Seòmar agus comataidhean

:In light of the minister’s remarks, I seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 63, 120 and 121 not moved.

Section 20 agreed to.

Section 21 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

:I have a couple of points that I would like to hear your thoughts on, minister. First of all, we do not want to prejudge the next election. I appreciate that you have given us a guarantee, but there could be a different Government, and a different minister, with a different view. There needs to be something in the legislation to perhaps give clarity just in case there is a change of Government, or a different colour of Government.

Secondly, the 18-month proposal is, I suppose, an opening gambit—like you, minister, I am open to negotiation. Are you willing to accept an amendment that sets out what you plan to do anyway, namely to commence the bill’s key provisions in September 2027? Would you be open to that type of amendment?

:Amendment 51 would require that the rates of any fees charged by Healthcare Improvement Scotland for registration are specified in regulations. Having those fee levels set out in secondary legislation would ensure that they are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The purpose of the amendment is to provide transparency and accountability in how fees are determined. Registration fees represent a direct financial obligation on practitioners and businesses. For many in the sector, particularly sole traders and small partnerships, even a moderate cost increase will have a meaningful impact on their business.

Without clarity on how fees will be set or what level they might reach, businesses would face uncertainty, which could affect financial planning, investment decisions and workforce stability. It is therefore appropriate that the Parliament has oversight of the level of fees that are associated with the regime that it is establishing.

Amendment 51 would not prevent fees from being charged, nor would it challenge the principle of cost recovery, where appropriate. Instead, it would ensure that fees are clearly defined, transparent and open to scrutiny. Setting them out in regulations would provide predictability for businesses and allow members to assess whether the charges are proportionate to the regulated services provided.

If my amendment is agreed to, fee levels will be publicly defined and subject to parliamentary consideration. That would provide clarity, support and confidence that charges are fair and justified. That already happens in other sectors.

If the amendment is not accepted, there will be less transparency about how fees are determined and there will be a reduced opportunity for consideration by the Parliament. Businesses could face uncertainty about future costs, and the Parliament would have a more limited role in assessing the financial impact of the regime.

Ultimately, amendment 51 seeks to ensure that the financial foundations of any new regulatory system are clear and accountable, and that it is safely implemented so that businesses, whether small or large, are not indirectly affected.

:Amendment 50 would require Scottish ministers to establish an accreditation scheme to enable trained non-medical practitioners to supervise non-surgical procedures. It would create a clear and regulated pathway for suitably qualified and experienced practitioners who are not medically qualified to undertake supervisory roles within the new framework.

The amendment does not seek to weaken safety standards or remove medical involvement. Instead, it would ensure that supervision is based on proven competence and relevant experience. Under the amendment, accreditation would be delivered through a recognised professional body providing structured assessment, external verification and on-going professional development.

The non-surgical aesthetics sector includes many highly skilled practitioners who have completed extensive specialised training in aesthetic techniques, compliance and management. Many have years of experience and advanced qualifications that are directly related to the procedures that are being regulated. However, they may not hold a traditional medical qualification.

As it is currently drafted, the bill risks limiting supervisory roles to medically qualified individuals alone. That approach may not always reflect where expertise lies in the field. It could exclude experienced practitioners whose entire professional focus has been within aesthetics and who possess detailed and practical knowledge of the procedures covered by the bill. Amendment 50 has been lodged to ensure that eligibility to supervise is based on training, competence and recognised standards, rather than on a medical qualification title alone. Regulation should reflect the structure and realities of the sector that it governs. In this context, a strictly qualification-based rule may not always be the most accurate measure of expertise.

There are also workforce considerations. Many businesses in the sector, particularly smaller ones, operate with lean staffing arrangements. If supervision is limited exclusively to medically qualified professionals, there may be insufficient capacity in some areas—especially in rural areas. That could increase costs and create practical difficulties in securing appropriate supervisory arrangements. By contrast, an accredited pathway for non-medical supervisors would widen the pool of eligible professionals while maintaining safeguards. It would preserve valuable expertise, support workforce stability and reduce the increased costs that would arise from having a limited supervisory cohort.

The amendment would create a clear and credible route to supervision. Practitioners, regulators and the public would have clarity about who is qualified to supervise and on what basis. Accreditation through recognised professional bodies would ensure accountability and on-going standards. Patient safety would remain central, supported by defined criteria and regulatory oversight.

Amendment 50 would ensure that the supervisory model is robust, proportionate and aligned with the structure of the sector. It would maintain safety standards while recognising competence and supporting workforce sustainability.

Good morning to the minister and her team.

My amendments are the result of, first, my discussions with a number of constituents who have raised concerns with me about the bill and, secondly, a number of emails from and meetings with the Federation of Small Businesses, which has, again, expressed concerns about the bill.

Amendment 37 would require the Scottish ministers, before adding any new procedures to schedule 1, to carry out a formal risk assessment and consult representatives of the beauty and aesthetics sector, small businesses and other relevant stakeholders. Whenever we introduce something that will make a change, it is important that we get the balance right between ministers being able to act quickly and the appropriate consultation taking place. Amendment 37 would introduce a clear safeguard into the bill to ensure that any future expansion of the regulatory regime was preceded by proper evidence gathering and meaningful engagement with those affected. That would prevent a certain group or lobby from being able to go ahead without the proper consultation. It would also protect the bill—which will, hopefully, exist for a number of years—if ministers cannot go down alleys that the rest do not agree with.

The amendment would not remove or limit ministers’ ability to amend schedule 1. Instead, it would ensure that their power was exercised through a defined and transparent process. Decisions to bring additional procedures within scope would need to be supported by an assessment of safety risks, consumer protection concerns and economic impact, and would need to be informed by the views of practitioners and businesses that would be directly affected by any change.

