I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Transvaginal Mesh Removal Cost Reimbursment Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is Scottish Parliament Bill 3A, the marshaled list, the grouping of amendments. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon, and the period of voting for each division will be up to one minute. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter R in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. The group costs incurred in connection with qualifying mesh removal surgery, and I call amendment 1 in the name of Sue Webber, grouped with amendment 2. Sue Webber to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. I would like to start by moving the amendments in my name. The reimbursement bill covers the cost of primary removal of transvaginal mesh and any unexpected procedures required at the time of mesh removal surgery or shortly afterwards. I have been contacted by women who still have questions, and my amendment seeks to clarify what procedures are in fact included in the scheme and to avoid any doubt. My first amendment seeks to clarify that there is complications or further surgeries needed because of the mesh removal surgery that are covered by the reimbursement, that it is the corrective surgeries that pertain to the removal of mesh surgery that are included, and not the issues from the original implant surgery. Why am I seeking that clarification? There are ladies who had their corrective surgery carried out at the same time as the mesh removal, such as fascial slings, birch cobble suspensions or other procedures to repair their prolapses or incontinence—the very reasons that they had the mesh implanted in the first place—and there are women who, having had the mesh removal, have been advised for various reasons to allow time to heal before considering further surgery. That is often only down to surgeon preference, and that is a phrase that is a real catch-all for a surgical perspective, but leaves the women out on a limb. Again, my amendment wants to provide this clarification. While there is no reason to believe that these consequential surgeries could not be done on the NHS, that ultimately goes back to trust. Given that the NHS is enthronched involvement with the transvaginal mesh scandal, many of the women involved and those who have contacted me do not trust the NHS to perform the consequential surgery. Only private providers such as Dr Veronica are trusted by those women to right the wrongs of the NHS. I am keen to get some form of commitment from the cabinet secretary to look sympathetically on the costs of any consequential treatment and for those to be reimbursed, although I want to make it clear that there is not going to be the outcome from my amendments that I have tabled today. I rise in support of two webis amendments having been contacted, as I dare say, a good number of other MSPs in the chamber have been, by constituents in exactly the position that Sue Weber describes, who want that clarity, who want to understand that the full consequences of these devastating injuries will be made whole and that these injuries have gone beyond not just the transvaginal mesh implants but mesh implants in other parts of the body as well. I have been visited by survivors of hernia mesh damage and rectal mesh damage. There are many people who are still asking questions for whom this bill will give some comfort and closure, but I think that Sue Weber's amendments offer an elegant solution to a loose end in this legislation. It is just to talk on amendment 2, where it is clear that this amendment seeks to further remove any ambiguity and serves to reinforce the timeline that appointments and procedures booked prior to the deadline but taking place after the deadline are still covered and, as it states, for the avoidance of doubt. I thank the members at this stage again for the constructive role that they have all played in taking this bill forward. I am grateful to Sue Weber for bringing forward those amendments, which are about the inclusion of reimbursement for the additional surgeries and procedures arising from mesh removal surgery, whether performed at the same time as the mesh removal surgery or indeed performed afterwards. I know that those matters were the subject of, hopefully, useful evidence from my officials at a recent meeting in the committee. I am happy to restate and expand on the Government's position now. I hope that that will be useful in explaining the Government's position on Sue Weber's amendments. It is important to emphasise that, considering the amendments, the bill has a specific purpose to reimburse past costs incurred by women who have paid to have qualifying mesh removal surgery conducted privately. Qualifying mesh removal surgery is defined in the bill, a surgery whose purpose is—I will quote the bill directly—to wholly or partially removed from a person's body synthetic mesh, which was originally implanted transvaginally. The Government has been clear that additional surgery or on-going treatments required after mesh removal would be provided by NHS Scotland as part of a person's on-going care. Indeed, that is currently the case. That position will be the same for all women, whether they are covered by the bill or if their mesh is removed under the contracts with private providers, the Government is currently agreeing now, or whether their mesh is removed by the national specialist centre in Glasgow. The Government accepts, of course, that women who have had their mesh removed may well have on-going physical and mental health needs, and it is the Government's intention that after-care and on-going treatment will be provided by a patient's local health board, working where appropriate in partnership with the national centre. The Government thought that it would be useful to Parliament's consideration of the bill to make available a draft of the reimbursement scheme to explain how the scheme will operate in practice. The draft reimbursement scheme makes clear that the Government will meet the costs of additional surgery or treatment arising as a direct result of complications from the mesh removal, so that, for example, in the unlikely event that something goes wrong during surgery or a patient develops an infection at the site of surgery, costs arising can be met. That is explained in paragraph 11.1 and 11.2 of the draft scheme. However, I think that it is reasonable for the bill and the scheme to draw a distinction between direct complications of the surgery and longer-term health needs or requirements for new surgery that may be a consequence of mesh removal, such as a possible return of incontinence that the mesh was originally to treat. I do take on board what Sue Webber said in relation to that point. The amendment, as drafted, would open the way for the reimbursement of substantial new reconstructive surgery. It is fair to say that the Parliament has agreed that that is not the purpose of the bill and indeed of the scheme. I would also observe that those amendments would allow for reimbursement of surgery or treatments arranged in the future, not just in the past. The types of procedure that could potentially be covered by the amendments could take place months or even years after the mesh removal surgery. If the agreements were agreed to the reimbursement scheme, we would need to remain open for receipt of that type of claim indefinitely in order to ensure that the legitimate expectations of being reimbursed are such treatments, as raised by the amendments were met. During the opening debate at stage 1 and in the bill's consideration, there has been agreement that reimbursement should be in place for surgery that took place in the past and in the time before the Government procured private surgery options in place. To that end, the Government supported Jackie Baillie's amendment to set the cut-off date to a date not before the date of royal assent. The committee agreed this amendment unanimously at stage 2, but the Government does not think that the reimbursement scheme should be open-ended, which I think would be the practical and pragmatic effect of Sue Webber's amendment, even if that may not be her intention. To conclude with those expectations, I hope that members will be reassured that the bill and the scheme to provide for the reimbursement of cost of complications are rising from mesh removal surgery. I hope, too, that the Parliament will agree that long-term health needs should be met through the NHS and that all women should be treated equally. For those reasons, I am afraid that the Government cannot support amendments 1 and 2, but I hope that Sue Webber will be content to withdraw them based on what I have said.  I made it quite clear that it was not my intention from the amendments to address some of the points that the cabinet secretary has presented today. It was very much to make it clear to the women that the reimbursement was for clinically relevant surgery arising from the mesh removal surgery. If such removal surgery necessitates a reconstructive procedure to take place for that woman, I would hope that we would seek to cover that, if that would be a consequence of the mesh removal. I will take an intervention. It would be covered by the NHS, and that is the point. If we left it open-ended for women to get surgery years later, the scheme would be open-ended. I hope that we can all agree, notwithstanding the important points that Sue Webber makes around trust, that we would expect our NHS to make sure that that woman receives the treatment and aftercare that she deserves and requires. It may well be years for those women to wait if they have to wait on the NHS. I am good to press my amendment, because the women want to have the clarification and confirmation that any procedure that is needed, following as a result of their mesh removal surgery, should also be reimbursed. Should that be managed through the private schemes and the relationships that they have, either at the Murrayfield—not the Murrayfield, I apologise—not even that, is the spire. I will get the third private group in the UK or Dr Varonicus in the USA. I will press my amendment. