Scottish Parliament, 17 March 2026

287 contributions from 43 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. Our first item of business is time for reflection, and our time for reflection leader today is Ronit Quayle, a celebrant from the Humanist Society Scotland.

Ronit Quayle (Humanist Society Scotland)

Presiding Officer, thank you for inviting me to address the Parliament.

As a celebrant with the charity Humanist Society Scotland, my job is to tell stories—everyday stories of everyday folk. I celebrate the banalities and mundanities of people and their lives. It is those seemingly unimportant things that make up a life, and they are always worth celebrating.

When I tell love stories at weddings, my couples rarely tell me about the big romantic gestures. It is the wee things. It is hanging up the laundry because they left it in the machine—again. It is the jammies left on the radiator for somebody coming home from a night shift. It is going to the supermarket a bit further away because it sells their favourite biscuits.

“Love” is a verb, because it is a doing word. Can you tell that I have a primary school-aged child? I am privileged to see and to celebrate the myriad ways in which love is shown.

I told a man’s story at his funeral recently. I said something that might sound like nothing at all but that is, I think, everything. I said, “He was a good man,” and he was. His name will not be recorded in the history books. He did not change the world, but he changed the world of those who loved him. That is something that all of us have the power to do—the power and, perhaps, the responsibility.

The world is a scary place, and it feels like it is getting scarier. It is easy to feel helpless and powerless—to think, “How can I possibly make the world a better place?” The problems that we face feel too big, too complicated and too deeply entrenched, so is there even any point in trying?

It is easy to think that our actions are superfluous, but they are not. Your job is to do what you can to make Scotland a better place. You hear the stories of your constituents and are tasked with making them happier stories. Will each of you change the world? I believe so.

The work of being a good person is not grand and will rarely make headlines, but we all have the power to make the lives of the people we encounter just a wee bit better, so that, at the end of our lives, people who tell our story will say, “She was a good woman,” and those words will be true.

Topical Question Time

A member

14:03

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to reports that one in five adults in Scotland are unable to access dental care. (S6T-02955)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We remain committed to improving access to national health service dentistry across Scotland by building on our 2023 reform, which incentivised dentists to deliver more NHS care and was backed by a funding increase of nearly 40 per cent over this parliamentary session. As a result, participation in NHS dentistry has increased by more than 10 percentage points to 62 per cent, while the number of dentists has returned to its pre-pandemic level.

We recognise that we need to do more, so our operational improvement plan commits to additional actions to further increase the dental workforce and support equitable access in rural areas.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Our constituents’ wellbeing should not come down to a postcode lottery, but, sadly, dental deserts are far too common, particularly in my South Scotland region. Too many are forced to use their savings on private dentistry. A YouGov poll highlighted in the British Dental Association’s manifesto said that 65 per cent of Scots believe that the Scottish Government should do more to improve NHS dentistry in Scotland. As workforce is a key part of that issue, can the Scottish Government give an update on how it will plan to boost the workforce, specifically given that dentists remain in short supply and that even fewer are willing to treat NHS patients?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I said in my first answer, we improved the pay situation for dentists in 2023. When that started, I was very clear that that was the beginning of a journey. We have increased the number of spaces available for dentists to train in Scotland by 7 per cent, which is a positive way forward.

I recognise that there are some areas in which we need more dentists, so we have given an additional £437,000 of funding to Dumfries and Galloway and it has been used to recruit two senior dental officers and a dental therapist to resource Gardenhill dental surgery in Castle Douglas.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

We need to view dentistry as part of the preventative health agenda. In places such as Ayrshire and Arran, in my South Scotland region, only 60 per cent of registered patients who live in the most deprived areas have had contact with an NHS dentist in the past two years. The last national dental inspection programme report revealed an alarming gap in oral health between children living in the most deprived areas of Scotland and those living in the least deprived areas. Given that inequalities have widened under this Government, does the Government recognise that access is a system-wide issue and that significant changes must be made to tackle dentistry inequality?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As Carol Mochan knows, we have continued to invest—and increase the investment—in Childsmile, which is a multifaceted, multi-setting dental public health programme that supports young children. We also have a number of adult programmes, such as the caring for smiles programme, specifically to support inequalities and improve oral health for people with experience of the justice system, people experiencing homelessness and adults with additional care needs.

I have been clear in my answers that we recognise that we have made some progress, but we have more to make. That is why I am meeting BDA Scotland next week to discuss further changes that we could make with it.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

What assessment has the minister made of how harmful labour policies on immigration are to the dentistry sector in particular? As we know, the United Kingdom Labour Government is determined to lurch further to the right than even the Tories were when it comes to immigration policies.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

On devolved matters, minister.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I remain deeply concerned about the UK Government’s changes to the skilled worker visa, which will remove key dental professions from qualifying for sponsorship, including dental therapists, who are a critical element of increasing the skills mix in dental practice, especially in Scotland. More widely, those changes will impact on the ability of practices to recruit qualified staff, which will reduce access to preventative dental care and oral health improvement services in particular.

Last year, I wrote to urge the UK Government to reconsider those changes, and I am disappointed that my request has been refused.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Despite targets in the NHS Scotland recovery plan following Covid, tooth decay remains the primary reason for child hospital admissions, with more than 6,500 extractions under general aesthetic annually costing the NHS £8.4 million. That is an entirely preventable condition. Every procedure that is performed represents a drain on theatre space, staff time and resources that are needed elsewhere. Does the cabinet secretary share the public’s concern? As a result of those statistics, is the Scottish Government taking any new action to improve children’s oral health?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I indicated to Carol Mochan, I am meeting BDA Scotland on 24 March to discuss paediatric extractions under general anaesthetic. My officials are looking at enhanced paediatric services in primary care aligning to public commitments around shifting the balance of care to primary and community settings.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Scottish National Party Government cannot blame anybody but itself for the problem, which has been a long time coming. The Cupar dentist, in my constituency, has been on emergency service only for a year—and the problems go back way before that. When can my constituents expect a full-time dentistry service in Cupar?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As Willie Rennie will recognise, NHS Fife works very closely with dentists across Fife. Over the past three years I have been making changes to dentistry to allow for an improvement and an increased workforce. I would point out, very quietly, that the decision made under Brexit has impacted on a number of areas, with fewer dentists from overseas coming to Scotland. I am pleased, however, that the General Dental Council has expanded its opportunities for dentists from overseas to sit exams, which I hope will improve the circumstances in Fife on which Mr Rennie has commented.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update regarding the steps being taken to support families with the cost of living, in light of the conflict in the middle east and its impact on heating oil prices. (S6T-02959)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The United Kingdom Government has been painfully slow to act on the matter, given that heating oil prices had already doubled before its intervention yesterday. We have been pressing for action, but the support that was announced yesterday equates to only around £33 per household using oil heating. That simply does not go far enough.

Given the urgency of this problem, the Scottish Government will supplement the £4.6 million that we have been allocated with a further £5.4 million, more than doubling the level of support that is available. With that, we will launch a £10 million Scottish emergency oil heating scheme from 1 April. The scheme will be delivered through Advice Direct Scotland, and low-income households that are reliant on oil will be eligible. Further details will be announced as soon as practicable.

We again call on the UK Government to take its responsibility for energy pricing seriously and to take further actions to support those households. In an energy-rich nation, no one should struggle to pay their bills. Our schemes already deliver average savings of £300 annually, and we will keep further support under review.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

In my constituency, more than 86 per cent of homes are off the gas grid, and some 46 per cent are heated with oil. Given that critics have warned that Keir Starmer’s support package works out at around £33 per affected household—as the cabinet secretary also mentioned—does the cabinet secretary agree that that will be little consolation for the thousands of people whose fuel prices have doubled overnight? Does the cabinet secretary also agree that that cannot be the end of any action taken by the UK Government, given that energy policy is reserved?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I absolutely agree with Alasdair Allan on all the points that he has made. Developing global events only reinforce the need to put in place robust and effective consumer protections and financial assistance for users of all fuel types that will be affected. I call on the UK Government to keep its promise and to urgently introduce regulation of the sector. There is obviously an awful lot more that the UK Government can do in this space. We do not know how long the conflict will last, so the UK Government needs to keep a watching eye on the support that it provides.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I welcome the Scottish Government’s work to support households and families across Scotland with the cost of living, in stark contrast, it would seem, to the inaction of the UK Labour Government. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, for many island households in places such as Uist, soaring heating costs are now being compounded by other problems, such as the present unavailability of petrol, and that all that is yet more evidence of why Scotland should have control over our energy policy?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I agree with all the points that Dr Allan makes. Our island and rural communities already face significant challenges, which have been disproportionately impacted by developing global events. The UK Government’s delayed response to the crisis only underlines that we need real change to make our energy wealth work for us. The only change that will work for Scotland is independence.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Isn’t it crazy? People across Scotland are suffering with heating oil prices and we are here talking about independence. This is just the Scottish National Party going mad, isn’t it? It is absolutely crazy. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Let me get to my constituents, who are deeply troubled. It is great that we have extra money coming in from the Scottish Government, and I applaud that, but we need it now. When are we going to get the details of how people can apply? People say that the weather in March comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb but, this year, I am worried that it will be in like a lamb and out like a lion. My constituents will need the money as soon as possible. Can the cabinet secretary set out when we will get the detail?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I do not know whether Tim Eagle was listening to anything I was saying, rather than frothing at the mouth. I said that, given the urgency of the problem, we will supplement the £4.6 million that we have been allocated with a further £5.4 million and we will launch that £10 million Scottish emergency oil heating fund on 1 April. It is the middle of March now and we are working hard to deliver that through Advice Direct Scotland. We found out about the £4.6 million only yesterday and have done quite a lot within 24 hours. Advice Direct Scotland and trusted partners that also helped us with the fuel insecurity fund are working at pace to get the scheme open.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Almost 40 per cent of households in Dumfries and Galloway rely on heating oil and are therefore particularly exposed to global price volatility. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in the light of the pressures caused by international events while we are shackled to a Westminster Government that is offering an equivalent of £35 per household, it is absolutely vital that we in Scotland continue to enhance our own energy security through the development of sustainable fuels, including biofuels and renewables?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It is rural areas of Scotland that have the most to gain from the development of renewables. If the SNP Scottish Government had not stayed the course in our ambition on renewable energy, electricity generation would be in a far more precarious situation than the one that we are in right now.

By expanding the renewables sector and its wider supply chain, not only will we strengthen our energy independence and security, we will ensure that we are less reliant on imported fuels and on global fossil fuel markets, which we do not control. Global events dictate prices in fossil fuel markets, so protecting Scottish consumers from situations such as the one that we are currently experiencing as a result of the global crisis is a mission that this Government will continue.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact on Police Scotland of the budget 2026-27 allocation being £50 million less than the amount requested by the Chief Constable. (S6T-02951)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The 2026-27 Scottish budget will provide record funding of more than £1.7 billion for policing, which is a total increase of £81.5 million, or 5 per cent, compared with the published 2025-26 autumn budget revision. We will also provide an additional £3 million per year in each of the next three years to support Police Scotland’s successful work on tackling retail crime and an additional £2.7 million in 2026-27 to support Police Scotland’s work in the detection and disruption of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

The chief constable recently confirmed at the Criminal Justice Committee that that budget allocation will allow her to prioritise front-line services for our communities and to ensure that she can maintain officer numbers at 16,500 in the coming year.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary strangely failed to mention one implication of the budget being £50 million less than requested, which is that, at the Scottish National Party’s own conference, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation flagged the fact that terminally ill police officers who are off work because they have been injured on duty will be forced on to half pay, or even no pay, and that that is “because of this budget”.

Is the cabinet secretary concerned that terminally ill officers might be losing money as a direct result of this Government’s cuts, and what does she intend to do about that?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Although the pay—including sick pay—and conditions of police officers are negotiated through the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland, the issue of whether to make any discretionary payment is an operational matter for the chief constable. Sick pay can be extended beyond the standard periods of six months on full pay and a further six months on half pay, at the discretion of the chief constable.

