21/02/2018 House of Commons

Herb to do so. I don't think we can

detain the Chamber now. -- her to do

so. We will leave it there for now.

If there are no further points of

order, we come to the statement from

the Secretary of State for Health

and social care.

Secretary Jeremy

Hunt. With permission I would like

to make a statement setting out the

action government is taking to

address public concerns regarding

the safety of medicines and medical

devices used by the NHS. On Friday I

will host campaigners, clinicians

and safety experts from across the

world as part of the patient safety

and science summit, being held for

the first time outside the United

States in London. We will release up

reports on the extent of medical,

medication errors. There are three

areas of potential medication error

that I wish to update the house on.

The first is Primidos, hormone

-based medication that was

prescribed to one and a half million

women before it was withdrawn from

use in 1978, partly due to more

modern pregnancy tests becoming

available. The second is an

anti-epilepsy drug which has been

definitively linked to autism and

learning disabilities in children

were taken during pregnancy.

Campaigners have suggested up to

20,000 children may be affected. The

third is the giant zero mesh

implants which are used to address

covered patients after childbirth

which have been linked to crippling

life changing side-effects. Of

course our first thoughts are with

the individuals and families whose

lives have been turned upside down

by these issues. Many have enjoyed

and continued to endure

complications, distress and

ill-health, alongside a strong sense

that their concerns have not reached

a satisfactory resolution. I paid

particular tribute to those who have

responded to such experiences, not

just with understandable anger, but

with also a resolute determination

to campaign for change. Many have

met ministers and members of this

House and I thank everyone who has

written to me or spoken to me

personally to raise these concerns

on behalf of their constituents. We

must acknowledge that the response

to these issues from those in

positions of authority have not been

good enough. Sometimes the reaction

felt overly focused on defending the

status quo rather than addressing

the needs of patients. As a result,

patients and their families have

spent too long feeling as though

they have not been listened to,

making the agony of a complicated

medical situation worse. Today, in

addition to practical steps for each

of these three cases, I am setting

out plans to establish a fairer,

quicker and more compassionate ways

of addressing issues when they

arise, bringing different voices to

the table from the start and giving

individuals and their families a

clear path to answers and

resolution. In terms of immediate

action in each of the three cases,

on Primidos I've asked my

ministerial colleague Lord

O'Shaughnessy had to drive forward

where possible accelerate the

recommendations of the expert

working group, further strengthening

our systems for monitoring the

safety of medicines in pregnancy.

This will include offering the

families of the Association for

children damaged by hormone

pregnancy tests for up-to-date

genetic clinical evaluation. Better

information for pregnant women and

their families, better training and

support for obstetricians, better

evidence around dosing

recommendations, making electronic

yellow card reporting directly

available to clinicians and patients

at the point of care and stronger

and more joined up messages on

safety. On the autism drug, the

issue is broader than the UK and the

outcome of the EU review expected in

March will strengthen our position.

In preparation we have tossed system

leaders with coordinating a rapid

response, responding to calls from

patients as well we have introduced

a new warning symbol.

We are strengthening alerts across

all GP systems and community

pharmacy systems as the those women

who benefit from the treatment,

offering more information. On the

journal mesh, I've spoken to the

Chief Medical Officer regarding a

complete ban. She is clear that

clinical experts here and abroad

have noted that many women will gain

benefits from this when used

properly. Therefore a full ban is

not appropriate. However this is not

to minimise the suffering that many

women have experienced, which is why

today I can announce we will be

publishing a retrospective audit to

investigate the link between patient

level data to explore outcomes and

investing £1.1 million to develop a

database for the final -- for the

journal mesh. This will improve the

way regulators and the NHS deal with

issues relating to joiner not mesh

and Valproate, as well as ensuring

the safety of medicines during

pregnancy. But that it has taken so

long to do with these issues raises

other questions. It's a principle of

patient safety about the regular

environment gives voice to

legitimate concerns reported by

patients, families and campaigners

and works alongside them and

response to them in a rapid, open

and compassionate way to resolve

issues when they raise. My view is

that this did not happen in the way

I would expect in these three cases.

To do better in the future we need

to ensure that patient voices are

brought to the table and

systematically and consistently as

other voices in the system. So today

I have asked for a review to be

conducted into what happened in each

of these three cases, including

Whetherby processes pursued to date

have been satisfactory and to make

recommendations on what should

happen in the future. She will

assess firstly the robustness and

speed of the process is followed by

the relevant authorities and

clinical bodies to make sure

appropriate guidelines are followed.

Also, did the appropriate bodies

engage with those who are concerned

properly. Whether there has been

sufficient communication and and how

we look at cases in the future. When

there has been widespread harm,

there needs to be a fuller or even

statutory public enquiry.

Recommendations will be made as to

the right process to make sure

justice is done and maintain public

confidence that such decisions have

been taken fairly. Whilst I'm

delivery leaving the terms of this

open, I've asked that we consider

how we strike the right balance. How

to best support patients when there

might not be a scientific issue, but

they have suffered harm. Whether a

patient's champion will raise as a

point of contact, ensuring that

concerns are heard and responded to

and how any new entity interacts

with new bodies. Recognising that

this has been an issue that many

honourable members have been

concerned about, I've asked the

baroness to meet with other parties

early on in the process. We are

proud of the NHS. Much of this have

been built on the strong connection

between scientific discovery and and

medical process but innovation

requires safeguards, including a

culture of learning to protect

against the unintended consequences

of new technology and a clear focus

on the treatment of patients and

their families affected by these

consequences. From Mid Staffs to

southern health, patients and their

families have had to spend too much

time and energy trying to access

hearings for their concerns. The

stress of campaigning, sometimes in

the face of a closed ranked system

is adding insult to injury. I work

regular tree system is in many ways

were bleeding, but it also needs to

add to a changing environment and

draw intelligently on multiple

sources of feedback to protect the

safety of patients. So the

announcement today will build a

system that listens, hears and acts

with speed, compassion and

proportionality, strengthening the

commitment to patient safety which

is at the heart of this government

and this house's ideal. I welcome

the tone of his remarks and

generally welcome his commitment to

review medical device safety. I do

know the Labour manifesto of 2017

called for an enquiry into this. The

announcement today is an

acknowledgement that there are major

issues that go back decades. Members

across this House have offered

moving testimonies about the

devastating impact of mesh, Primidos

and sodium Valproate that has

affected the lives of many children

and women. I'd like to pay tribute

to all the campaign and MPs from all

sides, especially those who have

worked so hard with the all-party

groups. They spent many years

campaigning for justice on these

issues. We've heard how mesh

implants have left women in

permanent pain, unable to walk,

unable to work. This is an ongoing

public health scandal and we hope

the government will do much more to

support those affected.

