Chamber and committees

:I would be very happy to discuss that with Dr Gulhane in the lead-up to stage 3.

I am content to consider discussions with Mr Balfour on his amendment 37, because I absolutely understand where it is coming from with regard to the underlying issues.

I welcome the indication that Mr Golden will not be pressing his amendments in the group. However, if he decides to press them, I ask members not to support them, and I will continue discussions with him into stage 3.

09:30

I remind members that I already intend that a consultation requirement will be added to all the affirmative powers in the bill, so I hope that you all agree that it is unnecessary to put in place a further requirement, especially one that will prevent that power from being used effectively.

I urge members to support the amendments in my name, which are critical to ensuring that the bill captures the intended procedures but does not capture anything else and that it works effectively with the licensing statutory instrument.

I press amendment 6.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendments 7 and 8 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

:I agree with Dr Gulhane’s points, and I will come to some of them later.

I note the concern about the impact on businesses, and I want to be clear that I am happy to consider taking other action. In the debate on the final group of amendments, we will talk about the time before key provisions in the bill come into force.

I also want the Scottish Government to work with HIS and engage with businesses so that it can carefully consider HIS’s requirements and determine whether any could be amended to ensure that they are suitable for the full range of businesses that HIS will regulate.

We must retain the requirement for a healthcare professional to be on site when procedures that will be regulated under the bill are being performed—I highlighted the importance of that in the debate on group 3. However, consideration is being given to removing the need for a healthcare professional to be present in a service when non-regulated procedures take place.

That said, there is no need to put in place a support fund such as the one that is envisaged by Sandesh Gulhane in amendment 105 and by the consequential changes that are proposed in amendments 117 and 119. As the convener and Dr Gulhane have noted, we will not be voting on amendment 105 today, given that there is no financial resolution and the Presiding Officer has determined that the cost of the amendment would exceed the threshold to require such a financial resolution.

There is also no need for a fund to be established to ensure that guidance is put in place. I refer members to the comments that I made in the previous group relating to standards, guidance and requirements for providers. I am willing to work with members on the inclusion of an overarching provision in the bill that requires the Scottish Government to produce guidance on a number of matters, given the number of amendments of that nature.

The final element of the proposed fund concerns direct financial support. Dr Gulhane is realistic about that element. Where businesses are concerned about on-going costs, for instance in relation to employment, it would not be reasonable or affordable to subsidise them using finite public moneys. Doing so would also be uncompetitive in a sector in which many businesses are already meeting the cost of HIS registration while receiving no such support.

10:30

Amendment 110 takes a different approach. I am grateful to Carol Mochan for lodging it. I note that it is one of a number of amendments concerning potential review provisions, including amendment 109, which is also in Ms Mochan’s name. The majority of those amendments are to be considered in group 11, so I will say more on them at that point. However, I say to Ms Mochan now that I would be happy to work with her on amendment 110 and with other members on how a single review provision can also consider the support available to businesses to ensure that the issues that Ms Mochan raises can be addressed.

Amendments 51 and 76 focus less on support for businesses and more on the imposition of costs on them. I must admit that I do not see the need for amendment 51 in Mr Balfour’s name. The Scottish ministers already have the power to set maximum fees for registration with HIS in regulations under section 10Z5 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. Ministers are required to consult service providers before making regulations under the 1978 act, and HIS consults its registrants when evaluating those fees on an annual basis.

:My understanding is—I will correct the record if this is incorrect—that the Parliament votes on the instrument that sets the maximum fees every few years, so there is a check. I will get back to Mr Balfour directly on that, and I suggest that he does not move amendment 51.

I also urge Mr Golden to consider the provision in the 1978 act concerning the setting of fees. It requires HIS to set its fees—subject to a statutory maximum that is set by ministers in regulations—with regard to its reasonable expenses in carrying out its functions. That appears to me to be a very reasonable basis for fees to be set. Any alternative might prevent HIS from covering its own costs and open the prospect of the public purse subsidising the sector in perpetuity.

