Asked by: James Daly (Conservative - Bury North)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether the Statute of Limitation of three years will apply to people who are considering approaching NHS Resolution Pathway for medical negligence claims as a result of the IMMDS Review, particularly Transvaginal Mesh Injury.
Answered by James Morris
Time limits for personal injury cases are governed by the Limitation Act 1980. The standard period for bringing a personal injury claim is three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued or three years from the injured person’s date of knowledge, if later. Under section 33 of the Act, the court has discretion to extend this period if it considers it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the various factors listed in this section. NHS Resolution will review claims received in the light of the factors listed in section 33 of the Act.
Asked by: Feryal Clark (Labour - Enfield North)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if his Department will make an assessment of the potential merits of introducing redress schemes for people adversely affected by (a) sodium valproate, (b) Primodos and (c) surgical mesh.
Answered by James Morris
The Government’s response to the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety review did not accept the recommendation to establish separate redress schemes for these interventions. We are considering this issue and will update Parliament in due course.
Asked by: Feryal Clark (Labour - Enfield North)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of a retrospective audit of mesh implants to everyone who had one implanted in 2010 as called for in the Cumberlege Review.
Answered by Maria Caulfield - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Minister for Women)
We accepted the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review’s recommendation to undertake a selective retrospective audit of a defined cohort of women who have undergone mesh procedures. NHS Digital is currently completing an audit of all pelvic floor surgery completed in 2010, to generate a historical baseline of outcomes by procedure type and support further research and analysis. We aim to publish the results of the audit later this year.
Asked by: Feryal Clark (Labour - Enfield North)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department plans to create a database for people who have permanently implanted medical devices, including details on the type of device.
Answered by Maria Caulfield - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Minister for Women)
The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review recommended that “a central patient-identifiable database should be created by collecting key details of the implantation of all devices at the time of the operation. This can then be linked to specifically created registers to research and audit the outcomes both in terms of the device safety and patient reported outcomes measures”. The Government accepted this recommendation.
In 2021/22, we worked with partners in the healthcare system to scope, test and cost methods of achieving a United Kingdom-wide medical device information system. This explored establishing national systems, expanding clinical registries and approaches to electronically tracking implanted medical devices at the point of care. We aim to publish an update on the implementation of the Review’s recommendations, including work on a medical device information system, in summer 2022.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when he plans to substantively respond to Questions (a) 124936 on Surgical Mesh Implants: South East, due for Answer on 23 February, (b) 127247 on Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Independent Review, due for answer on 25 February and (c) 131025 on Members: Correspondence, seeking a response to a letter dated 6 December 2021 from the Rt hon. Member for New Forest East about a vulnerable constituent and due for answer on 3 March; for what reason none of the substantive answers have yet been forthcoming; and what steps he plans take to ensure that Questions receive a substantive answer on the date they are due.
Answered by Edward Argar - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
I refer the Rt hon. Member to the answers to Questions 124936, 127247 and 131025.
We take parliamentary scrutiny incredibly seriously and it is fundamentally important that hon. Members are provided with accurate and timely information to enable them to hold the Government to account. We are working rapidly to provide all Members with accurate answers to their questions, while supporting the Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Asked by: Aaron Bell (Conservative - Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, which specialist surgical mesh removal centres are (a) offering rectopexy mesh removal and (b) expected to be offering rectopexy mesh removal within the next 12 months.
Answered by Maria Caulfield - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Minister for Women)
The specialist mesh services in operation do not currently offer rectopexy mesh removal. NHS England and NHS Improvement are working to commission rectopexy services within the specialist mesh centres, to treat those who have been adversely affected by rectopexy mesh. The information requested on the specialist mesh services offering rectopexy mesh removal within the next 12 months is not yet available.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent progress has been made in establishing the South East Regional specialist centre for the treatment of women damaged by mesh implants; and whether checks will be carried out to ensure that such women, when seeking remedial treatment from that specialist centre, are not placed in the hands of surgeons who were responsible for (a) implanting the mesh originally, (b) denying that anything had gone wrong with the implants and (c) claiming that women reporting extreme physical pain from the implants were imagining it.
Answered by Maria Caulfield - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Minister for Women)
The specialist centre for the South East region based at Southampton NHS Foundation Trust is now accepting referrals and offering treatment to patients who have been adversely affected by mesh implants. The surgery to remove mesh implanted for stress urinary incontinence and vaginal prolapse is a relatively new surgical discipline. Expertise is therefore concentrated in a limited number of specialist centres, such as the South East centre, led by a core multi-disciplinary team including consultant specialists in urogynaecology, urology and colorectal surgery. Patients also have access to a team including pelvic floor specialist physiotherapy, psychology, psychosexual counselling, occupational therapy, specialist imaging and pain management services.
Patients can discuss their choice of surgeon with the multi-disciplinary team if they have concerns regarding a specific clinician and can also discuss a referral to a surgeon in another specialist mesh centre.
Asked by: Emma Hardy (Labour - Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the implication for his polices of the decision of Boston Scientific to cease marketing urogynecological mesh products in (a) Australia and (b) New Zealand as of 31 December 2021; and will he make a statement.
Answered by Maria Caulfield - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Minister for Women)
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is aware of the decision from Boston Scientific to cease marketing some uro-gynaecological meshes from the Australian and New Zealand market. The MHRA understands this is a commercial decision not related to the safety of the device and is not applicable to the United Kingdom market.
Asked by: Emma Hardy (Labour - Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the effect on access to treatment of the decision by the specialist centre for mesh removal in Bristol to take only local referrals through the NHS and those from outside their area privately.
Answered by Maria Caulfield - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Minister for Women)
No assessment has been made. NHS England is not aware of any such decision and we expect all mesh removal centres to operate according to the service specification.
North Bristol NHS Trust and the South West Regional Commissioning Team are planning for the Trust to provide all aspects of the service specification and to be fully functional by the end of March 2022.
Asked by: Sharon Hodgson (Labour - Washington and Sunderland West)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the data provided in NHS Resolution's response to Freedom of Information request 5115 of August 2021 which showed that claimant and defence solicitor fees in cases relating to vaginal mesh implants significantly exceeded the settlement reached, what cost benefit assessment he has made of the potential merits of a financial redress scheme for women affected by vaginal mesh implants.
Answered by Maria Caulfield - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Minister for Women)
We published our response to the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review on 21 July 2021. In this response, the Government did not accept the recommendation to establish separate redress schemes for the three interventions discussed in the report. While the Government is sympathetic to the experiences of those patients who gave evidence to the report, our primary focus is on improving future medicines and medical devices safety. We considered the costs of redress and the existing settlement costs for claims. It is crucial that we focus funds on initiatives that directly improve future safety and we are pursuing this aim.