Backbench Business

Calls attention to the fifth debate about Primodos, urging government to grant justice to families. Stresses that studies from Oxford University found a clear association between Primodos and malformations; Professor Neil Vargesson's research on zebrafish demonstrated similar findings. Condemns use of expert working group report as defence in court, highlighting its conflicts of interest and manipulation of evidence. Demands an independent review of scientific evidence to confirm the link between Primodos and harm. Criticises government for not acting despite Cumberlege review's conclusions that Primodos caused avoidable harm.

Intervenes to remind that tablets were given by GPs in NHS clinics, funded by the national health service. Highlights public involvement and responsibility.

Questions how it is possible to have a complete evidential base when many medical records were destroyed. Expresses concern about difficulty in gathering conclusive evidence due to record destruction.

Shares concern that progress on Cumberlege report recommendations is lagging, particularly for Primodos families who need immediate support. Emphasises urgency of addressing the issue before more time elapses and potential justice becomes lost.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the debate, and most of all I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East on securing it... To me, “on balance” means that there was an argument against a causal link and, on the other side, an argument for a causal link, so the strength of the absolute decision that the expert working group came out with was, I think, a misrepresentation of what they had put earlier in the report. It was that sense of a balanced argument that led me to call for the Cumberlege review.

I thank the right hon. Lady for the work that she did as Prime Minister to set up the Cumberlege review... Does she agree that for the Government solicitor to be part of that process, and threatening those families, is quite atrocious?

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead... I hope that the Minister is able to reassure us that that position has now changed.

Ms Webb thanked hon. Members for their work and paid tribute to Beccy's family, who she recently met. She recounted Helen's story, a woman from Wrexham in 1970, who was prescribed Primodos by her doctor to confirm pregnancy, which led to Beccy’s severe disabilities. The components of Primodos are at 40 times the strength of oral contraceptives and it had no prescription requirement despite health warnings for certain conditions. Ms Webb detailed Beccy's life with physical handicaps like a curved spine and deformations in her hands and feet, along with mental impairments including cerebral palsy and autism that affect her development. She mentioned that numerous tests failed to explain the cause of these disabilities except Primodos being the common factor. The family seeks an independent review of the expert working group's report from 2017 for acknowledgment and justice.

I have been involved in the campaign for nearly a decade to provide justice to women affected by Primodos, highlighting the work of Yasmin Qureshi, Marie Lyon, her husband, and Sue Ilsley. I emphasise that Schering, now owned by Bayer, knew as early as 1977 that there was a high chance their drug caused malformations in children, yet they have evaded responsibility for decades. We need to hold guilty parties accountable and implement the review's recommendations, including establishing a proper compensation fund. Furthermore, I am suspicious of any attempts to wriggle out of liability and call for a public inquiry to uncover all aspects of this global pharmaceutical scandal.

The speaker expresses concern over the ongoing suffering of women and families harmed by Primodos, highlighting the need for regulatory bodies to ensure patient safety. She cites instances where medicines were withdrawn after an average period of 11 years on the market, questioning how many times history will repeat itself. McVey references a Health Committee inquiry from 2004 that noted the closeness between regulators and drug companies and highlighted poor communication and lack of public trust in the MHRA. She also mentions a 2020 review, “First Do No Harm”, which found significant reforms were needed due to mishandling of safety concerns. The speaker stresses the importance of addressing under-reporting of adverse reactions and calls for robust outcomes from future inquiries. Additionally, she criticises the Government’s vaccine damage payment scheme for failing to help those injured by AstraZeneca vaccination. Three years after Baroness Cumberlege's review, McVey notes that redress schemes have not been fully implemented.

