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.

Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

Do you want to give some guidance on how long is left, Mr Stringer, so I can cut my speech accordingly?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats at 2.30 pm.

[Mrs Hodgson]

In the short time I have available, I will try to make some important points. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for first do no harm—along with Baroness Cumberlege, who it is a pleasure to see in the Public Gallery—it is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I also point out how many officers of the all-party group are here in the Chamber, on a Thursday and on a one-line Whip. That speaks for itself as to how important the issue is to the House and to all of us. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate to shed further light on this still under-discussed scandal.

Members present, campaigners watching at home, and especially patients, will all be aware of the extent of the injustice. I have had the privilege of working with wonderful campaigners over many years, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Kath Sansom from Sling the Mesh, who is a key campaigner for mesh victims and has been a great support to me and to colleagues over the years. I am glad that she is in the Public Gallery to watch the debate, alongside Debbie, who is the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, and who brought this scandal to his attention.

My first contribution in this House on surgical mesh was in 2017, during my time as shadow Minister for Public Health, and I am glad to see the actual Minister for Public Health and Prevention in his place to hear this debate. I have continued to campaign tirelessly on the issue through debates and my work with the all-party group ever since.

The issue is not only of political importance to me; it matters to me on a profoundly personal level. As I am sure some in the Chamber will know, among the thousands of women affected by mesh complications is my mam, who was one of the 617 mesh-damaged women who met, or made submissions to, Baroness Cumberlege for her review. I took my mam along to an evidence session in Gateshead, and she was able to meet Baroness Cumberlege and tell her story personally. She still talks about that to this day—she is very grateful.

After suffering mild stress incontinence, as we have heard from a number of people who went through the procedure, my mam had SUI surgery to have some tension-free vaginal tape inserted, which was a quick and common treatment offered to women for incontinence. However, had she known the life-limiting complications she was about to suffer as a result, dealing with slight stress incontinence would not have seemed very bad at all.

Two to three years post-surgery, my mam had one health complication after another. She suffered all sorts of autoimmune reactions, recurrent urinary tract infections, and was in constant pain in her groin, arms and legs. She became a shadow of her former self, and it took us quite a few years to work out what was causing the symptoms and pain. It was only through my research for that debate back in 2017 as the shadow Minister that I was able to join the dots together, and from that moment on we both wished constantly that she had never had the operation.

My mam will be 80 in January, and she would say that she is one of the lucky ones. Since I first spoke on the topic, she has been able to get the mesh surgically removed. It was a long delicate operation, thankfully carried out by the amazing Suzy Elneil, which she had to undertake in London in order to avoid the surgeon who put it in her in the first place—something that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and others have spoken about. That is something that many mesh-damaged women will understand. With the removal of the mesh, many of her health complications vanished immediately. The road to recovery is far from smooth for many mesh-damage victims, however, and my mam is no exception. She is still recovering to this day and, in her words,

“will never be the same again.”

I sat next to my mam at her local hospital and watched her be gaslit and undermined by her original surgeon when she first sought help with her pain and symptoms. Our doctors, surgeons and healthcare providers are meant to protect us, not harm us. Hence, “first do no harm”—an unwritten contract between patients and healthcare providers that rightly makes us feel that when we seek medical help, we trust that we will be made better, not worse. Surely the least we can expect in cases where harm does happen is accountability and for wrongs to be righted. Instead, we see a culture of defensiveness and a lack of accountability. It is therefore shocking that the surgeons responsible for the implantation of this life-shattering mesh are the very same people tasked with removing it.

I was going to talk about Baroness Cumberlege’s recommendations—which we have had success with and which we have not—but sadly the right hon. Member for New Forest East used up all the time, so I cannot.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing today’s debate. We are here because four years after being published, the Cumberlege review has not been implemented and there is still no redress scheme. I will turn in more detail to the progress made on those recommendations, but first I pay tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned so hard for so long to be heard, for their experiences to be taken seriously, to receive some sort of justice, and to know that the same harm will not be done to others. Some of them are in the Public Gallery today and I thank them for their tireless campaigning.

