Official Report 781KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20646, in the name of Jenni Minto, on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:45
Non-surgical procedures have become increasingly popular, but regulation has not kept pace with what is a growing industry. Many people who undergo such procedures are happy with the results and there are many responsible practitioners operating in the medical and beauty parts of the sector. Many people value those procedures; the bill is not about restricting access to them or judging anyone who receives them.
However, I have heard a number of powerful accounts of such procedures going wrong, including the account of the tragic death in England of a young mother. I am grateful to those who have brought the stories to my attention, including many MSPs who have campaigned on the issue. I present the bill in my capacity as minister for public health. However, as minister for women’s health, I am conscious that those stories of harm have predominantly affected women. We must act to minimise the risks of future harms to anyone who receives such procedures.
I welcome the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s constructive and thoughtful report and have given a lot of consideration to its proposals. I am grateful to the members across the chamber who have engaged with me for some time and who have arranged round tables to ensure that a wide range of voices have been heard.
Will Jenni Minto give way?
I will just finish my paragraph.
I am committed to maintaining consensus and would like members with proposals for improving the bill to raise them with me.
I, too, read the committee’s report with interest. The minister is right that those who avail themselves of such services are largely female; the sector is also largely female-led and dominated by self-employed practitioners. Does the minister recognise the concerns raised in the committee’s report that there is a risk that, if we get the balance wrong, skilled and experienced practitioners could be regulated out of their profession altogether?
I will touch on that later in my contribution.
As well as having meetings with members, I have heard directly from a wide range of interested groups and have met practitioners from the clinical and non-clinical parts of the sector. Events were hosted during the consultation period for non-healthcare practitioners and businesses, and we met groups representing doctors, nurses and other professionals. We received more than 2,000 responses to our consultation and almost 600 responses to a survey that was directed at businesses. We also met regulators and professional bodies.
The bill will make procedures safer for everyone. It will ensure that procedures take place in appropriate, hygienic settings, where healthcare professionals are involved in the provision or management of services and can assist if there are complications. It will also make it an offence to provide such procedures to a person who is under 18. An order has been introduced separately that establishes a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk procedures.
Although we should protect the right of adults to access non-surgical procedures safely, I am confident that I speak for a large majority when I say that those procedures are not suitable for people under 18. It was reassuring to see the provisions on that being backed strongly by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The provisions also address the gap between Scotland and England, where Botox and fillers are already banned for under-18s. The bill goes further, covering a wider range of procedures, to enhance that protection.
I will cover the point that Mr Cole-Hamilton raised. Although there is compelling support for the action we are proposing, I recognise that, as with all public health actions, there is a need to minimise the impact on legitimate and well-intentioned practitioners. We have listened carefully to all those who have offered views on the bill. I reflect on the concerns of people in parts of the sector that are currently non-regulated and not clinically led. I have been impressed by the skill and expertise of many practitioners and business owners, the vast majority of whom are women. Many are clearly committed to being well trained in their work and operate with careful regard to safety.
I have no interest in putting unnecessary burdens on those businesses. I do so only if I think that it is necessary to achieve the wider public safety aims that I seek to achieve. However, I know that the proposals will be a challenge for some businesses. There is scope for guidance and support for businesses that are looking to transition to the new regulatory regime, and some businesses may be able to offer licensable procedures instead. I have committed to giving businesses time to make the changes that they need to make.
Does the minister accept that the bill will make 1,800 female-led businesses go to the wall?
I do not recognise those numbers. I have been clear that I will work with businesses and with Mr Golden to look at what is possible.
However, I know that there are many who think that our approach is lacking in a different respect and who have said that the bill should be far more restrictive. That indicates the balance that I have sought to strike throughout the process: addressing the grave concerns that many people have about managing and minimising the risks of non-surgical procedures but, at the same time, minimising the effects on businesses. I commend the bill as the right way forward on an issue that clearly requires action.
I am also pleased to speak to part 2 of the bill, which includes amendments to the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011. Those amendments extend the right to request an interested person review and update the provisions on authorising cremations in Scotland when a death has occurred elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I thank the committee for supporting those changes and note its recognition of the benefits that the measures will bring.
Extending access to interested person reviews is an important step in strengthening public confidence and ensures that all relatives have the same opportunity to request a review when that would provide clarity or reassurance. We are also removing the requirement for medical reviewers to authorise cremations when the death took place in another part of the UK. Other UK nations already operate robust and reliable death certification systems. Recognising those processes avoids duplication, reduces delays for families and maintains appropriate safeguards.
I again thank the committee for its work on its report, and I thank everyone who gave evidence at stage 1. I look forward to hearing members’ views and encourage them to support the progress of the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill.
15:52
As convener, I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I thank everyone who contributed to the committee’s stage 1 scrutiny of the bill by providing written or oral evidence and place on record my thanks to the committee clerks for their work at stage 1.
During its scrutiny, the committee heard extensive evidence that non-surgical procedures such as Botox, fillers, strong chemical peels and some microneedling—many of which are provided for cosmetic purposes—can carry significant risks if not carried out in appropriate settings and by suitably trained practitioners. Our committee has concluded that patient safety has to be the overriding priority when considering regulation in the area. We have heard evidence of great variance in standards adhered to by practitioners who carry out non-surgical procedures. Therefore, robust regulation is necessary to ensure that people who want to access those procedures can do so safely and in a properly informed manner.
We fully support the provisions in the bill that will make it illegal to carry out non-surgical procedures on people under the age of 18. That is a welcome step towards protecting young people, who can be particularly vulnerable to influences about beauty standards from social media.
The committee supports the Scottish Government’s two-tier approach to regulation. Through the bill, high-risk procedures will be allowed to take place only in permitted premises, including in Healthcare Improvement Scotland-registered clinics, and under the supervision of authorised medical practitioners. Meanwhile, lower-risk procedures will be regulated through secondary legislation under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which the committee has also recently scrutinised.
At the same time, the committee concluded in its report that the bill currently lacks important detail on the specifics of clinical supervision and training requirements for those who will be allowed to undertake and supervise procedures. The committee acknowledges the impact that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has had on the Scottish Government’s ability to legislate in the area. Nonetheless, we urge the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to ensure that all those who carry out such procedures are suitably qualified to do so.
