Sarah Green MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Family Court: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister clearly knows that the backlog in the family court is causing real distress. I have one family who have waited over a year for a court hearing. A year is a long time for a child, and we know that others are waiting even longer. Will the Minister share what specific measures she is taking to ensure that cases involving children and vulnerable families are resolved more quickly?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Family Court: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps he is taking to reform the family court.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Point 24 of Russia’s peace plan proposes to establish a humanitarian committee to resolve outstanding issues, such as prisoner exchanges on an “all for all” basis and the return of civilian detainees and hostages, including children. That approach conflates prisoners of war with stolen children, who are afforded special protected status under the fourth Geneva convention. What guarantees can the Secretary of State provide that the UK will ensure that all Geneva convention signatories uphold their obligations in line with international law and the return of the stolen children?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pony and Trap Racing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the animal welfare point. It is legal to ride a horse down our public roads, but they are being put in unfair danger. On a busy dual carriageway with vehicles travelling at speeds of up to 70 mph, the lives of innocent road users and of the animals themselves, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, are endangered as the rolling roadblock forces motorists to slam on their brakes with no prior warning of the hazard ahead. Without proper regulation in place, there is a high risk of a serious accident or worse. Without licensing, there is no organiser to hold accountable for any of the unacceptable and sometimes dangerous behaviour taking place. The regularity of pony and trap events has increased in recent years, and it is outrageous that my constituents should be put through this on a regular basis. Just last month a constituent reported being run off the road twice by the vehicles supporting the race taking place. As the law stands, it is legal to use a pony and trap on the public highway, but there are no regulations in place and no licence is required. There are no procedures to follow and no accountability for those who organise pony and trap races. On the grounds of road safety alone, I urge the Government to introduce a licensing scheme. I would also like to mention the impact these races have on policing locally. In February, Thames Valley police received reports that over 3,000 people were expected to attend an event on the A413. The worry among the local community was palpable. Following significant commitment of resource and effort by Thames Valley police, the projected 3,000 people did not attend on that particular day. However, this is my second reason for calling for regulation: quite apart from the road safety angle, the level of policing time and resource that these races eat up is unacceptable. Thames Valley police has confirmed that there have been 200 incidents connected to pony and trap racing in our area alone in the last five years. At present, police forces are able to deal with individual offences as they arise, like dangerous driving. If reports are received far enough in advance, section 34 dispersal orders have previously been issued. While these give the police powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, or to disperse crowds, they do not prevent the races themselves from taking place. Once the race has started, it becomes extremely difficult and dangerous for officers to intervene. On this point I echo the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner that prevention is better than cure; I know he is calling for regulation in the way I am today. It is true that changes to the road infrastructure could act as a deterrent, but such a change in the road layout, at significant cost, would simply shift the activity somewhere else. That became clear when racing was displaced from Hampshire to south Buckinghamshire. There is a similar issue with the use of traffic regulation orders, both in terms of cost to the local authority and the shift in location of any racing event that comes as a result of it. There is an alternative solution available. The Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the racing of motor vehicles and regulates cycle races. There is no equivalent regulation for pony and trap racing. I urge the Minister to consider formal regulation for pony and trap racing. I am not seeking to ban the activity in its entirety; I am calling for a permit or licence scheme, like that for cycle racing, for those wanting to race ponies and traps. Such a scheme would require an organiser to meet certain conditions and to seek permission from the local authority and police, to ensure events are well managed. Should there be any issues during or following the race, a single point of contact could then be held accountable. The police would be able to deploy officers resourcefully and in line with the scale of the event. Disruption to local residents would be significantly reduced, with advanced warning when a road closure was due to happen. Restrictions could even be placed on the dates and timings of events and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to, animal welfare could be put front and centre. There are many obvious risks involved with the act of pony and trap racing on public roads, and it is high time the Government imposed formal regulation. I request a meeting with the relevant Minister to explore that further. The safety of my constituents and other road users should no longer be put at risk due to unregulated pony and trap racing, and the officers of Thames Valley police, whose resources are regularly deployed to respond to reports of racing, should be better supported to enforce safe and fair use of the road for all, while not penalising those who wish to safely stage legitimate racing events.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pony and Trap Racing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The debate is about the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads but, to be more specific, there is no regulation and it is sorely needed. If someone wants to organise a cycling competition or road race in the UK using the main roads, there are regulations to follow. There are licences they need to get and authorities they have to consult, which means that cycling races are routinely organised safely and with minimum disruption to the community hosting a race. None of that is true for pony and trap racing. I suggest that the Government need to introduce regulations for pony and trap racing along the same lines, primarily because of road safety, but also because of the significant policing resource that these unofficial races eat up.