Read Sharon's latest Sunderland Echo column below or by going to the Sunderland Echo website. 

Supporting children in their formative years has always been a passion of mine and an area which I have helped push during my time as an MP.

Yet recent analysis by Labour has shown that under the Tories we have seen £500 million cut from the Early Intervention Grant since 2013, with a projected £183 million more to be cut by 2020.

This represents a total cut of 40 per cent between 2013 and 2020.

Early intervention saves society a lot more than intervening at a later stage when support can be less effective.

It can ensure that children’s lives are improved and they have the opportunity to achieve all that they can. This is not being seen under the Tories, despite their rhetoric of being champions of social mobility.

If they were serious about improving the lives of children, then they wouldn’t be cutting off the vital funding necessary to achieving it.

The Government has a track record of putting the opportunities of children at risk with no consideration for their futures.

Firstly, we have seen one in three Sure Start Centres close across the country.

Secondly, we have seen the Government determined to scrap Universal Infant Free School Meals on two occasions now (2015 and 2017), which thanks to campaigners and parents we have seen saved for now.

Or, thirdly, the current worries regarding the roll-out of Universal Credit and the impact this will have on free school meals, where under proposals on the future of free school meals currently under consultation, the Children’s Society have estimated that one million children living in poverty may miss out on this important intervention.

Labour have always championed improving services for children and families, and will continue to hold this Government to account on their actions as they cut these services to the bone and provide an alternative approach that allows all children, no matter their background or circumstances, to flourish.

Sharon spoke in a Backbench Business Debate secured by Yasmin Qureshi MP on Hormone Pregnancy Tests, or also known as Primodos, which was used in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and the adverse affects it had on women and their babies. In her speech, Sharon joined cross-party calls for a judge-led public inquiry into this scandal. 

You can read the full debate here: Primodos Backbench Business Debate 14.11.17

Read Sharon's contribution to the debate pasted below:

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who opened the debate so powerfully, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has been a strident campaigner on this issue for more than six years and knew all about it before it had even reached my consciousness. She gave an excellent, if rather too short, speech. I thank all other Members for their passionate and thoughtful contributions; because of the time constraints, I hope they will please forgive me for not naming them all. Ultimately, thanks must go, as others have said, to Marie Lyon, the chair of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests. I am sure that I speak for all of us in the House today when I say that she has the utmost respect and admiration of Members from across the House.

I want to touch on not only the science that was used to come to the conclusions in the review, but what is missing and what should have been considered before any conclusions were drawn. I will then highlight why this is a matter of injustice and why it is important that answers are found so that we can finally conclude this sad chapter.

The main sticking point of the review’s conclusions is that the expert working group found that the science did not support a causal association between HPTs during pregnancy and adverse outcomes. My focus will be on the science used and the historical documentation that we are aware of, but which seems not to have been considered—we heard about some of it in the excellent speech by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). I will not deviate into the important argument about “possible” and “causal”, as that was covered comprehensively by other Members, including the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead.

I must make it clear from the outset that I am no scientist—I am sure that Members are aware of that—and my speech is not a critique of the integrity and expertise of the specialists involved. However, the conclusions arrived at in the report and the conversations I have had with many of those who have been involved in the campaign show a need for us to be critical of what was concluded by the expert working group. That is our duty ​as Members of Parliament, especially when it comes to what is such an important matter for so many women and their families, and also because a great deal of public funds were invested in the review over the past few years.

In the report’s consideration of the scientific detail regarding HPTs, it is argued that there are inconsistencies in the conclusions drawn from the evidence used. Take, for example, the fact that of the 15 studies that looked at heart defects, 11 favoured a link, and of five studies into limb reduction, all found a link, yet those studies were deemed to show “insufficient evidence” of the drug’s harm. Even information I requested recently and got just this week from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in the lead up to this debate is at odds with the conclusions of the review, including graphs that plot birth defects against the availability of HPTs. Even to my untrained eye, they show a possible link. In one graph on all malformations, it is clear that birth defects increased during the period in which HPTs were on the market, and shortly afterwards. They began to decrease soon after HPTs were taken off the market.

Further, in the briefing I received, the MHRA said that for every 100 babies born in the general population, around two to four are expected to have a birth defect, which means that 14,000 babies a year would be expected to be born with a birth defect. That is just generally. Using those figures, the MHRA concluded that for the more than 1 million women who took HPTs, as many as 19,000 babies would be born with a birth defect, irrespective of any additional risk from HPTs. Yet let us compare Primodos to thalidomide, for instance. More than 30 million thalidomide prescriptions saw 600 children affected in the UK, which is a rate—I have had help with these numbers —of 0.002%. Some 1.2 million Primodos prescriptions were sold and 800 children were affected, which is a rate of 0.06%. That shows a much higher prevalence caused by Primodos compared with thalidomide. It also shows how little meaning a comparison of HPT adverse reactions has against today’s prevalence of birth defects in the general population, and it is hardly a defence of disproving a link.

