Official Report · Committee
Polypropylene Mesh Medical Devices (PE1517)
The next petition is PE1517, by Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy, on behalf of the Scottish mesh survivors’ hear our voice campaign, on mesh medical devices. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
I welcome to the meeting Neil Findlay MSP, who has an interest in the petition, and I invite contributions from members.
This is an interim update on the petition, which we all regard as being of considerable importance. I know that the clerks have recommended a series of actions, which follow on from the direction that we have previously agreed. I am happy to accept the action points that have been identified. We are
“invited to note the revised timescale for publication of the Independent Review’s report and agree that the evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary, Dr Wilkie and the European Commission be scheduled after the report has been published”.
That recommendation is consistent with our previous view.
It is also recommended that the committee
“write to the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks to make it aware of the Committee’s interest and requesting an update on when”
its report on polypropylene transvaginal mesh devices will be published.
It is further proposed that
“as the Committee has not yet sought the views of the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists or the British Society of”—
I am not even going to attempt to pronounce the next word—
“members may wish to consider seeking submissions from those organisations”.
That seems perfectly sensible, too.
The committee is very much at the forefront in taking forward these issues. The extent to which public awareness is continuing to grow across Scotland and further afield is interesting. There is great interest in the committee’s work to make progress on the matter. Throughout our consideration of the petition, we have been determined not to lose sight of the very considerable human consequences, to which we have borne witness, and I think that we should continue to follow that course of action.
I am merely here to observe proceedings. Jackson Carlaw is absolutely right that the eyes of the medical world are on the committee in relation to the petition and all that falls from it. I am very supportive of the proposals that have been put forward. As I say, many people are watching what is happening very closely.
I can now pronounce the name of the body in question: it is the British Society of Urogynaecology. My eyes were just not looking at the paperwork at the right moment.
I support Jackson Carlaw’s suggestions on what actions the committee should take, but I want to strengthen them slightly.
I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport has written to the Commission to find out about the new timetable for the publication of the report. When the committee writes to the European Commission’s scientific committee, we should stress the timetable issue, because we are keen to examine its report.
We should also refer the Commission to the evidence that we have heard. I have visited the European Commission as a member of other Scottish Parliament committees, and I know that it is interested in some of the Parliament’s debates and that it is keen to hear about some of the evidence that we take so that it can add that knowledge to its own.
I am keen that the report takes on board the concerns, issues and problems that patients have identified. We have previously heard evidence from Adam Slater. It is incumbent on us to refer on some of the patients’ evidence—that may be their articles or the website that has been developed—so that account is taken of their experiences. It would be useful to add that information to our correspondence with the European Commission’s scientific committee, so that it gets the whole picture of the debate that is taking place in our committee and in Scotland.
When Mr Slater gave his evidence, he agreed to forward us several pieces of documentation. I have not received those yet and I do not know whether they have been received by the committee clerks. If they have not, could we follow that up, because it is important?
Okay, we will follow that up. I remember that being mentioned quite clearly. The interest in the petition is worldwide. What is interesting for me is that the number of mesh implants has reduced considerably since the issue was first raised here. I am very disappointed that the independent review has not been completed yet.
Taking on board the points that John Wilson and others have made, I suggest that we go forward with the action points and write to say how disappointed we are, given that there are women out there who are going through worrying times, and that any further delays in the independent review will not be helpful.
Do members agree to take forward the proposed action points?
Members indicated agreement.
I have a point of information. The European and External Relations Committee also took evidence on the issue and there may be more information available from its clerks.
We have agreed to take forward the action points. I thank Neil Findlay for attending the meeting.
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.