Sarah Green MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2026 · Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome today’s debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing it. I too wish to focus on the experience of those navigating the medical licence renewal process, but I begin by acknowledging that the DVLA is aware of its shortcomings in that area. When the chief executive Tim Moss appeared before the Public Accounts Committee in October last year, he was forthcoming and acknowledged that too many people wait too long for decisions on medical licence cases. He outlined a two-stage transformation programme: the migration to a new casework platform, completed in September, followed by a new medical services platform intended to digitise many of those transactions. He also confirmed that the new systems allow the DVLA to prioritise those who currently hold no licence. That is progress worth acknowledging, though Mr Moss also said that standards were “nowhere near where we want to be”. One of my constituents is a retired GP with 30 years in practice. He is familiar with DVLA regulations and processes. He suffered a cardiac arrest last summer, informed the DVLA immediately and has not driven since. He calculated that he would be legally permitted to drive again on 7 February and submitted his application, along with a detailed covering letter setting out all the relevant medical facts, eight weeks before that date, exactly as instructed. Ten days before his expected return to driving, neither his GP nor his specialist had received any inquiry from the DVLA medical department, so he called the dedicated medical helpline and was told, “Your application is being processed.” He is a retired doctor—he knew that could not be true. An application cannot be processed without the DVLA contacting his GP or specialist to verify the medical facts. His form had been sitting untouched for weeks on end. The helpline, rather than providing accurate information, was providing cover for a backlog. What makes this case notable is that my constituent spent 30 years navigating medical bureaucracy on behalf of patients, and even he could not get a straight answer or any meaningful progress from the DVLA. He put it plainly to me in his letter, saying that the helpline uses a “smokescreen” to disguise the backlog of what appears to be a chronically under-resourced department. I think that that is a fair characterisation and that Mr Moss would not entirely disagree. I return to the question of transformation. The new casework platform, the forthcoming medical services digital platform and the commitment to prioritise those without a licence are welcome, but a system migration does not fix the underlying problem if the staffing and processes within that system remain inadequate. I have three specific asks of the Minister on medical licences. The first is about transparency. The DVLA helpline must be able to tell applicants the truth about where their case stands. “Your application is being processed” is not an acceptable response when no processing is taking place. Applicants deserve accurate information. If it will take months, they should be told, so that they can plan accordingly. The second relates to parallel inquiries. The DVLA initiates inquiries to GPs and specialists sometimes late and, far too often, one at a time. A properly designed system would identify all necessary medical inquiries at the point of application and dispatch them all at the same time. That single change could reduce waiting times significantly without additional resource. My third question relates to a formal fast-track process for cases where the medical picture is clear. Mr Moss acknowledged when he was in front of the Committee that some cases are straightforward and resolved in days while others are genuinely complex. The system should reflect that distinction formally. Where specialists have already provided clear sign-off, those cases should not be sitting in the same queue as the most complex clinical decisions. In his evidence, Mr Moss told the Public Accounts Committee that the DVLA understands the impact these delays have on people’s lives. The impact on my constituent is that he is sitting at home unable to drive, being told that his application is being processed when it is not. I urge the Minister to ensure that the transformation programme at the DVLA delivers not just new technology but genuinely improved standards of service.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  In his November letter to the Patient Safety Commissioner to which the Minister referred, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), states in reference to redress: “Additional information is still required on the practicalities of further action on this area. This includes approaches to cost and affordability, legislation and scope of any potential redress. No final timetable has been agreed at present.” The thoughtful and insightful contributions we have heard today show that Members are not going to stop asking the question. In tribute to the many families and campaigners, who are so inspiring and yet exhausted, I hope very much that we are not here in 12 months’ time dusting down the same speeches and chasing for progress. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report. Although it is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, I do so with a sense of déjà vu, because we have been here before, on the anniversary last year and in debates on the Cumberlege review before that. The issue of redress for the victims is a well-trodden road. I start by paying tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned tirelessly for justice and change, and to prevent their experience from happening to others. I thank the Patient Safety Commissioner, Professor Henrietta Hughes, for the work she put into her report. She is with us in the Gallery today, along with many campaigners. I put on the record my thanks to Baroness Cumberlege for her exceptional work, before the Hughes report, to give voice to victims during the two years she led the Cumberlege review. I pay tribute to her for her continuing commitment to the victims. We are here today because, two years on from its publication, the Government have still not published an official response to the Hughes report. No redress scheme has been implemented and no timeline has been announced. We have repeatedly been told that the recommendations are being carefully considered, yet there is no date, no framework and no mechanism for justice in place. To be clear, the Patient Safety Commissioner did not decide one day to write the report; she was asked to pull it together and to look at the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. The report was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care in late 2022. In her foreword to the report, Professor Hughes was clear that, in accepting the commission, “the case for redress had already been made by the First Do No Harm review so my report would primarily focus on ‘how’ to provide redress rather than ‘why’…Secondly, patients must not be subjected to an emotional rollercoaster, meaning that commissioning this work would inevitably raise expectations and that it would be profoundly unfair to do so if the government had no intention of providing redress.”

