Continued Petitions

I call the meeting to order—in particular, those who are not members of the committee. Our next continued petition is PE1517, on polypropylene mesh medical devices, which was lodged by Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy.

We last considered the petition in June 2018. Since then, the committee published its report in August 2018, to which the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport responded in June this year. In that response, the cabinet secretary outlined the actions that the Scottish Government has taken that are relevant to the issues in the petition. The petitioners have recently provided a written submission in response to the cabinet secretary’s letter: it is included in our papers.

The petitioners’ submission acknowledges that significant progress has been made by the petition, including suspension of the use of polypropylene transvaginal mesh—TVM—procedures, mandatory reporting of all adverse incidents by health professionals and the establishment of a national complex case review unit.

The petitioners’ submission also raises some concerns, however, particularly with regard to plans to reintroduce use of polypropylene TVM procedures and the establishment of a national complex case review unit within NHS Scotland rather than within NHS Lothian, as the petitioners requested. The petitioners have contacted the clerks to highlight an important point that they feel has been missed in our meeting papers, which is that they have “more” confidence in the clinicians within NHS Lothian than they have in those in other NHS boards. That is not to say that they have full confidence in any Scotland-based clinician, based on their experiences.

I welcome Neil Findlay. I know that he has a long-standing interest in the petition. It might be helpful to us if he was to make a contribution at this point, to inform the committee.

I will do so briefly. I do not want to take up too much of the committee’s time. I noticed in the committee papers a reference to the Scottish Government’s having approached Dr Veronikis, the surgeon from the United States, to come to Scotland. It would be worth the committee’s while to take evidence from the Scottish Government and Dr Veronikis on progress on that. I have made inquiries, but it has been difficult to find out what progress has been made. I urge the committee to do that so that we can get a full update on what progress, if any, has been made.

Perhaps we can, in the first instance, simply write to the Scottish Government and ask for an update. We could certainly share that information with the petitioners. The matter is ongoing: there has been a suggestion that Dr Veronikis has been involved, but I think that some people are sceptical.

It might be worth the committee’s while to write to both parties.

Does anyone else want to comment?

It feels to me that the petitioners’ lack of confidence in what the Scottish Government is doing is still quite marked. It is certainly not helped by the suggestion in the paperwork that the chief medical officer might be continuing to explore when the procedure could be reintroduced.

My understanding is that the Government is waiting to see what happens in England and Wales. There was a move by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on possible reintroduction of mesh in England and Wales, but there is a Government review under Baroness Cumberlege, who stepped in and said that nothing should be done until she has completed her review.

There is real concern. The offer was made last November for Dr Veronikis to come here; we are heading for November again and we do not see anything happening. In the interim, women are having to crowd fund and rely on benefactors to get to America for mesh removal. That is worth investigation by the committee.

No other member has comments. I think that we agree to write directly to the Scottish Government on the role of Dr Veronikis, on the concerns that have been raised by the petitioners about long-term suspension of TVM, and on the work that is being done to support women who need reversal and what the pathway is for mesh-injured women in Scotland. That question is something that comes out in the evidence.

You said that you will write to the Scottish Government; will the committee also write to the other parties? On the pathways that are available and what is being done in Scotland, it is absolutely imperative that we hear from patients, because their view of what is actually being offered on that pathway and what is presented as being offered are very different. For example, the view from the clinicians is that full mesh removal is available in Scotland, but the view from patients is that it is not.

Anyone can make a submission to the Public Petitions Committee when they have heard the evidence. The only issue that I will raise is the question of timing. Do we want the Scottish Government’s response, then get petitioners to respond to that? Of course, that would not prohibit them at any point from giving evidence of the direct experience that they have heard from fellow sufferers. We will not block information, but we need to think about how to ensure that we have full information. We hope that people will do that.

I think that the committee agrees that there continue to be more questions than answers. There is a high level of concern from petitioners, in the sense that they do not have much confidence in anybody. Even within the system, they have more confidence in NHS Lothian than they have in other boards. These things will not just go away, and I am sure that the Scottish Government will want to address them. It is clear that the committee wants to take the matter forward. The petitioners and others who want to do so will have the opportunity to respond.

With that, I thank Neil Findlay for his attendance.