Sir Julian Lewis
MP for New Forest East · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I will share with the House one particular case that is representative of many. My constituent, Mrs Gillian Pothecary, lost her husband almost a year ago. She wrote to me in July about her valiant but so far unavailing quest to obtain a civil service widow’s pension.”
“She said: “Mrs Pothecary’s…case falls under the commitment to be fully resolved by early September at the absolute latest. Capita has assured me that her case is on their escalation log and has been flagged for priority handling.” I rang up Gill just before coming into this debate and—you’ve guessed it, Dame Siobhain—she has not yet recei…”
“As the Minister seems to have run out of supportive Back Benchers, I shall endeavour to ask him a helpful and easy question. Accepting that it will be some years, to put it mildly, before we can eliminate our dependency on oil and gas, does he accept in principle that we are more secure if we exploit our own domestic oil and gas resources…”
“I warmly endorse almost everything the Secretary of State has said today, and I genuinely congratulate him on his appointment. In my first speech in this House almost 30 years ago, I promised to support Labour Governments as long as they supported the nuclear deterrent, the conventional armed forces and NATO.”
“On Monday, just as campaigners from the New Forest and Waterside were handing into Downing Street a 32,000-signature petition against the appalling and unfair outcome of local government reorganisation affecting our area, the welcome announcement was made by the Government that the local government reform proposals for Hampshire and three…”
“We are now in a situation that is worse than that at the height of the cold war, so the comparison we have to make is between what we are spending now and what we spent during the cold war, which was, in modern calculating methods, between 4.5% and 5.1% on defence. So let us not talk about increases to 2.7%.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,750 lines we hold for Sir Julian Lewis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 48 of 75.
“I must express disappointment that, while rightly damning the monsters in the Syrian Government, my right hon. Friend still has nothing to say about the maniacs—the jihadists—who lead most of the armed opposition. Can she tell us whether this aid will be supplied only to displaced Syrians outside Syria or, if it will be supplied to Syrians within Syrian territory, whether it will be supplied to Assad-controlled territory, to territory controlled by the armed jihadist opposition or to territory controlled by the only people we have ever been able to support militarily—the Kurdish-led Syrian democratic forces? Those forces are currently under attack from Turkey, which she has just described as one of our friends in the region.”
“Does my right hon. Friend still subscribe to her excellent maxim that no deal is better than a bad deal, and does she acknowledge that locking ourselves into a customs union with the EU after Brexit would be a very bad deal indeed?”
“When the threat from Russia receded at the end of the cold war, we understandably cut our defence budget to 3% of gross domestic product. Given events—from Salisbury to Syria—demonstrating that, sadly, that threat is now reappearing, should we not seek to get back to that sort of level of defence expenditure, and will the Secretary of State lay that pertinent fact in front of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I thank him for his work. Will he go back to what he said a few moments ago about the idea of it being acceptable that 1% to 3% of cases might go wrong? It might be acceptable if we are dealing with a small overall total, but when we are dealing with over 100,000 cases, we are saying that it is acceptable for 1,000 to 3,000 people to suffer devastating, life-changing injuries as a result of this procedure. Surely that is anything but acceptable.”
“When we are talking about over 100,000 people, if even the Government’s low figures of 1% to 3% going badly wrong are right, that is still 1,000 to 3,000 people. I have been given, by my constituent Emma, a leaflet from Sling the Mesh that says that its estimate is that at least 15% of people are seriously and badly affected. On that scale, we are talking about over 15,000 people being seriously damaged by this procedure.”
“Her counterpart in the Upper House, Lord O’Shaughnessy, has conceded this: “While these treatments can be effective, in a small minority of cases meshes can cause serious long-term injury and disability, and prevent or reduce the ability of affected women to work.” According to a letter from the Health Secretary to parliamentary colleagues in February: “Clinical experts here and abroad agree that, when used appropriately, many women gain benefit from this intervention, and hence a full ban is not the right answer.” I find it difficult to follow that logic. There might be an acceptable argument if we were talking about a procedure in which the numbers of interventions were in the hundreds, but, as I said in an intervention and as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) endorsed, we are talking here about over 100,000 people.”
“I start by saying that I think the steps taken in Scotland, as described by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), sound extremely sensible as interim measures until final decisions can be taken. I echo the thanks due to the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), their associates in the all-party group, and Sling the Mesh campaigners. I also thank my three constituents, Emma, Eileen and Helen, who have all shared with me their harrowing experiences of the procedure. There is no doubt that when vaginal mesh procedures go wrong, the results can be truly catastrophic. A letter from the Minister states clearly that “women have suffered atrocious and debilitating complications” from these implants.”
