Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

Will Maurice Golden take an intervention on that point?

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 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

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?

Will Maurice Golden take an intervention on that point?

Will Maurice Golden take an intervention on that point?

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

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?

Will the minister take a brief intervention?