THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN (Hansard, 16 November 1972)

§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
My purpose in this debate on thalidomide children is to criticise the treatment they have received, to offer constructive proposals and to demand immediate action. I have no wish to make party political points in the debate, and I do not believe that anyone else wishes to do so either, but that does not absolve the Government from criticism, particularly of certain statements by the Prime Minister.
I welcome the attempt by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to 766 secure a general debate so that Members may express their views. I am unable to comment on the legal matters, which may be sub judice, but the House will want the facts and answers to certain questions.
Some 430 children—deformed, some without legs and some without arms, some without either, some who are deaf, some who are blind, some who are mentally defective and some who have internal abnormalities—are affected. All of them are the casualties of thalidomide, suffering injuries as appalling as those of any soldier on the battlefield, and all of them are innocent children.
Why were they injured? It was because their mothers believed the categorical and clear statement by Distillers that: Distavel that is thalidomide— can be given with complete safety, without adverse effect on mother or child. That statement, in the form of an advertisement, was made only weeks before thalidomide was withdrawn. The House will draw its own conclusions about moral responsibility.
The House should carefully scrutinise the tragic scene and study the principals involved. First, the Distillers Company: why did it make such a strong, unqualified claim about thalidomide? Did it test thalidomide on the foetus of animals? Those are two crucial questions to which the House has a right to demand the answers.
767 There is no point in any company's trying to gag Parliament. Distillers has tried to gag the Press. It has tried to suppress television. But the truth must be ventilated, and that is one of the purposes of our parliamentary campaign.
What rôle have the Government played? What steps did they take to check the veracity of the claim by Distillers in the statement that I have quoted? Did the Government know that the United States Government were demanding evidence of thalidomide's safety at that time? Did the Government ask the Cohen Committee to demand such evidence? If not, why not?
Are the Government satisfied that they did all in their power to prevent this tragedy?
The House must ask, what is the extent of Government responsibility? On 24th October, from the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister rejected my claim that the Government must share responsibility. It was a categorical rejection. A few hours ago, however, I was given some surprising information, namely, that drugs and medicines are chargeable for purchase tax but that some exemptions are allowed, on grounds of exceptional efficacy, by Customs and Excise and its advisers, the Department of Health and Social Security. That information was passed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who kindly passed it on to me.
What I find astonishing—I do not know what the Minister's view of this will be—is that thalidomide was granted exemption from purchase tax by the Government under the Purchase Tax (No. 3) Order, 1958. I have given the Minister notice of this point. I would greatly appreciate a reply. Can the Minister confirm this fact? I should be glad if he could deny it, but if he confirms it this raises deeply disturbing questions.
Can the Minister also confirm that exemption is highly prized by the drug manufacturers, in so far as it enables them to sell a drug under a brand name and confers a semi-official blessing as to its efficacy and safety, whereas without exemption the drug would probably not be bought for the National Health Service?
768 The Government are more deeply involved in the tragedy of thalidomide than anyone ever dreamed. Even if the Minister can deny all these allegations—I genuinely hope that he can—the fact remains that the Government distributed thalidomide under the National Health Service. Because of that, they have a clear responsibility. I am not in any way attempting to mitigate the major moral responsibility of the Distillers Company.
A precedent has been established abroad for setting up a fund for thalidomide children. I find it dismaying that it is not only established but the money is being distributed while our Prime Minister is saying that he is considering whether to create such a fund and is waiting for the negotiations to be concluded. Supposing that the negotiations take another 10 years—as well they may—or another 20 years, what happens to the children and the families in the meantime? Is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting that we must await the pleasure of the Distillers Company and its legal advisers before taking action?
The Prime Minister's sympathy and sincerity are quite unquestioned, but he must think again. He must change his mind and establish that fund immediately. He could establish such a fund without prejudice to the negotiations between the Distillers Company and the parents because the two matters would be entirely separate.
If the Prime Minister is in any doubt, I now suggest a method which has the virtue of simplicity. The Government should establish a fund covering all the financial needs of the children based on actuarial considerations and taking account of inflation. An essential condition of the fund would be that the parents should undertake to return to the Government whatever money was negotiated in a settlement with the Distillers Company. Thus, for example, if the Government established a fund of £20 million and if the settlement between the parents and the Distillers Company were £15 million, the children would benefit from the £20 million and the extra £15 million would be returned to the Government. If the Government felt that the settlement arrived at was inadequate, they could instruct their legal advisers to cooperate with those of the parents to try to ensure a morally just settlement. Thus, 769 the public interest as well as the private interests would be served.
I look forward to hearing a contribution by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The primary aim of this campaign and debate is to help thalidomide children, who are a special case. I see them as a symbol of all disabled children. I hope that from their tragedy will emerge a will and a way of creating a new era for disabled children everywhere.

