Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Ferguson.)

I am grateful to have secured this important debate.

I begin by asking the House to imagine a young woman in Britain in the 1950s. She is pregnant, she may have struggled to conceive and she may already have experienced the heartbreak of miscarriage, so she is desperate to do everything that she can to protect her baby. She goes to the doctor, as many of us would. She is prescribed a drug and told that it may help to prevent miscarriage, help her carry that baby to term and even give her the healthy child she so desperately wants. Of course she takes it—why would she not? She trusts her doctor, she trusts the health system and above all she wants to do the best she can for her child. But then imagine her finding out, decades later, that the very medicine that she took to protect her child had in fact harmed her, harmed that child and may even have harmed her grandchildren as well. That is the reality of diethylstilbestrol or DES.

DES was widely prescribed as an anti miscarriage drug between the 1930s and the 1970s. It was used to treat pregnancy complications and to supress breast milk, and it was prescribed to women who were looking to the medical profession for help. But DES was not the miracle drug they were told it was. Evidence emerged in the 1950s that not only was it ineffective, but that it was also dangerous. It has since been linked to breast cancer, cervical and vaginal cancers, infertility and a range of other serious reproductive and gynaecological issues. Yet despite the warning signs, the evidence of harm and the fact that other countries moved to withdraw or restrict its use, DES continued to be prescribed in Britain for decades. Around 300,000 women are estimated to have been given DES in the UK between 1939 and the 1970s.

I commend the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to obtain her permission to intervene. As she rightly says, over 300,000 women in the UK were prescribed DES in one of the worst medical disasters in NHS history. Repercussions of the use of the drug, as the hon. Lady says, are intergenerational, as evidence shows negative effects on third generations. Does she agree that further research is needed to study the long term effects of DES exposure to better understand the extent of its impact and ensure effective medical treatment for those affected by the drug? I commend her again and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

Yes, I agree that research is needed and that is one of the things that DES campaigners are calling for.

One of those 300,000 women was Rita, the mother of my constituent, Jan Hall. Rita was prescribed DES when she was pregnant with Jan, but when Jan was just a toddler, Rita died of breast cancer. She was only 32. Jan herself later developed cervical cancer in her twenties. Because of the surgeries she had to undergo, she was told she may never be able to have children. She lived not only with that physical consequence, but with decades of uncertainty, fear, grief and anger. Her daughters have experienced significant gynaecological health problems, and now Jan worries about her grandchildren as well.

Jan is not alone. Across the country, men, women and their families have come forward to share their stories and their experiences as victims of this scandal. Some of them are in the Gallery with us today and have allowed me to share some of their painful testimonies.

One of the people in the Gallery is my constituent, Heather Farrant, who came to Parliament today with two of her three daughters. She has lived with the lifelong consequences of her mother’s exposure to DES. Will the hon. Lady commend Heather and all the campaigners for their bravery in speaking so publicly about something that has been hidden for a long time? Until Heather came to speak to me in my surgery, I had not heard of DES, and without those campaigners, we would not have known about it and been able to raise it here today.

It was a pleasure to meet Heather today, along with all the other campaigners. I thank them all for having shown such strength in coming forward to share their stories.

One of the cruellest impacts of DES, which sets it apart from other medical scandals, is that its consequences do not stop with the women who were prescribed it or their immediate children. There is growing evidence of intergenerational impacts affecting grandchildren, and possibly beyond. We do not yet know how far those consequences reach. That uncertainty is part of the harm that the families face.

Research suggests that women who took DES during pregnancy—the DES mothers—may face around a 30% higher chance of breast cancer. Female babies exposed in the womb—DES daughters—have around 40 times the risk of developing clear cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina and cervix. They also face increased risks of reproductive complications, including infertility, ectopic pregnancies, premature births and a range of other conditions and complications that we are learning about all the time.

Clare, who is in the Gallery today, described being robbed of her fertility and suffering ovarian failure, and later developing an autoimmune inflammatory condition. At the age of 18, Juliette, who is also with us, was rushed to A&E with severe haemorrhaging after a reaction to the contraceptive pill, and she has stage 4 endometriosis. Anne Marie, who is also with us, was taken off the pill due to stroke risk and has described being housebound due to the gynaecological issues she has faced. Many of them describe managing complex hormonal challenges and, later in life, debilitating menopausal symptoms. That is a common experience for a lot of these women.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate. One of my constituents, who is a DES daughter, came to see me, and she reported that her mother’s health records were lost when her GP moved back in the 1970s. Does the hon. Member share my concern that a key issue here is that the lack of effective recordkeeping and the loss or destruction of records over time make it harder and harder to trace causal effects? Does she agree that we want to hear from the Minister what allowances will be made for this record keeping issue in addressing the long term impacts of DES on those daughters and grandchildren?