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We will be moving to a vote. As it is the first division of the afternoon, there will be a five-minute suspension. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Mark Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My app is locked up and I would have voted no. The point of order, Jeremy Balfour. I thank you for voting yes. The result of the vote on amendment 1 in the name of Sue Webber is yes, 49, no, 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of Sue Webber, already debated with amendment 1, so whether to move or not move. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament will therefore move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Shona Robison. My apologies, Presiding Officer. My connection went and I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Robison. We will ensure that it is recorded. Point of order, Craig Hoy. On checking, my vote hadn't recorded. I would have voted yes. The result of the vote on amendment 2 in the name of Sue Webber is yes, 49, no, 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. That ends consideration of amendments. There will be a brief pause before we move to the open debate. As members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings I am required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of the Bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this Bill, in my view, no provision of Transvaginal Mesh Removal Cost Reimbusment Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the Bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. Okay, and we move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 2895 in the name of Humza Yousaf on the Transvaginal Mesh Removal Cost Reimbusment Scotland Bill. I would invite any members wishing to participate to press their request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I will place an R in the chat function. I call on Humza Yousaf to open the debate and speak to the motion for around seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open this final debate on the Transvaginal Mesh Removal Cost Reimbusment Scotland Bill. I hope that the Parliament will agree that, throughout the Bill's progress and hopeful eventual passage, we have seen constructive engagement from all parties. Members have represented affected constituents and all of our deliberations have been informed most powerfully by the mesh survivors. Each one of us will have had engagement with either constituents or, indeed, not constituents, but women who have been affected by the implanting of Transvaginal Mesh. For all of our political disagreements, of which no doubt there are many, we are united on helping the women at the very heart of this terrible tragedy. As the relatively young history of devolution has shown, this Parliament is at its very best when we are united in our determination to right the wrongs that are faced by those that we serve. I want to thank all those who have taken time to engage with and express their views on the Bill as it has progressed. We have listened to those views and, as far as possible, we have taken that feedback on board in our development of both the Bill and, indeed, of course, importantly of the reimbursement scheme, too. Let me also place on record my thanks to Gillian Martin, MSP and all the members of the Health, Social Care and Sports Committee for their careful and thoughtful scrutiny and deliberations of the Bill at stage 1 and stage 2. As a result of the recommendations made by the committee in their stage 1 report, amendments brought forward at stage 2 have helped to shape and improve the Bill, which is before you today. Let me highlight two issues raised in the report, which, thanks to positive and constructive engagement of all involved, led to two important changes to the Bill at stage 2. The committee proposed that women who had mesh implanted in Scotland but who then arranged to have it removed, having moved out of Scotland, should be eligible for reimbursement. The Government agreed that the eligibility criteria, as originally drafted, was too narrow and undertook to bring forward an amendment. The amendments brought forward and unanimously agreed at stage 2 to extend the eligibility criteria to include those who were not ordinarily resident in Scotland at the time of arranging their mesh removal surgery but who were ordinarily resident at the time when the mesh was inserted. That brings the eligibility criteria for reimbursement in line with that of the wider mesh fund. The committee report also highlighted concerns expressed amongst campaigners and during evidence and debate at stage 1 about the proposed cut-off day by when surgery had to have been arranged in order to be eligible for reimbursement. The Government's intention had been that the date would be set as 12 July 2021, the date in which the completion of the first stage of procuring an NHS referral route to private providers was announced. However, having taken note of the committee's view and, most important, having listened to the views and experiences of affected women, I accepted that the delay since the announcement has caused anxiety amongst those women who are already dealing with so much. The Government was therefore pleased to support an amendment by Jackie Baillie to amend the cut-off date to a date no earlier than that of royal assent. That ensures that any women who have made arrangements since July or who are currently finalising those arrangements will not be penalised for doing so. I think that some members have asked for clarification about whether or not those women would still be reimbursed if arrangements were made prior to royal assent but that surgery did not take place until after royal assent to confirm. As long as the arrangements are made before royal assent, they will be eligible for reimbursement even if the surgery takes place after that date. A good progress is being made in the discussions with the two private providers. I can confirm today that commissioning negotiations with Spire Healthcare have now been completed. We expect that contracts for a framework agreement will be exchanged either this week or next week, and the Spire hospital in Bristol is expected to be available for referrals during the month of February. Discussions between NSS Scotland, National Services Scotland and Dr Veronica are also progressing very positively thanks to the commitment of all parties involved. If the bill passes today, I expect that the Government will specify a date in the scheme that will be either the date of royal assent or one shortly after. Through our collective efforts to address the issue raised through parliamentary passage, I believe that we have together produced a bill that has strong support and that will have a positive impact on those women who made their own arrangements for transvaginal mesh removal surgery and incurred a cost as a result. If, as I hope, the bill passes today, we will turn our attention to finalising the reimbursement scheme. I would like to take this opportunity once again to express my thanks to the health and social care alliance for facilitating focus groups, and particularly to the women who attended those groups and shared their views. They have been absolutely valuable when it comes to drafting of the scheme. As members will know during the stage 1 debate, I committed to providing a draft of the reimbursement scheme to the committee for their consideration. This was done ahead of stage 2. We are now working on finalising the reimbursement scheme, and it is intended that the scheme will open for applications as soon as it is practically possible after royal assent. Nobody, no woman affected or no parliamentarian today should be under any doubt whatsoever that we will work with pace and urgency to open the scheme as quickly as close to royal assent as possible. The scheme will be administered by NSS, who is currently administering the mesh fund also. I would like to reassure members that we also recognise that no two cases will be the same, and the intention of the scheme is to allow administrators as much flexibility as possible within, of course, guidance when processing applications, and each one will absolutely be considered on its own merits. Let me say that it is wrong that women felt that using their own funds to arrange surgery for mesh removal was their only option. I can only imagine the distress that led people, led women to that point. In some cases, having to pay tens of thousands of pounds, taking out loans, borrowing money from family members and friends, the financial impact alone of private mesh removal surgery will have been severe for many women, let alone the physical and mental health impacts of such a process. The bill, which I hope that we will agree today, will seek to ensure that those past costs are met and that women are no longer affected at a financial disadvantage because they paid for their treatment out of their own pocket. If we are to agree this bill today, we are a step closer to providing justice for women who so thoroughly deserve it after the trauma that they have suffered. I hope that the whole Parliament will be able to support it in the number of the motion at many. Today we seek to repay a debt. Over the past two decades, 20,000 women underwent transvaginal mesh implants in Scotland. Underwent transvaginal mesh implants in our NHS. They did this to treat conditions like incontinence and prolapse, which many women can suffer after trauma at childbirth. The implant procedure was halted in 2018 because it was clear that so many women who went forward for implant surgery were suffering from painful life-changing side effects. Complications from surgery are because of an erosion of the mesh inside the body, resulting in nerve damage, chronic pain and vaginal scarring. There have also been cases of organ perforation with synthetic propylene mesh becoming exposed inside the vagina, and some women have even died. In the health committee, we have heard from women with harrowing experiences of mesh surgery, and so many face scepticism. They were simply not believed when they were crying out for help. The pain, infections, reduced mobility, autoimmune issues, difficulty with intimacy and psychological strain were simply not believed. That