It is worth reminding Mr Kerr that next year’s budget will show a £90 million increase in comparison with the starting position in the 2025-26 budget, in response to an ask for an increase of £104 million in the budget. It is also with worth remembering that the Conservatives made no requests for additional funding for policing during budget negotiations.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is always worth remembering that I, too, have access to figures. Since 2021, recorded crime is up 6 per cent, sexual crime is up 10 per cent, shoplifting is up 137 per cent and violent crime is up 13 per cent. The number of police officers, however, is down by 1,000 since 2020. What does the cabinet secretary think will happen to those figures and the number of victims of crime as a result of the Government’s decisions to defund our police?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am very glad that Mr Kerr has access to figures, because he will therefore know that the Government has increased the budget for policing year on year since 2016. He will also be aware of the headline figures that show a substantial fall in violent and property crime in Scotland since 2008-09. Under this Government, Scotland is a safer place.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

What steps is Police Scotland taking to ensure that there is a good recruitment pipeline into our national force? Can the cabinet secretary provide any reassurance that the Scottish Government’s record funding to Police Scotland will maintain police officer numbers?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Investment in policing has enabled Police Scotland to take on more recruits in the past financial year than at any time since 2013, and Scotland continues to have more officers per 10,000 members of the population than in England and Wales. Police Scotland has confirmed that it has a healthy recruitment pipeline and has welcomed more than 1,900 new officers since the beginning of 2024, including more than 70 new recruits on 9 March this year. The chief constable has confirmed that the budget allocation will allow her to prioritise front-line services for our communities to ensure that police officer numbers remain at 16,500.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

Recent reports suggest that retail crime in Scotland has risen sharply, with more than 50,000 shoplifting incidents recorded last year and nearly one in five shoppers witnessing the abuse of retail staff. The £3 million for the retail crime task force has made some impact, but, beyond that, what action will the Scottish Government take to ensure that the funding gap for Police Scotland does not undermine efforts to tackle shoplifting and violence against retail staff?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is a shame that Ms Dowey and her colleague Liam Kerr did not vote for the Scottish Government budget, which provides £3 million not just this year but next year and the next again year. That shows our long-term commitment to tackling retail crime in this country.

Business Motion

A member

14:22

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21118, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 45 minutes

Groups 4 and 5: 1 hour 15 minutes

Groups 6 and 7: 1 hour 40 minutes.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

A member

14:23

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 77A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 1—Meaning of “non-surgical procedure”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 1 is on the meaning of “non-surgical procedure”. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2, 10, 8 and 9.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

At stage 2, amendments were made to the definition of “non-surgical procedure” in section 1 and to the procedures set out in schedule 1 that are non-surgical procedures for the purposes of the bill. Group 1 contains further technical amendments in my name to ensure that the descriptions of different procedures are clear.

Amendment 1 will clarify that a procedure may fall within several procedure descriptions in schedule 1 or may combine different kinds of procedures and still be a non-surgical procedure for the purposes of the bill. Amendments 8 and 9 will make it clear that injectable and intravenous procedures may involve the use of a microneedle. Amendment 2 will remove a redundant “or” from section 1(1)(b)(ii).

Sandesh Gulhane’s amendment 10 would remove persons who are regulated by the General Osteopathic Council from the list of regulated healthcare professionals in section 1(3). That would remove osteopaths from the healthcare exception in section 1(1)(b)(ii). At stage 2, Dr Gulhane raised concerns about the inclusion of osteopaths. I met him to discuss that, and he should not be surprised that I urge him not to press his amendment 10. The bill is not the place to judge what does and does not constitute healthcare or whether particular healthcare procedures are appropriate or effective in the treatment of disease. That is a matter for healthcare professionals and their regulators.

At stage 2, I told the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that what is proposed in amendment 10 would raise concerns about legislative competence due to its interaction with the reservation of the regulation of health professionals in reservation G2 in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That includes osteopaths as the profession that is regulated by the Osteopaths Act 1993. I urge Dr Gulhane not to press amendment 10 and I urge members to support my amendments in the group.

I move amendment 1.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I declare an interest as a practising national health service general practitioner.

My amendment 10 seeks to change the definition of “regulated healthcare professional” in the bill so that it does not include osteopaths who are regulated by the General Osteopathic Council. Osteopathy is a pseudo-science. There is very limited evidence of any effectiveness whatsoever, and those who practise it should not be considered regulated healthcare professionals.

Osteopaths are unable to prescribe medicines for a reason, and they do not inject Botox. That alone means that they are not entitled to be covered by the healthcare exemption. My amendment would strengthen the definition of “regulated healthcare professional” in the bill and ensure that only those who are properly qualified will be referred to as such.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am grateful to Dr Gulhane for his comments. The healthcare exception exists to ensure that the bill will not regulate procedures that are provided by regulated healthcare professionals for a healthcare purpose—specifically, for the purpose of preventing, diagnosing or treating illness. The General Osteopathic Council has confirmed that, although osteopaths are unable to prescribe, some undertake postgraduate injection training and then work with a prescriber, for example, to administer corticosteroid injections to patients.

I urge members to support amendments 1, 2, 8 and 9 and not to support amendment 10.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Amendment 10 moved—[Sandesh Gulhane].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division. As this is the first division at stage 3, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

14:28

Meeting suspended.

14:34

On resuming—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My apologies—my app would not connect. I would have abstained.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 68, Abstentions 15.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Section 4—Meaning of “permitted premises”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 2 is on the meaning of “permitted premises”. Amendment 11, in the name of Ash Regan, is grouped with amendments 12 to 15, 29 and 30.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill seems to be a classic example of the way in which the Government has started to make law, which is that it sees that there is an issue and rushes into legislation while, unfortunately, listening to only one side of the argument. Often, it ignores women’s voices—we have seen that time and again—and it is entirely blind to unintended consequences.

The majority of aesthetics customers—80 per cent, we think—are women, and the majority of providers are women. I make it clear at the outset that I want aesthetics services to be provided in safe, clean premises by qualified practitioners. However, I am concerned that that is not what will happen, should the bill be passed. We are all aware that aesthetics is a growing area. Whatever we think of that, I cannot see it declining over the next few years. New innovations come through every few months, and the number of first-time clients is growing. Therefore, Scotland needs to get this area right.

Eighty per cent of the providers in this space are non-medical. I was contacted by a constituent, who I imagine is far from unusual in this context. I will put her story to the chamber, because she feels that, despite doing everything right, nobody is listening to her. She has been running her own clinic for 16 years, supporting herself and her young family. She also employs other women, many of whom are mothers with small children who want to work flexibly. She holds regulated Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation qualifications in aesthetic practice at levels 5 and 7, which cost her £15,000. The level 7 qualification also required more than a year of structured study covering facial anatomy, complications management, clinical assessment and patient safety. She also maintains level 3 first aid, including anaphylaxis training.

She told me, in her own words:

“My clinic operates as a fully licensed premises. I hold a skin-piercing licence from Edinburgh City Council. My business is fully insured, and insurance within the aesthetic sector requires practitioners to demonstrate appropriate training, treatment protocols, risk assessments and clear procedures for managing complications before any cover is granted.”

Those safeguards are already a fundamental part of responsible practice in this field.

She continued:

“In the past year alone, I have safely treated 496 injectable clients in my clinic. But under the current drafting, the interaction between sections 3 and 4 of the bill means that permitted premises are effectively limited to clinics run by a prescribing doctor, nurse, dentist or pharmacist. In practice, that means that the ability to operate a clinic may depend on professional title rather than on aesthetic-specific training or experience.”

My constituent is what we say that we want: she is someone who is responsible, safe, highly trained in her field and a responsible employer. However, because she is non-medical, like 80 per cent of the providers in the industry, she would not be able to continue her business—which she, like many other women, has built up and invested thousands in over the past 16 years—as it is.

From the reading that I have done so far on the subject, it appears that the Government does not know how many women, like the constituent I mentioned, it will be putting out of business or out of a job. I wonder whether the minister can cover that issue when she next gets to her feet. I feel that this is irresponsible law making and that, potentially, such businesses should be being compensated. If the legislation is going to result in business closure, at the very least, the Government should know how many businesses will be affected.

My amendments in the group would ensure that the bill recognises appropriately qualified non-healthcare aesthetics practitioners and premises within the regulatory framework. Amendments 11, 13 and 14 would recognise non-healthcare aesthetic professionals in section 4. They seek to define that role by reference to a qualification threshold, which I know that the Government mentioned in earlier stages of the bill’s progression. Amendments 12 and 15 would allow ministers to establish by regulation a licensing scheme for non-healthcare premises. Those regulations could set minimum standards for premises and could specify which procedures it was permitted to provide. That would ensure that qualified practitioners and properly regulated premises would not be excluded simply because they sit outside traditional healthcare structures.

Amendments 29 and 30 are consequential amendments that would ensure that regulations that were made under the proposed provisions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would mean that Parliament could scrutinise and approve the regulations at a later date.

Overall, my amendments would support a proportionate and workable regulatory framework that recognises competence and qualifications across the sector.

I move amendment 11.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I will speak briefly in support of Ash Regan’s amendments, which I think provide a remedy to some of the inflexibilities around the bill as drafted that I raised at stage 1.

Ash Regan spoke of constituents coming to see her, and I have had constituents come to see me. I am sure that members across the chamber have businesses in their constituencies that would not only be affected by all the proposed changes in the bill but would be absolutely sunk without trace if those changes were to be brought in unamended.

My anxiety is that, although we absolutely need to regulate for the bad actors in this field of procedure, there are a good number of people—largely women—who are well qualified and very focused on patient care, cleanliness, hygiene and all the other things that we would hope to see in the sector. To legislate without thinking about the consequences for them and seeking a remedy for them would be a very poor thing indeed.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Ash Regan’s amendments seek to provide alternatives to the permitted premises that are currently described in the bill. The proposed alternatives would weaken public safety by removing the requirement for a healthcare professional to be involved in those settings.

Due to time constraints, I will not repeat all the discussions that we held at stage 2, but this is a fundamental part of the bill, so there are points that I must make.

We based our estimates on an estimated 1,500 businesses. I point out that this is a non-regulated sector, which is partly why we are bringing in the regulations. However, not all businesses will be impacted, as I will go on to explain.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

You have said how many businesses there are. How many individuals will lose their jobs because of the legislation? Have you done an equality impact assessment with regard to how it will affect females more than males?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Always speak through the chair, please.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Yes, of course we have done an equality impact assessment.

There are a few points that I wish to make. First, I sympathise with Ms Regan’s intentions. I am sure that she is trying to mitigate what many businesses see as the most challenging part of the bill. Secondly, the requirement for a healthcare professional to be involved is the most important part of the bill. The reasons for healthcare professional involvement being essential to public safety were discussed at stage 2. In many cases, prescriptions will be needed at the outset of a procedure. In other cases, it will be necessary for certain emergency medications to be available on site.

Within the United Kingdom regulatory framework for the sale and supply of medicines, non-regulated settings that deliver non-surgical procedures are not able to routinely hold supplies of prescription-only medicines without the involvement of a suitably qualified healthcare professional.

To say that the involvement of a healthcare professional is necessary is not to denigrate the skills, dedication and experience of other practitioners, who should continue to have a role in the sector. These rules can and should be complementary, ensuring that safe, professional and effective procedures are delivered.

14:45

There are other benefits to the settings that we have selected and to the rule on the involvement of a healthcare professional—for example, that healthcare professionals are subject to regulation by professional bodies.

I turn to the amendments themselves. Amendments 11 and 29 seek to add

“premises managed by a non-healthcare aesthetics professional”

to the list of permitted premises in section 4(1) of the bill. The Scottish ministers would be able to provide registration requirements for these premises in affirmative regulations.

Amendment 14 defines a “non-healthcare aesthetics professional” by reference to particular levels of qualification. Unfortunately, that training does not qualify a practitioner to prescribe medications, nor is it clear that these settings would be able to routinely hold stocks of relevant emergency medications without the involvement of a healthcare professional. These settings do not provide the safety protections required.

