Redress for Mesh and Valproate: A Pathway to Justice (The Hughes Report)

Report by Professor Henrietta Hughes, the first Patient Safety Commissioner for England, published 7 February 2024. Sets out a pathway to financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by pelvic mesh implants and sodium valproate — two of the interventions examined by the Cumberlege Review (2020), whose recommendations for compensation were rejected by the government. Calls for a two-stage financial redress scheme co-designed with patients. No formal government response published as of February 2026.

The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.

The government must ensure that the launch of the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme is accompanied by an awareness raising campaign to ensure that all potentially eligible patients are made aware of it. The government needs to make specific efforts to ensure those patients from disadvantaged and marginalised groups are reached.

Redress should provide all those harmed by pelvic mesh or valproate with access to non-financial redress. To deliver this, the government should work with other government departments, the healthcare system and local authorities to measurably improve harmed patients access to, and experience of, public services.

The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme.

The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress. These payments should start during 2025.

The Interim Scheme should be followed by a Main Scheme. This would offer more bespoke financial support to directly harmed patients based on their individual circumstances and – subject to further consultation on definitions – those indirectly harmed.

Patients who received relevant treatment through either the NHS or independent sector should be eligible for the Interim Scheme and Main Scheme.

Patients should find the application process for both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme straightforward, accessible and non-adversarial. To support this, a presumption of truth should be embedded within the scheme, which would apply when assessing the evidence provided by patients to meet the eligibility criteria.

Both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme should be administered by an independent body which commands the confidence of patients.

Both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme should effectively signpost harmed patients to services which can provide them with free emotional support.

Report Details