“When we are talking about these very large numbers, even relatively low percentages make the procedure too risky to be used in anything other than last-resort circumstances similar to those described by the hon. Member for Glasgow North. In the past decade, my constituent Emma has undergone X-ray-guided injections, ultrasound scans, MRI scans, in-patient stays, tests galore, more and more scans, and, eventually, a biopsy. She has been refused referral to a mesh specialist centre. It seems highly likely that she should never have been given a mesh implant in the first place after the trauma of such a difficult birth, which leads me to the next point about inadequate warnings. I understand from my constituents that they were given little warning, and in many cases no warning at all, about the potential dangers.”
“Indeed. I would be surprised at that, because if that is what Dame Sally believes she ought to be making different recommendations. I have been given a particular study, which is described as the largest study of surgical mesh insertions for stress urinary incontinence. Over 92,000 women were surveyed in this particular examination, including all NHS patients in England over an eight-year period. The conclusion states: “We estimate that 9.8% of patients undergoing surgical mesh insertion for SUI experienced a complication peri-procedurally within 30 days or within five years of the initial mesh insertion procedure. This is likely a lower estimate of the true incidence.” I reiterate my point about acceptable and unacceptable percentages.”
“If I had known even one of the possible risks of the surgery there is no way I would have had it done. I am furious that I was never told that this could happen.””
“She further writes: “I feel let down by professionals who were supposed to treat me to the best of their ability. There has been information about the adverse effects of mesh around for years, yet these doctors are still happily inserting them into thousands of women.” She is desperate to be referred to one of the few doctors who specialise in mesh removal and feels trapped under the control of the very people who have let her down. She continues: “I want these devices out of my body.” Who can blame her? Let me conclude by quoting, from an article in The D aily Telegraph of 23 October last year, a lady who suffered for eight years: “I just wish I had never, ever had it done. I would rather have coped with that very minor problem of stress incontinence than this.”
“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. She writes: “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 it was my body rejecting the mesh; but, unbelievably, they kept putting more in.” She suffers from truly terrible bowel problems, some no doubt caused by the side effects of the painkillers and the sleep aids she has to take. Consequently, she suffers from depression, loss of confidence and lack of self-esteem.”
“I need an operation to remove the mesh implant, but the operation is very complex and unfortunately there are limited amounts of surgeons who are experts in the full removal of these mesh implants. Due to my financial situation, I am not in a position to be able to afford to have the full removal of the mesh implant done privately and therefore I am having to wait for this to be done on the NHS which is taking far too long.” I turn now to Helen, who probably has the most horrifying story of the lot. She was 35 when given what was described to her as routine surgery 16 tortured years ago. 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.”
“I venture to suggest that if this ghastly catalogue of things that could go wrong had been shown in advance to those 100,000-plus women who have had a mesh implant, more than 90% of them at least would have turned it down. This is what my constituent Eileen wrote to me: “The effect that this has had and is still having on my life is massive. I can no longer carry out basic tasks at home or do things with my children due to the pain. I need to take medication every day from my GP to try and ease the pain. I cannot go to work at present due to the pain and I am currently on sickness absence leave from my job. The mesh implant that I have had has and is continuing to destroy my life.”
“Indeed. The problem with this issue, as it has been impressed on me at any rate, is that this has been put forward as a quick-fix alternative to other procedures, whether surgical or not, which would take much longer. Having paid thousands of pounds for private specialist assessment, in the end Emma eventually managed to get the sort of referral she wanted. I have been given the following clinical summary of her condition: “Vaginal mesh; foreign body giant cell reaction, chronic inflammation and fibrosis.” I have a page here that lists some 50 different symptoms related to implant illness and foreign body giant cell reaction.”
“Before those interventions, the Minister said that if people are still not getting adequate treatment, it should be brought to her attention. As I mentioned, I have been contacted by constituents saying they felt trapped because the people who did the procedures were refusing to refer them elsewhere for a second opinion and for possible help from the very small number of people who specialise in the rectification and reversal of these procedures. What advice can she give my constituents about how to break out of this restriction on being referred to people in whom they can have more confidence?”
“If a relative suspects that a vulnerable family member is being radicalised online, what advice would the Minister give that relative about what would happen to that vulnerable person if they were reported?”
