Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Ed Davey Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I agree with all colleagues who have spoken. My friend, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), is right about a cover-up. He could have gone further; there is a danger that it is a criminal cover-up. I say that to the Minister in all gravity, because if she and her colleagues do not get on top of this issue, it will end up in the courts. The Government and the medical establishment will be defeated, and a lot of money will have to be paid. It will be a national scandal. It is one already, but it is not as well known as it ought to be. It will be on the front pages. I say to the Minister that it is time to act.

When I last spoke on this subject, on 14 December 2017, I used material from the Berlin archives, thanks to the amazing Marie Lyon and the Sky journalist Jason Farrell. I showed that lawyers and the scientific advisers from Schering knew about this in the 1960s. Minutes from meetings in ’68 and ’69 showed that they knew that there were problems, and that they would be found guilty in a court of law. I used long-standing evidence that the people involved knew there was a problem.

Today, I will focus on the science—first, on the association between HPTs and deformity, and secondly, on the issue of causal links. The 2017 expert working group report said that there was not an association. It is interesting, however, that when members of the EWG gave evidence to the review, they had a different story. The Minister needs to think about why that is. Professor Stephen Evans, for example, in evidence on 28 January 2019, at 28 minutes and 46 seconds into the video, said that

“Dr Olszynko-Gryn says this: ‘More optionally the authors’—this is Heneghan…‘the authors might consider reflecting on the extent to which the association they identify implies a causal association. An association between the use of HPTs and birth defects has long been recognised and was rarely in dispute.’ Well, we don’t dispute that; there is an association.”

He did not say that in 2017. Ailsa Gebbie from the EWG, at the same oral hearing, said:

“But everybody admits there is a possible association, and that’s why the report was carried out in the first place.”

I think it is more than a possible association.

Let us go to the meta-analysis that has been quoted, which is where lots of studies are brought together to see whether together they tell a consistent story. I am not a scientist or a mathematician, but I have spoken to academics who really understand this. They say that when the studies are brought together, their homogeneity, and the consistency of the findings, is extraordinarily striking. They all show an association.

The EWG wants to dismiss that. Professor Evans does not want to accept that methodology. As we heard from the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), Professor Evans is going against the Food and Drug Administration—the US authorities—the European Medicines Agency, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and clinical researchers in this area across the world, who accept meta-analysis for this type of risk analysis. The Minister needs to ask her officials why the EWG refuses to accept the analysis, because it is strong, overwhelming and proves the case, I personally think, in legal terms, beyond reasonable doubt. The Minister must leave the Chamber knowing that there is an association, because that is what the science shows.

We have heard about the desire for a causal link to be shown. I urge the Minister to ask her experts and officials what is needed to prove a direct causal link. That test is very rarely met. If a recognised poison that is known to be lethal is given to someone, they will die; that is a binary issue. However, most other pharmaceuticals and drugs are not like that. The balance of probabilities is the test that is normally used. All the evidence that we have shows that, on the balance of probabilities, there is no doubt that there is a link.

It is sometimes difficult to show causalities. It has been suggested to me that I mention the Fairchild case, to show how difficult it is to establish causation. The Fairchild exception is a relaxation of normal tests for causation. A mesothelioma victim can prove that a particular exposure to asbestos caused the mesothelioma by proving that the exposure was such as to create a material increase in risk of the victim contracting the disease.

Has a material risk been proven? According to the meta-analysis, there is a 40% increase in risk of all malformations from taking HPTs. There is an 89% increase in risk of congenital heart malformations—more than a doubling. I say that because a doubling of a risk is material in court. There is nearly three times the risk of nervous system malformation. There is a 224% increase in risk of musculoskeletal malformation, and a 747% risk of vertical defects. That is what the evidence shows. I bring that to the Minister’s attention. She must know that. She should go back to the Department and challenge her officials, because they are getting this wrong and letting people down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Like other hon. Members, I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate. I also thank Marie Lyon, chair of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests. Without those two strong, brave women and their pursuit of justice, truth and answers, we would probably not be having this debate. I think we can all agree that the personal stories that we have heard today are very powerful indeed, and that these people and their families deserve definitive answers to their questions, especially after so many years.

Although I am pleased that the Government have committed to the ongoing review, I hope that on this occasion all available data will be analysed and all research will be taken into account, so that the review’s conclusion can satisfy those who have campaigned so vociferously for so many years. It is alarming to read the report from experts at Oxford University, led by Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine. The report appears to identify huge gaps in the expert working group’s 2017 study.

To find that huge areas of research were left untouched is nothing short of an insult to the campaigners who have devoted their lives to seeking justice. Some reports suggest that key elements of research were removed on purpose to support the conclusion and mislead Government and Parliament. If so, we as parliamentarians must do our utmost to right those wrongs; I hope that today the Minister will pledge to do just that. Indeed, the Prime Minister herself said in January that she would

“listen very carefully to any recommendations that come out of the review”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 1160.]

The results of animal testing from a 1979 study released by the pharmaceutical manufacturer Schering, now owned by Bayer, found strong links between the drugs and malformations, as well as the death of embryos, and yet the expert working group in 2017 declared that those results provided insufficient evidence. The expert working group examined human studies, and the majority similarly favoured an association between Primodos and deformity, but still the working group felt that the evidence was not strong enough. Was the evidence not properly assessed, or was it simply omitted? Either way, that conclusion has undoubtedly prolonged the agony of those who have lived for 50 years without answers.