I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), when he was Health and Social Care Secretary, and to the former Member for Maidenhead, when she was Prime Minister, for commissioning the review in the first place in February 2018. Baroness Cumberlege has never stopped giving voice to those she encountered during the two years she led that review. She has gone to great lengths to keep this issue on the agenda. She is due to retire shortly and we will miss her. I would like to say how grateful I am, as I know others will be, not just for her advocacy on this issue but for her encouragement and support of hon. Members in this place to do the same. If I may be so bold, Baroness Cumberlege has played her part. It is now up to us in this place to hold this new Government to account and to ensure that her recommendations are implemented in full.

Let us not forget that the Cumberlege review was called “First Do No Harm”, because at its centre are people who suffered avoidable harm—harm done to them by our health system. I was first introduced to this issue by my constituent Carol. I have shared her story before and remain in awe of her dignity and desire to help others despite having experienced the most devastating medical trauma. She needed her MP to help her get a visa for the United States for urgent medical treatment during the pandemic because of the travel restrictions that hon. Members will remember. She had undergone a hysteropexy and a rectopexy using surgical mesh.

Instead of resolving Carol’s pelvic organ prolapse, the procedures left her with a serious autoimmune disease, struggling to walk and unable to continue her normal daily life. She had to take long-term sick leave from her job as a doctor and could not remember a day without pain. When she contacted me for help with her visa, she was seriously unwell and had been told that she urgently needed her mesh removed or her prognosis was not good. We managed to get her the visa she needed. She is now mesh-free following a successful removal, and she is the first person in England to have undergone successful rectal mesh removal. She is still suffering, but is no longer in the same danger that she was. She is clear that she was able to look outside the NHS and the UK only because her medical training and personal resources enabled her to find Dr Veronikis, who treated her successfully. I should say at this point that there needs to be more awareness of rectopexy mesh, which affects men, women and children.

Carol and others like her were given hope when the Cumberlege review was initiated, and again when it was published in July 2020 with its nine recommendations. I am sorry that to say that not enough progress has been made on those recommendations since. The reality is that only two of the nine recommendations have been implemented in full. The first was an apology, which was given as soon as the report was published. The second was to establish the office of the Patient Safety Commissioner.

Beyond that, things have stalled. Recommendations 3 and 4 called for an independent redress agency, and for redress schemes to be established for all three interventions. After originally rejecting those two recommendations, the Health Minister at the time asked the Patient Safety Commissioner in late 2022 to look at the options for providing redress for those who had been harmed by mesh and valproate. The commissioner’s report—the Hughes report—was published in February. I was present at its launch, and it really felt like a milestone; it felt as though progress had been made. Surely the Department would not commission that work if it had no intention of following through on a redress scheme.

That was in February this year. By the summer, when the election was called, the previous Government were still saying that they would respond to the report, so they never gave a formal response. To date, there has been no official response from the new Government to the Hughes report. In the words of the Patient Safety Commissioner:

“it is now urgent for the government to give those families some clarity. Many of them live with pressing financial hardship, as well as physical pain and disability…we must not compound the physical and mental harms experienced by these families by setting and raising false expectations if there is no intention to deliver on redress.”

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for covering the recommendations, which I was not able to do. That has relieved me somewhat. We have at last seen some compensation for the victims of Windrush, the infected blood scandal and the Horizon scandal. Does she agree that it is incumbent on the Government to treat this scandal with the same seriousness, fully accept recommendation 4 and put the redress scheme in place?

[Sarah Green]

I could not agree more. This is where I must pick up Carol’s story again. She tried to pursue her claim against her original surgeons through the courts, and she hit on an unexpected problem. She approached multiple legal firms who would not take her case because one or both of the surgeons were advising them on other cases and, as such, it would have been a conflict of interest. Indeed, the same surgeon who caused Carol life-changing injuries acted as an expert witness in an unrelated surgical mesh negligence case. The judge in that case said:

“he had cherry-picked those parts of the evidence which were supportive of the Defendant’s case and did not comment on those parts which were consistent to the Claimant’s. That is not the correct approach to be taken by an independent expert, whose duty is to the court. His evidence lacked balance and was unpersuasive.”

On this occasion, the judge called it out, but that is not the only instance of the medical profession closing ranks—it is not a unique occurrence. Such clear bias and conflicts of interest are a huge barrier to justice for mesh victims around the country.

