Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the recently published “Report of the Commission on Human Medicines’ Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests”.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)]

Yesterday, the Commission on Human Medicines published the report of its expert working group on hormone pregnancy tests. As I said at Health questions on Tuesday, this subject demands the utmost sensitivity and I will do my best.

Based on its extensive and thorough review, the group’s overall finding, endorsed by the Commission on Human Medicines, is that the available scientific evidence, taking all aspects into consideration, does not support a casual association between the use of hormone pregnancy tests, such as Primodos during early pregnancy, and adverse outcomes of pregnancy with regard to either miscarriage, stillbirth or congenital abnormalities. Ministers have accepted the advice of the Commission on Human Medicines. A written ministerial statement was published yesterday, along with a copy of the report.

In the UK, hormone pregnancy tests first became available for diagnosing pregnancy in the 1950s. Between then and 1978, when Primodos was withdrawn from the market in the UK, a number of studies that investigated a possible link between women being given a hormone pregnancy test to diagnose pregnancy and the occurrence of a range of congenital anomalies in their babies was published. Although there was never any reliable evidence that HPTs were unsafe, concern about the issue, coupled with the development of better pregnancy tests, meant that a number of precautionary actions were taken to restrict the use of HPTs. The tests were voluntarily removed from the market by the manufacturers.

The body of information subsequently accrued by the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests and other campaigners led to a parliamentary debate in 2014, I think in Westminster Hall, during which the then Minister for life sciences, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), stated that he would instruct that all relevant documents held by the Department of Health be released. In addition, he determined that an independent review of the papers and all the available evidence was justified. The purpose of the review was to ascertain whether the totality of the available data, on balance, supported a casual association between use of a hormone pregnancy test by the mother and adverse pregnancy outcomes. It also considered whether, alternatively, the anomalies could have been due to chance alone, or other factors.

The final report summarises the scientific evidence that was considered by the expert working group, its conclusions on the evidence, and its recommendations. All the available relevant evidence on a possible association has been extensively and thoroughly reviewed with the benefit of up-to-date knowledge by experts from the relevant specialisms. The evidence reviewed by the expert working group will be published in the new year, once it has been rightly checked in line with the legal duties of data protection and confidentiality.

In addition to the overall conclusion, the expert working group has made a number of recommendations to safeguard future generations through strengthening the systems in place for detecting, evaluating, managing and communicating safety concerns about the use of medicines in early pregnancy. I recognise that the conclusion of the report will be a disappointment to some, but I hope that they will see the recommendations as positive. They are a credit to the efforts of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests and the all-party group on oral hormone pregnancy tests, which is chaired by the hon. Lady, and also a lasting legacy.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am so disappointed with the Minister’s response. Clearly he is just reading what his staff and the Department have been telling him. I wish the Minister would actually go through the documents submitted to the inquiry and those documents that we had, because if he had read them, he would never have to come the Dispatch Box and said what he has said.

You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that I have raised this issue in Parliament on a number of occasions. In 2014, an expert working group was set up to look at a possible association—not a casual link or a causal link. I am sure that hon. Members agree that that means that a lesser burden of proof is required. The first thing that the commission did was to say that it had found no causal connection, but it was never asked to do that—it was asked to look for a possible association. In 2014, the then Minister made promises about statutory oversight. From the papers we had, there appeared to be a clear criminal responsibility regarding the statutory body, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, and the people who ran it, given that so much evidence was adduced to them. They were alerted to the fact that Primodos was causing deformities and miscarriages in women, but they totally ignored that evidence. In fact, the person in charge actually said that he wanted to cover it up so that nobody could be sued. It is therefore highly surprising that the commission has come up with this recommendation.

The commission was shown evidence from many studies, the majority of which showed conclusively that when the drug was given to rabbits and rats—mammals, like ourselves—the tissues were damaged. There were—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I am afraid, although she is highlighting an immensely important matter, and one that she has highlighted before, she has not asked a question—[Interruption.] Order. She has reached her limit and that is it. I have told her, as I have other Members. I have lost count of the number of times Members have been told that if they have an urgent question, they can begin with a few observations—a sentence or two—in response to the Minister, and then questions must follow, but that is not what has happened. I have the highest respect for the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of and commitment to this subject, but she cannot speak for two minutes and then indicate, “I’m about to get to my questions.” Sorry, I say to her—[Interruption.] Order. No, sorry, but you have had your time. It is up to Members to stick to the limits, so other colleagues will now have to pursue this matter. I genuinely thank her for what she has said, but Members really must observe procedures. If I may say so, there has never been a more enthusiastic friend of the House than me in the granting of urgent questions, but Members must then follow the procedure. That is the situation. I call Anna Soubry.