There has been much talk about whether meta-analysis should have been used by the expert working group in 2017. When Professor Heneghan carried out a random-effects meta-analysis, the results were opposite to that of the expert working group report and found that there was an association between the drug and the malformations, which was consistent with his own study.

[Sir Edward Davey]

I think I am right in saying that when the raw data that the expert working group had used was rerun by Professor Heneghan, it showed that if the expert working group had done that, it would have reached similar conclusions. That makes the group’s conclusions even more worrying.

[Paula Sherriff]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which gives further credibility to the view that the review by the expert working group was completely insufficient.

One thing that I have been utterly appalled about during my research on this subject is the inhumane and patronising way in which women were treated and spoken about during the period that Primodos and other hormone pregnancy tests were available, and subsequently, when a possible link between the drugs, early abortions and birth defects was identified. As the chair and founder of the APPG on women’s health, I am often asked why I feel it necessary to have a group that looks exclusively at women’s health. This is a prime example of the inequality that women have faced over the years when they have sought help on major health issues.

One senior medical officer from the Committee on Safety of Medicines said in 1969:

“It is somewhat difficult to summon up enough enthusiasm to place a high priority on this, when so much other and possibly more important work is pressing.”

In 1968, Dr N.M.B. Dean, of the Royal College of General Practitioners, stated:

“With regard to the rather high incidence of abortions in the Primodos group, I think it must be borne in mind that women going to their doctor for this type of test often hope that they are not pregnant and it is not impossible that these women took other steps to terminate their pregnancies”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I hear what my right hon. Friend says. There has to be some element of cause, otherwise there is no scientific basis for a judgment. I will have to agree to disagree with him on that point.

[Sir Edward Davey]

I have to intervene on the Minister on that point. In many cases, drugs are looked at on the probability of risk, not on causality. Causality is a much stronger test. In science, it is very difficult to prove. If her officials are telling her that about a causal link, they are wrong. I urge her to get separate independent advice on that.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The drugs are no longer available because of association, due precisely to that balance of risk. The issue that we are looking at now is to what extent that was understood at the time, and to what extent there is a liability. That is what the group is ready to look at.

[Sir Edward Davey]

The Minister is being very generous with her time. I refer her to the evidence that was in the Berlin archives, which goes back to 1968 and 1969, and to the meta-analysis, which proves that on the balance of probabilities there is no doubt. That became known not this year, but years ago.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I am answering on behalf of the working group. That is an independent process and I will try to do my best. The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the meta-analysis and the suggestion that Parliament has been misled about why that was not done. The expert working group discussed the merits of doing a meta-analysis at its fifth meeting. In its view, the studies were very different, not sufficiently robust and suffered from extensive limitations. The group concluded that conducting a meta-analysis was not the most appropriate way to analyse this type of study. Instead, the group developed a set of quality criteria and presented its assessment of each study in a series of plots. To reconfirm, the data was not considered sufficiently robust for meta-analysis to be used. One of the real problems we have is that we are talking about data that, as we have mentioned, is 50 years old and not sufficiently robust.

There have been some suggestions that the expert working group has been less than transparent. In line with the Government’s commitment to publish the report of the review and all the evidence considered by the group, all documents have been available for public scrutiny since November 2017. We have been very grateful for the involvement of Marie Lyon throughout that process.

There has been some criticism of the lack of an external peer review of the expert working group report. The Government’s independent scientific advisory body on the safety of medicines, the Commission on Human Medicines, acts as the peer reviewer for all expert working groups. It reviewed the draft report on two occasions before it was published. I know that Baroness Cumberlege will be looking at whether there has been sufficient peer review of that report, and I look forward to receiving her recommendations. As with any issue, new evidence can emerge in the meantime. I reassure the House that the Government have made a commitment to review any important new evidence, and we have honoured that commitment.

Access to Medical Cannabis

Ed Davey Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The updated training will be available imminently. There are risks as well as upsides, and it is absolutely right that it is clinicians who make the judgment in respect of every decision and based on the individual patient. That, I am afraid, is the way in which medicine always has been—and, I imagine, always will be—practised in this country.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether it is true that if a Dutch mother brought the same medicine to the United Kingdom, she could administer it to her own Dutch child without the import licence that Emma Appleby is saying that she must have? If that is true, is this not just another example of how shambolically this policy is being implemented?

[Matt Hancock]

I do not know whether that is true—that is a question of Home Office policy on controlled drugs—but all in all that does not change the fact of the matter, which is that we need to resolve this issue as soon as possible.

Budget Resolutions

Ed Davey Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked so hard to get that hospital back on track. It is now being built because we have put in the capital—it is in the NHS budget. We had to rescue it from the failed private finance initiative that was invented by the Labour party. It is only because we have a strong economy that we can give the NHS the longest and largest cash injection ever in its history—

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

rose—

[Matt Hancock]

If the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that injection, I will give way to him.