Mesh has been suspended in Scotland

and banned in other countries around

the world. I understand it has been

paused in the case of prolapse. Will

he consider suspending the use of it

totally while this review is carried

out? On primados, he said he will

follow-up recommendations of the

expert working group, but does he

accept that this report was met with

concern from all sides of the House?

Campaigners branded it a whitewash.

I am grateful that he has included

sodium valproate. My own

constituent, Emma Friedman, took

sodium valproate during and after

her pregnancy, leaving her son with

severe autism, along with hearing

and sight problems. Andrew, who is

now waiting, needs round the clock,

full-time care. Emma, like thousands

of others affected, was never fully

informed of the risks of taking

sodium valproate during pregnancy.

Last year, a charity survey found

that almost one fifth of women

taking this drug still don't know

the risks this medicine can pose

during pregnancy. So, I welcome the

Government efforts to raise

awareness of the issues, but can he

tell us if the review will look at

the guidelines for clinicians who

prescribed sodium valproate to women

of child-bearing age? Mr Speaker, we

do offer this review our support,

though we note it falls short of the

calls for a full public enquiry that

campaigners have been demanding. Can

he give the House and absolute

reassurance that this review will

gain access to at medicine

regulation files held on The

National Archives, access to

valuable evidence cited in what were

on unsuccessful legal actions,

access to files held by

pharmaceutical companies, and that

all such information will be made

public? Does he agree that those

affected must have trust and

confidence in this review? Who will

the noble Baroness report to? And

who will provide the Secretariat to

this review? I say this with no

sense of this courtesy to the

Department, but does he agree that

the review must be independent to

avoid any sense of conflict of

interest that has hampered previous

enquiries? I understand the terms of

reference, but can I press him to

undertake to ensure that victims

agree with the terms of reference in

order to maintain trust and

confidence in this review? Also, is

he now ruling out a full public

enquiry, or is he saying to the

victims to wait until the outcome of

this review? And when can we expect

this review to report back to the

House? More broadly, can the

Secretary of State agree that there

will be three separate strands

looking at each of the issues in

depth to ensure that nothing gets

watered down and lost was like in

the broader context of Brexit, where

uncertainty remains as we leave the

European medicines agency, does he

agree that this review must inform

the regulatory systems are the

future and take into account how we

best cooperate with other regulators

after Brexit? What assurances can he

offer the House that medicines and

devices women use today, especially

pregnant women, will not become the

tragic and desperate scandals of the

future? And finally, on the

treatment of victims involved, he

will know that many women have been

denied access to legal aid to pursue

compensation claims. Does he agree

that women and children deserve full

compensation and support? Is that

not the responsibility of

Government, Mr Speaker? Will the

Government establish a compensation

fund? And what consideration has he

given to compelling the

pharmaceutical industry to support a

compensation fund for those

affected? Finally, Mr Speaker, the

mesh, sodium Valparaiso, primados

has devastated the lives of hundreds

of thousands of women and children.

Isn't it time they were given a full

apology? Surely it's the very least

they deserve.

I thank him for his

response and the tone of it. I want

to thank the all-party group who

have worked incredibly hard to raise

this important issue. Let me go

through the points that he raises,

because he asked some detailed

questions which I want to give a

proper answer to. First, when it

comes to mesh, there is no EU

country that has banned its use, and

indeed Australia and New Zealand

have not introduced a full band. We

have taken very clear advice. We

have responsibility to all patients,

and the medical advice from the

Chief Medical Officer is clear, that

some women do benefit from mesh if

it is appropriately used, and so we

are following that advice. However,

this review is going to be looking

at all the processes around mesh. We

will publish Nice guidelines on

persistent pain and ventral meshes.

It is important to say that they are

used in men as well as women, and it

is right to say that we have to get

this right. I fully accept the point

he makes about the concerns of many

patients and families about the

findings of the expert working

group. He will know that this is a

very difficult and hotly contested

area. We are not proposing to

revisit the science. However, we are

giving Baroness Cumberlege to look

at what the expert working group did

and coming to her own conclusions.

We are not excluding looking at what

happened, though we think it is

important to accept throughout this

that we do have to follow the

science at every stage in order to

get this absolutely right. What we

will do is going forward with some

important recommendations of the

expert working group, regardless,

such as the yellow card system,

could don't know because one thing

that is clear is that when people

have an immediate concern about a

medicine, there isn't an easy way to

raise the concern quickly and

easily. If women are raising these

concerns all over the country, we

need to find out about that very

quickly at the centre so we can take

action more quickly than happened in

this case. We will go forward with

offering genetic testing to families

who have suffered as a result, or

who think they have suffered as a

result of Primodos. On sodium

Valkyrie, we will issue guidelines

to clinicians. We want to make sure

there is greater awareness among

patients. -- -- sodium valproate. We

want to push for this to be a

contract indication for women of

child-bearing age who are not taking

effective contraception, because it

is important to get this right. He

makes a very important points about

the public enquiry. I think we are

asking Baroness Cumberlege to give

her considered view as to what is

the appropriate way forward in this

case. What I would say to him, and

that, of course, has implications on

the issue of compensation, but I

would say that we have, I think, a

problem in our system at the moment

where there isn't a proper process

for deciding what next steps are

appropriate. An investigation by NHS

England and the department, or a

full public enquiry? The question we

particularly want her to look at is

whether we should have an

independent process to evaluate what

has happened, because we might... We

have been approached in his time by

people who want public enquiries,

but it should not just be about the

strength of the lobbying. There

needs to be some process, because

there may be people who do not have

a loud voice who are equally worthy

of a public enquiry who don't get

considered in the system at the

moment, and that wouldn't be right.

Baroness Cumberlege will be

reporting to ministers, not to the

NHRA. And there will be full

consultation -- MHRA. There will be

full contact with the families over

the terms of reference, which is the

right thing to do. The final point,

which is an important one, is the

issue of how we read gain the trust

of families deeply scarred by these

issues. And I think there are two

main ways that we do this. First,

openness and transparency in

everything we do in this process, so

that they can see we want to get to

the bottom of this as much as they

do. Secondly, by recognising that

there is this fundamental issue that

when we've assessed these clinical

medical safety issues in the past,

the voice of patients has not been

as strong as it should be. And that

is something that we have to put

right. I know everyone in the NHS,

as in this House, is committed to

doing so.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

welcome the statement today from the

Secretary of State, and his ongoing

focus on patient safety, which has

added so much to patients, and

clearly representing the voice of

patients in lessons to be learned in

the future. Many of those who have

been courageous in coming forward,

including many of my own

constituents, have been harmed

within the private sector. Will the

Secretary of State confirm that

patients, wherever they are treated,

will be included within this review,

and that there will be a focus on

clinical governance not only in the

NHS but also in the private sector?