Community Pharmacies

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Last year, when the Government put out to consultation the proposed cuts to pharmacies, I went out to speak to many of the small pharmacists in my constituency—in Kearsley, Over Hulton, Little Lever, Farnworth, Deane and Daubhill. What they all said—most are individually owned pharmacies—is that they do a number of things for which they are not paid. Completing all the pill boxes for the elderly and long-term unwell people is one example. We know that there are increasing numbers of old people, so there are a tremendous number of boxes to prepare every day and every week, yet they get paid nothing for doing that. People come to them to ask about various ailments and health issues, and the pharmacists often recommend non-prescription medications, thus saving enormous amounts of GPs’ time and, of course, helping to prevent people from going to A&E. On the one hand, we might save a few hundred million pounds from the proposals, but on the other, expenses for GPs, A&E and hospitals will go up, so it is a completely false economy.

Such pharmacies also deliver the medication to many long-term unwell and elderly people. I am told by my pharmacists that they are often the only people whom such people ever see and talk to. Often people talk to their pharmacist about other health issues, and other minor ailments are dealt with. Pharmacists will contact the GPs or alert somebody in their surgeries to what is happening. The pharmacists are providing all these services, but they will not be able to do any of it if they face cuts, because they will not have the necessary financial resources.

Pharmacies provide a lot of advice, as I mentioned. The only people who will benefit from these cuts will be the big companies such as Boots and others, because they can buy their medication at wholesale prices. The NHS may pay them £20 per medication, but they have probably been able to buy that medication for £5, thus benefiting by £15. A small pharmacy will probably pay £20 and be paid £20, so it will make hardly any profits. As a result, most of the small pharmacies that are responsive to local needs will be forced to stop operating, and customers will have to travel further to find alternatives. It is possible that the only remaining pharmacies will be those owned by Boots and other big companies. I ask the Government to think again about their policy, because it will not save money, and it will do a disservice to people.

I thank the pharmacists in my constituency for all their work. Let me make a personal declaration. My mother, who is 84, lives near one of the nicest pharmacists in the area, who regularly provides the many different types of medication that she takes and who looks after her. He is not an exception, however; many other pharmacists do the same for people.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that an Expert Working Panel Group Inquiry was set up by the Government to investigate and assess evidence on children born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drugs taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975; further notes with concern that the terms of reference as set out by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency do not clearly allow for an investigation into the systematic regulatory failures of government bodies at the time; notes the conflict of interest of some panel members; further notes that all evidence must be presented to expert panel members as set out in the term of reference; calls on the Inquiry to ensure that all evidence is presented to the expert panel with sufficient time for due consideration; further calls on the inquiry to guarantee thorough background checks on all panel members; calls for the terms of reference to be amended to include an investigation into the conduct of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; further calls on the Government to ensure that the inquiry has the trust and confidence of the victims for whom it was set up; and believes that, unless these changes are made, the ability of the Inquiry to achieve a fair outcome will be significantly compromised.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate—the second on this issue, which I started to campaign on five years ago. Just under two years ago, I asked the Backbench Business Committee for a debate about a drug called Primodos, which was prescribed to pregnant women in the 1960s and 1970s. It had 40 times the strength of oral contraceptives prescribed today, and we know what they were devised for. It is estimated that at least 1.5 million women may have taken this drug, and thousands of families suffered. In answer to a written parliamentary question, the then Minister assessed that 3,540 women may have suffered effects. We think that the actual figure is much higher.

This all started in 2011, when I met my constituent Nichola at her home. She was born with life-threatening internal congenital deformities to her stomach, spine, heart and womb. She had her first operation was when she was seven days old. Since then, her life has consisted of visiting hospital, as an in-patient and an out-patient, and going through various procedures. Another of my constituents is Bridget Olive.

When I met Nichola at her home, I saw boxes and boxes of documents, some of which had been leaked by various pharmaceutical companies and other bodies. I had a brief look through some of those documents, and it was at that point that I decided that the issue needed more than mentioning, or raising; we needed a real investigation and an inquiry on what happened. I am not exaggerating or being over-emotional, but, applying my legal knowledge in my capacity as a barrister, I am prepared to say that there was deliberate criminal, negligent oversight by the then Committee on Safety of Medicines as regards this drug and its usage, and the fact that it continued to be prescribed for years, despite most of the medical community knowing that it had caused adverse consequences for the women who took it.

At the end of the first debate on this subject, the Minister agreed that there would be an expert panel inquiry on the issue. He agreed, in and outside Parliament, that the inquiry would look at all the available documents, including those that we would provide, or had come across, and those in the archives. The Minister went further and ordered that all the documents held by the current equivalent body, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, should be revealed. The inquiry was to look at all the documents and assess what had happened. I will come on to what the inquiry has produced, but this debate is more about how the inquiry has progressed. An inquiry that becomes a whitewash is pointless and a waste of time and money.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this incredibly important debate, and I reiterate and agree with what she says. When at the heart of the matter there is a regulator who took eight years to act between 1967 and 1975, and many years later is investigating what it had done, it is crucial that that inquiry is seen to be independent and full.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I shall come on to the issue of the independence of the inquiry and the members of the panel.

