Seòmar agus comataidhean

Owen Griffiths is right—the information has to be in a space that is easily accessible, and it has to be easily understood by those who are using the facilities.

Health Improvement Scotland will have to have an input into that. I was looking specifically at the order, but if the bill itself is passed and becomes legislation, I would expect Healthcare Improvement Scotland to be involved, too.

We have experience of rogue operators in other areas of my portfolio—Food Standards Scotland, for example, works closely with Police Scotland if it discovers a rogue operator in the food universe—and I would expect Police Scotland and the local authorities to have powers to search unlicensed premises where there is sufficient evidence to suggest that non-surgical procedures are being carried out. Again, it comes back to that collaborative way of working.

As I have indicated, local authorities have been using health and safety legislation, but the order designates the provision of certain non-surgical procedures as a licensed activity, and that will give local authorities proportionate powers to regulate their provision in a consistent manner.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures) Order. The order is part of a suite of legislation to regulate non-surgical procedures—a sector that is currently unregulated. Such procedures can cause serious and lasting damage if they are not performed correctly, and this is one of two substantive steps that we are taking to reduce the potential harm to customers in Scotland across a range of procedures. The order sits alongside the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill, which is currently at stage 1.

The order establishes a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk non-surgical procedures that pierce or penetrate the skin. Such procedures do not require the input of a healthcare professional, as any risks can be appropriately mitigated through the imposition of hygiene standards and by requiring the use of appropriate materials. Procedures covered by the order include laser and light treatments that do not damage the skin’s surface; shallow microneedling; fruit and glycolic acid peels; and advanced electrolysis.

In contrast, the bill regulates a range of more invasive procedures where we believe healthcare professional input is required to ensure safe treatment. Taken together, the two pieces of legislation will allow us to provide a differentiated and proportionate approach to the range of procedures available.

The order sets out a number of mandatory licensing conditions relating to the hygiene of premises, equipment and processes, and it also requires that non-surgical procedures not be carried out on individuals under the age of 18. Those conditions are key to protecting the public, especially young people, and they will give customers confidence in the services that they are receiving.

As with the bill, the definition of a non-surgical procedure in the order does not include procedures that are undertaken by a person acting on behalf of the health service or by a healthcare provider for the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury. Where the removal of skin lesions, for example, is carried out by a person acting for, or on behalf of, the health service or by a healthcare provider as part of the prevention or treatment of an illness, that will be exempt from the definition of a non-surgical procedure.

Again, as with the bill, the order does not include any provision for training or qualifications. That is due to the effects of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which we have discussed previously. We continue to work with the UK Government on that issue, and we will legislate for training and qualifications when circumstances permit us to do so.

I welcome any further questions that the committee might have, and I encourage members to support the progress of this order.

We have taken a lot of advice and done a lot of work on this to ensure that we feel that the right procedures are being given the right and proportionate regulation. We expect local authorities to work closely with Healthcare Improvement Scotland to ensure that, if any questions arise on the procedures covered by the order that are being carried out in local authority-licensed premises, they get them right. As I said in my opening remarks, this is part of a suite of legislation to ensure that non-surgical procedures are given the right regulation.

Those are important questions. I know that the committee received thorough evidence in that regard from healthcare professionals and those who provide non-surgical procedures. We will clearly set things out in the guidelines, but it is fair to say that—this ties in with our promotion of the “Be the Early Bird” campaign on detecting cancer early—if someone has regular treatments, the beautician or whoever provides those treatments could advise that the person sees a healthcare professional if they notice any changes, as one would expect. Our guidelines will support that, because I recognise the importance of the issue and the questions that I was asked by the committee when we were talking about the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill.

Before I bring in Owen Griffiths, I note that all the work that we have done to get to this stage has been clear. The consultation responses were clear on whether a procedure should be covered by the order or by the bill, and some changes have been made as a result of those responses. In schedule 1, we have laid out descriptions of each of the procedures that the order will cover.

In an earlier answer, I referred to work that was done by the skin piercing and tattooing working group. I am not ruling that in or out, but it is a suitable way of ensuring that those in local authorities have the appropriate training and understanding.

I recognise the importance of training and qualifications standards, which was also clearly reflected in the views of stakeholders during the consultation. The Scottish Government has set out that we want that level of qualification, but we also believe that section 3 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 will be engaged by any legislation that sets out provisions for training and qualifications, especially standards for practitioners, and prevents practitioners who do not have that qualification from practising.

When I gave evidence during the session on the bill, I indicated that we have been having in-depth conversations with the UK Government about this. Earlier this month, I wrote to Karin Smyth, who is the UK Government minister who is responsible for this area of public health, and I have copied that letter to the committee. Work on this is on-going, which is why it is not included in the order.

As Gillian Mackay will be aware, the UK Government is also consulting on similar regulations for non-surgical procedures, which is why we are working closely with the UK Government to understand where it has got to on this. Work is also on-going with training providers on what the courses could be.