Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not know whether you saw any of our evidence session with the Shouldice hospital. I understand that there are questions of geography but, in principle, Dr Spencer Netto said that he would be very happy to facilitate any access to the expertise that they have developed with their clinicians to benefit Scotland’s NHS, were that thought to be useful. They would be happy to explore that further if the Scottish Government wanted to pursue that.

I thank all three witnesses for giving evidence this morning.

Mr Sinclair, do you have any final thoughts?

Thank you. The possibility of such a referral is among the options that the committee has considered ahead of today’s evidence session. When we consider the evidence afresh, that will be one of the options that are open for us to explore further.

We have gone 20 minutes over the time that we thought we would need to discuss the petitions. I am very grateful to you all, because they are all very important petitions. They are thematically linked, but each has its own individual characteristics, and I very much appreciate the way that the witnesses both online and in the room have advocated on behalf of their petitions.

Historically, we used to hear from all petitioners, but the volume of petitions is now such that we do not hear from everybody. However, we all very much value the opportunity to meet and talk with petitioners and to hear them advocate on behalf of the petitions that they have lodged. It is still quite a big thing for petitioners to come before the Scottish Parliament and present their evidence in that way, probably thinking that they are up against a team of inquisitors. I hope that it has not proved to be too intimidating and that we have encouraged you to contribute as much as possible during the session.

I also thank our parliamentary colleagues who joined us for this morning’s session.

Thank you. Finally, I ask for a comment from Rhoda Grant.

This has absolutely been a substantive petition, and now the mood of the committee is to close it. I suggest that we write to the petitioners to thank them for submitting the petition and to say that we recognise the concerns that they and Rhoda Grant have articulated and that, if they feel that there is a justification for doing so, they could submit a petition that is focused directly on those concerns. Do colleagues agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues minded so to do?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, minister. That is very helpful.

The evidence that we have heard on the second area of mesh concern supports the view that there are nuances that mean that the way in which we might progress in future is different from the prognosis in relation to the transvaginal mesh campaign.

You mentioned the continuing conversations with Dr Veronikis. “Negotiations continue” has been the situation for as long as I can recall—in fact, I might even have been a list MSP when we first heard that said. I recognise that there is a commercial interest in the Missouri facility that Dr Veronikis operates, and I know that, at times, the conversations have been strained. However, inherent in the 2022 act is a belief that the facility would be one of the identified options and that something would be concluded with it. Therefore, naturally enough, expectations are raised that something will be forthcoming that can assist women in the near future. Some people will have thought that it would be even sooner than now. Is it difficult to say where we are in those negotiations and how they are proceeding?

I very much would. Thank you.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 10th meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

We have a number of interesting evidence sessions this morning, the first of which is on continued petition PE1865. It seems that the committee has been preoccupied with that petition for coming up to a decade. It almost feels like 10 meetings and 10 years of this important issue.

The petition, which was lodged by Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall, 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 that use polyester, polypropylene or titanium is carried out, and while guidelines for the surgical use of mesh are established.

We have previously met the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport, Maree Todd. I welcome her again and thank her for attending. We are also delighted to have with us the chief medical officer, Professor Sir Gregor Smith. Terry O’Kelly is back with us, but online. I say good morning to him as well.

We previously considered the petition in an online meeting in which we took evidence from Dr Fernando Spencer Netto of Shouldice hospital in Canada. A number of questions arise from all the evidence that we have heard.

As we have gone along, we have had a lot of evidence that many people have benefited from mesh as a treatment for hernias. However, I will start with a couple of back questions, as this might be the last time that we cover mesh in quite such wide detail.

In relation to the Transvaginal Mesh Removal (Cost Reimbursement) (Scotland) Act 2022, there have been some reports that we are still trying to negotiate—

Yes—I think that Mr O’Kelly would like to contribute.

Good morning, Mr O’Kelly—over to you.