Amendments 12, 15 and 30 would provide for a licensing scheme to be established by regulations. Such a scheme is already set to take effect from 6 September 2027 under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures Order) 2026. That licensing scheme is appropriate for lower-risk procedures, but I do not believe that the risks of procedures covered by the bill can be adequately mitigated without the involvement of a healthcare professional.

Amendment 13 includes “a non-healthcare aesthetics professional” as one of the persons who may provide or manage services from the premises of a Healthcare Improvement Scotland-registered independent clinic in order for it to be “permitted premises” under section 4(1)(a) of the bill. Amendment 14, as discussed already, defines “non-healthcare aesthetics professional”.

I cannot support these amendments, for the public safety reasons that I have given previously. I also note that section 4(1)(a) interacts with the definition of an “independent clinic” in section 10F(2) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. Such a clinic would still need services to be provided by one of the healthcare professionals listed in that section to register with HIS.

With regard to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s support for the amendments, I had hoped to meet him in the lead-up to stage 3. Unfortunately, he was not able to meet me because of his diary commitments.

I also point out that I expect that, in implementing the bill, the Scottish Government will work with businesses in the unregulated part of the sector to ensure that they have access to support and guidance. I understand Ms Regan’s motivations, but I urge her not to press amendment 11 or to move her other amendments, and, if she does, I urge members to vote against them.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I invite Ash Regan to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 11.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

I will press amendment 11. The bill will create a situation whereby practitioners who spend more than a year completing advanced aesthetics training will not be able to operate independently. That will mean that women such as my constituent and many others, as non-healthcare practitioners, would need to rely on a prescribing medic in order to operate and supervise a clinic. That is even if a provider could be found, which remains to be seen, and the costs may well be prohibitive.

The bill creates a model in which experienced practitioners will become dependent on prescribers who have no financial stake in their business while potentially offering the same treatments themselves. In practice, that means that a qualified practitioner could spend years building a compliant clinic, only to find that their ability to continue operating depends entirely on securing and retaining a prescriber, who may also be a competitor in the same market. That market—the treatments and the demand for them, in particular from young women—is growing, and in my opinion it will only continue to grow as a result of changing beauty standards that are heavily promoted on social media.

I think that there is a lack of understanding by the Government of those drivers, in particular for the consumers in the industry. I hope that the Government understands, and can see, that those from a lower socioeconomic background will not be able to afford the treatment prices, which will inevitably be driven up if all or many of the non-medical providers in the market are forced to close. It will then inevitably push those consumers into an underground and unregulated sector, which may then lead to an increase in adverse treatment effects. The bill may, through unintended consequences, force out responsible and highly trained women-led businesses and lead, unfortunately, to more women consumers getting treatment from unregulated and unsafe providers.

I ask members to support my amendments, and I ask the Government to think carefully about the issue, the predicament of women such as my constituent and the unintended consequences.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Mundell. We will ensure that that vote is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 102, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

Amendment 12 moved—[Ash Regan].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 104, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 12 disagreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Ash Regan].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 106, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 13 disagreed to.

Amendment 14 moved—[Ash Regan].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 103, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

After section 4

Amendment 15 moved—[Ash Regan].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 106, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 15 disagreed to.

Section 5—Power to make further provision about non-surgical procedures

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 3 is on regulations: power to make further provision and consultation requirements. Amendment 16, in the name of Sandesh Gulhane, is grouped with amendments 3, 4, 19 to 22, 31 and 32.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Amendment 16 is required because, at stage 1, there was a great deal of concern from businesses about the impact that new regulations would have on them and about how they would make the transition to the new regulatory scheme.

The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s stage 1 report concluded that the Scottish Government should

“provide appropriate support and guidance to help responsible providers of non-surgical procedures to make the transition successfully to the new regulatory framework”,

and that there would be

“a need for additional information and support to be provided to accompany the Bill’s implementation to help providers to take the steps necessary to comply with the law.”

My amendment would address the concerns of businesses and the committee by ensuring that, when regulations are made that impose new restrictions or requirements on non-surgical procedures—for example, around training, qualifications or supervision—they must be accompanied by transitional or saving provisions that ministers consider appropriate. Those should include the timescales for compliance and phased implementation periods for providers. That would help businesses, leave flexibility for ministers and ensure that providers can effectively comply with new regulations.

I move amendment 16.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Amendments 3 and 4 will build on the helpful provision introduced by Gillian Mackay at stage 2, which specified that regulations under section 5(1) of the bill may make provision for requirements for certain higher-risk groups.

At stage 2, Dr Gulhane raised the need for guidance in relation to mental health conditions, including, in particular, body dysmorphic disorder. While I would expect existing clinical guidance and a healthcare professional’s training on informed consent and shared decision making to be sufficient, I acknowledge that specific additional provision might be helpful. Therefore, I have built on Ms Mackay’s stage 2 amendment to introduce a specific reference to mental health in section 5(3)(e) as a matter on which regulations may be made.

Dr Gulhane’s amendment 16 would require that regulations under section 5(1) must include certain transitional and saving provisions. I agree with his comments on the importance of such provisions. I can confirm that that is already possible under section 18. The amendment is unnecessary and I cannot support it, as the transitional provision that is specified might not always be the most appropriate. The amendment would make it more difficult for ministers to put in place appropriate regulations with the right protections, so I urge Dr Gulhane not to press the amendment.

15:00

Dr Gulhane’s amendments 31 and 32 would provide further specification in the consultation requirements in section 19A, which would apply to any affirmative instruments that are made under the bill. The lists of persons to be consulted are likely to be appropriate in most cases, but I reiterate that even the affirmative powers may be capable of being exercised to make relatively small technical changes or changes that are relevant only to one of the groups that have been listed.

I am concerned that the approach would require consultation with patient organisations, and I am not aware that any such organisations exist representing recipients of the procedures. As a result, it may not be possible to comply with the duty, and I would not want that to prevent us from making necessary regulations in the area or to increase bureaucracy.

Colin Beattie’s amendments 19 to 22 all relate to the principle of supervision. I was pleased to support Fulton MacGregor’s amendment at stage 2 that created a requirement for regulations under section 5(1) to be made specifying training or qualification provisions for persons providing non-surgical procedures within three years of section 3 of the bill being commenced. If it is not practical to do that, a report must be laid before Parliament explaining why. I supported that because of the broad consensus across the Parliament about the importance of establishing training and qualification standards. Supervision is a matter of similar importance and concern, and I am happy to support the amendments that make similar provision. I was appreciative of having conversations with Carol Mochan in that area, too.

Although the timing of training and supervision regulations is not entirely within the gift of the Scottish ministers, I am comfortable with the period that is specified in section 5(5) and the option that is available under section 5(6) for ministers to be held to account if the Government cannot meet those expectations.

I urge members to support amendments 19 to 22 in Colin Beattie’s name and amendments 3 and 4 in mine. I urge Sandesh Gulhane not to press amendment 16 or to move amendments 31 and 32.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

Amendments 19 to 21 will amend section 5(5), which currently provides that the Scottish ministers must lay a draft Scottish statutory instrument containing regulations under section 5(1), specifying requirements about the training or qualifications of persons who may provide a non-surgical procedure, within three years of section 3 coming into force. The amendments will introduce a requirement for regulations on supervision in this section, meaning that the Government must lay a draft SSI within three years of section 3 coming into force.

Amendment 22 will amend section 5(6) of the bill to make it clear that more than one set of regulations may be laid to cover all the matters that are mentioned in the amended subsection (5).

During the passage of the legislation through Parliament, I have been keen to support non-medical practitioners in their efforts to have their skills and training recognised in the bill. I have met a number of practitioners who all agree that the sector is in need of regulation. However, some of those business owners have spent tens of thousands of pounds on their training and facilities. It is vital that we bring those practitioners with us and move towards providing upskilling and training to enable a fair transition and prevent mass closure of businesses.

In my discussions with the minister, I advocated that a national governing body be established by practitioners, with the support of the Scottish Government. Understandably, I was informed that that cannot be achieved through the bill. I hope that, if the industry decides to go down that route, the Scottish Government can support it. I appreciate that the proposal is not possible at this stage due to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. However, I hope that members will support the amendments as they will provide competent non-medical practitioners with the assurance that the Scottish Government is committed to a pathway towards a safer, regulated industry.

I thank the Scottish Government for working with me on the amendments, and I urge members to support them.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

We will support all the amendments in this group. Scottish Labour’s approach to the bill has always been safety first. However, we consider that there are businesses, as Dr Gulhane mentioned, that are working very professionally, and we seek to ensure that there is that transition and support to businesses so that they can practise.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I apologise to the chamber and to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for not mentioning my amendments 31 and 32 in my earlier remarks. Amendment 31 would require ministers to consult people when they make regulations, and amendment 32 would clarify that ministers must consult people before they can make regulations. I feel, as Carol Mochan does, that they are sensible amendments, and I hope that members across the chamber will be able to agree with us.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is now closed.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr O’Kane. I will make sure that that is recorded.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the system. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Adam. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 68, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

Amendments 3 and 4 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 4 is on qualifications and training. Amendment 5, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendments 17, 18, and 23.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I confess that when I saw this bill come before Parliament, I did not expect to engage directly with it. However, over the past few months, like Alex Cole-Hamilton, Ash Regan and others, I have been approached by numerous sole traders and businesses about the effect that the bill will have if it is passed, particularly on small businesses and on the young women who have sought to carry out these procedures as a trade.

The intention behind amendment 5 is to ensure that non-surgical cosmetic procedures are carried out safely and by people who have the appropriate level of expertise. Although the procedures are often described as non-invasive, we know that, when things go wrong, there can be significant consequences, including infection, tissue damage and long-term complications. For that reason, it is essential that those who carry out the procedures independently have a sufficiently high level of training and competence.

At the same time, I recognise that many practitioners in the sector who have spoken to me have invested significant time and effort in gaining meaningful qualifications and building professional standards. Amendment 5 is very much about recognising expertise. It would ensure that those with the appropriate level of qualification could practise independently with confidence, and it would give the public assurance that the standards would apply across the sector.

Specifically, amendment 5 would allow practitioners to provide non-surgical procedures unsupervised if they were a regulated medical professional or a non-medical practitioner with a qualification relevant to the procedures that they were providing

“at a level at least equivalent to level 11 of the Scottish credit and qualifications framework.”

Such qualifications reflect a high level of knowledge and competence, as would be appropriate for independent practice.

Importantly, amendment 5 is not about shutting people out of the sector. If a practitioner did not yet meet that threshold, they could still be allowed to practise, but they would do so within a framework of supervision by an appropriately qualified medical professional. That would allow people to continue working, gain experience, develop skills and, ultimately, get the qualification.

Amendment 5 aims to strike a fair and proportionate balance. It would recognise and support practitioners who had undertaken advanced qualifications, and it would ensure that robust safeguards were in place for the public.

Ultimately, we need to provide public safety and protect small businesses. If we do not do that, people will go to other parts of the country, they will set up completely unregulated businesses and there will be greater health consequences as a result. Many small businesses will close, and people who have put in a significant amount of money will be put out of work. Ultimately, people who undergo such procedures deserve to have confidence that the person treating them has the right expertise and that the appropriate oversight exists.

I believe that amendment 5 would provide for that, and I encourage colleagues to support it.

I move amendment 5.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

I will support Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 5.

Injectable aesthetics procedures are not typically taught as part of most undergraduate medical or nursing degrees. As a result, medical practitioners who enter the aesthetics sector often obtain their training in such procedures through separate aesthetics training courses. By contrast, non-medical practitioners, who often receive qualifications regulated up to level 7 in aesthetics practice, focus entirely on facial anatomy, complications management and safe aesthetics practice. The bill would create the odd position in which highly trained aesthetics practitioners would need to be supervised by a medical practitioner with possibly only a few hours of aesthetics training.

The bill also raises practical questions about capacity, as no clear data is available on how many prescribers actively work in the aesthetics sector or whether there would be sufficient numbers to support independent clinics across Scotland. As the minister has confirmed, the number of such clinics might be as high as 1,500.

