Hormone Pregnancy Tests
Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Yasmin Qureshi(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi
That is absolutely right; I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in the Chamber. I know that, as Prime Minister at the time, she read this report. I note that in a recent Sky News interview she said
“I felt that it wasn’t the slam dunk answer that people said it was.”
I am truly grateful to her for commissioning Baroness Cumberlege to carry out a review that was both independent and credible.
Knowing what we now know, that the expert working group report was a whitewash, riddled with factual inaccuracies and conflicts of interest; knowing that studies from Oxford University have proven that the evidence in this report was deliberately manipulated to reach its conclusion; knowing that the Prime Minister of the day knew something was not right and then commissioned another review—how can it be right that any Government can continue to use this report to hide their sins?
Only a few weeks ago, lawyers used the report in court to defend their preposterous claims, and Ministers have used it as a basis to refuse and deny families redress. It is outrageous. I ask the Minister today: will she take a stand and do the right thing? Will she be courageous and read beyond the lines of the ministerial briefing she has been given? Only then will she agree with me that the expert working group report is not worth the paper it is written on.
The report stands in the way of justice for families affected by Primodos. I urge the Minister to work with us to set up an independent review of the scientific evidence, because I can assure her that only a truly independent review will find that there is an association between Primodos and malformation.
The scientific evidence is vast. Over several decades, numerous studies and animal experiments have found that the use of such tests can cause potential birth defects. In 2018, a team of academics at Oxford University conducted a systematic review of all previous human studies. They pooled together the data and found a “clear association” with several forms of malformation. At Aberdeen University, Professor Neil Vargesson has been working on this issue for years. He published research on zebrafish, which are genetically like humans, and found that the drug caused deformities in embryos. More recently, he has been working with human tissues and has again found the same association. There is another groundbreaking study take place in Sweden, which will be published soon. Again, that will continue to show how much evidence there is regarding this particular medication.
I have no doubt that later in the debate the Minister will stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the House that there is nothing she can do for the Primodos families because there is no proven association, because she has been convinced by the civil servants, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and others. Would she like me to send her some of these studies—or perhaps I can hand them to her today? Is she willing to confront the truth, or is she going to be like her predecessors, burying her head in the sand? As long as she takes that position, she is standing in the way of truth and justice.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that since the Cumberlege report there has not been progress on the vast majority of recommendations, and that for Primodos families time is running out? This issue needs to be addressed, and soon.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my hon. Friend for that; I will come on to the recommendations of the Cumberlege review.
The Minister will know that in May this year, families took the issue to the High Court. It was a David and Goliath moment. Government and Bayer lawyers used the expert working group report to argue that there was no basis for a case. The families did not have sufficient legal representation, as the firm representing them on a pro bono basis pulled out without any real explanation. It was not a fair hearing and was never going to achieve a fair outcome.
The action to strike out thus succeeded. Had that not happened, the families would have been given their day in court—an opportunity to present new scientific evidence, to argue about the misconceptions of not using epidemiological evidence to prove causation and to scrutinise the heavily flawed expert working group.
When the Cumberlege review came out, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), went on the television and apologised, but nothing has happened since then. For the first time, the Cumberlege review, known as the “Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review” or IMMDS, looked at the historical evidence and the Government documents, which showed a cover-up, and concluded that Primodos had caused “avoidable harm” and it was preventable.
The UK regulator first received a warning about the drug in 1958. A definitive study was published in 1967, which linked birth defects to the synthetic hormones in Primodos. Baroness Cumberlege concluded that Primodos should have been removed from the market in 1967. The UK regulator failed in its duty of care to women: Primodos was eventually withdrawn in 1978, 20 years after the first warning.
Let me be clear by saying it one more time: an independent review found that Primodos caused preventable and avoidable harm—the Government cannot argue their way out of that—and recommended that the Primodos families should have redress. If the Minister wants to waste time by arguing that the Cumberlege review was not a scientific one, then we can have an independent review of all the scientific evidence, but let us not waste time; let us get on with it.
The families have already been through so much in their lives. Many of them have died, others are still very unwell. Why do the Government still insist on putting them through so much emotional and mental anguish? I ask the Minister to look at the Public Gallery, where some of those families sit, having travelled from across the country. Their campaign has been led by the amazing Marie Lyon, and they have been on a long and challenging journey, spanning almost five decades, to achieve justice. Their stories are at the heart of that justice. Those in the Gallery are just some of the families, but there are many hundreds more.
Justice delayed is justice denied. The legal system has failed those families, and so far the Government have failed them as well. I ask the Government to include Primodos families in the redress scheme being delivered to the victims of mesh and valproate as a result of the recommendation in the IMMDS/Cumberlege review. This was once referred to as the worst medical fraud of the 20th century, and I believe that to be true. The families are entitled to seek reparation and redress, as the Cumberlege review made clear. The Minister has an opportunity. She has it in her power to dispense justice and grant the affected families the redress that they rightly deserve. The ball is in her court.
Hospital Car Parking Charges
Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Yasmin Qureshi(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this debate. I start with the point on which she finished, which is that the NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use. When we set sometimes exorbitant charges at different hospitals, we are effectively taxing the ill and their families.
Members have talked about the families of patients in hospital for the long term, with all the costs involved for relatives who visit them. This is honestly not a party political point, but in 2009, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister, the Labour party suggested that those who had family members in hospital for a long time should get special permits to enable them to visit without having to pay each time, but that was scrapped in 2010 when the current Government came in. I ask them to reconsider that proposal. One way in which they could act very positively would be to have a similar provision such that the family of those in hospital for the long term can get and use special permits. That would certainly deal with the problem of the long-term ill.