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree, and I thank the hon. Member for raising it. I know that many colleagues present have been championing this cause for years. There is a string of parliamentary questions going back to the launch of the report two years ago, asking for progress updates. The Patient Safety Commissioner herself used her statutory powers for the first time, in October last year, to ask for more detailed answers from the Department of Health and Social Care. The responses were published in November and just a few weeks ago in January. We now know that there have been meetings, roundtables and briefings, but no progress on redress. If I am reading between the lines of these responses correctly, it is the dead hand of the Treasury that is the issue. Before I conclude, I wish to mention Carol. I have shared Carol’s story before, and I return to it today because it lays bare the cost of years of Government inaction. When I first met her online—I hope she will not mind my saying this—she was a physical wreck. She needed assistance to get a visa to the US during the pandemic for urgent medical treatment following a hysteropexy and rectopexy using surgical mesh. A procedure that was intended to resolve her pelvic organ prolapse instead caused devastating harm. Carol was left with a serious autoimmune disease, struggling to walk and unable to live her daily life. Her prognosis was bleak, and she needed to have the mesh urgently removed. That treatment was not available to her on the NHS. While suffering from chronic pain, and with limited mobility, Carol accessed private treatment in the United States. A combination of determination, medical knowledge and personal resources allowed her to do so, and Carol is now mesh-free following a successful surgery. Carol attempted to pursue a clinical negligence claim against the surgeons who harmed her, but multiple law firms declined to act because the same surgeons were advising them on other cases. Those conflicts of interest blocked Carol’s access to justice. In one case, the surgeon who caused her life-changing harm acted as an expert witness in an unrelated mesh case. The judge in that case found that the surgeon selectively chose evidence supportive of the defence, failed to provide balanced evidence, and failed in his duty to the court. That finding is on the record. Such conflicts are not isolated. Conflicts of interest and the closing of ranks among professionals remain a structural barrier to justice for victims. That is just one of the reasons why an independent redress scheme is long overdue. The current system is failing these women, children and families. I have two questions for the Minister. What conversations are she, her Department and her officials having with the Treasury and Downing Street to make redress a reality for the victims? Will she meet some of the affected families to hear directly from them why redress is so important to them?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The emotional toll is significant. It is a daily struggle for some of those affected, and they are battling a system. Right at the start of her report, the Patient Safety Commissioner was clear that she should not be asked to look into the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and mesh if there was no real intention or desire in the Department to make a redress scheme a reality. Why commission the report and raise the expectations of thousands of families if there was never any intention to follow through on the recommendations? As colleagues know, 30,000 women and children have been harmed, through no fault of their own, by valproate and pelvic mesh. They are paying the price of the failure to keep them and their children safe with immense pain, agony, fear and guilt. Five years on from the Cumberlege report and two years after the Hughes report, the Government have still not confirmed plans to provide financial redress. Financial redress is unfinished business, and it is past time that the Government responded. Let us not forget that of those affected by valproate and mesh, 85% report not being able to work, 73% report that their finance has suffered as a result, 91% report that their mental health and wellbeing are adversely affected—as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) just said—and 88% report that their relationships have been negatively impacted. Let me unpack that for a second. Those statistics represent my constituent Carol, a doctor by training who was forced to take long-term sick leave and see her health and her career deteriorate. They represent the valproate families who, on top of the physical effects, face the nightmare of child and adolescent mental health services and personal independence payment reassessments every few years, having to explain what foetal valproate spectrum disorder is to every clinician they encounter because it is not widely understood. They represent the heartbreaking situation of one victim who shared with me, in tears, the devastating impact that mesh has had on her ability to be intimate with the love of her life. The lack of a clear timeline for action by the same slow, dismissive system that harmed patients is further compounding their physical and mental pain.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The guidance for complaints in children’s social care was issued 20 years ago and has not been updated since. Those who work in the system say that it is out of date, and the ombudsman echoes their concerns. Will the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that the guidance is up to date? Will he meet me to hear the concerns that have been shared with me?