 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 10034, in the name of Delford's Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting it a revision to the business programme for today. Any member wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak but now, and I call on Delford's Patrick to move motion number 10034. Moved. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 10034, in the name of Delford's Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. I take it dead to preside enough so that you are not meaning to press your button here. Thank you. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 10024, in the name of Delford's Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting it a time double for the stage three consideration of the procurement reform Scotland bill. Any member wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak but now, and I call on Delford's Patrick to move motion number 10024. Moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 10024, in the name of Delford's Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is topical questions. Question number 1, Neil Findlay. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent reclassification of mesh implants as high risk in the United States, when mesh implants will be banned in the NHS in Scotland. Minister Michael Matheson. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being has written to both the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and to the European Commission asking that they urgently consider the US Food and Drug Administration's proposed reclassification of surgical mesh for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. The European Commission is seeking further research and expert opinion. The cabinet secretary has asked for assurance that it will act quickly once the research is available to reclassify these devices if the evidence points to that requirement. The implications for many after the implant of a mesh device are devastating leaving women disabled and chronic pain and facing a life of multiple operations and uncertainty. We see in the US understrel your mass class actions against the manufacturers and these are pending. The Scottish Government originally told me in an answer to a parliamentary question that only six women in Scotland has suffered an adverse impact of a mesh implant. That figure then rose to 101 but an FOI I submitted to health boards reveals that over 330 women have had to have mesh fully or partially removed and over 10,000 have had an implant. That despite a parliamentary answer suggesting that the number was 2,000— Yes, but can we have a question? Can the cabinet secretary or the minister confirm if he now has definitive numbers of those implanted and those who have suffered complications? I can say to the member that we have a range of figures for the number of procedures that were undertaken where they used transvaginal mesh implants. They go back to 2007, 2008 and up to 2012 and 2013. I am more than happy to make sure that those figures are provided to the member on the annual breakdown that we have. In terms of the actual figures relating to particular problems with a specific product, we do not have specific data on that for the reasons that the information relating to a specific product is not recorded in a patient's medical notes. What we are doing as a Government is taking forward a programme of work to look at how we can make sure that where there are medical implants used in a procedure is a way in which that can then be recorded into the patient's electronic records in order to make sure that we have a much clearer picture of a number of patients who may be affected should problems develop with a particular medical implant. What are obviously large numbers? The Scottish Government has been reluctant to suspend the use of mesh devices. It is apparently out of concern that the manufacturers will instigate legal action against the Scottish Government. Can the minister confirm if he is still concerned that the Scottish Government could face legal action from manufacturers? If he has changed his mind and is now ready to put the women of Scotland first over any legal concerns that he may have, does he have the same concern about the legal action being pursued by those who have been horribly injured by those products? Of course, as a Government, our sympathy is with any woman who has had a complication as a result of treatment that has been received through the use of this particular type of medical product. However, he will understand that those products are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency and also by the European Commission. We have to be led by their guidance on this matter. Like other regulatory bodies across the world, MHRA and the UK are not recommending that it should not be used at this present time. However, we have asked for an urgent meeting with them to ask them about what specific action they now intend to take as a result of the FDA's actions in the United States. Equally, we have also asked for the European Commission to be very clear about the two pieces of research that they are undertaking as well, to make sure that once the findings of those research projects are carried out, action is taken quickly. If that leads to the need for a reclassification of those products, we will act on that. We have to work within the regulatory function that we have at the present time so that the member can be reassured that, if there is any change to the guidance and recommendation that is made by the MHRA or the European Commission, this Government will act swiftly on that matter. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given the emerging worldwide concerns about mesh implants and the difficulties and costs associated with removing them, can the minister assure our Parliament and our constituents that the Scottish Government will be issuing fresh guidance to NHS boards on the use of mesh implants and will be taking a more open approach to dealing with legitimate concerns and be prepared to play their part in a worldwide collaborative approach to resolving this emerging problem? One of the actions that the cabinet secretary has taken forward is the establishment of a working group who is looking at the very issue. One of the early actions that that working group is taking forward is the information and the consent that is provided by women who are undergoing this procedure or potentially undergoing this procedure. My understanding is that the working group intend to issue that very shortly and we will make sure that that is rolled out right across the whole of the NHS so that women are fully informed about this procedure and some of the issues that are associated with it. The member also made reference to the impact that it has on those women who have complications. Another piece of work that the expert group is taking forward is the patient pathway for those women who have complications to make sure that that is robust and that it is very clear and that they receive the early treatment that they require in this matter. Of course, if there is a need to engage with other authorities across the rest of the world, we will be more than happy to do so. However, I hope that the member is reassured by the actions that the cabinet secretary has taken. We intend to make sure that, where there is a change in any recommendations around this particular procedure and using this particular type of device, we act quickly within NHS Scotland. Presiding Officer, can I ask the minister whether he is aware of any potential risks identified that relate to the use of other mesh devices such as a hernia mesh and how those devices have been affected by the decision in the United States? I am afraid that I can only refer to the proposal from the FDA. My understanding is that that is in relation to the use of pelvic organ prolapse mesh, so I am not able to refer to mesh that is used for other procedures. However, it