Seòmar agus comataidhean

:I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 26.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Amendments 53, 54 and 93 not moved.

My amendments in the group have been developed with the Cleft Lip and Palate Action group and they probably speak to some of the issues that Sandesh Gulhane has already raised.

My amendment 83 would place a duty on the Scottish ministers, when making regulations under section 5, to have regard to people whose risk of harm from non-surgical procedures is increased because of congenital facial difference, prior facial surgery or altered anatomy and scarring. Although any initial set of regulations may well include appropriate protections for these groups without the need for primary legislation, regulation in this area will inevitably evolve as new procedures, products and techniques emerge. There is a real risk that, over time, people with increased vulnerability could fall by the wayside. By embedding this consideration in the bill, amendment 83 would provide a lasting safeguard and ensure that these higher-risk individuals remain visible and protected as the regulatory framework adapts.

My amendment 88 would enable regulations to impose different or additional requirements where individual client risk factors are present, including risks linked to medical history or anatomical considerations. Risk is not uniform across the population. For example, a person who is born with a cleft or someone who has undergone multiple facial surgeries might have altered anatomy or scar tissue that significantly increases the likelihood of complications from non-surgical procedures. My amendment would ensure that the regulatory framework could respond to those realities, allowing proportionate additional safeguards where higher risk was identified, rather than applying the same requirements to every client, regardless of clinical context.

10:45

My amendment 89 would require providers to carry out and document a pre-procedure assessment of relevant medical history and to follow enhanced informed consent procedures where factors are identified that might increase the risk of harm. At present, there is no consistent requirement to assess medical history or anatomical risk before non-surgical procedures are carried out. The amendment would embed basic patient safety principles into the regulatory framework, ensuring that risks are identified in advance and clearly explained to clients. It would not ban procedures, but would help to ensure that decisions that are made by the practitioner and the client are made with a proper understanding of potential harms, particularly for people with more complex clinical backgrounds.

My amendment 98 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on how the act applies to individuals whose risk of harm might be increased due to congenital facial difference, prior facial surgery or altered anatomy. It would also allow the guidance to cover identification of higher-risk clients, additional safeguards and appropriate referral pathways. Clear guidance benefits practitioners and clients. For practitioners, it provides clarity on how to recognise higher-risk situations when additional precautions are needed and when referral to clinical services is appropriate. For clients and patients, it improves transparency and helps them understand why certain procedures might require extra safeguards or specialist input. Although early guidance might include those protections without the need for primary legislation, guidance will change over time. By requiring guidance in statute, the amendment would help to ensure that higher-risk groups are not overlooked as practice, technology and regulatory priorities evolve.

:Amendment 93 would require the Scottish ministers to consult patient representatives, people with relevant clinical expertise and appropriate regulatory or enforcement bodies before making regulations under section 5. Non-surgical procedures raise issues that span public health, clinical safety, consumer protection and enforcement. Consultation would help to ensure that regulations are informed by lived experience of clinical insight and that it is practical to implement and enforce them. For example, patient groups can highlight where risks are commonly misunderstood, clinicians can advise on anatomical and surgical considerations and regulators and practitioners can ensure that requirements are workable in practice. That would lead to better, more effective regulation and would reduce the risk of unintended consequences.

:I thank the minister for her support and engagement on the amendments.

Amendments 26 and 27 in my name would increase the penalty that could be imposed on a person who is found guilty of an offence under the bill. Section 5(4) of the bill sets out that the maximum penalty that may be provided for in regulations under section 5(1) for a person who commits an offence created by regulations made under that section is, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Amendment 26 would amend section 5 and allow for a higher level of penalty by increasing the maximum level of fine for offences that may be provided for under regulations. Section 12 of the bill sets out that a person who commits an offence under section 2, 3 or 11 is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently a maximum of £5,000.

Amendment 27 would amend section 12 and allow for a higher level of penalty by increasing the maximum level of fine for the offences in the bill in sections 2, 3 and 11. Each of those offences would now be triable either on summary procedure or on indictment. The amendments would increase the maximum allowable fine for offences to £20,000 on summary conviction and the fine allowable on conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine.

Good morning. How will the good food nation plan, and the work of Food Standards Scotland align with wider Government strategies on agriculture, food manufacturing and dietary goals, so that production, consumption and emissions reduction are addressed in a consistent policy framework?

The committee has covered both in this evidence session and in other sessions how we reduce emissions from food, but there is the other side of the coin—that is, increasingly poor weather, with repeated patterns of flooding and so on. Is there anything in the plan to mitigate those sorts of localised flooding issues and other climate change impacts on the food system here? I very much agree with some of my colleagues about eating locally produced food, but if we continue to see some of these patterns, that will become more difficult. What is there in the plan to ensure that we have that secure system and mitigation if some of these impacts begin to increase?

That is great. Thank you.

Thank you.

This petition should be left open, with something put into our legacy document about how the next committee could take it forward. I do not think that the issue that it concerns has concluded yet, and a new iteration of this committee should definitely look at it.

That is useful. Thank you.

I turn now to transport and how people get to and from the NHS estate. We know that there is now a great number of electric vehicles in the fleet, which allow staff to go from site to site. However, with regard to staff getting to hospitals and arriving at work, what are we doing to ensure that people are able to make alternative choices in getting to health and social care settings and to enable a shift to low-carbon travel, especially in remote and rural areas?

I am sure that folk around the table will be very much aware of the parking issues at hospitals across the country. The committee has previously discussed the letters that go out in many health boards telling people to arrive 10 minutes before an appointment if they are arriving by car because of the issues with parking.