Chamber and committees

There would be fewer women on remand if more people were able to go to those things.

Are all sheriffs aware of those options?

That is reassuring.

Okay. That is good to know.

David Mackie, would you like to comment briefly on that?

I have two questions. The first goes back to section 23D and my colleagues’ earlier questions. I will be frank: I do not think that your explanation for the removal of section 23D, on which you are unanimously agreed, will reassure women’s organisations or victims. I understand what you are saying about the whole-system approach. That is fine if it works, but that is a big if.

I cannot quite grasp your point. Are you saying that you want to have the ability to release a domestic abuser? Why would that ever be correct? I cannot understand that. It is possible that I do not understand your reasons. Why not keep the exceptions to reassure victims and organisations? I am unsure of your reasons for not doing that.

I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my friend and colleague Gordon MacDonald on bringing it to the chamber.

I start with a confession: I am not tech-savvy in any way. Nevertheless, I marvel at the advances that we in Scotland have made in so many different fields, which will benefit us and future generations to come. The new partnership of the National Robotarium and the University of Edinburgh, based at Heriot-Watt University campus, is a fantastic example of innovation and entrepreneurship coming together. We should be shouting from the rooftops about that. The centre is the largest and most advanced applied research facility for robotics and artificial intelligence in the UK—that is awesome.

As Gordon MacDonald’s motion says, the project focuses on

“robotics and AI solutions across the three distinct areas of robotics and autonomous systems, human and robot interaction, and high-precision manufacturing”.

The motion notes that the centre complements

“existing research and industry expertise to address global challenges in areas such as hazardous environments, offshore energy, manufacturing, construction, healthcare, human-robot interaction, assisted living, and agritech.”

That is just for starters. Planning for future innovation that can be used in so many aspects of our lives never stops with that partnership, which has many more ideas in the pipeline.

The impact of such innovation as we go forward cannot be overstated. It means that technology is being used to benefit future generations, and it will improve and save lives and scale up the future challenges of growth and manufacturing. In short, it will transform lives for the better and pave the way into the next century.

The centre, which was launched just last September, is supported by £21 million from the UK Government and £1.4 million from the Scottish Government as part of the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal.

I have great optimism for the future when I hear of advances in medical research in every area. It reassures me that my children and grandchildren may be spared from suffering from some of our most serious diseases and conditions. For example, the centre is pioneering a new robot-assisted surgery technique to help to decide how much of a patient’s tissue is affected by cancer and should be removed. An AI companion—as Gordon MacDonald said—will aid memory recollection, boost confidence and combat depression in people who are living with Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia.

Incredibly, the centre is also developing advanced machine-learning algorithms that will significantly improve the detection, intervention and prevention of online gender-based abuse. That is simply amazing.

With the help of that state-of-the-art technology, the dream of a better future for our children is so much closer. However, as the helpful briefing from the National Robotarium states,

“Robots are nothing without people”.

People need the right knowledge and skills to work with robotics technology, and those skills must be prioritised by Government agencies and funders through to colleges and universities.

In Scotland, we have a bright new generation of young people who can meet those skills needs. I believe that the planning for that should start at school, with courses and opportunities designed to prepare them to be part of our brave new world. Of course, the National Robotarium is on the case with that, too: it has launched a schools and outreach programme that is designed to drive engagement and broaden access to robotics and AI technologies.

I thank the member for her intervention—that is fantastic news. I really do congratulate the school, because that is what we need to see happening throughout schools in Scotland.

In collaboration with industry, the National Robotarium’s engagement programme is helping to upskill and reskill the UK workforce in robotic systems, technology and engineering. The National Robotarium is already a world leader in innovative technology, and all its staff who are involved in taking us there should be applauded for everything that they are doing. Scotland always punches above its weight when it comes to innovation, and we should be proud that the National Robotarium is our gold-standard champion.

The issue that we are debating has been highlighted in the chamber many times over the years—we have been debating it for 10 years, as Jackson Carlaw said—and I have taken a keen interest in it.