The Minister indicated that the inquiry would be carried out by an independent panel of experts and said that it would look at everything that had happened and the lessons to be learned. Our present concern is about what happened, who did what and who failed to do what, and what compensation and apology victims will receive.

I shall briefly highlight some of the evidence that we have uncovered, which shows what happened in the 1960s and 1970s.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that between 1970 and 1971 Finland, Sweden and Norway all banned the use of such treatments. Does she think that there was plenty of indication at that time to give people reason to believe that there was a real problem that needed to be addressed, and is it not timely—I congratulate her—that we are now starting to get the evidence out and have it discussed?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

My right hon. Friend is right. It is amazing how other countries reacted to the evidence. The medical association in the UK was first alerted by Dr Isabel Gal in 1967, a paediatrician who said that her research showed that there was a link between women who had taken the drug and deformities in babies. Her letters and her research were dismissed out of hand by Dr Inman, who headed the regulatory authority. In a letter the authority referred to her in a derogatory manner as a “pathetic eastern European woman”, completely ignoring what she had to say.

We know that other information was available. For example, in February 1969 a committee received a letter from a Dr Dean of the Royal College of General Practitioners, who stated that

“Primodos should be withdrawn from use”.

However, the chief scientist of that committee, Dr Inman, refused to support that and instead wrote to the manufacturer of the drug, Schering, stating that

“the opinion expressed by Dr Dean that Primodos should be withdrawn should not be taken into account. Some women deliberately use excessive doses of Primodos with the intention of ridding themselves of an unwanted pregnancy”.

We have heard that Norway and Sweden banned the drug in 1970.

Again the Committee on Safety of Medicines took no action. Similar notices were issued in Finland, Germany, the USA, Australia, Ireland and the Netherlands, but again the committee took no action. In fact, in 1974 a letter from Schering—from PGT Bye—stated that

“after discussion with the Committee on Safety of Medicines we agreed some time ago not to recommend for the use of pregnancy diagnosis. It is not recommended for early pregnancy since the possibility of virilisation of the female foetus cannot be excluded with certainty”.

Yet still the committee issued no warning.

A further letter stated that

“side effects cannot be reliably excluded”

and that

“Primodos should no longer be recommended for the diagnosis of pregnancy.”

Again the committee said nothing. There are countless such documents. One of our concerns is that panels should have sight of those documents and be given sufficient time to read them, because they must be looked at properly and not ignored.

In 1975 the Committee on Safety of Medicines issued its first warning, stating:

“A number of studies have shown a possible association between Hormone Pregnancy Tests and an increased incidence of congenital abnormalities.”

On 15 October 1975, 41 years ago, Dr Inman wrote:

“We are defenceless in the matter of the eight-year delay”.

In November 1977, eight years after the committee had first been alerted, an adverse reaction leaflet was issued to the medical profession, stating:

“Further results have now been published and the association is confirmed.”

I want to refer briefly to some of the documents, many of which were archived in Berlin and at Kew. Marie Lyon, who chairs the victims association, has painstakingly gathered the documents, and the panel has been informed of them. I want to pay particular tribute to Marie Lyon, who has been doing a considerable amount of work over the past five years. She has spent months and months working on the documents, travelling the length and breadth of the United Kingdom and visiting Germany. She has effectively been working alone, with no support from Government bodies or local authorities. She and the victims association have been on their own. The only support they have had has been from members of the all-party parliamentary group and the Members in the Chamber today who have been fighting their cause. I also want to thank Jason Farrell of Sky News, who has been instrumental in getting some of the documents from Berlin and having them translated.

Translation of the documents is another issue, because many of those that came from Berlin are in German, as is to be expected. I want to know whether all those documents will be translated into English for the panel, because clearly it cannot carry out the inquiry if they are in a different language. We need to know whether all the documents that the victims association has gathered will be looked at and presented to the panel and, if so, in what format? When I used to prepare a large case with thousands of pages, there was a way of presenting the evidence so that the jury could understand it. Will that be done for the inquiry? If not, why not?

The reason we are asking these questions is that I have tried to contact the chair of the panel, Dr Ailsa Gebbie, and written letters to her, asking her to answer numerous questions, and, to be honest, we have not received a satisfactory answer to any of them. If anything, Marie Lyon, who has observer status on the panel, has been put under what I would call a gagging clause, which means she cannot talk about anything, because if she did she would be criminally prosecuted.

One of the things I remember from our discussion with the Minister was that the purpose of the inquiry was to have transparency and openness. We accept that there is obviously a need for a degree of confidentiality when evidence is presented, but we need to know what is going on. We need transparency, because without it, what is the purpose of this?

