Chamber and committees

I am very pleased that the committee has given me this opportunity to speak to the petition on behalf of my constituent, Ms Janet Weatheritt. Ms Weatheritt is one of many women whose lives and livelihoods have been harmed by complications following mesh implants. She had two vaginal mesh devices fitted in 2012 and 2013, and has had to endure chronic pain and has been prescribed multiple medications since that time. Her story speaks to the heart of the injustice that those who have suffered from mesh complications face.

Ms Weatheritt travelled to the USA in August last year. She had a referral for surgery for mesh removal with Dr Veronikis. The removal procedure was successful; however, Ms Weatheritt has suffered post-removal complications. She was advised at the time of the removal that she required medical repairs. She has reported that Doctor Veronikis lamented that he could perform the repairs “there and then”, but the contract with the NHS allowed only for mesh removal and any post-surgery repairs would have to be done back in the United Kingdom.

Ms Weatheritt was then advised through the national services division that the agreed position was that any post-removal reconstructive surgery would be undertaken in Scotland by local services. Questions remain over whether her aftercare can be done locally within NHS Lanarkshire or whether it will require a further referral. Indeed, Ms Weatheritt’s NHS Lanarkshire consultant has already raised issues to do with post-surgery care with the national transvaginal mesh accountable officers’ group.

Ms Weatheritt’s case is emotive. She has faced intense uncertainty, unbearable pain, delay and disappointment. Although she is relieved that the mesh has been removed, she is still in need of medical help.

I would ask the committee to ensure that it prioritises a clear clinical pathway for mesh use and removal that sets out accurate expectations for those who require surgery or post-surgery care of repairs following removal from a funded provider outwith NHS Scotland.

Ms Weatheritt is keen that those considering travelling for surgery are aware of her experience so that they can make a fully informed decision about whether to go ahead with mesh removal outwith Scotland. She also hopes that her experience informs the committee as it deliberates on the petition.

I have taken up Ms Weatheritt’s concerns with NHS Lanarkshire and the minister. However, women—anyone—affected by mesh deserve our continued support and care not just in relation to what has happened the past; that needs to be provided for their present and future, to ensure that they have the best possible outcomes and quality of life.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to the petition this morning.

Thank you. I trust that you can hear me, convener.

Good morning, and a warm welcome to the seventh meeting of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee in 2024. Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. Are members content to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next item of business is to choose a deputy convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party are eligible for nomination as deputy convener. I understand that Alexander Stewart MSP is the party’s nominee. Does any member disagree with that nomination? I see no disagreement from members, so I congratulate Alexander Stewart on his appointment as deputy convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee.

Alexander Stewart was chosen as deputy convener.

The next item is the committee’s on-going inquiry in relation to the review of the European Union-United Kingdom trade and co-operation agreement. We are joined virtually this morning by our panel members and I ask them to introduce themselves.

A very warm welcome to you both. Thank you very much for your report, which the committee members were all made aware of before today’s session. You suggest in the report that two key factors will shape the TCA review. The first is political will, which we talk about quite a lot in this committee, and the other is the process of how the review will take place. Which do you think will be the more dominant factor in terms of how things are likely to go, given the election cycles and everything else? Jannike Wachowiak, do you want to go first?

Thank you. We move to questions from other committee members.

Thank you very much.

We saw that some of these issues were resolved after the Windsor agreement—in terms of horizon funding, for example. As you say, we did not have to wait for the review to go through that process.

We had the farming sector in last week and they think that trying to resolve the sanitary and phytosanitary issue and veterinary agreements will be quite time-consuming and quite difficult to do. You mentioned the phrase “Brexit fatigue” in the report a few times. Do you think that any of the big substantive issues which are still a key concern from the UK point of view having traction in Europe before the review cycle?

SPS is an example. It is one of the areas that is of real concern here in the UK, but it may not have any traction in terms of what is happening in Europe.