Seòmar agus comataidhean

I congratulate Paul Sweeney and welcome him as deputy convener.

Thank you for that.

The complex mesh surgical service submission states that its service is primarily a surgical service. To what extent are the witnesses confident that women who engage with it are given a clear understanding of what treatment it can and cannot provide?

Good morning to the witnesses.

I think that my question is for Dr Mathers. For how many women seen by the service was surgery not advised and other forms of management or treatment advised instead? The committee did ask for that information before today’s meeting.

In the current financial circumstances, is it feasible for bespoke services to be established in every health board or region?

What are the benefits of a national service over a local one in supporting women who are affected by transvaginal mesh?

Is the issue with increasing the coverage of women’s sport, whether it is on digital platforms or mainstream media, simply financial? We have heard about restrictions as a result of the licence fee and the revenue that you get from advertising or from people buying online subscriptions. Is it the financial impact that is restricting you in covering more women’s sport, or are there any other problems in that area that your organisations face?

Louise Thornton mentioned digital platforms with regard to the diversity of women’s sport that is being covered. Do any other witnesses have ideas about how to increase the diversity of women’s sport that is covered?

Good morning. We have heard about what you are doing just now, but do you have targets for investing in the future of women’s sport and increasing coverage?

What are the difficulties for women from ethnic minority communities in participating and progressing in your sports?

Do any of the other panel members have anything to say?