Seòmar agus comataidhean

:We have to ensure that we get the right training and standards in place. I believe that amendment 35 does that. I am happy to continue that discussion, but I suggest that members vote for amendment 35 so that we have that as the basis to continue discussions.

The last amendment in this group that I wish to consider also relates to training standards. I am grateful to Fulton MacGregor for working with the Scottish Government on amendment 96, which reflects the strength of concern around training issues. The amendment would ensure that ministers have to address that concern, while acknowledging our limited influence over timing. I hope that members who have lodged amendments on training in general will join me in supporting the amendment.

Bringing my comments on the group to a close, I urge members to support amendment 35 in my name. I apologise, because I said “training” instead of “consultation” when I responded to Dr Gulhane. My comments about Dr Gulhane’s point on consultations still stand.

Amendment 35 would deliver a proportionate consultation requirement in support of amendment 96, in Fulton MacGregor’s name, which recognises the importance of training standards being put in place. I urge members not to move the remaining amendments in the group.

:I am grateful to members for their contributions to the debate on this group, as well as for lodging the amendments. Although I urge members not to press or move the amendments in the group, I understand the issue that they seek to address and I have sympathy for the businesses that have developed and flourished in the sector in the absence of regulation and guidance. I appreciate that most of those businesses have tried their best to provide a safe and responsible service.

I trust that, to some degree, these amendments are probing amendments, and that members want me to put on the record the support that will be put in place for businesses when regulation is introduced. I will remind members of the options that are available to businesses and the consideration that I have given to minimising the impact on businesses while prioritising safety.

Not all aesthetics businesses perform procedures that will be regulated under the bill. Some will be affected primarily by the licensing scheme that will be introduced under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which will be similar to licences for tattoo and cosmetic body piercing businesses. I am not aware of any concerns about the scheme being onerous.

By choosing to provide non-surgical procedures that are regulated under the licensing scheme rather than the bill, some businesses may adjust their business model so that they do not need to operate from a permitted premises. Other businesses will want to continue providing procedures such as Botox, and they will have a regulatory framework that sets out how they can do so. I have spoken to businesses that already successfully work—or have previously successfully worked—under the model that the bill sets out.

Businesses that will need to adjust to the new regulation will be able to rely on support from existing services such as Business Gateway that provide sectoral information and tailored business guidance. They can seek guidance from HIS, which provides information to prospective businesses about the implications and requirements of HIS registration.

Some businesses will have capital costs that might present a short-term hurdle. Those businesses will be able to access support from the range of existing grant schemes that are available to small businesses, which are signposted by find business support or local authorities and enterprise agencies.

:I have just finished.

:Yes.

:The member raises a reasonable point. I suggest that such secondary legislation will not happen in this session of Parliament and that it would be for the minister who is in this position after the election to make those decisions and recommendations.

:I understand and support the intention behind the amendments in this group, which relate to the setting of standards and the establishment of clear guidance in the provision of a complaints process. They take a number of approaches to setting standards and have varying degrees of specificity.

I will start by confirming my approach to the amendments in this group that relate to guidance. I ask members not to press or move those amendments, for reasons that I will discuss shortly, but I am happy to engage in discussions in advance of stage 3 on a single amendment that could cover the topics that members consider important.

I note, for instance, Dr Gulhane’s amendments 106 and 118 and his concerns about body dysmorphia and other mental health conditions, and his amendment 79, which concerns guidance on complaints processes. I would expect responsible practitioners in regulated settings to already be aware of such matters, and I certainly confirm that Healthcare Improvement Scotland already requires providers of independent healthcare services to have a complaints procedure in place to provide an avenue for individuals to make an independent complaint.

Alongside that, healthcare professionals are already subject to their professional regulator’s complaints processes. The bill as introduced will deliver that intent, and it might not be necessary to reintroduce any further provision of that nature. However, I am open to the idea that difficult issues around mental health concerns, which Dr Gulhane mentioned, and how they affect those seeking procedures are matters on which even experienced practitioners and professionals may benefit from further guidance.

10:15

Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 75 is similar to Maurice Golden’s amendment 100. Amendment 100 would set out a general requirement for HIS to publish standards and guidance. Amendment 75 would require proportionate standards and guidance, and that

“Relevant permitted premises must meet only the standards set by HIS”

under the provision of the amendment. The amendments would effectively prevent some of the sensible guidance that HIS already has in place from applying and would require it to be duplicated in a new form. That is an overly complicated way of going about things. I do not see why, for instance, a complaint procedure that is suited to an independent travel clinic would not be suited to a cosmetic one.

I am pleased to support the principle of the need for guidance, but I propose to work with members ahead of stage 3 to introduce a single amendment that addresses all concerns. I urge other members to support that approach, too.

As this is the first group of amendments to be considered, I will make some quick general comments. I thank committee members for their consideration to date. This is a complex bill and I am grateful for your diligence in considering the issues. Today, I will be moving or supporting amendments that strengthen or clarify the bill without changing its fundamental character or the balance that it must strike to protect public safety without disrupting healthcare or causing unnecessary disruption to business.