Our inquiry identified a number of other areas where the Scottish Government will need to work with the UK Government to resolve certain related issues. They include improved classification and regulation of certain devices and substances that are used in non-surgical procedures, regulation of irresponsible advertising of non-surgical procedures, and action to address the potential risk that regulation of the sector will result in an increase in cosmetic tourism.
During the scrutiny process, we heard concerns from many independent aesthetic practitioners that their businesses would be negatively impacted by the proposed approach to the regulation of non-surgical procedures that is set out in the bill. To alleviate those concerns, our report calls for appropriate guidance and support to be provided to help responsible practitioners to make a successful transition to the new regulatory framework. We also support a staged approach to enforcement that will give responsible practitioners suitable time and resource to adjust to the new regime.
As part of its scrutiny, the committee took evidence from Healthcare Improvement Scotland, which will have new powers of enforcement under the bill. We heard concerns about the extent to which HIS will have sufficient resources, capacity and training to be able to carry out its enforcement role effectively from the outset. To address those concerns, we call on the Scottish Government to publish an implementation route map to ensure that suitable processes, systems and resources are put in place by the date on which regulations will come into force.
Evidence that was submitted to the committee further highlighted that the penalties for offences that are created by the bill may not be sufficient to deter the bad actors who are willing to provide non-surgical procedures illegally. We therefore call for stronger penalties for offences that are committed under the terms of the bill.
The bill will provide an opportunity to improve data gathering on non-surgical procedures, particularly concerning the rate of procedures that are carried out successfully versus those that involve a complication or adverse reaction. More systematic data gathering will allow the bill’s implementation to be monitored and evaluated over time to determine its impact on patient safety.
Our scrutiny suggests that there is not a good level of awareness among the general public about the potential risks that are associated with such procedures or how to make a properly informed choice when accessing them. Our report therefore calls for a public awareness campaign as part of the implementation of the legislation to ensure that people have the confidence and knowledge to make informed choices should they wish to undergo a procedure.
Part 2 of the bill, which is entirely unrelated to part 1, concerns processes for certification of death and authorisation of cremation. The committee supports the proposed changes to those processes that are set out in the bill. Our view is that they will improve the processes by which medical certificates of cause of death are reviewed in Scotland, making them fairer and more efficient.
Subject to the recommended improvements that I have outlined, the committee strongly supports the bill’s provisions and has recommended that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. I look forward to hearing the contributions to this afternoon’s debate and to considering the bill further should the Parliament vote to approve its general principles.
15:58
I declare an interest as a practising national health service general practitioner.
At the heart of the bill is one simple issue: patient safety. At present, that safety is far too inconsistent, and in some parts of the non-surgical cosmetic sector, it is worryingly fragile. Let us be clear about the procedures that we are discussing: they are not ordinary beauty treatments. They involve needles, injections, prescription-only medicines such as botulinum toxin, and substances being placed under the skin. When things go wrong, the consequences can be not minor inconveniences but permanent scarring, tissue damage, psychological trauma or even emergency hospital treatment.
Many practitioners operate responsibly. They maintain clean premises, follow proper consent procedures and know how to recognise and, most important, manage complications. Those professionals deserve recognition, and many of them actively support and want stronger regulation, because they want a level playing field. They do not want to be undercut by individuals who complete a brief training programme and immediately begin carrying out invasive procedures without the same standards or safeguards.
In one case that I heard about, a practitioner failed to recognise that a patient was experiencing a severe allergic reaction following dissolution treatment, which required urgent intervention and emergency hospital treatment. In another instance, a client received the wrong injectable product under the eyes, which caused severe swelling and required medical referral, yet they struggled to obtain follow-up care or even basic accountability from the practitioner involved.
There are also examples of proper consent procedures clearly not being followed. One patient who was uncertain about proceeding with a treatment of Botox was encouraged just to undergo the injections immediately, so that she had no time to think about it, before being given an additional procedure that should never have followed the injection. The result was significant facial complications only weeks before her wedding.
Such situations are not hypothetical risks; they are real, and they are being experienced by real people in Scotland today. We have also seen cases in which complications such as vascular occlusion following lip filler treatments have left patients with lasting disfigurement. In several of those situations, complaints were reported, but little or not effective action followed, leaving patients uncertain where to turn and responsible practitioners frustrated by the absence of consistent enforcement.
We would never allow someone in a hospital to carry out minor surgical procedures in an environment that lacked proper infection control, medicine storage, documentation or emergency preparedness, but at present those same minor surgical procedures are occurring in settings that would not meet basic clinical standards. This bill is about drawing a line. There should be proper training, proper consent, safe storage of medicines, clinical hygiene and clear mechanisms for accountability when things go wrong.
Some concerns have been raised about the potential impact on small businesses. That is an important consideration, and consultation with the sector must continue to ensure that regulation is proportionate and workable. However, patient safety cannot depend on the size of the business or the setting in which treatment takes place. Procedures performed in a small or home-based practice must meet the same hygiene, safety and professional standards that larger facilities such as hospitals have to meet. Responsible businesses understand that, and many welcome the regulation, because it protects their reputation and their clients.
It is clear that some people are buying injectables from less than reputable places, which is resulting in questions about the quality and safety of those medications. When unregulated or poorly regulated procedures lead to complications, the cost—both financial and clinical—does not disappear; it is simply transferred to the NHS, corrective medical services and, most important, to the patients who have to live with the consequences. Not only is preventing harm in the first place safer, but it is the far more efficient and responsible thing to do.
The bill should not be about restricting a sector—it should be about modernising oversight so that regulation matches the reality of current practice. The number of non-surgical cosmetic procedures has expanded rapidly during recent years, and we have simply not kept up. By establishing clearer standards, stronger oversight and appropriate safeguards, we can protect patients, support practitioners and ensure that when people choose to undergo such procedures, they can do so with confidence and in the full knowledge that safety comes first. It is for those reasons that I am pleased to support the general principles of the bill.
16:03
I am pleased to confirm that Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1.
During the committee’s evidence gathering sessions, it was clear that the bill could have the potential not only to address gaps in a largely unregulated sector, but to greatly improve patient safety, as has been said. With the growth in the non-surgical cosmetic procedures industry, a worrying gap has been highlighted in essential regulation to protect people. For too long, the industry has operated without proper safety, accountability and professional standards in place, and that has allowed many to take advantage of some of our consumers.
