Official Report 696KB pdf
Surgical Mesh and Fixation Devices (PE1865)
Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.?We will begin our proceedings in the hope and expectation that the deputy convener will join us.
The first item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions. I highlight to those who are joining us or watching us online that we have a large number of open petitions to consider before the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament, with the last working week being week ending 26 March 2026. Our focus for the rest of the parliamentary session is now on identifying any areas where we feel that we can make progress during the time remaining, given that there are not many meetings of the committee ahead.
Our first continued petition is PE1865, lodged by Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices while a review of all surgical procedures that use polyester, polypropylene or titanium is carried out and guidelines for the surgical use of mesh are established. We are joined by our colleague Jackie Baillie, who has a long-standing interest in such matters.
We last considered the petition on 19 February 2025, when we discussed potentially closing the petition but ultimately agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek more information on the points about data. We have received a response from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. Although committing to keep emerging evidence under review, the minister stated that the Scottish Health Technologies Group—SHTG—analysed the most relevant research on the use of mesh for hernia repair and that evidence published since 2021 aligns with the group’s advice on outcomes and patient follow-up.
The Scottish Government is further guided by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—our old friends, the MHRA—which says that there is currently no evidence on which to base further regulatory action for surgical mesh. The minister also referenced the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE—which regularly reviews evidence to update its clinical guidance, including on hernia repair.
The minister’s response then highlights a series of programmes in progress, which provide data for medical devices, including pelvic and hernia mesh, both at a United Kingdom and a Scottish level. It also points to the open initiative of the evidence directorate in Healthcare Improvement Scotland, whereby anyone can propose guideline topics or request research to be considered in Scottish clinical guidelines.
The petitioners reiterate their view that the SHTG’s recommendations are based on incomplete and outdated data. They also believe that meaningful action has yet to materialise on clear patient pathways for hernia mesh-injured individuals and guidelines for the use of mesh, suggesting that there are still patients who are neither being offered non-mesh alternatives nor receiving fully informed consent.?
Before I invite Jackie Baillie to contribute, I will say that I have raised the mesh issue, particularly with regard to the two reports by the late Professor Alison Britton, which were commissioned by the Scottish Government, and the First Minister offered to meet me. He did so after the summer recess. He, the minister and all relevant officials were there. Subsequently, he has written to me with a very detailed outline of all the work that has been done to implement the findings of the two reports. I have to say that there are still some gaps, so follow-up evidence is required.
I am also going to London to pursue, with relevant authorities there, progress on the recommendations by Dr Henrietta Hughes on compensation for mesh.
Well, what can I add to what you have already said, convener? You have been tireless in pursuing this petition, and you, the former health secretary Alex Neil and my colleague Neil Findlay campaigned alongside the mesh-injured women and championed their cause. Clearly, you continue to do that.
I concede that the Government has taken some action. There is a specialist clinic and access to mesh removal abroad, but waiting lists remain too long, and some women are still waiting. For me, the issue is the continuing use of mesh, whether it is in hernia operations or others.
I am persuaded by your efforts and by the response from the petitioners that we should keep the petition open, because the information is outdated. It is clear that your meeting with the First Minister was very welcome, but it throws up some gaps that I hope the committee will explore further.
I suggest that we keep the petition open, because the job is not yet quite done. On that basis, I commend the committee to do exactly that.
I have a great deal of sympathy with that. On the other hand, we are probably at a stage in the parliamentary session where it will have to be the efforts of individual members that take these things forward. I am not certain that there is more that the committee can do.
The Scottish Government has said that it is guided by the SHTG, MHRA and NICE in its current approach to evidence, which it will keep under review? A number of on-going programmes provide comprehensive data for medical devices, including pelvic and hernia mesh, and there is an option to address proposals for the development of guideline topics directly via Healthcare Improvement Scotland.
I feel that, just because we are running out of time, we should close the petition. That is not because I think that the issues have been fully addressed but because a fresh petition in the next session of Parliament could focus on the issues that might remain at that time. There is a division of opinion, even among those of us who have had major concerns about the use of mesh, in relation to its application in hernia operations—I think that our deputy convener said that he has benefited from that.