[Sir Edward Davey]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the rise in health spending. He is Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, so can he tell us by how much social care expenditure is going to rise over the next five years?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I am going to come on to social care. Yesterday, we put a further £650 million into social care, and we are coming forward with reforms to social care to put it on a sustainable footing for the long term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is an honour to speak for the Scottish National party on the second day of the 2018 Budget debate.

Ten years ago last month, Lehman Brothers collapsed. Excessive risk-taking by financial institutions created an international banking crisis, and a global downturn followed. Since then, people and families across the UK have had to pay for the fall-out. There has been a decade of wage stagnation, a decade of cuts and a decade of the most vulnerable in our society being hit the hardest by Tory austerity. Looking forward, we are staring into the abyss that is Brexit. Mark Carney says that Brexit has already cost householders an average of £900, and the Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that leaving the single market and customs union would cost 80,000 Scottish jobs. After a decade of austerity, households cannot afford to lose £900 each, and they certainly cannot afford a Tory Brexit.

The reality is that the people of Scotland are badly served by Westminster. We did not vote for a Tory Government and we did not vote for Brexit. I cannot think of a time in the past when a country has committed such a foreseeable act of economic self-harm. The Chancellor does not believe that we will be better off after Brexit. Even the Prime Minister does not believe that we will be better off after Brexit. We were promised £350 million pounds a week for public services. We will not be bought off with a commemorative 50p coin.

[Sir Edward Davey]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent start to her speech. Does she agree that, after a decade of Lehman austerity, we could be facing a decade of Brexit austerity?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. An economic catastrophe is coming down the line as a result of Brexit. It does not matter what kind of Brexit there is; any Brexit is bad for the economy. Staying in the EU is the best possible option for the economy. If we cannot stay in the EU, staying in the single market and the customs union is the second best option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

This is my ninth Budget in this place, and the majority of them have been framed by the fact that my party has had to clean up the mess left behind by the previous Labour Government in 2010. They have been framed by the comments of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who wrote:

“I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards—and good luck!”

That was the position that the country found itself in. I feel that yesterday’s Budget was a turning point and we are now starting to see light at the end of the tunnel. We need to give great thanks to the people of this country for their hard work and their determination to see the course through. Yesterday’s Budget means we are now starting to repay the faith of the British people.

I want to focus on three areas, the first of which is public services. The Chancellor was clear yesterday—he was right—that local government had made a significant contribution to tackling the deficit. I firmly believe it needs to be recognised for that, and we need to make sure it is properly funded. I welcome the £650 million package for social care that was announced yesterday, and the £420 million for roads and potholes that will be going to local government.

I also welcome the fact that for probably the first time ever road tax will be paying for our roads rather than being spent on other things. As a consequence, the budget for Highways England will go up by 40%. It is great to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the Chamber because I warmly welcome the additional £20 billion that this Government are committing to our NHS each and every year. I look forward to seeing the 10-year plan for the NHS and, within that, the use of the £2 billion for mental health services, which are crucial. Mental health provision is important because the mental health challenges we are experiencing underpin many of the social challenges that we face in this country, so it will be great to see his proposals.

Security is the most important thing for and the first duty of any Government, so I really welcome the extra £1 billion for our armed forces and the £160 million that is going into counter-terrorism policing. I noted that the Chancellor referred to the police and the challenges our forces face in his Budget statement, so I hope that when the police settlement comes forward early next year, we will see positive progress. My local Warwickshire force is taking on additional officers, but it also faces challenges down the track, such as the pensions revaluation. I sincerely hope that that will be reflected in the policing settlement.

[Sir Edward Davey]

While the hon. Gentleman is talking about police funding, can he explain why he thinks the Chancellor did not announce any extra money, beyond the counter-terrorism policing increase, for community policing yesterday?

[Mr Jones]

Clearly the police have been given access this year to an additional £450 million, and an extra £160 million was given to counter-terrorism policing. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, who was part of the coalition Government, will recognise that a process needs to be followed and that the police funding settlement will come forward in a few months’ time.

Secondly, on the cost of living, I am delighted that the Chancellor has chosen to freeze fuel duty again. It has not increased in this country since 2011, which is good news for motorists. In that time, the average motorist has saved £1,000 as a result of the decisions made by Conservative Chancellors. I am also really pleased that the rail companies have taken up the railcard for 26 to 30-year-olds, who will get a 30% reduction in fares.

I very much welcome the increase to the personal allowance. The lowest paid will now earn £12,500 before they have to pay income tax. That is a far cry from the £6,500 personal allowance in 2010, and it means that those people will have an additional £1,250 a year in their pockets compared with then. I also welcome the change to the 40p threshold, because although that rate is an important aspect of our tax system, many public servants, such as police sergeants and senior teachers, have been dragged into the 40p rate, as have been many tradespeople such as bricklayers. I do not think that that was ever the intention when that measure was introduced.

It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), on the Front Bench, because I welcome the universal credit changes, which will further underpin the principle that it always pays to work. It is excellent that £1.7 billion will be put into universal credit year on year, and that is in addition to last year’s package. It looks as though tweaks are being made to the system constantly to make sure that it responds to some of the challenges. I hope that another look will be taken at the assessment period, because several of my constituents have had challenges with that part of the process.

