Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a contribution. I have met some of the petitioners on a number of occasions, including this week. The lead petitioners are both constituents. One of them has suffered quite severe complications as a result of the hernia mesh procedure; the other is the daughter of a deceased person who was also a constituent and who underwent the hernia mesh procedure. They are working with a range of campaigners across Scotland—and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom—who are collating information about the complications.

The submission that I made to the committee very much focuses on data. As the convener said, we had the opportunity to meet the minister and, as a result of that, we had a subsequent meeting with medical advisers and officials. It is clear to the petitioners that there is a lack of data in relation to the extent of the problem.

I have previously advised the committee of freedom of information requests that were submitted to health boards. We did not get information from many health boards, but the information that we got was concerning. The petitioners are concerned about the basis on which work is proceeding. Frankly, the data that we have does not truly reflect the scale of the number of people who have complications. That was the focus of the written representation that I made to the committee.

I wonder whether the committee would be willing to engage further with the Scottish Government on the issue, as it is clearly not an issue that will go away. The petitioners and many others continue to suffer the consequences of the hernia mesh procedure, and the campaign will continue. It would be appropriate for the Scottish Parliament to be engaged with that in order to ensure that an evidence-based approach is taken and that work is undertaken to gather such evidence.

You are saying that, in relation to the proposed legislation, you believe that there is a gap in domestic homicide and suicide reviews, but there might be some cases in which that work has already been done so a review will not be needed, and that will be taken into account in deciding whether a referral is made. I understand the resource points that you are making. I fully understand those and I am more than sympathetic to them. I have listened carefully and I am extremely concerned, as I am sure we all are. However, if there is a gap, the Parliament needs to decide whether to legislate. Emma, will you comment on that?

That suggests that you are asking us to look at the circumstances in which a referral is made. You are saying that there might be situations in which there is no need for a full review process because there have been many multilayered reviews that have already captured much of that information. Are you saying that we need to be aware of that and look at whether the bill delivers on it? Is that fair?

I will come to Fiona first, if that is okay, to ask about the role of families in the process, because the way that I have become involved in individual cases has almost always been through families. Those who are left behind often have a huge amount of knowledge of what has happened. How do you envisage that families would be involved in the process?

Given that the proposal is for anonymity—I understand that that is how it operates in Wales—to what extent do you think there should be full disclosure with families? Dr Scott made a point about the situation in which the perpetrator is or may be a family member, which is a slightly different situation. In a situation in which there is no suggestion that the family are in any way involved, how do you see the role of families in the process? What would you recommend?

Beyond that, you think that the process should be anonymous and that those who have access to the report should be highly restricted. Is that the conclusion that you have come to?

I ask Marsha Scott to come in on that as well.

You have all made the case very strongly about the resource and financial pressures on the system, in local government and health and across the public sector. You have also made a powerful case in relation to duplication. It seems to me that the multilayered review system, as you describe it, exists in some cases—we perhaps need to deal with that—but there are other situations where that is not a feature. An example is the situation, as we understand it, in relation to Fiona Drouet’s daughter. I am involved in a case where, as far as I am aware, there is no review process. There are cases where there are no drugs issues, or no children are involved, or there is no social work involvement already. Is it fair to say that we need to look at those scenarios in different ways?

The committee’s role is to scrutinise what is in the bill. I appreciate and completely understand that you are not draftspeople, but are you saying that, in terms of the policy that we are trying to achieve, we perhaps need to ensure that those different scenarios are dealt with in different ways, in the bill and in the regulations that will come thereafter? Are you saying that you accept that there is a gap that needs to be addressed, but that there are other situations where there are already a range of review processes?

Is it your understanding from all the meetings that you have been to that the policy intention is to have a review in every case where there is a death that meets the definition?

I do not know a lot of the detail of how the process operates in Wales or the role of families there. Have you been able to look at that?

I presume that your view is that the report and other information should be shared with families and that there should be disclosure with families. Is that fair?