There are remaining issues, which can be pursued by members who have an interest in the matter. I hope, and would expect, that the wider issues that remain might therefore be raised in a fresh petition.
Are members content to conclude that there is nothing further that we can do as a committee in relation to the petition in the time that is left available to us?
Members indicated agreement.
I think that Mr Ewing wants to come in. My glasses are fogged up, Mr Ewing, so you will need to shout out, because I can hardly see you.
I agree with the recommendation, but I do so with considerable regret, because the points that you and Jackie Baillie have made are apposite, as usual. Most of the parties support the general tenor of the petition, so it is extremely disappointing that more has not been done. However, at the same time, we do not have executive power in this committee and we are near the fag end of the session of Parliament, so the incoming Administration, whoever that is, will have to take on the issue. I have no doubt that another petition could be lodged by the petitioners early on in the next parliamentary session, if they so wish.
I note that the First Minister’s interest was genuine. It was the first time that he had fully engaged on the topic. However, even though I have received a comprehensive letter, when I ask for an itemised check-off against each of the recommendations, some of the information was grouped and general, which is not necessarily as reassuring as it might be. There are further written questions on all those issues that I can put to Government, as can colleagues.
Child Protection (Public Bodies) (PE1979)
Our second continued petition, PE1979—a great year—was lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook, all of whom had an opportunity to address the committee and some of whom joined us from time to time as we considered the petition. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council for Scotland; to examine gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry; and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle all those inquiries in future.
We are joined by our MSP colleague Edward Mountain—good morning. We last considered the petition on 5 February, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise and to the GTCS. In her response, the minister indicated that work is under way to identify potential solutions to the issues that were raised in her meeting with the petitioners. She also mentioned work that was undertaken alongside the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland to understand current arrangements for whistleblowing and case investigation and potential improvements to those arrangements.
The minister also highlighted other work that was undertaken to improve child protection, including meetings of the new national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. She reiterated the Government’s intention to engage with the recommendations of the Scottish child abuse inquiry once that has been included and to keep under review the statutory requirement for mandatory reporting, on which she said that stakeholder views have been varied.
The GTCS response highlights that a local authority-led process will always be required when investigating concerns, so long as local authorities provide education services and employ teachers in Scotland. It also reiterates its view that a focus on establishing a new whistleblowing officer could draw attention away from identifying where the current gaps are and from implementing effective solutions to fill them.
Since reviewing the official GTCS response, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care’s review of the fitness-to-teach process was published, and the GTCS is working on an action plan that is based on the PSA recommendations.
The petitioners have welcomed some of the work that has been undertaken, but they continue to highlight the power imbalance against those who raise concerns and say that current mechanisms do not provide the level of security that is required to identify validity of safeguarding concerns.
Edward Mountain would like to address the committee.
Thank you, convener. I realise the pressure that is on the committee as we come to the end of the parliamentary session. I would like to go back to a couple of comments that were made when the petition last came before the committee on 5 February. At that time, Ash Regan said that she believes that public bodies are “defensive” and Fergus Ewing said that he profoundly believed that the current system is “inherently flawed”. That remains my position, and I think that that is the position of the petitioners.
Since I came to the committee on 5 February, more cases have come to light in the Highlands, some of which are deeply concerning. Pupils are being dragged out of classrooms by their feet and teachers are being suspended but no evidence has been given as to why they have been suspended. As far as their colleagues are concerned, it remains the case that they have done nothing wrong when the parents and the pupils know that they have done something wrong. That is why we need, more than anything else, a whistleblowing officer to look at issues and to address them.
If we are going to get it right for every child—which we must do—we need to ensure that children are heard and that, when evidence is provided on mistreatment, especially in schools, it is made available when the person is suspended. At the moment, too many teachers across Scotland are getting away with things because the authorities are hiding behind GDPR regulations that say that they cannot disclose whether a person has been suspended.
