Yasmin Qureshi
MP for Bolton South and Walkden · Labour · United Kingdom
“On the point about the people displaced in Lebanon, does the hon. Member agree that if there is to be a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and Palestine, all 700,000-odd people who were forcibly expelled from the west bank, from Gaza and from elsewhere during the Nakba must be allowed to return?”
“May I say how proud I am to sit behind a Foreign Secretary with the courage to take this action? I thank the Prime Minister for showing leadership on this matter as well. Let us be clear what this is about: Israel’s occupation of the west bank and Gaza is illegal under international law.”
“I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement. As a former criminal law barrister, I represented defendants who were given IPP sentences. They were required to complete courses, treatments and rehabilitation before they could be considered for release, yet many were never offered any of those things in time, leaving them unable to be reviewed…”
“There are 4.5 million unpaid carers in England. I have first-hand knowledge of the impact of that on carers and their families, having been a carer for two members of my own family, but I also know that for millions of carers the emotional and financial toll is far greater than what I faced.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this very important debate. I want to speak about a case in my constituency that shows the problem and, importantly, what the solution can look like.”
“There are more than 20 recycling centres across Greater Manchester, and spreading visits across them eases the pressure on individual sites. The wider point is that traffic build-up at waste sites is not a one-off; it is a recurring and entirely foreseeable pattern, particularly at older sites that simply were not designed for today’s vol…”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Yasmin Qureshi, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“My constituents tell me about the increased level of hate crime against Muslims. I hear stories of women being abused or having their hijabs pulled off. That is a direct result not just of most of the coverage in our right-wing media, but of politicians in this place, some of whom have held the highest offices in the land, including the Leader of the Opposition. They feed into this narrative and cause anti-Muslim sentiment. What more will we do to counter the level of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment?”
“In my constituency, many families trace their heritage to the Indian subcontinent, including Pakistan. For many of them, the history of Commonwealth soldiers is not distant history, but part of their family stories. My paternal grandfather fought in the war and my maternal uncle had the King’s commission at a time when most people from the Indian subcontinent had the viceroy’s commission. That why we have a sense of belonging in this country. Debates like these matter. They remind us that Britain has always been shaped by the contributions of people from many backgrounds, faith and cultures. When we remember the first and second world wars, we must remember the full story of that shared sacrifice.”
“Despite such enormous sacrifices, the contribution of Muslim soldiers remains largely absent from our national memory. At a time of increasing divisions in our society, and in particular the demonising of Muslims in parts of our political discourse and media—including by some very senior politicians, who should be absolutely ashamed of themselves—Muslims in Britain are too often portrayed as outsiders, or as somehow disconnected from the history of this country, but the truth is different. Muslims were in the trenches of the first world war. They were in the forces that fought fascism during the second world war. They served in the merchant navy, in labour corps and across battlefields around the world. Many of them never returned home. Their sacrifices helped to defend the freedoms and democratic values that we all benefit from today.”
“Muslim soldiers fought in the trenches of northern France and Belgium, endured the freezing conditions of European winters and served across battlefields stretching from Europe to north Africa and the middle east. Many fought alongside soldiers of other faiths, sharing food, hardship and danger. There are records of Muslim, Christian and Jewish soldiers learning each other’s burial rites, so that the fallen could be laid to rest with dignity on the battlefield. One lady who is often forgotten is Noor-un-Nisa Inayat Khan, a British Muslim woman and the first wireless operator sent into occupied France. She was betrayed and then arrested and tortured for months before being executed at Dachau concentration camp. She was given a George Cross posthumously.”
“It is important to remember that what was known then as British India included regions that today form India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Many of the soldiers who fought for Britain came from areas that are now part of Pakistan, and there was a vast number of Muslim soldiers among those who served. In fact, historians estimate that millions of Muslim soldiers and labourers fought for the allied forces during the two world wars; at least 2.5 million Muslims contributed during the first world war and an estimated 5.5 million during the second world war. Nearly 1.5 million Muslims are believed to have been killed in action across both conflicts. These men travelled thousands of miles from their home to fight in conflicts that were not of their making.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) on securing this important debate. It is important that we recognise the contribution of the Commonwealth troops in the first and the second world wars. When we remember the world wars, we rightly honour the bravery of British servicemen and servicewomen, but Britain did not fight those wars alone. Millions of men and women across the Commonwealth stood alongside British forces and played a decisive role in defending freedom in Europe and beyond. More than 1.3 million soldiers from the Indian subcontinent served in the first world war, fighting in some of the most brutal theatres of conflict, including the western front, Gallipoli and the middle east.”