I can absolutely give that

assurance. And we are looking at

ways to strengthen oversight,

because a tragedy is a tragedy,

wherever it happens, and we should

among the highest standards of care

throughout our health care system.

And we are particularly looking at

the issue of data sharing. Very

often, the clinicians operate in

both the NHS and the private sector,

and we don't want to have two

datasets. We want to share

information in a way that will make

patients safer.

I thank the

Secretary of State for advance sight

of his statements. I am sure that

women affected by these medicines

and devices may be sceptical that

the Government has announced a

review of reviews. Medical safety

and licensing are reserved matters.

While we welcome the fact that the

Government isn't doing nothing, it

is disappointing that the review

will not look at the scientific

evidence on Primodos, sodium

valproate and surgical mesh.

Everyone needs the confidence that

this won't turn into simply a

Government whitewash. How can

patients be sure of independence?

Who will take a final decision on

who advises the chair? And will

those affected and who took part in

initial reviews be able to

participate? He will also be aware

that Professor Alison Britton is

leading an internet -- an

independent review of vaginal mesh

in Scotland, and will DC to take

advice and sounded from her bindings

and expertise in this process? --

will he seek to take... Does he

think that setting up a mechanism

within his department to collate

extensive qualitative research from

patients would be a useful function?

I think, with respect to the

honourable gentleman, he is being a

little bit uncharitable, describing

this as a review of reviews. We have

announced immediate actions in each

of these three cases which will

happen right away, of huge

significance with respect to the use

of sodium valproate, help for

families who think they have

suffered as a result of Primodos,

and in terms of the use of mesh. A

lot of things are happening right

away. I think it is important that

these are complex issues and if we

are going to step back and look at

the systemic failures that we think

have happened, then we need to step

back and ask what are the changes

that we need? That is why we need

someone Baroness Cumberlege's

experience. I would just say that

this is someone who has got a huge

track record on campaigning on

women's issues. She was a minister

at the Department of Health for five

years, she did the Better Births

review for the NHS in 2015. She is

hugely experienced and passionate

about patient safety and making sure

that the patient's voice is heard.

Could I welcome this review and the

announcement of Baroness Cumberlege

as lead. I am sure the whole House

will agree that she is highly

qualified and trusted. Can I pay

tribute to the women, particularly

many hundreds of thousands of them,

who have suffered in silence and who

have campaigned so effectively. I

have seen the passion and the silent

suffering with which so many women

have had to be. He is right that for

too long the medical establishment

has tended to link arms and act very

protectively when challenged, and we

need to make sure that the patient

voice is put at the heart of this.

Would he agree with me on to things:

First, it is important that this is

not some witchhunt? It must be a

review of the evidence, the science,

the clinical data, in order to avoid

future patient suffering. If it is

couched in legal liability, everyone

will draw in and resist the sharing

of evidence. Secondly, will he look

at the issue of training on the

issue of mesh? Be MHRA have licensed

the device. I understand the problem

is with the training of clinicians

in installing it.

I would like to put on record my

thanks to my honourable friend for

his work that led to the setting up

of the expert working group which I

think has taken this issue forward.

He championed that and was

incredibly helpful. I've taken on

board both his points. It's right

that this needs to focus on patient

safety and how we put in place

processes that help people who are

suffering now and avoid this in the

future and the training points are a

good one.

I welcome his statement,

though it would have been nice for

the victims to have heard a little

bit more about the legal aid and the

compensation issue. He was right to

describe our regular tree framework

as world leading. It is European and

precautionary base, so will he

disassociate himself from the

comments of the Foreign Secretary

last week who included medicines

regulation where he favours for

divergences?

Is he knows because we

have had these discussions at the

select committee, we in this country

make an enormous contribution to the

way medicines regulation happens

across Europe because of our

extensive scientific base and we are

happy and very much hope those links

will continue.

The first thing I

would like to say is I welcome the

review into the yellow car process

because the first responsibility of

a doctor is always to do no harm and

every doctor when they are making

any prescribing difference is

balancing the improvement in patient

care with the risks that are known

at the time to occur. Sometimes as

mod drugs are given to a greater

number of people, other side-effects

will come through. The improvements

in the yellow card system will help

them to be identified earlier. There

was a drug that is used to treat

acne that is very toxic in

pregnancy. I wonder if some of these

drugs that do provide benefits, but

are known to be harmful, that would

have the same approach?

Her question

demonstrates how useful it is to

have people with medical experience

in this House. The broad point she

makes is right. The difficulty in

the issues we are talking about

today is how much they affect women

and a number of them affect pregnant

women and one of the things we want

to establish through this review is

whether we are doing less well than

we should on women's health issues

and that's why because Baroness

Cumberlege has done more campaigning

on women's health issues than anyone

in both houses, she's the right

person to take this forward. She is

right about strengthening

protections for pregnant women.

As

the chair on hormone pregnancy tests

I'm disappointed with wording of

today's review. Families and victims

of Primidos have waited 40 years. It

was a deliberate criminal cover-up

by the statutory authorities. The

scientific evidence shows that there

is a link between Primidos and

deformities which was made to the

drugs companies 40 years ago and to

the regulatory bodies as well. Can I

ask the Secretary of State to ensure

this review, which I have to say we

would want a full public enquiry,

looks at the regular tree failures

that took place 40 years ago. There

was a systematic deliberate

cover-up, destruction of documents

by our health bodies as well as the

drug manufacturers. Therefore

Primidos is perhaps different to

some of the others and we demand a

proper enquiry into this and proper

compensation, and the victims are

put at the heart of this enquiry. In

the AWG working group they were

completely ignored in that document

was not worth the paper it was

published on.

We may not agree with

everything, but I thank her for her

campaigning and the voice she had

given to thousands of women who

believe they have suffered badly as

a result of Primidos. What I will

say is the things she is asking for

art ruled out. It will create a

process through which someone will

look carefully. She makes some very

serious allegations. That is

absolutely within her right to do so

as a member of this House, but they

are different to the conclusion is

that the expert working group came

to add it's precisely because of

that disagreement that we've asked

Baroness Cumberlege to look at this

and come to her own view is to the

right way forward. I do want to

reassure her that regular tree

failures are at the front of our

minds and we are determined to make

sure that the teams voices are

heard.