It is a pleasure to follow my near constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), and I join her and others in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for her campaigns over the years, and of course to Marie Lyon for her many years of campaigning for justice for the families affected, including in my constituency. When Baroness Cumberlege’s report “First Do No Harm” was published in 2020, it finally offered those families hope of justice. It was unequivocal in finding that those affected by Primodos had ‘suffered avoidable harm’ and should be entitled to support and financial redress. That should have been a landmark moment. The then Health Secretary apologised, appearing to take responsibility and accept the report’s verdict, so it is really so disappointing that, as I stand here today, no Primodos-affected families have received any compensation payment to address what they have been through. I want to emphasise the impact on individual lives by looking at two families in my constituency. Patricia McClellan had two children and was prescribed Primodos when pregnant with her son John, who was born missing an arm. She described being asked if she had taken any medication during her pregnancy, to which she replied that she had been given Primodos. When doctors came to assess him a couple of days after his birth, Patricia described being asked if she had taken any medication during her pregnancy, to which she replied that she had been given Primodos. She felt as though she had been kept in the dark for over 40 years and wanted answers and justice for her son John. Sadly, Patricia died in 2019, never having received closure and justice. The Pierce family are another family affected by Primodos. Their daughter Louise is now 54 years old with several disabilities which they believe were caused by their mother being prescribed Primodos when pregnant. She has required full-time care for most of her life. In 2018, Janet had a serious stress-related breakdown, leaving her with short-term memory loss and lack of awareness, and Edward now acts as her full-time carer. It is so disappointing that the Government rejected the report’s recommendation for a new independent redress agency, and instead highlighted existing legal routes for redress which families lack the funding to properly challenge in court. One of the specific recommendations was the establishment of an ex gratia scheme for victims of hormone pregnancy tests and discretionary payments to provide redress for stress, anxiety, psychological harm and toll of fighting for recognition experienced by those affected. The Cumberlege report stated that while there is disagreement between experts about whether Primodos caused birth defects, thousands of women and unborn children were exposed to a risk acknowledged at the time. In such circumstances, it is the Government’s moral duty to implement that report’s recommendations in full or explain how those families will get financial redress they deserve.

Blake, a biomedical scientist by background, agreed with Villiers, highlighting the rigorous approach taken in the Oxford study which excluded biased studies and included stringent statistical analysis. She stressed that this makes the review all the more important to listen to.

Those women who took the drug Primodos during pregnancy gave birth to babies with serious defects. No official warnings were issued until eight years after Dr Isabel Gal's concerns in 1967, leading to regulatory failures. The Government must accept responsibility for these failures and compensate victims.

Emphasised that Primodos was not prescribed with a prescription; no pharmacist could have verified its appropriateness based on patient characteristics, indicating a significant oversight in the drug's distribution and regulation.

Suggested adopting the Public Authorities (Accountability) Bill to ensure public authorities admit responsibility following adverse incidents. Highlighted the need for transparency regarding the number of premature deaths caused by Primodos, akin to the cover-up after the Hillsborough disaster.

I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate and for her outstanding and ongoing work on the issue. I am here today on behalf of my constituent Helen Barham, who since her birth has suffered from a brain disorder, hydrocephalus, skeletal damage, and a brain haemorrhage leading to epilepsy. She requires compensation that would allow her a personal carer and more comfort than she currently lives in. Following Helen’s brain haemorrhage at 12 weeks in 1975, her mother Diane was told by a doctor to forget about Helen as she would be nothing but a cabbage. However, Diane has dedicated much of her life to Helen’s care despite the cost it has come at for herself and others. The Government are working towards redress systems for valproate and vaginal mesh, but there has been no progress on a scheme for Primodos families. Modern science is also paving the way with new studies using zebrafish and chicken embryos showing similar outcomes to those for children born following their mothers being prescribed Primodos.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East on securing this debate, and thank her for her outstanding work in leading this campaign in Parliament. I pay tribute to all the families of children who were born with birth defects after their pregnant mothers took Primodos and to Marie Lyon for her tireless work. Those affected should not have to fight for justice; the Government must acknowledge the recommendations in the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety review relating to Primodos-affected families, implement them, and set up a redress fund. The latest setback came when claims for damages against Bayer Pharma were struck out in the High Court due to lack of funding. The evidence shows an association between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects but the Government have refused to acknowledge it.

Paid tribute to Yasmin Qureshi and mentioned his own constituent affected by the issue. Criticised the Government for their attitude towards Primodos, stating it was clear harm had been caused by the drug. Emphasised that the current government is not at fault but still does not address the issue.

Expressed solidarity with affected families in Northern Ireland and highlighted the ongoing impacts of Primodos use until 1978. Raised concerns about lack of compensation and support for families suffering miscarriages or stillbirths due to the drug.

Acknowledged Marie Lyon's work in raising awareness and cited evidence that Primodos was extremely harmful, equivalent to taking 80 modern contraceptive pills at once. Urged for swift action on compensation and redress, criticising past government failures.