“Defending democracy at home must include investing in democracy abroad. I hope the Government will continue to recognise the value of this work and ensure that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy has the support it needs to continue strengthening democratic institutions around the world. Before I finish, I wish to place on record my sincere thanks to all our diplomatic staff across the world. Having been an MP for the past 16 years, a member of the NATO Assembly and the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for Egypt, North Africa and Algeria, I have seen how brilliant our diplomatic staff are across the world. It is very important that they should remain in their post and that there should not be any cuts in the staffing budget of the Foreign Office.”
“The Westminster Foundation for Democracy is part of that effort. With an FCDO grant of just £8.5 million, we work with partners in more than 50 countries. Through these programmes, we support more than 1,600 parliamentarians, 2,400 parliamentary staff and 1,750 political party officials. Half of all our participants in work are women. Through the WFD, I have seen at first hand how the UK’s credibility, experience and pragmatism can make a real difference to democratic reformers across the world. Crucially, this work is not about lecturing others; it is about partnership. Often we have as much to learn from others as they do from us. Today’s challenges are serious, but they are also an opportunity. The UK’s democratic traditions, our commitment to accountability and our global reputation for pragmatic politics remain powerful assets.”
“Much of that funding has now been withdrawn, with civil society and democracy programmes described as being against the US national interest. This is not an abstract debate; this is about hardheaded UK security and prosperity. Democracy builds what military budgets cannot buy. Our long-term security and prosperity depend on accountable institutions, trusted Governments, transparency and inclusion. We need partners around the world who share our commitment to rights and the rule of law. Those are the countries in which we can invest with confidence. They are the partners on whom we rely to reduce conflict, tackle climate change and manage the pressures of energy costs and economic instability. If we do not step forward in this space, others will, and they will do so on their terms, not ours.”
“We see aggressive challenges to democratic values from authoritarian powers and polarisation and disinformation amplified through social media, and we are witnessing co-ordinated attacks on the rights of women and girls. This matters to us directly at home. As the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service warned in December, the “frontline is everywhere”. Hostile states are using cyber-tools, online manipulation and financial influence to distort debate and undermine trust in democratic institutions. The response to that threat cannot rest with security agencies alone; it must include strengthening democratic resilience. For decades, the United States was the largest funder of democracy support worldwide.”
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I chair the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, an organisation partially funded by the FCDO that works in more than 50 countries to strengthen democracy, Parliaments, political parties and civil society. This year marks its 34th anniversary. If I could speak to any of my predecessors as chair, from any party, I think they would agree on one point: the challenges facing democracy around the world have rarely been greater. Across many countries, accountability, the rule of law and political inclusion are under increasing pressure. The risk is not simply democratic decline in individual states, but the gradual erosion of the international system that has underpinned stability and co-operation for decades.”
“We have heard this language before, with military intervention dressed up as necessity or as being done out of humanitarian concern: Libya, Iraq—the list goes on. All those interventions led to devastating consequences for the people who lived there: hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, countries and regions destabilised, and the creation of a refugee crisis. I hope all those who are chomping at the bit for this war will welcome the extra refugees who will be coming on to our shores as a consequence. Article 51 of the UN charter does not allow for regime change, and I am so grateful to our Prime Minister for not joining in this illegal war by the US and Israel. I ask him, please, to continue with this direction, so that we do not get involved in another illegal war in the middle east.”
“Q11. After 14 years of Conservative austerity, councils are finally getting the support that they need to deliver for residents. In my constituency of Bolton South and Walkden, under the leadership of Councillor Nick Peel in Bolton and Mayor Paul Dennett in Salford, increased funding has been turned into the restoration of frontline services, investment in town centres and support for families. Does the Prime Minister agree that councils needs serious leadership and long-term funding certainty to deliver, not short-term protest politics that put services at risk? Will he commit to continue that support?”