I wanted that the Minister

for the compassionate tone he had

struck today in understanding the

years that many campaigners like

Janet Williams and Emma Murphy have

undertaken to have their voices

heard is. Going back to the

regulator, if medicines or devices

are found to be unsafe following

this review or have been taken

unsafely, will face legal

consequences, will there be legal

consequences for those regulators

who should have acted differently?

The simple answer is yes, there are

legal consequences for regulators

who have felt. In that case it will

be the responsibility of the

government of the drop companies who

failed in their responsibility to

ensure that patients were informed

of the dangers of taking particular

drugs. It's about expedition facts.

Some of them are clear, some are not

and that's why today's review will

help us.

My constituents have been

affected by sodium valproate and

Primidos. The Secretary of State has

already heard my honourable friend's

dismay over the outcome of the

expert working group. What he has

talked about today will not give a

great amount of satisfaction to

people and the confidence in his

department taking notice of Baroness

Cumberlege's review will be reduced

by the written response that I got

yesterday from his department which

said they had no plans to fund

research into hormone pregnancy

tests. A report was produced last

week. Will he ensure that Baroness

Cumberlege looks at this particular

issue?

Absolutely she will and I

want to give him that assurance and

I want to say to him that whereas on

something like that operate when it

is clear what the next steps are

because there is no dispute over the

science -- valproate, the first

thing we have to do establish the

truth of the situation and that's

why we're asking Baroness Cumberlege

to look with free hand at the whole

issue.

And I welcome this statement

which is consistent with my right

honourable friend's track record as

secretary of state of driving the

NHS to stop causing harm to

patients. Can I ask him to continue

to focus on encouraging, requiring

and supporting or health care

professionals to make the shift from

a defensive mindset to a learning

mindset? And so they listen and

learn, not just from NHS experience,

but from patients?

She has huge

experience in health care and she

will know this well. She is

absolutely right to say that at

hearts, what we have to be careful

about in these complex issues is

that we don't inadvertently

encourage a culture of defensive

medicine where doctors feel unable

to be open about mistakes that may

have happened because they are

worried about legal consequences and

then we don't have the learning

which is incredibly important. That

is important and one of the reasons

for this review is to make sure we

support that open learning culture.

Half of my constituents whose

families have suffered due to the

effects of Primidos, can I thank the

Minister for this step in the right

direction statement. By announcing

another review with a remit for

another review, can he reassure the

House that one of these reviews can

investigate the cover-up we know has

occurred over decades over Primidos

and if a crime has been committed,

it will be dealt with?

I totally

respect him for airing his

constituentss concerns, but as he

will know from the answers to the

other questions, the difficulties in

the case of Primidos and it is

distressing to families concerned,

is the fact that scientists don't

agree about the issue and so because

of that is, we do unfortunately find

ourselves having to review what has

happened an expert working group was

the first attempt to do that, but we

are going to give Baroness

Cumberlege a free hand to look at

that and any other evidence that

comes to light and draw her own

conclusions.

Just an hour ago I was

meeting with my constituents and

Emma Friedman to discuss the next

stage of the campaign for valproate.

From seeing this statement, the

meeting was adjourned. I'm happy

that they are in the Chamber. Can I

ask the Secretary of State whether

it will be possible to ensure that

GP surgeries are giving out the

excellent advice that the MRA che

have put together. Many GPs are not

and there don't seem to be the

regulatory sanctions to make sure

they do.

I hope the people he

mentioned are in the gallery rather

than in the Chamber. That will be

greatly reassuring to us and to

them.

I can give that assurance. One

of the things we have announced

today is improving a system of

alerting for GP practices and

community pharmacies so that the

right advice is given and so that

the right safeguards are in place so

that people who are pregnant or may

become pregnant don't take this

medicine which is powerful and

effective under the right

circumstances, but incredibly

dangerous in the wrong ones.

Whilst

welcoming the intention to look

further at these very concerning

issues, I fear that by putting them

all in one place he may not be

giving sufficient attention to the

Primidos issue which is I think a

scandal of many years standing and I

think the expert working group which

reported recently is not the basis

upon which Baroness Cumberlege or

anybody else should look further at

this matter because it was a

complete whitewash. He needs to

acknowledge that and I think that if

he were to do so that the people

affected by Primidos over the last

40 years and more will feel much

more confident in the process he has

described today in a way -- as a way

in which they may get some

resolution.

I understand why she

asked the question in the way she

does, but I would just say to her

that we set up that expert working

group after a lot of very careful

thought because we honestly wanted

to get an answer to the question. We

are faced with a situation where

scientists disagreeing and I think

in that situation it is not right,

it wouldn't be right for me as

Secretary of State to announce a

different scientific view. I think

the right thing to do is to allow

some on the time and space to look

at the issues that she has raised

and that is what Baroness Cumberlege

will do.

I have a constituent whose

quality-of-life has been ruined by a

surgical mesh implant. What

reassurance can we have that the

review by Baroness Cumberlege will

make sure that the voice of the

patient is listened to more quickly

so that when things do go wrong we

limit the number of patients who

suffer the type of harm we have

heard about this morning.

It's the

right question to ask what we have

put forward in this statement is the

possibility that we need to have a

patient's champion, someone whose

job it is to collect the experiences

and views of patients who think they

may have suffered as a result of

medicine medical devices. We think

that may be a way forward, but we

want Baroness Cumberlege to look at

this in more detail. The central

point is that when there are debates

about the efficacy of medicines or

medical devices, if we are going to

avoid the agony of his constituent,

the patient's voice needs to be as

strong as the clinician's. We are

moving away from what has happened

in the past and this will be a step

in the right direction.

Following on

from that point the secretary of

state will know the phrase the

patronising disposition of

unaccountable power which applied in

the Hillsborough family's fight to

get justice and the groups affected

today. Then the Secretary of State

say why it Baroness Cumberlege's

report not bound to come straight to

Parliament Parliament to make a

decision over how patients can

justice faster and quicker than what

has happened in so many cases.

That's came from Bishop James Jones

who spoke about people's voice is

being ignored for too long. This

House will have every opportunity to

debate Baroness Cumberlege's report.

The House will have every

opportunity to listen, make

suggestions for improvements and be

involved at every stage of the

process as we take it forward.