One thing the Minister promised was that the inquiry would have the victims at its heart. Yet, how have the victims been treated in this inquiry, which has been going for over a year now? I got a letter from one of the victims who turned up, and it is so distressing. The victims were told they could come and speak for a few minutes. Some travelled for five or six hours across the country to get to the hearing. They were promised at least 15-minute slots, but some were given three minutes or five minutes. Nobody even spoke to them properly; they were just asked to get on with it and to say what they had to say.

Fortunately, the victims who gave evidence were not subject to the gagging clause, so we were able to find out a little about what happened on the one day that seems to have been allocated for the victims. The panel heard from a few of them, but it did not ask them any questions. They were not cross-examined; they were not asked for anything—they just had three minutes. One lady said she was devastated; it had taken her five hours to drive there, and she was given three minutes. The victims said they were sitting so far from the panel, where the microphones were, that they were not even sure the panel was hearing what they had to say.

How can an inquiry that has victims at its heart not take more than a day to listen to them and, when they turn up, give them just three minutes? That is why we are having this debate. Given the way this inquiry is going, I do not think that any of the Members of Parliament who are supporting and assisting the victims have any confidence in it. As in the Hillsborough inquiry and the sexual abuse inquiry, everybody accepts that it is all about the victims; it is not about protecting regulatory bodies or the scientific community—it is about the people who have been affected.

There is another thing the Minister said. Obviously, it goes without saying that any inquiry must be independent—the panel members must be independent. When I raised that in a letter to Dr Ailsa Gebbie, the chair, she said, “Well, we got the expert panel members just to declare that they had nothing to declare.” There was no independent vetting or investigation into the background of any of these people. We have to understand this: people in the medical community, scientists and people in the pharmaceutical companies often work with each other. People have been advisers or consultants to somebody, or they have gone from the pharmaceutical companies into medicine or hospitals. There is a community of people who are linked.

We do not have the resources, but our basic research has shown that one of the panel members, Laura Yates, put on her social media that she does not think that Primodos caused any defect. How can this person be part of the panel? Then we have information about Doctor Schaefer. This man has worked with the company concerned, so he is directly linked with Schering—and he is still on the panel. That is two people, just from our basic inquiry. We want to know from the Minister whether the panel members will be properly vetted to see whether they are really independent and to find out about their connections. Again, without that, we will not have any faith in the inquiry.

We have asked the inquiry how long it will go on and how many sessions it will hold. There has been no response—nothing. We have tried to find out for well over a year, but nobody knows what on earth is going on with this inquiry. That leads to another question for the Minister. How long is the inquiry going to carry on? How many days have been set aside for it? How many hours have been spent on the inquiry to date?

In addition, how have the experts been chosen? We do not even know by what methodology they have been chosen. There are about 15 people on the panel, but does it need that many? Who are they, and how relevant is their experience to what they are looking at?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Lady will soon be drawing her remarks to a close, in the knowledge that many other Members wish to speak this afternoon. She has vastly exceeded the guideline length of time, but I will allow her a peroration.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I was just coming to the end of my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Lastly, we are very grateful that the inquiry has been set up, but we have genuine concerns about what is happening with it and where it is going. As has been said, at the end of the day, there is no point in having the inquiry if it does not look at the things that matter, one of which must be to provide an explanation of the regulatory failures and the cover-ups in the 1960s and 1970s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am conscious of the time. First, I thank all Members who have attended the debate. I thank the victims, some of whom are in the Gallery today, and Marie Lyon. I know we do not often refer to our staff, but I thank my researcher Sadia Ali, who has done incredible work on this issue with me for the past couple of years.

I am glad that the Minister has said that he will meet us, and we will happily write with detailed information about our concerns, but we need to emphasise again that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) mentioned just a minute ago, the inquiry is not so much about the medical evidence. It is not carrying out experiments to ascertain whether there is a scientific link. The crux is that a lot of evidence was available at the time and the regulator failed to do anything. Also, the victims have not been heard properly so far. The inquiry needs to do that.

I accept the Minister’s assurances and will wait to see what happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that an Expert Working Panel Group Inquiry was set up by the Government to investigate and assess evidence on children born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drugs taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975; further notes with concern that the terms of reference as set out by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency do not clearly allow for an investigation into the systematic regulatory failures of government bodies at the time; notes the conflict of interest of some panel members; further notes that all evidence must be presented to expert panel members as set out in the term of reference; calls on the Inquiry to ensure that all evidence is presented to the expert panel with sufficient time for due consideration; further calls on the inquiry to guarantee thorough background checks on all panel members; calls for the terms of reference to be amended to include an investigation into the conduct of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; further calls on the Government to ensure that the inquiry has the trust and confidence of the victims for whom it was set up; and believes that, unless these changes are made, the ability of the Inquiry to achieve a fair outcome will be significantly compromised.

Junior Doctors’ Contracts

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

In order to save paper, I am going to read out an email that comes from a doctor in my constituency. It would be great if those responding to the debate dealt with the concerns that doctors have raised and told us whether they consider their concerns to be right or wrong.

