Warning noted, Deputy Presiding Officer.

It does not take politicians speaking in the chamber to highlight just how much football means to the people of Scotland. We can see from the jubilant scenes up and down the country last November, when Steve Clarke’s men’s squad qualified for our first world cup since I was seven, that football is, for many, not only escapism but a way of life. Our national game can often be an outlet. Football allows hundreds of thousands of people across Scotland an escape. It can bring much-needed optimism in a time of struggle, and a sense of purpose, belonging and civic pride. It creates friendships and family bonds that can last a lifetime.

Moreover, football can open up to people a world beyond their locality. It gives supporters an opportunity to visit places that they may never have considered visiting; to learn about other cultures that they knew little about before; and to have experiences that go beyond the 90 minutes on the pitch.

Last month, independent academic research revealed that Scottish football contributes £820 million to the Scottish economy and supports 14,315 jobs. That assessment, from the Fraser of Allander Institute, underlines the growing contribution of our national sport and its clubs to the Scottish economy. The study also found that attendance at professional matches involving Scottish teams topped 6.8 million during the 2023-24 campaign.

In my Central Scotland region, I am extremely proud to have several football clubs that go above and beyond in the communities that they serve. In the Scottish premiership, both Motherwell and Falkirk—two fan-owned football clubs being driven through the Well Society and the Falkirk Supporters’ Society—are punching well above their weight, sitting comfortably among the top six teams in the country and mounting challenges for those lucrative European spots.

Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Derek Allison and the team at the Falkirk Foundation. The work that the foundation does is invaluable, from providing a full pathway for under-seven girls’ football to the senior team, to baby bairns classes for kids, starting at just 18 months. The organisation leads the way in offering mental health training; football classes for people living with Down’s syndrome; monthly engagement initiatives to tackle social isolation for people over 60 and so much more. The Falkirk Foundation is a well-established anchor organisation at the heart of my community.

Similarly, the wonderful Dawn and the team at Motherwell Football Club Community Trust use the power of football as a tool for community engagement. In 2021—a year disrupted by lockdowns, and by restrictions on numbers and travel—the trust brought benefits of £13.64 million to the local community.

When we talk about football, we often talk about the clubs: the enthralling matches, the less enthralling matches and the trophies won. Without fans, however, those moments would be diluted, and the financial contribution would be significantly less.

I brought the debate to the chamber to highlight the contribution that football clubs and their fans make to society. As I touched on, football is one of the most loved and successful sports in the country, and Scotland boasts some of the most loyal supporters anywhere in Europe. However, the more I speak to supporters and supporters’ organisations, the more aware I become that fans feel that they are being taken for granted. They are the only stakeholder that is consistently removed from debates—to put it simply, decisions that affect football fans are being made without the input of football fans. That is nothing new, but I believe that it is something that we, as parliamentarians, must seek to change.

Match-going fans have long been misunderstood. Those attending matches in Scotland have, at times, been targeted by the media, by politicians and by police. Instances of disorder, even though they typically relate to only a tiny minority of spectators, have led to football fandom suffering from stigma. However, when football fans unite and organise, they can achieve some incredible things—just ask those who run fan-supported food banks in stadiums across the country; the ultras groups who have organised toy collections or helped those in need in their communities; and Medical Aid for Palestinians, which receives significant donations following campaigns by Celtic fans. I would like to see, from my colleagues across the chamber, a commitment to see the best in football supporters, to value their contribution and to support them to grow our game and create a positive culture.

As football becomes increasingly commodified and sanitised, it loses its identity. A huge factor in that has been the rising ticket costs that we are seeing across the board. Football is meant to be for everyone, but across our country, there are families and working-class fans being priced out of attending matches. As an example, for the upcoming Rangers-Celtic match in the Scottish cup, adults are being charged £53, with concessions being around £10 less. The estimated ticket revenue from that game is more than £2.5 million. Both clubs will receive more in gate receipts from that game than the winners of the cup will receive in prize money. It is totally exploiting the loyalty of fans.

The Scottish Greens are calling for a £25 cap on away tickets in Scotland. In January, I urged the First Minister, at First Minister’s question time, to back the cap, and I wrote to all 42 professional clubs, urging them to support a fair pricing agreement that would keep football accessible for supporters during the cost of living crisis. I am delighted that that campaign has been backed by several supporters’ clubs already, and by organisations such as the Scottish supporters collective and Supporters Direct Scotland.

At recent matches, supporters have taken matters into their own hands, holding up banners demanding a £25 cap and sending a clear message to clubs and football authorities across Scotland that it is an issue that fans deeply care about. I am grateful to fans at Falkirk, Motherwell, Kilmarnock, Celtic, Hibernian, St Johnstone, Partick Thistle, Dundee United and Aberdeen. We have also previously seen support for lower ticket prices at St Mirren. Fans of Falkirk and Hibs have gone a step further and boycotted recent matches at Celtic Park, stating that the pricing structure is unacceptable, and I commend their efforts.