The other elements of amendment 76 compare costs incurred by businesses that are associated with enforcement and the level of penalties. I would welcome further discussion with Mr Golden on the costs associated with enforcement if he is aware of a concern about HIS inspection or other enforcement activity being burdensome for its current registrants. I note Dr Gulhane’s point regarding that, and I would be happy to discuss the situation that he mentioned with him.

Regarding the level of penalties, I note that decisions regarding prosecutions are a matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and that the appropriate level of fines to be applied following conviction will be a matter for the courts to determine according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. I will say more about this under group 9, which relates to enforcement, but if a court considers it appropriate to set a stiff penalty for someone who has knowingly provided a high-risk procedure to a child, I do not want anything in the bill to prevent that.

For those reasons, I ask members not to press the amendments, as I am very happy to work with them to address some of the underlying concerns. In the meantime, I hope that my comments have been helpful and reassuring.

I am pleased to join you this morning to consider the draft Food Supplements (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (Scotland) Regulations 2026.

As the committee will be aware, food safety, standards and labelling are areas on which I am advised by Food Standards Scotland. Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate, as a novel form of magnesium, may be used to make food supplements only following approval under the novel food regime along with the approval of an SSI under the food supplements regime. Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate has been approved as a novel form of magnesium for use in food supplements in Scotland and, in the wider context, across Great Britain, having received a positive safety assessment by the food safety authorities.

The ministerial determination that approves the substance as a novel food was made on 7 January and will come into force at the same time as the draft regulations that the committee is considering today. The draft regulations will allow the substance to be used to make food supplements for sale to consumers in Scotland as intended, by amending the list of permitted mineral substances that is set out in schedule 2 to the Nutrition (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The draft regulations will also set the purity criteria for the mineral substance, as required by the Food Supplements (Scotland) Regulations 2003 and in accordance with the novel food safety assessment specification.

I stress that the amendments are technical in nature and do not amount to a change in policy. They are necessary to ensure that this form of magnesium can be used in the manufacture of food supplements as intended. This is a business facilitative measure, and there is no negative impact on businesses or any other stakeholder group. In alignment with Scotland, comparable regulations have been laid in Wales and are expected to be laid in England in summer 2026.

I ask the committee to support the draft regulations. I am happy to take any questions.

No. I am content.

I agree, and Owen Griffiths set that out clearly in his response to Mr Sweeney.

I recognise from other areas of my portfolio as well as this one the stretch that is required for environmental health officers in Scotland and the key roles that they carry out across the board.

I recognise that there will be some additional work for local authority environmental health officers and the licensing departments in processing licences. I also understand that the EHOs are currently doing an amount of work in this area without any direct resourcing, through investigating health and safety concerns. Under the order, they will have the ability to source cost recovery. It will be local authorities that will set the levels of fees for the licensing. We will provide guidance.

I see this as an important piece of public health regulation and, I hope, legislation as well. I will commit to working with local authorities and alongside Healthcare Improvement Scotland to ensure that we have the right structures.

I thank the convener and committee members for their consideration of this order, which will establish a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk non-surgical procedures that pierce or penetrate the skin and will modify the general provisions of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 in that respect.

The order aligns with part 1 of the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill, and together they will bring under regulation a wide range of procedures that we know are happening across Scotland. Such procedures can cause serious and lasting damage, and this is the first substantive step to reduce the potential harm to customers in Scotland across a range of procedures. I invite the committee to recommend approval of the instrument.

I move,

That the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommends that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures) Order 2026 be approved.

Motion agreed to.

We have been doing work in this area specifically to understand what support might be needed between local authorities and Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Those organisations already work together, but I commit to the Scottish Government working with them to ensure that there is a much more collaborative process. There is evidence of them working together previously: for example, the Scottish licensing of skin piercing and tattooing working group brought together different organisations to ensure understanding and consistency among the organisations that would be controlling that process.

We are clear that, if the procedure is covered by the bill, the responsibility is with Healthcare Improvement Scotland, and if the procedure is covered by the order, the responsibility is with the local authority.

This is a replication of what happened with tattooing and the fact that there was a group working together to ensure that there was that knowledge. We have taken that issue away, and we will be looking at it.