As I have said, I am no scientific professional, but I believe that the red flags that arise when reading what the evidence says and what conclusions were drawn from it are not ones that only an expert in this field would see. This reflects the arguments that were raised last week by Dr Neil Vargesson—that the report does not provide definitive evidence that the drug was safe. As others have said, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that a link cannot be ruled out.

That leads me on to my next point, which is to touch briefly on the historical perspective and cover-up of the evidence. We have got to use that word—it is the only word we can use—as this is something that should have been considered by the expert working group.

One such example was in 1975, when the UK regulator knew of a potential five-to-one risk that the drug could cause deformities, but that evidence was apparently later destroyed. This is a running theme—I do not have time to go into it all—through the chronology of this scandal. We see multiple examples of suppressed information regarding the adverse effects and delayed notification of those effects to medical professionals who administered the drugs.​

It is also deeply concerning that this drug came into the market in 1958, with no studies on its effects at all until 1963. Five years passed before it even underwent teratogenic testing. It was still officially in circulation until 1975, but we are aware of cases of its use up until 1978. All the evidence uncovered should have been considered as part of the review. The question is: why was it not?

With any scandal such as this, it is important that those affected have the trust and confidence of any review or inquiry undertaken. In this instance, that has not been the case. The victims feel that the review has muddied the waters even more and that their views have been ignored. I have been told many harrowing stories, many of which we have heard today, and how, time and again, they have been ignored. These women did not ask to be given HPTs. Nor were they ever made aware of the effects that they could have on them or their unborn baby. They were just given them—sometimes out of a supply in a drawer on the doctor’s desk. There were no warnings, no explanations, no discussions.

A great injustice has been inflicted on these women. It is up to this House to put pressure on the Government of the day, here and now, in a fully cross-party, non-partisan way, to make things right. It is paramount that a judge-led public inquiry be conducted—one that is independent and can fully examine all the materials and documentation available and insist that all information be made public, including that which has been withheld so far. I hope that this debate helps us to take that one step further to achieving that.

In closing, may I quote the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), the then Minister for Life Sciences? In October 2014, when he instigated this review, he said that the review would

“shed light on the issue and bring the all-important closure in an era of transparency”.—[Official Report, 23 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 1143.]

Let this debate and the following actions by the Minister ensure that what was promised in 2014 is actually achieved.

Sharon receives further response from Rolton Kilbride. Click on image to download.

Click on above image to download.

Sharon has joined Kevan Jones, MP for North Durham, in hitting out at the Government for attempting to mask the Government’s lack of a plan to invest in the North East’s transport infrastructure.

In a letter sent to all Members of Parliament on 12^th December, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling suggested that the “Northern regions” of England would receive £1,039 per head in planned transport infrastructure spending to the year 2021, which is £13 more than London’s £1,026,

But, on closer inspection, it appears that the Transport Secretary deliberately grouped the North East together with the North West to make the Government’s transport spend look higher.

An analysis of the Government’s transport spending plans, which informed the letter, reveals that planned transport spending in the North East is currently only £822, compared to £1,353 for the North West.  Instead of providing a real figure for each of the north’s separated regions, Mr Grayling’s letter simply provided an average, giving the impression that transport funding is equally spread throughout England.  The planned spend per head in Yorkshire and Humber currently sits at £726.

Commenting on the Transport Secretary’s letter, Sharon said:

“It is shocking that the Transport Secretary has fudged his figures to put a positive spin on the transport infrastructure spend for the North East. Clearly, he believed he could pull the wool over the eyes of the regions MPs and the people of the North East; however, he has failed in doing so.

“The North East deserves the right levels of transport funding to unlock much-needed economic growth and ensure that there is a level playing field when it comes to how infrastructure spending is allocated across the country, and not have a Government who mask the damning reality of their failed approach to regional growth.”

Commenting on the Transport Secretary’s letter, Kevan Jones, MP for North Durham, said:

“This kind of creative accounting on the part of the Transport Secretary serves only to draw attention to the Government’s lack of planned transport spending in the North East.

“In reality, it’s clear the Government is failing to provide adequate funding for transport infrastructure in our region whilst at the same time pumping billions into London and projects like HS2.”

