Connect with us

Published

on

For nearly 50 years campaigners have fought for recognition that a pregnancy test drug called Primodos, given to them by their GPs, damaged babies in the womb.  

Earlier this year High Court Judge Mrs Justice Yip ruled there was insufficient new evidence to support their claim, and the claimants did not have the funds nor legal representation to take their challenge further, after their solicitors dropped the case.

The case was struck out, leaving the claimants potentially liable for costs.

Now they have been sent a letter by lawyers representing the Department Of Health and drug manufacturer Bayer saying that, unless they commit to never making another claim, they will have to pay the legal bills of the lawyers used to block their joint action.

Marie Lyon, from the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, told Sky News: “It constitutes bullying and intimidation.

“They want us to sign a form to say we will never ever initiate any legal action in the future no matter what kind of evidence emerges.

“Otherwise, they will slap that £10m plus on our families. I am absolutely disgusted with our government – not only did they damage us initially, but now they are actually asking us to pay for it.”

The drug was given out by GPs to pregnant women in the 1960s and 70s but withdrawn from the market in 1978 after concerns were raised in the scientific community about an association between the drug and malformations.

However, the first attempted legal challenge against the manufacturers in 1982 failed.

In 2017, an Expert Working Group of the UK’s Commission on Human Medicines published a report concluding that the available scientific data did not support the existence of a causal relationship between the use of hormones in pregnancy and an increased incidence of congenital anomalies in babies.

However, the then prime minister, Theresa May felt the body of the report also contained evidence that there might be an association.

She commissioned an independent review, led by Baroness Cumberlege, not just to look at the drug but also the way in which it was regulated in the UK.

The findings of that report, published in July 2020, were highly critical of the regulatory system – and suggested Primodos should have been withdrawn from the UK market 10 years earlier than it was.

It found Hormone Pregnancy Tests caused “avoidable harm” and said the government should apologise and set up a system of redress.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

May 2023: Primodos families lose legal bid

Read more:
The Primodos Drug Scandal
Theresa May says victims were patted on the head and told ‘you’re imagining it’
Government accused of ‘bullying’ disabled campaigners in the courts

The government did apologise, but shortly after, the Department Of Health hired lawyers, sided with the German manufacturer, and ensured that a new the legal claim from families was struck out of the courts.

All this led to a debate in Parliament on Thursday where Mrs May told the House, that mothers wrongly felt guilty about taking the drug and damaging their babies.

She said: “This drug was given to them by their GPs, and I hope the minister will stand up this afternoon and say very clearly the women who took Primodos, whose children suffered, were at no fault whatsoever, and should not feel guilty at all. The fault lay with the NHS.”

Leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey said: “This is in my view potentially one of the biggest cover-ups of a pharmaceutical outrage the world has ever seen.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg pointed to findings from a previous Sky News investigation saying: “This drug was used in South Korea, and in Germany, as an abortifacient.

“It was used to procure abortions. Well, what is a drug that will do that doing to a baby?”

Until now the government has said it has not been able to discuss issues of redress due to the legal claim against it.

The Minister for Women’s Health Maria Caulfield has offered to meet the families and in regard to the letter about legal costs said: “The letter that’s gone out to those taking part in court cases – I will look at that – because I don’t want to be in a position where people feel they cannot get justice simply because they cannot afford to do so.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Primodos: A Bitter Pill

The SNP’s Hannah Bardell blamed the failed legal action on the solicitors who pulled out of representing the claimants.

“They’ve been done over – and I am going to use my parliamentary privilege here – by a company called Pogust Goodhead,” she said.

“Now they approached the Primodos campaign, they approached them to take over the case, they then got cold feet and decided to drop the claimants and the victims when they didn’t fancy their chances of winning.

“Not only to compound that, they went on to withhold the documents that constituents like mine, Wilma Ord, had presented to them and given to them to pursue the case.

“That prevented the campaign from being able to find other legal representation and fundamentally has meant that the campaign was unsuccessful in court. That in my view is a hostile and odious move by any legal firm.”

When Sky News previously approached the legal firm with this allegation in April this year, Pogust Goodhead said: “We refute the suggestion that we are withholding information to damage this case.