Finally, on high streets, I am delighted that 30% will be knocked off rates bills for people who own small retail businesses with a rateable value under £51,000. Business rates are an analogue tax in a digital world, and I am pleased that the Chancellor has started to recognise that. I recognise that larger retailers occupying anchor positions in high streets and town centres will not benefit from that change, so perhaps in future we will need to consider those businesses, too. A £675 million fund for the regeneration of our high streets is a massive start to help high streets throughout the country to regenerate. We need to make sure that we preserve our high streets, but not in their current form. We need to make them fit for the 21st century because they are places of massive community value. They are the community centre of towns and cities throughout the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I also think that the rules on terminal illness should be changed.

Going back to the question of the breathing space, the devil will be in the detail. For a breathing space scheme to work well, it has to have minimum standards. It has to provide enough time for the person in debt to get advice on the best way to resolve their problem debts, to recover from temporary financial difficulties and enter a statutory debt solution, and to pay their debts at a manageable rate. There must also be funding so people can access free, independent and impartial services speedily, because when people decide they are at the end of their tether, they want to see someone quickly.

The Government suggest a breathing space of 60 days, but debt advisers need the flexibility to recommend an extension. I worry that if the arrangement is too rigid, creditors may well delay until someone gets out of the breathing space period so they can start chasing them again. Call me cynical, but that is what 23 years at Citizens Advice does.

There is clear consensus that a breathing space solution must cover all debts, including debts to the Government—household bills such as council tax and moneys owed to central Government. It must also offer protection against further interest and charges, and against enforcement action. Creditors must stop collection activities such as calls, letters and visits—that means no more bailiffs. Returning briefly to universal credit, there must be no deductions from benefits or other income to recover outstanding debts during the breathing space period, future deductions must be affordable, and—please—there must be no public register of people who enter a breathing space. Evidence from Scotland shows that that deters people from doing so. If there is going to be such a register, let us make it private between creditors and people in debt.

I welcome the announcement that the Government will look at no-interest loans, although the long timescale will allow many people to fall into debt. It is unfortunate that, despite the work of the Law Commission, Government time was not given to debate ending the exploitation of a Victorian law that was used as a vehicle for logbook loans.

I turn to education—in particular sixth-form funding, which is at crisis level.

[Sir Edward Davey]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I have to move on, I am afraid. There is a range of new requirements, the needs of schools and colleges have increased, and under-investment in sixth-form education is having a negative impact on the education of the young people in my constituency. That simply means the Government will be unable to meet their stated objective of having a strong post-Brexit economy and a socially mobile, highly educated workforce. That is bizarre, frankly.

At least £760 per student is required to continue providing 16 to 18-year-olds with a high-quality education, but the Raise the Rate campaign asked the Chancellor to increase national funding by a more modest £200 per student. That would at least have been a start. It is disappointing that there has been no action.

Will the £400 million to provide the “little extras” be shared with sixth-form colleges? That might have helped Winstanley College in my constituency with the little extra of providing a teacher so German A-level could be reinstated, or allowed St John Rigby College to reinstate one-to-one time to support students who are struggling emotionally or academically—it might have, had that money not been ring-fenced for building maintenance and purchasing equipment.

Let me comment briefly on the raising of personal allowances. Families on the average wage in Makerfield will gain just over £12 a month, while people on more than £50,000 per year will gain just under £40 a month. It is pretty obvious who will gain the most. It certainly is not women over 50, who are still waiting for any measure to help them.

The Chancellor said he chose not to unveil the Budget tomorrow as he wanted to avoid Halloween jokes. It is a good job he did not wait until next Monday, as my constituents, having heard that austerity is over, may have expected a firecracker of a Budget that lit up their lives. Instead, all they got was a damp squib.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, especially with respect to renewable energy.

This might not be a Halloween Budget, but it is yet another attempt to scare Members about Brexit and to frame the Brexit question as deal or no deal. Although the Chancellor hardly mentioned Brexit, the underlying message is that there is something for us if we back this Budget—tax cuts and something for the NHS—and more in store if we get a soft Brexit. The other message is that if we do not vote for a deal, there will be a disastrous hard Brexit.

Certainly a hard Brexit would be a disaster, but so would this soft Brexit. It is just wrong of the Government, day after day, to propose a choice between the Brexit deal that the Government come back with and a hard Brexit with no deal. The truth is that there are alternatives. When we get there, this House must debate those alternatives, not just the two that the Government keep scaring us about. It is almost like the Noel Edmonds TV game show, “Deal or No Deal”. I switched over to another channel when it came on my TV, and this Parliament could switch over and have a third choice—that choice should be a people’s vote and an exit from Brexit.

The Budget forecasts show why a third option is so important. People should look at the growth forecasts, which are seriously scary. We are going to be trapped in a Brexit low-growth economy. We have had 10 years of financial crisis austerity and, with these growth figures, we are going to have 10 years of Brexit austerity. The figures should be really scary. Our economy had near to the highest growth rate of any G7 country in the four years before the referendum, and since then we have had the lowest growth in the G7. That should worry us, and that is even before we add in the risks and uncertainties. The OBR’s economic forecast could not factor in all the risks and uncertainties; it had to assume that there would be a soft Brexit.

