Chamber and committees

Thank you. That concludes agenda item 1.

That is certainly a question, but I would note that, every year, 6,000 people in Canada are operated on successfully. There is also a consequential saving to the health service when a patient recovers, as they do not require constant additional medical support and treatment. I realise that there are issues to weigh up here, but I do not think that they should be casually dismissed just because of that.

According to Katy Clark, despite all the assurances that we have received about the consequences being discussed with individuals and the alternatives being properly represented to them, the petitioners still believe that that sort of thing is not happening universally. Therefore, I would be interested in getting the latest update on that matter from the Scottish Government. When the minister gave evidence along with health officials, assurances were given to us that further work was being done to provide more updated information material, and we would like to understand the status of that work and the impact that it has had.

It might well be that that will lead to our seeking to bring the cabinet secretary, rather than the minister, before us. After all, it was the cabinet secretary who first came before the committee and on whose initiative a lot of action was initially progressed. However, I think that that will be a decision for a subsequent meeting.

Do members have any other suggestions? Is the committee content with what I have proposed?

Members indicated agreement.

I welcome Kate Forbes to our proceedings. I will invite her to comment after we have heard the evidence, but I have, unusually, agreed that, if there is a point during the proceedings when she would like to put a question to the witnesses, I will be happy to facilitate that if she lets me know.

We move to Mr Choudhury.

I see that Jackie Baillie, who is not formally here to advise us on the petition, would like to come in. I have been generous today in bringing in parliamentary colleagues, so it would be churlish of me not to offer you that opportunity.

Yes, of course.

Welcome to our second session on PE1992. We are joined by representatives from Transport Scotland. I am delighted to see that we have Lawrence Shackman, Robert Galbraith and Morag Mackay. They have been following our proceedings avidly this morning. I noticed them faithfully sitting through all our deliberations on other petitions as well as the one that is before the committee now.

Do you want to make an opening statement or are you content to move straight to questions?

Thank you for that. It might play to the discussion that we want to have about a national memorial and the possible misunderstanding between all parties about where that might be sited or the desirability of it, but we can come back to that.

Colleagues are very interested in this subject. I want to start where I finished in the earlier session, if I can be the daft laddie in relation to the petition. Did Transport Scotland ever advise the Scottish Government minister that the A9 could be completed by 2025? If not, did it warn the minister who gave that assurance to the public some years ago, particularly to all those who use the road regularly, that Transport Scotland could not meet such a target?

This is not a happy thought, but it is exactly 10 years since the committee first considered the issue of mesh in the petition that Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy brought forward. It would be ungenerous indeed not to acknowledge that, five cabinet secretaries later, we have seen progress in relation to the issue. Things have happened; the moratorium on transvaginal mesh continues to apply and we have secured the Transvaginal Mesh Removal (Cost Reimbursement) (Scotland) Act 2022, which provides for women to have the mesh removed by Dr Veronikis in Missouri. However, issues remain, and there are questions that we want to put to the Scottish Government.

A number of suggestions have been made. I, too, am confused about the Shouldice thing. I kind of understood the Scottish Government’s concern that, for the people who might undergo that surgery, a commitment involving considerable weight loss would be required, which might ultimately be selective, but very open offers were made in that respect by the medical staff. Indeed, Dr Spencer Netto, in his evidence to the committee, specifically said that the hospital would be willing to offer training and to have discussions with the Scottish Government on the processes and procedures involved. I thought that the Government was willing to consider that, but I have not heard anything further about where that might play into the outcome. Therefore, I would very much like to understand what further reflections the Government has had on the Shouldice model and the offer to support NHS Scotland in that respect.

Do colleagues have other suggestions?

That was specific but, more generally, are there pressures on the post-mortem service in Scotland?

Thank you very much. I will ask an introductory question of both witnesses, and then invite colleagues to come in.

We may come back to touch on the memorial that you referred to at the end of what you said, but how has the delay that has taken place impacted personally on you, and what is your view of the interaction that Transport Scotland has had with communities and the way that that has evolved during the process?