Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to move amendment 4 and to speak to amendments 4 and 3 in my name. The amendments flow from the evidence that the committee took prior to stage 1 of the bill.

The policy intention behind amendment 4 is straightforward. It extends the eligibility period for women who have arranged surgery for mesh removal. Members will recall that the original cut-off date that was suggested by the Government was 12 July 2021, and the committee was clear that, to capture as many women as possible, we needed to be as generous and flexible with eligibility criteria as possible, and we did not want any unnecessary barriers to be placed in the way of women accessing reimbursement. At the time, the cabinet secretary said that he would give the matter further consideration, so here I am with my two amendments.

Amendments 4 and 3 have the same effect, but achieve the desired outcome in two different ways. It is very much for the committee to decide which it would prefer.

Amendment 4 places a provision in the bill to say that, in order to qualify, any removal surgery must have been arranged before royal assent. Amendment 3 stipulates that the date will be specified in the scheme but that it can be no earlier than the date of royal assent. Ultimately, the difference is whether members want to put the qualifying date in the bill or in the scheme.

I move amendment 4.

I have a couple of quick questions.

One witness—I cannot remember who—identified poverty and inequality as being among the main barriers to access. I suspect that you would all do that, so I will put my question to Kim Atkinson. Access to facilities for disadvantaged communities has been, and continues to be, a perennial problem. My example is of a local football team in a disadvantaged area. It costs them £100 for one session on a local football pitch that is owned by the local authority. How do we get beyond that, so that we remove barriers to access?

Given that we all agree, is your action plan, with revenue attached, the route in?

I have never known a politician refuse to speak, convener.

I wonder whether it would be possible, in addition to writing the Scottish Government, to consider writing to Play Scotland, organisations that represent mother and toddler groups and educational psychologists to see whether there is any impact on socialisation.

Thank you, convener, for that kind comment.

I thank you and the committee for the opportunity to speak. Katrina Clark is my constituent. We certainly miss having petitioners at the committee, because we as MSPs are very much second best to them, but I will try to do her petition justice.

Obviously, Katrina wants baby and toddler groups to be open should we ever be in a tier 3 position again. We are all thankful that we are no longer operating under those restrictions; we should recognise that the guidance that was produced at the time and the levels of restrictions that were put in place were developed at pace, which led to some anomalies and inconsistencies. At the heart of the petition is an understanding that we should review what we did, learn from it and ensure that if we are ever in the position of having to impose restrictions again, we can do so proportionately.

Katrina’s principal aim, which I think is one that we all share, is to limit any detrimental impact on babies and toddlers so that they are not unduly disadvantaged. She acknowledges the importance of play, as we all would; the Scottish Government addresses that point in its response.

Katrina is also concerned about socialisation. For a year, mums and babies missed the opportunity to interact with one another and mums missed the opportunity to get mutual support from one another. The First Minister recognised that point in relation to supporting the mental health and wellbeing of mothers and babies.

It is about weighing up the threat that is posed by Covid against the loss of that socialisation and play for mothers and babies at a critical juncture in their lives. We are all aware of some of the contradictions, such as soft play not being allowed at all between levels 2 and 4 but adults being able to go tenpin bowling or to pubs and restaurants. It is that inconsistency that people do not understand and would like to be reviewed.

In essence, Katrina’s petition is about ensuring that babies and toddlers will not be disadvantaged should we ever be back in a place where we are experiencing restrictions. I hope that the committee support that, as well as the general notion that we should review the restrictions that were put in place to see whether they were fit for purpose.

Is the delay the responsibility of the referring health board? It sounds as if referrals are made but there is pressure on your service that prevents you from seeing people as quickly as you would like.

That is helpful and clear.

I would like to ask a question that is not directly linked to the bill but is about a matter of concern that we have heard about and discussed this morning. It has been raised by the women who are affected and relates to waiting times. We heard that 20 women were waiting for surgery. Dr Jamieson rightly pointed out that it was unlikely that the 12-week treatment time guarantee would be fulfilled. For reasons of elective surgery being cancelled because of Covid, that is perfectly understandable.

There are 64 women who have been reviewed, but the suspicion is that many more have been referred—we do not know how many and I would welcome it if the figures were provided for that—and some are waiting for up to two years. I will read you a couple of quotes. One woman said:

“Just had a letter today from my gynaecologist in Paisley that it’s taking two years for referral to the Mesh Service”,

which is part of the same health board. Another comment that was made was:

“I had an MRI in September which showed inflammation around mesh. I was told they would send me an appointment to discuss it with the Mesh Service. My initial appointment is July 2022, ten months after the MRI.”

What can you do to improve those waiting times? I am sure that you agree that those women have waited long enough.

Is 12 July quite an arbitrary date? Equally, could another date be picked?

You are suggesting that it will not be long, but we are all aware that winter pressures are coming. Would not it be more realistic to plan on the basis that it will not be until after the winter that you will be back doing full surgery on the 20 mesh women?