosis of conditions in women. It is absolutely shocking that eight in 10 women in this country report not being listened to by healthcare professionals. Those discrepancies extend beyond the confinement of the consulting room; they actively reinforce beliefs among wider society that women’s symptoms, no matter how debilitating, are normal. That is likely to prevent so many women from seeking medical advice, ultimately putting them at risk. Therefore, that widespread problem does not just perpetuate systemic misogyny but directly impacts women’s health outcomes and endangers their lives.

Published in August 2022, the 10-year women’s health strategy for England included a six-point plan on how to improve health outcomes and the way that the healthcare system listens to women. No. 1 on the list was to ensure that women’s voices are heard. In the month of the first anniversary of the publication of the excellent Hughes report, there is no better time to speak on an apt example of what happens when women’s voices are not heard. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on first do no harm, mesh, Primodos, valproate, I campaigned for justice and compensation on behalf of the thousands of women who live with the consequences every day of what happens when women’s voices are not listened to. The mesh scandal in particular exemplifies that perfectly.

To set the scene, it is believed that 40,000 women in this country could be affected by mesh damage and complications, and 10,000 of those women have been left with disabilities, as the mesh has cut into their organs and nerves. I hear from mesh-impacted constituents who describe desperate situations of poverty, depression and isolation as a result. Many have lost their jobs, their marriages and their trust in a service that is supposed to be there for us when we are sick, not make us sick.

Perhaps even worse was the treatment of those women when they realised that it was the mesh that was causing their health complications. The women then report being gaslit, undermined and ridiculed when trying to sort out a mess they had no part in making, or even consenting to in most cases. Among the thousands of mesh-injured women is my own mam. I personally sat next to her at our local hospital and watched her be gaslit and undermined by her original surgeon when she first sought help with her pain and symptoms. Despite now having had her mesh removed by the wonderful Dr Suzy Elneil in London, the complications sadly do not stop there.

The way mesh attaches to our organs has been likened to the way that chewing gum gets caught in our hair, so it is almost impossible to fully remove it. As such, regardless of the removal, my mam, now 80, is still struggling and in her own words, will never be the same again. The important point is that had my mam and the thousands of others affected been men suffering horrendous pain as a result of a medical procedure, I do not believe that dismissal on such a scale would have occurred. Nor do I believe that compensation and recognition of the scandal would be such a painfully slow process.

Before I finish, I put on record my gratitude to my friend who recently retired from the other place, Baroness Cumberlege, for all her work on this issue. I will leave it there, as I am out of time.

National Cancer Plan

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and will ask my officials to look into it. I am very keen that we maximise the latest advances in technology, genomics, life sciences and research to ensure that we identify people who are at risk of cancer, preferably before they develop cancer, so that we can get them on appropriate treatments where necessary and they avoid the pain and misery that cancer can bring.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

On this World Cancer Day, will my hon. Friend the public health Minister tell me what efforts he is making to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer, such as a bloated tummy, lack of appetite or feeling full, tummy pain or needing to pee more often, in order to increase lifesaving early diagnosis?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done on ovarian cancer since becoming an MP. She knows—the rest of the House might not—that I lost my mum to ovarian cancer. I was 19 when my mum died and she was only 50—my age today. She had a late diagnosis. They basically opened her up to perform a hysterectomy and the cancer had spread all the way through her body. They sewed her back up and she died at the end of a hospital ward two days later in pain and agony. Having awareness of those symptoms is so important. My mum was fobbed off by her GP, because she worked in a shop and lifted boxes. She had a bad back and was bloated and so on. The GP said it was down to her work, rather than erring on the side of caution and getting her checked out. We must ensure that women today are heard by GPs and, more importantly, that we err on the side of caution and get people on to treatment.

Auditory Verbal Therapy

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of auditory verbal therapy.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this fine morning, Mr Western. I thank all hon. Members, especially the new Members, who have come along to speak in this all-important debate, which I have the privilege of opening. I thank the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for attending.

I am delighted to see in the Gallery Sam and his parents, whom I met when I sponsored Auditory Verbal UK’s parliamentary drop-in back in October last year—how time flies! At that reception, I was talking to Sam and some of the other young people there, and I asked whether any deaf children had come along, only to be told that all the children I had been talking to were actually deaf, including Sam. That is the difference this therapy can make, and why I am so passionately supporting and making this case today.

