Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of (a) Russian advocacy of and (b) US support for holding elections in Ukraine as part of any agreement to cease fighting on the risk of (i) installing a pro-Russian government in Kiev and (ii) facilitating Russian control of the entirety of the country.
Answered by Stephen Doughty - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
It is for Ukraine to decide when and how to hold elections. On 19 February, the Prime Minister spoke to President Zelenskyy and reiterated his ongoing support and recognition of him as Ukraine's democratically elected leader. Ukraine's laws are clear that it cannot hold elections during martial law. Martial law continues to be in place due to Russia's ongoing war of aggression. Ukraine has a strong record of free and fair elections, and we are supporting Ukraine to hold them when it is appropriate to do so. We have been clear about the threat of Russian interference in the region and have been a long-standing partner in countering the threat from Russian disinformation.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of establishing a single independent inquiry into the (a) effectiveness of the Prevent programme and (b) adequacy of the handling of the cases involving (i) Axel Rudakubana and (ii) Ali Harbi Ali.
Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Home Office)
Significant improvements have been made to Prevent over the last few years and a further package of work to strengthen Prevent was announced by the Home Secretary in December 2024. New reforms include the creation for the first time of an independent Prevent Commissioner role. This dedicated permanent oversight function will provide continuous independent scrutiny of Prevent legislation, policy and delivery to maximise Prevent’s effectiveness. To begin this work swiftly, Lord David Anderson KC was announced as the interim Commissioner on 21 January.
In relation to the cases raised by the Rt Hon member, we have published the Prevent Learning Reviews into each case and tasked Lord Anderson with conducting a rapid review of both cases. Lord Anderson will identify whether there is further learning regarding the specific handling of each case; examine improvements made to Prevent since each case and determine whether they have sufficiently strengthened the Prevent system; and identify any remaining gaps or shortcomings that require further improvement. This review will be published and swift action will be taken to implement the findings.
The Home Secretary has already announced a public inquiry into the Southport attack. We are moving swiftly to set up the inquiry and we expect to announce further details later this month, after consultation with families and others most affected.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what (a) restrictions on freedom of movement and (b) other preventative measures are placed on migrants who have (i) arrived in the UK illegally and (ii) been identified as supporters of foreign terrorist organisations.
Answered by Angela Eagle - Minister of State (Home Office)
We have a range of powers at our disposal including prosecution, detention and removal and will not seek to hesitate to use those, as appropriate, against individuals who arrive here illegally and seek to threaten the security of our country.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many legal cases brought against the NHS by mesh-damaged women have been settled (a) in and (b) out of court in each of the past ten years.
Answered by Ashley Dalton - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
NHS Resolution (NHSR) manages clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England, and while the information is not available in the format requested, they have provided the data below. This information only covers England and not the rest of the United Kingdom, and NHSR has interpreted ‘in court’ as being where the court proceedings have been served, rather than where a case has gone to trial.
Claims notified and open are not guaranteed to be settled in the same year and can take many years to be concluded. Claims notified in any given year will often relate to incidents that have occurred many years prior. Claims closed and settled in one year will often relate to claims notified in different years. Many of the claims notified will have been repudiated and settled without damages paid.
It is also possible that the same claim may appear more than once in a dataset, across different year groups, for example, where the case has been closed as unsuccessful, challenged, reopened, and closed again at conclusion.