In essence, the junior doctor says the proposed changes will mean that doctors who work shifts of up to 11 hours will be entitled to only a 20-minute break; an NHS trust will no longer face penalties for introducing unsafe working rotas; and there will be a change in description of what are called sociable working hours. For junior doctors, sociable working hours will now be from 7 am to 7 pm, Monday to Friday, and 7 am to 10 pm on Monday and Saturday. That means that 9 pm on Saturday will be considered to be the same as 9 am on a Tuesday morning. That cannot be right.

The proposals will lead to a decrease in doctors’ salaries. As my junior doctor says, “Contrary to popular belief, we do not earn a lot of money. We start at £22,600 a year after five to six years of hard training and we rack up a debt of £40,000. We work a lot of hours.” The £22,600 figure translates to £10.65 an hour. Junior doctors hold an incredibly responsible job for that amount of money. Changes to pay progression will mean that if they leave the NHS to take up either training or maternity leave, they will not receive the pay rises due to them. In addition, if they change specialism, they will start from the bottom of the pay scale again—all their experience will count for nothing. Patient safety will be compromised and to suggest that that will not happen is plainly wrong.

The junior doctor’s email goes on to state, “We have to move jobs every three to six months. We struggle to settle anywhere and put down roots. We love our jobs and that’s why we sacrifice so much to be doctors, but this new contract is bullying, undermining and undervalues the doctors in our country.” Many doctors may well leave the profession. He says that that is the last thing they want to do, as they love the NHS and they want to serve the NHS.

The suggestion has been made that the information presented by doctors is wrong, or that they are worrying unnecessarily. If that is the case, I would really like an answer to every one of the questions we have raised. We must also be mindful of the fact that many doctors are leaving the United Kingdom. They are going to Australia and to New Zealand, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) said, they may go to Scotland.

A&E Services

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I will not take interventions, because I am conscious of how many others wish to speak.

A&E waiting times are driven by three factors: the number of people coming in; the time it takes to treat them; and the ability to discharge or transfer patients. I do not have time to discuss the process that happens while patients are in an A&E department, so I will let others with more direct operational experience do that. It is ridiculous for any of us to pretend that the changes to the GP contract of 2004 did not have a significant and detrimental effect on waiting times for A&E. The fact that 90% of GPs chose to opt out of out-of-hours provision must have had an effect on the number of people going to A&E departments.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[James Cleverly]

I am not taking interventions.

The fact that the ability to discharge patients back into the community is dependent on the ability to care for them while they are in the community means that adult social care must be considered an essential and integral part of the A&E mix. If general wards are not able to discharge into the community, they are not able to make bed spaces available and, in turn, A&E departments are not able to transfer to other wards within the hospital.

I therefore pay tribute to the excellent work done on the Manchester model, putting together NHS provision and adult social care, so that the obvious inter-relationship between the two could be looked at holistically. I am happy that some Opposition Members—perhaps only some of them—welcomed the introduction of the Manchester model. Again, if we could work in a cross-party, collegiate way to learn the lessons from that integrated service model in Manchester and roll it out nationally, I think we would be in a much better place for looking at and subsequently dealing with the problem of A&E waiting times.

It has been alleged—I am sure Opposition Members will all leap to their feet to deny it—that Labour Members were keen during the last general election to weaponise the NHS. [Interruption.] Those were not my words. This is too important an issue to turn into a party political football. I will make this commitment—[Interruption.]

Penrose Inquiry

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

That is a rather harsh response. It is worth noting that the terms of reference given by the Scottish Government to the Penrose inquiry do not make reference to compensation. Yesterday’s written ministerial statement referred to an amount that is specifically intended to help with transitional arrangements while the next Government consider how they might want to take forward the reform of the various payments systems. We explored that in the Backbench business debate.

The report runs to many thousands of pages and has considered all of the many documents and statements, as I set out. All the relevant documents held by the Department of Health on blood safety covering the period from 1970 to 1985 have been published, in line with the Freedom of Information Act, and are available on the National Archives website. As part of our response to Lord Penrose’s report, we are releasing all the relevant documents on blood safety that we hold for the period 1986 to 1995. The Government have been completely transparent and open about that, and given the inquiry all the documents it asked for. We are now releasing all the relevant documents, subject to that. Some of the issues the hon. Gentleman refers to are, I am afraid inevitably, because of the timing of this report, a matter for the next Government to consider in detail.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

My constituent David Fielding has suffered as a result of this and his whole life has been ruined. I ask this Government and any successive Government to compensate these victims properly.

[Jane Ellison]

As I have said, those are matters for the next Government to consider. Compensation was not in the terms of reference of the Penrose inquiry, but it was important, given the extent of the inquiry, that we waited for it to report. Unfortunately, it has reported too late for us to be able to make substantial progress in this Parliament, but I am quite certain that the next Government, held to account by the next Parliament, will return to these matters as a priority.

