���˿���

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 ���˿��� 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?

I have no relevant interests, convener.

Yes. I hoped to question the cabinet secretary on that area.

Given that, in all honesty, only a small number of women may be affected, why are you sticking rigidly to 12 July? You could make it the date when the bill was introduced, for example, or the date of stage 3 and the passage of the bill. We are not talking about a huge number of women. I am thinking about the consequences of women not being reimbursed and then having to go through the mesh service right from the beginning when they are already making progress.

That is good news for the women. How many have been referred to the service so far, and how long are they waiting?

The committee has received written evidence from some women. One went to the gynaecology service in Paisley, which is in the same health board area, but it has taken two years for her to be referred to the mesh service. Another woman reported having a magnetic resonance imaging scan in September and being told that she would get an appointment with the mesh service, but that appointment is for July 2022, which is 10 months away. I am trying to drill down into how long people are waiting before they even get to you.

I want to ask Dr Lamont about the group of women who would describe themselves as the in-betweeners: those who are in the process of arranging private treatment while the bill is going through the Parliament. Should they be covered by the bill? Will the setting up of the specialist service have any impact on them? Could they be asked to start at the beginning and then be referred through the specialist service, or should they be covered by the bill?