British Indian Ocean Territory
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Julian Lewis(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is worth reflecting on the entire geopolitical situation that the world faces. Many treaties simply are not worth the paper that they are written on; if it suits our adversaries to ignore them, they will. Is not the old maxim, “To stop a war, be ready to fight a war”, more true today than it has ever been? If we decide that we are going to rely on pieces of paper, rather than the ability to say, “We will defend, at war if need be”, we weaken our position.
Let us consider the whole Indo-Pacific region. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly made a visit to Pacific command back in August. The admiral of the base made it crystal clear that in a very short space of time, the Americans would be outnumbered in the Pacific arena. Limiting what weapons can be used, when those weapons currently can be used, simply will not work. There has not been a satisfactory answer on whether nuclear weapons can be stored on Diego Garcia when it is under the authority of the Mauritians.
Despite the conversations about what Pete Hegseth said and what other treaties may have been negotiated along the way, we have the commander in chief, who outranks the US Secretary of State for Defence, saying, “I do not want to do this deal.” We have the deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius saying, “You will not be able to hold nuclear weapons there.” What makes Ministers so convinced that those leaders are wrong, and that they are right? That is the greatest and deepest concern.
We live in a world that is rapidly changing, not just in its disregard for the rules-based order, but in its energy demands. Those energy demands are shifting the geopolitical situation. Given where a lot of the materials that we need for renewables are, the focus is shifting more towards that hemisphere and away from the Gulf. The geopolitical positioning of the Chagos islands is therefore becoming more and more important.
It is absolutely right to say that our Government started negotiations, which went on and on, but that does not mean that there is a victory in ending them overnight by just giving way on the red lines that we would not cross. That is a very important point, because we should recognise the situation that we face, rather than crowing about some diplomatic “victory”.
Time and again, we see the Government kowtowing to Beijing, rather than standing up to it. We see that today. Where is the strategic plan? My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was exceptionally critical of the golden era of relations with China under David Cameron. The criticisms coming forward are not new; my right hon. Friend warned at the time of the security risks that China posed. The Prime Minister has signed off on the super-embassy, despite all the things we know about, and the things that we have seen in its blueprints, and for what reason? This seems to be almost—
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Yes, pathological. There is this belief that the Chinese will always act in good faith, that we can trust them, and that they would not dare invade, because we signed a piece of paper. The world is changing, and there is no shame in pausing negotiations when changes come to light. The Minister should reflect on what is said today about how the situation has changed since his Government came to power, getting on for two years ago. The situation has changed incredibly.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East.
Sir Julian Lewis
I have a helpful suggestion. I know that I cannot commit my party as a whole, but let me speak personally. If the Government change their position, I—and, I am sure, my right hon. Friend—will give a personal pledge never to accuse them of having done a U-turn on this matter. We will praise them to the skies, and we will not seek to take party political advantage of their belated acceptance of reality.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
That is a really important point. When the Government act in the national interest, changes in position should be welcomed.
We do not have the defence capability that we need, and it is worrying in the extreme to hear that the money for the Diego Garcia deal will come out of the defence budget. We hear people saying, “The defence budget went down under you; it was hollowed out,” and so on. It did go down, but the bit that is often missed is that that started during the cold war, and it continued through 13 years of Labour Government and across Europe. The Americans halved their defence budget over that time. However, the world is a different place now; Ukraine was invaded, and at that point, the world changed direction.
Let us consider for a moment two countries that have made incredibly significant U-turns, if you will: Germany, which has a new defence posture and will spend hundreds of billions on defence, and Japan. Both countries have very much drawn a line under the events of the second world war, and have recognised that the world has changed into a much more dangerous place and needs a much bigger posture.
Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Julian Lewis(1 year, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Listening to the heartfelt contributions of so many new colleagues, I get the impression that most if not all of them had, like me, never heard of this problem until a constituent walked into their surgery and told them of the terrible experience that they had had.
I have a practical suggestion: at the end of this debate, which will no doubt follow in the footsteps of several previous debates that were equally well informed, passionate and horrifying, we should perhaps put our names to a joint letter to a man called Nick Wallis. He is a freelance journalist who did a wonderful thing: he researched the Post Office Horizon system disaster and wrote a book called “The Great Post Office Scandal”. If I remember correctly, it was serialised for a week on Radio 4, and subsequently he was the consultant to the remarkable production, “Mr Bates vs. The Post Office”. We can have these debates regularly, as we have been doing, and we can upset and horrify each other by recounting our constituents’ pain and the appalling negligence that led to these terrible outcomes, but until the issue grasps the public imagination, I do not think people will get anywhere.