The following table shows the number of clinical claims and incidents received between the financial years 2014/15 and 2023/24, where the claim has been identified as a vaginal mesh claim:
Year of notification | Number of claims |
2014/15 | 5 |
2015/16 | 12 |
2016/17 | 15 |
2017/18 | 54 |
2018/19 | 70 |
2019/20 | 209 |
2020/21 | 396 |
2021/22 | 226 |
2022/23 | 166 |
2023/24 | 99 |
Total | 1,252 |
Source: NHSR
In addition, the following table shows the number of clinical claims settled between the financial years 2015/16 and 2023/24 with a damages payment, where the claim has been identified as a vaginal mesh claim, broken down by litigation status:
Year of settlement and litigation status | Number of claims |
2015/16 | # |
Litigation | # |
No Litigation | # |
2016/17 | # |
Litigation | # |
No Litigation | # |
2017/18 | 16 |
Litigation | 8 |
No Litigation | 8 |
2018/19 | # |
Litigation | 8 |
No Litigation | # |
2019/20 | # |
Litigation | 11 |
No Litigation | # |
2020/21 | 32 |
Litigation | 22 |
No Litigation | 10 |
2021/22 | 61 |
Litigation | 19 |
No Litigation | 42 |
2022/23 | 116 |
Litigation | 27 |
No Litigation | 89 |
2023/24 | 101 |
Litigation | 22 |
No Litigation | 79 |
Total | 356 |
Source: NHSR
Finally, the following table shows the number of clinical claims settled between the financial years 2015/16 and 2023/24 with no damages paid, where the claim has been identified as a vaginal mesh claim, broken down by litigation status:
Year of settlement and litigation status | Number of claims |
2015/16 | # |
Litigation | # |
No Litigation | 8 |
2016/17 | # |
Litigation | # |
No Litigation | 6 |
2017/18 | # |
Litigation | # |
No Litigation | 7 |
2018/19 | 43 |
Litigation | 5 |
No Litigation | 38 |
2019/20 | # |
Litigation | # |
No Litigation | 43 |
2020/21 | 90 |
Litigation | 6 |
No Litigation | 84 |
2021/22 | 167 |
Litigation | 64 |
No Litigation | 103 |
2022/23 | 179 |
Litigation | 28 |
No Litigation | 151 |
2023/24 | 120 |
Litigation | 10 |
No Litigation | 110 |
Total | 678 |
Source: NHSR
Notes: NHSR has supressed low figures as NHSR believe that disclosure of information to a member of the public would contravene one or more of the data protection principles. In some instances, for low numbers of claims, namely fewer than 5, in each category, the likelihood exists that individuals who are the subject of this information may be identified. As this information is sensitive personal data, NHSR believes it has a greater responsibility to protect those individuals’ identities, as disclosure could potentially cause damage and/or distress to those involved. Due to small numbers in the tables, NHSR has used a ‘#’ symbol in the relevant field.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 27 February 2025 to Question 32906 on Government Department: Telephone Services, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the removal of dedicated telephone numbers from the List of Ministerial Responsibilities on the ability of hon. Members to speak to staff in Ministers' private offices; and whether the default method of corresponding by email is the only option now available to hon. Members.
Answered by Abena Oppong-Asare - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
Departments publish email addresses as the first means of contacting Ministers. All departments have processes to ensure correspondence via email reaches the intended Minister or team in a rapid manner, meaning there should be no reduction in the ability of MPs to contact Ministers' private offices. MPs may, in any such email correspondence, request a phone call with a departmental official or a member of the Minister's private office.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to the oral contribution of the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, on 13 January 2025 on Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan, Official Report, column 61, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the (a) development and (b) deployment of AI tools to respond to emails sent to Ministers on the ability of hon. Members to hold Governments to account.
Answered by Abena Oppong-Asare - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The Government continues to consider the use of artificial intelligence in all Government services. The potential impacts of using these tools in responding to correspondence from Parliamentarians and members of the public, and the implications for the function of correspondence to hold the Government to account, will form part of the Government’s ongoing considerations.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will publish current waiting lists totals at each of the mesh removal centres set up following the publication of the Cumberlege report; and whether mesh-damaged women are given an option to attend mesh removal centres other than ones led by surgeons who implanted their mesh originally.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Tackling waiting lists is a key part of our Health Mission and we are taking steps to return to the 18-week standard. The Elective Reform Plan sets out how the National Health Service will reform elective care services to meet the 18-week referral to treatment standard by March 2029.