My constituent, Karen, a victim of

surgical mesh, and Angie, a victim

of Primodos, will listen with

interest to what the Minister has

had to settle was a bit since there

are two key issues here apart from

the Cumberlege review. The first is

to ensure that our medics from

medical school up and realise that

they are not Gods, because that is

how many patients feel they are

having to deal with him, and there

are concerns are too easily

dismissed. At least a change from

the bottom-up. Second, on the issue

of private health cover, it involves

patients living in all quarters of

the United Kingdom. How will this

learning and the learning of the

review spread whilst respecting the

devolved assemblies into those

regions throughout the health sector

is not under the control of my right

honourable friend?

They are

important points. On the second

point, the spreading of best

practice is central here, so we have

to make sure that we don't just have

a system where we have new Nice

guidelines but that we have

confidence that they are being

implemented across 30,000 GPs, 250

NHS trusts and so on, and I know

that is something that Baroness

Cumberlege will be thinking about.

For my constituents, Willman...

Wilma and Kerstin, the wait to get

truth and justice on this issue has

been almost unbearable. Whilst I

welcome his candour and his tone,

his actions as outlay today are not

enough. I fear that the Baroness

will be doing her job with one hand

tied behind her back. He said in his

statement, we are not revisiting the

science, and then said later, yet we

need to be led by science. Unless I

miss her, there is a contradiction

there. And he confirmed that the

victims affected by these issues

will be at the heart of this ayes as

will the science, because there has

been an important new study done by

Niall Ferguson which must be

considered in this process in

relation to Primodos.

I don't accept

there is a contradiction. We have to

be open to the science and led by it

at every stage of the bid there is

new evidence, we must take that on

board, and always be led by patients

in what we do, and that is exactly

what I am announcing.

It was a

pleasure to lead the debate in the

House when we got a backbench

business committee earlier. I really

appreciate the tone from the

Secretary of State and from the

Prime Minister when I asked her

earlier if there was good news. Can

I also pay tribute to the Minister

sitting by his side, our honourable

colleague from Winchester, for the

work he did, because I gave him

quite a hard time during the debate.

However, there will be huge

disappointment with the Primodos

campaign team. Being led by the

science from the expert working

group is fascinating, because they

refused to allow some science to

come forward because it had not been

peer reviewed, then accepted other

evidence from drug companies that

did. This review going back to the

Department of Health is fully

allocated in this in that they were

given out by GPs. This will give no

confidence at all. The Baroness will

have both hands tied behind her

back, I think.

You know, I commend

my honourable friend's campaigning,

but I'm afraid I do have to disagree

with him. This is a very important

step forward. We are absolutely

going to be led by the science, and

have to be, and we're giving

Baroness Cumberlege a full rein to

look at what the expert working

group did, and to challenge it if

she sees fit.

Is the expert working

group the Government set up on

Primodos changed its own terms of

reference. It refused to look at all

the scientific evidence, and it did

not have the confidence of the

families affected. How will his

proposals be any different?

This is

something for Baroness Cumberlege to

consider, but the broader point is

right. We have, for too long, in

each of these three cases and in

others, had processes that have not

had the confidence of patients, and

that is why we are proposing today

not just specific measures in each

of the three issues, but also a

broader look at the regulatory

structure to make sure that

patients' bosses are louder.

I

welcome today's announcement, which

I'm sure will be welcomed by my

constituent who had surgical mesh

installed in 2008 during a

hysterectomy, but significantly

without her knowledge or consent,

which has led her to severe distress

and significant pain. When she

raised it with her doctors, she was

told it was all in her mind and she

was imagining it. She believes she

is still not being taken seriously

ten years later. Does the Secretary

of State share my hope that the

existence of the review will

encourage a more sympathetic

response to people such as my

constituent from the medical

profession?

I very much hope so. And

I think the crucial point that has

come from members on all sides of

this houses that the processes that

we have had in place to date have

not had the confidence of families

affected. This applies to a whole

range of issues. I believe that

medicine is changing fundamentally.

I think people who are passionate

about medical innovation and life

sciences know that you need to have

a very close partnership with

patients if you're going to make

proper advances. We haven't always

got this right, and that's what I

hope the review will help us to do.

I welcome the audio rhythmic audit

into vaginal mesh. A couple of

things. One of them is the support

for victims. My constituent Angie

has been referred to Manchester to

see somebody, and now she has been

told she will have to wait months

before anybody can properly analyse

what has happened to her, so I

wonder whether more results can be

-- more resource can be given to

help the victims of vaginal mesh

will so can you look into the

licensing process for how these

things get to market and get put out

there for use by surgeons? And

please don't just look into the

training, because I believe it is

not just about training of how we

put these things in. I believe it is

the product itself that is faulty.

We will certainly look at all those

things, and she is absolutely right

to draw attention to them. I

think... The licensing is one thing,

but it is also very important that

we make sure there is proper

information available to clinicians

and patients, because it does appear

from these cases that there are a

number of drugs and devices that are

safe but only in certain

circumstances, and that knowledge

may not have been properly

disseminated. That database that she

talked about will help us in getting

that right.

Mr Speaker, constituents of mine

have... I welcome the statement and

I recognise the issue around the ban

and why that might not be possible,

but can the Secretary of State

assure this House and my

constituents that surgical mesh will

only be used when there is

absolutely no alternative?

I think,

you know, this is a... Complex

procedure which can go wrong. It

would only be used if it were

absolutely the right thing for

patients, and we have looked

carefully, because there are other

countries introducing restrictions

on the use of mesh. It means we have

to use much more care in when it is

used to avoid those truly horrific

complications.

I think those whose

lives have been forever changed by

the drug Primodos will be very

disappointed today, despite a step

in the right direction, because

asking Lord Shaughnessy to drive

forward recommendations of the

expert working group will not bring

any confidence. That expert working

group changed its terms of

reference. It was asked to examine

whether a possible association

exists between Primodos and birth

defects, and it did not do that. It

looked at a causal association. And

that is the crux of the problem. And

that is what makes that working

group's findings unacceptable. Aside

from the fact that the scientific

evidence not included existed before

they even started their

investigation, so unless these

factors are taken into account, in a

wide-ranging, independent enquiry, I

doubt that those victims will ever

get the satisfaction and the justice

that they deserve.

Well, I do hear

what she says, and the reason that

it was important to us to examine

whether there was a causal link is

because that has an impact on

compensation that people might be

entitled to. I would like to

reassure her that Baroness

Cumberlege has the freedom to look

at all the issues she raises.

The

pharmaceutical companies have

consistently stated that they refuse

to accept that there is a causal

link between sodium valproate and

autism. The key is that my right

honourable friend has set out now

measures to warn people for the

future, but it doesn't compensate

the victims. So, what a temple will

be made by my right honourable

friend to make sure that victims are

fully compensated for the dreadful

impact on the lives of their

children?

