Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. My question relates to the evidence that Living Rent gave to the committee about the proposed maximum compensation for social rented tenants where duties are not adhered to not being enough to incentivise landlords to carry out timeous work. Cabinet secretary, I am interested in hearing your views on Living Rent’s opinion and on what the Government can do to change that situation.

No, that was a fairly comprehensive answer from the cabinet secretary and her officials.

Good morning. It sounds like you have done a really good job with the budget, making things work and ensuring that the main services are functioning well, but it does not sound like there is a lot of room for movement.

I want to ask about emergency situations that cannot be predicted. I have in mind the situation that we are witnessing in the middle east, which will ultimately have an impact back home. We know that you will be picking up on that in the main, ensuring that there is community cohesion and so on. How do you factor that in with such a tight budget? Do you get extra support for such situations, or do you just have to work with what you have?

I have a general question. Do you have thoughts on or insights into how the fire service can bring together the views of the leadership and those on the ground? The committee often gets good updates on a range of issues from the leadership and the union and, as constituency MSPs, we hear from individual fire personnel. Sometimes, those views seem to be in conflict, although, often, everyone just wants the same thing. Recently, there has been a run of sessions after which individual firefighters—I would never name them, obviously—have contacted me to say that they disagreed with some things that were said.

You maybe cannot give a massive answer to this, and I understand that the issue is only part of your role, but can you do anything to bring those views together? There is a lot of merit in what we hear from both sides, but it is hard for us, as politicians in a committee, to get a true understanding of what is going on. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Thank you.

I know from work in my constituency with, for example, local mosques when there have been similar events that you have a strong track record on that, so I thank you very much.

You do not know how things might escalate, but are you confident that you will be able to continue to respond to such events or the continuation of the current events and how they might impact communities in Scotland?

: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.