BBC Monitoring Service
Debate between Julian Lewis and Chris Vince(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Julian Lewis
Yes, indeed. If ever something encapsulated the concept of soft power, and indeed buttressed and underpinned some of the agencies that have to delve from more secret sources for information, this is an example of that.
Sir Julian Lewis
I must say it is gratifying in an end-of-day Adjournment debate on a Thursday early evening to have so many people so keen to intervene, including the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).
Chris Vince
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene and for his wonderful introduction to my intervention. He mentioned the importance of soft power, which we spoke a great deal about in the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). Does he agree that it is not only a case of not knowing what we have got until it is gone, but that, if we were to lose the BBC Monitoring service as well as the BBC World Service—not that we are suggesting that, of course—it would be very difficult to get it back, having realised the error we had made? On the BBC World Service, I will mention the conversation that he and I had in that debate about how, when the service was pulled out of particular countries, it was sometimes replaced with the propaganda that we are trying to avoid.
Sir Julian Lewis
Absolutely. The only good thing to be said about the propaganda of one’s adversaries is that sometimes, unwittingly, it gives us an insight into their plans and a forewarning of their evil intent. Let us ensure that we preserve the crown jewels and that we do not rely simply on fluctuations in licence fee income for that necessary task.
I have said that the Caversham estate was to be sold off, despite the amazing integration that existed there with the American counterpart of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which is now known more regularly as the OSE. It was therefore no wonder that the Defence Committee decided to entitle its December 2016 report “Open Source Stupidity: The Threat to the BBC Monitoring Service”. That was a pun on open source intelligence—and for those interested, it is HC 748, and it is still in print.
The then Defence Committee Chairman, whom modesty prevents me from identifying, pointed out—this is a long quote, but it is worthwhile—that:
“The Coalition Government was warned, in the strongest possible terms, not to leave the BBC Monitoring service unprotected by ending its ring–fenced annual grant and transferring this minor financial burden to the licence–fee payer. By doing so, it gave the BBC a free hand to inflict successive rounds of cuts, now culminating in the loss of the specialised and dedicated Caversham headquarters.
The vast increase in open source information in the recent past makes it one of the few tools still left in the Government’s arsenal which can provide almost real time information and analysis on global developments. To allow the BBC to change and shape it in a different direction is in contravention of UK national interest. It is especially bewildering when you consider the annual cost of BBC Monitoring is around £25 million.
The decision to evict BBC Monitoring’s US counterpart—Open Source Enterprise—from its UK base at Caversham Park and break the physical link between the two is short–sighted. The BBC’s strategy for BBC Monitoring will downgrade our contribution to open source intelligence sharing between the UK and the US at a time when European nations must demonstrate to President–elect Trump”—
as he then was, for the first time—
“that we are committed to paying our way in the fields of defence and security. As one of our witnesses said, ‘this is the height of folly’.”
That was a long quote, but it was true then and it is true today.
Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh
Debate between Julian Lewis and Chris Vince(9 months, 2 weeks 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
Chris Vince
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention. Following my meeting with Debbie, two further Harlow residents have come forward who have also been part of this scandal. I have spoken to Members across the House who have constituents with the same issue. More than 600 women came forward to be part of the Cumberlege review and the subsequent Hughes review. This is a huge issue that affects many people.
As many Members will be aware, on 21 February 2018, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), called for an inquiry. The independent medicines and medical devices safety review, chaired by Baroness Julia Cumberlege, who I am delighted to see here today and whose support I am delighted to have, published the “First Do No Harm” report in July 2020. The report considered two medications and one medical device, but I will focus on pelvic mesh implants, which were used in the surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse and to manage stress urinary incontinence. It was hugely emotional to hear Debbie’s story—to hear at first hand the huge impact that this issue has had on her life.
In her report, Baroness Cumberlege described the accounts of women who had been affected by this issue as “harrowing”. I think we can all agree that that is absolutely the case. I will not go through the whole review, because that would take too long, but I will just highlight a couple of things said by women who came forward and spoke about the impact that the procedure had had on them.
The women said that there was a
“lack of awareness of who to complain to and how to report adverse events”
and reported
“breakdown of family life; loss of jobs, financial support and sometimes housing”.
However, the situation is even worse than that. The women also spoke about a
“loss of identity and self-worth”.
Sometimes, we fail to recognise the massive connection between physical health, including a physical procedure such as this one, and people’s mental health and wellbeing. The women also reported
“a persistent feeling of guilt”.
Nobody who is a victim of medical negligence should feel guilty about that fact.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I think that often the reason people feel guilt is because they feel that they were not given the necessary information at the beginning and they did not ask for it, but if they had only known, they would not have touched this debatable and deplorable procedure with a bargepole.
Chris Vince
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I could not agree more. In the case of Debbie, who I have spoken about, she did not even need the procedure in the first place, but clearly that information was not provided correctly to her. Many women absolutely would not have gone through with the procedure if they had known about the dangers—and, as I say, in Debbie’s case she did not need to go through with it.
The Cumberlege review made a number of recommendations. First, it recommended establishing a separate redress scheme to meet the cost of care and support for people who have experienced avoidable harm caused by the pelvic mesh. It also recommended:
“Networks of specialist centres should be set up to provide comprehensive treatment, care and advice for those affected by implanted mesh”,
and that a database should be created of all patients who received an implant of medical devices, including the pelvic mesh.
The previous Government published their response to those recommendations in July 2021. They did not accept the report’s recommendations about redress. However, in December 2022 they announced that they had asked the Patient Safety Commissioner to explore options for redress, and that project began in the summer of 2023.
On 7 February 2024, the Hughes report was published, setting out recommendations for redress for those harmed by sodium valproate—a medicine used to treat epilepsy—and pelvic mesh. The report calls for the establishment of an independent, two-stage redress scheme to provide both financial and non-financial redress for affected patients.
I realise that I have been talking for quite a long time, Mr Stringer, but I think you appreciate the importance of this subject. I will quickly go through the recommendations of the Hughes report, so the Minister is aware of them. There are quite a few recommendations and they are as follows:
“The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by…pelvic mesh. This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.”
We have seen that throughout this process patients have not had a voice and it is hugely important that they have a voice in finding the solution.
The Hughes report’s recommendations also said:
“Redress should provide all those harmed by pelvic mesh or valproate”—
the other medicine I mentioned—
“with access to non-financial redress. To deliver this, the government should work with other government departments, the healthcare system and local authorities to measurably improve harmed patients’ access to, and experience of, public services.”
Another recommendation was:
“The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme… The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress… The Interim Scheme should be followed by a Main Scheme. This would offer more bespoke financial support to directly harmed patients based on their individual circumstances and…those indirectly harmed”.