added to their distress and extended the time before any remedial intervention could take place. It is no surprise that so many women sadly lost trust in our Scottish NHS and turned to private healthcare providers in the UK or abroad. Anne is one such sufferer. Back in 2010, she was fit and healthy when she went to a doctor with an anterior prolapse and mild incontinence, but an operation to fit transvaginal mesh left her in agony. In a BBC interview this morning, Anne recounted how she was offered a simple gold standard procedure, transvaginal mesh. But after the operation, she began to suffer from a wide range of problems and was left in chronic pain. After years of frustration with nowhere to turn for help in Scotland, the retiree spent £19,000 travelling to Missouri and the United States to get her implant removed by the world renowned expert, Dr Veronica. Her story is sadly not unique. Our debate today focuses on those women who have already paid for private surgery to recoup their costs. As my colleague Jackson Carlaw has said, this is a debt of honour because these women were injured on the NHS. We should also recognise that the Scottish Government announced in July 2021 that future surgery and travel costs to spy healthcare in Bristol and the Mercy Hospital in Missouri in the United States would also be covered. The cost of each procedure is estimated to be between £16,000 and £23,000, though that is obviously not the cut-off in this bill. There is no cut-off. We are pleased to support the transvaginal mesh removal bill and have been supported since the issue was first raised at the Scottish Parliament by a public petition. We are also pleased that there are now specialist services here in Scotland for women experiencing complications from mesh implant surgery, and they have undergone specialist training and credentialing. The Scottish Government will also work with providers outwith the NHS to remove mesh from women who want it because of a loss of trust, but I would happily support the surgeon, some of whom I have worked with here in Glasgow, to provide world-class care equivalent to anything that can be given abroad. While we support the bill, we believe improvements could still be made. My colleague Sue Webber, her second amendment, was to clarify a point, but I would like to thank the cabinet secretary for his clarification on the cut-off date for women to get compensated when booking for surgery but having not had the surgery. That was the point of the amendment, so we are reassured by that. From our discussions and committee and debates here in chamber, I believe that we will all be comfortable with where we are today. Today, we hope that we can continue to stand united. United to fully support Scotland's brave women who have suffered so greatly for years following complications from transvaginal mesh surgery. In closing, the Scottish Conservatives will support this bill. I welcome the opportunity to open the debate for Scottish Labour. The bill empowers the Scottish Government to reimburse women for private healthcare costs relating to transvaginal mesh removal surgery by putting in place a scheme for making reimbursement payments. The bill will include, for example, travel costs or telecommodation paid in relation to the surgery, and quite rightly so. I want to use much of my time to herald the great work done by the women who experienced life-altering mesh surgery and campaigned so strongly to get us where we are today. All of us here in the chamber, as was mentioned, have heard from someone affected. It is for this reason that women should be thanked for ensuring that we, in this Parliament, listened to serious concerns from our constituents. Every member of this Parliament should take time to recognise the efforts of those women and reflect on the steps that we are taking to get us here. Not least so, we do not make the same mistakes again. We can never celebrate enough serious democratic engagement by those at the sharp end in our society, and I encourage other groups who feel that they may have been treated unjustly to come forward to their Parliament. This is your Parliament and it is our duty to help you. Scottish Labour will be supporting this bill at stage 3, as we have done critically throughout the process. I believe that it speaks to the cross-party spirit of the bill, as presented today, that we have generally reached a proposal that meets the needs and the expectations of most of the women who put that issue under the spotlight so boldly many years ago. They are my priority, and I trust that they are satisfied today. It is welcome that Jackie Baillie's amendment was accepted at stage 2, which ensured that, although the mesh removal surgery must have been arranged by a specific date in the scheme, the actual surgery does not have to be taken by the date, and the minister clarified that in his contribution, and we thank him for that. Although my amendments fell at stage 2, having met the cabinet secretary after that stage, I am assured that the scope of the bill, as presented, is to ensure that all the women who suffered and paid for connective treatments are part of the treatment or part of the treatment can be reimbursed and that the Government is actively seeking to ensure that. However, I will caveat my contributions by saying that there is still a long way to go and rectifying the injustice of mesh and equally setting Scotland out as an example of how we can shift the balance. We should continue to be open, receptive to the concerns of those women and those like them with similar experiences. We must always offer our attention respect to those with first-hand experience of this issue and accept that, for a long time, the received wisdom and official response to how they were being treated was simply quite wrong. As I am sure others will know, those reforms have come about as part of a lengthy and well-considered response to what were reasonable worries expressed by those who were so unfairly given the treatment. Securing adequate reimbursement is not only a practical, fair and just, but it expresses our regret as a nation that anyone could be left in pain and distress that so many of the women were. We must learn from that and ensure that it is never allowed to happen again. Scottish Labour would have supported Sue Weber's amendments again because we thought that the scope of the bill should be as wide as possible. We must ensure that any perceived lack of clarity is stricken from the bill and that all those affected are given clear communication of what they are rightfully entitled to. Everyone entitled to this reimbursement must receive it and without delay. Finally, I thank my colleagues at the Health and Social Care Committee, who many are with us today, for their work on the bill over recent months. We worked well together, and we have moved things forward in a timely manner. I trust that we will soon arrive at a resolution that addresses the problem of the bill when first drafted. As a member of the committee, I have been impressed with the detail and care that has been taken over the issue, and I think that we can all agree that the general principles are both moral and just. I trust that we can now get this over the line and deliver it on the promise of justice that I and Scottish Labour are absolutely committed to, and I know that the committee worked hard to get to this point, and I thank them as well. I am very pleased once again to rise for the Liberal Democrats in support of this bill at its final stage. I am also gratified to note the universal support and heartfelt concern for the victims of what is undoubtedly one of the most awful public health disasters in Scottish history. I thank Jackson Carlaw, Neil Findlay and Alex Neil in particular for their work in getting us to this space. All that they have done in highlighting the plight of thousands of women living in Scotland who have been affected by the procedure, and it is thousands of women. As Dr Gilhane tells us, more than 20,000 women underwent mesh surgery in this country before it came to an end in 2014, and thousands have suffered as a result. Those women have suffered chronic pain, which has affected their daily lives, in many cases forcing them to retire from jobs that they loved. That is not to mention the significant impact on their mental health and, indeed, the financial costs that many survivors have had to bear in order to pay for their mesh to be removed using private healthcare, both in this country and, as we have heard already, in many instances abroad. It is on this last point that we gather here today. During the stage 1 debate on this bill, I shared the story of Kathy, one of my constituents, whose account echoed that of so many women who were referred by their GPs and physiotherapists to receive what they were told would be a marvellous new procedure. Like many other women, Kathy received little information other than that procedure would cure her of the mildest issues that she had been having with incontinence. However, as a result of the mesh implant that she received and its follow-on effects, Kathy's mobility, mental health and intimacy with her partner have all been adversely affected, and her quality of life has been devastated. Following her discharge from hospital and amidst crippling pain, Kathy made numerous attempts to call the doctors and nurses who had treated her, presiding officer who she never received a call back. Had her concerns been taken seriously at the time, Kathy might have been spared five years of having to cope with crippling pain. I have met many of the survivors of this procedure. Some in this building all have similar stories to tell. Presiding officer, Kathy and hundreds of women in her position were badly, badly let down. This ordeal has seriously damaged the trust that many of these women had in their healthcare system, and, understandably, many of them sought out private healthcare providers to have these implants removed, with costs of surgery ranging from anywhere between £16,000 and £23,000. That was a cost that they should never have had to bear, and it has saddled many women with substantial and significant debt. I am pleased that the plans for reimbursement will now compensate entirely the costs of the surgery and associated costs, including travel and accommodation. I am also pleased to support the amendments in the name of Sue Webber, and I am sorry that they did not pass today, expanding the compensation to victims of this procedure no matter where the implant was in their body, which is something that my party called out stage 1 for in this legislation. Presiding officer, Benjamin Franklin once wrote that justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are. Well, I am proud to count myself among other members in this place who have followed the facts of this scandal with outrage for far too long. I would like to say directly to the survivors of the surgery, some of whom will be watching us this evening, that what you have had to endure has been an outrage and an injustice. It is something that should never have happened, and which you have had to bear for far too long alone. While those of us unaffected will never be able to fully understand the suffering that you have had to bear, and while this bill can never take away the physical or mental trauma you have endured or the time you have lost, I hope that, after today, you feel that there is a prospect of compensation, a prospect of care, long overdue and that your voice has been heard and justice has in some way been served. It is the very least that you deserve. The Liberal Democrats will take pride in supporting this bill tonight. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I now call on Gillian Martin for speaking on the open debate. We will be followed by Craig Hoy for around four minutes this morning. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. In this Parliament, accounts of the complications of transvaginal mesh and its lifelong effects have been relayed many times. From recounting their experiences through the Petitions Committee, campaigning inside and out of this building, and being championed and assisted by MSPs such as Jackson Carlaw, Neil Findlay, and Alex Neil in particular and many others, brave women have fought to be heard. They have kept going to find resolutions to the many problems that they have faced as a result of mesh being used in their surgery. The mesh survivors, as they have become known as a shorthand, have told us of the heartbreaking physical damage and attendant psychological trauma that they have endured. They campaigned for the moratorium on the use of transvaginal mesh, which is now in place, and they are now to be reimbursed for the financial sacrifice that they felt they had to make to access private healthcare to remove the mesh from their bodies. As I said in the stage 1 debate, the bill could not and does not undo the physical or psychological trauma that those women have faced and continue to face as a result of mesh complications. It is a simple and narrow bill, which is designed by Government and now amended by both my committee and this parliamentary chamber to make sure that financial hardship is not added to its trauma or is at least undone. In an unusual but very welcome step ahead of today's ahead of today, the Scottish Government made the reimbursement scheme draft details available to the health and social care and support committee ahead of stage 3, as the cabinet secretary has mentioned. It is very welcome and allows us to question the designers of the scheme on some outstanding issues. As a result, I feel confident that the scheme will achieve what the bill intends it to do. The flexibility that we wanted in applications is there, the assistance for those applying is there and the understanding that many women might still be suffering from the physical and psychological effects is to be taken into account by those who are administrating the scheme. We have always said that the process for applying for reimbursement should not cause additional stress and anxiety for those who are either applying to or managing the scheme. We have been given that assurance. We have also heard that the Scottish Government is taking steps to ensure that, in the future, women will have choice and control over their care, including options to have transvaginal mesh removal surgery undertaken by independent providers if that is what they wish. I would also like to thank all those who assisted the committee with their scrutiny and who have responded to a call for views and those who gave evidence in person or online. I particularly want to join my colleagues in the committee who have already mentioned that they want to thank the women who spoke with us, facilitated by the health and social care alliance. They told us of their experiences of transvaginal mesh complications probably for their umpteenth time, and it takes a tremendous amount of bravery to do that, especially when we keep on asking them to do that. I hope that any of those women who spoke to us, who might be watching the debate, feel that our committee listened to them with understanding and compassion, and that our recommendations at stage 1 and amendments at stage 2 shaped the bill in the way that they advised us that it should be shaped. We did widen the eligibility for reimbursement, and I think that it was the right thing to do to make sure that no women fell through any gaps. However, the bill is not the end of the mesh story, and I want to give mesh campaigners and the women who suffered as a result of its use the assurance that the committee will be keeping a very close eye on the development of improved specimens mesh removal services. We know from your discussion with us that there is still a long way to go to rebuild trust, and we will be playing our part in making sure that the service reaches the standards that we and you expect of it. Thank you very much indeed. I'm very pleased to be able to speak in this debate, which marks yet another milestone in the journey of the victims of transvaginal mesh. At the outset, can I state that I welcome the action taken by this Government and believe that this legislation will start to provide some justice to the women who have survived the mesh scandal? In the stage 1 debate on this bill, Jackson Carlaw spoke of how a fundamental disconnection resulted in the concerns of many women being dismissed, dismissed by the medical profession as women's problems, and it is nothing short of a disgrace that this went on for over 20 years. The failure exposed women to avoidable harms for far too long and it added to their stress, and I would like to put on record my admiration for those women who have fought this fight. They have fought it with dignity and determination. They have fought it in the face of a failure by many women in the medical profession. Today, we prove that this fight has not been in vain. It has led to increased restrictions on the use of transvaginal mesh around the world, and it is that fight that brings this bill to Parliament today. I would also like to pay tribute to the actions of MSPs past and present, including the so-called three mesh catiers, Neil Findlay, Jackson Carlaw and Alex Neil. They have supported these women and their efforts should not go unrecognised, but let's not lose sight that women who suffered the adverse effects of mesh implants have paid a very heavy price.  Many victims have spoken of the chronic pain, suicidal thoughts and family break-ups that they have faced, all life changing and all preventable. The bill that we seek to pass today does far more than just reimburse women who suffered. It writes a fundamental wrong. The bill rightly grants the Scottish Government the powers to reimburse costs associated with private surgery to remove transvaginal mesh implants. It also sets out more about the administration, the eligibility, the time limits and the application to the scheme and relevant reviews. At stage 1, the Health and Social Care and Sport Committee asked for further clarity regarding fairness and parity of treatment for all individuals concerned, and I therefore very much welcome those stage 2 amendments, which extended the criteria on residency, and I also welcome the flexibility on the cut-off date for reimbursement. While we support the bill, the Scottish Conservatives did believe that the bill wasn't perfect and I did welcome Sue Webber's amendments today. I think that the residents of Edinburgh know that, if Sue Webber comes forward with a solution, it will always be an elegant one, as Alex Cole-Hamilton suggested. However, we do welcome the minister's clarification that many of those provisions and the effects will be on the bill. For mesh sufferers, the legislation cannot come a moment too soon. Those women were badly let down and are faced with devastating and life-changing consequences as a result. We have the responsibility now to ensure that they receive the very best and most appropriate treatment available, and I welcome the minister's assurances in that regard as well. We have a duty to help those women to rebuild their lives. We owe them this, and that is why my party will be supporting this legislation this evening. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this stage 3 proceedings of this vitally important bill. From the outset, I want to put on record my support and recognition to all the women who have had their lives changed as a result of mesh implants. I thank all the women who have taken part in focus groups about the bill and for contributing to the committee's scrutiny of the bill. It is because of the courage of the women affected that we are at this point. I also welcome the cross-party way, both in the chamber and in the committee, that the bill has been taken forward. The bill at stage 3 is a narrow bill with a limited function to refund women who have paid for private surgery to remove transvaginal mesh and reasonable connected expenses such as additional medical intervention prayer post-op, which could require more time in hospital. That is something that I raised during the scrutiny. The bill will be directly relevant to a comparatively small number of women across Scotland. However, the impact on the women is hugely significant and others have mentioned that as well. The bill rightly brings the Parliament's attention to the traumatic experiences of the number of women in Scotland who have suffered pain and distress after having mesh implanted. Some women have experienced extreme pain and health issues completely affecting and changing their lives. In committee, we heard directly from women about the physical symptoms and the psychological distress that they experienced, which was often made worse because they felt that their experiences were not taken seriously enough when they sought help. During the sessions, we heard how regretfully many of the women impacted have lost trust in the NHS to address the issues relating to mesh implants. Having listened to those women, I can completely understand why. I understand why it is important that those concerns are addressed. I therefore welcome the steps that the Scottish Government has taken that will be enhanced through the bill to improve the care offered for the women who are affected and to ensure that their voices are heard and that their treatment wishes are granted in a person-centred way. In particular, I welcome that in Glasgow there is now a national specialist mesh removal service, which has been offering full mesh removal since July 2020. So far, 33 women have had mesh removal surgery at the national specialist mesh centre. At the centre, new surgeons have been recruited and there are now four urogynecologists, which allows women more choice over who they are treated by and the option to be treated by a surgeon who was not previously involved in their care. The service also benefits a multidisciplinary team approach with contributions from specialist nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacy staff and a clinical psychologist. All of that is extremely important. Alongside the national specialist service, the bill allows the Scottish Government to make it possible for women who choose to, because of lack of trust or because of past experiences in our NHS, to be referred to for surgery in NHS England and in the independent sector. That alternative pathway approach is a specialist centre, Spire Healthcare in Bristol or Mercy Hospital in Missouri. Through evidence to the committee, we heard how some women had already paid to have private treatment for corrective and mesh removal surgery before arrangements were in place for women to be referred to for this surgery. I therefore welcome that section 1 and 2 of the bill makes provisions for women in this circumstance to be reimbursed. I would ask the cabinet secretary for assurance that the payments will be made in a timely manner following any claims that will be made. In closing, I again note that this is a narrow but essential bill that will ensure that all women and again many very seriously impacted physically and psychologically that have the care that is suited to them that they choose. I agree with Gillian Martin that this bill is only part of the care process and I will continue to look forward to monitoring the progress. Ms Harper, I now call on Paul O'Kane to be followed by Gillian Mackay for around four minutes, Mr O'Kane. I am pleased to be able to make this contribution as we reach stage 3 of this important bill. It has been a long process and as an MSP elected last year, I have only been part of that process for a short time. Tribute is due to all those brave women who have told their story time and time again, who have campaigned ferociously and who have called on all of us to do the right thing, despite all of their own personal pain, both physical and psychological. Tribute also, as we have heard already, is due to Jackson Carlaw, Alec Neill and Neil Findlay and other colleagues who have worked in this place to keep the bill firmly on the agenda and, indeed, to keep the Government on track to deliver the legislation. I am sure that, for so many people today, it feels like another milestone on what has become a journey for justice. As I say, I have only had a short insight into this journey from a parliamentary point of view through the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. It has been humbling to be part of the process of scrutinising this bill. As other speakers have said today, listening to the evidence of so many women and trying to think about how we act accordingly has been key to that. Scottish Labour is supportive of the overall aims and principles of the bill. Far too many women have gone through a traumatic experience since having their mesh fitted, and it is right that the Scottish Government covers any related costs that have been incurred in removing the device. However, as we have said at each stage, it is imperative that any agreed legislation ensures that all patients who have taken steps to have their mesh removed are reimbursed and that no one should be left behind. I think that the cabinet secretary is right when he speaks of the consensual approach that has been taken towards the bill and the consensus that we were able to find at the committee stage. It is welcome that my colleague Jackie Baillie's amendment was accepted at stage 2. That will ensure that, although mesh removal surgery may have been arranged by a specific date in the scheme, the actual surgery does not need to have taken place by that date. Indeed, that will be a great comfort to many in the passage of the bill. As we have already heard, we were also supportive of Sue Weber's amendments, which I think were helpful. I sought to reflect much of what we heard in committee to ensure that women would have access to specialist services for on-going issues, and indeed that the time frames would not apply as outlined in her first amendment. However, I know again that the cabinet secretary is willing to engage on the issue and to ensure that it will be for the NHS to respond and to ensure that any further surgery can take place. I would say to the cabinet secretary that, given the on-going pressures that we see in our NHS, he should expect scrutiny on that, and I am sure that he will be very open to that as we progress. I would also like to highlight the contribution that my colleague Carol Mocken has made in seeking assurances via her amendments at stage 2 to extend eligibility for those not ordinarily resident in Scotland and to ensure provisions for persons who incurred costs on behalf of someone else. I think that Carol Mocken made the case very strongly, and I know again that the cabinet secretary has engaged on those points with Carol Mocken to ensure that we have as wide a bill as possible and again that nobody falls through the gaps. In concluding, Deputy Presiding Officer, today we have the opportunity to offer financial redress to those who have endured so much, who have travelled across oceans, who have spent often all that they had to relieve pain and live life a little more fully. We cannot take away their pain fully, both physical and psychological, but we can use the powers of this Parliament to do the right thing. There will, of course, be more to do, and this is not the end of the journey, but for today it is right that we back the bill at decision time and ensure that we do right by miss survivors and leave no one behind. Thank you very much, Mr Mocken, and I call the final speaker in the open debate, Dylan Mackay, for around four minutes, Ms Mackay. Like many others in this chamber, I want to express my sincere thanks to the women who have campaigned for this bill and for justice to be delivered. We heard first-hand during committee evidence sessions the impact mesh implantation has had on their lives and the terrible pain and debilitating symptoms many have suffered. Their determination of them in the face of this is inspiring, and this victory is very much theirs. I have been heartened by the spirit with which members engaged with this bill. I note that there were concerns expressed by members during stage 1 about its scope being too narrow and the risk that mesh survivors would fall through the cracks of the reimbursement scheme. I shared many of those concerns. I am pleased, however, that the cabinet secretary is engaged with the committee and other members and has listened to those concerns and responded. The constructive engagement across the chamber is reflected by the fact that we have reached stage 3 with two amendments and highlights the way that this chamber works at its best. I know that the aim of everyone in this chamber and at health and sport committee has been for this bill to deliver justice to the mesh survivors. Our job is not done, however. We need to make sure that the reimbursement scheme is flexible and that it achieves its intended aims. During committee, we heard concerns about the in-betweeners. Those who have already arranged private surgery but have not yet received it and I am grateful for the cabinet secretary's reassurances this afternoon. I would also like to thank the cabinet secretary for sharing the draft scheme and I, like others in this chamber, awake the final detail of the scheme with keen interest. The bill will address the financial cost that many women have incurred when obtaining mesh removal surgery but not the emotional and physical costs. In committee, I asked about on-going mental health support for mesh survivors and I think that it is worth revisiting that point. Many women may have experienced trauma as a result of mesh implantation and it is vital that we not only provide them with the mental health support and treatment that they need but that we also seek to rebuild the trust that may have broken down between them and NHS services. The committee heard that follow-up care for those who have received removal surgery outwith the NHS, including mental health support, physical health support and physiotherapy, was not always easily accessible in Scotland for individuals. We need to ensure that those women are receiving comprehensive wraparound care and that those who are treating them are aware of their history. We must also not neglect those who do not seek private removal surgery but who may also have experienced trauma and breakdown in trust. They too must receive the support and treatment that they need and just as much emphasis must be placed on rebuilding their relationship with clinicians. The Scottish mesh survivors have on-going concerns about treatment of people with mesh complications and it is important that we seek to address them. Concerns around