Of course. Recordkeeping is one of the issues we face as a campaign group. I know the Department of Health and Social Care is looking at that, and I will come on to that issue later in my remarks.

Limited studies have been done on DES sons, but they suggest that these men face an increased risk of genital abnormalities and infertility. In May 2026, Maxwell Samuda became the first man to speak out openly about the effects of the scandal on him and his family, and I pay tribute to him. There are serious, unresolved questions about the second and third generations—the grandchildren. That is important, because this is not history or a scandal of the past; it is live and a continuing injustice to these women and their families.

People affected by DES are still living with the consequences today. Some are discovering later in life that health problems they have endured for decades may be connected to a drug that their mother took and was prescribed before they were born. Those who suspect DES exposure often find that doctors, clinicians and the wider health system have little or no awareness of it. That really matters, because for too many DES survivors, the harm has been compounded by the disbelief that they face. They have been told that their symptoms are unrelated and not to worry. They have been sent away, ignored, dismissed or left to piece the evidence together for themselves. Anne Marie, who is here today, said that she had to buy her own medical encyclopaedia just to find out what was wrong with her.

Sadly, that is part of a much wider pattern that we see in women’s health, which has been poorly understood for generations and continues to be poorly understood today. Women’s pain is too often minimised. Their symptoms are normalised or ignored. Reproductive health is often treated as something that is niche, too complicated, embarrassing or somehow secondary, and it is not given the seriousness that it deserves. Women are not listened to and their concerns are dismissed until the evidence is too impossible to ignore. The history and present experience of DES is part of that wider system and failure, and, even now, we do not have the systems in place to properly support those affected.

One of the most worrying examples of that is in screening. Current routine smear testing for cervical cancer is designed primarily to deal with and detect changes linked to HPV. It does not reliably detect clear cell adenocarcinoma—the rare cancer associated with DES exposure. That means many DES daughters may believe that they are being adequately screened, but in fact the very cancers for which they have an increased risk will not be picked up through the standard process. Crucially, they need access to advanced screening for a much longer span of years than most women do.

A truly heartbreaking experience of that was the experience of Charly, who is in the Gallery today. She is a DES daughter and was diagnosed with clear cell adenocarcinoma in her cervix and uterus at the age of eight; she was given a hysterectomy at the age of nine. We know that standard breast cancer screening does not pick things up and is not adequate for women who face DES exposure.

Many women bear not only the emotional burden of uncertainty because of DES, but a financial burden, self funding annual scans as a precautionary measure and undertaking fertility treatments. Today, in the meeting with the Minister, Juliette described the range of tests she undergoes every year at large personal expense and the lack of fairness for people who cannot afford to do so. That is unacceptable, which is why targeted screening and specialist monitoring for those at risk is so important. People who are affected need accurate information, proper care, and the chance of early diagnosis.

When I first heard Jan’s story, I had to act, and as a nation, we have a unique responsibility to act.

I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful speech she is making, and for her campaigning work on this really important issue. I recently met my constituent Susannah, who is a victim of the DES scandal. She spoke movingly about the impact it has had on her life—20 gruelling operations since she was a teenager, precious time with her friends and family lost and the shadow of a life threatening illness, because of course as a DES sufferer, she is 40 times more likely to suffer from cervical cancer. Does my hon. Friend agree with Susannah and me that the Government should very carefully consider the merits of a full public inquiry into this scandal?

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have also met Susie—she is a doughty campaigner and a real tribute to the movement. I will come on to some of the calls of the DES Justice campaign shortly.

The reason I think we as a nation have a unique responsibility to act is that DES was developed here in the UK, using public money. I am just going to let that sink in for a minute. It was not patented, meaning that it could be used widely, and it was. Despite the evidence of harms, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency still has not shown us any evidence of when it officially advised against the use of DES.

In July last year, I co ordinated a cross party letter signed by 37 Members of Parliament, calling for recognition and an apology for those affected by DES. Since then, those affected have come together to establish the DES Justice campaign, and I pay tribute to all the brave men and women who have come forward to share their stories. I know how painful and personal this is, and I know that for many, speaking out means reliving a trauma that has shaped their whole life. I also want to acknowledge Clare Fletcher and the DES campaigners who have worked tirelessly for recognition, often with little support and against huge institutional silence, and I thank Sarah Corker and ITV News for their investigation, which helped bring the scandal to public attention and forced institutions to begin answering questions that were left unanswered for decades.