Just to be clear, I know that many practitioners seek to keep the sector professional and practise at a high standard—this is about the need for proper accountability and regulation. The unaccountability and lack of regulation must come to an end and introducing further restrictions is a necessary step towards improving patient safety, which is the top priority.
As I have said, Scottish Labour recognises that the bill is not perfect and that there are a number of concerns about supporting the move to a new era of regulation, safety and standards that must be addressed at stage 2. I recognise that the minister has committed to doing that. We want fair and appropriate regulation that ensures the highest standards in patient safety, while supporting those providers who deliver a professional and safe service.
A key concern that was raised during the committee’s evidence gathering was about the inconsistencies in the training and qualifications of people who provide non-surgical procedures. There was consensus on the need for robust training and national standards to be put in place to ensure clarity and consistency. I hope that the minister will be able to give some feedback on that in her closing remarks, because the committee made it clear that the establishment of clear and appropriate standards will be critical to the bill’s implementation.
In addition, serious concerns were raised about whether the sanctions for committing offences under the bill went far enough and whether they would act as a strong enough deterrent for bad actors who are willing to commit repeat offences. I welcome the fact that the Government has recognised those concerns and is considering what more can be done to address them.
An equally important issue for compliance is whether providers are being given enough support to help them ensure that they follow the law. The Government has been unable to provide any detail on what such guidance would look like, and it has not been able to confirm whether businesses will receive financial support for some of the transitions that will be necessary. We hope that that will be covered at stage 2, and I would welcome any comments from the minister to indicate that we might be able to work together on that.
As well as providing guidance for providers, the bill presents a welcome opportunity—
Will the member give way?
Of course.
Does the member agree that we must also strengthen Healthcare Improvement Scotland and ensure that it has the capacity to carry out the functions that the bill will require it to?
That was a very helpful intervention. We heard that HIS needs to be strengthened. If we are serious about tackling the issue, we must ensure that HIS gets the appropriate funding and support for that work.
The committee also discussed the fact that the bill gives us a great opportunity to educate the public on the standards and qualifications that they should look for when they want to have such procedures carried out. We heard that many people might not understand the risks associated with the procedures, know which procedures are regulated, or know how they can ensure that their practitioner has been verified as a qualified practitioner and that the premises have been verified as safe. One witness who gave evidence to the committee argued that public awareness is extremely important and will be fundamental in enabling the bill to work effectively. Therefore, I ask the Government to take that issue seriously and to provide appropriate resources to ensure that we can increase public awareness.
I will close now, because I know that I am over time. As I have said, Scottish Labour supports the bill, and we look forward to working with other members to get it right at stage 2.
16:07
In my opening contribution, I want to spend some time reflecting on why we need the bill in the first place.
In March 2024, healthcare professionals warned that Scotland had become the worst country in Europe for unqualified practitioners injecting customers with cosmetic treatments. In its submission, the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons—that is not easy to say at this time on a Thursday—said:
“The impact on the NHS and public resources is significant. Our members are witnessing an alarming increase in severe complications from procedures performed by unqualified practitioners, many requiring emergency NHS care or even resulting in loss of life.”
Moreover, the Royal College of Nursing highlighted:
“None of the procedures listed in this Bill are without risk and there is a lack of any reliable data on the cost to the NHS of complications arising out of these procedures.”
Although we need to improve the data in order to better understand the full costs, the evidence from clinicians is clear. A survey that was conducted by the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland in October 2024 revealed that 35 per cent of respondents who worked in a medical field in Scotland had treated patients who had needed care following complications that arose from unregulated cosmetic procedures, and 86 per cent thought that the number of patients each year who seek care following complications resulting from unregulated cosmetic treatments had increased.
The proposed ban on procedures for under-18s is particularly important. The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh has said:
“Facial structures continue to develop into early adulthood, and starting these procedures from a young age can have long-term effects. Procedures such as dermal fillers and Botox too young can lead to muscle atrophy and tissue damage and should rightfully only be available to those over the age of 18.”
We do need to protect young people from the damaging long-term effects of cosmetic surgery, but it is also vital, as we have heard from others, that we protect people who are over 18 from side effects. The Royal College of Surgeons lists the serious complications associated with some cosmetic procedures, including
“infections, blocked arteries, necrosis, blindness and stroke”,
and it makes it clear in its submission that the introduction of the bill will
“reduce the likelihood and severity of any risks and complications.”
However, I believe that the bill should be strengthened in that regard, and that duties should be placed on practitioners to inform customers about the risks attached to procedures. I look forward to working with the minister on that.
The committee heard that the bill could have an impact on equality, as it will affect a female-dominated industry and might lead to reduced access to cosmetic procedures in remote and rural areas. The lack of regulation in the industry has led to unsafe practices that disproportionately affect vulnerable groups, but we need to ensure that those who are safely and ethically carrying out these procedures have the ability to adapt to whatever regulation might come in.
There will always be cosmetic tourism, rogue operators and poor standards, but we cannot let them stand in the way of improving patient safety in Scotland. Those kinds of unsafe practices will occur, with or without regulation, so we should ensure that the vast majority of procedures are carried out in a safe, hygienic way in a properly controlled environment. That said, I think that we should still monitor the equality impact of the bill. I strongly believe that the bill will improve public safety for marginalised groups, as all good legislation does, but there could be unintended consequences.
In its submission to the committee, the Cleft Lip and Palate Association warned that access to cosmetic procedures becoming more bureaucratic or costly could act as a barrier
“for those who seek aesthetic enhancement to address cleft-related lip asymmetry, scarring or functional issues. It is important the Bill allows recognised healthcare professionals … working in the cleft pathway to continue to offer safe lip‐fillers or adjunctive therapies under appropriate clinical governance.”
Overall, however, the bill will improve safety for people undergoing non-surgical cosmetic procedures and protect young people under the age of 18. I believe that the evidence for regulation is clear.
16:12
The debate has been interesting, and I am learning a lot. The bill brings together two distinct sets of reforms that aim to protect the public while strengthening confidence in the regulatory systems around such procedures.
Part 1 addresses the regulation of higher-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures, which are procedures that pierce or penetrate the skin, and products such as dermal fillers, botulinum toxin, thread lifts and deep chemical peels. Those products are often marketed as routine or low risk yet, when they are carried out incorrectly or by those without adequate training, as we have heard several times today, the harm can be very serious, permanent and deeply distressing.