The point of recommendation 3 in the Cumberlege review was to establish a non-adversarial avenue for redress after someone has been harmed in a healthcare setting. Both the Hughes report and, more recently, the Darzi report found that the current clinical negligence system is difficult for patients to navigate and prevents the healthcare system from learning from its mistakes. It is also eye-wateringly expensive for the taxpayer. If it is the dead hand of the Treasury blocking a redress scheme, Ministers would do well to reflect on that. As the Patient Safety Commissioner points out, the clinical negligence system is behind only nuclear disarmament and pensions on the list of liabilities on the Government’s balance sheet. I must ask the Minister when the Department will respond to the options outlined in the Hughes report, and when families can expect to see redress schemes up and running.

Recommendation 5 relates to the establishment of mesh centres around the country, and while such centres have been established, they get mixed reports from patients. My question on the mesh centres is about their outcomes. How is the Department ensuring a consistent service across them all, and how are outcomes being measured? With so many people reporting dissatisfaction with the centres, it is not enough that they exist; they need to be working well for the patients they are there to serve. Recommendation 6 relates to the MHRA, and it is clear that we still need the yellow card reporting system to improve. I would also welcome the Minister’s thoughts on progress against recommendation 7, which is about creating a central patient-identifiable database. To my understanding, it is still a work in progress.

The previous Government’s decision not to take forward the eighth recommendation, which is for a mandatory register, is disappointing. The recommendation called for

“Transparency of payments made to clinicians”

and

“mandatory reporting for pharmaceutical and medical device industries of payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions and individual clinicians.”

I fail to understand why more progress has not been made on that. I know that campaigners have written to the Department asking it to consider a sunset Act that speaks to that recommendation, and I urge the Minister to chase a response to them.

Preventable Baby Loss

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate and for his moving opening speech. My thanks also go to Bliss for the briefing that it provided.

This is an incredibly important debate for me and, I have no doubt, for all of us here today. As some Members will know, I—like many others here today, sadly—have experienced the devastation of baby loss. Having not spoken about my experience of baby loss until 2016, 11 years after I became an MP, I know how difficult this can be to talk about openly. I want to thank all colleagues for being here, some of whom have personal motivations, as we have heard.

I want to tell you a little bit about my daughter Lucy and about my experience of baby loss. My daughter Lucy was born at 23 and a half weeks, and sadly she was stillborn. Her heart beat throughout my labour until just minutes before she was born. The experience of giving birth to a stillborn child is incredibly traumatic, as we have heard and as I have spoken about previously. It feels weird that the world around you is not responding as it would if you had given birth to a live baby. I felt that I made everyone around me, or anyone I met, feel very uncomfortable: it is one of the last taboos, as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) spoke about. No one knows what to say to you when you have lost a baby or given birth to a stillborn baby—it is everyone’s worst nightmare—so I did not talk about it, and I certainly did not tell anyone new to my life who had not known me before I lost Lucy. When I became an MP in 2005, it took me until 2016 to actually talk about it in this place, or to anyone from my post-baby-loss life.

What compounded this grief was the fact that Lucy did not receive a birth or death certificate. Even more upsettingly, in my records it was not recorded as a stillbirth; it was recorded as a miscarriage. Because she was just days away from being 24 weeks, she was three or four days short of the required legal age to be eligible for a death certificate. Because of that, she does not officially exist in any official records other than our own family records.

We did name Lucy during a blessing in a private room, which I was moved to after she was born, when I had to give birth in the maternity ward among all the live babies. She was then taken to the chapel of rest and we held a very small funeral service for her, organised by the chaplain at the hospital and the Co-op, which funded everything. I will be forever grateful for that: it meant a lot at the time and still does. The acknowledgment of Lucy’s existence that they provided us with was truly invaluable, particularly when it had been denied to us by the lack of a death or a birth certificate.