Sam was diagnosed as being profoundly deaf at five weeks old. It was not until Auditory Verbal UK was recommended to Sam’s parents by a friend of a friend, by chance, that his fate changed forever. With the help of auditory verbal therapy, Sam learned to listen and talk just like his peers. Now 13 years old, Sam can speak and do anything he puts his mind to. He is doing really well at school, I am told, and will enjoy the same opportunities as his hearing friends.

For children like Sam, Auditory Verbal UK has been life-changing. Its specialist work and support provided to deaf children and their families is truly remarkable. I am therefore glad to also see representatives from AVUK here today. They will always have my support and should be very proud of the work they do.

Sam stands today as living proof that when deaf children and their families have access to early, effective support to develop language and communication, opportunities are transformed. If the Government, or anyone here or watching at home, need convincing of the clear, compelling and existing evidence of the benefits of auditory verbal therapy, they have only to look to children like Sam.

Although all deaf children would benefit extraordinarily from auditory verbal therapy, the truth is that they will not all be as lucky as Sam. The current reality is that more than 90% of deaf children under the age of five in the UK are unable to access auditory verbal therapy, because there is little to no provision through publicly funded services. Currently, there are a mere 33 certified auditory verbal therapists in the UK. It is clear that these wonderful therapists, who hold the potential to transform the lives of our deaf children, are sadly few and far between.

In the whole of the north-east, there are no qualified auditory verbal therapists. Deaf children in my constituency of Washington and Gateshead South, for example, are unable to access this support through publicly funded services. This postcode-lottery approach to healthcare is simply unacceptable. This is the situation in spite of public research that shows that a huge 83% of adults from the north-east believe that auditory verbal therapy should be available to all deaf children via publicly funded services. We know the therapy works and that there is public support for its roll-out throughout the country, so what are we waiting for?

Raising awareness that support is out there is just the first hurdle, because if impacted families are aware of the therapy but have no qualified therapists in their area, their challenges persist. Even Sam’s journey from discovering auditory verbal therapy to completing it was far from smooth sailing. With no access to the therapy via public services local to him, he and his family had to travel weekly to Oxfordshire from Eastbourne so that they could access this life-changing therapy. Not all deaf children and their families can afford the privilege of time or money to go to such lengths every week, as much as they may want to. Certainly, not all deaf children have the privilege of having a qualified therapist in their area, which is a clear problem. We absolutely need to address that inequality of access.

To extend access, we need to train more specialist practitioners in auditory verbal therapy. By equipping a small proportion of the speech and language therapists, audiologists and teachers of the deaf who are currently working in the public sector with additional skills in this approach, we can enable every family who wants their deaf child to learn to listen and talk to access auditory verbal therapy through publicly funded services close to where they live.

Training is already happening, with UK professionals already qualified and others on their training journey. This is possible only thanks to the fundraising efforts of the charity Auditory Verbal UK, including two teachers of the deaf in the north-east who remain in training. There is a clear route for professionals to become trained in auditory verbal therapy, as well as a cohort of public sector professionals who can then share their experience of training and how it has enhanced their practice. Research points towards the fact that as a result of pursuing the training and qualifying as listening and spoken language specialists, professionals recognise significant growth in their knowledge and skills, equipping them to train others who can then do the same—the “train the trainers” model.

There are around 50,000 deaf children in the UK, and 7,200 of them are under the age of five. They currently face the prospect of lower academic achievement and employment, and they are at a higher risk of poor mental health, bullying and social exclusion. Deaf children are almost twice as likely as all children to complete their first year of school without having achieved a good level of development in relation to the early years foundation. The statistics clearly highlight a stark difference between hearing and non-hearing peers in quality of life, educational attainment, employment rates and mental wellbeing.

If the moral argument is not convincing enough, surely no one can deny the huge economic returns. Economic analysis based on His Majesty’s Treasury guidelines shows that an investment of just £2 million per year for the next 10 years for training a proportion of the existing public sector workforce could deliver a whopping £152 million of economic benefit to the UK. That is a massive £11.7 billion over a 50-year period.

The economic savings are huge, including £3.4 billion through less need for one-to-one support throughout primary school; £1 billion of increased employment; £4 billion due to increased quality of life; a £7.5 million decrease in Government support; and £30.5 million saved through avoided injury. It is a small economic investment that will transform the lives of some of the most vulnerable children in this country, while also bringing us huge economic returns. Surely this is a no-brainer.