“We are aware that the claimants have been provided with 1,256 pages of legal documents containing information which should assist with their search for legal representation and funding.

“We have not been notified that there is another law firm on the court record as acting for any of the individuals we represented. We are bound by a duty of confidentiality and must adhere to strict rules in relation to disclosure of any former client’s documentation.

“We poured extensive resources into this case because we care deeply about the injustice and harm caused to any victim of wrongdoing that has resulted in injury.”

The manufacturer Schering, now owned by Bayer, has always denied that their drug caused harm to babies in the womb and point to the findings of the 2017 Expert Working Group report.

It added: “Since the discontinuation of the legal action in 1982, Bayer maintains that no significant new scientific knowledge has been produced which would call into question the validity of the previous assessment of there being no link between the occurrence of such congenital anomalies.”

Continue Reading

UK

Prince Harry cleared of bullying claims by report into ‘damaging dispute’ at his charity

Published

on

By

Prince Harry cleared of bullying claims by report into 'damaging dispute' at his charity

The Charity Commission has found no evidence of bullying or harassment at a charity set up by Prince Harry.

But it has found that an internal dispute at Sentebale “severely impacted the charity’s reputation”.

Earlier this year its chair, Dr Sophie Chandauka, accused the Duke of Sussex of “harassment and bullying at scale”.

Her comments followed the departure of the prince and several others from the organisation in March.

They had asked her to step down, alleging it was in the “best interest of the charity”.

Dr Chandauka told Sky News that Harry had “authorised the release of a damaging piece of news to the outside world” without informing her or Sentebale directors.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex declined to offer any formal response.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why was Prince Harry accused of ‘bullying’?

‘Strong perception of ill-treatment’

The Charity Commission said it was reporting after a “damaging internal dispute emerged” and has “criticised all parties to the dispute for allowing it to play out publicly”.

That “severely impacted the charity’s reputation and risked undermining public trust in charities more generally”, it said.

But it found no evidence of “widespread or systemic bullying or harassment, including misogyny or misogynoir at the charity”.

Nevertheless, it did acknowledge the “strong perception of ill-treatment felt by a number of parties to the dispute and the impact this may have had on them personally”.

It also found no evidence of “‘over-reach’ by either the chair or the Duke of Sussex as patron”.

‘Confusion exacerbated tensions’

But it was critical of the charity’s “lack of clarity in delegations to the chair which allowed for misunderstandings to occur”.

And it has “identified a lack of clarity around role descriptions and internal policies as the primary cause for weaknesses in the charity’s management”.

That “confusion exacerbated tensions, which culminated in a dispute and multiple resignations of trustees and both founding patrons”.

Read more:
Clintons subpoenaed in Epstein probe
First man to be executed with defibrillator fitted

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why was Prince Harry accused of ‘bullying’?

Harry: Report falls troublingly short

A spokesperson for Prince Harry said it was “unsurprising” that the commission had announced “no findings of wrongdoing in relation to Sentebale’s co-founder and former patron, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex”.

They added: “Despite all that, their report falls troublingly short in many regards, primarily the fact that the consequences of the current chair’s actions will not be borne by her, but by the children who rely on Sentebale’s support.”

They said the prince will “now focus on finding new ways to continue supporting the children of Lesotho and Botswana”.

Dr Chandauka said: “I appreciate the Charity Commission for its conclusions which confirm the governance concerns I raised privately in February 2025.”

But she added: “The unexpected adverse media campaign that was launched by those who resigned on 24 March 2025 has caused incalculable damage and offers a glimpse of the unacceptable behaviours displayed in private.”

Continue Reading

UK

Police investigating grooming gangs given AI tools to speed up cold case work

Published

on

By

Police investigating grooming gangs given AI tools to speed up cold case work

All police forces investigating grooming gangs in England and Wales will be given access to new AI tools to help speed up their investigations.

The artificial intelligence tools are already thought to have saved officers in 13 forces more than £20m and 16,000 hours of investigation time.

The apps can translate large amounts of text in foreign languages from mobile phones seized by police, and analyse a mass of digital data to find patterns and relationships between suspects.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Grooming gang inquiry: ‘Our chance for justice’

‘We must punish perpetrators’

The rollout is part of a £426,000 boost for the Tackling Organised Exploitation (TOEX) programme, which supports officers to investigate complex cases involving modern slavery, county lines and child sex abuse.

