Delaying redress for mesh scandal could end up costing taxpayers, warns MP
Delaying redress for victims of the pelvic mesh 'scandal' could end up costing the public purse, a Conservative former Treasury minister has warned.
John Glen on Thursday called for a Commons debate about valproate and pelvic mesh, telling MPs that 'we must move on this matter'.
Thousands of babies are thought to have been harmed by sodium valproate use during pregnancies since the 1970s, a drug used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder which is now known to cause birth defects and lifelong learning difficulties.
Pelvic mesh used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse is also thought to have caused complications and harm for thousands of women – possibly more than 200,000 in England – between 1998 and 2020.
A report by Patient Safety Commissioner Henrietta Hughes published in February last year recommended that victims of harm should start to receive compensation payments this year.
Mr Glen told the Commons: 'It has now been a year since the publication of the Patient Safety Commissioner Hughes Report, which highlighted the devastating impact of valproate and pelvic mesh on thousands of woman and then children.
'Given my experience on the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (as a Cabinet Office minister) and given what I learned from (policing minister Dame Diana Johnson) when she was sat here in opposition, please can we have some time to discuss this?
'The further delays that could occur will cause enormous additional anxiety but also expense to the taxpayer.
'We must move on this matter.'
Commons Leader Lucy Powell replied from the despatch box: 'He does raise a very important issue that has been raised as he said by colleagues with me before recess on the Hughes Report and the valproate and pelvic mesh scandal, which I know is a big issue in the last parliament.
'I know the minister has met with families and is considering in great depth the report, and I will absolutely ensure that at the earliest opportunity the House is given a full update on these matters.
'And I look forward to him from those backbenches as well continuing to raise that with me if that doesn't happen.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Royal College of Pathologists voices concerns over assisted dying Bill
The Royal College of Pathologists, which represents medical examiners, has voiced concerns over the assisted dying Bill. It said it could not support Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because of the role its members were expected to play in the assisted dying process. If the Bill becomes law, assisted deaths would not automatically be referred to a coroner. It is normal practice to refer potentially unnatural deaths or cases in which a drug, authorised or otherwise, brings about death. This would mean medical examiners would have to scrutinise assisted deaths. The royal college says they are not qualified to do so, and warns that a lack of resourcing means medical examiners might be pulled away from other vital work. On Tuesday, Ms Leadbeater defended not involving coroners in the process. She said there would be 'no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry' because adequate safeguards would be in place. The Bill returns to the Commons for a debate on Friday, and a vote is expected next week. Need for 'significant' training Dr Suzy Lishman, senior adviser on medical examiners for the Royal College of Pathologists, said the college had no position on the 'ethical issues' of legalising assisted dying. In a statement, she said: 'The college's concerns relate only to the involvement of medical examiners after an assisted death has taken place. As part of their scrutiny, medical examiners would need to review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do. 'Notification to the coroner following an assisted death would ensure independent judicial review, which is particularly important given the concerns raised by many individuals, organisations and medical royal colleges about the lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill for vulnerable people. 'Lawyers, not doctors, are the most appropriate professionals to review these deaths. The medical examiner system was implemented to detect problems with medical care, not to identify discrepancies or malintent in the legal process required for assisted deaths.' Dr Lishman also raised concerns about the need for 'significant' training and resources for medical examiners to be able to perform the role. She said that this would risk 'potentially taking medical examiners away from their current important role'. The Royal College of Pathologists concluded: 'Coronial referral for assisted deaths would be in line with current regulations, with all deaths due to a medical intervention or medicinal product being notified.' Last year, Thomas Teague KC, the chief coroner for England and Wales from 2020-24, expressed concern about the lack of coroner involvement in the Bill. In a letter to The Telegraph, he wrote: 'Since the coroner's jurisdiction affords a powerful deterrent against misfeasance, the public may wonder why the Bill proposes to abandon such a robust safeguard.' 'Threat to patients and medical workforce' A letter signed by around 1,000 doctors from across the NHS, published this week, said the Bill was a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. They wrote: 'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups.' Last month, the Royal College of Psychiatrists voiced its opposition. Ms Leadbeater said: 'The Bill does not prevent any assisted death being referred to a coroner. However, this would not be required in the majority of cases. 'Coroners investigate deaths that have been reported to them if they think that the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death is unknown, or the person died in prison or in custody. None of these would apply to a legal, assisted death under the terms of this Bill. 'Eligibility for an assisted death would have been assessed in advance by two independent doctors and a multi-disciplinary panel overseen by a commissioner who would be a High Court judge or retired judge. 'Each of these assessments would be subject to the extensive safeguards contained in the Bill to protect everybody, including the most vulnerable. 'Consequently, most cases would not require a judicial investigation after a person has died, and there would be no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry. 'However, in the event of any doubt at all, it would be open to a medical examiner, a family member or anybody with concerns to ask a coroner to investigate.'