So even these low growth figures may well not be as bad as things turn out to be. That feeds in to the spending figures. Ministers have made much of the health figures, but when one strips out the health increase, one sees that all the rest of the Departments will, on average, see 0% growth for the next few years. That is austerity continuing—it is really scary and completely not needed. According to the OBR, Brexit has already cost £15 billion in lost tax revenue, and we hear in the Budget that even Brexit preparation is going to cost more. That is why we have to escape this Brexit trap; whether it is a no-growth Brexit or a deal Brexit, we have to have a people’s vote.

This Brexit Budget was shaped to try to buy off the Back Benchers and the Democratic Unionist party, not to try to get a proper forward strategy for this country. There were deals in there for Belfast. It may deserve that money, but the timing for it is funny, and we know what the talks have been to try to get there. We know that the Government could not put forward the tax rise needed to get the Budget into surplus and to invest in public services because they could not get that tax rise through their Back Benchers. The Brexiteer Tories on the Back Benches would not have voted for a tax rise. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) was right: we need to get a surplus, we need to invest in our schools, hospitals and police, and we need to undo some of the damage from universal credit. We need that, but we can only do it if we have some honesty on the public finances. The reality is that this Chancellor and this Government are so weak that they cannot put through the tax measures needed to get the right economic balance in this country and the right investment in our public services.

When we look at individual public services, we see that they are crying out for investment. For example, since 2015 we have lost 4,789 full-time police officers, 2,231 community support officers and 4,334 special officers. That is more than 9,400 officers lost, at a time when crime has been going up. Knife crime has increased by 62% since 2015, firearm crime has increased by 30% and homicides have increased by 33%. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for not having been prepared to invest in the security of our people and safety on the streets when violent crime is going up by so much.

I have a question for those on the Treasury Bench. We have been looking in the Red Book. The Government have announced £164 million for counter-terrorism police, which is welcome, but it does not score anywhere in the Red Book. We have been making inquiries and asking the Treasury about this, and it says that it is from the reserves. I have never heard an explanation like that. The Chancellor announces £160 million for counter-terrorism policing yet it is not in the Red Book or said to be in the Red Book. That is an insult to this House, and I hope that Ministers will have an answer by the end of the day.

My constituency is seeing school funding cut, and headteachers have been marching. They do not normally do that in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, but they were doing so recently because they are fed up with having to lose staff, cut the curriculum and cut opportunities for young people in their charge. They do not stand for it, and this House should not stand for it. It was an insult to offer less money to schools than the Government are spending on potholes. What sort of priorities do this Government have when they put potholes before our children and their futures?

Not only did the Government get the short-term spending decisions wrong but they got the long-term spending decisions and strategy wrong. Where was the investment to tackle climate change? What about the opportunity in green growth—in our renewable energy? There are huge opportunities there, but there was nothing on that in the Budget. As for social justice, it was good to see some recognition that universal credit is causing pain out there, but the Budget did not go anywhere near enough. We are going to have to revisit this as a House if we are going to make sure that the poorest people in our country share in any future prosperity.

ME: Treatment and Research

Ed Davey Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Carol Monaghan]

NICE has said that it will review its guidelines and talk to patient groups and ME charities in doing that. We must continue to urge it to ensure that that is the case, because those best placed to talk about the impact of the current guidelines and what should be in future guidelines are those living with ME.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Should not graded exercise therapy be removed as a treatment option even before the NICE guidelines are reviewed, given the evidence that people are being harmed by it? The Minister is hearing that evidence today. Is there not a possibility that in future a court could compensate ME sufferers if they continue to be prescribed GET, given that we, the Minister and medical professionals know the evidence?

[Carol Monaghan]

One of the big issues we have is the real lack of awareness among many in the healthcare profession. I do not want to criticise people in healthcare, and in particular GPs, who have to cover many different conditions, but that highlights why GP education and ME awareness must be increased. It is not an uncommon condition, so we really need to look at that.

What do we need to do now? First, we need properly funded biomedical research into the causes of ME and the treatment of those with ME. I recently asked a series of written questions about the level of funding into biomedical research, and frankly the answers did not fill me with confidence. Less than £1 is spent annually on each ME patient in the UK. It gets worse, because the response states that that was not solely Government funding but, as has been mentioned, from a combination of funders including many ME charities. The Scottish Government have just announced £90,000 for a PhD studentship to support research into the causes, diagnosis and treatment of ME. It would be most welcome for people across the UK if the UK Government were to follow that lead.

I am pleased that NICE is reviewing its guidelines, but, as was just said, GPs are still recommending exercise as a treatment. I ask the Minister: how is the Department of Health and Social Care supporting training for medical practitioners on ME care and treatment? The new NICE guidelines will not be published until 2020, so what representations will he make to NICE to ensure that damaging exercise therapy does not remain the main course of treatment?

In the debate on ME in February, I asked the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), about working with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that new guidelines are drawn up for dealing with people with ME. What progress has been made on that? Most importantly, will the Minister support proper funding for biomedical research into the diagnosis and treatment of ME? I understand that money is not usually ring-fenced for particular conditions, but, considering how poorly funded biomedical ME research has been up to now, what steps will the Government take to address that?