The bill would force qualified, responsible providers to recruit medics to supervise them, but the Government cannot tell us whether that would be possible, given that data on the number of prescribers is not available. Furthermore, can the NHS afford to lose hundreds of prescribers to the aesthetics sector? A better way needs to be found, and there needs to be a pathway for non-medical but highly trained aesthetics providers to carry out perhaps not all but some treatments.

My amendments in the group would ensure that future regulations on qualifications and training properly recognise competence across the sector. Amendment 17 would require regulations to ensure that pathways exist for practitioners who hold relevant qualifications but are not healthcare providers. That would ensure that the regulatory framework recognises the range of qualified practitioners who currently operate in the sector. Amendment 18 would require ministers, when specifying qualification or training requirements, to

“have regard to recognised aesthetics qualifications.”

Amendment 23 is a consequential amendment.

Overall and taken together, the amendments would ensure that regulation is based on recognised competence and qualifications, while appropriate safeguards for patients would be maintained. They would not weaken the regulations but would ensure that the framework recognises qualified practitioners and allows ministers to regulate the sector proportionately rather than excluding the sector entirely. I hear from across the chamber that there is recognition that many women-led small businesses are going to be put out of business by the bill. If we do not support amendments such as those from Jeremy Balfour and me, there will be no pathway and those women-led businesses will be put out of business.

15:15

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will take a brief contribution from Fulton MacGregor.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will be very brief. Like others, I want to put on the record some issues with the bill that constituents have brought to me. I have been contacted by a number of people who have businesses in my constituency. They tend to be working-class women who have built up those businesses over a long period of time and have built up a skill base. They are concerned about some of the potential impacts of the bill.

I welcomed the minister’s engagement with me during and after stage 2. As she mentioned, an amendment of mine was agreed to at stage 2. I welcome Colin Beattie’s amendments that were agreed to in the previous group.

Although I have some sympathy with the amendments in this group, I do not think that I can vote for them, because I think that they will have unintended consequences. I ask the minister to say in summing up how the Government will work with small businesses and individuals to ensure that they are not negatively impacted by the bill. I felt that this was the best place to come in and make that request.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Before addressing the amendments, I recognise that many highly skilled practitioners are not healthcare professionals. As was referred to earlier, many practitioners hold a qualification at level 7 of the Ofqual framework or level 11 of the Scottish credit and qualifications framework, and the amendments seek to recognise that training. However, I do not intend to support any amendments that would prejudge a decision on the appropriate training or qualification requirements. That would be a matter for future regulation under section 5(1). My reluctance should not be seen as a judgment against those well-recognised qualifications.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will just finish my point. The Scottish Government will engage with practitioners and training providers before taking decisions, and I hope that standards can be set at the same level in England and Scotland for the benefit of practitioners.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

There is a frustration among many of these women, who have spent a lot of time, energy and money building up their businesses and are fearful about what will happen to their businesses, which I think people can understand. The minister seems to be suggesting that it is the Government’s intention to provide a pathway for non-medical providers. Can the minister confirm that that is what she is saying?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am clear that we will engage with practitioners and training providers before taking decisions, and I hope that standards can be set at the same level in England and Scotland to benefit all practitioners.

Amendment 5, in Jeremy Balfour’s name, seeks to allow non-healthcare practitioners with a level 11 qualification to carry out non-surgical procedures without supervision. I was grateful to Mr Balfour for the discussion that we had about his similar stage 2 amendment to give ministers the power to establish a regulatory scheme that enables certain practitioners to supervise the provision of a non-surgical procedure. Amendment 5 appears to seek to allow practitioners who are not healthcare professionals to provide procedures without healthcare professional involvement.

As I said in relation to group 2, it is fundamental to the bill that a healthcare professional is involved in settings that provide procedures to complement the aesthetics practitioners, such as in the event of complications that require the emergency administration of medicines.

The amendment also predetermines training and supervision standards, which are still to be developed and consulted on. The Government also has concerns about the legislative competence of the amendment because of its interaction with the Medicines Act 1968 and the regulation of healthcare professionals, which are reserved subject matter under the Scotland Act 1998. I therefore cannot support amendment 5 and urge Mr Balfour not to press it.

Amendment 17, in Ash Regan’s name, appears to have the same aim as Mr Balfour’s amendment 5. It would provide that there must be pathways for non-healthcare practitioners, although it does not specify what those pathways are intended to achieve. If it is to ensure that such practitioners may undertake procedures, that is permitted under the bill as drafted. Non-healthcare practitioners may provide procedures if they are working from permitted premises. If the member intends that such practitioners should be able to provide procedures without reference to a healthcare professional, I would resist the proposal, for the reasons that I gave in relation to amendment 5.

Ms Regan’s amendments 18 and 23 would provide that

“Scottish Ministers must have regard to recognised aesthetics qualifications.”

Those are level 11 qualifications, which have been discussed already. I regret that that change cannot be accepted, as it would prejudge the consideration that I raised earlier. I would like to provide assurance that the Government will consider those and other qualifications, as I noted earlier, when setting qualification standards.

I urge Ms Regan and Mr Balfour not to move or press their amendments, and I urge members not to support them if they are pressed.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

Having just heard the minister, I am now very confused as to the Scottish Government’s position. In one breath, the minister says that the Scottish Government cannot accept the amendments in this group because there must always be a medical practitioner present; in the next sentence, she says that ministers want to talk to businesses about how they can regulate the area going forward. I think that there is real confusion, and not only in the chamber; more importantly, I suspect that there will be real confusion among small businesses across my region as to what the Government is going to do in the future. For that reason, I will press my amendment 5.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Unfortunately, I could not connect. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Robertson. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 87, Abstentions 19.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

Amendment 17 moved—[Ash Regan].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am still having trouble connecting to the system. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Robertson. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 89, Abstentions 19.

Amendment 17 disagreed to.

Amendment 18 moved—[Ash Regan].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 89, Abstentions 19.

Amendment 18 disagreed to.

Amendments 19 to 22 moved—[Colin Beattie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 23 not moved.

After section 13A

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That takes us to group 5. Amendment 24, in the name of Sandesh Gulhane, is grouped with amendment 6.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Amendment 24 would require that

“HIS must publish information on additional resources available to businesses providing non-surgical procedures”

That should include information on the advice, support and funding that is available to those businesses. [Interruption].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I encourage members to keep their devices switched off or set to silent. Please continue, Dr Gulhane.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

As we know, businesses are concerned about the impact of the bill and about how they would be able to make the transition to the new regime. The stage 1 report on the bill said that the Scottish Government should

“provide appropriate support and guidance to help responsible providers of non-surgical procedures to make the transition successfully to the new regulatory framework.”

A previous amendment that I lodged was deemed to be inadmissible due to the cost that would be involved, but amendment 24 absolutely does not involve a cost. All I seek to do is to ensure that there is something available for businesses.

I move amendment 24.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Gillian Mackay to speak to amendment 6 and both amendments in the group.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I thank the Scottish Government for working with me on my amendment. At stage 2, a number of members proposed amendments that would have required the production of guidance. The proposals for that guidance covered a range of issues, and I thank the minister for working with me on amendment 6, which provides a single requirement and lists issues that may be included in that guidance.

The focus is on guidance that is appropriate to businesses, rather than on matters that are more suited to clinical guidance or judgment and that might interfere with the professional and clinical guidance that is rightly issued by the professional bodies, royal colleges or regulators of healthcare professionals. Consideration of any relevant clinical guidance would be part of the role that should be undertaken by any healthcare professionals involved in procedures.

Amendment 6 would place a duty on the Scottish ministers to

“issue guidance about the provision of non-surgical procedures”

and that guidance may include information about the requirements that are imposed by part 1 of the bill and about the steps that providers have taken to comply with those requirements. That guidance must be published and may be revised or revoked.

I urge members to support amendment 6.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I place on record Scottish Labour’s support for both amendments in this group, which seek to strengthen the review of any support given. Amendment 24 would require HIS to publish information on the additional resources given to businesses, including advice, support and funding, and would ensure that providers are supported during the transition, and amendment 6 sets out, in great detail, the type of guidance that should be given to help businesses to comply with the law.

During the transition to greater regulation, guidance and information will be incredibly important in supporting compliance, ensuring understanding and avoiding confusion, which is why we support both amendments in the group.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I note Ms Mochan’s comments.

Gillian Mackay’s amendment 6 would place a duty on ministers to provide guidance about the provision of procedures. It is appropriate that that amendment focuses on the offences in part 1 of the bill—which are to provide a non-surgical procedure to a person who is under 18 and to provide a non-surgical procedure “outwith permitted premises”—and on the steps that providers would have to take to meet those requirements.

I am grateful to Ms Mackay for working with me and to other members who raised issues on the guidance. I hope that members are content that this single provision on guidance has the flexibility to encompass the topics that businesses want to see in guidance, and I hope that members will support amendment 6.

15:30

Amendment 24, in Sandesh Gulhane’s name, overlaps with amendment 6 to some degree. It would require HIS to publish certain information on the resources that are available to businesses that provide non-surgical procedures. I welcomed my recent discussion with Dr Gulhane on the topic, and I know that he noted my comments about there being resources available for businesses.

As well as the requirement in amendment 6 for the Scottish Government to issue guidance, amendment 24 would place a duty on HIS to publish information about available support, such as the resources from local authorities and Business Gateway, which I highlighted earlier. It is more appropriate for that information to be included in the guidance that is published by the Scottish Government than for it to be a legal responsibility for HIS. I therefore ask Dr Gulhane not to press amendment 24 and ask members to support amendment 6.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Sandesh Gulhane to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 24.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

We support amendment 6, and I will not press amendment 24.

Amendment 24, by agreement, withdrawn.

After section 15

Amendment 6 moved—[Gillian Mackay]—and agreed to.

Before section 15A

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 6 is on reviews. Amendment 25, in the name of Sandesh Gulhane, is grouped with amendments 26 to 28, 33 and 37.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have a number of amendments in this group. Under amendment 25, before the offences under the bill can come into force, ministers would have to review the capacity of HIS to exercise the enforcement provisions. That is important, because we want to ensure that capacity is available for the regulator to do the work that it wants to do and in the way that we would want it to be done.

Amendment 26 would insert into the bill a review of the capacity of HIS and what it has done on enforcement within one year of the bill coming into force.

Amendments 33 and 37 are on a review of the capacity of HIS. Amendment 37 provides that the offences introduced under the bill could not come into force until the capacity review had been conducted. Amendment 33 is consequential and would allow for the review to be conducted.

I move amendment 25.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Carol Mochan to speak to amendment 27 and other amendments in the group.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

My amendment 27 seeks to add further detail to what the review of part 1 of the bill should include. The amendment comes from concerns about the support and guidance that will be given to the industry once the bill comes into force, and it touches on points that were made in the debates on the previous groupings.

Amendment 27 states that the review of part 1 should

“include an assessment of … support provided to providers of non-surgical procedures, including providers that are … independent, and … non-medical”.

It would also require an assessment of the

“training opportunities available to providers to assist them to upskill”,

including

“qualification and accreditation pathways for practitioners, including those who are non-medical”,

and of the

“guidance provided in relation to minimum training and competence requirements”.

During stage 1 of the bill, the committee raised concerns about provision in remote and rural areas and financial costs to providers. Therefore, a review must also consider those points. At stage 2, the Scottish Government was widely supportive of the principles of amendment 27.

I recognise that Stuart McMillan’s amendment 28 shares a similar objective to that of my amendment 27. It outlines what a review of the bill should include. Although I support amendment 28, I note that it lacks detail, particularly when considering the specific support that will be given to businesses and the guidance that will be given to the sector.

I turn to other amendments in the group. I support amendments 25, 26, 33 and 37 in the name of Sandesh Gulhane. They seek to introduce proper checks and balances regarding the available capacity of HIS, which will be enforcing the bill. During stage 1, the committee heard concerns about resources and enforcement challenges as HIS is given new powers to enter, search and seize in registered premises. Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask that a review of HIS capacity is carried out, because enforcement is a large part of the bill.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Stuart McMillan to speak to amendment 28 and other amendments in the group.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I lodged an amendment at stage 2 that introduced section 15A to the bill. However, after discussion with the minister, I would like to replace it with the more comprehensive provision in amendment 28, which covers what I actually want to establish. I thank the minister for working with me on the amendment.

