Chamber and committees

On that point—

Miles Briggs rose—

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate all those who worked so hard to get the legislation on transvaginal mesh. I also congratulate my colleague Daniel Johnson for securing today’s debate.

It is clear from the people who are campaigning on the issue that they feel that they are still not being listened to. In the short time that I have today, I will focus on the concerns of hernia and other mesh survivors who do not currently seem to be covered by the scope of the scheme that is being discussed. Many of those survivors have suffered life-altering conditions. In particular, I want to pay tribute to Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall, who are petitioning Parliament and asking for the suspension of use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices that are being used in Scotland.

It is very much the case that mesh is still being used. I have spoken with women and men who have been affected by the procedure, including a 50-year-old man who had mesh implanted in the right side of his groin in 2013. He is still suffering extreme pain and debilitating conditions as a result of that procedure, including physical conditions that mean that he is unable to carry on with normal ways of living in the way that most of us would expect to do. He hardly sleeps and cannot get medication that alleviates the symptoms. He says that he is also suffering from depression.

My constituent Roseanna Clarkin was aware of mesh before her procedure. Indeed, she had been a campaigner and did not consent to mesh being used. Her understanding was that tissue would be used for the hernia procedure that was carried out on her. Unfortunately, she is not the only example of the medical profession not getting informed consent from patients.

Therefore, there are still many issues that the Parliament needs to discuss in relation to the use of mesh in Scotland. I hope that we will have further debates in Parliament, because many people are calling for suspension of the use of all surgical procedures involving mesh. That is a debate that Parliament must continue to have.

The petitioners are asking for an independent review and for suspension of the use of all mesh and fixation devices. They point to the substantial damages that are being awarded, particularly in the United States of America, to people who have had mesh implanted. They ask for improved patient pathways, with

“specialist surgeons who are aware of complications”

and who know

“how to properly insert mesh”

and remove it when needed. They also want

“a choice of surgeries where natural tissue repair is offered first”

and believe that mesh should not be used until that work has been done. They would like the establishment of a specialist

“mesh centre with more surgeons trained in natural tissue repair.”

In particular, they call for an apology and

“recognition ... from the Scottish Government”

and compensation for patients who have been affected. I believe that those are all matters that Parliament should debate.

I very much welcome the motion that Daniel Johnson has brought to the chamber and the landmark legislation that has been put in place. However, I fear that we will need to consider more issues. I hope that time will be made available for us to do so and that the minister will respond on that in her closing remarks.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for this opportunity. As you know, I have not been to the committee before. I am here to represent the lead petitioner, who is a constituent and is unable to be here due to medical conditions associated with the mesh procedure, which, I have to say, was undertaken on her without her knowledge or consent. I think that it is fair to say, from my meetings with her, that she is someone who is very well informed, had very detailed discussions with her medical practitioners before her procedure and was given information about what would be used that was very different from what happened in reality.

It is fair to say that the people who are involved in the campaign have life-changing conditions that are completely associated with the mesh procedure that they underwent. Indeed, there have also been deaths that it is believed were associated with the procedure. What they are asking for is that mesh is used only when it is essential—there are alternatives to mesh—and that it should be used only with the fully informed consent of the patient.

I know that the committee is very aware of the previous debates about transvaginal mesh and other procedures. The mesh used in relation to things such as hernia operations is, I understand, different and used for different purposes, but many of the issues are similar. It has to be said that the campaigners still believe that they are not being listened to, that their concerns are not being taken into account and that practice has not changed in relation to these matters in Scotland.

I am grateful for your consideration of what the campaigners are saying.

Will the member take an intervention?

I welcome this timely debate and the long-overdue publication of the project Neptune report. The further very serious revelations in the “Disclosure” programme that the Scottish Government did not stick to its own rules need to be responded to. A huge amount of public money has been squandered, and, of course, it is the taxpayer, islanders and people who rely on ferry services who are paying the price of the Scottish Government’s poor decision making and delays.

More than a decade ago, CalMac advised the Scottish Government that it would need to build a ferry every year just to stand still. That did not happen and, as a result, we have an ageing fleet that is increasingly unreliable. Sadly, the situation will only get worse. We need an emergency procurement plan from the Scottish Government. Despite repeated debates in the Parliament, a plan with an adequate ferry replacement programme has still not been presented.

I welcome that the Scottish Government has ruled out unbundling and privatisation, but it has not committed to an in-house permanent operation, and retendering still seems to be a possible route. I would be very grateful if the cabinet secretary would confirm whether that is the case, because decisions need to be made about tendering and the procurement of new ferries. Such issues were absent from the project Neptune report, and a clear direction of travel is needed urgently from the Scottish Government.

We know that our fleet is ageing. More than half of the 31 CalMac vessels are more than 25 years old, which is the age that ferries are expected to last.

As representatives in the Parliament, we know that it is the people who rely on those services and the communities in which they live that are paying the price every week.

We do not believe that the problem is ownership, and we do not believe that a competitive process on lifeline services will be the solution to the challenges that we face. We believe that we are in this situation now not because of the ownership model but because of a failure to recognise over a lengthy period—indeed, since the creation of the Scottish Parliament—that it is necessary to repeatedly procure new vessels. The Parliament needs to learn that lesson, and we need to accept our responsibility to ensure that the vessels are procured.

CalMac has looked at more than 130 vessels around the world with a view to bringing them in second-hand. It is clear that that is not the solution. We need a procurement policy that builds in Scotland, develops our industrial capacity and delivers for communities that rely on ferry services.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will give an update on the work to upgrade Ardrossan harbour. (S6O-01378)

The failure by the landowner, Peel Ports, to agree a deal that is acceptable to the public purse has led to a delay of over four years. In the meantime, islanders on Arran, those who use the ferry services, and the Ardrossan people and economy are suffering. Does the minister agree that enough is enough? Will the Scottish Government now take urgent and compulsory measures so that progress is made?

Will the member give way?

I know that the member has experience of another place. Does he not accept that all Governments do that? Although he is absolutely correct in what he is saying, does he accept that that is a feature of the executive and one that we collectively need to address?