At present, regulation in the area is fragmented and unclear. There is no single framework for setting out where those procedures may take place, who is qualified to perform them or what minimum standards they must meet. That lack of clarity benefits no one—neither patients nor responsible practitioners. For those reasons, the Scottish Liberal Democrats agree that regulation is needed, and we will offer our cautious support for the bill at stage 1.
I say “cautious”, because we attach caveats to that support, which I will lay out. The bill’s attempt to introduce a risk-based proportionate framework, including the proposed two-tier system that distinguishes between higher and lower-risk procedures, is sensible. Restricting higher-risk procedures to permitted premises with appropriate medical oversight is sensible in principle. Although the prohibition on carrying out such procedures on under-18s is long overdue, the inspection and enforcement powers that are to be given to Healthcare Improvement Scotland will be essential if the system is to work in practice.
However, we must pay attention to the potential unintended consequences. I raised that in my intervention on the minister, as did Maurice Golden, because we have heard consistent evidence that, unless implementation is handled carefully, or an amendment is not made to the bill, there is a risk of harm to the well-trained and responsible practitioners who currently provide those services safely and professionally.
The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee highlighted inconsistencies with training and qualifications across the sector. We agree with the committee’s call for clear national standards and a better definition of the competencies that are linked to levels of risk. That clarity matters, not just for future entrants to the profession but for those who are already practising, many of whom have invested heavily in training under the current system.
The Federation of Small Businesses has also raised important concerns. Its members support regulation as a means of flushing out bad actors and improving public safety, but it has warned that the bill as drafted risks harming trained practitioners who are currently operating safely. Scottish Liberal Democrats agree. A constituent of mine who falls into that category recently got in touch and visited me to explain that the bill as drafted risks putting her out of business due to its requirement for her to have a medical professional on site every time that she is working, whether that is in her home or someone else’s. The sector is largely female led and is dominated by self-employed practitioners.
I wonder about the appropriateness of somebody performing procedures in their own home or in an environment that is not clinical and potentially not clean. Should we be encouraging that?
I am absolutely certain that regulation needs to be tightened, but that is not my salient point. The fundamental point is that, if we get the balance wrong, there is a risk that skilled and experienced practitioners could be regulated out of the profession altogether. That would not improve safety; it would remove livelihoods and tempt people to operate underground and remove themselves from the regulatory framework altogether. That is a risk that both Sandesh Gulhane and I would be concerned about.
There is also a lack of clarity about how new and innovative procedures would be categorised in future. We are living in a time of new developments in the sector. The industry evolves very quickly, so those who are currently working in it should be involved in shaping how new treatments are assessed and regulated.
The bill addresses real gaps in regulation and responds to legitimate public concerns, which the Scottish Liberal Democrats absolutely share. We will support the bill at stage 1, because regulation is needed, but it is also clear that the bill must be refined at stage 2 to ensure that it protects patients, prevents people from going underground to perform procedures and ensures that we do not punish responsible practitioners.
We move to the open debate.
16:17
I thank the minister for introducing the bill and for listening to the concerns of people in the non-surgical cosmetic industry. I am sure that the arguments that were heard at the round-table session that was hosted by Miles Briggs MSP a few months ago would have been very persuasive. I also thank colleagues in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for their investigation of the bill. The committee’s stage 1 report was excellent. Equally, I thank my colleagues in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for our scrutiny, which helped to shape the lead committee’s further consideration. Finally, and most importantly, I thank my constituent Jill Best, who first brought the issue to my attention in 2018. I note that she is in the public gallery. Jill’s unstinting efforts to make the sector safer struck a chord with me.
There are several aspects of the bill that we can all agree on, including that safety is absolutely paramount for patients, that the minimum age for procedures should increase to 18, and that we should ensure that the legislation can be amended through secondary legislation as new procedures are developed. That deals with the point that Alex Cole-Hamilton raised a moment ago.
The more contentious aspects of the bill primarily relate to the regulatory function. I agree that Healthcare Improvement Scotland should act as the regulator. Clearly, due to the lack of available data on the sector, it is difficult to get a clear picture of how many people and businesses are involved. That is why regulation is so important. Therefore, I note the minister’s reply to paragraphs 162 and 163 of the stage 1 report, but I ask her not to rule out additional funding for HIS if it is required to get the regulatory function in place before regulation of the sector becomes self-financing.
Paragraphs 108 to 125 of the stage 1 report relate to training and qualifications in the sector. Although I know that the bill does not focus on that, it is a key consideration when thinking about what the industry will look like going forward. I welcome the fact that dialogue on the issue has begun, including with the UK Government on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, as set out in the minister’s response to the report.
The minister will recall that my committee quizzed her on that area. That engagement is vital to finding the most suitable and workable solution to safeguarding patients as well as businesses and providers who have level 7 training. In that regard, paragraph 124 of the report and the minister’s response regarding the Healthcare Improvement Scotland (Requirements as to Independent Health Care Services) Regulations 2011 are helpful and complement each other.
The need to consider those issues can be best explained by highlighting the viewpoint of a nurse who spoke at Davy Russell’s round-table session last week. She was a client of a level 7 practitioner, and said that she would prefer to be treated by a practitioner of that level who undertakes procedures daily than be treated by a registered nurse, who might do only a couple of procedures a week to supplement their income. Therefore, ultimately, whatever amendments at stages 2 and 3 are successful, the aspect of training and pathways to upskilling will be vital when it comes to secondary legislation, prior to the implementation of the legislation in September 2027.
I want to highlight a further point, which concerns the issue of clinical supervision. This does not concern my constituency, but it could affect rural and island communities. The stage 1 evidence highlights a range of views. However, although I whole-heartedly agree with the view that is outlined in paragraphs 101 and 102 of the stage 1 report—that clinical supervision should be on site due to the risk of potential adverse reactions, which Dr Gulhane spoke about—I am conscious that compliance could be a challenge in remote and island areas if not many people are trained in such supervision. The FSB Scotland briefing is helpful in that regard.
I believe that enforcement and penalties should be strengthened. Clear guidance helps to reduce the potential for people to claim that they made an inadvertent mistake. Patients are trusting their bodies to practitioners, so they need to have a safeguard regarding enforcement.
