Chamber and committees

I have no interests to declare, convener. I am delighted to return to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I look forward to working with you all again.

As you have indicated in your registration form, there is no doubt that there is a potential need for the group. However, you have also indicated that a number of other groups are in place. Some of those have been there for some time and have created a niche market—for example, those on Germany, colleges and universities, and Poland. On what level do you think you would have co-operation with and support from those other cross-party groups? They may do things that you want to do in a larger area, but their experience and knowledge may be of great use to you as a new group that is trying to establish a remit across Europe as a whole.

I acknowledge the fact that there will be overlap, but I do not think that that precludes the group from progressing, because I think that it will find its way and its opportunity.

Depending on the role that group members see for themselves, the overlap might happen but they might wish to take a wider view because other groups are country specific. An issue in Germany or Poland could be taken further in looking at Nordic areas or the south of Europe, and that might provide opportunities to bring in experts. I think that there is a role for the group.

The EU itself also has a role. The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee and others have meetings and discussions with the European Commission, as do consuls general. There is a much stronger link to all of that, so I am sympathetic to the view that there may be an opportunity for a group of this nature to get some kind of support mechanism.

As Katy Clark says, the membership would be wide and varied, and I have no doubt that, if the group comes to pass, a Conservative member may wish to participate in it. I am sympathetic to the role of the group and can see an opportunity for it, as long as the definitions are strict as to what it would do and how it would be managed.

I agree with David Torrance. This petition requires to come to an end, as we have gone through that journey. As we have already heard, over the next three to five years, things will improve, but, as you indicated, convener, there might be fresh issues to be considered and, if there are issues that Rhoda Grant and the community want to explore, that could be done via a new petition.

Minister, you touched on the need to try to create facilities to support individuals. Canada gives us a good example of what can be achieved. I appreciate that you want to ensure that medical support is given to individuals at the closest point, but some degree of specialisation may still be required, perhaps by creating a unit or expertise in the field for clinicians. That should be considered, as it could help to iron out some of the difficulties that we have seen. It would be good to get your views on that.

Minister, you talked about the risks and the benefits, but, in all this, the word “complications” seems to be the problem. Many individuals have given us their testimony that they took the information that they received in good faith and went through the process but then, three, four or five years on, their situation became so difficult that they ended up with a real problem. You talked about consent in the process, but communication is an issue. I believe that anyone who goes in and gets medical support and advice will take it on board, but they may not realise what complications could occur perhaps three, four or five years later, and the damage that could be done.

We have seen the same thing with the hernia situation. People believed, in good faith, that having the mesh put in was the right thing to do because that is what they were advised to do at the time, but it ended up not being the right thing, and that has put them in a really difficult and dangerous situation.

It would be good to get clarity as to how that aspect is communicated, in order to ensure that individuals make the right choices and are not steamrollered by a doctor or clinician who says, “We believe that this is the best treatment for you.” People take such advice in good faith, but, years later, as I said, they may find that that treatment should not have happened.

Mr O’Kelly, do you want to answer some of that question?

Following on from the comments from both the minister and Mr O’Kelly, do we have some understanding of mesh itself? Different types of mesh may well undergo different processes. How have we been investigating and taking steps to analyse some of the mesh products themselves, to look at what defects they might have?

Has the Government, or have clinicians themselves, had a look at any of the history to find out whether there are defects that occur with specific types of mesh products, which might be more susceptible or more problematic for individuals? If we are aware that certain products might be more susceptible than others, that might reassure people in the future that the mesh that is being put in will be better, because it is not of a type that has a track record of causing issues in the past.

Minister, perhaps you can answer first.

We have heard that, in some situations, individuals had one mesh for a hernia put in but it had to be removed; they then had a second one put in and, since the second attempt, things have been better. They have not experienced the same complications since the first mesh was removed and the second one was implanted. Is there evidence, in your experience or that of others, of that happening when one mesh is removed and then replaced with a new one? Is it common or just an ad hoc situation that occurs with certain individuals?

Bruce Adamson, you talked about the support mechanisms required to ensure a dignified, friendly and respectful approach to managing and progressing the process for a 16 or 17-year-old. Do you believe that we have that at present? Does the bill ensure that someone who is 16 or 17 will be well treated in the process?