“I welcome the calm and measured assessment of the Prime Minister, as I suspect do a considerable number of Opposition Members. She mentioned the year 2011. Bearing in mind what happened in Libya after the House retrospectively approved air action in 2011—namely the toppling of the regime—will she give us an absolute and unequivocal guarantee that the use of airstrikes now, specifically, as she says, to degrade and to deter chemical atrocities, will absolutely not be allowed to lead to the Royal Air Force becoming, in effect, the air arm of the jihadist-led rebel forces in Syria? The two roles are and should be held to be entirely separate.”
“I have to disagree with the Father of the House, because if we had gone to war in 2013, although there was talk about bombing to prevent chemical attacks, the reality is that it would not have stopped until we had toppled Assad and the result would have been similar to the one in Libya. There are three guidelines we should follow in any further military action that we feel we have to take. First, we must remember that, apart from the SDF, neither side in the Syrian civil war deserves our support. Secondly, we must continue to impress on Russia that the action we are taking is solely to punish, degrade and deter the use of poison gas, and is not the thin end of a regime-change wedge. Finally, we must ensure that we have engaged in a one-off punishment that will not be repeated unless further chemical attacks take place.”
“Only the Syrian Democratic Forces, led by the Kurds, are at all acceptable to us, and they are now under attack from the Turks, who are supposedly our allies in NATO but are increasingly cosying up to the Russians. Airstrikes risk inflicting lethal collateral damage, which is why the Prime Minister was absolutely right when she said to us earlier that this was a “targeted and limited” action. That is as it should be and that is how it must remain. I have been concerned about suggestions in the debate, once again, that we should widen this out into a broader intervention in the Syrian civil war. That will be to repeat the mistakes we made in Libya and in Iraq.”
“In December 2015, the House voted to bomb Islamist terrorists in Syria, as we had been doing in Iraq for more than a year. For the next 17 months, we mounted more than 800 airstrikes in Iraq but only 95 in Syria. Why the huge disparity? It was because in Iraq we want one side, the Iraqi Government, to win and the other side, the Islamist fighters, to lose, whereas the situation in Syria is totally different. As I have said previously, it is a choice between monsters and maniacs, with the inhuman Assad regime on one side and the jihadist fanatics dominating the other. Right hon. and hon. Members should be in no doubt that the armed opposition in Syria is indeed dominated by vicious Islamist factions.”
“I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), as she has done a service to the entire House. I do not agree with all her views, but I was more than happy to support her application. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to what is sometimes called the endgame in Syria, and I think there are four possibilities. Option No. 1 is a negotiated deal with give and take on both sides, which seems to be almost out of the question. Option No. 2 is a de facto stalemate, with the effective partition of territory between opposing forces—that is possible but unlikely. Option No. 3 is a win by the rebels, which is now impossible, unless we enter the war, as we disastrously did in Iraq and in Libya. Option No. 4 is a win by the regime, which is highly probable.”
“Even if that were wrong, the people who are at fault are the people who misled the House in 2011 about Libya when they did not say that we were going to try to topple Gaddafi. Had they said that, I would have voted against that action. I believe that I and the 29 other Conservatives who voted the way we did on Syria in 2013 were absolutely right to do so. With that, my time is up, so I simply say that we should spend more money on defence so that we will have more defence options.”
“I am glad to have the extra time to say that my right hon. and learned Friend did not mention the conflict in Libya. With Libya, we were told exactly the same thing: that we were voting for a protective measure—a no-fly zone to protect the citizens of Benghazi—but the moment that we retrospectively gave our approval for that, it was all out for a bombing campaign to topple that regime. I do not doubt for one moment what my right hon. and learned Friend has said to the House, but I have it from other sources that I cannot quote that I am not at all far from the truth in saying that had we acted in 2013, the result in Syria would have been the same as the result in Libya.”
“My hon. Friend is doing us tremendous service by bringing this topic to the House. To what extent is anonymous bullying a factor? We all know from before the age of the internet the devastating effect of poison pen letters, even on a small scale; here one can have anonymised poison pen electronic letters that are accessible worldwide. Is it people who are known to victims mainly or is it people sheltering behind anonymity?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the blessing of the Government Whip here present, may I ask whether any steps have been taken to reinstate the curtain-and-commode system that used to envelop the Chair, so that on occasions like today, when you have sat there continuously from when the House first met until the House adjourns this evening, you might be able to do so in a little more comfort?”
“My constituent Lesley Hughes was infected with hepatitis C back in 1970, and that timescale suggests that thousands of documents must be held by the relevant Department. Will the Minister assure us that full disclosure of all such relevant documents will be made?”
“May we have an assurance that the forthcoming announcement on whether there will be a competition for the new generation of mechanised infantry vehicles will be made to the House when Parliament is sitting, and not in the recess?”
