Seòmar agus comataidhean

:My amendments 45, 48, 49, 52, 90, 53, 54 and 55 would make further provisions in relation to ensuring that regulations are fit for purpose. My amendments in group 6 were largely focused on costs and financial provisions; my amendments in this group relate to a range of facets including training, timescales for compliance and phased implementation, as well as the assessment of any regulations as defined by the Scottish Government. The amendments would help to provide a pathway to future regulations and ensure that those regulations were fit for purpose.

I move amendment 45.

:I have nothing further to add. I wish to withdraw amendment 45.

Amendment 45, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 46 not moved.

Amendment 47 moved—[Maurice Golden].

As a result of an article appearing in a national newspaper today, I should put on the record that my girlfriend works in the aesthetics sector. Private lives should remain such. I have no financial links to the sector and am happy to speak privately to members following the meeting.

Amendment 36 is intended to prevent the expansion of scope without evidence, enforceability, assessment or consultation. Amendments 38 and 39 make the case that, as the minister has highlighted, there is less risk with the procedures to which the amendments refer. However, I accept the minister’s argument that those procedures are not risk free. My intention is not to move the amendments at stage 2.

:Amendment 59 would require transparent evaluation of whether the regulatory approach improves safety without having a disproportionate impact on access, business viability, workforce and enforcement capacity. Alongside that, I would hope that it would help to improve data capture and therefore inform future regulatory practice, and ultimately improve safety.

I move amendment 59.

:I will speak to my amendments 46, 47, 91 and 58. The first point is that data on safety is lacking in the sector. That is one of the reasons why it needs to be regulated. However, even in regulated settings, there is difficulty in accessing data on exactly when things unfortunately go wrong and at what point issues occur, both in situ and beyond. Nonetheless, the amendments in this group are about ensuring that there is a proportionate risk-based approach in the absence of that data. Ultimately, my amendments in the group seek to provide a proportionate approach to the new regulated practice in this space. I foresee that, depending on how the amendments in the group are voted on, there might be a requirement for some condensing and tweaking at stage 3.

:I have nothing further to add except to say that I wish to withdraw amendment 76.

Amendment 76, by agreement, withdrawn.

:I have lodged probing amendments on two areas, the first of which is permitted premises. The rationale behind those amendments is that they would allow permitted premises to be outwith a healthcare setting if they were able to meet the safety criteria, which is where I believe the committee and the Parliament are coming from.

The route of allowing licensed non-healthcare premises could be aligned to risk level, infection control standards and inspection requirements. That would allow services to operate safely while maintaining accessibility for communities. Aligning premises requirements with the risk and complexity of procedures would support patient safety while avoiding unnecessary service closures or market consolidation.

My second set of amendments is about prescribers on premises and explores the idea that the default model of requiring a prescriber to be physically present on premises risks creating barriers to service provision. The amendments acknowledge that patient safety is determined not by physical presence alone but by clear governance, accountability and access to appropriately qualified prescribers when clinically required. A named prescriber model within a defined geographical radius, supported by robust protocols, escalation pathways and remote availability, would reflect how prescribing oversight already functions safely and lawfully in the majority of healthcare and aesthetic settings.

:I am happy to press amendment 59.

:Amendment 76, as well as the other amendments in this group, seeks to ensure fairness in the regulation of the sector. In my opinion, the sector should have been regulated at least a decade ago, and perhaps before that. Had that happened, the market would not display the distinctions that we see today. Through no fault of their own, non‑medical aesthetic practitioners now face a perilous future, and the amendment seeks to assist them in the transition to a newly regulated sector.

Unfortunately, neither the minister, committee members nor anyone else can go back in time and ensure that the regulations were brought in when they should have been. We are where we are now, and we must address the issue of those who now face being outwith the regulated sector unless they do a significant amount of additional training. Essentially, the amendment attempts to fix what Parliament did not do.

I move amendment 76.

I just wanted to make an additional comment. I agree with the previous comments, but there is a concern that a moratorium on battery energy storage systems might be announced in the next session of Parliament. We had a similar moratorium on incineration facilities earlier this session, after which incineration capacity in Scotland doubled and, indeed, is set to increase even more. Once planning consent is given in this area, it will be extremely difficult for any Government, no matter what statement is made, to withdraw that consent without undermining Scotland’s entire planning system. As a result, the lack of an energy strategy, which has already been highlighted, the lack of guidance in this particular area, and—as we have seen across many petitions—the lack of meaningful community engagement or local empowerment are ultimately detrimental to many communities throughout Scotland, and they are aghast at what is happening.