I think that that situation will go on for ever, until we get a whistleblowing officer, which is why I am keen to ensure that the petition continues. As I said, I know that time is an issue for the committee, but I think that your committee is the only one in Parliament that can keep open petitions into the next session. Considering that the children of Scotland are affected, I urge the committee to consider keeping it open, because we have not got things right at the moment. I will leave it at that, because I could get emotional over this, as I think that we are letting our children down.
Yes, keeping open the petition is an option, but it is one that we would exercise very carefully, because it might not be helpful to the next committee in the next session of Parliament were it to have a significant body of open petitions before it.
Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
I speak in support of what my colleague Ed Mountain said. I, too, have constituents who have profound concerns about the way in which complaints are dealt with. They feel that they are kept in the dark. No information is ever given to them about anything, and they are left feeling completely impotent. That might be because of GDPR or the law, and it might not be; I do not know.
What I know is that the system is inherently wrong: public bodies are failing to observe the first basic principle of any justice system, which is nemo judex in causa sua. To put it in plain English, they are marking their own jotters. Any public body, when facing criticism, will circle the wagons and defend itself. That is an instinct. It is very simple: there is an inherent conflict of interest between defending its own interests as a public body and dealing with a complaint from a third party.
This petition has been on the go for three years. To supplement what Mr Mountain has said—I drew this to the convener’s and the clerks’ attention prior to the meeting—I point out that fairly recently, on 26 September, we published the petitioners’ supplementary submission. In that submission, they make new substantive points. The first is about the growing support of MSPs; they mention all the MSPs who have supported the petition. Then, they talk about the GTCS and the patent defects of its filtering out of child safeguarding referrals at the initial stage. The defect is that the GTCS basically goes what with the education authority says—so much so that, according to the submission, the statistics show that
“only 26% of referrals received from the public”
were investigated
“compared with 92% of employer referrals.”
That was the finding of the Professional Standard Authority, which is, itself, independent and which also criticised the system, having
“found that the GTCS relied solely on the referral information”.
No one acting in any judicial capacity can rely on hearing only one side of the case. That is a breach of a second principle of natural law: audi alteram partem, which, as Latin scholars will know, means “listen to both sides of the case”. It could not be more elementary and yet, three years on, we are no further forward.
I accept entirely that we are moving towards the end of this parliamentary session. However, there are six months left in it. I hope that colleagues feel that this is fair: given the cross-party support for the petition, its obvious strong points and the petitioners submission in September, the least that we should do is invite the Scottish Government to respond specifically to the points that were made in that submission. It sets a good example: as the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, we must ensure that the Scottish Government responds to the other side of the case.
I know that we are under a lot of pressure to close petitions and I will not be arguing that every petition should be kept open. There are only two this morning that I think that about—which, for me, is a very modest bag—and this is one of them. It has an extremely strong case and, three years later, we are not any further forward.
Thank you, Mr Ewing. If I may trade Latin with you, tempus fugit.
Well—festina lente, you know.
Mr Ewing recommends that we invite the Scottish Government to respond to the petitioners’ latest submission.
Education is a public service. Is there not another public body, such as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, that could take on that role? It is a public service that is being provided and there is a flaw in the public service. That is the PSO’s role.
That might be beyond the scope of the committee’s ability to properly explore.
In the first instance, are we happy to pursue Mr Ewing’s suggestion? Then, we will have a further opportunity to decide whether, as Mr Ewing is suggesting and as Mr Mountain is hoping, it might be one of our legacy petitions—or whether we think that it would be best served by a fresh petition in the next parliamentary session. We will write to the Scottish Government to seek a response to the petitioners’ latest submission. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Hire of Public Land (Ministerial Intervention) (PE2056)
PE2056, which was lodged by Stephen Gauld, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation providing ministers with the power to call in and potentially override council decisions on the hire of public land for large-scale events.
