§ 3.13 p.m.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in those cases where the expectant mother had been prescribed thalidomide under the National Health Service they are prepared to assume responsibility for the welfare of the children, born suffering from crippling congenital abnormalities, to relieve the future financial difficulties of the parents.]
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, comprehensive welfare services are available for these, as for other children with congenital deformities.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, would the noble Lord consider this? If these children had lost their limbs in a railway crash, the parents would have brought an action, not against the engine driver but against the Railway Executive and received heavy damages. If they had lost their limbs in a road accident, their parents would have been indemnified, so far as finance was concerned, by the insurance company. Would not the noble Lord consider asking the Ministry of Health, in the first place, and if they refuse to accept the responsibility, the drug company which is responsible for this, to give substantial financial help to these parents in order that their children should have some security in future? Secondly, would he urge the pharmaceutical industry to cover themselves with some comprehensive insurance policy in order that, if this kind of thing recurs, the parents or whoever might be damaged or have their health injured, or happiness impaired, might have at least some recompense, however inadequate?
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, if it could be proved in a court of law that the manufacturers of thalidomide had in one way or another been negligent, perhaps the court would then award damages. As regards making an appeal to the manufacturers on the lines suggested 370 by the noble Baroness, I am sure that they will take note of what has been said in your Lordships' House this afternoon but I doubt whether it is for me, standing at this Box, to make any further comment on the matter.
§ LORD AMWELLMy Lords, should this be left to competitive marketing?
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I am afraid that I do not understand the significance of the noble Lord's question.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one more important question? Is he aware that this drug was put on the market in December, 1958, and was not removed from the market until December, 1961? Therefore, there are still women who became pregnant during that time and who have still to bear their children. Has he collected the names of the women who are still pregnant and who have taken this drug?
§ LORD NEWTONNo, my Lords, I have not collected the names. Perhaps I should say this to the noble Baroness. There have always been children born physically impaired in this country. For years now, from 150 to 160 cases of all ages of congenital limb deformities have been referred annually to the limb fitting centres. There was an article in the Lancet of June 16 of this year, by Dr. Smithers, of Liverpool, which shows that in a series of 59 cases up to January, 1962, where babies were born with limb deformities, thalidomide appears to have been responsible in less than half. For children to be born with limb deformities is no now thing and the risk is always present. Whenever a deformed child is born—perhaps I can have the attention of the noble Baroness—it is a tragedy both for it and for its parents, whatever the cause. I do not see how the State could seek to distinguish between two congenitally deformed children just because one mother took thalidomide during pregnancy and the other did not.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, surely the difference is that this is a man-made deformity. It is a deformity for which we as human beings are responsible by our foolishness, if you like, in prescribing this drug.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I have made very careful inquiries from my technical advisers to discover if the other causes of these deformities are known and the answer is that they are not known. Perhaps these unknown causes may also be wholly or in part man-made, to use the noble Lord's term. So I still do not see the valid distinction to which I referred in my previous answer.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, may I refer the noble Lord to the British Medical Journal of July 9? It gives him the answers to all his technical questions.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I have read it most carefully.
LORD GRENFELLMy Lords, would my noble friend pass on to his right honourable friend the Minister of Health a suggestion that he should call a conference to discuss means of assisting both these children and their parents, and also inform his right honourable friend that the Children's Aid Society would be pleased to take part in this conference, if it were called, and do all they could to help in these very tragic circumstances?
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, of course I shall ask my right honourable friend to bear in mind what my noble friend has just said.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any machinery whereby local health authorities report the kind of cases to which my noble friend Lady Summerskill has referred? And, if there is not machinery to obtain the relative particulars, would the Minister consider circularising local authorities so that that informatoin can be obtained?
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, my right honourable friend's Department has already taken steps, and is still taking them, to ensure that those who are likely to be concerned with the early recognition, assessment and treatment of cases of congenital abnormality are fully aware of the services and appliances available under the Health Service, of the action needed to put them at the service of patients, and of the advice and guidance which can and should be given to parents. These steps will also ensure 372 that clinics have ample notice of special requirements well before the age at which the patient may need an appliance.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, that is all right, so far as it goes, and it is useful. But what I am sure my noble friend wants is factual information of the number and nature of these cases. The provision for advice being given to parents is all right, but cannot the Minister get the facts about this?
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I very much doubt whether, even if careful inquiries were made, specific information would be available, because I am advised that there may well be instances in which mothers-to-be have taken thalidomide and produced perfectly normal children.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, is not the point that these congenital abnormalities can very easily be made notifiable by the doctor or the midwife to the local authority, exactly as complications of births are made notifiable? There is no difficulty about this.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is using the term "notifiable" in the strictly technical sense. I think the answer is that diseases are made notifiable for the protection of the community; that is to say, when the disease is infectious or contagious. But they are not made notifiable for the compilation of purely factual information.
§ LORD TAYLORWith great respect to the noble Lord, I think he is in error.
§ LORD NEWTONNo, my Lords. I inquired most carefully about this earlier.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, if the noble Lord inquires still more carefully, he will discover that from time to time diseases are made notifiable for research purposes: for example, the making notifiable of rheumatic fever, for which there is no evidence of infection, in certain particular cases.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I take that from the noble Lord, but that is not in accord with my information.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHThe noble Lord's Department is often wrong.