Seòmar agus comataidhean

You make the point.

I am sorry if I have given you that impression; that was not the intention.

All the capacity work is being done now, and it is important that it is done. We have been very clear that it needs to be done carefully. I am aware that some of the evidence that you heard last week was that the modelling had not been done. That is exactly the work that we have asked the task and finish group to do, to ensure that we have the right services to provide the right care for the babies.

I would be remiss if I were not following the expert clinical advice that you heard last week, which is clear that the smallest and sickest babies get the best outcomes if they are treated in neonatal intensive care units that have a greater throughput. I find that a really awkward phrase to use when we are talking about babies, but it means a greater number of babies going through the system to ensure that the clinicians, the nurses and everybody else in the units looking after the babies are of the right standard to get the best outcomes for the babies.

I have visited Wishaw, Ninewells and other neonatal units in Scotland. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the staff are fantastic, and I respect and have great confidence in the work they are doing. However, it would be remiss of me as the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health not to listen very clearly and read very closely the evidence from other experts, clinicians and also BAPM.

Thank you for that question. I think that you heard some evidence from Stephen Wardle about that last week.

From the work that we did with Crosshouse in Ayrshire and Arran sending patients to Glasgow and the Victoria in Fife sending patients to Lothian, it was clear that the best outcomes are if the mother can travel while the baby is in utero. That should be picked up in the visits that mothers-to-be have with their maternity staff. They will be put on one of the different pathways for expectant mothers and that would be taken into account. There will be certain areas that will require the maternity staff to ensure that they recognise whether a mother is likely to give birth early.

It was reviewed by the initial group—the experts who were basing their decisions on expert evidence, which you heard last week. However, once I had made the decision and I was, rightly, being questioned by families and other clinicians, I asked the deputy chief medical officer to review it again to ensure that we had followed the right evidence and that the right results were coming from the report.

We have had a discussion about that. The bill as it stands provides the right controls around the powers that we are looking to introduce, because, as I have said, it is a very fast-changing environment. I will take your question away and look at the issue further, but as it stands, the bill contains the right safeguards, controls and flexibility so that we can respond quickly to any changes that are needed.

UKIMA is one area that relates to the bill, but I felt that it was important that we brought in legislation, given the level of consultation that we have carried out over several years on the safety of cosmetic procedures. It is about not simply the training but, from a healthcare perspective, ensuring that we have the right premises and proper regulation so that clients are assured of the hygiene and safety levels and the professionalism of the people who work in those premises.

We also think that it is very important to bring in legislation to ensure that young people under the age of 18 cannot legally get such treatment. That is a key driver of the bill. We have therefore focused very much on the age-related elements and the premises, while recognising that, ideally, we want to bring in training and professional qualifications—which we will do once we have achieved the discussions with the UK Government.

On your first point, convener, it is fair to say that conversations about the bill that I have had with members from across the chamber show clear support for ensuring that we get this right from a public health perspective. I therefore appreciate the scrutiny that this committee and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee have been giving to the bill.

As you correctly pointed out, part of the situation with UKIMA relates to the fact that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are unable to set training and supervision standards for Scotland in this area. We consider that part 3 of UKIMA would be engaged by legislation that sets training standards for practitioners or prevents practitioners who do not hold certain qualifications or are not existing professionals from providing certain procedures. That was a clear concern for us when we were drafting the bill.

As soon as we recognised that, we engaged with the UK Government, and I am pleased that that engagement has been very positive. It is on-going, but we are engaging across the issue because there is a recognition that we need to get it right. As you know, the UK Government is also looking at bringing in legislation in this area of public health concern. We need to get it right for people in both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

That is a good question that has come out in a lot of the conversations that I have had with stakeholders who have fed in their thoughts. Education is really important in some respects. While I was driving to my constituency yesterday, I listened to a Radio Scotland piece on cosmetic procedures and the evidence that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is currently taking. Such pieces of work in the media are very helpful in ensuring that we get the right message across. I am content to take the issue away and consider what more we could do in that space.

Yes; it had to be so. As Owen Griffiths pointed out, engagement has happened not just from a health perspective, with the Department of Health and Social Care, but from a business perspective.