Sarah Green MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in favour of this Bill. First, though, I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for the way in which she has approached the Bill, and for having engaged with Members across the House on both sides of the argument on their various amendments. I voted in favour of the Bill on Second Reading on principle, but also because of something a constituent said to me about the status quo. She said, “It is cruel”, and I cannot disagree with her. It was definitely cruel for my constituent Ann, who was interviewed by the police for supporting her husband in going to Dignitas. For weeks afterwards, in her grief, she faced the uncertainty of a police investigation. For me, the current system is unsatisfactory, and it was a real privilege to join others to scrutinise this Bill in Committee. It is my belief that it is stronger for having gone through that process. There is one change in particular I would like to speak to, which is the inclusion of social workers on the panel. People in that profession deal with complex, challenging, and sometimes dark family dynamics on a daily basis, and I believe that including them on the panel is the right thing to do. For those reasons, I will be supporting this Bill today, and I hope others will too.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Victims of Domestic Abuse and Violence · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps she is taking to support survivors of domestic abuse and violence against women through the criminal justice system.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. This is where I must pick up Carol’s story again. She tried to pursue her claim against her original surgeons through the courts, and she hit on an unexpected problem. She approached multiple legal firms who would not take her case because one or both of the surgeons were advising them on other cases and, as such, it would have been a conflict of interest. Indeed, the same surgeon who caused Carol life-changing injuries acted as an expert witness in an unrelated surgical mesh negligence case. The judge in that case said: “he had cherry-picked those parts of the evidence which were supportive of the Defendant’s case and did not comment on those parts which were consistent to the Claimant’s. That is not the correct approach to be taken by an independent expert, whose duty is to the court. His evidence lacked balance and was unpersuasive.” On this occasion, the judge called it out, but that is not the only instance of the medical profession closing ranks—it is not a unique occurrence. Such clear bias and conflicts of interest are a huge barrier to justice for mesh victims around the country. The point of recommendation 3 in the Cumberlege review was to establish a non-adversarial avenue for redress after someone has been harmed in a healthcare setting. Both the Hughes report and, more recently, the Darzi report found that the current clinical negligence system is difficult for patients to navigate and prevents the healthcare system from learning from its mistakes. It is also eye-wateringly expensive for the taxpayer. If it is the dead hand of the Treasury blocking a redress scheme, Ministers would do well to reflect on that. As the Patient Safety Commissioner points out, the clinical negligence system is behind only nuclear disarmament and pensions on the list of liabilities on the Government’s balance sheet. I must ask the Minister when the Department will respond to the options outlined in the Hughes report, and when families can expect to see redress schemes up and running. Recommendation 5 relates to the establishment of mesh centres around the country, and while such centres have been established, they get mixed reports from patients. My question on the mesh centres is about their outcomes. How is the Department ensuring a consistent service across them all, and how are outcomes being measured? With so many people reporting dissatisfaction with the centres, it is not enough that they exist; they need to be working well for the patients they are there to serve. Recommendation 6 relates to the MHRA, and it is clear that we still need the yellow card reporting system to improve. I would also welcome the Minister’s thoughts on progress against recommendation 7, which is about creating a central patient-identifiable database. To my understanding, it is still a work in progress. The previous Government’s decision not to take forward the eighth recommendation, which is for a mandatory register, is disappointing. The recommendation called for “Transparency of payments made to clinicians” and “mandatory reporting for pharmaceutical and medical device industries of payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions and individual clinicians.” I fail to understand why more progress has not been made on that. I know that campaigners have written to the Department asking it to consider a sunset Act that speaks to that recommendation, and I urge the Minister to chase a response to them.