§ Mr. John Astor (Newbury)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on focusing attention on the plight of thalidomide children. As he said in his introductory remarks, this is not a party political issue; it is a concern shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are genuinely anxious to do the best we can not only for this group of children but for disabled people generally.
I do not propose to comment on the discussions taking place at present between Distillers Biochemicals, Ltd., and the parents, except that one naturally hopes that a fair and honourable settlement will be reached very speedily, because the negotiations have already been long drawn out. Whatever the outcome of the settlement and the terms of compensation, it seems unlikely that the fund provided will be sufficient to meet all the needs of the children over the years to come. Indeed, many of these needs cannot at present be foreseen.
Many national tragedies have a rather short-term impact, but the effects of the thalidomide tragedy are long-term and will be a burden to the children and their families throughout their lives. Indeed, they are already emerging from childhood to adulthood.
I am sure that all hon. Members would like to ensure that the best possible opportunities are given to these children in education, training, employment and, indeed, in their everyday living activities. A great deal of support will be required. Much of it will be very expensive. We cannot envisage exactly what their needs will be and what available technological equipment will be required. However, we know that it will be costly and that 770 the need is likely to continue for many years.
I support the hon. Gentleman in urging the Government to consider setting up a national fund at the earliest opportunity.

§ Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)
Does the hon. Gentleman, who is a great friend of mine in this sense, agree that we should give the maximum technical support to assist these people to get on their feet and enable them to be independent?

§ Mr. Astor
Yes, indeed. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. I know the work that he does in this connection. I think that we often work together in emphasising the need to enable disabled people to take advantage of the technical equipment now available so that they may lead fuller and more independent lives.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that the Government should consider setting up a national fund for these children and their families. However, I do not think that his strictures on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were justified or fair. My right hon. Friend explained that he was very willing to consider the setting up of such a fund, but that the Government could not put themselves in a position which might prejudice the litigation now going through the courts.
In the meantime, I ask the Government to consider the possibility of meeting the emergency and filling the gap by giving financial support to one of the charities, such as the Lady Hoare Trust, which has done valiant work in helping to support these children and their families during these difficult years. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the House would be resentful if, for lack of financial resources, these children were deprived of any facilities which could be of benefit to them. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider that point.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean)
The thalidomide children have touched the hearts of the people of this country and the people of many other countries. They have produced a practical response from statutory and voluntary 771 bodies alike. I am sure that the whole House would wish to pay tribute to the courage and devotion of parents, the skill and ingenuity of doctors, nurses, social workers, limb fitters, engineers, voluntary organisations and particularly the Lady Hoare Trust, which has done so much to support the Chailey Heritage on the South Coast; and also to the determination and adaptability of the children concerned. All this has been a triumph of the human spirit over disability and is a shining example to us all.
I am sure the House will also wish to bear in mind that this is part of a wider problem. Alas, there are many other disabled children in our country with similar needs—children disabled in road accidents, fires in the home, and batterings from their parents, and children who have suffered deformities of all sorts and kinds. Indeed, 20,000 children are now receiving the attendance allowance which the Government introduced in December, 1971. It may be that there will be a further 30,000 who will get the allowance under the extension which will be starting fairly soon. This is part of a much wider problem involving a large number of children.
The whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), for the points which he raised in his speech, and I am particularly grateful to him for giving me notice of them. All hon. Members have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman personally. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He has triumphed over his own disability.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman emphasised that this is not a party political matter. Anybody who tried to make a political football out of the tragedy of these children would be carrying a heavy load of responsibility. However, I am sorry that he felt it necessary to criticise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. On numerous occasions my right hon. Friend has demonstrated his personal concern for the disabled. He has personally seen the Disabled Drivers Association; he is shortly to have another meeting with the Disablement Income Group; and in the House only last Tuesday he offered, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, personally to investigate any 772 case of real need or any case involving requirements of any kind which are not being adequately met.
The hon. Gentleman pressed his case for the setting up of a special fund and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) made a similar point in his short speech.

§ Mr. Ashley
May I make quite clear that my attacks on the Prime Minister are in no way personal? All my attacks on the Prime Minister relate to his policies. I ask the House to accept that as a fact, since I want there to be no ambiguity about the situation. I propose to continue my attack, but there is nothing personal in it against the Prime Minister, nor is there any party political matter involved.

§ Mr. Dean
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I fully accept what he said. Indeed, he said it in his speech, and I acknowledge it. However, I felt that he was rather unfair to my right hon. Friend, who has shown deep personal concern in regard not only to this aspect of disablement but to other disabled sections of the community.
As for a special fund, I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that on such an occasion as this I cannot add to what the Prime Minister said in the House on Tuesday. He then said that he would agree to consider carefully the setting up of a special fund or the question of the support of existing funds. He continued: I was asked to consider the possibility of setting up a foundation to provide financial resources. But it was a foundation to bridge any gap between the result of any legal arrangement and what it was felt these children needed. Therefore it is right that we should await the outcome of legal arrangements before coming to a firm conclusion about the needs of these children which still require to be met."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1972; Vol. 846, c. 212.] There is also the point about the Robens Committee on Safety and Health at Work, which made certain recommendations. Here again, my right hon. Friend has given a firm commitment that these matters are being examined urgently by the Government—

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
In this connection, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has said that the central Government are deeply involved in the tragedy of the thalidomide 773 children. Is there any responsibility on the central Government for permitting thalidomide to be prescribed under the National Health Service?