We last considered the petition on 5 February 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government about it. The response from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government states that the Scottish Tourism Alliance’s submission does not change the Scottish Government’s previously stated position. The Government would not consider introducing the mechanism asked for in the petition, since that would go against the principles set out in the Verity house agreement, under which it committed to respecting local government’s democratic mandate, and vice versa. I did not know that that was still a thing. For the same reason, the Scottish Government would not pass judgment on what may, or may not be, a sound reason for refusing an application at a local level.
The petitioner’s additional submission details his recent experiences when attempting to hire land for events, which he found demoralising and expensive.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Given the stage of the parliamentary session, we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that, as the convener highlighted, the Scottish Government has reiterated its commitment to the Verity house agreement and thereby will not intervene in decisions regarding the hire of public land owned by local authorities.
Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Given the position that the committee is in, as I have outlined, we will close the petition on that basis.
We are expecting petitioners to join us this morning on the centralisation of specialist neonatal units in NHS Scotland. I know that Jackie Baillie is joining us for that petition too, but I will hold off a little in the hope and expectation that the petitioners are able to join us.
Before I move on, I forgot to mention that in relation to the first continued petition that we considered this morning—PE1865—Katy Clark had hoped to join us but instead submitted a late written submission when she was unable to do so.
Denominational Schools (Assessment of Demand) (PE2129)
PE2129, which was lodged by Elizabeth Spencer, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require education authorities to adopt a uniform set of criteria and a standard consultation for assessing community demand for denominational schools.
We wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills after we last considered the petition on 19 February. The cabinet secretary’s response states that, when establishing a new school, local authorities are required to carry out a consultation under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. That consultation has to include at least 30 school days, engage with a specific list of relevant consultees and include a public meeting. Education Scotland also produces a report about the educational benefit of the proposal, and the local authority has to produce a final report summarising responses to that consultation. The cabinet secretary states that she has no evidence to support the view that the current arrangements for the establishment of new schools, including denominational schools, is unfair or inconsistent.
The petitioner has provided a written submission that states that, in the case of Aberdeen City Council, non-Catholic parents and grandparents were disregarded from the consultation. She calls for the committee to consider whether the criteria and consultations are being applied consistently and to examine whether the experience of Aberdeen families shows the need for national guidance and oversight.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is of the view that existing legislation takes into account the needs of communities that wish to establish a denominational school, and that the current framework for decision making around the establishment of a denominational school is sufficient.
Are colleagues content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for raising the petition, but in the light of the Scottish Government’s response, we do not feel that there is anywhere further that we could take it.
Non-medical Aesthetic Injectors (Regulation) (PE2137)
The next of our continued petitions is PE2137, which was lodged by Jordan Morris on behalf of Mr Skulpt Aesthetics Ltd. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce an aesthetics licensing scheme to ensure that non-medical practitioners meet training and safety standards.
We last considered the petition on 5 March 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has since written to the committee on two occasions. The most recent submission set out that the Scottish Government has published its analysis of the consultation on the regulation of non-surgical cosmetic procedures and its intended next steps. The Scottish Government intends to introduce a non-surgical cosmetic procedures bill, which will ensure that many non-surgical cosmetic procedures will be undertaken by or under the supervision of a healthcare professional and, in most cases, in a setting that is regulated by Healthcare Improvement Scotland. In addition, the Scottish Government intends to pursue secondary legislation under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to establish a local authority licensing regime for procedures that do not require the input of a healthcare professional.
In view of the fact that many of the aims of the petition have been realised, do colleagues have suggestions for action?
As per your remarks, convener, the Scottish Government is ultimately committed to meeting the ask of the petitioner, which is a positive result. Therefore, I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
I do not demur from that recommendation. However, the controversy regarding the expected content of the Scottish Government's bill will not recede. The controversy may actually intensify once people grasp that the bill may not achieve what a great many people believe that it should achieve and that they want it to achieve, although that may just be a personal observation.
For the reasons that the convener and Mr Golden have given, there is nothing further that we can do with the petition at this stage.
Are colleagues content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
AttendanceNext
New Petitions