That co ordinated campaigning has paid off. In September, the MHRA admitted that it had made inaccurate statements for up to 25 years about when DES was withdrawn in Britain and apologised. In November, the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), acknowledged the suffering of DES affected families and apologised. This was a huge step; it was the first time that many campaigners felt that the state had begun to recognise what had happened to them. That apology matters, but it cannot be the end of the matter, because for people like Jan—who has campaigned for more than 40 years—there must now be action.

The DES Justice campaign is calling for the Government to take five clear steps. The first of those steps is to commit to uncovering the truth about what happened, including through a full, judge led statutory inquiry. The second is to support research into the long term and intergenerational effects of DES; the third is to raise awareness of DES among NHS professionals; the fourth is to assess the feasibility of tracking and informing those potentially exposed to DES; and the fifth is to introduce targeted screening and monitoring for those at risk.

Those asks are reasonable, practical and necessary, because while some progress has been made, it remains nowhere near enough. We need updated and accurate information on the NHS website, so that people searching for DES are not left confused, frightened, or dependent on campaign groups for basic fasts. We need better information flows to GPs, gynaecologists, oncologists, fertility specialists and other NHS professionals. We need DES to be included in medical training and continuing professional development, so that clinicians know what it is, what the risks are, and how to support people who have been exposed. We need clear guidance on screening and monitoring, especially given the limitations of routine smear testing.

We also need a serious effort to understand whether and how those at risk can be identified, and those affected informed. I recognise that this is difficult—many of the records are old, and some have been lost or destroyed or were never kept properly. Some people will not know whether their mothers took DES, and some mothers may no longer be alive to be asked, but difficulty cannot be an excuse for inaction.

There are people who may be at risk today and do not know it. There are women who believe they are protected by the smear test, but they need specialist monitoring. There are families living with unexplained patterns of gynaecological problems—infertility, pregnancy loss or cancer—without even ever knowing that DES could be part of the picture.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Ferguson.)

There are mothers who carry and have carried unimaginable guilt—a guilt that should never have been theirs to bear. No mother should be made to feel responsible for trusting her doctor, no daughter should be left to feel that her suffering is inexplicable, and no family should be forced to campaign for decades simply to be believed.

I believe that DES is the greatest pharmaceutical scandal of our time, and one for which we owe victims justice and greater accountability. A drug developed using public money was prescribed to hundreds of thousands of women, with evidence of harm emerging while it continued to be used, and the consequences stretch across generations, yet most people have never heard of it. That is part of the injustice, too, and it must change.

I thank the Minister for meeting some of our DES Justice campaigners and their families today. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for dropping into our drop in this afternoon. Will the Minister honour the calls of those campaigners for greater awareness among NHS professionals; better clinical guidance; more publicly available information; research; and targeted screening and support? Will the Government consider the case for a full statutory inquiry, so that the truth can finally be established?

Time is running out. Many DES mothers have already died. Many daughters are now later in life. Many campaigners have been fighting for decades to be heard. With every year that passes, more records disappear, more witnesses are lost and more families are left without answers. It is not too late to do the right thing, to acknowledge the scale of the failure and to improve care for those who were affected.

I close by paying tribute again to my constituent Jan, whose courage and determination brought this issue to my attention. She has kept campaigning not just for herself, but for every family affected by DES. I pay tribute to every DES mother, daughter, son and grandchild, and every family member who has fought for recognition. They deserve justice, and they deserve answers and to know what happened to them. They deserve to be supported by the very health system that failed them. If anyone listening to this debate thinks that they, their mother, their grandmother or someone they know may have been affected by DES, I urge them to seek further information from the DES Justice campaign or to contact my office. This Government have an opportunity to listen, to act and to begin putting right one of the greatest medical injustices of our time. I urge the Minister to take that opportunity today.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this important debate on the intergenerational impact of diethylstilbestrol on women. I begin by applauding the perseverance of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and the courage of those affected by the impact of DES, including the campaigners, many of them women, and their families, who have worked for many years to ensure that their experiences are heard and understood. I was honoured to meet some of them earlier today, and I thank them for being here in the Gallery tonight—mothers and daughters, on behalf of their children and grandchildren.

