Seòmar agus comataidhean

If someone makes an offer on social media, perhaps even within a friendship group, to provide procedures outwith permitted premises, is there anything in the bill, or under the current law, that will allow enforcement action to be taken?

If anything further could be provided in writing before the bill progresses, that would be helpful.

Do you expect to explore that approach in relation to non-surgical procedures?

Tobacco is an interesting comparison, because we require information to be provided not simply in text form but through images that are sometimes deliberately shocking.

I just want to follow up on the enforcement theme. The bill would create an offence of providing procedures outwith permitted premises, but it does not include an offence of offering those procedures in those circumstances. Are there any existing offences that would come into play in relation to offering procedures in that way and which could play a role in enforcement? The powers to inspect premises, including powers of entry, come into play where there is a reasonable belief that the offence of carrying out the procedure has been, or is being, committed. Is there another way of allowing enforcement authorities to exercise that power of entry where procedures are being offered, or where the offer to make them available can be demonstrated, but there is no evidence that a procedure has actually happened?

Good morning. I just want to follow up on the questions about public awareness and perhaps draw out a little more the Government’s attitude to the balance between the public sector’s responsibility to provide public awareness information and providers’ responsibility to provide information.

When we talk about other products on sale that have some health harms, we do not simply say that there is a public health awareness campaign and we do not simply say that providers have to give information—we say both things. I am not quite clear whether the Scottish Government is saying that it wants to regulate the information on risks that providers of such procedures have to make available. I recognise that advertising is reserved, but regulating the provision of information about risks is surely a public health matter and therefore devolved.

If we accept—and I hope that I am right about this—that we can continue to rely on the principle that Scotland has the right to decide, or that the people of Scotland have the right to do so, we are still left in the situation where, although we have the right to decide, we may not exercise it. That is the quandary that we find ourselves in.

I want to ask about an issue that I have explored with previous panels—to a mixed reaction, I have to say. If the Scottish Parliament’s ability to make a decision is not accepted and the UK Parliament or Government is unwilling to make a decision, is there some other way in which the will of the people of Scotland—not necessarily to decide yes or no to independence, but to make it clear that they are ready to decide on the question of independence—can be expressed, whether through some formal deliberative or participative mechanism or in some informal way that is not directed by, or under the control of, formal political processes? Do any of you see any potential in that space for some form of expression of the will, or the readiness, of the people of Scotland, other than through decisions in one Parliament that is being told that it cannot decide and another Parliament that is unwilling to decide?

I am unclear about Jamie Halcro Johnston’s thinking with regard to street traders being moved from one site to another, and how we can disaggregate the losses from the benefits and develop a compensation scheme that could not be taken advantage of pretty ruthlessly.

It is perhaps a bit out of character for me to say that an amendment in Stephen Kerr’s name seems reasonable but, on first reading, I did not see anything in amendment 8 that appeared particularly harmful. However, having thought about it a little more, the rights that it sets out could, in some circumstances, be problematic. For example, the right to observe searches might cause unnecessary disputes in situations in which an individual is being disruptive or posing a threat to others around them. The minister referred to the point about reporting entry to Glasgow City Council, and I am a bit worried that that would raise expectations that the council would always have the ability to do something about that. I am not entirely clear how that would be helpful, so I do not feel that amendment 8 should be supported.

For the reasons that the minister set out, I have problems with amendment 9 because of the risk of the opportunity that could be taken to destroy evidence.

I can understand why Jamie Halcro Johnston thinks that, in specific instances where traders have made a loss, that loss might be compensated, but I point out that there will also be significant circumstances in which traders gain additional opportunities. They might well be in other places, but there will be opportunities that would not have been there if the tournament had not been happening. Can he say, either in an intervention now or in his closing comments, whether it is his view that the Government ought to try to establish a situation in which there are no losses and no benefits—and if so, tell us how he intends to recoup the additional benefits that will be gained—or is he trying to suggest that losses should be compensated and benefits pocketed?