There are nine specialist mesh centres across England, ensuring that women in every region with complications of mesh inserted for urinary incontinence and vaginal prolapse get the right support. Each mesh centre is led by a multi-disciplinary team to ensure patients get access to the specialist care and treatment that they need, including pain management and psychological support. NHS England publishes data on referral to treatment waiting times, which is available at the following link:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/rtt-waiting-times/
Data is published at the level of specialties, for example gynaecology, and is not routinely published at sub-speciality level. The most recent waiting time data held by NHS England from 2024 indicated that the average waiting time across the nine centres was 28 weeks.
The surgery to remove mesh implanted for stress urinary incontinence and vaginal prolapse is a relatively new surgical discipline. Expertise is, therefore, concentrated in a limited number of specialist centres led by a core multi-disciplinary team, including consultant specialists in urogynaecology, urology, and pain management. Patients, when requesting treatment for mesh complications, can exercise patient choice and be referred to another centre, ensuring that they can be seen by another surgeon where appropriate.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will take steps to commission (a) research into, and (b) training programmes for, improved techniques for removal of failed pelvic mesh implants from injured women including those removal methods developed in Missouri by Dr Dionysios Veronikis currently unavailable in the United Kingdom.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Department, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), is currently funding research to develop a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for prolapse, incontinence, and mesh complication surgery. This will enable women to self-report the ways in which any surgical treatment for these conditions, mesh and non-mesh related, has affected their quality of life. Once testing of the PROM is completed, women will be able to complete it as part of their care. It will also be suitable for use by national registries and with women taking part in clinical trials. The NIHR continues to welcome funding applications for research into any aspect of women’s health, including pelvic mesh.
NHS England has established nine specialist mesh centres across England, ensuring that women in every region with complications of mesh inserted for urinary incontinence and vaginal prolapse get the right support. Each mesh centre is led by a multi-disciplinary team to ensure patients get access to the specialist care and treatment that they need, including pain management and psychological support.
The National Health Service’s service specification sets out the standards of care expected from organisations funded by NHS England to provide specialised care. The specification for complications of mesh inserted for urinary incontinence, vaginal or internal, and external rectal prolapse states that specialised mesh centres must use trust appraisal systems to ensure that surgeons are appropriately trained, current in their practice, that they adhere to clinical and NICE guidance, comply with Pelvic Floor Registry data requirements, and report complications. The service specification is available at the following link:
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what recent assessment she has made of the contribution made by the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme to the (a) repair and (b) conservation of such buildings for the use by (i) current communities and (ii) future generations; and if she will make it her policy to extend the Scheme beyond 31 March 2025.
Answered by Chris Bryant - Minister of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
Since 2010, the grant scheme has returned nearly £350 million to listed places of worship across the UK. This has helped protect our listed places of worship and enabled them to continue their work as centres of worship and community assets.
The scheme will now run until the end of March 2026. As was the case with previous Governments, further spending commitments are a matter for the Spending Review.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what his policy is on patient confidentiality in relation to sharing information on (a) inquiry reports and (b) other relevant information on killings by mentally ill people with the (i) families of their victims and (ii) general public; and what his policy is on (A) publishing independent homicide reports and (B) intervening to consider publication in such cases, in the context of patient confidentiality.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
It is important that in such cases, National Health Service organisations are as transparent as possible within the bounds of the law, and that independent homicide reports are published and shared in line with legal guidance and with engagement from families. These decisions are for the organisations which commissioned the reports on a case-by-case basis.
In the case of the independent investigation into the care and treatment provided to Valdo Calocane, the NHS took the decision to publish the investigation’s report in full in line with the wishes of the families and given the level of detail already in the public domain.
The Department will work with NHS England and partners to set out next steps for how future independent mental health homicide reports should be published to ensure that NHS organisations act as transparently as possible, in line with their legal obligations.