Now, thankfully, there is a ban on the use of transvaginal mesh implants, which was brought in by former health secretary Jeane Freeman and warmly welcomed by campaigners and their families.

Jackson Carlaw, whose motion we are debating, and former MSPs Neil Findlay and Alex Neil were at the forefront of the fight for justice for women, and they spearheaded the campaign for women victims of mesh.

Last year, the Scottish Government passed legislation to establish a £1 million fund to support women who were affected by mesh complications, who had received implants on the NHS but had to travel abroad to have them removed by an experienced clinician. Now, thankfully, we have a facility in Glasgow, with specially trained surgeons, where mesh removal can be carried out.

The scandal of women in Scotland—and, indeed, globally—whose lives have been ruined by transvaginal mesh will go down in history as one of the worst medical injustices for decades. However, in all honesty, the debate surrounding petition PE1865 has left me a bit confused. I am sympathetic to the petition, but I probably feel more confused, having listened to Jackson Carlaw and Sandesh Gulhane, who, it is clear, do not agree on it. However, good points have been made in the speeches of everyone who has spoken so far.

Essentially, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament

“to urge the Scottish Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices while—

a review of all surgical procedures which use polyester, polypropylene or titanium is carried out; and guidelines for the surgical use of mesh are established.”

It acknowledges that

“mesh must be used in life or death situations”

but adds the caveats that

“mesh is only used when essential; patients have alternatives to mesh; and mesh is only used with the fully informed consent of the patient.”

The petitioners want the use of mesh devices and stitches

“to be suspended while a review of all surgical procedures which implant any form of”

the materials that I have just mentioned—

“for example hernia mesh, rectomesh, mesh used in hysterectomies—is carried out and guidelines for the use of surgical mesh are established.”

They call for the suspension of the use of titanium ProTack devices, which, they claim, carry a cancer warning.

Crucially, however, the petition also recognises and supports

“women with TVT or pelvic mesh implants”

and acknowledges that

“the mesh that we are talking about is not the same.”

I am not a clinician, nor are the majority of MSPs—with notable exceptions. My opposition to women receiving mesh implants was based on hundreds of testimonies from women who had suffered life-changing injuries. However, as I have said, even the petitioners acknowledge that the type of mesh that is the subject of the petition is different from TVT. The fact is that many people have successfully had mesh inserted for hernia, and I do not know the data for those who have reported ill effects. Data is absolutely key to the issue, and I hope to learn more about that.

The obvious statement is that a review would cause delay for patients in getting treatment, at a time when, as we all know, delays are prevalent due to the intense and unprecedented pressure on the NHS. A review would take time to set up and to come to a conclusion. That would surely leave medics and patients in limbo.

The petitioners ask that

“mesh is only used when essential”,

but surely a surgeon would not use it unless he deemed it essential. They ask that

“patients have alternatives to mesh”.

I am unclear—how many of us know?—what options are available to surgeons to treat hernias and other conditions.

The petitioners also ask that mesh is

“only used with the fully informed consent of the patient.”

One of the stipulations since the scandal of TVT mesh is that patients have fully informed choice. That should be the norm for any surgical procedure that is undertaken. However, I take on board what Alex Cole-Hamilton has said.

The petitioners also acknowledge that

“mesh must be used in life or death situations”.

I suggest that only clinicians know the severity of any situation, and that they would make the correct choice to keep their patient alive.

The mesh scandal has been a long and difficult journey for the many hundreds of women in Scotland, and many more throughout the world, who have been affected by the devastating and life-changing symptoms and side-effects. We have come a long way in 10 years—although admittedly at a much slower pace than should have been the case—to stop women being affected in this way, and that has been acknowledged by the medical profession.

My issue with the petition is that, although it is undoubtedly well intentioned and heartfelt, I simply do not know whether there is justification for it. I am not sure whether the majority of us do. I am simply saying that there is uncertainty and that there could be unintended consequences. I agree with previous speakers. We must listen to the petitioners on what they have experienced, but my concern is that many patients would face delayed or less effective treatment if the petition were to be upheld.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether parents should have the right to appeal on school placement decisions. (S6O-01758)