Members have raised concerns about the lack of post-legislative scrutiny for many years, which is why I lodged my amendment at stage 2. Section 15A places a duty on the Scottish ministers to review the operation of part 1 within five years of section 3 coming into force. However, in recognition of the concerns that persist about the bill’s impact on businesses, amendment 28 seeks to replace section 15A with a new section that will provide more detail on how such a review should be carried out.

The five-year period was chosen because the provisions of section 3 in part 1 will have been in place for a few years. With a fast-changing sector and new procedures being developed quickly, a review after five years will provide the Scottish Government with an opportunity to reflect on the changes and additions that are required to schedule 1 and section 3.

The review will have to look at the inclusion of all the types of procedures that are listed in schedule 1 and at the operation of part 1. That will include an assessment of the impact on businesses, the enforcement of the requirements in part 1 and any other matters that ministers believe to be appropriate. That could include other matters that members raised at stage 2.

Ministers will be able to delegate the carrying out of the review and the subsequent preparation and publication of the report to another individual or body if they consider that appropriate. However, whoever carries out the review will have to consult Healthcare Improvement Scotland, the chief constable of the police service and any other person or organisation that they consider appropriate. Ministers must also lay the report that is prepared before Parliament.

I am sure that we all want the same outcome, which is to ensure that procedures are performed as safely as possible. Amendment 28 will help to ensure that the legislation can be updated quickly, if required, after any review. I can see why Sandesh Gulhane lodged his amendments in the group, but I consider that my amendment covers his points, so I ask members not to support them. I urge members to support amendment 28.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

At stage 2, I agreed that it was important to provide for a review, so I thank Mr McMillan for his amendment 28. It will strengthen the provisions of section 15A, which was inserted by his amendment at stage 2. It provides for a broad review at a point when it will be possible to fairly assess the bill’s impact.

Given the rapidly changing nature of the sector, the Scottish Government will need to keep the procedures in schedule 1 under review so that the legislation remains effective and proportionate. Amendment 28 will provide an opportunity to review how effective the Scottish Government has been in doing that. It will also require the Scottish Government to assess and report on the operation of part 1, and particularly the impact on businesses and enforcement. I hope that members will support amendment 28.

I am also grateful to Ms Mochan for lodging her amendment 27 and for her support for the bill. Unfortunately, however, amendments 27 and 28 cannot co-exist. All the matters that Ms Mochan has raised should be part of any consideration of the impact on business, which will have to be assessed in a review under amendment 28. I also hope that my response to the amendments in group 5 reassures members, and Ms Mochan in particular, that support for business is at the forefront of the Scottish Government’s mind.

Sandesh Gulhane’s amendments 25 and 26 address enforcement by Healthcare Improvement Scotland. I understand the concerns that were raised at stage 1 about HIS’s capacity to enforce the requirements in the bill, and I know that HIS is alive to those concerns. No legislative requirement is needed to ensure that HIS will be able to implement and enforce the bill. The Scottish Government will work with HIS to ensure that it can deliver what is required. That is critical, and I am happy to have the opportunity to repeat that.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Can the minister reassure Parliament that HIS has the required resources to carry out what we are requesting of it?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I have said, there will be an intense period of work between now and commencement, which will involve working closely with HIS to ensure that it has the right resources. It would be counterproductive to put in place an additional review requirement during that period, so I urge Dr Gulhane not to press amendment 25. I also urge him not to move amendment 26, because it is unlikely that data will be available within the specified timescale to assess the effectiveness of enforcement. That matter can be addressed in the review that is required by section 15A.

Amendments 33 and 37 are consequential to amendment 25, and I urge Dr Gulhane not to press them, either. In particular, amendment 37 would mean that the main provisions of part 1 of the bill could not come into force until the review of HIS’s capacity was complete and had been laid before Parliament. That would risk delaying implementation of the bill and the safeguarding provisions of the offences, and it could prevent work on regulations from being progressed.

I urge members to support amendment 28 and I urge Ms Mochan and Dr Gulhane not to move or press their amendments in the group.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Sandesh Gulhane to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 25.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I press amendment 25. We are very supportive of the amendments in the group.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 25 disagreed to.

Amendment 26 not moved.

Section 15A—Review of Part 1

Amendment 27 moved—[Carol Mochan].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 27 disagreed to.

Amendment 28 moved—[Stuart McMillan]—and agreed to.

Section 19—Regulation-making powers

Amendments 29 and 30 not moved.

Section 19A—Regulations subject to the affirmative procedure: consultation

Amendment 31 moved—[Sandesh Gulhane].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 46, Against 67, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 31 disagreed to.

Amendment 32 not moved.

Section 20—Commencement

Amendment 33 not moved.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 7 is on commencement. Amendment 34, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendments 7, 35 and 36.

15:45

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

Amendment 34 is a small drafting amendment that intends to improve the clarity of section 20. As the section is currently written, subsection (1) could potentially be read on its own without clear reference to subsection (3), even though the two provisions are meant to work together. Amendment 34 would simply insert the words

“Subject to subsection (3)”

so that it is clear that subsection (1) must be read alongside the conditions that are set out in subsection (3). It would not change the policy underlying the bill. The amendment is purely about making the relationship between those two provisions clearer, so that anyone who interprets or applies it can more easily understand how the section is intended to operate. In short, it offers a straightforward clarification that would improve the bill’s drafting and help to avoid any potential confusion. I hope that members will feel able to support amendment 34.

The purpose of amendment 36 is to introduce an additional safeguard in relation to the commencement of sections 1 to 14. As members will be aware, having heard this afternoon’s debate, those sections contain the core provisions that will establish the new framework for the regulation of non-surgical cosmetic procedures, and they will play a central role in shaping how the system operates in practice. Given the significance of those provisions, it is important that necessary arrangements, guidance and regulatory structures are fully in place before those sections are brought into force.

Effective regulation depends not only on what is written in legislation but on the systems and structures that need to be implemented and ready to operate. Amendment 36 would therefore make it clear that the regulations that are made under subsection (2) to commence sections 1 to 14 cannot take effect unless the condition that is set out in the new subsection is satisfied. In practical terms, that would link the commencement of those key provisions to the readiness of a wider regulatory framework, rather than simply allowing them to come into force on a date that might not reflect whether the system is fully prepared to operate.

My intention is not to delay the implementation of the bill or to create unnecessary barriers to progressing it; rather, it is to ensure that, when the new regime comes in, it will be workable and enforceable. There is confusion among those in the business about how all this will work in practice. It would be far better to get everything correct now, so that people understand what they are doing before the bill is implemented. For that reason, I ask that members support amendment 36.

I move amendment 34.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 7 and other amendments in the group.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

A number of businesses currently operate without a Healthcare Improvement Scotland licence. The bill will require such a licence for certain procedures, in relation to which one was not previously required. The concern is that there will be an increase in the number of applications, which could create a decision delay that will force businesses to close for unknown and possibly extended periods of time while they await a decision, or perhaps even to cease trading altogether.

Healthcare Improvement Scotland said that it will need more resources in order to enforce the bill’s provisions. In evidence, Eddie Docherty of HIS said:

“To be honest, it is currently quite a long way away from being a self-financing process. The discussions with the Scottish Government about baseline funding will need to continue. We have the view that, as the system expands, we are likely to require more money to meet the requirements.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 9 December 2025; c 41.]

Amendment 7 would allow the commencement regulations made under section 20(2) to include transitional, transitory or saving provisions.

I approached the minister to see what could be done, as we have seen such issues arise before—for example, when the new regulations for protecting vulnerable groups came into force and the demand from people in roles facing kids at summer camps and from pre-hiring processes in schools outpaced the time limit in Disclosure Scotland’s service level agreement, which states that 90 per cent of applications should be processed within 14 days.

I am glad that we have found common ground here. The minister agreed that I had raised a valid concern and further noted in correspondence that she would not want to penalise any business that had done everything required of it to adhere to the new legislation.

The approach that we have settled on for amendment 7 would allow transitional provisions to be made in regulations, alongside and in advance of commencement of the bill. I hope that the minister can answer in the affirmative that this provision will be put in place if needed to ensure that businesses are able to trade without being criminalised if they have applied for a licence.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Although commencement of the bill will rightly be a matter for ministers in the next session of Parliament, my intention is for its key provisions to be commenced on 6 September 2027, which is the date from which the licensing scheme for lower-risk, non-surgical procedures will also take effect. Businesses will have until that date to adjust to the bill’s requirements and, in that time, preparations will be made for the its enforcement and implementation.

I took on board Mr Balfour’s point that some businesses might be concerned that a future minister might bring forward the date for provisions on offences coming into force. I explained why that that was unlikely. However, amendment 35, in my name, puts that beyond doubt by preventing the offence created in section 3—providing a non-surgical procedure outwith permitted premises—from coming into force before that date. I recognise that requiring any earlier date might be unduly difficult for businesses and that any later date would delay operation of the protections in the bill. I hope that that provides assurances to Mr Balfour and that members will support amendment 35.

I urge Mr Balfour not to press his amendments 34 and 36, which would delay the commencement of offences in other parts of the bill for 24 months. That is too long a wait. I also cannot support any provision that would prevent the Government from using regulatory powers until then. The Scottish Government intends to progress work on regulations during that time—for instance, in relation to training or supervision. Mr Balfour is looking to support businesses, but it is in businesses’ interests that work on other regulations can be progressed—for example, under section 5 of the bill—before the creation of offences comes into force, to ensure that businesses have advance notice of requirements.

Amendment 7, in Brian Whittle’s name, raises the important point that transitional provision in connection with the implementation of the bill might be needed. If many businesses register with Healthcare Improvement Scotland at the same time, there could be delays, and it would not be reasonable for businesses that were otherwise compliant to be forced to cease trading or to be criminalised due to an administrative delay. I hope that that will not occur, but, if it does, transitional provision might be required if applications are pending. It is therefore right that the commencement provision in section 20 of the bill be adjusted to provide scope for that protection to be included in commencement regulations, and I thank Mr Whittle for working with me on the amendment.

I ask Mr Balfour not to press amendments 34 and 36, but I urge members to support amendment 35 in my name and amendment 7 in Mr Whittle’s name.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 34.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I welcome Brian Whittle’s amendment 7 and I hope that members will support it. I thank the minister for picking up the concerns that she mentioned in relation to amendment 35. However, I still think that there is real concern among those who are operating such businesses at the moment. It is all very well to say that we are going to talk to them and introduce possible solutions, but they have to face decisions about whether to renew leases, whether it is worth putting money into new equipment and whether to train new staff. As it stands, they have no guarantee at all that they will be here in 12 months’ time. For that reason, I press amendment 34.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 91, Abstentions 17.

Amendment 34 disagreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Brian Whittle]—and agreed to.

Amendment 35 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Amendment 36 moved—[Jeremy Balfour].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 106, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 36 disagreed to.

Amendment 37 not moved.

Schedule 1—Specified non-surgical procedures

Amendments 8 and 9 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That ends consideration of amendments.

As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise of Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill, in the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-21100, in the name of Jenni Minto, on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto, to speak to and move the motion—up to seven minutes, please.

15:59

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am delighted to speak to the general principles of the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill. It is, I believe, an important bill that addresses important safety concerns. It is significant to those who will be impacted by it and to those who have already, sadly, been affected by the lack of regulation in the non-surgical procedures sector to date.

I will start by addressing part 2 of the bill, which makes important amendments to the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011. These amendments extend the right to request an interested person review and update the provisions on authorising cremations and hydrolysis in Scotland when a death has occurred elsewhere in the United Kingdom. These measures ensure that relatives will have more opportunities to request a review and they also update the requirements for authorising cremations and now hydrolysis, avoiding duplication of those processes and reducing delays for families without undermining safeguards.