§ Mr. Dean
I am coming to that very point. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South raised this matter and asked me about the position.
Traditionally, before the legislation to which I shall refer in a moment, new drugs were always marketed on the responsibility of the manufacturer. This happened under Governments of both parties. Doctors exercised their clinical judgment in deciding to use them to treat patients and reported in professional journals their experience of them in use. In this way a climate of professional opinion about the value and risks of a drug was built up. At that time there were no powers under which the Government or Government agencies could check thalidomide or any other drug before it was marketed.
The then Government saw that there were gaps in the law, and they responded. In 1963 the Committee on Safety of Drugs was appointed. In 1968 the Medicines Act was passed, which set up a licensing system concerned with the safety and efficacy of drugs. The Act also made it an offence for therapeutic recommendations in advertisements not to be in accordance with those specified in the product licence. In other words, the points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman which were not covered before this case came to light are now covered in existing law.
The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that thalidomide was exempted from purchase tax in 1958. I can only emphasise that at that time no one knew that it was a dangerous drug. On the contrary, it was in respectable use by the medical profession and as such was recommended by the Ministry of Health for exemption from purchase tax. This was—and still is—a normal procedure. It did not imply any special commendation.
I turn to the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. First, he asked what is now being done to help these children. There is a wide range of services for the medical, educational and welfare needs of both the children and their families. Taking cash benefits. I have mentioned the attendance 774 allowance and the extension of the allowance, and all the other allowances in the various schemes. For example, family allowances and family income supplement are available to these families in the same way as they are to other families. There is support for the families themselves through local health and welfare services—

§ Mr. Dean
No. I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have a great deal to say—

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)
We know all this.

§ Mr. Dean
These include guidance by social workers and health visitors and practical help, for example, with laundry, nursing and home helps.
Then there is employment. When the time comes, vocational training will be available for these children. There will be special aids and facilities for them in sheltered workshops, where these are appropriate.
As for education, many of these children are being educated at ordinary schools at the specific request of their parents. But where necessary there are—

§ Mr. Carter-Jones
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Dean
I am sorry. I have a great deal of information to give the House. The hon. Gentleman has intervened once already. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way to him.

§ Mr. Spearing
But this is not information.

§ Mr. Dean
Special equipment is also available, such as typewriters and tape recorders, for these children—

§ Mr. Carter-Jones
Paid for out of private funds.

§ Mr. Dean
No, the hon. Member is incorrect. I am talking about services which are provided, often in co-operation with voluntary bodies, but the substantial proportion of which are provided by public funds.

§ Mr. Carter-Jones
In Belfast this is provided by mainly private funds.

§ Mr. Dean
Perhaps most impressive of all is the limb-fitting work which is being done. We can claim that some of our equipment is the most advanced in the world. There has been a close personal relationship built up between all these children and the doctors and the limb-fitters. They know these children by name and this contact is on a regular basis. There is a concern not only with the physical needs of the children but with the psychological and social needs of them and their families.
Let me give some examples. The artificial arms which enable a number of these children to feed themselves, write and play, the artificial legs—

§ Mr. Dean
I will give way in a moment. In many cases these limbs are tailor-made to suit unusual and varied deformities. There are aids to mobility. For example, we have developed one, with departmental support, which is unique and which enables children with artificial legs to make their own way to a platform at floor level, raise it electrically and then to travel about standing, as in a powered wheelchair. I mention this to show what has been done under all Governments during the last 10 years to assist these children to live as normal a life as possible.

§ Dr. Stuttaford
What the House really wants to know is how the thalidomide children, for whom any Government must bear some responsibility—

§ Mr. Spearing
Hear, hear.

§ Dr. Stuttaford
—together with the subagents who distributed the drug, are being treated differently from the other children. It seems that we have had an account of the way in which all crippled children are being treated. We would like to learn whether these children are to have a cash benefit, which they will need to compensate them for their deficiencies, for which we are all responsible.

§ Mr. Dean
My hon. Friend will find, when he has an opportunity of reading HANSARD, that I have referred to a number of services provided specifically to 776 help with the problems of these children. I have demonstrated the Government's deep concern for these children; I have illustrated the wide range of services available and the matters being considered; and I have mentioned the practical offer to investigate any case of real need which is not being met.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
We have heard an extremely unsatisfactory answer to the compelling case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I must emphasise immediately that there is no question whatever of party politics in this. My hon. Friend has been studiedly careful to avoid any reference to parties. There are two Motions on the Order Paper. One is official and one is from the back benches. We would like the Government to face up to their responsibilities. They having permitted the prescription of thalidomide under the National Health Service, there is clearly a duty on central Government to face their responsibilities.
We argue that the Distillers Company must face its responsibilities. It is well within its means to meet all the needs of the thalidomide children in the country. We say that it is the merest justice that it should discharge those responsibilities. We argue—and I believe that we do so on behalf of all hon. and right hon. Members—that there must be an urgent and detailed debate on all the implications of this tragedy. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State to look again at the proposition of my hon. Friend. He is not a person who would seek to introduce party politics into an issue of this kind. There is an all-party Disablement Group. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor), the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), as well as my hon. Friend, are trying to protect the interests of disabled people—