You can read the letter to MPs from Chris Grayling here: Letter to MPs from Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling

Planned Central Government transport capital spending per head across regions

Claimed spending by Chris Grayling by ‘regions’

Northern Regions (North West, North East, Yorkshire and Humber) £1,039 per head

Middle regions (East of England, East Midlands and West Midlands) £1,076 per head

Southern regions (London, South East and South West) £1,029 per head

Investment per person (£, 2016/17 prices)

East Midlands £946                                    

East of England £994                                

London £1,026                                          

North East £822

North West £1,353

South East £1,139

South West £851

West Midlands £1,269

Yorkshire and the Humber £726

Sharon Hodgson MP's report - Nov 2017 number 99



Click on the picture above to read Sharon Hodgson MP's report - News from Westminster - Nov 2017 number 99

As Shadow Minister for Public Health, Sharon spoke on behalf of the Opposition in a debate on mental health within the Autism community. In her speech, Sharon raised concerning figures regarding mental health for autistic people and what more needs to be done by the Government to address these matters. 

You can read the full debate here: Autism and Mental Health Backbench Business Debate 30.11.17

You can read Sharon's speech below

Sharon responds to constituents asking her to sign Early Day Motion 581 calling for a moratorium on waste incinerators. 

Sharon has presented Julian Atkinson of JC Atkinson with the All-Party Parliamentary Corporate Responsibility Group’s Constituency Responsible Business Champion nomination award.

Each year, MPs are asked to nominate a local business to be their Constituency Responsible Business Champion for the year, which then go on to be shortlisted for the top award of Responsible Business Champion of the year. JC Atkinson did not get shortlisted, however they have been presented with a nomination award as Sharon’s Responsible Business Champion for 2017.  

This year Sharon recognised the long-standing work of JC Atkinson in providing an unrivalled service of manufacturing environmentally-friendly coffins and caskets built in Washington and exported across the world.

JC Atkinson has a track record of winning awards for their environmental work, alongside their community work which ranges from regional to national recognition and can now include the award of Responsible Business Champion.

The company also provided the environmentally-friendly coffin for Jo Cox, the former MP for Batley and Spen, who was tragically killed last year.

In recent months, Julian Atkinson and his team at JC Atkinson have been raising awareness and vital funds for coffin makers affected by the catastrophic floods in Bangladesh who they work with closely to provide people with environmentally-friendly coffins.

Currently, JC Atkinson have raised a total of £2,775 for the Bangladeshi coffin makers and people can donate to this cause and find out more by following this link to their Just Giving page: https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/jcatkinson?ct=t(Just_Giving_Donation9_1_2017)

Following the presentation of the nomination award, Sharon said:

“It was an absolute honour to present Julian and his hardworking team at JC Atkinson with this nomination award which recognises the important work they do to provide people with alternative and environmentally-friendly coffins. This is a success across the world and just goes to show how impressive this company is when it is leading the way in this market.

“Yet, it was not just being a successful business that caught my eye, but also JC Atkinson important socially responsible work both here in the UK and across the world; most recently shown through their fundraising to help Bangladeshi coffin makers affected by the catastrophic floods that hit the country earlier this year.

“I’m delighted to have presented Julian and his team at JC Atkinson with this nomination and hope that they will be considered for the top prize in the future. They are a true local success story and I am proud to have them based here in Washington and Sunderland West.”  

Julian Atkinson, Managing Director of JC Atkinson, said:

“It is always great when our effort is recognised by others, been nominated for the award by Sharron Hodgson MP is an honour, we have all worked hard over many years to evolve the company which has a proven lowed environmental impact on our planet. We have a great story to tell and having this recognition helps with this, we have a great story to tell, this helps us win work and create jobs in Washington, team JC Atkinson are very proud to be nominated.”

Following her letter to Sunderland City Council on 1st November, registering her objection to the proposed Rolton Kilbride Gasification plant in Washington, Sharon received a response from Mr Andrew Needham, the Managing Director of Rolton Kilbride,

which can also be read here via this link Rolton Kilbride letter to Sharon Hodgson MP >

Sharon recently visited Barmston Village Primary School, alongside Neil McOnie, Chair of Washington Rotary Club, to talk about her role as the Member of Parliament for Washington and Sunderland West and to meet Barmston Primary’s newly elected Parliament.

Recently, Barmston elected their Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor, Welfare Minister, Economy and Finance Minister and a Minister for individual school subjects. The elected pupils will be the collective voice of the pupils and will raise matters with teachers and the Senior Leadership Team, where necessary.

As part of her visit, Sharon spoke to the main assembly about her role as their local Member of Parliament and how she goes about her duties representing all of the people of Washington and Sunderland West and then broke off into a session to discuss in detail with the school’s Parliament about their duties, what they have done so far since they were all elected and what they hope to get out of the experience.

Following the visit, Sharon said:

“It was lovely to visit Barmston Primary School with Neil McOnie to talk to the children about my role as their local MP. They asked many pertinent and probing questions – I am sure some of them will be budding politicians in the future.” 

More photos below