National Health Service

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I wish to start by thanking NHS staff. I agree with the Secretary of State that they should be recognised for all their work, so I ask him to consider giving them the 1% pay rise that has been recommended by an independent body. That would be a real way of recognising all their hard work.

I wish to talk about the Royal Bolton hospital in my constituency; it is the third largest accident and emergency department in the north-west. Last year, it saw 114,510 people. A and E admissions numbered 26,267 and in 2013-14, elective operations stood at 14,865 and non-elective at 1,407. The staff—porters, cleaners, care assistants and clinical staff—do an excellent job in a very difficult situation. My hospital needs more resources.

As I attend regular meetings with the chief executive officer and the chair of the Royal Bolton hospital, I also often visit the A and E department to see the situation at first hand. Recently, the hospital declared a major incident when it could not take in 76 patients. By cancelling non-emergency elective operations, it managed to free 40 beds. However, as a consequence of cancelling those operations, it lost £600,000.

As the hospital will now no longer be able to meet the target of the clinical commissioning group, it will end up getting penalised as well. To meet that target, the hospital may have to resort to using private companies, which may cost it even more. Whichever way we look at it, the hospital stands to lose quite a lot of money. Over the past two years, it has had to make £40 million of cost savings, and it will have to carry on cutting in light of the demands that it is facing.

The main reason for the long waits in A and E was that many people could not get GP appointments or go to walk-in centres, so they had to go to A and E as a first port of call rather than as a last one. Secondly, many elderly and frail people could not be discharged, which then led to bed blocking. There were 94,046 acute delayed days last November, which then created even bigger blockages. The hospital is caught bang in the middle of the problem—there are problems at the start, before people go to hospital, and there are problems at the end, because people are not being transferred or discharged. That situation must change. One reason for the delays in transfers and discharges is the cut in the budget for social services and adult care. More than 300,000 people no longer receive state funding for social care.

In 2009-2010, the Labour Government spent 8.2% of GDP on the NHS, whereas in 2013-14, the figure was 7.9%. It is quite clear, therefore, that less money is going into the sector. It has been recognised in this Chamber that, with more people living longer and with growing health needs, that money has to go up. To say that nothing further can be done with regards to putting more finance into hospitals is completely wrong.

In Bolton, the local authority, the hospital and the clinical commissioning group are trying to work together. When I recently visited my local A and E, 17 cubicles were in full use and two people were on trolleys. The situation is not good enough, because Bolton is an incredibly large area, serving about 300,000 people. People from Wigan and other surrounding areas also use the hospital.

Another problem is the shortage of GPs and the fact that walk-in centres have been closed down. We know that we need at least another 400 GPs and more walk-in centres. If we had an increase in those areas, the problem would not be so acute. Finally, not enough nurses are being trained, which will lead to a big shortage. That is another tsunami waiting to happen.

[Mr Speaker]

I am immensely grateful to the hon. Lady.

A and E (Major Incidents)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Those are exactly the kinds of initiatives that can make a big difference—indeed, they are recommended by the College of Emergency Medicine. Of course, the long-term solution is to ensure that people are better looked after at home so that they do not need to end up at the door of a hospital. That is why more proactive care by GPs—we plan to recruit 5,000 more GPs over the next five years—should mean that that becomes less of a pressure point.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

The Royal Bolton hospital in my constituency yesterday declared a major incident. As of 1 pm yesterday, there were 53 people in the A and E department, 15 waiting for a bed, some for more than 12 hours, and a number of non-urgent operations were cancelled. I thank the hospital for all its hard work, because there have been problems for the past few weeks. I would like the Secretary of State to deal with the crisis by immediately reopening walk-in centres, because their closure is the reason so many people are going to A and E, and have proper funding given to local authorities so that they can put in place a proper health and social care budget for the elderly and vulnerable.

[Mr Hunt]

There have indeed been pressures at the Royal Bolton hospital, particularly in relation to bed capacity and intensive care unit capacity. All patients on the wards have been reviewed and discharges have been created—the plan was to discharge between 30 and 50 patients before the end of yesterday. We are doing a lot to support the hospital. It has been given £3 million in winter money, £350,000 to create extra bed capacity and £100,000 for extra A and E staff.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

We hope to have a public consultation on the matter. We are not seeking to restrict access to dialysis—far from it. We want to make it easier for people to access those vital services, and we have been putting more money into the NHS budget because we recognise just how important they are.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

As we look forward to world AIDS day next Monday, the whole House will want to pay tribute to the 30 NHS volunteers who left for Sierra Leone at the weekend to help in the fight against Ebola. They stand for the very best of the NHS and make us all proud. Last week I formally launched the MyNHS website. It contains 395,000 pieces of information and is the first website of its kind anywhere in the world. It will help people compare vital information about the performance of their local hospitals, GP surgeries, councils, mental health trusts and residential care homes. It will be a vital way to ensure that patients are not kept in the dark about the quality of their NHS services.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Further to the Secretary of State’s answer to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), he must know that treating renal failure requires complicated, integrated care and that no one part of it can be separated. He must also know that there are 23,000 dialysis patients in the UK, and transplant patients have overlapping clinical needs. Handing responsibility for commissioning dialysis to commissioning groups is unacceptable, especially as it has been done without any consultation. Can he explain the rationale for all this, and will he meet me and colleagues from the all-party kidney group to discuss the matter?