You know, this country,

the system we have on compensation

is through the courts, and there are

times when it is the NHS that is

liable, and times when the drug

companies are liable. I hope that

Baroness Cumberlege's work will take

us closer to understanding whether

liability actually lies so that we

can give relief to families who have

suffered for too long.

Will the

Secretary of State join me in paying

tribute to my constituents, Emma

Murphy and her colleague Janet

Williams, for their courageous

campaigning to highlight the risks

presented by sodium valproate? As

the right honourable gentleman and

other members have acknowledged,

victims are incredibly suspicious of

the health establishment for very

good reason. So is the Secretary of

State concern, and I ask this

concealer, that Baroness Cumberlege

is the director of a company which

specialises in introducing

pharmaceutical companies into how

they can most effectively lobbied

Parliament? What will that do to

victims who start off being

incredibly suspicious of ourselves

in this House and the NHS

establishment?

I would just say

this, and I understand the

respectful tone in which he asks the

question, I don't think Baroness

Cumberlege -- anyone has a better

reputation than Baroness Cumberlege

in this area. She has shown a

willingness to take on the

scientific establishment when it is

the right thing to do, and she does

so with a great deal of knowledge

and passion. I have every confidence

she will do a great job.

I welcome

the statement today. Lassie will be

aware, we had a mesh review in

Scotland, but it very quickly lost

the confidence of patient groups,

who branded it a whitewash after

chapters were deleted and evidence

was re-presented, so can he reassure

me that the voices of patients will

be taken seriously and fully into

account?

I wish I could say to him

that those terrible, terrible

suffering that people have had has

been taken as seriously as it

should, but I think the truth is

that we have had a system that has

not treated patient concerns as

seriously as they should have been,

and that is why we are making these

important changes we are announcing

today.

44 years ago, my constituent

Leslie Holmes took two Primodos

tablets handed to her by her trusted

GP to check if she was pregnant. She

was, and the consequences for her

son have been devastating. Leslie is

still seeking answers and

recognition of her family's plight.

The minister appears to agree that

we need to recognise that and

provide the answers. How long is it

going to take, and how is he going

to ensure that the outcome is

actually credible this time?

All I

can say is that I think that, you

know, we completely understand those

concerns, understand that many

people feel on this issue, but it is

very difficult to resolve quickly

when there is a disagreement amongst

scientists, so what we're trying to

do today is to create a process that

can resolve that this agreement, and

that's what I very much hope will

happen.

I welcome this much-needed

safety review announcement. All UK

citizens should be confident that

they are getting the most rigorous

safety standards, but can my right

honourable friend confirmed that the

review will not impact initiatives

such as accelerated access review

and cancer drug fund, which are fast

tracked access to much-needed drugs

and treatments?

I can confirm that,

although I think it is also

important to say that if we discover

changes in procedures that will

improve the safety of medicine use

or medical device use, I think that

the people who put those new drugs

onto the market would want to

benefit from any changes in

regulatory processes. We would not

want to reduce the speed.

I welcome this statement. I have

been contacted by many women in my

constituency who continue to suffer

excruciating pain due to surgical

mesh implant. I welcome the

initiatives, but I would suggest

there was a huge value in some of

those initiatives such as a UK wide

database. What discussions will he

have with the ministers regarding

the devolved nations?

We are happy

to do anything on a UK wide basis if

that is what the devolved

administrations want because we

don't see any benefit in not sharing

data. If the willingness is there,

we are happy to play ball.

Could I

welcome my right honourable friend's

announcement over the review and

securing Baroness Cumberlege to lead

a review. If I could just focus on

Primidos which has affected 1.5

million women throughout the United

Kingdom. It's been a terrible long

journey for these individuals and

their families. They have been

pursuing truth and justice. Today

they have received neither. I hear

much of the use of and the use of

science in the review, but I wonder

if my honourable friend what are the

baroness to introduce humanity into

that review and take into account

the Peruvian desert at Aberdeen

University that is now available. I

hope this review is a stepping stone

to a full public enquiry for

Primidos victims and maybe then and

only then will they receive the

truth and the justice that they and

their families richly deserve.

Very

eloquently put by my honourable

friend. We also want to get closure

on this issue and that means getting

the scientific consensus that has

eluded us today. I will certainly

mention the Aberdeen research to the

noble Baroness.

The Secretary of

State was right to say that patient

views have been neglected and they

had to be central to this review. My

constituents impacted by Primidos

lost faith in the working group

because of that concern. How far

will this review go? We look at the

fact that there may be diminished

evidence because of the medical

records that were destroyed?

I'm

happy to do so, but this review is

separate to things that are

happening in Scotland, but we will

certainly look at all those issues.

This is the first chance I've had to

thank the Secretary of State for

visiting Kettering General Hospital

last week. I do so now. It is

laudable that the NHS be the safest

health care system. Are we there

yet? If not, when will we be?

International experts from the

Commonwealth fund in New York say we

are the safest health care system in

the world. That does give me pause

for thought because there is so much

avoidable harm and death in our

system right now and if we are the

safest it says that health care

everywhere needs to improve.

Campaigners on Primidos will be

disappointed by the Secretary of

State's statement and his failure to

recognise the concerns they have

raised about the expert working

group. That aside, how many patients

will be involved in the review and

how does he believe that they will

be best access so that people have

their voices heard?

That's the

entire purpose of the review.

Baroness Cumberlege will want to

involve patients right from the

start in that process, but I will

talk to her about it and I will

write to her just spelt out in

detail way that patients will be

involved in the process.

I found the

secretary of state for his statement

that will be of comfort to the

victims of vaginal mesh. Can he

confirmed the review will cover

looking at whether those who have

been barred from getting

compensation due to the statute of

limitations will be included in this

review?

Absolutely.

The Secretary of

State will be aware that for many of

the women who took Primidos they

would not even necessarily have

known at the time that that was the

consequence. It's only later on and

it totally that they have realised

what took place. How would they be

brought into this enquiry and if

there is going to be compensation,

what will be the test? It will be

unfair for them to have to prove

that they are victims of the drug.

I

wish there was a straightforward

answer, but the truth is there is a

lot of scientific disagreement about

whether there is a causal link or

not which makes it difficult to give

clear answers to his constituents,

as indeed to mind, but I hope this

review will shed some clarity on

that situation because I know that's

what a lot of people want.

What

advice has the Secretary of State

sought from the Royal College of

midwives, the Royal Institute of

gynaecology and what input will be

these bodies have in this review?