So long as the UK remains unconvinced, we are falling behind as other countries trailblaze the way. Auditory verbal therapy is already state-funded in countries including Australia, New Zealand and Denmark, and the success rates speak volumes. In 2022, following a successful Government-funded pilot in Denmark that showed that 84% of children acquired age-equivalent spoken language after just three years of AVT, compared with 30% previously, auditory verbal therapy became part of the standard healthcare system there. The irony is that here in the UK we are now training many Danish professionals in AV therapy to deliver it to children in Denmark, despite being unable to support our own workforce to enhance their skills to get those outcomes for children here in the UK. That cannot be right.

I thank the Minister for his time and leave him with three questions. First, what scope is there for the UK to implement a pilot scheme, in the same way that Denmark did, at least to prove the transformation potential of this therapy in a couple of areas, for those who remain unconvinced? Secondly, will he commit to supporting the need to increase access to auditory verbal therapy, and provide the investment needed when the funding allows? Thirdly, will he meet the deaf children and families charity Auditory Verbal UK, from which representatives are here today, to hear at first hand about the impact of early support, and the charity’s tangible plans to enable families to access the therapy wherever they live in the UK?

I thank the Minister in advance and look forward to hearing the other speakers. I look forward to the Minister’s response after he has listened to colleagues’ perspectives in this very important debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend will know that one of the constant challenges in the system is getting the right balance between empowering those operating at the coalface—those who are close to the communities and know them best—to ensure they are delivering the best possible services, and ensuring consistency and coherence, both strategic and operational, across the entire system. It is safe to say that we are not always getting that balance right. One of the key objectives of the 10-year planning process that we are going through will be to address the so-called postcode lottery—variation between regions—across the whole range of health and care. Without that cross-cutting strategic look at the system, it will not be possible to get the balance right. I absolutely take the point, but one thing I will say is that we are crystal clear when we issue guidance to ICBs that they must take that guidance into account, and their performance is monitored on that basis.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Am I right in thinking, from what the Minister has just said, that he will issue revised guidance following today’s debate? Am I right that the Government, having given an extra £26 billion to local areas, will give them guidance that they should be looking to commission these services on a much bigger scale, so that we have more than 33 AVT therapists?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that this is a very dynamic situation. A system never stands still. For a system to work, we have to be constantly reviewing its performance and whether it is delivering to its objectives. I believe that the 10-year plan that we are producing will absolutely lead to a radical rewiring of the way our health and care system works. It will be driven by three big shifts: from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention, and from analogue to digital.

There is no doubt at all that where there are therapies and treatments that are working—that are clearly delivering big results, and value for money for the taxpayer—it is right that we give those priority in the way that we deliver. It is clear that AVT has huge potential, and it appears to have unexplored potential. I cannot pre-empt today how this is all going to pan out in terms of the system and the reforms that we are looking to push forward, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to innovating and to building a system that is fit for the future.

In 2019, with input from the National Deaf Children’s Society, NHS England produced a guide for commissioners and providers who support children and young people with hearing loss. The guide provides practical advice on ensuring that non-hearing children receive the support they need. Auditory verbal therapy is one type of therapy to support children with hearing loss, and it is important that local commissioners know their population and have the discretion to decide how best to meet its needs. When it comes to commissioning and providing services for children with hearing loss, we have been crystal clear with ICBs and NHS trusts that they must take the relevant guidelines into account.

We recognise the real need to improve access to therapies for all children who need them, including children with hearing loss. In recent years, in very difficult circumstances, the NHS has increased the number of speech and language therapists working in the service, but we know that more needs to be done. That is why the Government are committed to fixing the NHS and building a service that is fit for the future, with the workforce it needs to get patients seen on time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank everyone who has taken the time to come along and made such excellent contributions on this vital issue. I thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who spoke for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who spoke for the Lib Dems, for listening.

I was happy to hear that the Minister will meet AVUK and explore the potential of a pilot. That is great news. I hope that he might also get a chance to speak to Sam today—that would be wonderful. I also hope that, if NICE deems—as we all have—that this therapy is both clinically and economically valuable, he will update the guidance to ICBs. The Minister also mentioned the NHS 10-year plan. I hope he recognises that it has already been nine years since the guidance was updated and that the issue needs urgent attention, perhaps towards the start of the 10-year plan rather than the end of it; otherwise, we will be getting on for 20 years.

