Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Mr Ewing recommends keeping the petition open and pursuing the points of interest with the Scottish Government. Are colleagues content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

That is a comprehensive set of suggestions, Mr Golden. As no other colleagues have any thoughts on the matter, do we agree to those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. This is the first consideration of the petition, and you have made specific recommendations. Are committee members content to keep the petition open and to make the inquiries that Mr Ewing has detailed?

Members indicated agreement.

We go back to item 2, which is consideration of new petitions.

PE2168, which was lodged by Steven McInally, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to grant legal aid to all victims and their families when medical evidence confirms that a death or serious injury incident occurred during an interaction with Police Scotland personnel.

Mandatory fatal accident inquiries are held for all deaths that occur in legal custody, which includes police and prison custody. The Scottish Government’s response to the committee states that it is committed to introducing primary legislation that would provide for non-means-tested legal aid for families participating in FAIs on deaths in custody—including non-means-tested advice and assistance from day 1. That will be provided as part of a programme of wider reform in relation to legal aid in Scotland, which the Scottish Government intends to introduce through a bill in the next parliamentary session.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I think that Mr Ewing wants to come in. My glasses are fogged up, Mr Ewing, so you will need to shout out, because I can hardly see you.

We thank the petitioner for raising the petition, but in the light of the Scottish Government’s response, we do not feel that there is anywhere further that we could take it.

The next of our continued petitions is PE2137, which was lodged by Jordan Morris on behalf of Mr Skulpt Aesthetics Ltd. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce an aesthetics licensing scheme to ensure that non-medical practitioners meet training and safety standards.

We last considered the petition on 5 March 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has since written to the committee on two occasions. The most recent submission set out that the Scottish Government has published its analysis of the consultation on the regulation of non-surgical cosmetic procedures and its intended next steps. The Scottish Government intends to introduce a non-surgical cosmetic procedures bill, which will ensure that many non-surgical cosmetic procedures will be undertaken by or under the supervision of a healthcare professional and, in most cases, in a setting that is regulated by Healthcare Improvement Scotland. In addition, the Scottish Government intends to pursue secondary legislation under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to establish a local authority licensing regime for procedures that do not require the input of a healthcare professional.

In view of the fact that many of the aims of the petition have been realised, do colleagues have suggestions for action?

I note that the First Minister’s interest was genuine. It was the first time that he had fully engaged on the topic. However, even though I have received a comprehensive letter, when I ask for an itemised check-off against each of the recommendations, some of the information was grouped and general, which is not necessarily as reassuring as it might be. There are further written questions on all those issues that I can put to Government, as can colleagues.

I have a great deal of sympathy with that. On the other hand, we are probably at a stage in the parliamentary session where it will have to be the efforts of individual members that take these things forward. I am not certain that there is more that the committee can do.

The Scottish Government has said that it is guided by the SHTG, MHRA and NICE in its current approach to evidence, which it will keep under review? A number of on-going programmes provide comprehensive data for medical devices, including pelvic and hernia mesh, and there is an option to address proposals for the development of guideline topics directly via Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

I feel that, just because we are running out of time, we should close the petition. That is not because I think that the issues have been fully addressed but because a fresh petition in the next session of Parliament could focus on the issues that might remain at that time. There is a division of opinion, even among those of us who have had major concerns about the use of mesh, in relation to its application in hernia operations—I think that our deputy convener said that he has benefited from that.

There are remaining issues, which can be pursued by members who have an interest in the matter. I hope, and would expect, that the wider issues that remain might therefore be raised in a fresh petition.

Are members content to conclude that there is nothing further that we can do as a committee in relation to the petition in the time that is left available to us?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. If I may trade Latin with you, tempus fugit.