I hope that colleagues will vote to pass the bill at stage 1. The industry is here to stay, and regulation to make the sector safer for patients is long overdue, as I indicated in my members’ business debate on the issue in October 2024. If we can make the industry safer, we are doing the right thing for our communities and our constituents.
16:22
I will start on a point of consensus. From what I have heard, there will be unanimous support for the bill at stage 1. I thank the minister for her engagement thus far. Furthermore, everyone in the chamber recognises that the status quo is unacceptable and that there is a requirement for regulation. If that regulation is enforced and adequately resourced, as well as promoted to the public, it will help to limit the black market and thereby improve safety standards across the sector.
Safety standards are high among professional and experienced practitioners. In my view, there are two groups operating in Scotland: legitimate practitioners, a group that includes healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals, and the black market bad actors, about whom we have heard. However, from reading the bill, it looks as though it identifies two different groups. The first group, legitimate practitioners, includes only healthcare professionals, even if they have little training in aesthetics; and the second group, the black market, encapsulates all non-healthcare professionals, among whom, bizarrely, are the best practitioners in the field.
My view is that the bill, as drafted, will assist in lowering safety levels and standards and will ultimately reduce enforcement and accountability. Under the bill, only healthcare professionals will be able to register premises with Healthcare Improvement Scotland. That means that highly trained, insured and experienced non-healthcare professionals will be legally barred from operating, regardless of their competence or safety record. It is regulatory overreach, and it will exclude safe practitioners instead of stopping unsafe ones, which is what we are attempting to do.
I think that Mr Golden might have misinterpreted the bill and the committee’s report. We are talking about higher-tariff non-surgical procedures in HIS-inspected premises being supervised by a healthcare professional; the proposal is not necessarily that those healthcare professionals would carry out the procedures. It is about ensuring safety by requiring that, if there is an adverse effect, some sort of medical assistance is easily accessible.
I can give you the time back, Mr Golden.
I do not believe that there is a requirement to have a healthcare professional on site. In fact—and I will come on to this—I see that as being not particularly helpful for safety or for client experience. The proposal shows a lack of understanding of the point at which complications might arise, which is often once a client has left the clinic. Therefore, unless the proposal is for the healthcare professional to follow that client throughout their week, the argument falls down completely.
Will the member take an intervention?
Do I have time?
I can certainly give you the time back, Mr Golden.
Yes, I am happy to take the intervention.
Perhaps the minister, in an intervention, would be able to clarify this more fully, but I think that Mr Golden is misinterpreting the bill and, consequently, the recommendations of the stage 1 report.
My understanding is that, for example, on permitted premises, we should be focusing on the environment. A clean clinic in, or as part of, a dwelling would be a safer environment than a dirty room in a doctor’s surgery. The focus needs to be on the client experience and the overall regulated journey for the client.
I was part of the evidence taking, and, with regard to this part of the bill, there was a strong emphasis on what protections there are, because there could be interactions or reactions, and on the importance of having a medical person there for that situation. There was also discussion about the premises, but, absolutely, there was stuff about how we protect the public if there are complications.
From my personal experience and that of such individuals, I can say that an aesthetics practitioner who has been regularly assisting clients for a decade would be safer in triaging than, perhaps, a nurse with two days of training in aesthetics. There is a balance to be struck. Both can sit alongside each other, but the fact that an individual has a medical degree does not ensure that their aesthetics training will be commensurate with what a client may expect or want.
Will Maurice Golden take an intervention on that point?
I think that I will need to make some progress.
Ultimately, we have to recognise that the aesthetics sector is one of artists and creatives and that it takes years of training and practice to hone the techniques that are required to be top of the field. In addition, as has been mentioned previously, the sector is filled with female innovators, leaders and business owners, from start-ups to scale-ups. This is perhaps one of the best examples of a sector in Scotland that is fully leveraging the pool of talent that we have. Therefore, we need to be very cautious about the implications of the bill, which would say to up to 1,800 female entrepreneurs that they do not have a future in Scotland.
Overall, there is a requirement for businesses to be managed and run by adequately trained individuals, who should be regulated and would include healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals. Ultimately, having a prescriber in the room would not necessarily improve patient outcomes. Therefore, I believe that, at stages 2 and 3, we need to ensure a proportionate, evidence-based regulatory framework that improves safety without excluding competent, properly trained and insured practitioners.
16:29
Like many other members in the chamber, I have received correspondence from medical aesthetic practitioners and non-medical aesthetic practitioners. Between both groups, one message is consistent—the need to ensure public safety.
I will support the principles of the bill at stage 1, but with the expectation that amendments are made to ensure that we reach the correct balance that ensures public safety. One botched procedure is one too many, and it can have life-altering effects. We must eliminate cowboy practitioners who have inadequate or, indeed, no training. I have seen horrific photos of procedures that have gone wrong, which also result in additional work for our hard-pressed NHS staff. In that respect, it is disappointing to be told that, due to insufficient data collection, we do not truly know the impact that botched procedures have on our NHS. That area needs to be improved.
If the bill proceeds to stage 2, we must ensure that safe non-medical practitioners can transition and continue to practise. I hosted a round table late last year with a number of non-medical practitioners, who told me of their concerns. Some have paid upwards of £30,000 towards training and even more to ensure that their salon is up to standard. With the lack of a training framework in the bill, they face an uncertain future.
On the face of it, we would assume that everyone with a medical qualification would be more capable of providing those procedures than someone without one. However, some of the practitioners I have met have undertaken extensive training in aesthetic anatomy; meanwhile, someone with a medical qualification that is unrelated to aesthetics could complete a shorter course and be legally allowed to perform those procedures without having the same specialised skill and experience.
That is not to say that either non-medics or those with medical qualifications are more qualified; it is simply that we need a smart approach to who can perform the procedures. I understand that the Scottish Government cannot implement training standards without the consent of the UK Government, due to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I note that the minister has written to her UK Government equivalent, to determine how both Governments can collaborate. Non-medics must be able to transition with Government-approved training. I urge the UK Government to work constructively with the Scottish Government on that point.
The committee makes it plain that there is still vital work to be done to ensure that the bill works, and I agree that it lacks certain important, clear definitions. How many supervising clinicians must be on site? What exactly does supervision mean? Such points need to be tightened up to avoid exploitation. If the bill does not work as hoped, I fear the unintended consequences for the industry. Mass closure of businesses and an increase in running costs and, thus, customer prices might drive practitioners underground and create an unwelcome black market, which would greatly increase the risk to the public.