The noble Baroness Cumberlege is an

honorary fellow at the Royal College

of Nursing and physicians, so she is

well connected with the

organisations that the honourable

lady has mentioned.

As the Secretary

of State has indicated our products

are world leading. Does the Minister

have any more information that our

expertise will have as little red

tape as possible?

It's fair to say

that our revelatory system is

admired the world over because we do

safety extremely well and we

extremely seriously, but it does not

mean that we cannot improve it and

the lesson for today is that

patients voices have not been strong

enough in that process and that is

what we need to change.

I am most

grateful to be secretary of state.

We come now to the ten minute rule

motion.

Thank you Mr Speaker. I beg

to move that lead be given to

bringing about to make provision

about shared parental leave and pay

for workers including those that are

self-employed. I would like to begin

by paying tribute to those who have

been campaigning for the provisions

called for in this bill. I would not

be presenting it here today if it

was not for their work and

dedication in pushing shared

parental leave for all onto the

agenda. UK music, equity, parental

pay quality, PNG, writers Guild,

GMB, TUC are many more. The

self-employed are not clustered

around the creative industries. The

whole world of work is changing.

More and more people are classed as

freelance or self-employed.

Literally anyone can be

self-employed. But 9% of women and

60% of men aren't eligible for

shared parental pay because they are

self-employed. There are 24,000

self-employed mums claiming

maternity allowance who would

benefit from this bill. What is

encouraging is that the government

no shared parental leave is

important. It was a positive and

radical step introduced by the

coalition government in 2015. Sadly

not enough families are taking the

opportunity because where many

employers have enhanced maternity

schemes for most employees such

schemes don't exist for shared

parental leave meaning many families

will be worse off if they signed up

to it. And for most keeping the

family finances in the black is a

priority. So it was good to see last

week the government roll-out their

advertising campaign share the joy

to get more doubts to take up their

entitlement. A welcome push when

only a disappointing 2% of employees

take shared parental leave.

Unfortunately be problems around

take-up will never be clearer than

when the minister responsible for

shared parental leave revealed that

he was in fact as a minister not

eligible. I don't mention this to

embarrass the member in any way but

simply to use it as an example of

how the culture around shared leave

needs to change. To do that we need

to give more people more choice.

Parity between the traditionally

employed and the self-employed and

this bill would do just that.

Currently self-employed mums who

have given birth must take their

statutory maternity allowance in one

go. They can't return to work for a

month or two and then resumed there

allowance. My bill would allow

freelance partners to decide who

receives the alarm on so mum can

take a block when she is ready and

wants to re-enter the workplace

while the family still receives the

regular income from the maternity

allowance. A simpler way of

replicating shared parental leave

for freelancers at no extra cost to

the taxpayer. A move which I think

will send a strong message to the

country that not only do we

understand the changing face of work

but we believe that men and women

are valued equally in the home and

the workplace. I'd also say to

ministers that if the policy was

extended to the self-employed

freelancers, I believe there would

not be any problem with poor

take-up. A survey conducted by

parental pay quality found over 70%

of freelancers or those with

freelance partners would use the

scheme if it were available for them

in the future. A change to our

cultural norms does not happen

overnight, but I believe the

self-employed can blaze a trail in

leading the way, helping us to get

to a place where it is assumed that

partners and should shoulder a

significant amount of the childcare.

If the numbers of freelancers that

will take up shared parental leave

as significant, why are we holding

back? For those not owe favoured

walls around parental leave for the

self-employed, a self-employed mum

is entitled to £140 maternity

allowance for 39 weeks if they have

paid close to national insurance for

at least 13 of the 66 weeks before

the baby is due. Maternity allowance

is paid only two months. If that is

withdrawn, if the... That is

withdrawn if the freelance mother

does more than the ten keeping in

touch days. For example, if

freelance chiropodist took a job

that lasted for ten days, she would

lose in red -- maternity allowance,

but a chiropodist who is employed

can work freelance as long as she

does not break the terms of her

contract. It's far from ideal and a

Catch-22 position for self-employed

women. Stay off work and keep the

elements for the 39 weeks or take

the risk of taking a one off job. A

stressful decision for anyone, let

alone a sleek diff riv new mum. With

95% of new businesses run by women,

we know there are many families out

there who might benefit from sharing

paternal leave. So why is it

important we do this now. -- let

alone a sleep deprived ma'am. We

know that at least 4.7 million

people are employed in freelance

work. The government says it will

tackle the insecurity that this

creates. Self-employment and the gig

economy has recently been the

subject of the Taylor review and

after Matthew Taylor hurt I was

submissions and many detailed

recommendations, he conceded that

the government should address, and I

quote, parental leave in particular

where self-employed people lose out.

This is our chance to get it on the

agenda because freelance

self-employed and insecure work is

not new. It has been the feature of

creative industries for decades. 44%

of the creative industries are

unemployed. I worked in it for over

30 years and my partner still does.

Working hours are flexible with

project based employment and

irregular and often unreliable

payments. No nine to five, very

little stability. Looking for work

can take up as much time as doing

the job, but today the working

patterns and insecurities of the

creative industries aren't an

anomaly, they are becoming the norm

and for any freelance coupled the

idea of starting a family can be

terrifying. Another mouth to feed,

no guarantee of work. Obviously for

any new parent money is tight, but

for those in the gig economy or

insecure work it is even more so.

Employing 2 million people the

creative industries are a success

story, but areas of improvement

remain. More often than not it's the

woman who compromises on her career

to bring up of delete-macro a

family. She is the one that steps

out of the industry because two

freelancers can't make a finances

work, or went back up work, she is

expected to dash home early one

childcare bourse room or to look

after sick children. Women still

lagged behind men or so when they

are dishing out the gongs.

74% of creative workers surveyed in

the film industry turn down work

because they are parents. 22% said

they career had come to a halt.

Altogether once they had a child.

All that talent, all that training,

dedication, lost because there is

not enough support for self-employed

families with young children. So we

need to change the culture, and to

do it we need to start right at the

beginning when the baby is born. As

I mentioned at the beginning of this

speech, and I know how much the

Treasury bench appreciates a good

deal, so what I'm proposing comes at

no extra cost to the taxpayer.

Maternity allowances already paid to

new mothers. It is a win-win for the

Treasury. It also means men having

more of a chance to spend time with

their babies, allowing women to pick

up opportunities as they present

themselves. And although I

personally believe that the amount

of the allowance should be

increased, this bill isn't about

that. This bill is simply to give

freelancers and the self-employed

the right to share the current

allowance. So, the Bill I put

forward today is simple but

significant. It allows maternity

allowance to be shared in blocks

between freelance parents,

replicating the way shared parental

leave works for those in more

conventional employment. It's fair,

it's progressive, it's a bill to

complement current government

policy, not disturb it. Help close

the gender pay gap, proving to the

world Britain's serious. I commend

this bill to the House.