“Finally, will she acknowledge that we need a realistic strategy whereby we get away from demanding a political settlement when, in reality, our only allies in Syria—the Kurds—are now being attacked by a fellow member of NATO, namely Turkey?”
“The Secretary of State is a personal friend of mine, so I do not mean this in any way to reflect on her abilities, but I am surprised that a statement with so much military content is not being made by a Defence Minister and that we do not appear to have a Defence Minister present on the Front Bench. She will forgive me if I ask some defence-oriented questions. First, can the Secretary of State confirm that the vast majority of the large number of RAF sorties have been in Iraq, rather than Syria, because there were few forces on the ground in Syria, other than the Kurds, whom we felt we could support? Secondly, does she recognise that the opposition in Syria, with the exception of the Kurds, has been dominated from beginning to end by Islamists, although they are not all from Daesh?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does not the Worboys case illustrate the fact that there is a culture of consideration for rapists and murderers that puts the public gravely at risk? Will the Secretary of State be investigating the case of the two murderers who killed two people in two separate incidents in their own homes and who have just been convicted of the horrific rape, torture, throttling and murder by burning in a car while she was still alive of a young Vietnamese woman—not to mention the imminent release of another criminally insane individual who is being groomed for release in his guise as a woman, having previously been convicted of stabbing to death a young woman in her own home more than 66 times?”
“Does the Minister agree that people who use cold-calling to cheat others out of their pensions are the lowest form of pond life, and will he arrange for criminal sanctions to be visited upon them?”
“For understandable reasons, defence spending has more than halved as a proportion of GDP since the end of the cold war. Now that the threat from Russia is re-emerging, can we reassess the need to fill the holes in the defence budget identified by the National Audit Office, the Defence Committee, and, most recently, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy?”
“His successor is squaring up for a battle with the Treasury, and that fight has to be won for the safety of us all and for the security of our country.”
“In the mid-1980s, defence constituted 5% of our GDP—the same percentage as education and health. The current education and health budgets are respectively two and a half and four times the size of the defence budget. In the changed strategic situation, this downgrading of defence cannot be allowed to continue. Since 2016, the Defence Committee has been making the case for a defence budget target of 3% of GDP, which is what it used to be in the mid-1990s, even after the cuts following the collapse of the Soviet empire and the end of the cold war. The former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), has called for a 2.5% target by the end of this parliamentary term.”
“Now the ideology has gone, but the ruthless mindset remains. Russian leaders no longer claim to be building a workers’ paradise, but they still believe that western capitalists will sell them the rope with which to be hanged. For 40 years from 1949, two factors ensured the containment of Russia and the maintenance of peace: the deterrent power of western nuclear weapons; and the collective security provided by article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty. No longer could an aggressor attack small European states without the Americans immediately entering the war. Yet such preparedness did not come cheaply. In the early 1960s, UK defence spending accounted for 6% of our GDP—the same percentage as welfare. The current welfare budget is six times the size of the defence budget.”
“Vladimir Putin is a product of the KGB schooled in the suppression of captive countries, steeped in the culture of communist domination and filled with regret that the Soviet empire imploded. According to him, its break-up was the greatest disaster of the 20th century—a revealing and curious choice when compared with the millions killed in two world wars, the Russian civil war, the forced collectivisations, the mass deportations and the hell of the gulag. Until the Bolshevik revolution, there was some chance of Russia evolving along democratic lines, but then the cancer of Marxism-Leninism gave psychopaths and dictators their ideological excuse to seize total control. Their opponents were denounced as enemies of the people and put, or worked, to death with no semblance of due process.”
“If anyone had doubts about Russia’s responsibility for the Salisbury poisonings, its contemptuous failure to respond to the Prime Minister’s 24-hour deadline should swiftly have dispelled them. An innocent regime would have rushed to explain how a nerve agent that only it produced could have been acquired and employed by anyone else. We should also have been spared sarcastic suggestions in the Russian media that the United Kingdom was an unsafe place for “traitors” to settle, as well as the ludicrous claim that we ourselves were behind the attack. That was a charge straight from the playbook of those who blame the Jews for 9/11 and US intelligence for the Kennedy assassination.”
“Along with those seeking to overthrow the Russian government, the term is also applied to ‘those causing mass disturbances, committing hooliganism or acts of vandalism’. Much more controversially, the law also defines ‘those slandering the individual occupying the post of president of the Russian federation’ as extremists”, so those who insult the President of Russia can legally be killed overseas according to this law. The BBC report concluded that “the Russian law is very specific in that it permits the president—alone, and apparently without consultation—to take such a decision”, so at least one hon. Member will not be on Vladimir Putin’s Christmas card list after his speech today.”