The debate is long overdue and extremely important given the legal proceedings are not ongoing, allowing for discussion on what the Government can do for Primodos families. Stevenson recounts her meeting with affected families such as the Bagley family, highlighting the enduring hardship they face caring for Steven, who was born with severe brain damage due to Primodos. She emphasises the need for redress and support from the Government based on Baroness Cumberlege’s report, which highlights the psychological suffering of those affected by Primodos and the ongoing difficulties faced by their families. Stevenson suggests that a discretionary award based on need would help families access necessary services such as night sits, incontinence pads, domiciliary carers, suitable wheelchairs, adult centre training, and future care.

Firth expresses gratitude for the debate and acknowledges the work of Baroness Cumberlege in supporting Primodos victims. She highlights her constituent Sheila's case where Raymond Hyman was born with severe heart defects after his mother took Primodos, which affected his growth and education and continues to impact his mental health today. Firth argues that families and victims deserve justice and financial support similar to those provided for thalidomide and variant CJD victims, and calls for practical and non-financial assistance beyond preventing future harm.

It has been an honour to sit through the debate and I pay tribute to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, Yasmin Qureshi. The debate highlights unity and passion but notes that Governments do not act on these issues effectively. Mike Penning expresses frustration with the lack of Government action on serious issues like Primodos, despite awareness for years. He criticises the way the Government responds to inquiries, stating that they should come forward instead of being UQ-ed (Unanswered Question). Mike also highlights the emotional impact on women in 1960s and 70s who were prescribed Primodos by their GPs without full information about potential risks. He emphasises the importance of trust in the NHS and calls for Governments to address the issues raised properly, rather than ignoring them.

Ms Bardell spoke about the ongoing issue of hormone pregnancy tests, particularly focusing on the case involving Wilma Ord and other victims. She emphasised the importance of trust between constituents, doctors, and government institutions like the NHS. The speaker criticised the lack of regulation that allowed companies to operate and cause harm to citizens. Ms Bardell also highlighted the flaws in the legal process for compensation, mentioning the actions of Pogust Goodhead law firm and Bayer (formerly Schering). She called upon these entities to return documents and provide transparency regarding their actions.

Thanked the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, paid tribute to Yasmin Qureshi for her work on the issue. Acknowledged contributions from various Members of Parliament who supported the campaign. Emphasised that around 1.5 million women in Britain took Primodos between the ’50s and ’70s before it was withdrawn, leading to numerous allegations about birth defects, miscarriage and stillbirth due to its use. Highlighted the damning conclusions of the Cumberlege report which found an institutional failure to take the voices of women seriously, leading to avoidable harm caused by Primodos. Criticised the Government's slow progress in implementing recommendations from the Cumberlege review, urging the Minister for updates on establishing specialist centres and care pathways for affected families.

The Minister emphasised her commitment to patient safety and acknowledged Baroness Cumberlege’s report, stating that most of its recommendations have been accepted. She also addressed the legal proceedings and the current status of a second claim against Bayer/Schering. The Minister committed to reviewing outstanding recommendations regarding Primodos patients and expressed willingness to meet campaigners and families affected by Primodos.

Ms Eagle intervened, urging the Minister to address the issue of redress for Primodos patients directly rather than discussing other matters like mesh. She expressed dissatisfaction with what she perceived as a typical civil service-drafted speech.

Mr Penning intervened to highlight that the so-called expert group changed its remit without recourse, which was not aligned with its original mandate. This intervention emphasised concerns about the review process.

The former Prime Minister intervened to clarify if the Government would be a party to the second court case and expressed gratitude for the Minister's willingness to meet campaigners directly. She urged implementation of Cumberlege review recommendations.

Mr Davey emphasised the need for the Government to implement Cumberlege review recommendations rather than seeking further evidence, highlighting a desire for decisive action on patient safety issues.

Ms Qureshi thanked her colleagues for their contributions and expressed dissatisfaction with the Government's approach to addressing the Primodos case. She requested an immediate meeting with the Minister to discuss practical steps towards redress based on the Cumberlege review, rather than waiting months for a response or hearing about previous issues.

Mr Gale intervened to order that Ms Qureshi may give way to the Minister despite having only two minutes left in her speech, acknowledging the importance of addressing the issue.