On 5 November 2025, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, issued a formal apology on behalf of the Government to all those who have been affected by DES. I wish to reiterate that apology today. At this stage, the Government’s focus is on carefully considering the available evidence and determining the most appropriate next steps, rather than simply establishing a public inquiry. Our current work includes ensuring that appropriate clinical pathways, professional awareness and sources of support are in place for those who may have been affected by DES exposure.

We have taken action to raise awareness of DES among health professionals. On 12 December 2025, Professor Peter Johnson, the national clinical director for cancer, sent a letter to all cancer alliance leaders highlighting the effects of DES and asking them to cascade guidance through their clinical networks to help to reach appropriate health professionals, including GPs. We have also taken steps to improve our knowledge of the impacts of DES. The Department has formally commissioned the University of Exeter, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, to undertake a systematic evidence review of those impacts, because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the current research, while useful, does not yet paint a coherent picture. For instance, existing systematic reviews of the physical impacts across first, second and third generations are relatively dated, and have reached differing conclusions. There are also primary research studies that have not yet been incorporated in those reviews, and existing reviews have not fully considered psychosocial impacts. The newly commissioned review is intended to address those gaps.

My hon. Friend asked about screening. The research ensures that any future policy on local treatment pathways, clinical guidance and potential screening arrangements is informed by the latest available evidence. It will also be important in guiding decisions on whether a lifelong screening protocol should be developed for people affected by DES. The women affected by it should, of course, be involved in this work, which is why we ensured that the university will engage with members of DES Justice UK so that it can learn from women—and some men—with lived experience of the effects.

I recognise the importance of trying to understand the scale of DES exposure and the number of people who may have been affected. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has taken a number of steps to establish what regulatory action was taken by its predecessor in relation to the risk associated with DES. They include searches of agency archives, both digital and hard copy, for documentation relating to regulatory activity associated with the use of DES; visits to the National Archives to attempt to locate records from the 1970s, including discussions of DES by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, a predecessor of the Commission on Human Medicines; and locating previous editions of the “British National Formulary” and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry datasheets that may detail information on the use of DES. The MHRA also contacted the General Medical Council to establish whether any direct communications on DES had been sent by the GMC to healthcare professionals directly, but the GMC could find no records of communications. Finally, there have been searches of the Yellow Card database for any reports of the use of DES, although given the time that has passed, I am sure that the House will appreciate the significant challenges in relation to locating and retrieving records between the 1940s and the 1970s. In addition, my officials are working to explore what can be done through NHS digital processes in relation to missing or destroyed medical records.

Let me again thank Members for raising this important issue, and pay tribute to all those affected by DES who have continued to campaign for recognition, support and answers.

I am here because my constituent Helen, from Romiley, came to see me at my advice surgery on Saturday. I was waiting to raise this point until the Minister was close to ending her speech, because I want to understand what is being done and what more the Government can do to give information to people who think they may be DES daughters. Helen’s mum certainly took something during her pregnancy, but it is difficult to interpret the GP’s handwriting on the records that Helen has received. What can the Minister tell Helen and people like her who think their health conditions suggest that they are DES daughters, but who do not yet have the evidence to show that they are?

I thank the hon. Member for her question, and pay tribute to Helen. My hon. Friend mentioned this important issue. While there may be 600 women out there, there are many, many more who just do not know—and, I am sure, grandchildren too. Not only should information be widely available on NHS websites, but women should be able to go to their GPs, and their GPs should be able to direct them to a screening service, while also taking seriously the issues that they raise. More needs to be more done in this regard, and I look forward to working with campaigners and with my hon. Friend to establish what more we can do when we identify gaps.

I pay tribute to the women I met earlier today, who are sitting in the Gallery. Hearing directly from them their powerful testimonies puts a lot of this into context for me. It is not just about reading people’s stories; it is about the lived experience of what that trauma has been like for many women, their grandchildren and so forth. I pay tribute to Clare Fletcher; Marion and Juliette; Heather and her two daughters; Liam, Charly, Anne Marie and her daughter; and Julia. My apologies if I have missed someone’s name. Thank you so much for sharing your exposure to DES and the fact that the healthcare system did not adequately address the recognised and multigenerational adverse effects of the drug.

We have to continue to listen carefully to those affected, learn from their experiences and take every appropriate step to safeguard people, now and in the future. As someone said, this is not simply a historical medical issue; it is about women whose voices were dismissed, whose experiences were doubted and whose families continue to live with the consequences. It is just a reminder that when women say that something is wrong, we must listen. We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that their voices shape how we respond.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.