The increased access to the AI technology follows Baroness Casey’s recommendation for a national operation to review cold grooming gang cases.

That operation will review more than 1,200 closed cases of child sexual exploitation.

“The sexual exploitation of children by grooming gangs is one of the most horrific crimes, and we must punish perpetrators, provide justice for victims and survivors, and protect today’s children from harm,” said safeguarding minister Jess Phillips.

“Baroness Casey flagged the need to upgrade police information systems to improve investigations and safeguard children at risk. Today we are investing in these critical tools.”

Read more from Sky News:
Harry criticises report into charity

Reeves told to find ‘substantial’ tax rises

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Key takeaways from the Casey review

Lack of ethnicity data ‘a major failing’

Police forces have also been instructed by the home secretary to collect ethnicity data, as recommended by Baroness Casey.

Her June report found the lack of data showing sex offenders’ ethnicity and nationality in grooming gangs was “a major failing over the last decade or more”.

She found that officials avoided the issue of ethnicity for fear of being called racist, but there were enough convictions of Asian men “to have warranted closer examination”.

The government has launched a national inquiry into the abuse and further details are expected to be announced in the coming weeks.

Continue Reading

UK

Chancellor warned ‘substantial tax rises’ needed – as she faces ‘impossible trilemma’

Published

on

By

Chancellor warned 'substantial tax rises' needed - as she faces 'impossible trilemma'

Rachel Reeves will need to find more than £40bn of tax rises or spending cuts in the autumn budget to meet her fiscal rules, a leading research institute has warned.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) said the government would miss its rule, which stipulates that day to day spending should be covered by tax receipts, by £41.2bn in the fiscal year 2029-30.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates

In its latest UK economic outlook, NIESR said: “This shortfall significantly increases the pressure on the chancellor to introduce substantial tax rises in the upcoming autumn budget if she hopes to remain compliant with her fiscal rules.”

The deteriorating fiscal picture was blamed on poor economic growth, higher than expected borrowing and a reversal in welfare cuts that could have saved the government £6.25bn.

Together they have created an “impossible trilemma”, NIESR said, with the chancellor simultaneously bound to her fiscal rules, spending commitments, and manifesto pledges that oppose tax hikes.

Read more:
What is a wealth tax?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Could the rich be taxed to fill black hole?

Reeves told to consider replacing council tax

The institute urged the government to build a larger fiscal buffer through moderate but sustained tax rises.

“This will help allay bond market fears about fiscal sustainability, which may in turn reduce borrowing costs,” it said.

“It will also help to reduce policy uncertainty, which can hit both business and consumer confidence.”

It said that money could be raised by reforms to council tax bands or, in a more radical approach, by replacing the whole council tax system with a land value tax.

To reduce spending pressures, NIESR called for a greater focus on reducing economic inactivity, which could bring down welfare spending.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What’s the deal with wealth taxes?

Growth to remain sluggish

The report was released against the backdrop of poor growth, with the chancellor struggling to ignite the economy after two months of declining GDP.

The institute is forecasting modest economic growth of 1.3% in 2025 and 1.2% in 2026. That means Britain will rank mid-table among the G7 group of advanced economies.

‘Things are not looking good’

However, inflation is likely to remain persistent, with the consumer price index (CPI) likely to hit 3.5% in 2025 and around 3% by mid-2026. NIESR blamed sustained wage growth and higher government spending.

It said the Bank of England would cut interest rates twice this year and again at the beginning of next year, taking the rate from 4.25% to 3.5%.

Persistent inflation is also weighing on living standards: the poorest 10% of UK households saw their living standards fall by 1.3% in 2024-25 compared to the previous year, NIESR said. They are now 10% worse off than they were before the pandemic.

Professor Stephen Millard, deputy director for macroeconomics at NIESR, said the government faced tough choices ahead: “With growth at only 1.3% and inflation above target, things are not looking good for the chancellor, who will need to either raise taxes or reduce spending or both in the October budget.”

Continue Reading

Trending