Seòmar agus comataidhean

::One of the aspects on which the Parliament has really let itself down over the years is the lack of post-legislative scrutiny; that point has been raised time and again. Were amendment 107—it is more of a probing amendment, to be fair—to be accepted, there would be some type of review of the legislation at some point in the future.

The figure of five years is arbitrary, so it is not set in stone. Nevertheless, the way in which the legislation has been drafted, with so much of the detail to come in subsequent regulations, was one of the reasons why I went for five years, because it would provide continued flexibility for the bill or any further legislation to be constantly updated over the period. That flexibility is hugely important.

I am convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and when a bill comes forward to that committee that is considered to be framework legislation—if I may use that term—rather than legislation that contains a lot of detail, the committee has, at times, challenged the Government quite strongly on that. However, with this bill in particular, a framework approach is helpful. Given that it relates to such a fast-moving industry, that flexibility is hugely important. I thought that I would go for five years, because that would still provide an opportunity for Parliament to look at a constantly evolving industry and see whether any additional tweaks or changes are required.

::My amendment 84 is based on a governance and prescribing assurance document by HIS, relating to medical aesthetics, and the 2011 regulations that I referenced earlier. Section 6 of the former states that prescribers

“must only prescribe within the competence following an appropriate consultation that establishes medical history’,

and then it goes on a bit further than that.

The 2011 regulations are clear that a suitably qualified healthcare professional must be working within the independent healthcare service while service users are present. In speaking about other amendments, Dr Gulhane referenced the nine botulinum toxin type A products that are authorised for use in the UK under the MHRA guidelines.

Fundamentally, amendment 84 is about safety. As I stated in my contribution earlier, this is about safety. The amendment tries to establish a base or minimum for newly regulated practitioners. However, I am conscious that some of the earlier amendments were not moved, and I predict that I probably will not move amendment 84 either.

::Before I speak about amendment 22C, I thank the minister for taking the bill forward and for listening to concerns from the sector. Safety is the paramount driver for me. When I engaged with the Scottish Government on the bill, that issue always pushed me forward, because we cannot put a price on people’s safety. Some of the amendments that I have lodged might be considered to counter the safety aspect, but I will deal with those issues in due course.

Amendment 22C is quite simple in theory, but I appreciate that it might well be challenging to deliver, and I have noted the minister’s comments. Since 2018, I have spoken to medics and non-medics who are involved in the industry. When the Scottish Government’s consultation proposed the creation of three categories, it was clear to me that it would be hardest to find a solution for people in relation to group 2, as I referenced in the stage 1 debate. The amendment proposes to assist in that regard.

Fundamentally, there is no regulation for parts of the sector, so trying to formalise the sector’s position is crucial. Creating registration requirements is vital in that regard, and I suggest that having a register of premises managed by a non-healthcare professional would be a positive start.

If a non-registered practitioner undertakes a procedure that goes wrong, what is the penalty? There is none. However, if a registered practitioner, via HIS, undertakes a procedure that goes wrong, there are penalties and there is also reputational damage.

Amendment 22C is an attempt to introduce a level of professionalism for those who would qualify. There would need to be a full consultation on what was required in the proposed regulations, and the bill has been drafted in a way that would allow that consultation to take place once the principle had—I hope—been agreed to.

We need to consider regulation and provide a pathway for upskilling. The size of the industry is increasing, and we are responsible for trying to make it safer. Given that new procedures are occurring at pace, flexibility in many of the regulatory powers following consultation would be helpful, although such an approach would not be welcomed across the Parliament for every bill. The minister referred to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which highlighted that aspect as part of our inquiry into framework legislation earlier in the session.

Amendment 22C is about establishing the principle that those who qualify must be registered.

Amendment 68 would further support the principle of non-medics needing to be registered to have a permitted premises. Again, that is about professionalising the sector. We all know that some people have spent a great deal of money on training and on premises, so allowing those who qualify to register as a permitted premises would be positive. However, as has been said, a regulatory aspect comes with that responsibility.

09:45

Amendment 71 proposes to highlight the level of training that some people in the sector already have, although they have not been medically trained. Under the Scottish credit and qualifications framework, level 11 includes a master’s qualification, a postgraduate diploma and a postgraduate certificate. The position is similar in Wales and, in England and Northern Ireland, that level is equivalent to level 7 under vocational training and professional qualifications.

My amendment seeks to provide a baseline of qualifications that would allow people to work in the sector. Achieving a postgraduate qualification is difficult and challenging and takes a huge amount of time and effort, as I know from undertaking an MBA some years ago. Having a baseline could provide an opportunity for upskilling, particularly for those who want to remain in the sector. I am aware that Glasgow Caledonian University is working on a course and has another that is ready to go.

HIS’s clarification of the interpretation of regulation 12 of the Healthcare Improvement Scotland (Requirements as to Independent Health Care Services) Regulations 2011 is helpful, considering the minimum qualifications that are required. I appreciate that, if non-medical practitioners are to be regulated via HIS, it will impact their function and their costs. However, the fundamental issue of client safety will be paramount. The sector is growing and, if we want it to do so safely, qualifications, upskilling and stringent regulations for new entrants must apply.

Amendment 112 is a technical amendment to ensure that regulations would be made under the affirmative procedure and scrutinised in the Parliament. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee referenced that in a report that it published earlier in the session.

::The amendment that I lodged says that the review should take place

“within five years of section 3 coming into force”,

so it would not be in an election period, but afterwards.

Is the committee content that no reporting grounds are engaged?

Members indicated agreement.

In relation to the draft Investigation and Commencement of Repair (Scotland) Regulations 2026, does the committee wish to note that the original draft of this instrument was withdrawn and the present version re-laid following questions raised by the committee with the Scottish Government?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee wish to note that the Scottish Government intends to revise the policy note to correct an erroneous assertion in relation to the transitional provision?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee content that no reporting grounds are engaged on these instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

Under agenda item 3, we are considering 13 instruments, on which no points have been raised.

Under agenda item 4, we are considering one instrument, on which no points have been raised.