“Even during the ceasefire, Israel is blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza while pushing ahead with illegal settlements in the E1 area, which the UK Government have described as a “flagrant breach of international law”. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, by these actions, Israel is essentially trying to bury the idea of a state of Palestine? Apart from good words, what concrete action are we going to take to prevent that from happening?”
“I place on record my appreciation of the Secretary of State for standing up to the richest man in the world. Whether it is standing up and acting, or the statement on online harm made weeks ago by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), this Government are taking the protection of children seriously. In Bolton South and Walkden, parents see the effect of social media on children. Will the Secretary of State stick to her intention to consult fully, especially with children under the age of 16?”
“Q13. I offer my condolences to the families of the four people who died in the road traffic accident that occurred over the weekend in my constituency. Families in Bolton South and Walkden are already benefiting from this Labour Government’s actions—free school meals, free breakfast clubs, 30 hours of funded childcare and the scrapping of the two-child limit—which are taking nearly half a million children out of poverty. However, in Bolton South and Walkden and across the country, there is a chronic shortage of social housing and genuinely affordable homes. Will the Prime Minister now show the same ambition on housing, and commit to a major expansion of social housing?”
“A member of my staff shared his experience from a recent holiday he took via Kraków airport, for example: the drop-off and pick-up area offered eight free minutes, then a small fee of 5 złoty—about £1—per four minutes thereafter, with simple rules, clear signs and visible ways to pay.”
“The aim of a barrierless system is to keep traffic moving, but we have to be honest about the human reality. A parent unloading luggage at 5 am or a carer helping an elderly relative to the terminal door is not thinking about an online payment later that day. They should not receive a penalty notice in the post just because there is no clear or simple way to pay at the time. There is a wider issue with value for money. The RAC has shown that UK drop-off fees have increased across many airports. On a cost-per-minute basis, Manchester is among the worst, charging £1 per minute for the first five minutes. That is hard to justify and is out of step with passengers’ experiences elsewhere.”
“It should be a source of pride, not stress, yet the regime for dropping off and picking up passengers has become overly complex and, for far too many people, deeply unfair. Let me start with the current rules. Outside each terminal, the tariff is £5 for up to five minutes, £6.40 for up to 10 minutes and £25 for up to 30 minutes, with a maximum stay of 30 minutes. Since last spring, the airport has operated a barrierless automatic number plate recognition system. If people forget, or if the process is unclear in the rush and stress of a drop-off, they are liable for a parking charge notice of £100, which is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. I do not dispute the fact that airports face operational pressures. Forecourts are constrained spaces and congestion causes delays and emissions.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of regulating airport drop-off charges. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to make the case for ending airport drop-off charges altogether, or at the very least introducing a free grace period, and for clear, consistent signage at all airports so that passengers know exactly what they are being charged and how to pay. I have received significant casework on this issue, and I know that colleagues across Greater Manchester and across the country will share my concerns. The current system is unfair, confusing and punitive. It does not work for passengers, and it is time for a change. Manchester airport is our international gateway. It is the third busiest airport in the United Kingdom, and a vital engine for the north-west’s economy.”
“I recognise that all airports differ in size and layout, and one solution may not fit all, but there is a clear and proportionate role for Government in setting expectations around fairness, transparency and consumer protection.”
“That works for some people, but it is further away, involves a transfer and is simply not suitable for those with mobility needs or heavy luggage. We should also reflect on governance and accountability. Manchester airport is part of the Manchester Airports Group, which has a unique ownership structure combining public and private shareholders. Manchester city council owns 35.5%, IFM Investors owns 35.5% and the nine other Greater Manchester councils, including Bolton, together own 29%. That public stake brings with it the responsibility to treat passengers fairly. What should the Government do? Many of my constituents would say that the answer is simple: scrap drop-off charges altogether, or at least introduce a short free period for pick-ups and drop-offs.”
