I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I strongly welcome the opportunity for Parliament to have the debate. As a member of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I commend our committee convener, Jackson Carlaw, and my fellow committee members for the way that they have conducted themselves throughout the process. Today’s committee debate is an excellent example of what can be achieved.

I really hope that the petitioners have seen the debate and have taken from it many of the views that have been expressed. A common theme throughout scrutiny of the petition has been that campaigners feel that their views are not being heard and that they have not been listened to. Following the many passionate contributions that we have heard this afternoon, I hope that one of the things to come out of the debate will be that campaigners feel that the issue is being looked at and addressed by the Parliament.

The issues relating to use of transvaginal mesh have been documented extremely well. Many members have talked about the opportunities and flexibility in that regard. However, wider use of mesh and fixation devices has received much less scrutiny than has use of transvaginal mesh, so I thank the petitioners for their courage in lodging the petition and giving us the opportunity to debate it today.

Many of the themes and concerns that have been encountered will be widely recognised, given the long-running debate around transvaginal mesh. Many members talked about the work of Jackson Carlaw, Alex Neil and Neil Findlay in the previous parliamentary session on ensuring that concerns were listened to. Once again, that shows how the Parliament can, when we work together, achieve great things for the people whom we represent.

We have heard distressing accounts from individuals who have had their lives turned upside down due to mesh-related complications. Some people wrote of how they undertook having the procedure in good faith; they were not necessarily aware of many of the risks. It is to their credit that, through the pain following their procedure, they decided to talk publicly about the process. It is widely recognised that many individuals suffered in extreme ways, and continue to suffer. We have a role to play in ensuring that that is recognised in the Parliament. We should be their voice, and today has shown how that can be achieved.

What many members have said about the process is vital. We have heard that the Scottish Health Technologies Group continues to support use of mesh in hernia procedures, but there have been many mesh-related complications. Many members spoke about that in relation to constituents with whom they have had personal contact.

We have the opportunity to ensure that there is greater clarity when it comes to certain types of devices that are used in procedures. That said, our experience of dealing with transvaginal mesh and the technology associated with it shows that many people have experienced problems. Members have talked about that.

It is important to consider pathways of alternative treatment to mesh. Those have been discussed today. Dr Fernando Spencer Netto, from the Shouldice hospital in Canada, gave evidence to the committee and made suggestions; it has been useful to hear from other members about what has been happening at that hospital. When it comes to managing treatment, Scotland’s healthcare system is, of course, different from Canada’s, and it has different population demographics. Nevertheless, the Government should seriously consider the lessons that can be learned from what is happening in Canada.

As expected, a number of important and passionate contributions have been made in today’s debate; I would like to dwell on them for a moment or two. Our convener, Jackson Carlaw, talked about the life-changing effects of the procedures. He said that the Scottish Health Technologies Group suggests that 10,500 hernia repairs take place in Scotland each year. Of those procedures, 62 per cent use mesh, and there are 32 procedures to remove mesh each year. However, there is not enough data to find out the reasons for that.

In his opening speech, the cabinet secretary acknowledged the distress that is caused to patients and the adverse effects that they have suffered. That is vital. He talked about issues regarding data collection and said that there should be local clinical groups rather than a national centre, as the petitioners have suggested.

My colleague Dr Sandesh Gulhane, who has expert knowledge and experience in relation to the matter, talked about the need for such petitions so that we have the opportunity to debate and discuss issues. He spoke about what is happening in Canada and the risks and complications relating to patient size, infections, chronic pain and numbness. It is vital that we consider all that in order that we give the best treatment to everyone.

Jackie Baillie gave a very strong and passionate speech, as she always does on health topics, and I enjoyed it greatly. She talked about how the Scottish Government must learn lessons, which is important. She also talked about people’s lived experience and said that pathways are needed, which is vitally important, and she talked about how there were 10 years when nothing happened. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take on board all the comments that she made.

Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke about the risks, the side-effects and the tragic stories that we have all had to deal with. That is the crux of the matter; we have all heard about and seen the lived experiences of constituents.

Meghan Gallacher, too, spoke about data and the evidence-based approach. She also talked about the waiting times that everyone is experiencing at present and about how the knock-on effects could have a real impact on the way forward.

Emma Harper, who is a nurse, spoke about how mesh is a crucial tool. She also said that people should be treated with kindness, compassion and respect. We hope that that would be the case for all individuals, but we have seen and heard that many people have found it not to be the case.

Brian Whittle spoke about how affected he was and what he saw during the transvaginal mesh situation.

Today, we have had a real opportunity to hear about mesh at first hand. I hope that the cloud of all our warning signals ensures that we do not see the same mistakes as were made in the past being made. We owe it to everyone who has suffered due to mesh in the past, and those who risk it still in the future, to do all that we can to ensure that they are listened to, understood and respected as a result of the report.

I commend the petitioners for what they have done so far.

I am grateful for the opportunity to scrutinise the revised national planning framework 4. These are challenging and uncertain times, and Scotland is facing challenges from many different directions. With an on-going housing shortage, with the nature of our town and city centres continually changing and with the reality of the journey to net zero becoming clearer than ever, there has never been a greater need for an effective planning framework.

There will, no doubt, be different opinions from members across the chamber regarding the proposals. However, Parliament will be in agreement about many of the stated priorities in the framework.

It is surprising that certain important aspects of planning are not featured in the revised NPF4 as prominently as they should have been and as we thought they would be. For example, a successful planning framework should be clearer about how it will improve the form of buildings as well as their function.

