Chamber and committees

Does that meet with colleagues’ approval?

Members indicated agreement.

That is reasonable. We could ask that question and raise the issue of the circumstances in which those falconers might be likely to face prosecution. It would be reasonable to try to understand that issue. It is not the principle that is the issue but the practice of asking the bird to differentiate. I do not know whether the response would be that the falconer should be able to differentiate, but a bird of prey in the air sighting prey on the ground is not necessarily under the control of the falconer—it is hunting.

We will invite the petitioner to give evidence. I wonder whether there is any information that we might obtain from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales on how it has determined the scope of its inquiry and is going about exercising its powers, as well as what additional complications have arisen for it in the light of that. We could notify the Scottish Government that we are inviting the petitioner to give evidence and let it know when that takes place, so that it is aware, and we could indicate that we might be minded to invite the Deputy First Minister to give evidence subsequent to the petitioner.

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I genuinely feel considerable pride in our Parliament this afternoon. In contributing to the debate, I am not without some emotion. Over three sessions of Parliament, for eight long years, we have tried to move the issue forward and bring justice to the women who have survived the mesh scandal. Had it been—as I observed in an earlier debate—similar to the thalidomide scandal, in which the injuries and injustice suffered were all too visible, it might have been easier to get the issue thoroughly discussed. However, in the early days of this Parliament, when the issue first arose, I have to say that there was a squeamishness and a reticence to talk about what was, for many women, the most sensitive of issues. It was the heroism of those women that made the difference. Mention has been also made of the determination of Alex Neil, Neil Findlay and myself to speak in the bluntest and most graphic way possible about the issue in order to break through that reticence and make people understand the importance of Parliament facing up to the issue.

Shakespeare sent Mark Antony to bury Caesar, not to praise him. I, of course, would never suggest that I would ever talk about burying the cabinet secretary—I mean, he can scooter himself to disaster all on his own, as we know—but I am here to praise him quite unequivocally this afternoon not only for fulfilling the commitment of his predecessor, Jeane Freeman, in bringing this bill to Parliament after five health secretaries have wrestled with the issue, but also because of the way in which he addressed the issues in his opening speech this afternoon, the flexibility that he has shown, the willingness that he has had to meet the women concerned and others who have pointed out concerns that they might have with the bill and his determination to see all of those issues addressed at stage 2. I take all of that at face value and look forward to helping in any way that I can to facilitate the progress of the bill.

The bill does not represent the end of the mesh argument. As people have pointed out, Professor Alison Britton is undertaking a full mesh case review, the recommendations of the Baroness Cumberlege review still require to be implemented in full and, at the moment, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is considering a fresh petition on the wider application of mesh—although, as the minister has identified, we should not draw an immediate parallel between the use of mesh in other procedures and the particular issues that arose as a result of the transvaginal mesh scandal. The issue has led to the expression of fundamental concern about what women in Scotland were being told.

Mention has been made of Neil Findlay, and he has been texting me during the debate. I ironically asked him whether that constituted lobbying—a comment that I hope will not be lost on other colleagues.

The cabinet secretary made reference to the Glasgow centre, which has performed perhaps two dozen or three dozen mesh removals. The affected women and those of us who have been involved with the issue have raised a concern about the exact nature of the training of those who were involved in those procedures. Where were they trained? In what removal techniques have people in the Glasgow centre been trained? By whom were they subsequently accredited as being competent in those practices?

I absolutely do. In the previous session, I sat in a meeting of the Public Petitions Committee—along with David Torrance, I think—and listened to one specialist saying that only a couple of women were involved, with 60 women sitting behind him while he said it. There really has been a fundamental disconnect.

Mention has been made of Elaine Holmes, who lodged the petition in the first instance. She said:

“I’d been discharged from NHS GG&C after two mesh removal attempts, told I was mesh free and that I’d likely lose my leg if I had any more surgery relating to the transobturator mesh implant. I’d had every test/scan possible and had exhausted all options. After much research and pleading from my family, I contacted Dr V as he was my last hope. Thank God I did! He removed 22cm of the offending mesh.”

That was after she had been told that all her mesh had been removed, and that is why so many of the women have confidence in Dr Veronikis.

Dr Veronikis contacted me ahead of the debate. I do not want to introduce any note of difficulty, but here is what he says in the conclusion of a letter that he sent today to the interim medical director of NHS Scotland procurement commissioning and facilities:

“Respectfully, I see no progress, I only see delays and detours. As stated in my email on October 28, I do not believe that we have made any progress since March 2019, when Terry O’Kelly first contacted me, or since First Minister Nicola Sturgeon personally called me. The solution is either expedite and facilitate the care of the suffering women who wish my services or just tell them that NHS Scotland cannot help them receive care outside of Scotland.”