waiting times for the national mesh complication centre were raised during committee for example. Our NHS is under unprecedented pressure and the committee heard evidence that patients are facing long waits for appointments. Some women have experienced waits of at least nine months to be assessed with longer waits for appointments and surgery. I would appreciate any comments from the cabinet secretary about how we can work to reduce those waiting times. As the committee's stage 1 report noted, it is vitally important that any individual who has experienced complications due to transvaginal mesh can have their case reviewed and receive appropriate treatment as quickly as practically possible via the complex mesh national surgical service. The committee has stated its intention to continue to have an active interest in the operation of the complex mesh national surgical service and to take further evidence on this topic this year. I look forward to taking part in that important scrutiny work. The Scottish Greens will be delighted to vote for this bill at decision time. Thank you, everyone who has contributed to this necessary debate. As others have noted, the reforms to the bill have come about as part of a lengthy and well considered response to what were very reasonable worries expressed by those who were so unfairly treated. It is warmly welcome by Scottish Labour that all parties across the chamber agree that securing adequate reimbursement is fair and just, and it expresses our regret to the women that anyone could be left in such pain and distress for so long. Gillian Martin quite rightly indicated the health, social care and sports committee will be keeping an eye on the progress that this bill makes for women, and, as Emma Harper reiterated, that is not the end of the committee's work. We have a lot more to do in reassuring women in the future. We can have a world-class service. We thank all the women for sharing their stories over and over again, as was repeated in Keikhoi, which made this point very well. I thank Paul O'Kane for reminding us of the work before this Parliament just coming in May. I can only imagine the work that went in beforehand, and we must thank Jackson Carlaw, Neil Findlay and Alec Neill in particular, but all the committees that the bill procedures went through to get to this stage are long awaited, but thanks to all those who worked over all those years. I have stated to Scottish Labour that I am fully supportive of the overall aims and principles of the bill. I want to see it in place as soon as possible. As many members have paid tribute to, far too many women have gone through a traumatic experience since having their mesh fitted, and it is right that the Scottish Government covers any related costs that have been incurred in its imperative that, when we, hopefully, at decision time, agree this bill, it can move forward quickly. The bill includes travel costs, telecomedations, and we are assured from the bill and the guidance that will cover all the cut-off dates, the evidence to review if someone is refused payment and the minister indicated that they have appointed someone to administer the scheme. That is all very welcome. We require this legislation now, and I am glad that we are getting on with the job of doing this. As such, I reiterate my party's position that we support the bill. We will, of course, continue to scrutinise the Government as it progresses to ensure that it is fit for purpose and in particular how the Government will raise awareness so that women know that they are entitled to reimbursement. If we cannot adequately inform people of what they are entitled to, we cannot be surprised when they fail to take it up. In closing, Scottish Labour hopes that this debate will give some of the women reassurance that we will move forward. I thank everybody in the chamber today and the Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Mocken. I now call on Jackson Carlaw for around five minutes, Mr Carlaw. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Ysaf and the Government on driving this bill forward today to its conclusion. I do not think that people really realise just how unprecedented and brave a bill this actually is. It may be quite narrowly focused in its scope, but it is without precedent that we are, as a country, as a national health service, reimbursing the costs incurred by women for health treatment incurred by them outside the scope of the national health service and, in some cases, internationally. I hope that that sets as an example to other countries that are also seeking to decide how they bring justice to the women in their own countries who have suffered, and it may yet, in the future, serve as a model for some unforeseen future problem. I do not want to walk away from the fact that issues remain. We wait to see what Professor Alison Britton's casework review yet reveals when her report is published. We look to more to the implementation of recommendations made by Baroness Cumberledge, which is still on-going, and, of course, we note the cabinet secretary's assurance in relation to the women themselves who have had measures removed, but have consequential health issues, which still require to be resolved. We want to ensure that focus continues to be brought to bear with them. I thank a number of people in my stage 1 contribution, and I do not wish to go through the same list again, but I would like to thank some other women this time, formidable journalists who have actually been fundamental to the success of this campaign. Lucy Adams at the BBC, but in particular her predecessor, Eleanor Bradfield, who was one of the very first journalists in mainstream broadcasting media who was prepared to confront the issue and ensure that it got a public airing. To Mandy Rhodes at Holyrood magazine, who has been a sedious supporter of the women throughout, and a continual support to those of us who have sought to maintain focus on the issue. I hope that they will forgive me if I particularly single out the indefatigable efforts of and indomitable efforts of the investigative journalist Marion Scott, first of the Sunday Mail, now of the Sunday Post. Maaz, as she is known to the women, who absolutely has been beside them at every turn, who has left no stone unturned in ensuring that every aspect of the story and its development across the world was given a proper airing and brought to bear on the debate that we had. I know that she has been the most extraordinary friend to all of these women, and they, I think, owe her and believe that they owe her a great deal in ensuring that the campaign that they have been fighting has led to the success that it has today. I would like to thank, of course, once again Elaine Holmes, my constituent, who brought this petition to the Parliament together with Olive McElroy eight years ago, almost to the day, April 2014. I would like, Presiding Officer, to conclude on a personal reflection. I have been in this chamber now for 15 years. Many of the big issues that I confronted in my youth and politics were resolved before I got here. Many in my favour are others not so, but the issues that I have been involved in in this Parliament, I realise, have formed a thread supporting Trish Godman's campaign for wheelchairs in the first Parliament, which has made such a life-changing effect to many of the people who previously had no bespoke wheelchairs and had to make do with things that were unsuitable. The campaign that my colleague and friend Ruth Davidson asked me to lead in behalf of my party for same-sex marriage, the campaign that I fought with others for access to often-conditioned pharmaceutical medicines that had so often previously been overlooked, standing up for my Jewish constituents in Eastwood ormwell widely across Scotland, campaigning with Margo MacDonald and now with you, Deputy Presiding Officer, to bring enlightenment to the issue of assisted dying and now also on mesh. The common thread throughout has been all of those depended entirely on powerful cross-party working across this Parliament. They are a model of what, when we do together as parliamentarians, we can achieve and how powerful the message can be in changing for the benefit of people all across Scotland in every different way of life when they know they have the support of the whole Parliament in doing that. Some people have been kind enough to refer to the fact that Alec Neil, Neil Findlay and I have been referred from time to time as the three meshketeers. Today, Presiding Officer, this is a united Parliament of meshketeers and that is something of which we can all be proud. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Carlaw. I call on the cabinet secretary to conclude the debate for around six minutes, please, Mr Heeson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do not know if I have said this in my 10 years in Parliament, but it is a genuine pleasure to follow Jackson Carlaw if there is excellent speech, a very powerful speech.  