Seòmar agus comataidhean

:Amendment 102 seeks to require Healthcare Improvement Scotland to ensure that enforcement powers are applied in a way that is proportionate to both the size of the provider and the risk profile of the services delivered. Robust regulation is essential to public safety, but the amendment seeks to ensure that enforcement action, including fines, is fair, proportionate and targeted at genuine risk and serious non-compliance and avoids any unintended and disproportionate impacts on small providers for minor breaches.

As I have mentioned, the sector is predominantly made up of self-employed practitioners, many of whom are young working-class women, and we must ensure that those who wish to set up their own businesses and contribute to Scotland’s economy are not put off by disproportionate penalties. Those in the industry robustly reiterate the need for safety first, and the amendment simply asks for enforcement to be proportionate, not lax.

I would note that amendment 102 is intended as a probing amendment, and I am clearly interested in the minister’s thoughts at this stage.

First, I thank Emma Harper for speaking to amendment 75 earlier. Trains going through Bathgate were all cancelled today, which caused all manner of difficulties, but Emma Harper spoke to my amendment much more articulately and succinctly than I would have done.

All of my amendments today come from the same place, after a number of constituents spoke to me about their concerns relating to the bill. Like other amendments that we have heard debated this morning, they try to bring to the fore the importance of recognising the people whose lives and livelihoods might be directly shaped by the decisions that we take on the bill. The non-surgical procedures sector in Scotland is largely made up of self-employed practitioners, mostly women, many of whom are young working-class women who are building and sustaining small businesses in their local communities. They have invested in training, premises and insurance and they take seriously their responsibilities to their clients. I know that it is not the intention of the Government or the bill to harm that group of people.

In my engagement with constituents in the sector, their message has been consistent. Practitioners want clear standards, recognised qualifications and an appropriate regulatory framework. They do not oppose the bill and they understand the importance of patient safety and of maintaining public confidence. At the same time, they are seeking a system that reflects the level of risk involved in different procedures and the scale of the businesses that are delivering them—a fair and just system that does not unduly penalise them.

My amendments across several groups are intended to support that balance. They aim to ensure that standards for premises, training and enforcement are aligned with risk, are workable for small providers and provide clarity for those seeking to operate responsibly. In doing so, they recognise the importance both of protecting patients and of sustaining a sector that provides employment, opportunity and valued services across Scotland.

I would like to thank several constituents who have taken the time to educate me on this issue and let me know their concerns. I will not name them all, but, in particular, I am very grateful to Sabrina Kilta, Joanne Haggerty and Paula Adams.

I turn to amendments 80 and 115 in my name. Amendment 80 would introduce a statutory duty on Scottish ministers to establish—through regulations—minimum training and qualification requirements for those providing non-surgical procedures. It would allow different standards to be set for different procedures and require that those are proportionate to the risks involved, ensuring that regulation targets genuine patient safety concerns arising from inadequate training rather than professional background. By mandating regulated, treatment-specific qualifications for all practitioners, including healthcare professionals, the amendment would promote consistent safety standards, professional parity and alignment with emerging UK best practice, strengthening public confidence and patient protection across the sector.

Amendment 115 is a consequential amendment to set the procedure for the regulations. Above all, the amendments reflect what responsible practitioners have told us they want: clarity about what is required, recognition of their skills and a fair system that applies equally to everyone delivering these treatments. That would give those who are working hard to meet high standards the confidence that their professionalism will be recognised, and the public can have assurance in the qualifications behind the services that they receive.

I have had discussions with the minister’s office, and my intention at this stage is for these to be probing amendments. We will hear what the minister says, but the aim is to do some more work on them ahead of stage 3.

:Amendment 96 seeks to place a statutory duty on Scottish ministers to lay draft regulations establishing minimum training and qualification standards for those providing non-surgical procedures within three years of the offence of operating outside permitted premises coming into force. Where ministers consider that impractical, they must report to Parliament so as to explain their reasons. The amendment responds directly to stakeholder and committee concerns about training standards, while recognising the constraints imposed by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the need for co-operation with the UK Government.

The three-year timetable would provide a realistic and proportionate pathway for introducing standards, allowing time for regulatory development, cross-Government engagement and for practitioners to adapt. Importantly, the approach would provide a clear and transparent pathway forward: practitioners would know what progress was expected within a defined time frame, and Parliament would be kept informed of their challenges along the way. For those running small businesses, it would certainly allow them to plan, to invest in training with confidence and to prepare for the change in a measured and responsible way.

I put on record my thanks to the minister and her team for her comments on the previous group and for working with me on this amendment.

Thank you, convener.

I thank the panel for appearing today, and I just want to follow on from other lines of questioning, particularly those pursued by Pauline McNeill and Jamie Hepburn.

The committee has been looking at this situation for quite a long time now—indeed, it very much predates us—but I know that it is a difficult one to get right. That said, I agree with Pauline McNeill that it feels as if things are not really moving fast enough in this area. What are we doing to try something different? The last time that you came in to talk about this issue, I raised the specific issue of having more joint working teams. At the end of your last answer to Sharon Dowey, you touched on the triage system and the joined-up working that is happening, but are there any plans to develop what might be almost multi-agency teams involving police and health professionals to respond to theses sort of situations and ensure that folks are not still working within their silos?

My reason for asking that question takes me back to my own social work experience. I know that, when social work and police worked together in joint teams on child protection issues, such an approach worked really well by bringing all the agencies under the one roof, if you like. Are there any plans even to trial something like that in this situation?

Yes—that should be me now. There is a slight delay—[Inaudible.]

Okay. Thank you. There do not seem to be any wifi problems here. Can you hear me better now?

My question is on some of the themes that others have already explored today, around joined-up working. I want to dig into that a wee bit further, because I asked the witnesses on the first panel about it.

It strikes me that there are quite a lot of situations in which we hear the NHS and other services, such as social work, saying that these issues are not in their remit. We also heard from David Threadgold that there are a lot of situations in which the issues are not for policing either and are diverting police attention away from other things.

Is there an argument for having an assessment phase when workers go out together? There are a lot of situations in which there may be a risk and it is therefore appropriate for the police to be there, but whether the situation itself is a police matter after that might be disputed. Does more work need to be done on having an assessment carried out by both police and other services, such as health, in that particular scenario? Is work being done on that? If so, what form is that taking? Is there more that could be done?

12:45

In the interests of time, convener, I am happy with that. We have had three panels today and we are considering quite a big area, so I am happy enough with that.

My questions have mainly been answered, but I will just ask a supplementary question on the back of Willie Coffey’s line of questioning. It will be directed to Anna Gardiner—sorry, Anna; I know that you have been in the hot seat for a while.

What factors do you think councils need to take into account when they are considering the charge being greater than 100 per cent for second homes? Can you speak about that in terms of impacts on tourism? Is that an issue that needs to be taken into account?

The area that I was going to ask about has been mainly covered by Willie Coffey. Rather than simply asking a question for the sake it, I will pass back to you, convener.