Oral Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

My constituent, the wonderful campaigner Marie Lyon, has doggedly pursued this issue, and I think we can fairly say that that has led to my hon. Friend getting this excellent debate. I am aware of two constituents who have been affected by this drug. Mr and Mrs Tilley’s son Stephen was born with brain damage, and when they asked for Mrs Tilley’s medical records, they found they were missing. This is not the first case I have heard about of records being lost or destroyed in this regard. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about this apparent cover-up?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the cover-up.

We have recently discovered another document in the Kew archive: a letter from the 1960s about the minutes of a meeting of the General Medical Services Committee, in which Dr Inman was involved. It says that there was worry about a request by the Committee on Safety of Medicines that doctors should be monitoring adverse reactions to medication. Doctors were a bit concerned about that in case they might be liable for negligence actions. The minutes say that doctors should stop recording adverse reactions, and, even more significantly, that those who have recorded any such evidence should have it destroyed. That fits in with the constituents, including mine, who have said that when they, as parents, have gone to their doctors to get their records, they are somehow mysteriously missing.

A British medical director of British-based Schering Chemicals, which is a subsidiary of Bayer Schering in Berlin, urged the withdrawal of the hormone pregnancy drug primodos in 1969, but his plea was rejected by the company. In the same year, the author of a survey for the Royal College of General Practitioners also recommended the withdrawal of the drug, but he, too, was turned down. Until this day, Bayer has refused to take any responsibility.

Jason Farrell, the Sky News reporter I mentioned, has met the statistician, Dennis Cooke, who was contracted by Schering in the ’60s. In a report, of which he still has copies, he compared the increase in the sales of primodos with the number of recorded deformities in newborns, which, he says,

“show a rather alarming direct and strong correlation.”

Schering stopped promoting primodos in 1970, and prescriptions fell from 120,000 in that year to 7,000 by 1977, when it was withdrawn. National statistics show that birth deformities declined during that period as well.

Another person I want to allude to is Professor Briggs. Many times, whenever it has been contacted about this, Bayer has referred to the court case of 1982. It is important to explain to the House that the damage claims brought by the victims were discontinued in the 1980s because some of the medical witnesses defected to the defendants, Schering Chemicals, so the case had to be withdrawn. Some of the victims say that the so-called experts who went over to the Schering side had an interesting story. One of those was Professor Briggs. Some years after the case collapsed, The Sunday Times published an interview with Professor Briggs by Brian Deer, a journalist, in which he accepts that he had in the past “fabricated” studies and carried out

“scientific fraud on a large scale”.

That is on the internet and can be read by anyone.

On a CD that has been kept under lock and key—there is an injunction on it—Professor Briggs is heard confessing:

“Difficulties would be encountered if doubts expressed about hormone pregnancy tests were made public. These were exactly the same hormones as the contraceptive pill and would have cast doubt on the safety of hormones which would extend doubt on the safety of the Pill. This would have a major influence on worldwide family planning which could be a real human disaster. It could cause panic among millions of women worldwide which could result in thousands of pregnancies.”

Later he claims:

“Drugs such as these would never be allowed to be on the Market today, given what we ‘now know’ and following what we know about Potential Hazards to the developing Foetus.”

Those comments were made in a documentary called “The Primodos Affair”, which has never been aired because Schering took out an injunction. Why did it do that? What did it have to hide?

There is further curious evidence regarding other witnesses. Dr Smithills approached a drug company for which he was doing research work on the drug Debendox. He suggested that he would approve the drug and that a funded research project would be an appropriate reward. Dr Inman opened a research centre soon after the case, after he left the Committee on Safety of Medicines. And guess what? Professor Briggs also opened a research centre in Australia soon after the case.

I have no hesitation in saying that those witnesses were bought off by Schering. It is amazing how all of them ended up opening research centres, which, as everybody knows, costs money.

Obviously, the situation is not this Government’s fault, but no Government have taken action over the years. Given the weight of evidence, why did the regulators not warn the doctors? According to internal correspondence from the Committee on Safety of Medicines, it admits that it has

“no defence for the 8 year delay”.

Interestingly, the authorities in Sweden, Finland, Germany, the USA, Australia, Ireland and Holland issued warnings and took action on the drug as early as 1970, five years before any warning was issued in the UK, despite the fact that the first group that knew about the problem was the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

One of the things thrown at the victims is the claim that there is no link, but there is a link: so many statistics show a correlation and so many doctors saw what happened. There seems to have been a complete failure on the part of the body appointed to monitor medication. It could have taken action but failed to do so, so the Government of the day were culpable.