In considering the remainder of the bill, I want to start by reminding us why the bill came about, just as I did at stage 1. Concerns about cosmetic procedures were first raised more than a decade ago. The Scottish Government took steps and, in 2016, services provided by independent healthcare clinics, which included non-surgical procedures, came under the regulation of Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

Since then, the non-surgical procedures sector has continued to grow. Many people have had positive experiences with responsible and caring practitioners, but, as the sector has grown, so have the stories of people who have been harmed or injured. The regulation of independent clinics left a gap whereby non-clinical settings remained entirely unregulated. In a minority of cases, that has had tragic results.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

The minister refers to practitioners who go above and beyond in the qualifications that they seek out and the measures that they put in place to safeguard the people in their care. They are still none the wiser as to whether the bill, when it is finally implemented, will put them out of business. I hope that the minister will clarify to members—either in her remarks now or in her closing remarks—the Government’s intention to work with the sector to find a way through all of this, so that, when the next Government implements the bill, it does not lead to the unnecessary loss of viable, high-quality businesses.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for his intervention and I note again my disappointment that he has not engaged on the bill with me prior to this stage.

I thank members and their constituents who have tirelessly raised those issues with Government. I hope to hear from some of those members this afternoon, and I hope that those constituents are watching our progress. Most of all, I hope that the bill meets the challenge that they set out for us.

I am also grateful to the members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which have given the bill careful consideration. Their recommendations were balanced and reflective of the need to protect public safety while ensuring that our approach was proportionate and balanced. Likewise, the contributions of members who lodged amendments or who have spoken to me over the past few weeks are very much appreciated. I also thank the members of the bill team. Their determination and dedication to capture every detail required for the bill has been key to ensuring that the right balance has been struck.

The bill will make procedures safer for everyone. It will ensure that all procedures take place in appropriate hygienic settings, where healthcare professionals are involved in the provision or management of services and can assist if there are complications. It will also make it an offence to provide procedures to a person who is under 18. The bill is complemented by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures) Order 2026, which establishes a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk procedures.

I recognise that it is not possible to bring regulations to a fast-growing sector without causing some disruption to the businesses that are already operating within it. That was raised clearly in the stage 1 debate and had been raised with me well before that, too. I assure members that I understand the impact of the bill. I have considered it carefully and, in doing so, I have met currently unregulated businesses and have heard which aspects of our approach are most challenging for them.

In explaining my approach to those concerns, I recall some of Carol Mochan’s comments from the stage 1 debate. In her carefully considered contribution, Ms Mochan stated that

“introducing further restrictions is a necessary step towards improving patient safety”.—[Official Report, 5 February 2026; c 88.]

Many of the amendments today and at stage 2 sought to amend the bill to mitigate the impact of some of the requirements that the bill introduces. I urged members to resist those amendments not lightly but because they weakened aspects of the bill that are necessary to achieve our public safety aims.

Neither the provisions in the bill nor our plans for future regulation go as far as some members would like, and they do not restrict procedures as much as in many European or comparator countries. However, I was not prepared to endorse proposals that I did not think were absolutely necessary. As a result, I believe that the bill that we are voting on today is a balanced one that will achieve public safety aims, especially the protection of under-18s, while protecting the space for a thriving sector.

To Mr Cole-Hamilton’s point, the journey towards a safe, regulated and thriving sector does not end with this bill. I will take this opportunity to set out what I think must come next. In particular, I will set out how the Scottish Government should work with businesses in both the regulated and currently unregulated parts of the sector. Clear information is needed for all businesses. If the bill is successful, officials will host a webinar for businesses before the start of the pre-election period, to explain the bill as amended today and more about what it means. Further information, guidance and advice on seeking support will also be produced.

I expect the Scottish Government to work with businesses and the associated industry in setting training and qualification standards and in considering the requirements of Healthcare Improvement Scotland registration, to ensure that there are no unnecessary hurdles for businesses. I do not know what will be the composition of the Parliament that oversees the implementation of the bill if it is passed, but I am sure that that Parliament will hold the Government to account on all those matters.

Once again, I thank the committees, members, business owners, providers and clients whose input has helped to shape the legislation.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill be passed.

16:06

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

As far as the part of the bill on certification of death is concerned, we agree with it.

I begin with a declaration of my interest as a registered general practitioner. I am registered with the General Medical Council.

At its core, the legislation is about one fundamental principle: patient safety. At the moment, in parts of the non-surgical cosmetics sector, that safety is far too inconsistent. To put it bluntly, in some areas, the situation resembles the wild west. Yes, there are genuinely good businesses, but there are also shocking ones that perform botched surgeries. That would be unacceptable in absolutely any other area of healthcare, yet, for far too long, that is, in effect, what we have allowed to develop. The procedures that we are discussing are often presented as simple, routine beauty treatments, but, in reality, they involve needles, injections, prescription-only medications such as botulinum toxin and substances being injected under the skin. When something goes wrong, the consequences are not trivial; they include permanent scarring, tissue damage, severe infection, psychological trauma and emergency hospital treatment—and when complications occur, it is the national health service, which is under immense pressure, that ends up treating the patient.

It is worth remembering that botulinum toxin is derived from one of the most powerful biological toxins known to science. Used correctly, in the right hands and the right clinical setting, it can be administered safely. The key words there are “correctly” and “safely”—that means trained practitioners, appropriate clinical environments and proper safeguards. However, at present, some procedures are carried out in in settings that could never be described as, or considered, acceptable in any other part of healthcare. We hear about fizz and filler parties, at which you can get your Botox and your fillers while drinking champagne; treatments delivered from spare rooms in houses; and procedures performed in hotel rooms or pop-up settings with little clinical oversight. No one in this chamber thinks that it would be acceptable to receive antibiotics or other medicines from someone who was not properly regulated and insured and working in a safe clinical environment, so why do we accept that injectable cosmetic treatments are treated so differently?

I want to be clear that many practitioners who work in the sector take their responsibilities extremely seriously. They operate from clean, sterile environments, follow proper consent procedures and understand how to recognise complications. I have every sympathy with those practitioners. In fact, many of them support stronger regulation, because they are frustrated at being undercut by individuals who complete a very short training course and immediately begin carrying out invasive procedures. Proper regulation should be seen not as an attack on the sector but, rather, as protecting the reputation of responsible businesses and creating a level playing field. Yes, regulation might bring additional costs, but the reality is that good practitioners are already meeting those high standards and regulation is aimed at raising the floor. It ensures that poor practice must not and cannot continue unchecked. Above all, this is about protecting patients.

We also know that there are cases in which procedures go beyond cosmetic injections. There have been reports of practitioners removing moles or skin lesions without ensuring that samples of them have been properly examined. That raises serious concerns about misdiagnosis, including of skin cancer. Even as a GP who sees skin lesions all the time, I refer any lesion that I am unsure about to dermatology. When we remove lesions, we send them to histology to ensure that our assessment is correct and to ensure that a cancer has not been missed. There is no safety mechanism in the bill to address that risk. Again, this is not a minor issue; it is a matter of potentially life-saving clinical practice.

The truth is that we are a decade behind where we should be in regulating the sector. The popularity of non-surgical cosmetic procedures has grown rapidly, but the regulatory framework has not kept pace. Therefore, the bill is a very important and necessary step. It recognises that, if a procedure pierces the skin, involves injectable substances or uses prescription-only medication, the standards governing that practice must reflect the clinical risk that is involved.

However, what is aimed for through the legislation will be achieved only if it is properly implemented. If we are serious about regulation—and I am—Health Improvement Scotland must have the necessary resources to enforce it effectively. Without that capacity, even if the legislation is drafted to the highest level, HIS will struggle to deliver what the patient requires and the protection that we intend.

The bill is not about restricting innovation or closing down responsible businesses; it is about bringing order to what has often resembled the wild west.

16:11

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Scottish Labour’s approach to the bill is that patient safety should be our number 1 priority. We recognise that businesses in the sector provide services in a professional manner and in a professional environment, but the non-surgical procedures industry currently operates largely unregulated and has been in need of regulation for some time.

During its evidence gathering at stage 1, the committee heard of fizz and filler parties and of people being injected or given treatment in the back of taxis and in sheds. Premises that administer injectable procedures are not regulated in a way that the public should expect, and there is limited oversight of risk to consumers’ safety and wellbeing.

Right now, we rely on businesses to provide services in a safe and hygienic setting, but the reality is that those premises are not regulated and we have no way of distinguishing the good practices from the bad. The bill will correct that. Scottish Labour supports the regulation of the non-surgical procedures industry because it will bring the industry under the scope of HIS, ensuring oversight and regulation of premises.

The bill will strengthen not only standards across the sector, but accountability and safety. We are aware of the concerns that industry has raised about the impact that the changes will have on business models and operations. That is why we supported amendments that provide for a phased implementation and a review of the operation and enforcement of the act. We have also supported amendments to ensure minimum training and qualification standards for those who provide procedures as the bill comes into force, and we hope that the amendments that we supported are realistic and that their timelines are proportionate.

If the bill passes, it is hoped that existing providers will be able to adapt their practices to continue delivering their professional services, and I know that the minister is committed to that. It is important that future Governments ensure that current providers of non-surgical procedures have good access to training and support with a sufficient adjustment period, and amendments that were lodged by members from across the chamber have sought to ensure that.

These procedures are not risk free. We want fair and appropriate regulation to ensure the highest standards in patient safety. We also want to protect children and young people from both access to and the appeal of such services.

I welcome the bill, which takes important steps towards ensuring that regulation, enforcement and accountability are brought into the sector. If it passes, the bill must be balanced with support, training and guidance for the industry ahead of implementation. We thank colleagues for the cross-party work that has gone into the bill.

16:48

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I begin by extending my thanks to the legislation team, which, as always, has been incredibly helpful and responsive throughout stages 2 and 3. A special mention from me must go to Cleft Lip and Palate Action, which worked with me on my amendments at stage 2; I know that the bill is stronger as a result of its involvement. I also thank all the constituents and business owners who shared their thoughts with me. I appreciate that we were often approaching the bill from different viewpoints, but it was incredibly useful for me to hear their position on particular amendments and how they would be affected by them, so that I could make considered judgments.

As others have said, the bill will create a safer environment for everyone who is involved in non-surgical cosmetic procedures. It sets out what is required of businesses and practitioners and what consumers can expect in terms of safety standards. It is a vast improvement on the current situation, in which Scotland is described as the worst country in Europe for unqualified practitioners injecting customers with cosmetic treatments. It will also protect children and young people by introducing a minimum age of 18 for undergoing procedures. That is as vital, given that Advice Direct Scotland recently warned that children as young as 15 were seeking help following botched treatments with Botox and dermal fillers.

As I highlighted in my speech at stage 1 of the bill, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh warned:

“Facial structures continue to develop into early adulthood, and starting these procedures from a young age can have long-term effects. Procedures such as dermal fillers and Botox too young can lead to muscle atrophy and tissue damage and should rightfully only be available to those over the age of 18.”

It is right that the bill will instate a strict age limit, and I am pleased that we have cross-party agreement on that.

Robust discussions have taken place at stages 2 and 3, with differing views on how to get the balance right between protecting consumers and supporting businesses. I have maintained throughout that patient safety must be the overriding concern. I believe that the bill upholds that, and I am glad to see that attempts to weaken it have not passed. There are concerns that regulation could drive rogue practitioners underground, but we cannot use that as an excuse not to act. The bill is proportionate and fair, and I believe that it represents a significant step towards eradicating unsafe practices in the cosmetics industry. However, we must ensure that the next Government engages with those businesses that have provided the procedures with care so that they continue to be supported.

Although the procedures covered by the bill may seem routine or non-invasive, complications can be severe. Last year, the BBC reported that people who have cosmetic filler injections in their face should be warned of the risk of a dangerous complication involving blocked arteries that can lead to skin loss and even blindness due to damaged blood flow. The researcher on the study, Dr Rosa Sigrist, said that, although they are uncommon, such vascular occlusion events, where the filler is injected into or too close to blood vessels, can be “devastating” because they can cause tissue death and facial deformity if they are not treated.

