Julian Lewis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to add something new to the excellent start to the debate by both the previous speakers, who showed a great command of the overall situation, by quoting my constituent Emma, who got in touch with me yesterday after learning that the debate would take place. I will briefly summarise her concerns, which she set out in the following way: “In the main, the point is that so many have been injured, left on NHS waiting lists, paying for prescriptions and transport to and from appointments. Not being able to work—or restricted working hours. Limited access to PIP…Very little support for those who had mortgages due to the benefit system not supporting mortgage costs” and “loss of pension contributions, as none of us is getting any younger.” This lady is exceptionally strong. Despite the injuries she suffered personally, she has been a rock and a leader for other mesh-injured women in or near my constituency. I hold her in the highest esteem; in fact, I salute her courage. What she has to say is, in a sense, an argument that has already been won. The Cumberlege report won that argument, and the Hughes report wanted to recommend what should happen next. I am delighted to see Henrietta Hughes in the Gallery—and seemingly acknowledging that I am right about that difference between the two reports. Let me briefly quote from Henrietta Hughes’s admirably concise list of 10 recommendations. Recommendation 1 was: “The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.” Recommendation 3 was: “The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme.” Recommendation 4 was: “The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress. These payments should start during 2025.” Recommendation 8 was: “Both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme should be administered by an independent body which commands the confidence of patients.” What is the point of an interim scheme? It is to recognise that there will be tremendous complexity in individual cases, but at least these mesh-injured ladies would get a minimum of help—I think £25,000 has been suggested—straightaway, while the more complex calculations can be done later. Yet despite that being the very point of an interim scheme—that we can do this quickly and work on the harder parts subsequently—we have seen no progress. What does that remind us of? It reminds me of the Post Office. It reminds me of the infected blood scandal. What do all those things have in common? A large number of people who have been injured in some way or another—either physically, or with their character or freedom damaged, often beyond repair—and who are owed very large sums of money by way of redress or compensation. We know what happens in the end: there is enough public protest to ensure that there is action. I hope that the level of public awareness is no less for this cause than it is for other, similar scandals because all the victims were women. That would be even more disgraceful than that this all happened in the first place.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was hoping to ask this point of order of Mr Speaker, because it is a little difficult for you, not having been here for most of the urgent question. At the start of the urgent question, Mr Speaker made it clear that he was surprised that a Minister was being put up who would not be able to answer questions, being a Planning Minister, rather than a Security Minister being put up, who would be able to answer questions. In my 28 years in this House, I have attended many ministerial statements and the questioning that follows, and many urgent questions since they were introduced. Never before has there been an occasion that I have seen where every question asked on both sides of the House was deeply hostile, as was the case today, regarding what the Government were proposing to do. My question is this: if my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) were to reapply to Mr Speaker for a similar urgent question in anticipation that an appropriate Minister—a Security Minister—will be put up to answer it, would that be within the rules of parliamentary order and practice?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May we have a statement from a local government Minister about calculated abuse of the planning system—cases in which people knowingly proceed with projects without planning permission, and then apply for retrospective permission? Cash-strapped councils feel, on the advice of their officers, that they should grant that permission, as otherwise they might have to fight a legal case. Should there not be a presumption against granting retrospective planning permission when the offence has been deliberate?