Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy for Alexander Stewart to carry on; I will mop up at the end.

Craig Smith, the magic wand goes over to you.

10:30

It is okay—so has Craig.

Last but not least, I put that question to Frank McKillop.

Let me finish with a positive question. It is 8 May, and we have a new Government in place. The new cabinet secretary for social security comes to you and says, “Here is my magic wand. You can have one of the things that is in the report, and I will grant it to you today.”

I know what Keith Park is going to say, but for the rest of you, what is the one thing that you would choose that would make the biggest difference to the people you are trying to help? I will go to Keith first, because it will be easy for him to answer.

Good morning. I put on record that I am in receipt of the higher rate of ADP.

I thank the four witnesses for coming. That is not only for today—you represent the third sector, and we have had people from that sector giving evidence to the committee for the past five years. As a committee, we appreciate the time and effort that has been put in over those years.

I have two questions. First, Erica Young mentioned the PIP review that is happening at UK level. We do not know how that will work out in the autumn or what the UK Government will do. I have a philosophical question. Can we have a system in which there are different criteria north and south of the border? Obviously, that would impact on other benefits and on how people do things. Can you envisage a system in which the 50 per cent rule remains in England but we get rid of it in Scotland? Can that work philosophically?

What would you go to? A bit like you, Keith, I am old enough—sorry to be rude—to remember the 100m rule. I remember that the test used to be whether someone could walk the length of a football pitch. Would you go back to that, or would you not put a figure on it?

: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

: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.