Today, we have the opportunity—the Minister especially—to change the fate of deaf children in this country. They deserve the same opportunities and outcomes as their hearing peers. That surely cannot be a controversial position. These children are the future. We must invest in them, not only because it is the right thing to do morally, but because any financial investment will produce economic returns in abundance. Mainly, we should invest in them because our children deserve it.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I also thank Sam and his family for attending this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the provision of auditory verbal therapy.

Obesity: Food and Diet

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate, and I am so happy to have the opportunity to speak in it. I commend the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who I have worked with over a number of years, for his excellent speech. It is always really hard to talk about oneself, but he did it with grace. Listening to his really thoughtful contribution today will have helped a lot of people—it has definitely helped me.

As hon. Members know, I am a huge supporter of school food. I make lots of contributions about it in this place; I believe that it should be universal, for all the reasons that I will go on to discuss. It is not only about stigma, poverty alleviation and all of that, but about the health benefits that all children eating healthy school food would bring, especially in regard to their diet and obesity.

Looking at schools up and down the country, the food that they serve is far too inconsistent. We have seen some brilliant examples across the country—we have all visited schools in our constituencies that serve a variety of salads and nutritious hot meals—but others are serving things like pizzas, burgers or chips far more often than they should be doing under the school food standards. That is damaging the health of a generation.

The report by the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, chaired by the wonderful Baroness Walmsley, discussed the fact that too many secondary schools in particular were serving up food that was not preparing students for the rest of their school day. As Members across the House know, this is where the school food standards should come in. However, a study by Impact on Urban Health shows significant differences between what is mandated by the school food standards, what appears on menus, and what actually ends up on plates. In fact, 60% of secondary schools have been found not to follow the school food standards at all. In other words, the school food standards exist on paper, but not on plates. That is why, across the sector and in this House, we have been calling for proper enforcement of the school food standards. This Government must end the postcode lottery in what children get to eat at lunchtime.

There is no greater priority for this Government than raising the healthiest generation of children ever. This is a matter of health: one in three children are already at risk of future food-related ill health, such as type 2 diabetes or heart disease, by the age of 10. Existing Government initiatives are already going above and beyond to combat that, and providing a free breakfast to every primary school child will ensure that pupils are starting their day nourished and ready to learn, but there is more to be done.

The Department for Education has reported that 11% of families nationally who are entitled to claim free school meals have not applied to receive them. This means that between 240,000 and 470,000 children in England—the figure seems to vary depending on who you talk to, but it is a large number—are missing out on their statutory right to a free school meal. This is due to barriers such as complex applications, language or literacy challenges, stigma and low awareness.

An auto-enrolment plan, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) in his private Member’s Bill—the Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) in his opening speech, would solve the problem. Many local authorities have already had massive success, but data-sharing challenges or bureaucracy should not prevent children from eating at school, especially when they are entitled to a free school meal.

Because free school meals are a statutory scheme, Government funding should already exist to provide the up to 470,000 missing children with a school lunch, so this should not be seen as a spending commitment. That funding also unlocks vital pupil premium funding. Since 2016, Sheffield city council has unlocked £3.8 million of extra pupil premium funding every single year to support 5,400 children. Small tweaks like auto-enrolment really can have huge impacts on thousands of children’s lives.

Another concern that must be addressed is the scarily low eligibility criteria for free school meals. Households must be earning less than £7,400 a year before benefits to be entitled. That leaves out up to 900,000 children who are living in poverty by any measure but are not in receipt of that crucial support. We have heard examples of children pretending to eat from empty lunchboxes, hiding in the playground because they do not want others to know that they do not have any food or money for lunch, or asking their friends for an extra sandwich for their friend who never has any food for lunch. We must bring the eligibility criteria in line with universal credit, which would provide those 900,000 children with a hot, nutritious meal at lunchtime. Surely that is the least we should be doing in one of the richest countries in the world.

In an ideal world, we would follow the example of the London Mayor and extend free school meals to all primary-age children, with the ambition of a universal offer. This would level the playing field and eliminate inequality at lunchtime, while also ensuring that all children eat healthy, nutritious meals, setting them up for a healthier life as adults with lower rates of obesity. As we have heard, that would save up to £35 billion a year. It is a win-win, surely.

