Chamber and committees

The reimbursement bill covers the cost of primary removal of transvaginal mesh and of any unexpected procedures that are required either at the time of mesh removal surgery or soon afterwards.

I have been contacted by women who still have questions. Amendment 1 seeks to clarify which procedures are included in the scheme to avoid any doubt. My amendment seeks to clarify that complications or further surgery that is required because of mesh removal surgery are covered by the reimbursement and that corrective surgeries pertaining to the mesh removal surgery—not issues caused by the original implant surgery—are included.

I seek that clarification because there are ladies who had their corrective surgery carried out at the same time as mesh removal. Those surgeries include fascial slings, Burch colposuspensions and other procedures to repair prolapses or incontinence, which were the very reasons for which they had mesh implanted in first place.

There are women who have had mesh removal who have been advised, for various reasons, to allow time for healing before they consider further surgery. That is often down to “surgeon preference”. From a surgical perspective, that phrase can be a catch-all, but it leaves women out on a limb. Amendment 1 seeks to provide clarification.

Although there is no reason to believe that those consequential surgeries could not be done on the national health service, that depends on trust. Given the entrenched involvement of the NHS with the transvaginal mesh scandal, many of the women involved, including some of those who have contacted me, do not trust the NHS to perform consequential surgery. Those women trust only private providers such as Dr Dionysios Veronikis to right the wrongs of the NHS. I am keen to get some commitment from the cabinet secretary that the Government will look sympathetically on the costs of any consequential treatment and that those costs will be reimbursed, although I make it clear that that will not be the outcome of the amendments that I have lodged today.

I move amendment 1.

Figures that were released this morning show that 47 per cent of registered patients have not seen an NHS dentist in the past two years, while oral health inequalities amongst children have widened to the worst level on record. As dentistry recovers from the pandemic, patients across the country are facing long waits for routine treatment. What steps is the First Minister’s Government taking to help restore such NHS dental treatments across Scotland, especially now, given the withdrawal of emergency funding from 1 April?

I made it quite clear that it is not my intention that the amendments would address some of the points that the cabinet secretary has raised; it is very much to make it clear to the women that reimbursement is available for

“clinically relevant surgery ... arising from the mesh removal surgery”.

If such removal surgery necessitates a reconstructive procedure taking place for a woman, I hope that we will seek to cover that if it is a consequence of the mesh removal.

Those women may well have to wait for years if they have to wait for the NHS, and I struggle with that. I will press amendment 1, because the women want to have that clarification and the confirmation that they should also be reimbursed for any procedure that is needed as a result of their mesh removal surgery if it is managed through the private schemes and relationships that they have with the Spire Healthcare group in the United Kingdom or with Dr Veronikis in the USA.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans to build 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. (S6O-00638)

Affordable housing is particularly important in Edinburgh, where the average house price has now surpassed £300,000 for the first time. However, affordable housing statistics that were published last week show that only 822 affordable homes were completed in Edinburgh in 2020-21. That is a drop of more than 35 per cent on the previous year.

Homes for Scotland has warned of flaws in the City of Edinburgh Council’s proposed city plan 2030 and says that it will not be able to meet the housing demand in the coming years. Will the Government step up investment in affordable housing? Will the cabinet secretary guarantee that councils such as the City of Edinburgh Council will be able to access the grant funding that they need to meet local housing demand?

The convener and I were on the same breakout group last night. It was very insightful with regard to today’s session.

My question is predominantly for Lucy Hughes. What actions could help the higher-than-average rate of prescriptions and hospitalisations for care-experienced children and young people? What actions could help to reduce the number of care-experienced children who are hospitalised because of injuries, drug poisoning and other external causes? There is a lot to cover in that, but it is all part of a similar theme.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

I put it to Dr Stark first, as I referenced her previous statement.