Official Report 644KB pdf
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
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.
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.
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”.—[, 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
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
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
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
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.
We move to the open debate.
16:22
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.
Thank you, Mr McMillan. We now move to the closing speeches.
16:25
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
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
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.
That concludes the debate on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.
Next
Business Motion