“Four days later, the BBC News website published an article headed “Russia law on killing ‘extremists’ abroad”. It is worth quoting it for the record: “A new Russian law, adopted earlier in the year, formally permits the extrajudicial killings abroad of those Moscow accuses of ‘extremism’...In July, the upper chamber of the Russian parliament—the Federation Council—approved a law which permits the Russian president to use the country’s armed forces and special services outside Russia’s borders to combat terrorism and extremism. At the same time, amendments to several other laws, governing the security services, mass media and communications, were adopted. The overall result was to dramatically expand those defined as terrorist or extremist.”
“Near the end of the second world war, the joint intelligence sub-committee of the British Chiefs of Staff, as it was then, produced a report entitled “Relations with the Russians”. From years of experience of working with Russia against the Nazis, the JIC concluded that Russia would respect only strength as the basis for any future relationship. That mirrored Lord Palmerston’s view of almost a century earlier: “The policy and practice of the Russian Government has always been to push forward its encroachments as fast and as far as the apathy or want of firmness of other Governments would allow it to go, but always to stop and retire when it met with decided resistance and then to wait for the next favourable opportunity.” Not much has changed. Alexander Litvinenko died in London on 23 November 2006.”
“Friend the former Defence Secretary, among others, that spending 2% of GDP on defence is not enough. In my last few seconds, I cannot resist appealing once again to the Foreign Secretary—I am pleased to see him back on the Front Bench to hear my speech—to save the BBC Monitoring service at Caversham, which we are supposed to be going to visit. It costs £25 million a year to keep it going, but it is going to be decimated and absorbed into a wider system that will not be as effective as the dedicated teams at Caversham. If it was true before that we need to save it, it is even more true now, after all that has happened in recent days.”
“I would certainly say that it is part of a way forward. I will use the generous extra minute that I have been given to say that I am a little concerned about the fact that while the Government are right to recognise the existence of new threats, such as cyber threats, digital threats and intensified propaganda threats, including through the abuse of social media, and that we will need to devote resources to meet those new threats, that does not mean that the old threats or the old remedies to them have gone away. I do not like the conflation of national security budgets with defence budgets because that means that if we add more to the national security budget, we have to take more away from the defence budget, unless we listen to the warning from my right hon.”
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman that now is not the time or place to renew the old debate about nuclear weapons, particularly as the issue has been settled by a vote in this House, but can we not agree on a cross-party basis with the proposition that 2% spent on defence is not enough?”
“With all these diplomats expelled, we will have to keep a much closer eye on Russia than ever before. Will my right hon. Friend therefore spend £25 million a year to save the BBC Monitoring Service?”
“Will the Secretary of State expand a little on what he briefly said about flexibility of working hours and family bereavement among NHS staff? After this urgent question, will he kindly give a short tutorial to those of us with an interest in defence on his successful techniques for extracting £5 billion from the Treasury for a Department that urgently needs it?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. While we are on the subject of the European Union and defence, may I seek an assurance that Mr Speaker will not be emulating the example of the President of the European Commission, who has just sent a grovelling letter of congratulations to Vladimir Putin on his election victory, and that he will note instead how fortunate we are to be able to depend on NATO when the security and defence of this country is at stake?”
“I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate, and I am very concerned by the suggestion that there may have been an ulterior motive behind the exclusion of shooting from the Commonwealth games on this occasion that is being dressed up as a logistical problem—the problem that Bisley is too far away from the location. Has the hon. Gentleman any specific indication that the people who are hosting the games this time are in some way ideologically opposed to target shooting?”
“I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to Bisley every year with the Commons rifle team, where we have the privilege of shooting against the Lords team. In passing, may I pay tribute to a now retired member of the House of Commons staff, Mr Gary Howard, who worked in the Vote Office for many years? For a long period he gave freely of his lunchtimes—week in, week out, and month in, month out—to tutor Members of both Houses of Parliament in shooting skills and was rightly rewarded with the British empire medal when he retired for his long service in the House, his service to shooting and his service to young people.”
“This is positively the last intervention that I will make on the hon. Gentleman. In support of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) about the sport being gender-neutral, I should have declared an interest as the president of the Colbury rifle and pistol club in the New Forest, where the champion shooter is a young lady called Molly. I think she is still in her teens, and she has on more than one occasion shot 100 out of 100, something I have never managed to do and I fear I never will manage to do.”