I beg to move, That this House has considered pelvic mesh and the Cumberlege Review. Thank you, Mr Stringer, for your chairmanship. I sincerely thank all Members who have come to contribute to this debate. I thank the Minister, my hon.

Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for attending. I also particularly thank Baroness Cumberlege for coming along to the debate.

In my first MP constituency surgery I met Debbie— I am delighted that Debbie and her husband Ian are here today. Debbie was active. She was into keeping fit and socialising with friends and family but, following her operation to have pelvic mesh inserted, she was forced to give up work.

She now suffers from chronic pain in her hips, pelvis, groin and legs. She often suffers from fatigue. She is unable to exercise. She suffers from incontinence, post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression and autoimmune disease.

She later found out that the operation to have the mesh inserted was not even necessary. When Debbie had her first operation to have the mesh removed, she was told that it was removed completely, but later found out that was not in fact true.

She was forced to have a second operation, where, again, not all the mesh was removed. Despite winning subsequent court proceedings, she has received no compensation, in part due to the surgeon not being covered by insurance. Debbie’s case shows the barriers for victims of medical negligence.

It took seven years for Debbie’s case to get to court. Part of her concern is that the surgeons operating to remove the mesh are the same doctors who did the initial operation to insert it.

This is such an important debate, and many of us in this room have been working on this issue for a very long time. I point the hon. Gentleman to the Government’s review of the NHS. We only have nine centres.

We have to emphasise how important it is that the review addresses the need for more surgeons in these areas. The issues that he is outlining are so common, yet we only have nine centres.

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.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The NHS has a clinical negligence scheme and it spends a lot of money on lawyers. Does my hon. Friend agree that victims of this particular scandal should, like many others, get no-fault compensation?

And does he think the NHS should look at its clinical negligence scheme and move towards no-fault in order to reduce the spend on lawyers?

It looks as though hon. Members do not need reminding that if they wish to catch my eye they should bob, even if they have put in to speak. I call 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.

I think the right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Obviously, from my professional background, I see myself as fairly well-informed, but the scale of the damage done by this particular implant—the pelvic mesh—is also a shock to me.

It is really timely that new Members are made aware of this issue. Hopefully, we can support any efforts to continue to raise it, and I commend Members who have been in this place for longer on their work to date. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the specific point about research.

As someone with a research background, I absolutely agree with you—I am sorry, Mr Stringer; I meant the right hon. Gentleman—that more effort needs to be put into research, not only on how we might treat such cases in future, but on the remedial effect.

I thank the hon. Lady for correcting herself and acknowledging that “you” refers to the Chair. I also remind all hon. Members that interventions should be brief and to the point.

Do you want to give some guidance on how long is left, Mr Stringer, so I can cut my speech accordingly?

I intend to call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats at 2.30 pm.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for covering the recommendations, which I was not able to do. That has relieved me somewhat. We have at last seen some compensation for the victims of Windrush, the infected blood scandal and the Horizon scandal.

Does she agree that it is incumbent on the Government to treat this scandal with the same seriousness, fully accept recommendation 4 and put the redress scheme in place?

Order. The 10-minute time allocation is up. I now move to the official Opposition.

I remind the Minister to leave two minutes at the end for the Member who secured the debate to reply.

I thank everyone who has spoken about this vital issue. At its heart, it is about women who have been let down and made to feel guilty because they are the victims. That is just not right. I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. My right hon.

Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—today, we are all hon. Friends—rightly said that we have had this debate time and again.

Order. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).