He goes on to say that he is desperate because of what appears to be a slightly dead hand of bureaucracy that is encountered when trying to drill down to the details. He says that we need to overcome that, and it probably needs the cabinet secretary to take a personal interest in what is being done, possibly in his name, to ensure that we get to the point at which Dr Dionysios Veronikis believes that he has a contract that is fair and operable and that allows these women to go to Missouri to have the treatment concerned.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that assurance. We must ensure that the delivery of that assurance follows the delivery of the bill.

I thank Gillian Martin for her incredibly comprehensive contribution, which detailed some of the residual questions. She is absolutely right in saying that some women might not yet have declared that they would like to have mesh removed and that others might not yet be aware of the bill. As Martin Whitfield and others said, we have to be careful when setting the cut-off date for applications for procedures in the future.

I thank all the other contributors to the bill, including David Torrance, the veteran of the long exchange in the committee; Katy Clark; Gillian Mackay; Craig Hoy; Kaukab Stewart; and Siobhian Brown, who brought us Isobel’s experience, which was, unfortunately, an all-too-typical example of what many of the women have endured.

I thank Rona Mackay; our former colleagues Alex Neil, Neil Findlay, Angus MacDonald, David Stewart and Johann Lamont; and the Presiding Officer, who was in the chair earlier. They have all done terrific work in promoting the issue over the past three parliamentary sessions.

I thank Elaine Holmes, Olive McIlroy, Lorna Farrell, Claire Daisley, Karen Neil, Nancy Honeyball, Gillian Watt and Isobel McLafferty. I have been proud to stand with all those women, who have affection and love for one another. I have attended their Christmas dinners, at which they have provided mutual support to ensure that their morale and their efforts have been sustained.

However, let us not forgot Michele McDougall, who died of cancer and could not get chemotherapy because of the consequences of six previous hernia mesh operations, or Eileen Baxter, who was the first woman to have mesh as the cause of death on her death certificate.

This is not just something that women are currently enduring; it has led to the deaths of some women. It has opened up questions about how women are believed in the health system. It has led to many women—who, at the start, did not believe that there was hope for them—fighting for years through their pain to prevent this from happening to other women. The bill offers them the justice that they deserve.

It would probably be inappropriate of me to pre-empt the presentation of the budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. However, Ms Baillie is absolutely correct that we have been using the measures that she has suggested to uprate the office and staff cost provision.

The corporate body is committed to supporting members of the reserve forces or those wishing to join the reserve forces. Staff who are armed forces reservists are entitled to take five days paid special leave each year to attend training. MSPs, as the employers of their staff, also have discretion to grant the same entitlement to their staff.

Reservists who are mobilised for acts of service are protected in law from detriment, such as the termination of their employment, because they have been called up to acts of service.

I thank Mr Mason for that observation.

The corporate body last considered the matter in 2019, in the previous session, in relation to the unexpected United Kingdom general election. At that point, it agreed that it remained vital to maintain the prohibited period and the neutrality that comes with not issuing such publications.

I have some sympathy with Mr Mason’s argument, but I think that there is the potential, when the Scottish Parliament is sitting—I note that the UK Parliament does not fund such publications—for publications submitted by members of the Scottish Parliament to include people who might be standing in the local authority election, for example. There is that opportunity, however intentional or unintentional. That would be an unreasonable use of parliamentary resources and would potentially breach the intended political neutrality of the annual reports, which are for members to communicate with their constituents. We give as much notice as we do to allow people to make proper provision so that they can fit within the schedule.

I understand that various party groupings have arrangements with trade unions, but the SPCB has no locus to do so in relation to MSPs’ staff. The SPCB is responsible for funding of the reimbursement of members’ expenses scheme, including the staff cost provision, and for determining which indices are used to uprate the overall provisions of the scheme.

In 2020, the SPCB reviewed the indices used for the uprating of the scheme and, in so doing, was made aware of representations from trade unions representing MSPs’ staff. The SPCB agreed to use a basket of indices for uprating the SCP on the basis that it would provide a more steady basis for future increases.

We do that on the basis that individual MSPs remain responsible, as employers of their staff, for setting and managing their staff’s pay and cost of living increases, within the provisions of the expenses scheme. That is not within the locus of the SPCB, as we are not the employer of MSPs’ staff; MSPs themselves are.