is worth pointing out that today the evidence does not point to a particular product produced by a particular manufacturer. It is important that we make sure that this procedure is one that the public can have confidence in. There is an area of work that has been taken forward by York University to look at the procedure using mesh and using natural tissue to see whether the outcomes for patients are better. Once we have the findings of that from the MHRA, we will then be in a position to consider how that can be rolled out to clinicians in NHS Scotland. A constituent of mine was one to first have this mesh implant in February 2007. Within weeks she knew something was very far on. Constantly she had it removed in 2008 and January 2014. Can the cabinet minister confirm what advice was given to those who took part in the pilot programme for the mesh implants? To quote my constituent, the Scottish Government it was her understanding made funding available in 2008 to have these implants removed, but because there were so many cases the Government had a change of heart when it realised the severity of the situation and the funding was removed. Can he confirm that that was the case? On the final point that the member made reference to, I do not have any recollection of that whatsoever. If there are patients who require an intervention or medical intervention on the basis of complications relating to a particular product, medical device that is being used in a previous procedure, then we would expect clinicians to take that further in an appropriate way. That is a matter for clinical decision making, rather than ministerial decision making. In relation to the specific points that she made about her constituent, if she wishes to write to me with the specific details, I would be more than happy to make sure that that is looked into and that she gets a full and detailed response to it. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report in the Sunday Herald, suggesting that the Labour Administration in the 1970s ignored advice about setting up a North Sea oil wealth fund. The two reports written by Professor Gavin McCrown and highlighted this weekend provide further evidence of the mismanagement of Scotland's oil and gas resources by successive UK Governments. The costs of ignoring this advice are now clear. Norway discovered oil at the same time as Scotland and now has an oil savings fund worth £500 billion, equivalent to £100,000 for every man, woman and child in Norway. There can be no clearer demonstration of the need for Scotland to make our own decisions on the issues that matter to Scotland than those revelations, which show that, in spite of the evidence presented by the then Scottish Office and the arguments of distinguished individuals like John Smith, the Treasury failed to put Scotland's interests first. However, with up to 24 billion barrels of oil still to be recovered from the North Sea, it is clear that the sector will be an important source of tax revenue for decades to come. With independence, we will have the tools to ensure that the wealth generated by those resources can be used for the long-term benefit of the people of Scotland. I note the figures that the cabinet secretary mentioned in relation to Norway, and I wonder if he can give any idea as to how much money we might have had in our oil fund had the Callaghan Labour Government at the time actually heeded the advice of Government advisers. Analysis on this point was undertaken by the Fiscal Commission working group, who concluded that, if Scotland had established an oil fund in 1980, it could have eliminated its share of UK public sector debt by 1982-83 and accumulated substantial financial assets of between £82 billion and £116 billion by 2011-12. The evidence that the Fiscal Commission has put into this debate is significant evidence that indicates the strength of the missed economic opportunity for Scotland as a consequence of not having those resources stewarded in the most effective way for the long-term interests of the people of Scotland. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Sometimes we are told that bigger is better, and yet can the cabinet secretary explain how a small country like Norway has repeatedly made very wise decisions, and a larger country like the UK has repeatedly made very unwise decisions. The information that became available at the weekend demonstrated the fact that there was a very active and deliberate choice made in the 1970s, which was to essentially use the resources from Nosea oil and gas not to provide long-term economic security for the people of Scotland, but instead to utilise that resource to prop up the failing United Kingdom economy. Of course, the issues that Scotland faces today about determining our own political future are issues that are very similar to the issues that were considered in the 1970s. The great advantage that we have is the opportunity in September to take a democratic decision to put the people of Scotland in the driving seat of determining their own future in this question. The advice that Gavin McRone gave to the UK Government last century is very interesting, but perhaps more important and more topical is the advice that he gave to the finance committee of this Parliament last week, when he said that if Scotland's public expenditure was similar to the UK average, Nosea oil would be a kind of bonus, which would be all right. However, Scotland's public expenditure is about 10 per cent higher than the UK average. In other words, in 2014, diverting oil revenues to an oil wealth fund would require swinging cuts in public expenditure. Is that the cabinet secretary's plan? No, it's not, because what that question ignores, as it always ignores from Mr Gray, is the stronger financial position of Scotland that we are in. If Mr Gray happens to look at the last five years of the GERS information, for example, it shows Scotland to be in a stronger financial position to the tune of £8.3 billion compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. That opens up choices. It opens up choices as to whether we reduce debt faster or whether we invest more in public expenditure and public services, or whether we invest in the long-term orphanage. However, the crucial thing is that none of those choices are available to us because the UK parties persistently squander the natural wealth and the financial advantage of Scotland. The sooner that we have the opportunity to take the decisions that are in the interests of the people of Scotland, the more we can take decisions about the long-term future of our country. Based on the cabinet secretary's updated oil figures, which he has yet to publish, how much does he think that an independent Scotland could put into an oil fund in year 1, and how much could it put in in year 2? The first thing in answering that point is to put on the record once again that, given the advice and given the opportunity to invest in a long-term oil fund over the last 40 years, the United Kingdom Government decided not to embark on that proposition. The Government has set out, with the assistance of the Fiscal Commission, the arguments about how we could construct a long-term savings fund for Scotland, and I have just answered Ian Gray demonstrating that, based on the last five years, Scotland was in a stronger financial position than the rest of the UK, equipping us to invest in an oil fund if we choose to do so. The key point is whether we decide to take our future in our own hands, or whether we will leave it to the United Kingdom Governments who have made such a mess of the public finances of the United Kingdom and wasted Scotland's oil revenues in the process. I apologise to Malcolm Chisholm and Chick Brody. I simply do not have enough time to let you ask a question, but I think that we have had a wide range of views on it. The next item of business is stage 3, proceedings on the procurement reform, Scotland Bill, in dealing with the amendments.