Daily Mirror
9 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
NHS chief gives verdict on funding settlement outlined in spending review
New NHS England boss Sir Jim Mackey insists the NHS has done "really well" in the spending review - despite a lower rate of increase than under the Tories in 2023 The new boss of the NHS has said the health service has done 'really well' out of the spending review - despite getting a worse funding settlement than under the Tories. Sir Jim Mackey gave his first major speech at the annual NHS Confed Expo conference in Manchester moments before Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed the health service will get a major funding squeeze. The Chancellor's spending review will mean a 3% annual budget rise, which is lower than the average 3.6% increases the NHS has received since its founding. It is also lower than the 3.3% rise seen in 2023 under the previous Conservative governments. But Sir Jim told health leaders: "The NHS has done really well relative to other parts of the public service but we all know it's never enough because of the scale of advancement, all the ambition, all things we want to do, the day-to-day cost pressures we're trying to get on top of, etc. "We're always going to be in a world where we want more money, but I think everyone's starting to accept and understand that we've got what the country can afford to give us. We really need to get better value for that money - it is broadly the equivalent of the GDP of Portugal, so it's a huge amount of money by any standards. "It's a huge amount - (the) Government has done us a really good turn compared to other parts of the public service. But it's not going to allow us all to just take our feet off the pedal and just run loose and do what we want to do in this next period, we have still got an awful lot of difficult things to do." Sir Jim succeeded previous chief executive Amanda Pritchard as the Government took direct control of NHS England, which had previously been operationally independent. Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered her Spending Review, setting out budgets for government departments. She said she has made "tough decisions" but is rejecting "austerity". Healthcare spending generally increases to keep pace with a growing and aging population. The UK spends less on healthcare than most other European countries. The 3% rise will add up to about £30 billion a year extra by the end of the parliament. It comes as the NHS is likely to have to find the cash for above-inflation pay rises for staff and a large chunk of a £1 billion-a-year rise in drug prices ministers have promised to the pharmaceutical industry. Sir Jim acknowledged it will be a struggle for the NHS to improve 'delayed discharges' where hospitals are full of frail but otherwise well people because there is no social care places for them. He added: "Social care in local authorities won't do brilliantly in the spending review… so we will be left with what we can do as much as we can within our gift." It comes as internal Government modelling suggests that without more NHS funding Sir Keir Starmer 's government will miss a key pledge to treat 92% of patients requiring routine care within 18 weeks. The NHS constitutional standard has not been met for a decade. Sally Gainsbury, of the Nuffield Trust think tank, told the Times that "an extra 2.8 per cent in real terms will not fully cover the new demands the health service can expect each year, let alone eliminate previous problems like the waiting list backlog".
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
Royal College of Pathologists comes out against assisted dying
The Royal College of Pathologists, which represents medical examiners, has come out against assisted dying. It said it could not support Kim Leadbeater 's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because of the role that it was expected to play in the assisted dying process. Under the Bill, assisted deaths will not be automatically referred to a coroner, which is usual practice for potentially unnatural deaths and when a drug, authorised or otherwise, brings about death. This will mean that it is for medical examiners to scrutinise assisted deaths. The professional body that represents them says that they are not qualified to do so and warn that a lack of resourcing means that medical examiners may be pulled away from other parts of their vital work. Ms Leadbeater on Tuesday defended not involving coroners in the process. She said there was 'no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry' because adequate safeguards were in place. It comes as the Bill returns to the Commons for a debate on Friday, and a vote on the legislation is expected next week. Dr Suzy Lishman, senior adviser on medical examiners for the Royal College of Pathologists, said that the college had no position on the 'ethical issues' of legalising assisted dying. In a statement, Dr Lishman said: 'The college's concerns relate only to the involvement of medical examiners after an assisted death has taken place. 'As part of their scrutiny, medical examiners would need to review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do. 'Notification to the coroner following an assisted death would ensure independent judicial review, which is particularly important given the concerns raised by many individuals, organisations and medical royal colleges about the lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill for vulnerable people. 'Lawyers, not doctors, are the most appropriate professionals to review these deaths. The medical examiner system was implemented to detect problems with medical care, not to identify discrepancies or malintent in the legal process required for assisted deaths.' Dr Lishman also raised concerns about the need of 'significant' training and resources needed for medical examiners to be able to perform the role in the process. She said that this would risk 'potentially taking medical examiners away from their current important role'. The Royal College of Pathologists concluded: 'Coronial referral for assisted deaths would be in line with current regulations, with all deaths due to a medical intervention or medicinal product being notified.' Last year, Thomas Teague KC, the former chief coroner for England and Wales from 2020-24, expressed concern about the lack of coroner involvement in the Bill. In a letter to The Telegraph, he wrote: 'Since the coroner's jurisdiction affords a powerful deterrent against misfeasance, the public may wonder why the Bill proposes to abandon such a robust safeguard.' A letter signed by around 1,000 doctors from across the NHS published this week said that the Bill is a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. They said: 'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups.' The Royal College of Pathologists is the latest royal college to come out against the legislation, after the Royal College of Psychiatrists voiced their opposition to the Bill last month. Ms Leadbeater said: 'The Bill does not prevent any assisted death being referred to a coroner, however this would not be required in the majority of cases. 'Coroners investigate deaths that have been reported to them if they think that the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death is unknown, or the person died in prison or in custody. None of these would apply to a legal, assisted death under the terms of this Bill. 'Eligibility for an assisted death would have been assessed in advance by two independent doctors and a multi-disciplinary panel overseen by a commissioner who would be a High Court judge or retired judge. 'Each of these assessments would be subject to the extensive safeguards contained in the Bill to protect everybody, including the most vulnerable. 'Consequently, most cases would not require a judicial investigation after a person has died, and there would be no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry. 'However, in the event of any doubt at all, it would be open to a medical examiner, a family member or anybody with concerns to ask a coroner to investigate.'
