Mesh campaigners have had to fight for many years for action on their concerns and the reality is that, despite the parallel universe set out by the minister, that fight continues.

The Scottish Government has promised to listen to and support the women involved, but progress has been glacial. There are reports that the complex mesh surgical service is not working. It was set up three years ago but the story now is one of long waiting lists and no follow-up care.

I have been contacted by many women, including Lisa Megginson, who, having had mesh surgery herself, now supports women to access treatment through the complex mesh surgical service. She points to dither, delay and a lack of aftercare.

In the real world, Government figures reveal that women have waited up to 448 days for a first appointment at the service, with the subsequent wait for mesh removal surgery lasting up to 341 days. My information is the same as Tess White’s: urgent referrals have, in some cases, taken 82 weeks, which is a year and a half, and women who are being referred now are being offered appointments in 2025. Women have been left suicidal by the waits that they face and they daily suffer the risk of developing sepsis because of the constant infections caused by mesh. Must someone die before the Government takes swifter action?

The story is not much better when it comes to surgery. In a letter to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the minister said that, by the end of July, only 89 women had undergone surgery in Glasgow, that 26 had travelled to the United States or to Bristol for surgery and that only 20 women had been reimbursed for surgery that they had sought and paid for out of their own pockets.

Although I understand that Dr Veronikis has been awarded another year-long contract, he has been told not to carry out any repairs to damage that he finds but only to remove mesh devices. When patients have already undergone removal surgery in Scotland, it is only once they are on the operating table in the US that Dr Veronikis can see the damage that has been caused. It cannot be morally acceptable to instruct a world-class surgeon to ignore the internal damage that he finds and to stick strictly to mesh removal only, so his contract must be reviewed and should be extended until all the women who need mesh removal have been treated.

Those who have been able to access the clinic and have received mesh removal report that follow-up support has been non-existent, leaving many feeling that they are in the same boat as they were 10 years ago. Maureen Kane from Fife underwent mesh removal surgery last November. Since then, Maureen feels as if she has, yet again, been left to suffer. She said:

“It is like we have been forgotten about. It’s just the same as before. I didn’t expect miracles from the operation but I did expect there to be some follow-up. I just feel like as soon as they have got the mesh out, they are done with you.”

Women like Maureen are on a merry-go-round of misery, dealing with this Government’s failure to provide any follow-up care.

Another woman returned from the United States with a catheter still inside her. She contacted the complex mesh service, which did not get back to her. She went to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, only to be told that that hospital did not provide treatment for those who had had procedures overseas. The hospital eventually, and reluctantly, agreed to help her. She could have contracted sepsis and died. Why is there no follow up? Proactive follow-up services must be set up immediately to provide essential aftercare for those women.

Mesh-injured women face lifelong pain and disability. They will require adaptations to their houses and funding to support their lives. Many have lost jobs, careers, partners or homes as a direct result of becoming disabled due to the use of mesh.

The Cumberlege report, which was welcomed by the Government, called for the setting up of a redress scheme. Why has that not yet been set up? Why is there still a delay? That is simply unacceptable.

I turn to the reviews, of which there have been a number. The independent review on transvaginal mesh implants came to a series of conclusions and recommendations in 2017. How many of those have been implemented?

As we heard from Tess White, the first of Professor Britton’s investigative reviews, which was published in 2018, made 46 recommendations, but it would appear that not one has been implemented. We now have the second Professor Britton report, which was published in June 2023. That is extremely welcome, but what will the SNP do to implement its 21 recommendations—not just to endorse them, but to make them real? Are they simply to gather dust? Will the Government simply proceed at a snail’s pace?

The report exposed damning evidence of women being blatantly lied to and told that they had had a full mesh removal when that was not the case. There are cases where women were given mesh implants when they should never have been treated with them, causing them life-changing injuries. I ask the minister whether those cases are subject to criminal investigations. Can the Government explain why surgeons who were found to have lied are facing no consequences for their actions? Can the minister explain why those same surgeons are providing their opinions on the future care of the very women they harmed?

The problems are not just with transvaginal mesh. There are petitions before the Parliament calling on the Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices. Similarly to transvaginal mesh-injured women, people who were fitted with mesh to treat things such as hernia have reported debilitating pain and issues with their mesh devices. There is a need for a viable and safe alternative to mesh. Transvaginal mesh-injured women were ignored for years, and now other mesh-injured survivors find themselves in the same position.

The issues are clear. The Scottish Government must urgently address delays in the Glasgow service, tackle long referral times, provide an aftercare service and actually listen to the experiences of patients. It must extend the contracts with specialists in the United States and Bristol and put in place a redress scheme. Failure to act will amount to a further betrayal of mesh-injured patients. The promise to listen to these women is one that the Scottish Government must not continue to break.

I move amendment S6M-10915.2, to insert at end:

“; is concerned by the long waits for a first appointment at the Complex Mesh Surgical Service, whilst some women have reported a lack of clarity around accessing the full range of support available for mesh-related injuries; regrets that not all of the recommendations of the reviews by Professor Britton have been implemented; agrees that a realistic medicine approach is essential going forward, where patients are empowered and supported to be in control of their healthcare, and calls on the Scottish Government to set out how it will eradicate long waits for appointments and ensure that women affected by transvaginal mesh are informed and able to easily access the range of support available, which should be person-centred and trauma-informed ongoing care, and to publish both a strategy for increased surgical training and capacity building in alternative procedures to mesh, and data on waiting times for alternative procedures.”