There is another group of people whom we have not mentioned. We now have an elderly population and most older people have not just one health issue, but several health complications, so they often end up having to go to hospital to see consultants and doctors for six, eight or nine different illnesses or health issues. Each time they go, they or the person accompanying them has to pay hospital parking charges.
I give the example of my mother, who is 82 years of age. She has several different health issues, and every time I take her to my local hospital—I am her carer—it costs £3, just for five or 10 minutes. I am in the privileged position of being able to afford that, but there are many people in my constituency, who have caring responsibilities for adult and often elderly family members, who may only be on the minimum wage.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for the many elderly people who do not drive, public transport is a really important issue, just like parking charges? Is she aware that Queen’s medical centre in Nottingham is soon to have the first dedicated hospital tram stop, which will improve access for older and disabled people in particular?
Yasmin Qureshi
I did not know about the Nottingham tram, but I am pleased that people there will have a tram stop to deal with the problem. Something like that would be brilliant in my constituency. There is a bus that goes to my hospital, the Royal Bolton, but because of its location the service is not frequent, so getting there is quite difficult. Such public transport solutions can help people as well. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that many older people cannot drive, so they also have that challenge.
Perhaps we do not think enough about the number of appointments most older patients have, as do those who are generally ill and have to go in and out of hospital for appointments numerous times. The way forward may be to abolish car park charging full stop, so that a scheme can be applied nationally. The minute we have a discretionary system and leave each hospital trust to decide for itself, some—perhaps because where they are located means they have a large parking space—can charge a small amount, such as 50p, while other hospitals that lack space because of where they are must charge a bit more. Leaving things to discretion means having, as everyone says, a postcode lottery. A better solution might be to make special dispensation, across the whole country, for those going to hospital appointments or those who are in hospital for some days.
Although I have a legal background, I am not normally an advocate for a lot more law, because it is not always a good idea to have loads of legislation. In this case, however, it is worth thinking about having legislation or a directive with the even more novel approach of abolishing such charges altogether. At the end of the day, nobody goes to hospital for pleasure; they go out of necessity and because they are unwell. Therefore, a hospital that raises £500,000 or £1 million, with all the budget it has—
Rolling Stock (North of England)
Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Yasmin Qureshi(10 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lilian Greenwood
I am sorry, but I am not going to give way, as we have limited time.
We heard powerful examples of the difficulties commuters face from hon. Members from across the House, including the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Southport (John Pugh), my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and, briefly but eloquently, my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). As First TransPennine Express has said, even a relatively small reduction in the size of its fleet could have a profound impact on services. The company said:
“Our timetable from May 2014 through to the end of our current franchise term requires all of our existing fleets to be able to deliver the significant capacity increase that we have committed to provide. Similarly, the same total number of vehicles would be required to sustain the same level of service into the new ten-month franchise extension period from April 2015.”
If replacement rolling stock is transferred from Northern Rail, the same problem will be repeated. Passengers, transport authorities and operators now face years of uncertainty over rolling stock availability before electrification is completed. Drivers cannot be trained and new services cannot be planned. If still more trains are lost, those problems will only become more unmanageable.
I understand that Chiltern’s agreement to operate the Class 170s contains a sub-lease that would allow the trains to remain in use on the trans Pennine routes until replacement rolling stock can be found. I also understand that the Department for Transport, First TransPennine Express and Chiltern Railways are parties to that lease. Will the Minister tell us whether the sub-lease can go ahead only with the full agreement of the Department and Chiltern Railways? It is important that we have an answer to that question and to the other questions that hon. Members have raised today.
When the Minister responds I hope that he is not tempted to downplay the issue by saying that this situation is simply part of the normal process of cascading rolling stock. If that is so, why is the industry press reporting that the loss of the Class 170s is
“likely to produce a serious reduction in capacity”
on the TransPennine routes? As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who chairs the Transport Committee, has said,
“this issue is causing considerable uncertainty over the future viability of TPE’s timetable.”
The Minister might say that this is simply a matter for the market to decide, and, of course, the split between infrastructure, train operators and rolling stock companies was established in the botched privatisation by the previous Conservative Government. However, if it is simply something for the industry to decide, why has the Department been involved in discussions between Chiltern Railways and the rolling stock leasing company at every stage in the process? He might try to insist that the situation is simply business as usual, but after today’s debate, that simply would not be credible. The problem is the direct consequence of the panicked direct awards programme introduced following the collapse of the west coast competition. In turn, that was caused by Ministers imposing their new franchise model on one of the most complex routes in Europe. At every stage, Ministers are directly accountable, and they will be accountable for any reduction of services that results from that chain of events.
The truth is that, for all the talk of cutting red tape, the coalition will leave a record of five years of disastrous decisions in Whitehall, a top-heavy failure to manage key projects, and a huge expansion in the Department’s involvement in the rail network. I accept that the Minister may be an unlikely occupant of a Marxist universe, but perhaps we should not be surprised by the coalition’s switch to old-fashioned command and control. After all, last year, the Business Secretary said that a “rail revolution” was taking place. With services threatened and rolling stock taken away, we now know what the rallying cry of that strange revolution—it unites MPs across party boundaries—will be: “Passengers of the north, unite! You have nothing to lose but your trains.”
Season ticket prices have risen by an average of 20% since the election. Passengers deserve better than this. The Government must face up to the scale of the problem, set out a clear plan for meeting the north’s rolling stock requirements and get the improvements in the region’s rail services back on track.