I am grateful to those members who have lodged amendments. We are all committed to improving public safety. Some amendments seek to address concerns about the impact of the bill on businesses—especially rural, small and female-led ones. I want to be clear that, when I oppose such amendments, I understand the place that they are coming from. I will address my reasons in the relevant groups.

Amendments 5, 28, 30 and 34 provide a way to allow Scottish ministers to establish training and qualification standards for practitioners, working within the constraints of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I shared our understanding of the effect of UKIMA with the committee through the correspondence that I directed to UK ministers. I have not yet received a response.

Part 3 of UKIMA establishes an automatic recognition principle whereby a professional who is qualified in one part of the UK is automatically treated as being qualified in another part of the UK. The effects of part 3 of UKIMA mean that the Scottish Government is currently unable to set standards for qualifications or experience for individuals providing non-surgical procedures in the bill in the way that we would like.

Section 26 of UKIMA provides a partial remedy to that. The individual assessment process under that provision would allow someone to have their existing training or qualifications assessed when they were different from those specified, to ensure that they were equivalent to those required in, or met the standards that we establish for, Scotland. We still need to work with the UK Government on a long-term solution, as that is a cumbersome one. Nevertheless, I want to take the available option, which would allow us to progress with setting standards by following that route.

We are pressing the UK Government to resolve the issues with UKIMA by repealing the act and replacing it with a more equitable, co-designed system built around the common frameworks approach.

I know that many members are pushing for training and supervision standards. To them, I say that this is a necessary first step. I urge members to support amendments 5, 28, 30 and 34.

I move amendment 5.

:I fully support the amendments. The bill currently includes a list of acceptable forms of identification that allow providers to confirm that a person is at least 18 years of age and can receive a procedure. That approach has been taken in previous legislation.

As noted, in November 2025, the First Minister announced that an app will be launched in 2026. As that will at some point include digital proof of age, the bill should allow regulations to be made that can provide for that and other forms of ID. It is clear that such forms of ID might not be covered by the documents currently listed. The power to amend a list of documents does not therefore appear to be sufficiently future proofed. It is therefore prudent to remove the list of ID documents from the bill and give ministers the power to provide the list of acceptable forms of ID in secondary legislation in advance of offence provisions coming into force. I urge the committee to support the amendments.

:Only that I urge members to support amendments 29, 32 and 33.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Before section 15

Amendment 58 not moved.

Section 15—Interpretation of Part 1

Amendments 30 and 31 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

After section 15

:I am pleased to speak to this group, which includes amendments on several issues relating to the fundamental definition of a non-surgical procedure. I will start by considering the amendments that relate to the healthcare exception provided by section 1 of the bill.

We have been clear throughout the process that the bill is not designed to regulate, restrict or interfere with the delivery of healthcare in any setting. The bill achieves that by providing that any procedure that is undertaken for, or under the direction of, a healthcare professional is not a non-surgical procedure. There should, for example, be no offence committed if a treatment for a healthcare purpose by a regulated healthcare professional is given to a child. As well as not interfering with healthcare delivery, we also want to ensure that we do not inadvertently capture under the bill’s provisions procedures carried out as part of clinical trials, which are already regulated elsewhere.

My amendment 6 will make it clear that procedures that are carried out as part of a clinical trial within the meaning given by regulation 2(1) of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 will not be covered by the provisions of the bill. That is required because certain procedures undertaken as part of such trials may not be covered by the existing healthcare exception in section 1(1)(b) of the bill. In a clinical trial, a person who has no illness may receive a procedure if, for example, possible side effects are being investigated.

Amendments 7 and 8 are technical amendments that correct and clarify references to the licensing of non-surgical procedures under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. I hope that they are uncontroversial amendments.

Sandesh Gulhane’s amendments 64 and 65 also relate to the healthcare exception. The amendments would remove the General Osteopathic Council and the General Chiropractic Council from the list of healthcare professionals who can undertake or direct procedures that would be considered exempt from the bill. Dr Gulhane has raised the issue in previous evidence sessions, and I am happy to reiterate some of my comments for the record today. This bill is not the place to judge what does and does not constitute healthcare, nor whether particular healthcare procedures are appropriate or effective in the treatment of disease. I can, however, inform the committee that both chiropractors and osteopaths use injections of hyaluronic acid as part of their practice. I understand that the committee has received correspondence on the matter. Whether that practice is effective or appropriate is between those professionals and their regulators.

I know that some committee members are concerned that the healthcare exception is essentially a loophole, so I wish to offer some reassurance on that point. In order to fall under the healthcare exception, a regulated healthcare professional carrying out a procedure regulated by the bill must have a healthcare purpose, and if a prosecution was brought against an individual, the presence of such a healthcare purpose may be considered by the courts. Such bad-faith activity is likely to lead to professional consequences as well. The Scottish Government considers that amendments 64 and 65 may raise concerns about their interaction with the reservation of the regulation of health professions in the Scotland Act 1998.

For those reasons I urge Dr Gulhane not to move those amendments, although I am happy to hear any views that he may have on the matter.

