Chamber and committees

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I welcome the bill. I congratulate all those who have campaigned for the legislation over such a long time. I also welcome all the contributions that have been made so powerfully to the debate.

Like others, I have met mesh survivors and I have found that even hearing about some of the experiences of the women who have been directly affected is harrowing. The details of the massive and life-changing implications, which they have often said ruined their lives, and the considerable pain that the women have endured as a result of the use of mesh are difficult to forget. Therefore, the bill is clearly very welcome. I hope that it will help the women who have been affected and, in particular, I hope that it will be welcomed by the Scottish Mesh Survivors. I hope that all the women who have been affected by the use of vaginal mesh will receive treatment and the appropriate expenses in the way that I believe members of the Scottish Parliament wish to happen.

However, there are many other mesh survivors who are not covered by this legislation and we must not forget them. Another petition has been lodged with the Scottish Parliament, which refers to some of the other women, and also men, who have been affected by the use of other mesh procedures such as

“hernia mesh, rectomesh and mesh used in hysterectomies”.

I have been contacted—as I suspect other members will have been—by constituents who have been adversely affected by those types of procedures and are asking for action similar to that proposed in the bill. I hope that the Government will listen to what they are saying and agree to the request for a review of all those procedures, too. I also hope that the Government will adopt a similar approach to those individuals as it has to the women affected by vaginal mesh who we are discussing today.

This issue was first raised in this Parliament in 2013 and has been raised regularly since then. That it has taken so long to get to a point at which we have a bill before us is an important point.

The independent medicines and medical devices safety review, which Baroness Cumberlege led, looked at the issues, and much of what the Scottish Government is putting into effect is based on the recommendations in the review report.

An issue that the review group considered was the way in which women are treated when they raise health concerns. We have heard how women were not believed or listened to. Of course, that is not just an issue in relation to the mesh procedure; it is an issue of which many of us are aware—indeed, it is something that many of us have experienced over the years. There are many lessons that we must all learn, and which Government must learn, about the way in which the women who were given vaginal mesh were treated that are relevant to many other situations that women face in the health service.

Another recommendation in the review report was that manufacturers should contribute to the cost of redress. However, it does not look as though the Scottish Government will get any money from manufacturers. Let me use Ethicon, which is one of those manufacturers, as an example; the company is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. We know that it is losing court cases and that at one time it faced more than 40,000 lawsuits, based on its negligence in relation to not just transvaginal mesh devices but bladder sling complications. A number of those lawsuits have been successful. According to the company’s 2020 annual report, 14,900 pelvic mesh lawsuits were still outstanding. In October 2019, the company agreed to pay $117 million in 41 states and the District of Columbia, in the United States of America, to settle claims in relation to deceptive marketing of pelvic mesh products.

The bill is in its initial stages. During its passage, I very much hope that we will consider all the issues that have been raised in this debate, including manufacturers’ responsibilities and how we ensure that women who were affected by the procedures and are in difficult situations get justice from the Government and from other parties that were negligent and failed to respect them and provide them with adequate services. I hope that we will be able to explore those issues and strengthen the bill.

The First Minister knows that the vaccine starts waning around 10 weeks after the second dose. Given that and the number of people who are still waiting for their booster dose, does she accept that testing is a safer option?

Does the minister think that ScotRail’s proposal to cut 300 train services a day is consistent with our meeting our net zero targets?

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to encourage people to use public transport rather than cars. (S6O-00382)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports of a legal opinion stating that local authorities cannot use their byelaw powers to implement buffer zones at national health service reproductive health facilities, how it will ensure that women have access to these services free from harassment. (S6T-00293)

Does the minister not accept, however, that it is the Scottish Government‘s responsibility to ensure that women have safe access to national health service facilities? We know that seven hospitals and clinics in Scotland have been repeatedly targeted. Given that there seem to be legal problems, and that we do not want a postcode lottery in which some local authorities take action while others do not, will the minister now consider Scotland-wide legislation to create buffer zones around such facilities?

Does the minister not accept, however, that it would be far better if the Scottish Government introduced legislation instead of relying on a private member’s bill or on local authorities to act in situations in which they have been advised that they do not have legal competence?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the proposed £500,000 fund for local organisations in international development partner countries to take forward work to ensure women and girls are safe, equal and respected. (S6O-00321)

Does the minister agree that it is important that we spend that money as wisely as possible? We know that women are underrepresented in decision-making processes. What thoughts does she have on how we can ensure that the voices of women are heard in those processes?

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement and for agreeing to give a statement today. The Scottish Labour Party supports the campaign by criminal defence lawyers for an improvement in the criminal legal aid rates, which have faced real-term cuts over many years. The minister will be aware of the anger in the profession.

The Criminal Justice Committee has been hearing evidence about the crisis in the criminal defence sector, with more experienced criminal defence agents moving to other parts of the profession at a time of a huge increase in the number of criminal cases because of the backlog created by the pandemic.

There are more than 25 per cent fewer firms registered for criminal legal aid now than there were 10 years ago. During the pandemic, a further 10 per cent fewer firms claimed legal aid fees, although I appreciate what the minister has said about the unusual circumstances, and that that decrease might be partly because of cases not proceeding. However, the minister will be aware that there has been a cut of almost £0.5 billion in the legal aid budget since 2007. Although she is correct to say that there have been some recent announcements of increases, they do not in any way compensate.

Does the minister accept that we need to recruit more lawyers to do criminal legal aid work, given the thousands of outstanding trials? Will she come forward with a plan that recognises that we need immediate long-term increases in the payments for some types of criminal legal aid case?