A Clear Explanation for Families
We know how painful and unfair it feels to watch families in France receive compensation for the harm caused by Valproate (Epilim), while families here in the UK continue to be denied justice. The difference isn’t the harm, because the harm is the same devastating harm in both countries and around the world.
The difference lies in the legal systems and political decisions made in each nation.
Key Legal Differences: Funding & Responsibility
France
What happened:
Families successfully brought a class action against Sanofi (the manufacturer) and the French medicines regulator(ANSM).
Outcome:
The courts found both Sanofi and the State responsible for failing to warn women.
As a result, in 2017 the French Parliament created a National No-Fault Compensation Fund (ONIAM).
United Kingdom
What happened:
Legal Aid for the UK class action (known as the FAC Litigation) was withdrawn in 2012, shutting down the only legal route that could have forced Sanofi to compensate families.
Outcome:
Without Legal Aid, families were left with no viable way to pursue litigation against the manufacturer. Bottom line:
France won its case in court.
The UK case was stopped, not because of weak evidence, but because Legal Aid was pulled.
The UK’s Only Remaining Route, Parliament:
Because the legal case against Sanofi was shut down, the only path left is to hold the UK Government to account for its failures.
This is known as the Parliamentary Route, the strategy INFACT is currently pursuing, on firm legal advice.
Why Litigation Is No Longer Possible in the UK?
To avoid confusion:
No new legal action can be taken against Sanofi in the UK.
Even families who were not part of the original litigation cannot start a new claim because:
The UK spent £3.2 million in public funds preparing the class action
When Legal Aid was withdrawn, the case collapsed.
Financially, it is impossible to privately fund a lawsuit of this size.
Legally, the precedent and procedural history block future claims.
Why was Legal Aid really withdrawn?
The Legal Services Commission withdrew Legal Aid from the case as it was deemed by them that the case was not sufficiently likely to succeed in court against the manufacturer, Sanofi. The decision to withdraw legal aid was appealed by the claimants, but the appeal was rejected by an independent panel of lawyers.
Documents uncovered later by INFACT indicate that the evidence gathered would likely have shown:
Sanofi warned the UK Government about serious risks, even though Sanofi failed to issue stronger public warnings in the 1980s.
The Government then chose deliberately not to warn women, despite knowing the risks.
This dual responsibility, manufacturer and State, may have been politically explosive, and withdrawing public funding halted the case before those findings could reach court. This is why the Parliamentary Route is now the only viable pathway to compensation.
Moral vs Legal Responsibility:
It’s important for families to understand a key distinction: Morally, Sanofi is responsible.
It is their medicine, and they failed for decades to provide adequate, timely, and prominent warnings about the risks to unborn babies. Families across the UK, France, and globally were harmed because the manufacturer did not act with the urgency or transparency that was needed.
Legally, however, responsibility in the UK sits with the MHRA and the wider Establishment.
The British regulatory system, the MHRA, Government departments, advisory committees, and health authorities, were the ones who chose what information was shared with women. They received warnings, yet suppressed them.
Because of this, the legal system views the failure as one of State regulation, not manufacturer liability.
This is why the UK cannot pursue Sanofi through the courts, and why the Government must now provide redress.
INFACT’s Breakthrough at the National Archives:
Our investigation at the National Archives was the turning point.
We discovered documents proving that,
as early as 1973, the UK’s Committee on Safety of Medicines knew Valproate carried a high risk of birth defects.
The Government made a deliberate decision to caution doctors but not women taking the medicine.
This evidence which we directly presented to Jeremy Hunt in person when he was Health Minister contributed to the creation of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety (IMMDS) Review.
A Fight Against the Establishment:
Our campaign sits alongside some of the UK’s hardest-fought justice movements:
The Post Office scandal
Hillsborough
Contaminated Blood
WASPI
These campaigns all share something in common:
They challenge deep systemic failings within the State itself.
This work is slow, exhausting, and often met with resistance, but it can be won through persistence, unity, and truth.
Our Blueprint for Success:
The Cumberlege Review (2020)
The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review (IMMDS), chaired by Baroness Julia Cumberlege, found that thousands of families harmed by Valproate experienced avoidable harm caused by systemic failures.
Key outcomes:
Confirmed decades of failure by regulators, the NHS, and Government.
Highlighted that women were repeatedly dismissed, ignored, or misinformed.
Recommended the creation of an independent Redress Agency and a Government-funded compensation scheme.
The Government offered a “fulsome apology” but rejected the recommendation to introduce compensation.
What Happened Next: INFACT at the Health Select Committee (December 13th, 2022)
Following the Government’s refusal to implement the Cumberlege Review’s recommendation for a compensation agency, INFACT were called to give evidence at the Health and Social Care Select Committee.
On 13th December 2022, we presented the full scale of the Valproate scandal, exposing the decades of Government failures, regulatory neglect, and the human cost carried by families.
Our evidence, delivered directly to MPs, made it impossible for the failings to be ignored any longer. This moment was critical. It was our testimony that pushed the Government to acknowledge the unresolved injustice and ultimately led to the commissioning of the next major report: The Hughes Review.
The Hughes Report (2024) commissioned in the wake of INFACT’s Select Committee evidence, was tasked specifically with examining compensation options for families harmed by Valproate.
Key outcomes:
Recognises the lifelong, devastating harm endured by affected families.
Affirms the urgent need for a Government compensation scheme.
Proposes a realistic, two-stage redress model that could be implemented without delay.
Why Your Voice Matters
In France, families won justice through the courts.
In the UK, our route to justice is through Parliament, and that means your voice is essential.
Every message you send, every story you share, every email to your MP builds the pressure that forces Westminster to act. MP support is absolutely critical. Without MPs raising this in Parliament, the Government can continue to delay, minimise, or ignore the issue.
We need families to keep writing to MPs, meeting with them, sharing your experiences, and asking them to stand with the campaign. The more MPs who speak up, the harder it becomes for the Government to deny the urgent need for compensation and care.
Your voice drives awareness.
Your MPs carry that voice into the heart of Westminster.
Together, we create the pressure needed for change
The Parliamentary Route remains the only legally viable path to justice, with a united community and committed MPs behind us, we will get there.
With the Cumberlege Review and the Hughes Report behind us, along with support from MPs and Peers and the continued support from The Sunday Times and media outlets the evidence is now overwhelming. The Government can no longer deny what happened, or delay addressing it.
Emma Murphy/Janet Williams MBE
INFACT 