I do hope that people and the women in particular who are watching the consideration of this bill will feel able to agree that our work on it sees this Parliament, as others have said, at its very best. Members working across parties to try to make life better for our constituents, the people who send us here to represent them, to right wrongs done and to help those who have been harmed through absolutely no fault of their own whatsoever. That is what we have tried to do together in relation to this very important bill today. Let me thank members of the Health, Sport and Social Care Committee for their thoughtful consideration. My thanks also to those members, as I say, both past and present, who have campaigned on the mesh issue for many years. In some respects, as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, I am doing the easy bit of bringing the bill forward. There was already good will from members right across the chamber, but let me pay tribute to my predecessor, Jean Freeman, for committing to take action at the end of the last session of the Parliament. Even her predecessor, Shora Robison, who first engaged with the women affected and promised them that their plight would not be ignored. Let me also, as other members have rightly done, praise the cross-party campaigns that were headed by Jackson Carlaw, Neil Findlay and Alex Neil, who have played an incredibly important role in ensuring that the voices of mesh survivors were heard loudly by the Government, being determined in their efforts and making sure that their voice was heard not just by the Government but heard in the chamber. Something tells me that the three of four mentioned MSPs probably do not catch up regularly over a pint, although Shora Robison seems to refer to the fact that she may do it more often than we think, but I think that she can all take real pride in her collective efforts. Let me also thank the Finance and Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of the bill. Of course, rightly, all of us have ensured that the most important thanks and gratitude that we can give is to those women who have taken time to engage with and express their views on the bill as it has progressed both in the focus groups and the evidence to committee, as well as speaking to Parliamentarians and ministers, and I know that many have spoken to me directly and personally too. It is fair to say that without your courage, we would not be here today. I thank you for that. I thought that Gillian Martin made a really important point that those women affected have probably told their story time and time and time again, and that, of course, involves, unfortunately, re-traumatisation and, hopefully, by passing the bill today, as it looks like we are about to do, we will no longer have to share that story again. The Government and NHS Scotland are working hard to improve the care that is being offered to those women. Many colleagues have referenced the national specialist mesh removal service in Glasgow. We will continue to see how we can improve that service. I know that there has been feedback on how that service can be improved. I was heartened to hear Dr Gohanay, obviously, with his clinical experience, speak positively about the expertise and skills of the individuals at that national centre. If there are improvements to be made, we will look to hear that feedback from the women involved. A number of members have asked about the reimbursement scheme, and I think of a reassurance that it will be as flexible as it possibly can be in its administration. Let me say very clearly that it is my expectation, in my role as Cabinet Secretary for Health, that each application should be considered on its own merits. Not only that, my instruction is clear that, where there is doubt about any aspect of an application, my expectation is that those who are administering the scheme will work alongside applicants and apply common sense and good judgment. I do not expect that women who had private mesh surgery or private mesh removal surgery in America five years ago will have kept their taxi receipt from the hotel to the hospital. I expect the scheme to be operating on a basis where those who are making the claims are given the benefit of their doubt and appropriate judgment are applied and all of that is done in a way that, of course, is consistent with their obligations to public finance. On some of the other issues that were raised by colleagues, I think that they are absolutely right. There are concerns, undoubtedly, about the waiting time for referral. I think that Paul O'Kane mentioned this and other members mentioned this—the time for referral to the national centre. That is fair, but, of course, that is a service like the rest of the NHS that has been impacted. I take Paul O'Kane's challenge absolutely in the spirit that it was intended that he and others will continue to scrutinise that referral, and they are right absolutely to do so. Karen Walker made a really important point about communication. I give her an absolute assurance as foremost in our thought that, in fact, prior to the scheme being ready to open, we have clear communication in place about eligibility criteria, what is expected, how you make an application, how long you have to wait, etc. All that work is very much being done at the moment. Other points being made by other colleagues were important about the fact that there are on-going issues. As Karen Walker said, that is not the end of the road. This bill is an important step. We all recognise that, but there are women who have not had mesh removal surgery, and therefore we need to guide them as appropriately and sensitively as we can through the other avenues for recourse that exist for them. That is not the end of the road, but an important chapter. I think that it is probably right that I give the last word to the women who fought so long to get us to this point today. We would not be here without them, without the campaigning of MSPs, as they say, over a number of years. Let me therefore quote from a letter that was submitted by some of them to members of the Public Petitions Committee. It said, and I agree with it wholeheartedly, that these women have already suffered the loss of lives. They once enjoyed their jobs, mobility and marital lives. They have been left on benefits, they have been left dependent on others because they trusted that they were receiving a gold standard treatment. We do not believe that they should have to suffer the loss of their life savings to I wholeheartedly agree. I feel confident that everyone in this Parliament believes reimbursement of these personal costs is the very least that mesh survivors deserve. So we are all here today with that unified purpose to make sure that we do right by women who have suffered through no fault of their own. I am delighted to close this debate, move the motion in my name, and I hope that members will support unanimously this incredibly important bill. That concludes the debate on the Transvaginal Mesh Removal Cost Reimbursement Scotland Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 2934 on committee membership. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 2895, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on Transvaginal Mesh Removal Cost Reimbursement Scotland Bill be agreed. There will now be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.


Theft is on the rise but not just at American grocery stores this is even happening at stores in Australia so I guess the question is worldwide speaking what's going on? Yeah man look at the headlines recently in America it just went viral because San Francisco Safeways are implementing a high-tech exit door where you have to scan your receipt to leave the store obviously this is a very expensive system that Safeway is implementing to curb shop lifting. Shane has added new security measures at stores around the Bay Area and Don Lin shows us the changes designed to slow down shoplifters. You have a good day. Thank you. Have a nice day. It's almost like the Bart Fairgate scan a receipt the two glass doors slide open Safeway shopping gates including the Mission Street store in the Excelsior district. Yeah no I mean shop lifting is running rampant it's chasing out a lot of stores there's even a store in New York a right aid that closed down because they were losing like $2,000 a day. I actually think they closed 300 of them around America due to shoplifting primarily or poor performance some combination of the two. And it's not just from grocery stores and corporations even people a lot of cars are getting stolen IKEA's were getting stolen because people learn how to hack them and then there was a lot of car parts that people are stealing so I guess there's just a lot of stealing nowadays and so I guess the question is is like what's going on guys this is not just an America problem the headlines are global and Australia supermarket giants high-end Canadian grocery stores and we're talking about from petty to FETI when I say FETI I meant whatever FETI WAP dinner didn't do and grentheft auto of course guys let's get into it later wait let's be honest there is a stew of factors right right a lot of people always want to point out the carrots or the beef or the spices but guess what in a stew Andrew they're all stewed together over time yeah I guess when you are watching this video you can think about which how would you rank the factors and what are the biggest reasons for this I think one reason is in my opinion is that people don't mind stealing from corporations the whole Robin Hood idea these are vendetta yeah because they're like corporations have been stealing from us all they care about a shareholders they're jacking up prices they don't care about the regular people I'm just gonna steal number two it is like the prosecution of crimes and petty theft obviously you know in San Francisco a lot of people were stealing up to what $950 because as long as it was under a thousand yeah you pretty much couldn't do anything right right so then obviously people were stealing a lot of stuff right so if you're and then security guards can't chase people down it's a liability all this other stuff and then also I other thing on my list is that I think social media like there's a lot of information out there on how to steal and it's kind of like cool to steal stuff now are you referring to the Kia challenge I mean that was one of them and then I think just like I'm sure if you dive deep enough on any platform there's probably you know hacks for everything I think there's something to the social media angle because there's so many people flexing Andrew whether that's legitimate gains fake gains or illegitimate real gains that they've gained through whatever scamming you know crypto schemes you know NFTs you know only fans sugar babies selling courses stock options with high risk volatility and those people seem like they're having a good time whether or not like we don't know the reality but they're flexing on everybody else that's going to send a signal and a more macro sense to a population like oh these people are getting all this money doing these things why not well what's a petty crime in comparison oh you're right and at the end of the day people can rationalize it saying oh what I stole 50 bucks from this corporation who cares I got what I needed and then also I'm not gonna lie there's a whole black market on reselling grocery store items you think people are just