I think that we all agree that the regulation of non-surgical procedures is a fast-moving area. New treatments and techniques are introduced regularly, and public concern about safety continues to evolve. Therefore, it is likely that, over time, proposals will be made to expand the list of regulated procedures. Although it is important that ministers are able to respond to emerging risks, it is equally important that any expansion is proportionate and based on clear evidence of harm. At the moment, I do not see there being a role for others to raise concerns about any proposal that is made. Will there be any consultation with those who carry out the work?

The sector is made up largely of small businesses and microbusinesses, many of which operate with limited administrative resources and on tight margins, which means that regulatory changes can have a significant financial and operational impact. Even well-intentioned reforms might lead to higher compliance costs, service restrictions and unintended barriers to entry.

Amendment 37 seeks to ensure that future decisions take account not only of safety but of practical delivery, workforce implications and economic sustainability. It seeks to embed in the operation of the bill transparency, accountability and evidence-based decision making. In doing so, it supports an approach that would be responsive to risk but that would also be measured and would help the sector to respond in a predictable way.

If amendment 37 was agreed to, ministers would retain the ability to add new procedures, where that was justified. However, that power would be exercised within a clear and accountable framework. Businesses and practitioners would have greater confidence that changes would not be introduced without proper scrutiny and consultation. In addition, the quality of future regulatory decisions would likely improve, as stakeholder input would inform policy at an early stage.

In summary, amendment 37 would ensure that flexibility was balanced by responsibility. It would allow ministers to respond to new risks while ensuring that expansion of the regime was evidence based, proportionate and properly consulted on. I would have thought that that is what good laws should look like, and I am surprised that, at the moment, the minister seems unwilling to accept the amendment. I look forward to hearing her closing remarks.

:I am just looking to the future. What happens if a minister and the organisation say that they want to increase the fees by more than 100 per cent? What scrutiny would the Parliament have with regard to such an increase? My amendment would simply allow the Parliament to step in if an increase was excessive.

:Amendment 62 seeks to ensure that the power to bring relevant sections of the bill into force is subject to a proposed 18-month delay. That would ensure that the commencement provisions are fully aligned with the intended transition period and would remove any uncertainty for business about timing.

Where legislation includes either a general commencement power or a specified delay, it is important that the relationship between the two is clearly stated and, perhaps more important, fully understood by all. Without that clarity, there is a risk of confusion or of different interpretations being made.

The amendment has been lodged to ensure that the 18-month delay cannot be shortened inadvertently through the use of commencement powers. It would strengthen the drafting of the bill by making the intended timescale explicit. If agreed, it would provide clarity and reassurance to business, practitioners and regulators about when the new regime would take effect. It would support a planned and orderly transition. If it is not agreed to, though, there might remain some uncertainty about how the commencement powers interact with the delay. Even if there is no intention to alter the timescale, lack of clarity in drafting can create avoidable ambiguity.

In summary, amendment 62 would provide necessary clarity and certainty on the timing of implementation, and it would ensure that the intended 18-month transition period could not be altered and that commencement provisions would operate exactly as Parliament would expect. By aligning the drafting of the bill with the stated timetable, the amendment seeks to promote transparency, to avoid ambiguity and to support a stable and orderly introduction to the new regime.

Amendment 63 seeks to provide that sections 1 to 14 of the bill may not come into force until 18 months after royal assent, establishing a clear and defined transition period before the main regulatory provisions take effect. As the bill introduces substantial changes to the supervision and regulation of non-surgical procedures, businesses will need time to understand the new requirements, review their arrangements, undertake any necessary training, formalise supervision agreements and adapt their operating models.

Many providers, as has been said on numerous occasions, are small businesses with limited admin capacity. Compliance might involve securing new premises, updating insurance arrangements, revising contracts and introducing new record-keeping systems, and those changes require planning and cannot be implemented immediately—and certainly not overnight—without the risk of disruption. That is particularly true for those who are sole practitioners. Similarly, regulators will require time to prepare guidance, develop registration systems, recruit and train staff and establish inspection processes. Effective regulation depends not only on policy design but on practical readiness.

Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that reform is introduced in a realistic and carefully managed way; an 18-month transition period would provide certainty and allow businesses and regulators to prepare properly. If agreed to, it would support orderly implementation, reduce the risk of rushed compliance, administrative backlogs or unintended closures, and increase the likelihood of a new regime operating effectively from the outset. If the amendment is not agreed to, commencement could occur sooner, placing undue pressure on business and regulators to meet new requirements within the shorter timeframe and increasing the risk of operational strain or disruption and, I am sad to say, some businesses going out of business.

In summary, amendment 63 would ensure that reform was delivered responsibly. It would not delay change unnecessarily, but ensure that, when the new regime came into force, it would do so on a stable and well-prepared basis.

I move amendment 62.

:In the light of the minister’s remarks, I will seek further conversations with her and will not move amendment 37.

Amendment 37 not moved.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1—Specified non-surgical procedures

Amendment 10 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Amendment 38 not moved.

Amendments 11 to 17 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Amendment 39 not moved.

Amendments 18 to 21 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2—Offence of providing a non-surgical procedure to person under 18

Good morning. I think that we have had this discussion before, but will the Scottish Government change the legislative basis of the best start foods payment so that it is covered by the statutory duty to uprate for inflation?

We will come on to this more fully later but, as we are discussing it now, I am interested to know how long it takes between someone making an application to Social Security Scotland and getting a decision. Perhaps John Halliday knows the answer to that.

Secondly, I have a concern about rural areas where there might be only one firm of undertakers. There is a multitude of choices in the cities, but what would happen in a rural area when a family has a bad reputation? From your experience, what would happen if a local undertaker in such a situation said no?