We can all agree that principles such as ensuring a just transition, promoting local living and revitalising rural communities fully deserve to be placed at the centre of this important framework. Indeed, given the importance of NPF4, it is perhaps disappointing that stakeholders were not given more time to fully scrutinise the proposals. Certain stakeholders, such as the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers and Heads of Planning Scotland, have even suggested that the process has felt rushed. Planning authorities need clarity about the direction of NPF4, but it is important that stakeholders are fully involved at each stage of the process and that they are given enough time to fully reflect.

That being said, I welcome the fact that the revised draft includes improvements compared with the original draft that was published in November 2021. Those improvements were made in response to an array of stakeholder comments, as the minister acknowledged in his opening remarks. I particularly welcome the addition of a delivery programme for the framework, although, as stakeholders such as Scottish Renewables and Homes for Scotland have highlighted, much more still needs to be done on that. The programme has been recognised by many in the sector, but we need to think about what is planned.

Heads of Planning Scotland is right to highlight that the current delivery programme fails to provide enough clarity on issues such as funding for local councils and partner organisations. For example, there is still uncertainty about the resourcing of local authority planning departments. That point has already been raised by a number of members and I have no doubt that it will be raised again before we conclude this afternoon.

Heads of Planning Scotland has also stated that there are still “serious concerns” about resources. That has to be looked at in the context of the current situation. Our Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee has stated that the issue appears to be the biggest obstacle to delivery of NPF4 and that clear assurances are needed from the Government on how things will be funded.

NPF4 states that planning authorities will be key stakeholders in delivering the framework. That is correct. However, as things stand, it is not clear whether departments are equipped to step up to the role, which is disappointing, and addressing the issue has only made some of the challenges more fundamental.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has set out that the Scottish Government’s most recent budget means that council services will be at breaking point. The risk that that will have a knock-on effect on the delivery of any future planning framework should be understood. Going forward, the onus will be on the Scottish Government to ensure that successful delivery of NPF4 is not hindered by local government funding cuts.

I will touch on how the framework might affect small businesses, and particularly those in the tourism sector. The Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers has pointed out that the traditional self-catering sector is already facing an increased burden due to the introduction of the short-term lets licensing scheme. Policy 30 and the further restrictions that it might impose on the sector risk adding a further regulatory burden. That is not where we want to be when we are trying to support small businesses.

In taking NPF4 forward, the Government must ensure that it carefully considers how policy 30 will work in practice and whether the self-catering sector will be able to properly thrive. Members on the Conservative benches have made it clear that NPF4 must be a framework that protects the interests of local communities. It must deliver on housing and on environmental and biodiversity goals, and it must achieve that while ensuring that businesses have the freedom that they need to fully prosper. They need to survive and thrive, and the framework should be there to ensure that they do that. However, certain areas in NPF4 are causing businesses real concern.

To support businesses, the Scottish Government must ensure that local government is properly resourced. It must ensure that it listens to the feedback of all stakeholders and businesses. Clarity is important when it comes to communities, which want to see the process work. Communities across the length and breadth of the country have engaged with the process, but they remain concerned that there is still some way to go.

Although the Parliament will, no doubt, have a role to play in improving the framework in the future, communities should be placed at the centre of the process. That is an important idea behind the framework. As things stand, however, more work still needs to be done and more communities need to be listened to. When the framework is delivered, it must be community led and it must be delivered according to the priorities that have been set. We are not yet sure that that will be the case.

It is:

“The Scottish Government believes that the licensing scheme for the control of mountain hares … does not impact on the ability of falconers to enable their birds to exhibit normal behaviour patterns.”

I will touch on the issue of access. The Scottish Government set the standard of 90 per cent of individuals being referred within 18 weeks. That is not being achieved—the most recent statistics, from September 2022, showed a figure of 80.7 per cent. When does the Scottish Government see the opportunity to reach that standard of 90 per cent, and what is it doing to support that aspiration?

You mentioned suicide bereavement services. There are pilot schemes in Ayrshire and Arran and in the Highland health board region, and there is the potential for a more widespread or national service across Scotland. Are there plans for that, and can you outline what other forms of support are available to families who are affected by suicide? What further developments are planned to try, once again, to bridge the gap?

The profession says that the licensing scheme is unworkable in the situation. It has indicated that it is completely unworkable because the birds are not able to “exhibit normal behaviour patterns.” You indicated that 21 licences have been issued, which is a small number.

Do you not believe, minister, that that is a very small number of licences to have been issued for that whole profession?

It is imperative that we write to the Scottish Government to ask for its view on whether there are differences, as the petitioner indicates, in the considerations that are given to local knowledge and scientific knowledge. We should also ask how it ensures that people with poor internet access, particularly in rural areas, are given the opportunity to respond to public consultation and what changes the Government intends to make in its practices, including the development of the delivery of conservation policy, following the representations in the report of the independent working group.

It would also be useful to write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to seek information about the number of cases of motorcycle theft in each of the past five years and the outcomes of those cases.

You have touched on population issues. We know that NHS boards with larger populations have mental health assessment units that are available 24/7. That is really useful for larger populations, but the issue is in trying to evaluate these services, cabinet secretary. Is the Scottish Government looking to make it much more of a national service? You have touched on the issue of rural areas, where, as you have identified, it is a much bigger challenge for you to make that happen. There is a disparity between what happens in urban areas and what happens in rural areas, which do not have the same support and opportunities, and patients might fall through the gap.