I look forward to being spoken about again in such terms as the minister has used—very warm they were, indeed. I welcome the engagement. You would think that, if she thought so highly of me, she would think highly of my amendments, too, but I live for that possibility another day.

I join the minister in warmly welcoming the support for amendments 3 and 4, but I cannot help but say that, without the previous amendments, the provision is a watered-down version of Milly’s law. Although it is absolutely a move in the right direction, it will not, on its own, reset the balance between patients, their families and health administrators. I have seen health administrators—not all but many—who are already defensive and already in denial. I have seen health board administrators who dissemble rather than admit fault to patients. Simply passing the bill will not resolve that overnight.

On amendment 3A, many of us in the chamber—I am looking at Jackson Carlaw, in particular—witnessed the transvaginal mesh scandal and campaigned for women who were caught up in that. Very few of us will forget some of the stories that we were told.

The Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Bill has its origins in the fact that a UK Government decided that patients’ voices need to be better heard, and it cited cases of women who have transvaginal mesh. The makers of that transvaginal mesh have not really been held to account, so the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that they are included in any consideration. Although I hear what the minister said, amendment 3A would put the ability to hold them to account beyond doubt—it would not be optional but baked into the bill.

Therefore, although I welcome the SNP’s support for amendments 3 and 4, I regret that that does not go far enough in terms of the overall package, and I hope that members across the chamber will pause to reflect on our experience of the women who have suffered as a result of mesh complications and pass amendment 3A.