Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do any of the online witnesses have anything to add?

If not, my final question is about how we ensure the availability of a diverse range of education. There have been several references to green jobs as well as to some of the caring professions that parents on low incomes look to. How do we ensure that a truly diverse range of opportunities—which the economy needs and which will lead to well-paid employment—are available to low-income parents?

Keith Robson, do you want to come in on that?

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee again.

I met both petitioners yesterday. Roseanna Clerkin is personally affected, as one of the individuals who has suffered from debilitating chronic pain and life-altering injury after undergoing a mesh procedure. Lauren McDougall’s mother, who has now passed away, was also affected, and I know that the committee has received testimonies from many other individuals who have been affected.

As the committee knows, the mesh used in hernia operations is different to transvaginal mesh, but many of the issues are similar, and they affect both men and women. However, there is a lack of data on the extent of the problem. That is why the petitioners are asking for an independent review; they want that data to be gathered, and the use of surgical mesh and fixation devices to be suspended until such a review has been concluded.

I have submitted freedom of information requests to every health board in Scotland, because I wanted to know the number of patients who were treated for hernias using surgical mesh and who had been readmitted to hospital following complications that arose from mesh. Most health boards did not provide information, but some did respond. NHS Ayrshire and Arran revealed that 8 per cent of all patients who were implanted with mesh to treat a hernia in its hospitals were subsequently readmitted due to complications arising from the mesh, while NHS Lanarkshire said that the figure was 10 per cent.

That data suggests that the petitioners are right to highlight the need for a review to explore the issue further, yet the Scottish Government continues to refuse to engage with them—indeed, the minister and the former minister refused to meet with the petitioners directly. Given that lack of engagement with the petitioners by Scottish ministers, I urge the committee to consider asking the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care to appear before the committee and give evidence so that we can consider the issues further.

As I have indicated, I do not plan to press amendment 23 to the vote. However, I fear that this is not an issue that will go away, because the injuries that are suffered by the people who are affected are significant. The minister is, of course, the decision maker in this matter. I look forward to engaging further with her on the issue, and I strongly urge her to meet campaigners and to give further consideration to these matters.

Amendment 23, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 12—Power to require information

I lodged amendment 23 having worked with campaigners who are suffering from debilitating chronic pain and life-altering injury after undergoing a mesh procedure.

Members will be aware of previous debates about transvaginal mesh and the detrimental impact that it has had on many lives. The mesh that is used in procedures such as hernia operations is different, but a significant number of people who have had hernia mesh procedures are experiencing health issues that are similar to those that were faced by women who were implanted with transvaginal mesh.

I have been contacted by a number of women and men who are affected. However, the lack of data means that we cannot establish the true scale of the issue. I have tried to gather data on the issue by submitting freedom of information requests to every health board in Scotland. I wanted to know the number of patients with a hernia who were treated with surgical mesh and who were subsequently readmitted to hospital because of complications arising from the mesh. Most health boards did not provide that information, but those that did supplied data that is concerning. NHS Ayrshire and Arran revealed that 8 per cent of all patients with a hernia who were treated with surgical mesh were subsequently readmitted to hospital because of complications arising from the mesh. In NHS Lanarkshire, that figure rose to 10 per cent.

Campaigners such as my constituents Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall have sought meetings with successive ministers to discuss an independent review of the use of surgical mesh and fixation devices in the national health service. So far, ministers have refused to meet those campaigners or to recognise the need for an independent review. I hope that my probing amendment will enable the minister to reconsider the issues and the need for a meeting, and to look at the case for an independent review.

Amendment 23 would require the patient safety commissioner to undertake an investigation into the use of surgical mesh within the first year of their appointment. The purpose of the investigation would be threefold: it would establish the scale of use of surgical mesh to treat hernias; it would provide data on the number of patients with a hernia that was treated using mesh who have subsequently been readmitted to hospital because of complications arising from the mesh; and it would outline the number of complaints that health boards have received from patients about complications arising from mesh and the details of those complications. The patient safety commissioner would then be expected to reach a conclusion on whether NHS Scotland should suspend the use of surgical mesh to treat hernias.

I do not intend to press amendment 23 to a vote today, but I will listen carefully to what the minister says. I hope that she will engage with people who have been affected, look into the issues further and explore the need for an independent review.

I move amendment 23.

I will ask about workplace issues. We previously heard a lot of evidence about the difficulties with recruitment and retention that are linked to pay and conditions and, indeed, even to the remuneration of those who are running small—[Inaudible.]. Today, we have heard further evidence on some of the other financial struggles that the sector faces. What do you think the Scottish Government do about that?

On the point that Beverley is making, which she covered in the First 4 Kids submission, does she have any proposals for how some of those ideas could be taken forward—in relation to people who are working in childcare also having roles as classroom assistants, for example? Does she have any practical suggestions about that?

Given that there is probably a limited amount of money, decisions will have to be taken. Are the witnesses of the view that it is right for the Scottish Government to target things in the way that it is doing? Is it making the right decisions, or would you criticise its approach or say that the issue needs to be looked at again?

I think that Matthew Sweeney wants to come in.

Do the witnesses have any specific proposals with regard to eligibility criteria that focus on tackling and reducing child poverty? Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages to focusing on some issues, particularly low incomes. There are arguments, which I think Irene Audain was putting forward earlier, for focusing more generally on all working parents, both those currently in work and those who are not. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of prioritising groups? Is it better to have a more universal approach?