“I absolutely agree. I want to discuss the realities in Bolton. There is a direct rail link from Bolton to Manchester airport; a typical journey time is about 36 to 45 minutes and, at off-peak times, a single ticket can be found for anywhere between £4 and £9. There is also a direct coach from Bolton interchange, which takes about 65 minutes; generally, prices range from £6 to £12. For many travellers, these options work, and we should promote and protect them, but they do not work for everyone. For a family of four with two large suitcases and a pushchair, or for people catching a very early flight or arriving back late at night, public transport is not always practical. For those who drive, the maze of choices remains problematic. The airport provides a free drop-off at JetParks with a shuttle to terminals.”
“I totally agree. Later in my speech, I will be asking for more detail about what happens with drop-off charges, as well as other information that we need from airports, such as how many people have had fixed penalty notices. Secondly, there should be national guidance on simple and consistent signage at all airports for parking charges and fees. Thirdly, the barrierless system for dropping off and parking should come with clear payment prompts at the point of exit and, where possible, a reasonable reminder rather than an immediate penalty for first-time non-payment.”
“It should not depend on whether a tired or stressed driver remembers to make an online payment later that day. It should reflect the reality of places such as Bolton, where rail can be a good option but is not always practical.”
“Another constituent contacted me after he tried to pay online in good faith but was unable to do so because of problems with the website. He did not see the signage and was made aware only after the fact that he needed to pay. Despite trying to pay the £6.40 charge, he was unable to do so and received a £100 fine instead. That does not feel fair or reasonable. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a system that relies too heavily on people remembering to make an online payment after their journey, rather than being clearly prompted to pay at the time. A short free window in which to park, clear exit prompts and a one-time reminder invoice would entirely prevent many of these cases. Airports are the front door to our country. That front door should be welcoming, efficient and fair.”
“The stories that we have been told follow a very clear pattern: people acting in good faith, anxious to get loved ones to the airport on time and unaware that payment cannot be made on site, and then being shocked to receive a penalty notice days later when they believe that they have done everything right. The stress and frustrations are real, but they are avoidable. One constituent contacted me after dropping his wife at Manchester airport and leaving after noticing that there were no barriers or pay stations. He then received a £100 fine in the post for not having paid. He was stationary in the drop-off area for just one minute and 10 seconds. If there had been a pay station, he would have paid. Instead, he went home and then received what he felt was an entirely disproportionate fine for being there for less than two minutes.”
“I thank my fellow Greater Manchester Member of Parliament for raising that issue. I will come on to the similar experiences that my constituents have had. I was talking about barrierless systems for drop-offs. I believe that airports should publish data on the number of drop-off penalties that are issued, how many are cancelled on appeal and the reasons why. The Government’s position is that although airport parking charges are “a matter for the airport operator as a commercial business”, the Department for Transport “expects car parking at airports to be managed appropriately and…consumers to be treated fairly”. Too many passengers feel that that expectation is not being met. I want to speak directly about the human element, because that is where my office’s casework has been the most compelling.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful clarification. His serious point is one that I think a lot of people here would agree with, and I am sure the Minister has heard his appeal for a train line from his area to Manchester. The cost of a taxi plus a forecourt fee can push travel beyond what many families can afford. With modest regulation, better design and a willingness to learn from our European neighbours, we can manage traffic without turning airport forecourts into what feels like a penalty for helping someone we care about.”
“I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who took part in the debate, and I thank the Minister for his response. He will be reassured to know that I was not expecting the Government to dictate car parking charges at airports. What I wanted was an assurance, which I think he has given, that he will work with the airports and explain to them the challenges we face. I want them to come forward with a better way of dealing with people who come to the airport, and with the drop-off charges, the signage, the payments and all the issues that we have discussed. I thank all my colleagues again for attending and taking part in the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the potential merits of regulating airport drop-off charges.”
“Yasmin Qureshi accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 26 January and to be printed (Bill 343).”
“These approaches complement each other. This Bill fills the missing part. In conclusion, I am not a party pooper. I do not want to ban fireworks; I want the celebrations to continue. We want the loudest fireworks to be used safely, predictably and with respect for neighbours. People want their families, pets and vulnerable neighbours to feel safe in their homes. They want councils to have the ability to act, and they want fireworks to be sold responsibly and clearly labelled. This Bill offers a balanced and practical way forward. I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Yasmin Qureshi, Jim McMahon, Sarah Champion, Debbie Abrahams, Liz Saville Roberts, Emma Lewell, Jamie Stone, Nadia Whittome, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Chris Law, Imran Hussain and Alex Sobel present the Bill.”
