 The next item of business today is consideration of business motion 4474 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for today. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now. Monica Lennon has asked to speak. I will call Monica Lennon. I am taking the unusual step of speaking against the business motion. I do so because of the importance of this afternoon's debate on international women's day. I am very supportive of the Government's decision to hold a full debate to mark international women's day. It is certainly appreciated by members across the chamber. However, as was raised in the Parliamentary Bureau meeting this morning, the Government has today decided to make a ministerial statement on the Children and Young People Act, which was only announced late last night. That has delayed in the debate on international women's day being delayed, cut by 20 minutes, and it will not conclude until 5.30 this evening, half an hour later than planned. Labour did not move against the conclusion time in the Parliamentary Bureau meeting this morning, so as to ensure that the debate was not shortened further. However, the irony of changing the time cannot be lost on this chamber. What kind of message has it sent to women who have cared responsibilities when our Parliament decides to delay a debate on this very issue? Labour would like to put it on record that we believe that the ministerial statement on the Children and Young People Act, if it had to be delivered today at all, should have been scheduled for after the debate to mark international women's day. A Parliament truly committed to eradicating gender equality wouldn't operate like this. Colin Jove, you also moved the motion, because I should have asked you earlier. Sorry, I moved the motion. I think that this is a very important debate that we are having this afternoon. All debates that we have in this Parliament are very important. This is the first time that I think that there has been a full Government debate on international women's day in this Parliament, so I am very proud to support the proposal to move decision time to 5.30 to ensure that we protect the time in that debate, have that debate and I move on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. The question is that motion 4.474, in the name of Joffice Patrick, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and we'll have to have a five-minute suspension while we call members to the chamber for a vote. The reason that there was a suspension is that a member has moved against the business motion, therefore I am now going to put the question to the chamber. The question is that the business motion number 4.474, in the name of Joffice Patrick, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed, we'll move to a vote and members be cast their votes now. On motion 4.474, the number of votes cast are as follows. There were 79 votes, yes, 0 votes, no, 16 abstentions. The motion is, therefore, agreed, members. On the next point of order, Elaine Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wonder if, under our standing orders, there's any way that you, as the Presiding Officer, can look at statements being introduced at very short notice to this Parliament, unless they are matters of extreme urgency and taking away time from important debates. I happen to believe... Order. Let the member make her point, please. I happen to believe that the International Women's Day, brought forward by the first time by this Government for debating this chamber in Government time, is an extremely important debate. I don't think that the cries of derision from the chamber, from the SNP benches, do that any justice. I'll be grateful for your consideration of this matter. I assure the member and other members present that this matter, the very point raised by Elaine Smith, was discussed at the Parliamentary Bureau this morning, and I'm sure that we'll be discussed again. I move on to the next item of business, which is topical questions. Topical questions. We'll start with question number one from Neil Findlay. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the resignation of two members of the review group into the use of transvaginal mesh. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison. Well, this is a complex issue, and the review has had to carefully consider a wide range of evidence and views. I am aware and concerned about the resignation of two of the review's members, and I hope to meet with them soon to hear their concerns directly. In addition, I plan to meet separately with the chair of the review so that I can discuss these matters with her. I've asked that the chief medical officer attends both meetings. I should say and put on record that I'm grateful to all members involved for their expertise in considerable efforts over the years. The independent review continues its work to produce its final report, and we expect them to publish it this spring. Elaine Holmes and Oliver McElroy are two of the bravest and most honest women that I know. Despite chronic pain and disability as a result of mesh implants, they have put their heart and soul into the review group on the use of mesh in the hope that no other women in Scotland would experience what they and hundreds of other sufferers are going through. They wrote to the review group and copied in the cabinet secretary weeks ago raising concerns and have received no reply. All of them, Elaine, resigned from the review at the weekend because, one, secret meetings have been taking place for the last 10 months from which they were excluded. Two, the draft report that they signed up to in 2015, October 2015, has been fundamentally rewritten and overturned. Three, key information has been removed from the report. Four, critical new evidence has been omitted. Five, there is no mention whatsoever of the reclassification of mesh by the European Union. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in light of those concerns and many, many, many more, that this review has been completely compromised, and does she agree with Elaine and Oliver that it can be no longer regarded as an independent review? First of all, to put on record my thanks to Oliver McElroy and Elaine Holmes, for having met them on a number of occasions. They have worked very, very hard to raise this issue and have achieved a great deal. Not only in terms of the patient helpline, for example, that was established was no small part due to their campaigning. Also, of course, the fact that the chief medical officer has written to health boards back in 2014 requests that they suspend the procedures pending the independent reviews final report and, indeed, has recently written to every health board seeking assurances that fully informed consent has been sought in every case where the procedure is carried out. It is down to the efforts of all of McElroy and Elaine Holmes that those matters have come about and that those issues have been taken forward. In terms of the review group and the report, Neil Findlay will know, of course, that those are independent from Government. They are dealing with a range of complex issues. Since the interim report was published, there has been additional evidence and reports put into the public domain, which I think we would all accept that the final report would take account of. I think that it is not surprising that some changes have been made. However, having said that, some of the issues that Neil Findlay has raised around some of the accusations and concerns that have been raised is the very reason that I will be meeting with all of McElroy and Elaine Holmes to hear directly from them about their concerns about the process. Going forward, none of us have seen this report. I have not seen the report and I think I would want to reserve judgment to see the report once it is published, but I want to assure Neil Findlay and others that I will listen very carefully, indeed, to the concerns raised by all of McElroy and Elaine Holmes. Neil Findlay. I hope that, as someone who has supported the mesh women throughout this process, I will be able to come along to that meeting with the cabinet secretary when it happens. Mesh is a global scandal. It is one of the biggest class actions in Australian history. Over 100,000 cases are in the US courts, with individual claims going into tens of millions of pounds. In Scotland, it will be the biggest ever action against our NHS, with currently 400 cases lodged. Mesh is permanent, difficult to remove, and, when it goes wrong, it is devastating. So why on earth would any independent review fail to consider all up-to-date information, whether that research is pro or anti-mesh? Well, none of us have seen the report, so I don't think we know whether or not the report has considered all that information, but the reason that I'm meeting with all of McElroy and Elaine Holmes is to hear their concerns about those issues, but also the reason that I'm meeting with the chair is to ask and address some of those issues with her also. In terms of meeting with Neil Findlay, I'm happy to meet with Neil Findlay also to discuss those issues, and, indeed, with any other member who wishes to. What is important once the final report is published is what then comes from that report in terms of guidance to clinicians. Of course, the chief medical officer will be a very key person involved in that, which is why I want her involved in the meetings that I'll be undertaking with Elaine Holmes and all of McElroy and the chair of the review group. I want to reassure all of McElroy and Elaine Holmes that the action that will flow, in addition to the action that is already taken, I want them to be involved in that, and that is something that I will discuss with them when I meet them. Jackson Carlaw. I concur with everything that Neil Findlay has said. Elaine Holmes is a constituent of mine. I'm a local hero at the opening of Parliament last year. The campaign that she and all of McElroy have led through the petitions committee in this Parliament has been quite exemplary in view of the tremendous pain and suffering they've gone through and which they continue to represent on behalf of thousands of women across Scotland. Only a few weeks ago, the First Minister gave me a category assurance that there would be no interference and no whitewash, and yet I have, since the lady's resignation, been contacted from elsewhere within the review group by others who are astonished at the wholesale removal of certain chapters from this report. Cabinet Secretary, the eyes of the world are on Scotland. We are the only Government, the only country undertaking a fundamental review into this procedure. I really have to hope and believe that this report will give justice to the women concerned and will truly still be independent because fundamental questions are currently being asked of whether we can have confidence in that. Cabinet Secretary. To Jackson Carlaw, first of all, in response to Neil Findlay, I absolutely recognise the efforts of