I thank all hon. Members who have delayed returning to their constituencies to speak up for those with ME. Their support is appreciated and welcomed by those here today, and by the wider ME community. I also thank the ME charities and campaigners who have briefed us all so thoroughly, and the Countess of Mar for her relentless campaign for improved treatments for ME.

ME is a condition that it is all too easy for us to ignore. Those afflicted by it are often unseen by society, but many hon. Members are in the Chamber because they have been approached by affected constituents. I thank all of those who have brought the condition to our attention. ME has a devastating impact not just on its 250,000 sufferers but on families and carers, too—it has a far wider impact. Ultimately, as politicians we must remember that statistics are simply patients with the tears wiped away.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on securing the debate and all hon. Members who will participate in it. It is essential that we speak for the millions missing, and it is great to see so many people in the Public Gallery.

What I find so shocking is that scientists seem not to want to have the debate. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members across the House find it shocking that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West was written to by a scientist and called out. I have seen scientists writing in journals such as the Journal of Health Psychology calling out the PACE trial, so the idea that the scientists who produced that work have gone unchallenged by other scientists is simply not true. A huge amount of evidence from eminent people in the science community questions the PACE trials, including the methodology, the evidence they used and how they treated their patients, as the hon. Lady said. Therefore, it has been proven not to be the case that the NICE guidelines, built on that questionable evidence, are the only way in which we should consider this disease, and she did that well in a previous debate.

It is great that the NICE guidelines are to be reviewed, but my concern is that that will take some time. I am sure that is the right process; we must get it right and ensure that the voices of ME sufferers are heard. Scoping working groups have been set up in which ME sufferers have been able to participate, and that is welcome. But I find it quite scary that the current guidelines will be in place until October 2020. I have listened to my constituents and read about those of other right hon. and hon. Members who feel that if they are prescribed according to those guidelines and go through all that, it makes them more ill. Far from helping them, it makes them deteriorate. Indeed, I have a constituent who feels that the programme she was put through set her back two or three years.

Real harm is being caused by some of the therapies recommended in the guidelines. If that is the evidence from ME sufferers—I am not a scientist, but from what I have read, that experience is widely shared—it is up to the Minister, working with the chief medical officer and others, to question whether the NICE guidelines should be suspended, at least with respect to GET. If GPs, perhaps because they have not been trained, are making medical prescriptions for treatment following NICE guidelines because Ministers and the chief medical officer have not acted, if that treatment is harming people, and if that continues until October 2020 there will, as I said in my intervention, be a case for those who are harmed to go to court and seek compensation.

No one wants that. To avoid it, surely there must be a way in which Government Ministers, working with NICE and the CMO, can issue guidelines directly to GPs and medical professionals to say, “Be careful before you prescribe GET. Ensure that you have read the evidence. Ensure that you have talked properly to the patient.” With many drugs and pharmaceuticals, there are sometimes side effects. Therapy does not work for everybody. Where is the warning in the NICE guidelines of the side effects of GET? That is serious, because people could be seriously hurt in the period between now and the conclusion of the NICE review.

I will move on to research. Looking at the work that Invest in ME Research has done, for example, setting out the calls for research in this country over two decades or more, I find it quite disturbing that those calls have been ignored. Only charities have enabled a meagre amount of research to be done. Some £5 million was set aside for the PACE trial; if we could have a small amount of that money to start real, biomedical research into ME, we would be making a step forward.

[Andrew Selous]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that, as I understand it, there are roughly two and a half times more people with ME than with multiple sclerosis, yet there is 20 times more research on multiple sclerosis than on ME and, of what little ME research there has been, the vast majority has been through psychological and behavioural studies rather than the biomedical approach?

[Sir Edward Davey]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I should say that we still need a lot of research into MS, so it is not one or the other, but given the incidence of ME, as he rightly says, the case for research into the biomedical aspects is strong. Invest in ME Research makes a number of proposals in its recent report. For example, it proposes a ring-fenced fund of £20 million a year for the next five years for biomedical research. That recommendation comes from a detailed report; it is not just plucked out of the air. That sort of figure would show that the Government mean business.

I am aware that Ministers cannot stand up at the Dispatch Box and say, “Yes, of course we will direct research money into this probe; I myself will do it.” I am not suggesting the Minister can do that today. I know he cannot. He has to work with research councils and others to direct the research. I am also aware that if researchers do not make proposals, sometimes research moneys cannot be granted.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

As I mentioned earlier, Invest in ME Research has set up a centre of excellence for research in the Norwich Research Park, and it is planning to create a hub for European biomedical research, which is good news indeed. It already has five PhD students and is hoping to push out a consultant-led clinical service. Here we have the infrastructure and base for that extra Government funding, to build on the money that has been raised by patients and carers.

[Sir Edward Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and it is good that he is here to champion that centre. He makes the point I wish to make to the Minister: a pipeline of research proposals is likely to come about not only from the centre in Norwich, but no doubt as offshoots from research elsewhere—particularly the United States, which is beginning to get its act together on the research side. There is a pipeline, and I urge the Minister to anticipate that, to talk to the research councils and to say with his colleagues, “We will be ready and we will have the funds ready so that when the research proposals come through”—as I am confident they will—“we will back them.” Then we can start making progress. I say to the Minister, please, not to wait to see whether they come through before he dedicates the money and starts pressurising the research councils, because we know that process can take too long. People have already waited too long.