I will now turn to the amendments that relate to the power in section 1(5) to modify schedule 1. I remind members that amendment 35, in my name, which is to be debated under group 7, imposes a consultation requirement on all exercises of affirmative powers under the bill, including the power to modify schedule 1. I trust that that amendment will be supported, as it addresses the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee at stage 1.

In the scenario where an entirely new procedure emerges, it is best that ministers can move fast and regulate such procedures quickly. If the advice that we receive is that such a procedure has a risk profile that is equivalent to procedures already included in the bill, it is reasonable, I think, that ministers should have the scope to list such a procedure in schedule 1, on the best evidence available at the time. That consideration would naturally form part of a policy note and any impact assessments.

Amendments 36 and 37 would add to that and would make the exercise of the regulation-making power harder, preventing the Scottish ministers from acting quickly when required. In turn, that would have public safety implications and a negative impact for potential clients and practitioners alike. For those reasons, I ask Jeremy Balfour and Maurice Golden not to move the amendments in their names.

I now turn to amendments to schedule 1. Amendments 10 to 21, which are in my name, make several important changes, largely of a technical nature or where the effect of the schedule will be unchanged from its original intent. Amendments 10 and 16 remove the paragraph headed “Cellulite subcision” and insert a new one headed “Subcision”. The text and the effect are unchanged, but the amendment reflects the point that subcision can be used for other purposes, such as improving the appearance of pitted scars.

Amendments 11, 12 and 21 amend the schedule 1 entries for injectable or intravenous non-surgical procedures in order to limit them to those provided for a cosmetic or wellbeing purpose. A cosmetic purpose relates to a person’s appearance; a wellbeing purpose is one that provides an actual or perceived improvement in the person’s physical, mental or emotional wellbeing, their physical strength or stamina, their ability to concentrate or their mental alertness. The change provides additional clarity but continues to deliver the bill’s intent of regulating procedures undertaken for those reasons. It prevents any procedures or activities carried out for other purposes from being inadvertently captured.

Amendments 18 and 19, in my name, amend the definition of “substance” to make it clear that controlled drugs and psychoactive substances are not included. Those are not used in non-surgical procedures, so it is appropriate to exclude them from the definition of “substance”.

Amendments 13 and 17, also in my name, address the boundaries between schedule 1 to the bill and schedule 1 to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures) Order 2026. That Scottish statutory instrument introduces a local authority licensing scheme that regulates lower-risk non-surgical procedures. A procedure, even if it would otherwise be low risk, becomes higher risk when a prescribed anaesthetic is used or when it is carried out on an intimate area. With the exception of intimate laser hair removal, such procedures are excluded from the SSI. Amendments 13 and 17 provide that those procedures are regulated by the bill instead. Those procedures carry additional risks, which are better managed in a permitted premises, where there will be healthcare professional involvement.

09:15

Amendments 14 and 15 clarify the definition of “microneedling” to ensure that a procedure that involves an injection or intravenous administration of a substance is captured by the relevant paragraphs, not paragraph 7. Amendment 14 provides that microneedling will include the use of

“one or more microneedles … multiple times on a single occasion”.

That definition will help to avoid confusion with other procedures, which might also use a fine needle.

Amendment 14 also provides that when microneedling, no matter the depth, is used to deliver radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, that procedure is regulated by the bill. That is considered a riskier procedure because it carries increased risk of harm, including burns, excessive scarring and damage to nerves and blood vessels.

Procedures that are covered by the local authority licensing scheme under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Skin Piercing and Tattooing) Order 2006, which extends to acupuncture, cosmetic body piercing, electrolysis and tattooing that are provided in the course of a business, are already exempted from the bill by virtue of section 1(1)(b)(iii). However, amendment 15 ensures that those procedures are also exempted when they are carried out in circumstances that do not require a licence under the 2006 order—for example, when not carried out as part of a business in someone’s home. It was never the intention of the bill to regulate those procedures, which did not form any part of the consultation process.

Amendments 38 and 39, in the name of Maurice Golden, relate to procedures such as skin boosters and mesotherapy. Mr Golden has made the case—which I, too, have heard—that those procedures carry less risk than other procedures considered in schedule 1. I should be clear that that is not universally accepted, and I am sure that Mr Golden would accept that that does not mean that those procedures are risk free. Any introduction of a substance into the body carries some risk. The substances that are used in those procedures are wide ranging, which makes that risk hard to assess.

I have also heard concerns that those procedures, especially skin boosters, use similar products and similar, if not the same, needles and other equipment as procedures such as dermal fillers. If amendment 38 is successful, there is a risk that it will make the work of local authority officers much harder in ensuring that licensed premises are carrying out only the procedures that they are entitled to carry out.

My guiding principle has been that procedures should be included in the bill only when that is absolutely necessary to protect public safety. I would be happy to discuss those changes further, ahead of stage 3, with Mr Golden and other members.

I urge members to support amendments 6 to 8 and 10 to 21. I repeat my willingness to work with Mr Golden, and on that basis I ask him not to move his amendments until we have discussed them ahead of stage 3. I also ask Jeremy Balfour and Sandesh Gulhane not to move their amendments in this group.

I move amendment 6.