“The Bill would give councils the power to issue civil penalties similar to how they deal with littering, fly-tipping and environmental noise. It is practical, proportionate and fair. Fifthly, the Bill would also require the Secretary of State to review the impact of firework noise on veterans, neurodivergent people, people with certain medical conditions and animals, ensuring that future policy is based on proper evidence. Colleagues have brought forward important proposals before. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), one of the Deputy Speakers, has focused on noise limits, while my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) has focused on sales and licensing. This Bill is a bit different: it focuses on community impact, late-night misuse, unpredictability and, more importantly, council powers.”
“Secondly, most fireworks provide little information about how loud they are. The Bill would require clear labelling so that people know what they are buying. It would also support councils and trading standards teams when responding to complaints. Thirdly, councils say the current rules are almost impossible to enforce; fireworks are a transient nuisance and are gone by the time anyone arrives. The Bill would give councils the ability to introduce targeted, time-limited rules in areas with repeated problems. It would not be a blanket ban. It would build on tools councils already use for noise and antisocial behaviour, letting councils respond directly to their communities. Fourthly, civil enforcement rules currently rely on the police, which is unrealistic and ineffective.”
“Air pollution can rise several times higher than normal when fireworks are widely used, especially on still winter nights, and people with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other respiratory conditions are particularly affected. Health professionals have raised concerns about the pressure this places on vulnerable groups and on our NHS. The Bill proposes to do five things. First, it would introduce a maximum noise limit. Some fireworks reach 120 decibels, which is far louder than necessary for home use. Research shows that reducing the noise down to between 90 dB and 97 dB is achievable and supported by health and welfare experts. The Bill sets a reasonable maximum noise level for fireworks sold to the public, but louder fireworks would still be available for licensed displays where there is notice and supervision.”
“Help for Heroes and Combat Stress also found that 74% of veterans want stricter rules on fireworks, while 67% want fewer days of sale. The effect on animals is significant. Since 2010, more than a thousand incidents involving horses have been recorded during fireworks season, including tragic fatalities. Many owners receive no notice before displays and cannot protect their animals in time. Farm animals are affected, too: stress can cause ewes to abort during lambing and can separate mothers from their young. Wildlife also suffers, with studies showing sharp increases in heart rates among birds and disruption to roosting. This distress is real and avoidable. Fireworks also have a public health impact.”
“The problem is not organised displays that people can prepare for; the problem is unpredictable fireworks set off in neighbourhoods. The impact on veterans is also well documented. The BBC reported on Pete White, an RAF veteran with PTSD for whom sudden loud fireworks triggered panic attacks, taking him straight back to the sounds of conflict. He described it as an “uncontrollable sense of terror”. Organised displays with clear timings help him to prepare, but unexpected fireworks made life difficult for him. At one point, his anxiety became so severe that he struggled for weeks. Combat Stress reports a 25% increase in calls at this time of year. It wants a review of current rules, clearer safety information and limits on when fireworks can be sold and used.”
“Polling shows that 85% of people want stronger rules on fireworks, almost half want private backyard displays banned and a further third want tighter restrictions. This is not a new concern: over the years, Parliament’s petition system has received hundreds of thousands of signatures calling for action. One family told me that their autistic son becomes extremely distressed by unexpected fireworks. He screams, hides and cannot settle for hours. They want him to enjoy celebrations like any other child, but unpredictable late-night fireworks make evenings frightening, rather than joyful. Another constituent—a lady in her seventies who lives alone—said that loud fireworks at night make her feel as though she is in a war zone. She asks, quite reasonably, why something cannot be done about the loud ones. Research shows what our residents want.”
“They are not talking about organised displays; they mean sudden explosions in residential streets at 11 o’clock, midnight or later. These bangs startle children, frighten older people, distress pets and livestock, and overwhelm people managing health conditions or trauma. The same groups feel it most: children with sensory needs; older residents living alone; people with anxiety or heart conditions; and animals. At the moment, there is very little anyone can do about it. Councils receive complaints but have no power to act, and the police understandably focus on more urgent priorities. Fireworks are often sold without clear information on how loud they are. This Bill would close those gaps in a simple, fair and proportionate way. The public are ahead of us on this.”