I will conclude my remarks by underlining two points touched on by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West. The first is the need for respect for patients. Sometimes it seems, from the stories I have read, that some in the medical profession—I say some—do not respect patients. They make comments that it is all in people’s minds and that they are making it up. That is no way to talk to adults. A constituent of mine who has been suffering from ME, who I talked to last night, recently went to see her consultant. The consultant said in terms, “All ME people are crazy, except you.” That did not make her feel very happy. I am afraid that type of view among senior medical people is not acceptable, and I hope Ministers will make it clear that they expect patients not to be treated like that.

That links to my final point, on the need to train doctors. We need better guidance and better training so they understand that situation. In that light, I am worried that we are seeing some pressure to reclassify ME. That is sending a dangerous signal, and I hope the Minister will say that the Government are questioning that reclassification and putting it on hold. Otherwise, the training for doctors will not happen, the respect for patients will not happen and we will not see the change that our constituents demand. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks and to the contributions of other hon. Members.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

As a lot of colleagues wish to speak in the debate, I ask that everyone keep their remarks within about eight or 10 minutes each, if that is possible. For the benefit of the Minister and the Opposition spokesmen, I hope to be able to start the winding-up speeches at 4 o’clock.

 Orkambi and Cystic Fibrosis

Ed Davey Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

We are effectively in a position of negotiation with Vertex. When the petition was originally started, the issue was, “Here is Orkambi; let’s set a price and buy it.” It was a very high price, which is why the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence made its decision. We have now moved on to a portfolio system that Vertex is proposing. Vertex has a drug that has been available here for a little while, Kalydeco. Orkambi is available in Ireland, the Netherlands and other countries, but not here—and even then, it would not be right for every mutation of cystic fibrosis. Symdeko is coming out in the future, and there is a pathway of drugs that will have ever-increasing effectiveness on a wider group of people.

Vertex has proposed a system, which has been knocked back by NHS England, but I hope both sides can come to a reasonable conclusion as a result of this debate and as a result of pressure. The important thing is to get access for those people who are suffering and whose lung capacity can reduce so quickly at any moment.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Is the problem that the current system of NICE analysis, using its quality-adjusted life year—QALY—measures, is unable to take account of negotiated discounts through pipeline agreements such as the one he has outlined? Is it time that this House and the Government made it clear that that needs to be taken account of, and that NHS England and Vertex need to get together and show that the cost is good value for money when we take account of pipeline deals and negotiated discounts?

[Paul Scully]

The right hon. Gentleman’s contribution comes to the nub of the issue. I will scrap most of my speech, which I had not written anyway, and dash around. There are two issues. We can talk about the Government getting involved in pushing NHS England and Vertex together to make a sensible deal in this case, but I come back to the point that this is an analogue system in a digital age. I will try to do it justice, but it is a case of inequality. About 400 patients have access to Kalydeco, which I mentioned earlier. They have a particular mutation to which Kalydeco responds. Around 3,000 patients would be eligible to access Orkambi. However, the point about cystic fibrosis is that, because it is a genetic disease, it cannot be caught, so we know pretty well the number of people we will need to treat over the next few years. There are around 10,400 sufferers in this country, which is extraordinary, because there are only 70,000 sufferers around the world.

Cystic fibrosis is a pernicious disease, and I have not even started talking about its effect on the children of the people I have met. However, it is not big enough to require an international epidemic-style solution, and it is not small enough to be a rare disease. It fits somewhere in the middle.

Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review

Ed Davey Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

On behalf of my constituents whose families have suffered from the effects of Primodos, I thank the Secretary of State for taking a step in the right direction. He has announced that there will be another review with another remit. Can he reassure the House that one of the reviews will be able to investigate the cover-up over Primodos that we know has taken place for decades, and that if a crime has been committed, it will be dealt with?

[Mr Hunt]

I totally respect the right hon. Gentleman for airing his constituents’ concerns, but, as he will know from my answers to earlier questions, the difficulty in the case of Primodos—and this is incredibly distressing for the families involved—is that scientists do not agree about the issue, and as a result we do, unfortunately, find ourselves having to review what has happened. The review conducted by the expert working group was our first attempt. We are now giving Baroness Cumberlege a free hand to consider that and any other evidence that has come to light, and to draw her own conclusions.

Hospital Car Parking Charges

Ed Davey Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to undertake a consultation to identify the most efficient means of abolishing car parking charges at NHS hospitals in England for patients, staff and visitors and to provide the timescale for its implementation.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for accepting the application for this vital debate. I especially thank my colleagues who have supported me in securing it, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker). I also thank the various charities and organisations that have actively supported the campaign through their own research and on social media, such as CLIC Sargent, Bliss and Scope, and organisations representing drivers, such as FairFuelUK and the RAC. Those are just a few of the bodies offering their help and support to bring an end to the extortionate car parking charges found at many hospitals in England.