all of McElroy and Elaine Holmes. In answer to Neil Findlay, I outline some of the actions that they have already secured because of their campaign and some of the assurances that the chief medical officer and myself gave to the committee on the back of their evidence in their campaign and the very practical things such as the patient helpline that has been established and the chief medical officer's letters to health boards have all really come on the back of the campaign that all of McElroy and Elaine Holmes have undertaken. I want to pay tribute to them. In terms of the First Minister's assurance, there has been absolutely no interference in the review group. I have not seen the report. I have seen the comments and concerns that have come from all of McElroy and Elaine Holmes, and I am concerned about that. That is why I have offered to meet them as quickly as possible to hear in more detail directly from them what their concerns about the process are. As I said to Neil Findlay, what is important at the end of all this is that whatever guidance is given to the NHS and to clinicians, we want to make sure that that is based on the most robust evidence. Of course, I would be really keen, as I said to Neil Findlay, to have the involvement of all of McElroy and Elaine Holmes in taking that forward. I will discuss that with them in more detail when I meet them. Question 2, Murdo Fraser. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the proposed merger between Aberdeen Asset Management and Standard Life would have on Scotland's economy. Minister Paul Wheelhouse. Aberdeen Asset Management and Standard Life are two leading firms in Scotland's financial services industry. We welcome the intention to grow the business in Scotland and to build on the expertise and skills of both companies and strengthen Scotland's global reputation for funding asset management. The First Minister has spoken with both the chief executive officer of Aberdeen Asset Management, Martin Gilbert and the chief executive officer of Standard Life, Keith Skiach, yesterday to discuss the proposed merger between the companies. The new company, which will reportedly be the largest fund manager in the UK and would be the largest active asset manager in Europe, will be a key player in Scotland's financial services sector and continue to be a very important contributor to Scotland's wider economy. I warmly welcome confirmation in the joint press release that the combined group will be headquartered in Scotland. We will be engaging with both companies as the merger progresses to discuss their plans for both employment and investment in Scotland in light of anticipated savings that have been set out. I note that the merger is still subject to shareholder and regulatory approvals and following that an integration period will begin. I have also been in contact with both companies and in the event that plans for the merger are confirmed. The Scottish Government stands ready to support the new business and their employees to ensure that what would be a world-class investment group has a bright future and to help the business to grow its activities in Scotland. I think that it is important to reflect that this announcement potentially puts the combined company in a particularly strong position to whether what continues to be a disruptive time for the asset management sector globally. Murdo Fraser. I thank the minister for his response. I agree with him that the proposed merger is an exciting opportunity to create a Scottish-headquartered world-leading investment house that will help to entrench Edinburgh's reputation as a financial centre. That said, the minister will be aware that there are concerns about the employment impacts of the merger from the discussions that have been held by Aberdeen Asset Management and Standard Life. What timescale would the minister expect there to be announcements about future workforce planning for the new entity? When will the staff be made aware of that? Minister. I recognise the concern that would be in a situation such as this where there is a significant change towards the company. I cannot dictate the timing that would be followed. Clearly, there are regulatory and shareholder interests here that allow internal processes to take place. However, as I mentioned, my original answer would be subject to shareholder and regulatory approval. There would then be an integration period that would involve much more detail work involving the workforce itself. In discussions with Standard Life and with Aberdeen Asset Management it is important to stress that both institutions are trying to create a world-class investment group. They are trying to grow the business and hope that that gives confidence that there has been confirmation of the headquarters being in Scotland. It is of great value to us all in this chamber and I warmly welcome that. In respect to the work of Standard Life I am aware that companies such as Standard Life Investments have been working on reducing their cost-income ratio to record increased profitability but they have also increased employment. It is not necessarily the case that cost reduction leads to a loss of employment. Indeed, it can be positive in terms of increased headcount. The whole has seen growth in its assets, revenues, profit and cash held and also has managed to increase headcount. Clearly, we remain of the view that this could be entirely positive development but we await the decision of shareholders and indeed the regulator. Murdo Fraser. I thank the minister for his response. I am sure that we would all welcome the fact that the headquarters of this new entity will not be based in Edinburgh. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the economic conditions in Edinburgh are right to help to secure the future of this very important new business and the many thousands of jobs that it will support? Minister. Clearly, we are very conscious of the need to try and maintain Scotland's competitiveness as a location and we work very closely with stakeholders in the financial services industry to understand their concerns. Indeed, we are looking for investment to help to underpin growth in the sector so in areas such as financial services we are clearly working on FinTech as a particular area of interest to companies across the sector. I am working very closely with stakeholders to ensure that Scotland remains at the forefront of that particular development of the sector and can capitalise the opportunities. More generally, we are working very closely with Edinburgh City Council, indeed Aberdeen, to make sure that we have a competitive business environment for our financial services industry. Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to declare a small interest that I worked for Standard Life in 2002 and 2003. I was pleased to note the assurances from Martin Gilbert of Aberdeen Asset Management that there will be an emphasis on growing the new business and utilising skills within both companies following the completion of the proposed merger. What relevant discussions has the Scottish Government had over the potential for growth and also for further job creation in Scotland's financial services industry and particularly here in Edinburgh? Minister. It is worth stating that both companies have been on record to stress that the merger would be bringing together complementary interests of the two companies, so in large part they are actually complementary to each other. The Scottish Government is working very closely with the sector to promote Scotland as a centre of excellence in financial services and indeed the financial services advisory board in which the First Minister sits alongside myself and the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Keith Brown, is also a really important forum for us to engage with industry in response also to Murdo Fraser's point that the conditions for the industry are as good as they can be. Scotland is internationally recognised, we believe, as the most important UK financial centre outside London and the south-east and offers a breadth of services including global cuts to the asset servicing, banking, investment management, corporate finance, general life assurance and pensions and so we have a broad base financial sector it's not all locked in one particular aspect or sub sector and the Scottish Government will continue to support the industry in maintaining its real strength and adapting to change. As I said in my original answer I believe that this merger potentially could create a new business which is world class and will be able to be resilient in the face of what can be quite challenging conditions for the financial services industry globally and that indeed it will help perhaps a company to capitalise on any new opportunities that are presented by developments in areas like fintech. Daniel Johnson I echo the previous speaker's comments about the focus on jobs and growth and welcoming the prospect of the new merged entity. The minister's right to point out that this happens within a context of challenge. Indeed, I was a recent visit I was being told that standard life alone has hundreds of thousands of customers in Germany and therefore passporting rights and maintaining access to those customers in Europe remains vitally important. Can the minister provide a description of what representations they have made both the UK Government and the European Commission about maintaining full passporting rights that are required for those retail customers over and above simple equivalence arrangements? Michael Russell I certainly recognise the importance of the issue of passporting. It is something that my colleague Michael Russell has been taking forward in his discussions with UK ministers about the implications of Brexit for the financial services industry. It is worth stressing that Edinburgh, is an area with about 26 per cent of employment in the financial services industry so I am sure it will be of great import to Mr Johnson, Mr McPherson and other members representing Edinburgh. The sector is clearly very important to Scotland as a whole. Its direct contribution to our economy cannot be overstated. Now that the UK Government has made clear its intent to leave the single markets essential, we believe that the UK Government sets out exactly how it intends to protect the financial services industry in the forthcoming negotiations. The Scottish Government will explore differential options as I am sure the member knows in terms of the options for Scotland as considering all possible steps to ensure Scotland's continuing relationship with the EU including seeking an agreement that will ensure Scotland retains single market membership even if the rest of the UK leaves. We are clearly keen to ensure that we engage with UK ministers and make sure they understand the importance of it. I have met Lord Price in my own context to stress the importance of financial services to Scotland and will continue to do so. That concludes topical questions.