Cosmetic procedures should, therefore, not be undergone lightly, and it is essential that those who perform them have the right skills, experience and—crucially—supervision. Given the dangers that are posed by some cosmetic procedures, we need robust and effective regulation. I believe that the bill delivers that.

16:18

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I start by clarifying that the Liberal Democrats have sought to engage with the bill. It is unfortunate that the minister and I could not make our diaries align so that we could meet directly on it. I am grateful for her offer to do so, and I will take that up if there is time before the dissolution of Parliament. I will certainly work with whoever the minister in charge is in the next session of Parliament to make sure that the legislation works for everyone.

The bill brings forward important reforms that are necessary. Its intention is to strengthen public safety and, by so doing, improve confidence in the sector and in the regulation of non-surgical cosmetic procedures. We will support it at stage 3. However, I repeat the caveats that I made in my intervention on the minister and in my earlier remarks in relation to Ash Regan’s amendments: we must not plough on with this legislation and send to the wall those high-quality businesses and professionals who have sought to get the maximum qualifications and deliver the highest quality of service that they can.

As we know, part 1 of the bill addresses higher-risk procedures that appear to penetrate the skin, including treatments such as dermal fillers, botulinum toxin, thread lifts and deep chemical peels. Those procedures are often marketed as routine or low risk, but when they are carried out incorrectly or by people without adequate training, the harm can be serious, lifelong and deeply distressing.

For too long, regulation in the area has been fragmented and unclear. There has been no single framework that sets out where such procedures can take place, who is qualified to perform them and what minimum standards should apply in their administration. That lack of clarity benefits no one—neither patients nor responsible practitioners. For those reasons, Scottish Liberal Democrats have supported the principle of regulation at every stage as the bill has progressed through the Parliament.

We believe that the move towards a more risk-based and proportionate framework, with a distinction between higher-risk procedures and lower-risk ones, is sensible. Likewise, restricting higher-risk procedures to appropriate premises, providing proper oversight, prohibiting procedures for under-18s and giving Healthcare Improvement Scotland inspection and enforcement powers are all important steps forward.

However, I reiterate that we still have concerns about the bill’s potential impact on trained practitioners who are currently operating safely and responsibly. Those practitioners also want regulation and bad actors to be removed from this field of work. Throughout the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, we heard consistent evidence that many practitioners in the sector have, at massive personal cost, invested heavily in training, qualifications and professional standards under the existing system.

As I said, many of those practitioners support regulation, because they want bad actors to be removed and confidence to be strengthened. However, there remains the risk that, if the system is implemented with the inflexibility that we saw at stage 1, some responsible practitioners—many of whom are self-employed—in the largely female-led sector could find themselves regulated out of the profession altogether. I do not think that any of us wants that to happen. I am gratified that I think that I saw a chink of light in the minister’s remarks, in that, through regulation and the bill’s implementation phases, her Government will work with the sector on a more rational implementation.

An inflexible approach would not improve safety; it would simply remove skilled providers and risk pushing activity outside the regulated system. If we do not get this right, some of the procedures will still take place, but in a black market setting and at higher risk. As the framework that the bill will introduce is implemented, it will be important for the Government to engage closely with practitioners—I am glad that we have heard that today—to keep the framework under review and to ensure that the regulations remain proportionate, workable and focused on patient safety.

Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the overall aim of improving safety and strengthening oversight, but we offer the caveat that we must protect hard-working and well-qualified practitioners who just want to protect their businesses.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate.

16:22

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The bill is important, as the sector that we are looking to regulate has grown vastly in recent years. Today, the Parliament is being asked to support crucial legislation that will provide many safeguards to protect consumers.

Since the issue was first raised with me by my constituent Jill Best in 2018, I have been on a learning journey. I was surprised by how lax the regulations were for non-medics. For trained medics who went into the sector, the hoops that had to be jumped through from Healthcare Improvement Scotland were strict, and so they should have been. However, there clearly has not been a level playing field, and the bill will enable the state to catch up.

As a result of my amendment on a review after five years, which was agreed to at stage 2, and the stage 3 amendment 28, which improves the provision, future Governments will have the opportunity to try to keep pace with an ever-changing and fast-changing industry. Fundamentally, the sector is here to stay, so regulations are a must to safeguard consumers.

I appreciate that not everyone will support the bill. There are non-medics who are highly trained, and the minister was clear about that at stage 2 and as we discussed the stage 3 amendments. However, ultimately, we need to guarantee that the sector will protect our constituents, and the argument on the importance of having a healthcare professional on site is compelling.

I will not take my full four minutes of speaking time, because I have spoken throughout the process, including in the stage 1 debate. However, I want to thank the minister for her engagement and my constituent Jill Best for raising the issue with me in the first place.

I appreciate that ministers are bombarded daily with requests for help, with many things being highlighted to them, but the fact that I have been raising it for almost eight years shows that the issue was not going to go away. Clearly, Covid-19 stopped any momentum on the issue, but the minister has always been willing to listen and engage, and I pay tribute to her for that.

The round table hosted by Miles Briggs was a turning point, when the minister and everyone else in the room heard at first hand how a botched treatment had affected someone. I therefore thank the minister for listening, engaging and acting. The sector and the wider public will be safer as a result.

Secondly, my thanks go to my constituent Jill Best. I had never met Jill until she got in touch with me to raise her concerns about this particular issue. After reading more about it and engaging with her further, I knew that she was passionate about the industry and also about sharing best practice. Jill’s actions and campaigning have brought about the bill. Others have helped greatly along the way, but I want to pay tribute to her. It shows that any person in Scotland can help to change the law. Jill’s actions will ensure that that happens today, and I ask members to thank Jill and the minister, and to vote to support the bill this afternoon.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr McMillan. We now move to the closing speeches.

16:25

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank all of those who have participated in this debate for their cross-party working. I also thank the clerks and the bill teams for their work throughout.

As I mentioned in my opening speech, Scottish Labour’s approach to the bill has consistently prioritised patient safety. The growth in the non-surgical procedures industry has highlighted a worrying gap in essential regulation to protect people and providers who deliver professional and safe services. This is a growing industry and the public and professional bodies want that to be reflected. The bill offers a chance to introduce national standards and expectations and, in the long term, it will ensure that patient safety is prioritised.

We want all services to be as safe as possible. I take the opportunity to put on the record again that we in Scottish Labour recognise the good practice that currently exists in the sector. However, we currently have no way of identifying the good from the bad and there are clear cases of hygiene and safety standards not being met, which is why the bill is so important. The sector has grown rapidly and, given the fact that these services and procedures are so widely available and easily accessible, the legislation is welcome.

It is not for us to determine how a person chooses to present themselves, but the Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that public safety is protected and that necessary safeguards and regulation are in place. The bill will create an offence of providing procedures to people under the age of 18, which is welcome and long overdue. We know that such procedures are not suitable for young people and that they can have damaging and long-term consequences. The bill will improve accountability when things go wrong and give us an important opportunity to raise the public’s awareness of and educate people about the standards that they should be looking for before undergoing procedures with associated risks.

Although we support the bill, we also recognise the reservations and concerns that were expressed by those in the industry who support regulation but are seeking reassurance in support and guidance. Scottish Labour supported a number of amendments that sought phased implementation and review of the operation and enforcement of the act. We will continue to scrutinise the legislation in the sessions to come to ensure that its implementation and future regulations are balanced with support, training and guidance for the industry.

16:28

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I rise to close the stage 3 debate on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. This is a significant piece of legislation that seeks to bring much-needed order to two different yet equally vital areas of Scottish life—the rapidly expanding aesthetics industry and the sensitive processes surrounding the certification of death.

I turn to part 1 of the bill. We must acknowledge that Scotland’s non-surgical sector is a genuine success story. It is a fast-growing industry and, notably, it is predominantly female owned and led, and we should celebrate that. However, for too long, the sector has operated in a regulatory vacuum. The absence of a robust framework does a disservice to many high-quality professional businesses that operate across our communities. When untrained individuals use unlicensed products in unvetted settings, it does not just put the public at risk, it undermines the reputation of responsible professional providers who strive for excellence.

Working alongside the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures) Order 2026, the legislation will allow for a two-tiered approach that is proportionate to risk level. Low-risk procedures, such as superficial chemical peels or microneedling at shallow depths, can be regulated through premises-based licensing. Higher-risk procedures, such as Botox, thread lifts and deeper chemical peels, will rightly require a clear focus on the competence and oversight of the individual who is administering the treatment.

Although consumer safety is at the heart of the bill, applying regulation to an established and diverse industry for the first time is a complex challenge. We have to strike the right balance: if we move too fast or burden businesses with an excessive bureaucratic process, we risk creating a flawed system that can be exploited by unscrupulous operators, and that might deter professionals from working in the sector.

I have been clear throughout this process: we need well-designed regulations that improve safety for customers without making compliance an impossible financial or administrative burden for reputable businesses.

The Scottish Government needs to go further. It needs to heed the warnings from the Federation of Small Businesses. In developing the regulations, there is more work to be done alongside small businesses, such as remote clinical oversight or a national accreditation pathway for trained non-medical practitioners. Small businesses are not short on solutions; they just need a Government that is willing to listen to them.

Part 2, which amends the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011, is a less contentious but deeply important part of the bill. By expanding the types of medical certificates of cause of death that can be reviewed, we provide greater clarity and reassurance for grieving families.

The bill is a step in the right direction. If we can get the regulations right—making them proportionate, workable and focused on safety—we can support innovation, protect customers and provide a solid foundation for the sector’s future.

16:31

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank all colleagues in the chamber for their constructive comments on part 1 of the bill.

Stuart McMillan is absolutely right: when we are confronted by someone who has been impacted by some procedure, it highlights the change that it has made to some people’s lives. I, too, thank all MSPs who have engaged with me and the bill team.

I welcome the comments on patient safety and on the importance of having the right setting for delivering safe care, which was mentioned by everybody who spoke in the debate. It is crucial that the procedures that are regulated by the bill are delivered in safe, hygienic settings, where providers have support from healthcare professionals and access to emergency medications where required. The bill delivers those safe settings for all procedures. As Carol Mochan says, it will strengthen standards.

I very much thank Dr Gulhane for his engagement on the bill. I have found it incredibly helpful and challenging, and I appreciate the suggestions and proposals that he has made throughout the work on the bill. I also thank Gillian Mackay for her comments and her wider engagement, specifically on cleft palate, and in particular for her comments on under-18s.

I also wish to address the comments that were made by a number of people about the impact on businesses. I was clear in my opening speech that I do not take those impacts lightly, and I am confident that the bill is necessary to protect public safety. Nevertheless, I expect the Scottish Government to continue to work closely with businesses to mitigate the impact wherever possible.

We are proposing to commence offences under the bill in September 2027, giving a good lead-in for all concerned and time for businesses to adapt. I will highlight one very helpful meeting that I had recently, which was hosted by Davy Russell and included some of Fulton MacGregor’s constituents. We discussed the impact of regulation 12(b) of the Healthcare Improvement Scotland (Requirements as to Independent Health Care Services) Regulations 2011, which requires that a suitably qualified healthcare professional will be

“working within the independent health care service whilst service users are present”.

That would include an independent clinic or hospital that falls within the definition of “permitted premises” in section 4 of the bill. I have instructed officials to consider that requirement, and particularly the requirement for healthcare professionals to be on site at all times in relation to businesses that offer a mix of procedures that are regulated by the bill and other beauty treatments or licensable activities. I hope that Brian Whittle and Alex Cole-Hamilton will recognise that the Government is listening.

Colin Beattie talked about establishing a professional body for non-healthcare-professional practitioners. As he commented, that is not something that the Scottish Government can specifically do. However, we would be happy to facilitate introductory discussions between the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care and a representative group wishing to establish a register of practitioners with a view to accreditation in the future.

I thank all members for their contributions. Intervention to regulate a growing and changing sector is not easy, so I have welcomed the support and the constructive challenge that I have received.