We all know that being a patient or visitor can be a stressful time. The last thing that anyone should be worried about is whether they have change for a car park or whether they can afford the rates that are charged. I started this campaign for free hospital car parking in 2014, after finding out that hospitals in England were charging staff and visitors up to £500 a week to use on-site parking facilities. As a result, in the same year, the Government published guidance urging hospitals to cut their parking fees. They said:

“Concessions, including free or reduced charges or caps should be available for staff working unsociable shifts, blue badge holders and visitors of gravely ill relatives.”

Although some weekly charges have fallen since 2014, I was shocked to discover last year when we carried out further research that 47% of hospitals have increased the hourly parking charges and nearly half of hospitals charge blue badge holders to park. The average cost to park for a week at a hospital in England is £53.41 and people pay on average £1.98 for one hour stay.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman is a fantastic campaigner on such issues and I congratulate him on bringing the issue to the House of Commons. In my constituency, Kingston Hospital just announced with no consultation that it will impose parking charges on blue badge holders, citing that people are doing it everywhere else in the NHS and that it is an NHS-wide issue. Does he therefore not agree with me that it is up to the Government to give a clear lead and, at the very least, get rid of parking charges for blue badge holders?

[Robert Halfon]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Too often, these charges are imposed without any consultation, or without fair consultation, and they hit the most vulnerable. He will hear later in my remarks that I completely agree with him.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Ed Davey Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I am here because of my constituent Sue Illsley, who took this drug when she was a teenager. She believes that her daughter has suffered disabilities as a result, and that has obviously affected her whole life. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and I hope that the Minister will read their speeches, because they made some powerful points about the evidence, and he needs to ensure that his officials look into that in detail.

I want to use some evidence given to me by Jason Farrell, an investigative news reporter at Sky News who has done a fantastic job over many years to bring this matter to light. I particularly want to refer to documents that he found in the national archives in Berlin, which include minutes of meetings between the company, Schering Chemicals Ltd, its lawyer and a scientific adviser. I will read extracts from the minutes of meetings held on 20 and 21 December 1977 at the Goldsmith Building, Temple, London, where Schering was getting the legal advice of a Mr Clothier, QC. The extracts will show that there has been a cover-up over years, and it has to stop here, today. We have to pass this motion and the Government have to act—no more cover-ups. The minutes state:

“Mr Clothier then went on to the letter written by Dr. Pitchford and Dr. Bye to Dr. Friebel in Germany (6th June 1968) requesting that… it was important that something more must be done. Mr Clothier went into this letter in some detail and suggested that it would be dynamite in the hands of the claimants.”

Another memo from Dr Pitchford to Dr Friebel, dated 22 July 1969, was raised by Mr Clothier. This memo was a summary of events and stated that Schering should abandon the product for use in pregnancy testing. Mr Clothier wished to know what had been done on the Schering side in response. No answer.

Mr Clothier felt, if the case were tried to the end by a judge, the chances were that the company would be found to be in neglect of its duty. Clothier stated that there seemed to be a 5:1 chance that, if there were a malformation in a child and the mother took Primodos while pregnant, it was the fault of the drug.

Page 7 of the memo states that Mr Clothier told Schering

“there were 2 alternatives open to us—one is to establish a voluntary scheme of compensation in which a justifiable claim will be given compensation without proof of liability but simply accepting moral responsibility.”

The other alternative was to take such claims to court.

Dr Detering of Schering said he was

“hesitant in establishing a scheme as the product is marketed world-wide. If we introduce this scheme in one country, we should introduce it in other countries.”

Back in 1977, people were trying to escape their moral responsibilities.

Other prime issues were raised in this minute but, because of the time, I will go on to the other minute, which is the report of a meeting with Professor Tuchmann-Duplessis, a scientist from Paris, on 16 February 1978. The minute is dated the next day and states:

“The meeting…was arranged by Dr. Detering in Berlin in order to determine Professor Tuchmann’s general opinion on the validity and quality of the work that had been carried out on Primodos.”

According to this minute, the first question posed was:

“Did we, as a Company, carry out all the studies that we were supposed to?”

The answer was:

“In Professor Tuchmann’s opinion we should have done much more. He expressed the view that after discovering that a certain dose was embryolethal in rabbits and in rats, we should have certainly carried out teratological studies in primates in 1968.”

This is a scandal. They knew. The lawyers were saying that the company would be liable, and that it would be found guilty in a court and would have to pay.

Why does this continue? We have heard from many hon. Members today about constituents across our country whose lives have been blighted by this. Why continue? The Minister has to stand up to the official briefings he is getting. He has to stand up to the nonsense of continued obfuscation and cover-up. Surely he must stand up and say at the Dispatch Box that he will support the motion, and that the Government will set up a judicial inquiry as soon as possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

King’s College Hospital Foundation Trust

Ed Davey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

My right hon. Friend makes a very valid point. We need to ensure that chairmen who go into trusts that have challenges have the capacity to do that job. I will be looking to ensure that NHS Improvement challenges Ian Smith, if he is appointed, to check that he has sufficient capacity to undertake the role. My understanding is that he does.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Will the Minister ask NHS Improvement to produce a report on what has happened at King’s, so that Parliament can look at the report to learn the lessons and to find out who was right?

[Mr Dunne]

NHS Improvement regularly reviews trusts in financial special measures. It does so through the usual channels to the ministerial team responsible for it. It will do so in this case, as it does in all other cases where financial special measures have been entered into.