���˿���

Melanie Field, in your opening statement you talked about the harm and distress on both sides of the debate and how the changes could have an impact. I go back to the women and girls issue, because that is where we perceive most of the harm and distress to be focused.

There is a code of practice that ensures that trans people are supported according to their gender. The EHRC’s letter of 22 January to the cabinet secretary mentioned data collection issues, difficulties related to

“participation and drug testing in competitive sport”

and

“measures to address barriers facing women”.

Those issues have been invoked in the debate, and that is where some of the hostility has appeared. Can you clarify why those specific issues were mentioned in the letter to the cabinet secretary? What implications are there for the collection of information about the individuals who will be affected?

Concerns have been raised about the possible impact on the aim of increasing women’s participation and representation in public life, because of the dubiety or discord that exists. Is it possible that that outcome could be affected?

Surgeons in general hospitals are not as skilled in non-mesh techniques. Do you expect recurrence rates following non-mesh repairs to be higher than the rates for those who are treated at Shouldice hospital?

Would a ban of the use of mesh in hernia repairs be a good thing? Would that change some of the dynamics?

Thank you.

As the convener has indicated, we are interested in finding out how surgeons in Scotland could learn from the skills, training and techniques that are used in the Shouldice hospital. What additional training and support would be required for them to fully understand what you are doing, so that they could use your approach to benefit patients in Scotland?

I understand why the amendment has been lodged and I have no doubt that it has been lodged in good faith. However, it attempts to introduce a compensation scheme, which is not the purpose of the bill and would only delay its implementation. For those reasons, I would feel unhappy about agreeing to the amendment at this stage.

I understand the financial implications of the amendment, but this is a UK-wide issue, which should be addressed UK-wide. If compensation is to be considered, it should be considered as a UK-wide issue and not in this bill.

Amendment 9 in my name looks at the wording of the bill. As has been indicated, there is a vagueness and lack of specifics with regard to the phrase “similar gathering”, and that kind of imprecision might lead miners and their families to mistakenly believe that they had been pardoned for participating in events not covered by the bill. Amendments 10 to 12 are of a similar nature.

As for other amendments in the group, amendment 2 in the name of Keith Brown clarifies that theft “meets condition C”. That condition is set out in amendment 3, which improves the clarity around who will be pardoned and also widens the scope of the pardon. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 3A slightly changes the drafting of amendment 3. As it appears to be a slight improvement, we will support it.

Amendment 17 seeks to widen the offences under section 7 to cover violence and intimidation and damage to property. I am unhappy and concerned about the process in that respect, and perhaps Richard Leonard will give us some more clarity on that when he speaks to the amendment. At this stage, I am a little concerned about how the process of what the amendment seeks to do would be managed, so I look forward to hearing what the member has to say.

Finally, I note amendment 5, which works with previous amendments to include theft as a qualifying offence when committed as a result of economic hardship due to unfair conditions.

I am happy to be involved with the bill. It is quite small and it does not offer a huge opportunity to be extended, but I recognised and understood what the cabinet secretary said about the extension of the pardon to household family members and the changes to qualifying individuals in his amendments 1 and 4, and I concur with the cabinet secretary on those.

I note what Pam Duncan-Glancy said about her amendments, but I believe that there should be further discussion on where to take those. They broaden the definition to a level that the bill perhaps does not encapsulate, so more discussion and dialogue is needed on that going into stage 3.

I also believe that cabinet secretary Keith Brown’s amendments 6, 7 and 8 provide more clarity on how we would manage the process and am, therefore, content to accept the amendments at this stage. The other amendments could potentially progress into the next stage, so that more clarity can be sought and discussed.

You have talked about openness and honesty in the process. It is evident from the concerns that you have raised that the community feels that it has not been listened to and has not had the impact that it wanted in the process. You said that you hope that lessons have been learned. How did the management handle the concerns that were expressed about the proposal initially? Were the proposals completely flawed from the beginning, or were there areas within what was produced that the community might have been open to? Would the community have been willing to participate in the process?