I am also grateful for the careful consideration given to part 2 of the bill, even though that has not been the focus of today’s debate. In my time as Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, public safety has been my absolute priority, and the bill delivers its public safety aims in a proportionate way. I am, again, thankful to Stuart McMillan and others who regularly met me to discuss the impact that the matter has had on their constituents.

As I said in my opening speech, I believe that the bill that we will vote on today is a balanced one that will achieve public safety aims, especially the protection of those under 18, as was noted by Gillian Mackay and Carol Mochan, while protecting a thriving sector. The bill has benefited from contributions from across the chamber and I hope that members of all parties will join me in voting for it at decision time today. I urge the Parliament to support the bill and to pass it into legislation.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes the debate on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

A member

16:36

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is stage 3 consideration of the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill.

In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament Bill 73A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds; thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or place RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after the group has been called.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 1—The Scottish building safety levy

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 1 is on the application of the levy, exemptions and reliefs. Amendment 6, in the name of Michael Marra, is grouped with amendments 7 to 10, 5, 15 and 18.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Scotland has been in the grip of a housing emergency for years. Even the Scottish National Party Government acknowledged in May 2024 that that was the case, although it must be said that, almost two years later, not much has changed. House-building figures in December 2025 showed the numbers of both new-build starts and completions falling, with social sector starts hitting the lowest point since records began and affordable housing completions down by 23 per cent.

That all has real consequences. Statistics published last month showed that the number of children living in temporary accommodation was at a record high of 10,484 for the period being reported on. The number of open homelessness applications was also at a record high and rough sleeping is at its worst in two decades. That is the context in which the SNP Government is bringing forward this bill.

During stage 1 evidence, the Finance and Public Administration Committee repeatedly heard about the potential for the levy to damage an already precarious house-building sector in Scotland. The possible introduction of a levy with as-yet-unknown rates is deeply destabilising for a market that needs certainty to plan and make decisions for the long term. Across the sector, house builders are making decisions now about where and how much to build, but they cannot do that with the uncertainty of a levy hanging over them.

I place on record my thanks to Homes for Scotland and others in the sector who have engaged constructively on the bill and have supported the drafting of amendments, including some that I will speak to today.

My amendment 6 would give a firm guarantee that any construction or conversion work begun before 1 April 2028 will not be subject to the levy. It seeks to give some certainty to the sector so that house builders can get on and build now instead of choosing to sit it out for two years, waiting to see what a future Government might or might not do.

Appearing before the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 18 November 2025, the minister stated:

“the commencement date for the levy will be deferred by one year, to April 2028.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 18 November 2025; c 42.]

I believe that the amendment can be agreed to in keeping with that commitment. The minister did not support a similar amendment that I lodged at stage 2, but I hope that, in the intervening period, he will have reflected on the risks that the legislation could pose to Scotland’s already fragile house-building sector.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. I recognise that Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 7 has a similar intention to my amendment 6. I look forward to hearing the debate, and I note that, if the Government is willing to support amendment 7 instead of my amendment, I would be willing to support it, too.

Michelle Thomson’s amendments 8, 10 and 15 seek to exempt from the levy properties that are sold to first-time buyers. I trust that Michelle Thomson has met the minister since stage 2, and I hope that the Government will be able to support those amendments.

Liz Smith’s amendments 9 and 18 would exempt historic listed buildings from the levy, which we on the Labour benches would support.

Ivan McKee’s amendment 5 will require ministers to lay before the Parliament for approval a Scottish statutory instrument relating to reliefs. It is right that the Parliament should have the chance to scrutinise those reliefs, so we will support amendment 5, too.

I move amendment 6.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Amendment 7 is similar to the amendment that I lodged at stage 2. It relates to transitional arrangements. The amendment would exempt from the levy a new residential unit where a building warrant application has been submitted on or before 1 April 2028—in other words, where a development has progressed before the legislation’s commencement date. The approach matches the established principle that regulatory treatment follows the rules that are in force at the time of a building warrant application, and it recognises the significant up-front investment in viability decisions that are taken without published levy rates.

Home builders have been clear in explaining that development does not simply start when the foundations are cut. There are years of planning processes, as well as investment, before buildings are constructed. The liability date ignores the investment in the land deal, ground investigations, planning costs and professional fees for design that a developer has already borne before they start building and well before the building is completed.

A retrospective levy risks stalling delivery and hindering much-needed investment. I am certain that the minister does not wish the building of homes to be stalled, considering that the next Government needs to deliver at pace to tackle the housing emergency that Michael Marra has just outlined in his speech.

The minister has agreed to provide 22 months’ notice of rates from June this year, but there has been no consideration that developers will already have appraised and agreed land deals without taking into account the fact that the levy will come into effect from April 2028.

Homes for Scotland has been crystal clear that, without transitional arrangements in place, neither it nor the wider sector can support the bill in principle. I take the opportunity at this point to thank Homes for Scotland for its support and engagement throughout the passage of the bill.

It is for those reasons that I urge the Parliament to agree to my amendment 7 or to amendment 6 in the name of Michael Marra. I believe that both amendments attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. I will leave my remarks there.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I rise to speak to amendments 8, 10 and 15 in regard to a crucial part of the residential housing market: first-time buyers. At stage 2—I stand by this—I noted

“the vital role of first-time buyers in keeping the housing market viable”

and said that they

“drive demand and create a ripple effect, free up homes for rent, support economic growth, support a balanced market and play into balancing sustainable communities.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 10 February 2026; c 35.]

Given the importance of first-time buyers, I hedged my bets and, therefore, lodged three amendments at stage 3. I do not intend to move amendments 8 or 10, but I will move amendment 15.

Amendment 15, through the introduction of the word “partial” and by the use of regulation-making powers, recognises that the minister has consistently stated the Scottish Government’s concerns around quantum. It was helpful at stage 2 to have on the record the fact that 22 per cent of new-build sales are to first-time buyers. Arguably, that percentage could be more if the measures that the Scottish Government undertakes come to fruition.

My final point is that, as a minimum, enabling a partial relief is vitally important to developers—particularly small and medium-sized enterprise developers, who play their part in enabling sustainable communities. We need to support SMEs to have a continued focus on the first-time buyer market. It is much easier for them to go for the step-up market, because, in that area, access to finance is easier and quicker, transactions are larger and margins are better.

I thank the minister for his open-mindedness, flexibility and engagement on the matter.

16:45

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the minister knows from stage 2, I have concerns about whether people involved in the conversion of historic buildings will face specific unintended consequences as a result of the imposition of the building safety levy, mainly because projects of that nature are not usually speculative and they tend to be a more expensive way of producing new homes. However, importantly, the conversion of historic buildings into new homes delivers a wider public benefit, which the Parliament has supported in other ways regarding the historic buildings issue.

At stage 2, the minister agreed that the Parliament should seek ways to support such conversions, but he was concerned that a perverse incentive might be created in the system for people to seek listed building status for buildings in order to avoid paying the levy.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

It is important to note that Historic Environment Scotland has very high thresholds for designating and listing buildings and that it would be unusual for it to grant such status on a whim.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I understand that but, in relation to our engagement at stage 2 and particularly what the Parliament has said on other issues relating to historic buildings, I was interested to tease out with the minister where the specific issues might lie. The minister agreed that we should meet to discuss that, and we did so on 26 February. At the end of that meeting, he said that he or his officials would come back to me before the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments. That never happened, so I re-lodged my amendments to ensure that I would be satisfied by the minister’s intentions.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I thank members for their engagement with and scrutiny of the bill so far; in particular, I thank those members who met me in advance to discuss their proposed amendments. I hope that, as we did at stage 2, we will be able to continue to engage constructively today.

On group 1, I invite all members to support my technical amendment 5, which seeks to update provisions relating to the regulation-making powers on reliefs to reflect the position that was agreed at stage 2.

Amendments 6 and 7 seek to delay implementation of the levy. As was the case when the amendments were lodged at stage 2, the Government cannot support them. I have already delayed commencement of the levy to April 2028, and I have committed to publishing indicative rates in June this year. That gives developers nearly two years’ advance certainty about their levy liabilities. My view is that that provides sufficient notice for them to plan their affairs accordingly.

I have, however, received representations from the Scottish Property Federation that some of the flexibilities that we have built into the design of the tax will not affect developers of built-to-rent and purpose-built student accommodation in the same way that they will affect other parts of the tax base. Although I was unable to support Michelle Thomson’s amendments at stage 2 to put in place permanent payment flexibilities for those developer types, I am prepared to consider what payment flexibilities can be put in place during the first few years of the levy. The Government will therefore work with industry to consider the scope of any payment flexibilities and with Revenue Scotland to ensure that any increased risk to revenue can be managed with appropriate safeguards.

Amendments 8 and 10 seek to introduce an exemption for property that is sold to first-time buyers, while amendment 15 seeks to deliver a similar effect via a relief for first-time buyers. As I set out at stage 2, those provisions would be complex to administer. There are also concerns about the drafting of amendments 8 and 10, and I was glad to hear that Michelle Thomson will not move them. However, following on from the engagement with her, the Government will work with partners to consider and test a mechanism for providing relief to first-time buyers. To that end, I intend to support amendment 15 as a vehicle to deliver that aim.

Liz Smith’s amendments 9 and 18 seek to introduce an exemption for heritage buildings. As I set out when the amendments were lodged at stage 2, I am sympathetic to the aim of protecting conversions, but the Government is unable to support the amendments as drafted. However, I am happy to set out to Parliament my intention to consider a broader relief for conversions using the regulation-making powers in section 11. That will be in addition to the minimum 50 per cent brownfield relief that we have included in the bill. The Government will consult stakeholders on the scope and definition of relief for brownfield sites and conversions as a whole—not just listed buildings—before bringing regulations to Parliament in the next session. I hope that Liz Smith will support that commitment, and I ask her not to move amendments 9 and 18.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will briefly express a little surprise, if that is not too strong a word, at the number of members who seem to accept the talking points of the construction industry’s lobbying as though they were the unquestionable truth. The house-building industry has a long history of treating every increase in taxation, regulation or building standards as though it will be the end of that industry; however, it never plays out in that way. The minister could have done a slightly stronger job of defending the principle of his bill during stage 2, and I hope that he will not accept too many amendments at stage 3.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I invite Michael Marra to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 6.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

At the outset, I am disappointed that the minister has not recognised the context in which we address the bill. He has spoken no words at all on the scale of the housing emergency in Scotland, and there has been no recognition that any further intervention in the housing market has to be on the basis of that context, which we must address appropriately. Little should be said about Patrick Harvie’s parallel universe, in which none of this is happening at all, but the minister should be able to bring forward a cogent analysis of the impact that the bill might have. However, I am afraid that he has not proceeded on that basis.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does Michael Marra accept that the Parliament has been put into a bit of a corner by Westminster and that we have had to have such a bill, which might not have been ideal?

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, I do not really accept that. At the moment, the limiting factor on the rate of our delivery of cladding improvements in Scotland is not the availability of money. The sum of £100 million in Barnett consequentials came to the Scottish Government, and only a tiny fraction of that has been spent. Other issues are perhaps preventing the Government from making progress. The reality is that it has sought to realise a certain amount of money as an equivalent to what has been raised in the rest of the United Kingdom. That did not have to be its approach.

I also say to John Mason that the housing market in Scotland is different from that in other parts of the UK. I would have thought that he would wish to recognise that, as he seeks autonomy in almost every respect at every moment. That difference must be recognised.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

As a point of accuracy, surely Michael Marra recognises that it is complete nonsense to use population share to arrive at a figure of £30 million.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Michelle Thomson is correct that the Government has pursued the matter on a completely nonsensical basis. The £30 million is the Scottish Government’s figure. Nobody else has insisted on the realisation of a quantum of £30 million annually, which will accumulate. It is absolutely clear that that is the Government’s approach.

I press amendment 6.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

As this is the first division of stage 3, I will suspend proceedings for around five minutes, to allow members to access the digital voting system.

16:53

Meeting suspended.

16:58

On resuming—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the division on amendment 6. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.