In order for the bill to achieve its aims and improve public safety, it must include the implementation of a regulatory body. The committee has raised concerns about the ability of Healthcare Improvement Scotland to enforce the bill, and I urge the Government to take note of those concerns.
If the bill passes at stage 1, it is vital that we take the entire industry with us. We have an opportunity to make the industry safer and better regulated, and we must grasp that opportunity with sensitivity and understanding.
We come to the final speaker in the open debate.
16:33
I am pleased to speak in the debate and that the minister has introduced legislative proposals this session.
There has been a massive expansion of the non-surgical procedures industry, against a backdrop of a lack of regulation. We know that procedures that can carry the risk of serious complications, ranging from burns and infections to stroke and, as the minister said, even death, can currently be routinely offered by individuals with minimal training, sometimes with a lack of infection control, consent or aftercare. I have met some of the survivors of such procedures who have suffered significant injury.
It is clear that the lack of regulation is leading to real harm. Clients deserve to know that everything is being done to ensure that a procedure is being carried out in the safest way. At the moment, many users of services are unaware of the risks involved with the procedures that they are getting and of the lack of regulation.
Over the past two years, Advice Direct Scotland has handled 430 cases relating to beauty and cosmetic procedures. Analysis of a random sample of 50 recent Advice Direct cases relating to non-surgical procedures found that 48 per cent involved reports of physical harm or adverse effects and that, in most of those cases, consumers sought professional medical assistance and required treatment.
There is a proliferation of procedures being provided, and the increase in demand for them is amplified largely through social media advertising. They harm young women in particular.
Charities have warned that Scotland’s standards for patient safety are falling behind those of the rest of the UK and other countries in Europe—a point that was made earlier in the debate. The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland has reported that 16 per cent of surveyed medical practitioners have treated someone between the ages of 16 and 20 following complications from unregulated cosmetic procedures.
Many of those young women were probably not aware of the potential risks. We have heard reports in the media about children as young as 15 seeking help after experiencing medical issues from receiving Botox and filler. Save Face, a UK Government-approved register, has warned that, year on year, nearly 90 per cent of the people who make a report to it found their practitioner on social media, and the ages of people who report are getting lower every year. The need for fair and proportionate regulations to ensure the highest standards in patient safety is clear.
I therefore appreciate the efforts to introduce through the bill a statutory framework to regulate high-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures. I was concerned that we might not get any legislation on this issue this session, so I am genuinely grateful to the Scottish Government that we have the bill in front of us today, because we need regulation to be in place as soon as possible.
I welcome the recommendations that were sent out in the stage 1 report. I believe that the Scottish Government must put in place appropriate support and guidance to help the transition to the new regulatory regime by clarifying requirements for clinical supervision.
The Parliament has to say very clearly today that we need regulation as soon as possible. I am therefore pleased to support the general principles of the bill.
Thank you, Ms Clark. We come to closing speeches. I note that Mr Cole-Hamilton is not in the chamber after having participated in the debate, which is disappointing. I will expect an explanation and an apology.
16:37
I spoke in favour of regulating the medical aesthetics industry when Stuart McMillan held a members’ business debate on the topic back in October 2024. In his contribution this afternoon, he reflected on how we support those who have made a genuine mistake, including supporting them to improve. Given some of the bad press around these procedures and the potential for practitioners to be demonised for a genuine mistake, we need to make sure that regulation supports improvement across the sector and that opportunities for learning are taken. I hope that that ethos will be at the heart of the regulation, rather than there just being punitive measures.
During its evidence sessions, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard that the bill will create a level playing field, as healthcare professionals already provide aesthetic procedures in HIS-regulated clinics. If the bill is passed, it will ensure that all providers have to meet the same standards. We know that there are and always will be rogue operators. The bill aims to simply ensure that all those who operate in the sector can be held to the same high standards.
In committee, a representative from the industry argued that the cost of treatment has to be considered as well. If what is proposed in the bill becomes a hugely costly exercise for business, the burden of cost will be passed on to the consumer. However, I think that it is important that we do not look to drive down business costs at the cost of patient safety.
The aspect of costs is really important to this debate. As we understand the situation, people who are at the top tier are getting a lot of the products that they are using through the proper procedures. For others, that is not always the case, and so they will incur higher costs. Does the member agree that the purpose of the bill is to drive costs and safety up, as compared with allowing a race to the bottom?
I fully agree with Stuart McMillan’s point about driving up standards. The heart of the bill is about patient safety and making sure that people are safe when they enter into these procedures.
Healthcare professionals are subject to high fees but also to high standards. We should expect that the same applies to any others who carry out procedures that include a risk of complications that range from burns and infections to scarring.
The committee report acknowledges business concerns and includes a recommendation that the Scottish Government should provide appropriate support and guidance to help responsible providers of non-surgical procedures to make a successful transition to the new regulatory framework. As Alex Cole-Hamilton and Maurice Golden acknowledged, there are skilled and ethical practitioners who should be supported. The Scottish Greens endorse that approach, because it would support businesses to do the right thing while still prioritising patient safety.
We support a ban on procedures for people under the age of 18, although I note the calls from the Royal College of Nursing, which said that there is merit in considering additional safeguards, such as requiring a GP or healthcare professional to carry out all procedures on younger people. That is worth considering if the bill proceeds to stage 2.
During its evidence sessions, the committee also heard that the fines proposed in the bill could be absorbed as a business cost by so-called rogue operators. It is essential that any sanctions within the bill act as a sufficient deterrent to those operating outwith regulations. The committee report calls on the Scottish Government to establish stronger penalties for offences committed under the terms of the bill, and the Greens fully support that.
Healthcare Improvement Scotland will have an extremely important role to play in light of the bill, as it would be granted new inspection powers under enforcement to investigate unregistered settings suspected of breaching the law. The committee heard about the challenges that that could pose for HIS, including the added burdens that it will place on staff and resources. It is vital that HIS is properly resourced to carry out its functions and the committee report calls on the Scottish Government to provide assurances that, in the short term, it is committed to putting funding in place to ensure that HIS can properly enforce the bill from the outset.