The question

is at the honourable member have

leave to bring in the Bill. I think

the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Who will prepare and bring in the

Bill?

Mrs Maria Miller, Mr Ed

Vaizey, Alison Pulis, Caroline

Lucas, Jo Swinson, Tom Watson, Kevin

Brennan, Emma Reynolds, Luciano

Burge, Rachel Reeves, Rebecca Long

Bailey and myself, Sir.

Tracey

Shared parental leave and allowance

Bill.

Second reading what day? Me

the 11th. We come now to the

programme motion. The Minister to

move? The question is the finance

never to build programme and two

hours on the order paper. Do you

wish to speak? The honourable lady

wishes to speak.

Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I stand to speak to new

clause nine...

The honourable

programme motion? The lady doesn't

wish to debate? The ayes have it,

the ayes have it. Order, the clerk

will now proceed to read the orders

of the day.

Finance never to bill as

amended in upon the Bill committee

to be considered.

The Whip says now.

We begin with new clause nine to

move the motion I call Don Butler.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I now rise to

speak to new clause nine which

stands in the name of my right

honourable friend the leader of the

and other honourable friends. Mr

Speaker, I would like to thank the

previous Minister for women and

equality is, the Member for Putney,

for the equality impact assessment

response sent to me just before

Christmas. The honourable member's

responses are normally quite upbeat.

I must say, Mr Speaker, but I found

this particular response a little

lacklustre. But it definitely

highlighted why we need to support

new clause nine. The letter

highlights the weaknesses of due

regard, and goes on to make a

somewhat puzzling statement, and I

quote. All departments carefully

consider the equality impacts of

individual policy decisions taken on

by those protected characteristics

in line with our legal obligations

and our clear commitment to quality

issues. And therein lies the

problem. This Government has not

shown a clear commitment to equality

issues, far from it. With 86% of the

cuts falling on the shoulders of

women, and black and Asian minority

and disabled people suffering more

than any other group, I find it hard

to understand why the Government

would try to proclaim that they are

committed to equality is. Mr

Speaker... Sure.

I thank a forgiving

way. She mentions the Government has

not made commitment. Does she not

agree with me the compelling

companies in our country to publish

the gender pay gap information, the

first time any Government has done

this, is a very clear signal and

already making real change for those

women working in those companies?

I

thank the Member for her

intervention. I do agree that it is

good to get companies to publish

their pay gap. The problem is that

there isn't actually any teeth if

they fail to do so. And that is a

real problem that needs to be

addressed. We need to really tackle

the gender pay gap, but also of

companies fail to address the pay

gap that there needs to be some

punishment for that almost, and that

is unfortunately failing in the

Government's plan. I will give way.

I thank the Lady forgiving way. Do

she recognise that voluntary schemes

of publication, whether it is

participation, as demonstrated in

the Crossrail project, showed that

companies will comply through social

pressure, because actually there is

a brand equity question. You don't

need to have a hard punishment,

through brand equity reputation,

that would be punishment enough they

fail to comply.

Again, the problem

is that there are very few companies

who have actually published, and I

think the deadline is quickly

approaching. Mr Speaker, the letter

that I was sent from the Minister

goes on to say that the Treasury

would have completed a cumulative

impact assessment. I have yet to

receive confirmation of this

cumulative impact assessment, and I

wonder whether the Minister would be

able to confirm that, and also

whether we can see a copy of that

laid before the House in the

library. I know that it is difficult

for the Government to often hear the

views of the opposition, so I urge

the Government to the voices of the

members from his own side, like the

honourable member who was chair of

the Treasury select committee. The

committee are obviously a little bit

perplexed at the lack of commitment

to equality impact assessment, and

the Chancellor had complained about

the kind of data that was gathered,

but when the Chancellor was asked

whether he had asked the Office for

National Statistics about the

gathering of that data, he replied

that he had not, and that doesn't

show a commitment to equality. The

Treasury committee also goes on to

say that the Treasury should use the

OMS, HMRC data to produce robust

assessments of future prospects,

including tax and welfare measures

within them, a deficiency of data in

respect of some protective

characteristics is not a reason for

failing to produce an analysis in

respect of others for which data is

available. Nor should the risk of

misinterpretation or methodological

complexity preclude the publication

of an equality impact assessment. In

short, Mr Speaker, just do it. Mr

Speaker, the only reference in the

budget to gender impact which has

been identified as when it

disproportionately affected men.

What possible reason could this be,

I wonder. I understand that the

Treasury committee would welcome an

explanation on the thinking of this

from the Government. So would we. It

does not make sense that the

Chancellor alluded to the fact that

Ministers see the equality impact

assessment for the Department

because it makes me wonder if

Ministers see them, if Ministers

read them, if Ministers actually

have proper due regard to them, why

would they implement the policies

that they do? If the Government

fails to support this clause, there

could be no public confidence that

the Government's commitment to

protect, not punish people with

protective characteristics. For the

record, Mr Speaker, the nine

protective characteristics are age,

disability, gender reassignment,

pregnancy, maternity, race, religion

or belief, sex and sexual

orientation. I understand that the

Prime Minister is a little bit

preoccupied. She is a little bit

weak at the moment, and I know that

she is dealing with a very serious

ransom note at the moment. But I

honestly believe that she would not

be pleased that her legacy will be

that of the hindering of women and

their life chances. More children

are homeless, more children are

homeless or living in temporary

accommodation than at any other time

since the 2007/ financial crash.

Shelter says that homelessness is a

national scandal. It estimates that

140 families become homeless every

single day, and the estimate of

rough sleeping shows an increase of

130%. Everyday we see and hear the

damaging effects of this

Government's policies have other

people, especially those with

protective characteristics. This

Government is damaging not

protecting vulnerable groups. Even

when the Government conduct an

equality impact assessment, it seems

to ignore it. Just two weeks ago,

the Government released an equality

impact assessment revealing that

more bursaries will be axed from

around a thousand nurses who enter

the profession each year. Assessment

reveals that the latest disco nation

was against those of ethnic

minorities and poorer backgrounds.

We need a Prime Minister who cares

enough to start laying the

foundations for which we can bring

about true equality for women,

diverse communities, LGBT plus

communities and those with

protective characteristics. A Labour

government led by Jeremy Corbyn

would do just that. A Labour

government's successes would be