stealing a whole bunch of like medicine from like right-aid and Walgreens just for themselves to use because they got a headache no they're gonna resell it right absolutely let's get into the comment session guys keep it civil let us know what you think in the comment section down below right now is shoplifting or petty crimes or just theft an issue in your city right now I mean let's be honest Andrew it's big enough that we got to cover it this comment said listen people are trying to steal food instead of making food cheaper and more accessible to those people companies pay more to securitize the food and not give food security to the people in the most expensive region in the state of the country no less sickening so this is sort of like blaming it on the machine and the system saying listen the system made people insecure so they're trying to secure their diets by doing something illegal right it's for sure man especially with inflation and prices rising at the grocery store like man I do think something needs to step in I'm I'm assuming it'd be the government to help push down prices right especially in especially in the cities that need help there is macro downside pressure on the poor demographics in America right dude if you're poor and you're not making any more money at your job and then eggs are getting more expensive are 30% more expensive that's cutting into your life but of course Andrew there's a lot of valid arguments against this well and somebody from SF said and people wonder why SF is going to ish look at this comment basically saying like so what are you saying like just bad everybody's gonna break the law and the whole society is gonna fall apart right right it's definitely I mean I don't think either comments solve anything they're just different perspectives somebody said would you open your own market and then practice what you preach by just giving away everything that you worked hard for this person's taking more than what the perspective of a small business owner themselves a small market entrepreneur I do think that in general there's just a lot more distrust in the big systems that usually we're running the country like behind the scenes but now there's so many documentaries or so much conspiracy theories and so much information about how they run and then so you almost get to know a corporation better and therefore you feel less bad about stealing from them it's true it's true it's true somebody said these thieves are driving up the prices and causing stores to close yeah so here's another thing it is true if you steal enough from a store that store is probably gonna close down eventually and then there's no store there so now you're hurting that community maybe you're not from that community or maybe it is your community but either way if you steal from store in your community and that store shuts down somebody said but there are still plenty of agencies that give food away for free there's a ebt there's etc etc it depends on what state and county you're in but there are multiple programs to solve this this other person came back and said get off capitalism's D just because it didn't screw you guys or your groups or your families as much you guys will never understand I do think I am aware I don't know how prevalent that the free food is but I'm pretty sure the other side of it is the black market that people want to resell stuff on right no you see it in let's be honest in New York people getting a bunch of Ferrero Roches and going straight to the let's be so honest the old Asians they like Ferrero Roche selling it on the low it's weird yeah there's a there's a market for it though yeah I mean like we said like you could just put stuff out on a blanket nowadays if you're in like a certain big city right but like we said people got bad situations that they're going through to I have a lot of empathy for that too somebody said but these grocery stores made so much money during COVID for the execs and the shareholders well this is it goes sort of goes back to what you're saying and are not just saying like disconnected from corporations people literally see that those stocks or those valuations went during a period where that's the only place you could buy from somebody says you guys would have no idea what it's like until you are in that situation yeah I mean I do I do think that's true but I guess what's the solution here then somebody said let's just make it life harder for everybody because we won't prosecute crime how about a thousand hours of community service and someone said let's be honest in 2023 nobody cares about the community anymore you somebody says well these will be everywhere soon like basically people are saying this is just gonna encourage new technology to come into play like people are basically gonna put up these high-tech doors and spend more money no to secure like those Amazon go stores where you just pick an item up and then it scans and then you buy it as you walk out that's gonna be more prevalent yeah somebody says yeah man it's all about Japan how come we can't have our moral fiber like Japan yeah the classic why can't we be like Japan dude and then somebody said do you know what the Japanese did in World War two and someone said yeah they were really evil in World War two but they still didn't steal that aspect of morality is just or violation of morality is not part of their nature dude that's really funny I saw this one quote from the former US labor secretary and he said follow the money the story is clear food corporations are using inflation as a cover-up to jack up prices yeah now is inflation real or is it is the other other grocery stores jacking up the price too much how do you feel about your grocery store where you live you know like do you feel like the prices have been going up and then of course and you get the comment this is only in the Democrat state only a Democrat state would allow the whole city to just fall apart turn into Gotham yeah yeah no I'm pretty sure people are stealing probably from in every state in America yeah I mean long story short man Andrew aren't a lot of things a reason pizza and the reason pizza or pie has different slices just like any sort of pie chart that they give in any sort of company presentation yeah you know just like I don't think you're ever gonna like slow down innovation of new technologies and I think a lot of people when they get new technology they use it to just commit crimes more efficiently but now what's gonna happen is that you're gonna be using technology to up the surveillance up the security doors up that whole like the whole concept of the Amazon go where you already your cards in once you walk in and then anything you walk out with you already bought and I believe the New York MTA is trying to think of a better turnstile to stop people from stealing subway fares yeah yeah yeah listen everybody at the end of the day the more people that want to steal the more security measures there's gonna be and then you think walking into a grocery store David in 20 years from now it's not gonna be the same man Andrew let's take it back to a Kant the philosopher Andrew has the social contract been violated yeah I do think that there has to be some type of reconciliation between like the regular people in the corporations and I'm not like against capitalism obviously right you know I'm along with it but at the end of the day it's like yeah man like the government corporations everybody's got to do a little bit better because everybody's basically just acting crazy right because the corporations are trying to squeeze the consumers the consumers they're feeling like very rebellious and it's not good for either side to be honest right I think honestly this is my big takeaway that I think is gonna happen I think like you said we're gonna be moving more towards higher tech things delivery there's gonna be a point Andrew where delivery is cheaper than going to the store you know why because they're not gonna have to deal with any loss of slippage or theft right and they're not gonna need to deal with overhead costs so actually they're gonna lower the price online so even with the delivery it's still cheaper than you going to the store and buying it yeah if you think about it less a few less people are shopping at grocery stores because now you got gopuff and all these other deliveries what it depends on what state you're in but there's like a hundred of them right those stores those warehouses don't get rated and stolen from like the public stores do so it's really actually man those public stores unfortunately are really paying the cost right now man and I'm sure they're big corporations obviously I think like the CEO's eating fine but they lose enough money and people lose jobs that's just gonna create more people without jobs and then it could be just a cycle so yeah also you know what's interesting about America Andrew is there could be theoretically in increased surveillance with you know obviously the progress in AI but that's also potentially gonna go against some American ideals or at least the way a lot of people interpret American ideals so I guess in your guys opinion knowing all this or having this conversation what do you think is an actual possible solution is it just who will vote the Republican team don't solve everything I don't think that's necessarily true and then I'm also like okay so I guess is it just make food cheaper okay how do you make food cheap what's the yeah I'm with you know dude I went to Canada they got these like really cheap I don't know if their government subsidized stores but gives you know how the exchange rate with Canada like they're very cheap yeah like they they push this like government orange juice down to like two dollars for a big two-liter I saw it with my own eyes I was in Canada because obviously that's more they have a they have a different system in regards to capitalism right so anyway guys pros and cons of every package just like I always say man any NBA team always pros and cons to every offensive and defensive scheme they run let us know what you guys think in the comments section below where are we headed what can be done keep it civil until next time with a hop-hop boys we out peace