Interestingly, Schering discontinued the product and stopped using it for pregnancy tests. Surely that suggests that something was wrong with the drug; otherwise, it would not have been taken off the market.

It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. We have found out in recent years about cover-ups in relation to so many tragedies, including thalidomide, Hillsborough and the sexual abuse of children in care homes and institutions. The 1960s and ’70s seem to have been an era of cover-ups, wherever we look, and victims in those cases campaigned for years and years to get an inquiry. The case under discussion has been going on for 30 to 40 years. Is it not about time for the victims—there are thousands of them—to get the justice they deserve?

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work she has done to secure this debate and her work with campaigners. She is drawing a contrast between this and previous cover-ups. To support her point, I should like to point out that, in this new age of transparency, we seek not a public inquiry but an independent panel, which should be well within the Government’s gift.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for all the support that he has given me and all the work that he has carried out in the campaign on behalf of his constituents.

I want to end by paying tribute to Marie Lyon, who has already been mentioned, and the victims association for all its work, as well as hon. Members who have given their help and assistance. I want to name-check two hon. Members who, because of their positions, are not able to speak in the debate: one is my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who is in the Chamber; and the other is the Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who is not here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate today. I particularly thank all the members of the all-party parliamentary group on primodos, all those who signed my early-day motion and everybody who participated in the petition that was presented to No. 10 Downing street. I also thank the association.

I should also mention a couple of other people. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned Valerie Williams, who campaigned on this issue many years ago. When my constituent Nichola Williams first contacted me I went to see her at her home. At first glance, she appeared to have nothing wrong with her. It was only on talking to her that I found out about all the internal damage that she has.

The campaigners have found a raft of documents that I went through with my researcher and my office. We thought that something was very wrong and that there had been a miscarriage of justice, and that is why we started the campaign. I am glad that after two years we have finally received an undertaking from the Government that they will appoint an independent panel to look not only at the documents held by the Department, but all the documents that we have. We have a lot of information that we think shows a medical and legal cover-up.

On the causal link, the Minister said that the victims’ association will be consulted. Every lady who took primodos said that it was the pregnancy during which they had taken that drug that resulted in abnormalities in children. Other children those same ladies went on to have were perfectly healthy—in those pregnancies, no primodos had been taken. This is important research and it needs to be looked at.

The Minister said that the numbers of victims may not be in the thousands. It is fair to say that as the campaign has gone on over the past two years, with limited coverage and publicity in my local newspaper and in the national media, I have received letters and e-mails from more and more people coming forward and saying, “This is what happened to us.” I think there are a lot more people out there. Perhaps this is something the independent panel can look at, because we think there are many more people who are unaware of what is happening.

I thank the Minister for what he has said at the Dispatch Box, which is that he will release and look at the documents, set up an independent panel, work with the victims’ association and also look at our documents.

[George Freeman]

What we might do is set up an expert working group and invite one or two patients’ representatives from the victims’ association to sit on it. If hon. Members are happy, I will write around with a suggestion for how we might do that. I want to just remind the House that those from the Medicines for Women's Health Expert Advisory Group are independent experts in their field. They currently advise the Commission on Human Medicines on issues relating to medicines for women’s health. All members must fully disclose any conflicts of interest and are disbarred from any discussions of issues where they hold a personal interest. I think the House can therefore be confident that these are independent experts. If we set up an expert working group and have patients on it, that should give the House confidence that victims’ and patients’ voices will be properly heard.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance. I am sure that those from the victims’ association who are watching the debate will be reassured too.

I thank the Minister again for what the Department has offered to do. We hope it will be done speedily and that there will be a resolution. As we know, many of the victims are now approaching their 40s and 50s. Their medical conditions are worsening and some have died. It is important that they understand what has been happening. They have never, ever asked for this—they have never even suggested it—but perhaps after the investigation we could think about some kind of financial settlement or compensation. As I have said, this is something that I am saying. I think that that would be only fair after all their suffering.

Finally, I have spoken in the Chamber from time to time, but today is the first time that, when I came into the Chamber, I got a little butterfly in my stomach. It reminded me of when I was a barrister before I became a Member of Parliament. I would have that feeling when going into court for a special case of particular significance. When I came in I almost felt that I was going to present a legal case to ask for—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Does the hon. Lady intend to talk her own proposal out? If not, perhaps she should allow me to put the question now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that children were born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drugs taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975; also notes with concern that as the surviving victims enter their forties and fifties many of them face a host of new problems as their bodies continue to suffer; further notes that no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years after the first reports indicated possible dangers; further notes that some doctors continued to prescribe the drugs for pregnant women after official warnings from the Committee on Safety of Medicines; calls on the Secretary of State for Health to fully disclose all documents relating to the use of Hormone Pregnancy Tests held by the Department from the period between 1953 and 1978; and also calls on the Secretary of State to set up an independent panel to examine these documents.