These progressive steps, empowered by the new breakfast club programme, should be taken when funding allows. The results would speak for themselves, delivering on our ambitious manifesto commitment for the UK to be raising the healthiest generation of children ever. Surely they deserve no less. They are our future, after all.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate, and I am very happy to be called to speak on such an important issue.

As chair of the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group, I am very interested in the need for MHRA reform in the context of the mesh, Primodos and valproate scandals. However, for time’s sake, I will focus my remarks on MHRA reform and the mesh scandal in particular, not least because the right hon. Lady opened the debate so well, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) will speak about the Primodos scandal and I do not want to steal any of her thunder.

I want to start by paying tribute to all the campaigners we have worked with over so many years on the “First Do No Harm” report scandal, especially Kath Sanson from Sling the Mesh, Marie Lyon, who has been mentioned, from the Primodos campaign, and Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the valproate campaign. I also must pay tribute to Baroness Cumberlege, who recently retired from the other place, who was the author of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review and the former co-chair of the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group. She has been a great support to me over the years. Thanks to her invaluable hard work highlighting key recommendations to prevent future health scandals, including vital MHRA reform, we know what we need to do. Now we must get on with the job.

As we have heard, colleagues here today are in agreement that the MHRA is in need of urgent and substantial reform. One area in particular is the need for mandatory reporting of adverse events to the yellow card by healthcare professionals. Contrary to responses I received when I asked questions on the topic in the House, which argue that the current system works, it does not. It is broken. Let me be clear: the current voluntary system, which doctors enjoy, enabling them to choose whether to log side effects and complications to the MHRA yellow card, is simply unacceptable. This voluntary system has led to many adverse events going unreported. The system must be made mandatory, but that fix alone will not work if the data is there but is not used. The information must be tracked and assessed in real time by the MHRA, to spot trends of harm so that treatments can be stopped immediately if needed, to prevent the repetition of mistakes and, in turn, to prevent their escalation into further health scandals, as we have seen with mesh, valproate and Primodos.

Comparison of datasets conducted by Sling the Mesh found that a whopping two thirds of mesh complications —some as serious as slicing into bladders, bowels or through vaginal walls—were not logged by healthcare professionals to the MHRA yellow card. If these excruciating examples are not interpreted by healthcare professionals as worthy of reporting, what reason do we have to trust that healthcare treatments are safe? We need to see the MHRA at the heart of patient safety, properly and efficiently regulating and recording and not just nodding treatments through like a tick-box exercise.

Mesh, for example, was allowed from the 1990s onwards on the basis that it was equivalent to hernia mesh. Without any post-market surveillance by the MHRA, it was allowed to be aggressively sold, free rein, in the UK. This ultimately led to thousands of women, including my very own mam, being irreversibly harmed. Had reporting been mandatory, the sheer scale of women impacted could have at least been reduced through spotting a clear pattern of harm and putting a stop to it. It is clear that we need to change the current system, and fast.

Most of the scandals we are talking about today affect women, so women’s voices must be taken seriously. We should not have to wait until media coverage publicly shames health scandals or documentaries force account-ability and answers upon us. The MHRA needs to be functioning and not just responding to treatments causing harm, but regulating and preventing them in the first place. Surely this is the absolute least we should expect from a regulation agency that is supposed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of patients and the medicines and medical devices that they receive—hence: first do no harm.

Health and Social Care: Winter Update

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

May I ask Members to keep their questions and answers sharp, please?

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

Under the last Conservative Government, strikes cost the taxpayer millions of pounds and 1.5 million appointments were cancelled, so may I thank the Secretary of State sincerely for making it his day one priority to sort that out? He called the junior doctors and found a deal within three weeks, ending the strikes. All of us across the House thank him for sorting that out. For the first winter in three years, staff will be on the frontline, not the picket line, as the Secretary of State so rightly said. Does he agree that that is just one example of what Labour Governments do in office? We always have a laser focus on making the NHS better, unlike the Conservatives, who seem to have a laser focus on making it fail.

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The way that Conservative Members continue to behave should send a message to every resident doctor, and indeed every member of health and social care staff, in the country. Every single one of them will know that thanks to the decision the country took back in July, we have a Government who are committed to the NHS and social care. Had the Conservatives remained in power, we would be going even deeper into the already deep hole that they left the country in. We must never go back there again.