Interestingly, one point that has not been mentioned is the possible responsibility and liability of the large pharmaceutical company that manufactured the mesh in the first place. What research did it undertake? What responsibility does it have? What help can the Government give people who have been irreparably harmed to go after that company for compensation?
There has been one great positive development, which has been referred to several times, and that is the magnificent work of Baroness Cumberlege, who certainly did the whole community of damaged women the best possible service in conducting that excellent review. The question is to what extent will her recommendations be implemented?
I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who spoke earlier, and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), from whom we are about to hear, for their exemplary leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on this terrible disaster and for keeping the flame burning all these years. I say “all these years” because it has been a long time. Looking back on my own website to check my contributions, I see that this is now the fourth full- scale debate in which my colleagues and I have gone over the same ground. If anybody is interested, the dates of the previous three debates, which were packed with testimony and interesting information, were 19 April 2018 —slightly longer ago from now than the entire duration of the second world war—8 July 2021 and 3 February 2022. It would not be appropriate for me to go over in detail what has been said previously, as it is all there on the record, but it is important to recognise that we are talking about thousands and thousands of damaged women—10,000 at the very least, and as we have heard, some estimates put the number as high as 40,000.
Treatment centres have been mentioned, but there is a particular question about who has the skill to practise in the treatment centres. Who will put themselves forward as being appropriately skilled? It will be the very people who inserted the mesh in the first place.
In one of the earlier debates, I cited a constituent who was 35 when she was given what was described to her as “routine surgery”, 16 years before the debate in question took place. I said then:
“She was initially told that it was her fault that her body was rejecting the two mesh implants. She then went through a cycle of implants, the removal of protrusions and eroded segments and seven bouts of surgery. Three TVTs—trans-vaginal tapes—are still inside her, she suffers chronic pain from orbital nerve damage, constantly needs painkillers and has had constant side effects, indifferent treatment and a refusal to admit fault or to refer her to an out-of-area specialist in mesh removal.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 508.]
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
My right hon. Friend has just made an important point. He spoke about the removal of protrusions and seven surgeries. That almost puts a gloss on what has happened. We have all heard from women who have had the surgery and the experience of many of them is that they have been butchered. It is important to make that clear in this debate, especially for new Members, because we have discussed this in Parliament before: when we think of surgery, we think of any other normal surgery, but this surgery leaves huge amounts of scar tissue and has butchered women in ways that I will not go into now. That must be recognised when we describe some of the remedials that have happened, mainly because those carrying them out do not really know what they are doing at this stage.
Sir Julian Lewis
Exactly right. That is why my constituent said at the time, “I do not want anyone from the hospital coming near me ever again. I have lost complete faith in them. I have been lied to and told repeatedly that it was my body rejecting the mesh. But unbelievably they kept putting more in.”
Over this period of six or more years I have probably tabled about 12 or 15 questions for written answer, obviously to a previous Government. I will quote three, which were all in the aftermath of the Cumberlege report. In June 2021—for the benefit of Hansard it was question 16777—I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
“what checks his Department carried out to ensure that surgeons awarded NHS contracts for the removal of failed vaginal mesh implants had not previously been responsible for (a) originally implanting them, and subsequently (b) denying that anything had gone wrong with them; and whether any personnel awarded NHS contracts to work at mesh remediation specialist centres are known by his Department to be currently facing legal proceedings for implanting mesh which injured women who are now seeking its removal at such centres.”
The answer, which came from the then Minister of State, read:
“It is the responsibility of the employing organisations”—
presumably the NHS—
“to ensure that the staff undertaking mesh implantation and/or dealing with mesh complications are qualified and competent to do so. NHS England’s procurement process to identify the specialist centres to deal with the complications of mesh considered a range of clinical and service quality issues. No assessment was undertaken regarding National Health Service contracts or staff facing legal proceedings.”
Somebody in the process of suing a surgeon but still needing ongoing care may have no other option but to go to a mesh centre headed up by—guess who?—the surgeon who she is suing because he damaged her in the first place.
The second written question I will refer to was in July 2021—question No. 31274—which read:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the debate on the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review on 8 July 2021…what steps he plans to take to research new and improved techniques for removal of eroded surgical mesh implants.”
As we have heard, it is intolerably difficult to remove this stuff. One would think that the very least the NHS could do would be to make a dedicated effort to develop new techniques for doing it. The description of it being like removing hair from chewing gum is vivid. I have sometimes speculated—I am not in any way qualified to do so—that maybe the answer to this might be to develop some sort of technique that could harmlessly dissolve the material and let it be gradually flushed away, rather than physically trying to disentangle it with the risk of doing more damage. That may be completely and utterly impracticable, but my point is that we do not know because no proper national effort is being made to find a way in which this disaster can be, to some extent, effectively rectified without harming the victims further.