Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, minister. I acknowledge and applaud the Government’s forthcoming bill on transvaginal mesh. That is a complete and comprehensive response to an earlier petition that, in the light of the bill, we were able to close at an earlier meeting. That petition was lodged by Elaine Holmes, one of my constituents, and Olive McIlroy. Having spoken to them, I know that they are really pleased. They have had meetings with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and have been reassured by the approach that the Government is taking.

My final point in relation to transvaginal mesh is that, at a recent meeting of the Parliament’s cross-party group on chronic pain, which I attended, although there was enthusiastic recognition of the bill, one or two women were concerned that some of the problems that had been experienced some years ago, with clinicians suggesting that some of the problems were illusory, were resurfacing and that they were being encouraged to request a mesh option. I point that out to the minister. It would be helpful to ensure that, at all times, we do not lose sight of future concerns of women who might be considered for such an option, given the various actions and prohibitions that the Government has put in place. I know that redress, recovery and restitution will be at the heart of the forthcoming bill.

When we first considered transvaginal mesh, there was a claim that there was a lack of evidence to support the concerns of the original petitioners and an assertion that there was an appropriate level of informed consent. I am struck that those two phrases reappear in the submissions that we have received. There is mention of a lack of evidence of concern about the use of mesh more widely, particularly in males. We know that men can, in general, be less forthcoming about their health concerns. I know that many men watched with interest the way in which women were able to come together and represent effectively the issues relating to transvaginal mesh.

The cabinet secretary referred to the lack of evidence, and the minister referred to the Scottish Health Technologies Group’s report, which says that the advice for NHS Scotland was that

“surgical mesh should be used for elective repair of inguinal hernia in adult males, following a process of shared decision making and informed consent.”

What process is in place to identify difficulties that have arisen? There was no such process for women in relation to transvaginal mesh. What is the process of giving informed consent? In the case of mesh in women, the process was published, was available in general practitioner surgeries and was very much to the fore of conversations that subsequently took place with patients. With respect to the matter that we are considering today, how are those two issues properly covered and reflected?

Do you have a supplementary, Mr Sweeney?

Do members have any other comments?

Yes, we can do that, too.

We will keep the petition open, as it touches on issues that require to be clarified. We will consider the petition again when we have received responses from the various parties to which we have agreed to write.

Returning to the minister, I will have to put her on the spot by asking whether the funding will indeed be available for recording that information.

I interrupted you earlier to go to Mr O’Kelly, minister. Was there anything more that you wanted to say?

Thank you. I call David Torrance.

That brings us to the end of our consideration of new petitions. We will have a short suspension to allow witnesses to join us.

In the interests of time, we will leave that question.

Given how the Government is approaching the matter, with the detailed schedule of actions, and given that it will share the details of the petition and its response, I am minded to close the petition. A package of actions seems to be in place.

I agree, however, that there are two actions that we could take. First, we could ask the Scottish Government, in developing its consultation, whether it would be possible to consult or potentially utilise the petitioners themselves, given that they are an organised interested party. I also think that it would be useful to pick up Paul Sweeney’s suggestion about giving more focus to best practice, and to do so with the appropriate level of enthusiasm and zest.

Beyond that, given that the Government is going to share the petition and is taking forward many of its aims, I am minded to close the petition.