House of Commons Debate – Hughes Report: First Anniversary (27 March 2025)

Summary

This is a brief summary of a Westminster Hall debate in the House of Commons on the 27 March 2025 concerning the first anniversary of The Hughes Report on valproate and pelvic mesh.

Content

What is a Westminster Hall Debate

Westminster Hall debates give Members of Parliament (MPs) an opportunity to raise local or national issues and receive a response from a government minister. Any MP can take part in a Westminster Hall debate.

The Hughes Report

The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, published in July 2020, highlighted the scale of avoidable harm related to three medical interventions: hormone pregnancy tests, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh implants. One of the Review’s key recommendations was that separate redress schemes should be established for patients adversely affected by these interventions.

Published on the 7 February 2024, the Patient Safety Commissioner for England set out options for redress for two of these interventions, pelvic mesh and sodium valproate in The Hughes Report. It recommends the government creates a two-stage financial redress scheme – an interim scheme to enable the identification of all those harmed ensuring patients receive financial redress quickly – and a main scheme.

You can find Patient Safety Learning’s reflections on the first anniversary of this report’s publication here.

House of Commons debate

In the discussion MPs highlighted individual cases from their constituents relating to pelvic mesh and sodium valproate and also discussed:

• The need to confirm a timeline for the Government's response to The Hughes Report.
• Considering whether there is scope to implement a sunshine-style piece of legislation to ensure the transparency of payments made by industry to the healthcare sector.
• The difficulties of getting financial redress outside of a Government scheme. On mesh, it was noted that of the 1,252 legal cases initiated between 2014 and 2024, only 356 were settled in or out of court with damages, but 678 were concluded without any such damages being awarded.
• Concerns about specialist mesh removal centres being run by clinicians who have inserted mesh.
• Considering whether the initial interim payment of £25,000, proposed by the report, could be prioritised ahead of finalising arrangements for the main payment.

Responding on behalf of the Government to this debate was Ashley Dalton MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention. She noted that:

• The previous Government had held a consultation on the principle of mandatory reporting for industry payments made to the health sector. The Department of Health and Social Care was now considering options regarding payment reporting, with an aim to publish a response later this year.
• The Government is still considering all the options and the associated costs before responding to The Hughes Report’s recommendations. She stated that she would write to Baroness Marron to clarify timescales around this.