The committee report also calls on the Scottish Government to publish an implementation route map, and we fully support that, too. If the bill is to be effective in improving patient safety and tackling rogue operators, it must have sufficient funding attached. I look forward to hearing from the Scottish Government about how it plans to achieve that.
16:41
This has been an interesting debate and the speeches that we have heard today have made the rationale for the bill clear. On a point of historical interest, it feels to me as if we have imperceptibly shifted and are going back to the era of the barber surgeon and of insufficient regulation. It is important to note that the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh was originally called the Edinburgh Guild of Barbers and Surgeons. We moved away from that sort of back-street practice for good reason, but if we do not recognise the shifts in medical and clinical trends, we are in danger of a slippage in patient and public safety.
That is why the legislation is welcome. One of the basic rules of good governance is that, when society changes, our laws and regulations must be kept up to date to reflect that. I think that everyone here today recognises that the world of non-surgical cosmetic procedures has been transformed. Something that was once the realm of celebrities and the super-rich, or that we might watch on the Discovery channel, is increasingly ubiquitous in society. We see discounted Botox, chemical peels and other non-surgical cosmetic procedures and it seems that there is a story almost every other week about an alcohol-fuelled Botox party or a non-surgical cosmetic procedure gone wrong. We have heard some horror stories in speeches today and the committee even heard of hotel rooms and garden sheds being used as places where people could go to have such procedures. That worrying situation is in desperate need of state regulation.
We must be clear that it is not for Parliament to determine a person’s choice about how they wish to present themselves to the world, but it is imperative that any new and emerging industry has the necessary protections and regulations in place to ensure public safety. We know that many providers keep to high standards but also know that many, sadly, do not. That is the point of having a regulatory floor. Just as we require the highest standards in the national health service, from clinicians in private practice and from our factories and service industries, the safety of patients, consumers and staff must always be maintained. That is why Labour supports the bill in principle.
I do not necessarily disagree with anything that Mr Sweeney has said, but does he also agree that we absolutely need a public information programme so that people understand the risks of what might be seen as a simple procedure or as something quite harmless?
I do. That is an area that we want to develop further in the next stages of the bill.
It is also important to demonstrate best practice for people who might want to enter the industry and develop their skills. We want to promote best practice and discourage unhelpful practice. That cycle should drive innovation. We should not be an enemy of progress; we should just try to guide it towards the public good. Regulation should help to level the playing field between those who, on one hand, choose to cut corners on patient and staff safety in order to maximise profit and those who, on the other hand, are already investing in training and health and safety in order to develop a thriving business that is patient-centric and ethical in nature.
Creating that level playing field is key so that customers have confidence that they are guaranteed to get good-quality treatment and so that practitioners are given the opportunity to grow through training opportunities and to access appropriate facilities that, rather than being prohibitively expensive, could be developed in a co-operative way. We should look to drive that, because Scotland’s reputation for safety in patient care is paramount.
That does not mean that Labour believes that the bill is perfect. We share concerns about the need to ensure that the necessary regulations are accompanied by proper support and guidance for practitioners, who will need to develop their practice to meet the new standards. We heard some concerns raised about that in the committee. We do not want people to lose their livelihoods as a result of this; we want to guide them towards the standards that will help them to reach their potential. The purpose of the bill should therefore not be to remove from the industry those who lack certain qualifications if they are willing to learn and to improve their practice. This should be an opportunity to improve the general common weal rather than just reduce consumer choice.
Today, we have heard from across the Parliament about why non-cosmetic surgery needs to be brought under regulations. Although it is a relatively new industry, it is expanding rapidly, and it is only right that we intervene via legislation to create the necessary changes and improvements that will let it thrive in a manner that is conducive to public and patient safety.
The bill will not solve everything. Much is happening in Scotland that is already illegal. However, without proper enforcement, many surgical abuses will continue. As it stands, there are very real concerns about how support will be given to the industry to meet the new standards. That is a real concern that we need to look at more.
However, it is clear that regulation is needed now so that patients can be assured of their safety, so that staff are safe and well trained, and so that Scottish practitioners can lead the world by developing best practice.
For all those reasons, Labour is happy to support the bill.
16:47
The bill is ultimately about patient safety. Right now, that safety is far too variable. Let us be honest: the bill is not perfect, and the Conservatives will seek amendments to improve it. For example, as Paul Sweeney mentioned, the fines do not seem to be adequate; they will be seen as the cost of business, and people will just keep paying them. Like many others across the chamber, we are not sure what the specifics are around supervision. That certainly needs to be tightened up.
We all agree that we should have a ban on under-18s undergoing such procedures. Where anyone is under 18 and requires, for medical reasons, to undergo any form of procedure, that procedure will be covered by the NHS and carried out by NHS practitioners.
Maurice Golden is right when he said that the status quo is not acceptable. Ultimately, we, as members, are all in the same place, but the debate—as is shown by the contributions of Alex Cole-Hamilton and Maurice Golden—is about where we draw the line for where the regulation sits. Stuart McMillan spoke about Jill Best, who campaigned to improve safety and is sitting up in the public gallery today. I thank her for the work that she has put in.
Worrying things are happening in Scotland right now. There are fizz and filler parties where people are drinking alcohol and being injected. I could not think of a worse way of going about doing medical procedures. We are seeing people having procedures done in garden sheds and in bedrooms. I was told that people were having butt lifts done in Edinburgh hotel rooms. The levels of cleanliness and safety are just unacceptable. That is not a place that we can be in.
I do not want to interrupt the member’s vivid description of some of the practices that are taking place, but does he recognise that, so long as the medication, implements and skills exist, the practice will happen, whether we like it or not? We need to regulate it, but overregulating it would risk driving it underground and out of the light, where we cannot see it.
That goes back to what I said at the start about the debate resting on where the regulation sits and how we can regulate the industry. The industry is here to stay—there is no question of banning it, so it is about where the regulation sits and how we proportionately regulate while allowing people to continue legitimate businesses.
We took evidence from legitimate businesses, and a big, perfectly legitimate, business came to give evidence. That business does a lot of good, but one of the things that it does is to remove skin lesions from people’s bodies. I asked:
“How do you ensure that there is no cancer?”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 2 December 2025; c 6.]