After my experience, I knew things had to change, even though I could not talk about it for a long time. Alongside the former Members Will Quince, Antoinette Sandbach and Victoria Prentis—some of us here will remember Victoria, who left the House at the last election—I became one of the founding members of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss in 2016. I am pleased that the APPG is still going; I hope it gets reformed. It has become a vehicle for making great progress with regard to baby loss, in particular for securing bereavement suites across the country, improved patient pathways and better recording of data, among many more improvements. Still more are needed, sadly.

I then became one of only two MPs on the pregnancy loss review, alongside our former colleague Tim Loughton, following his private Member’s Bill. The review’s work resulted in significant changes—not least the decision, announced just earlier this year, that parents who lose a baby before 24 weeks of pregnancy in England can now receive a certificate in recognition of their loss. I know that this has been a great source of comfort for many who now feel they can finally get a formal recognition and acknowledgment that their baby existed. I am certain that it would have made a huge difference to me and my family.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the hon. Member for the moving real-life story that she has told. I commend her and her colleagues for their efforts on baby loss certificates. Does she agree that a greater effort needs to be made in the devolved regions—I am thinking of Northern Ireland—to replicate what is happening here in England with baby loss certificates, such is the importance of the issue for families?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I absolutely agree. I only realised that the certificates were just for England when we were pulling together my remarks for today. That is remiss; I encourage the devolved nations to follow the example of England and bring the certificates in, because they really make a massive difference to parents suffering early baby loss.

Despite these improvements, we still have a long way to go to provide the care and respect that all families need during such a difficult time, as well as to ensure that we take steps to reduce stillbirth rates. As expressed by Bliss, an organisation that campaigns for change for babies born premature or sick, there has been a concerning increase in the neonatal mortality rate and the pre-term birth rate. It points to a high variation in care as a factor that can be addressed to reduce that worrying increase.

As the MP for Washington and Gateshead South in the north-east, I know just how damaging the impact of inequality can be as we experience the acute end of regional inequality, which can manifest itself through less investment and less access to the resources we need. In relation to baby loss, inequality prevails and, as Bliss highlights, the number of babies lost to mothers from the most deprived areas has increased at a rate twice that of babies lost to mothers living in the least deprived areas.

It would be remiss of me not to mention that neonatal mortality rates are much higher for babies from an ethnic minority. Babies of black ethnicity are twice as likely to be stillborn as babies of white ethnicity. It is a failure of our healthcare system that babies of black and Asian ethnicity continue to have much higher rates of neonatal mortality. Disgracefully, that disparity is also seen in maternal healthcare. Maternal mortality for black women is currently almost four times higher than for white women. As some Members may have heard, the tennis star Serena Williams has spoken in great detail about her awful experience in that regard. I encourage Members to read her article in Elle magazine, which is still available online. Even as a very wealthy and globally recognised figure, Serena’s voice was dismissed during pregnancy and childbirth.

We must ensure that there is the right training and support for healthcare professionals to ensure that all those terrible disparities are addressed. The cases that we have heard today are so traumatic. Crucially, we must centre the voices of patients—usually mothers, but sometimes their partners as well—and listen to what they are saying about their own bodies and experiences. As we have seen with the high level of disparity in neonatal healthcare outcomes, we will fail to achieve change if we are not listening to those at the heart of this crisis.

If we are to effect change, we must also increase our midwifery workforce, as well as increasing the capacity in our NHS to allow the necessary training to be delivered. I am pleased that Labour is taking strong action to get our NHS back on its feet. In our manifesto, we committed to training thousands more midwives as part of the NHS workforce plan. It is also significant that Labour has said that we will ensure that trusts failing on maternity care are robustly supported into rapid improvement, and we will set an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gap.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that two points that have emerged from this important debate are that greater resources are required to deal with the problem, and that a greater understanding is needed of the individualistic nature of the problem? No two mothers or families will react to baby loss in exactly the same way, as she and other hon. Members have so passionately outlined. Those are two of the most important issues arising from the debate, and hopefully we can learn from them.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I absolutely agree. The hon. Member makes a very valuable point: resources matter, but it is also about how they are implemented. Human interaction and professional training is so important.

I am hopeful for the future and proud of the change that has been made so far. Looking at all colleagues in the Chamber today, I know that together we are a powerful voice that can make such a difference to families during that terrible time and can help to improve outcomes for others, so that fewer people experience this most dreadful loss in future.