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the maximum noise levels of fireworks which may be sold to the public; to require that specified information about noise levels is included on labelling and in sales information for fireworks; to require the Secretary of State to review the impact of firework noise on the welfare of veterans, neurodivergent people, people with certain medical conditions, and animals; to provide local authorities with power to regulate the use of fireworks in certain circumstances, and to enforce such regulation; and for connected purposes. Fireworks bring joy to many people and are an important part of celebrations, but every year I hear the same concerns from residents about the impact of loud, unpredictable fireworks going off late at night.”
“My hon. Friend is rightly talking about access to proper food. In my constituency, FareShare helps to redistribute more than 325,000 meals a year to 11 local charities. That is a lifeline for families struggling to afford fresh food. Nationally, however, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of edible food still go to waste. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to commit to supporting food redistribution as part of a fairer food system?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The European convention gives us the right not to be tortured, not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, to have a fair trial, to have privacy and to have freedom of expression. I ask all the people who are against it: what rights do they think the British people should not have?”
“My hon. Friend is making a great speech. On amending the law, what is required is a simple amendment to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to ensure that when a game requires online support, developers must allow the purchaser to continue receiving that support.”
“It is simply a matter of justice that if someone has paid for a product, either physical or digital, they should be able to use it for as long as they like. The fact that a company goes bust should not make any difference to that.”
“The Prime Minister is being very generous in taking all our questions. I congratulate him on introducing this Bill, but can the duty of candour be applied fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not just statutory inquiries? Does he agree that the command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge, not simply with the institution?”
“It was a David versus Goliath battle, with ordinary families facing the full legal force of the state and a global corporation. This Bill could hope to change that. It establishes a duty of candour, a duty to assist investigation and the principle of parity of arms, which seeks to ensure that families are not denied justice because they lack resources. However, the duty of candour must apply fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not just statutory inquiries. Command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge and not with the institutions. The offence of misleading the public must not be weakened by the need to prove individual harm. The Bill is really important. I hope it is not diluted. I hope that people like those who suffered because of Primodos will get due justice.”
“Decades later, the pattern repeated. In 2017 the Government’s own Commission on Human Medicines established an expert working group, which concluded that there was “no causal association” between Primodos and harm—wording that was added later after pressure from senior officials. Families were shut out, evidence was excluded and regulators defended themselves instead of admitting failure. Then, in 2023, the same families were forced into court against Bayer and the Government. Despite the independent Cumberlege review, which occurred after the 2017 expert working group, confirming that avoidable harm had occurred, their case still collapsed before trial when the families were threatened with £11 million in legal costs if they refused to withdraw.”
“Primodos was a hormone pregnancy test given to 1.5 million women in Britain until the late 1970s. It was linked to miscarriages, stillbirths and babies born with life-changing disabilities, yet the families were met not with transparency, but with denial. In 1967, Dr Isabel Gal published research in Nature showing a possible link between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects. Rather than being supported, she was dismissed and discredited. Both the manufacturer, Schering, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines knew of the risks. The committee issued a notice in 1975 warning of a possible link, and another in 1977 confirming that the link had been established, yet Primodos was not withdrawn until 1978 and the women who had already taken it were never told the truth. That was not candour. It was concealment.”
“I am proud to support this important Bill and to pay tribute to the Hillsborough families, whose courage and determination have brought us to this moment. Their decades of struggle have changed our country and created a chance to ensure that no family ever again has to fight for truth alone. The Bill is about truth, fairness and accountability. It is about ending the culture of cover-ups that has marked too many national scandals, from Hillsborough to contaminated blood, and from Post Office Horizon to Primodos, whose families I have been honoured to represent and campaign for in this House for the past 13 years. I have stood here many times to raise that issue and to lead debates, because it is not a new story. The Primodos scandal has been known about for decades. What has been missing is not information, but honesty.”
“With focus, co-ordination and commitment, we can deliver the timely, compassionate care that the people of Bolton deserve.”