The response did not fill me with confidence. In a hospital, if I were to remove a lesion, I would send it off to histology to be looked at. If a dermatologist says that a lesion is not cancer, you can be pretty confident that it is not cancer, because a dermatologist is an expert in that field. However, in the business that we took evidence from, there is no expert in the field looking at lesions before they are taken out and they are not sent to histology, so how do the people involved know that they are not removing cancers without adequate training?
Gillian Mackay made a point about costs going up. The point that I will make in response is that, if the costs going up a little bit means that people are seen in clean rooms in which they are unlikely to get an infection, if it means that the person who they see has insurance and is regulated, if it means that they get legitimate medication, and if it means that records are kept and data is sent about complications, that just has to be part of the business model from now on, because those elements are vital.
Carol Mochan was right in saying that we must ensure that HIS is strengthened and has adequate capacity. Stuart McMillan spoke about ensuring that HIS receives enough money so that it can perform the duties that it needs to perform. Alex Cole-Hamilton and Maurice Golden raised the matter of unintended consequences, which we have discussed; it is important that those are looked at. However, ultimately, patient safety must come first.
For those reasons, it is vital that we support the general principles of the bill at stage 1 and look to make amendments to improve it at stage 2.
16:51
I thank colleagues hugely for their constructive comments on part 1 of the bill. I truly believe that this debate shows how the Parliament can work. I am also grateful for the suggestions for improvements to the bill that members have made, and I reiterate the request that I made at the beginning of the debate to members who have suggestions. My door remains open and I will work collaboratively with them.
The bill was born from cross-chamber concerns, and it should benefit from cross-chamber input from all parties. I will respond to a few of the points that have been made in the debate and, assuming that we get support for the bill at decision time, I would like to continue these discussions in the lead-up to stage 2.
I am grateful to everyone who raised the issue of the impact on businesses, and I hope that it was clear from my earlier comments that I do not take the impact lightly. I am very happy to explore ways in which businesses can access help to adapt their models before the bill comes into force. I repeat what I said to the committee: I currently propose to commence the offences in the bill in September 2027, giving a reasonable lead-in time to all concerned. However, I cannot support any measures that would dilute the key safety measures of the bill, and I remain mindful of the support that the bill has received so far and of the feedback from some stakeholders that we should go further.
I want to be clear: the bill will make procedures safer for everyone. It will ensure that procedures take place in appropriate and hygienic settings where healthcare professionals are involved in the provision or management of services and can assist if there are complications. The bill followed a consultation that was carried out in 2020, which found that 98 per cent of respondents supported the principle of further regulation of procedures that are led by those who are not qualified healthcare professionals. A further public consultation that was undertaken in early 2025 showed broad support for action to make the sector safer; it allowed us to refine our proposals, the result of which is included in the bill.
A number of members made the point that the public think that non-surgical procedures are already regulated in some way, and what Katy Clark, Clare Haughey and other members said about ensuring that we get information out there about that is incredibly important.
Throughout the bill process, we have worked with a range of stakeholders, including business owners, beauty industry representatives, healthcare professionals, environmental health officers—that is really important—and professional regulators, to develop and refine our process.
In response to Maurice Golden’s points, I note that there are some skilled non-medical practitioners who are trained in this space. However, in order to ensure safety, those skills need to be complemented by the skills that healthcare professionals bring. I have asked my officials to consider the HIS regulation of independent clinics and to ensure that the existing requirements are not disproportionate.
That brings me to the issue of training and supervision. The importance of training and of the requirements for supervision in a setting were clear from the contribution of the convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and in the contributions of Carol Mochan and others. In evidence to the committee, I set out why we were not able to put such provisions in the bill. I am committed to the principle that, as well as the provisions in the bill, we need to have standards for training and to set expectations for the oversight and supervision of procedures. Training standards will be established following consultation with those who have to meet them, with experts and training providers and with the UK Government, so that we can take a consistent approach.
The Scottish Government has met many healthcare professionals and non-healthcare aesthetic practitioners and has listened to their views, including on training standards. We know that there are existing training options for practitioners, which we will consider carefully. As Colin Beattie noted, I have written to my counterparts in the UK Government to secure formal agreement to co-operate on some of those matters.
I note the points that were made about implementing a route map and about a public information campaign. I am content to review those further.
Many members highlighted the issue of penalties. Following the committee’s report, I understand why people are looking at that issue. For the time being, I reassure members that that message has been heard clearly. I will consider how we can go further and I would welcome any specific recommendations on an appropriate level of penalty.
Stuart McMillan commented on rural businesses. As an MSP for a rural constituency, I recognise very well the particular challenges for businesses in rural areas. On the other hand, it is important that we have balance to ensure that people in rural areas are as well protected as their urban counterparts. Yesterday afternoon, I met a group of practitioners from rural constituencies. I will consider their concerns and suggestions and I am happy to discuss the issue further with members.
Dr Gulhane referred to the capacity of Healthcare Improvement Scotland to take on new areas of work. My view remains that HIS is the correct regulator for these procedures, building on its experience to date of regulating independent healthcare. I am sure that HIS staff will have taken note of the comments about capacity and current working practices. As Stuart McMillan noted, I am committed to working with HIS to ensure that it can meet all our expectations.
I turn to Colin Beattie’s suggestion for a new professional body in the sector. I know that there are existing groups and I would welcome greater levels of organisation that would allow practitioners to speak with one voice and help to support safer standards. The Scottish Government would certainly be happy to work with such a body.
All the issues that have been raised this afternoon have been carefully considered. I will examine further the comments that have been made and the recommendations that were made by the committee. I reiterate that I am happy to work with members on potential amendments that could strengthen the bill and I look forward to doing so.
On the principles of part 1 of the bill, I return to the committee’s report. Intervention to regulate a growing and changing sector is not easy and I am committed to doing the work to make the right decisions in the coming weeks. I agree with the committee’s view, which has also been stated in the chamber this afternoon, that public safety must be the primary priority. That will be my main consideration.
I am aware that, for understandable reasons, part 2 of the bill has not received as much attention as part 1. Nonetheless, I remain grateful for the interest in that important issue. The provisions in part 2 reaffirm our commitment to ensuring clarity, transparency and public confidence in the death certification system. They will strengthen the safeguards that support families and professionals and ensure that our legislation reflects the robust checks that are already in place.
I urge the Parliament to support the general principles of the bill in respect of both parts.
That concludes the debate on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.
Air ais
Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1