Clubs should listen to their supporters. The passion and organisation that we have seen from fans show that there is a strong appetite for change, and it is time for football authorities and clubs to respond. We need more democracy at the heart of Scottish football. We must look at a fairer distribution of resources and at marketing our game better to attract further ethical investment that does not come from health-harming products or from gambling. We must do more to put supporters’ voices at the forefront. We must ensure that fans can have an ownership stake—

Does Mr Bibby recognise that the cap that we are looking for is on away tickets? Although there are great initiatives at individual clubs, there is an issue to do with people being priced out of following their clubs on the road.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that my vote has been recorded. However, if it has not been, I would have voted yes.

:Dr Gulhane will appreciate that any fine in any case would be for the judge who is in charge at that point. They might decide that a lower fine for a first offence may be applicable, so it probably should not be in the bill with us deciding that.

I move amendment 26.

:I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 26.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Amendments 53, 54 and 93 not moved.

My amendments in the group have been developed with the Cleft Lip and Palate Action group and they probably speak to some of the issues that Sandesh Gulhane has already raised.

My amendment 83 would place a duty on the Scottish ministers, when making regulations under section 5, to have regard to people whose risk of harm from non-surgical procedures is increased because of congenital facial difference, prior facial surgery or altered anatomy and scarring. Although any initial set of regulations may well include appropriate protections for these groups without the need for primary legislation, regulation in this area will inevitably evolve as new procedures, products and techniques emerge. There is a real risk that, over time, people with increased vulnerability could fall by the wayside. By embedding this consideration in the bill, amendment 83 would provide a lasting safeguard and ensure that these higher-risk individuals remain visible and protected as the regulatory framework adapts.

My amendment 88 would enable regulations to impose different or additional requirements where individual client risk factors are present, including risks linked to medical history or anatomical considerations. Risk is not uniform across the population. For example, a person who is born with a cleft or someone who has undergone multiple facial surgeries might have altered anatomy or scar tissue that significantly increases the likelihood of complications from non-surgical procedures. My amendment would ensure that the regulatory framework could respond to those realities, allowing proportionate additional safeguards where higher risk was identified, rather than applying the same requirements to every client, regardless of clinical context.

10:45

My amendment 89 would require providers to carry out and document a pre-procedure assessment of relevant medical history and to follow enhanced informed consent procedures where factors are identified that might increase the risk of harm. At present, there is no consistent requirement to assess medical history or anatomical risk before non-surgical procedures are carried out. The amendment would embed basic patient safety principles into the regulatory framework, ensuring that risks are identified in advance and clearly explained to clients. It would not ban procedures, but would help to ensure that decisions that are made by the practitioner and the client are made with a proper understanding of potential harms, particularly for people with more complex clinical backgrounds.

My amendment 98 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on how the act applies to individuals whose risk of harm might be increased due to congenital facial difference, prior facial surgery or altered anatomy. It would also allow the guidance to cover identification of higher-risk clients, additional safeguards and appropriate referral pathways. Clear guidance benefits practitioners and clients. For practitioners, it provides clarity on how to recognise higher-risk situations when additional precautions are needed and when referral to clinical services is appropriate. For clients and patients, it improves transparency and helps them understand why certain procedures might require extra safeguards or specialist input. Although early guidance might include those protections without the need for primary legislation, guidance will change over time. By requiring guidance in statute, the amendment would help to ensure that higher-risk groups are not overlooked as practice, technology and regulatory priorities evolve.

:Amendment 93 would require the Scottish ministers to consult patient representatives, people with relevant clinical expertise and appropriate regulatory or enforcement bodies before making regulations under section 5. Non-surgical procedures raise issues that span public health, clinical safety, consumer protection and enforcement. Consultation would help to ensure that regulations are informed by lived experience of clinical insight and that it is practical to implement and enforce them. For example, patient groups can highlight where risks are commonly misunderstood, clinicians can advise on anatomical and surgical considerations and regulators and practitioners can ensure that requirements are workable in practice. That would lead to better, more effective regulation and would reduce the risk of unintended consequences.

:I thank the minister for her support and engagement on the amendments.

Amendments 26 and 27 in my name would increase the penalty that could be imposed on a person who is found guilty of an offence under the bill. Section 5(4) of the bill sets out that the maximum penalty that may be provided for in regulations under section 5(1) for a person who commits an offence created by regulations made under that section is, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Amendment 26 would amend section 5 and allow for a higher level of penalty by increasing the maximum level of fine for offences that may be provided for under regulations. Section 12 of the bill sets out that a person who commits an offence under section 2, 3 or 11 is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently a maximum of £5,000.

Amendment 27 would amend section 12 and allow for a higher level of penalty by increasing the maximum level of fine for the offences in the bill in sections 2, 3 and 11. Each of those offences would now be triable either on summary procedure or on indictment. The amendments would increase the maximum allowable fine for offences to £20,000 on summary conviction and the fine allowable on conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine.

To ask the Scottish Government how the population health framework will help to tackle the commercial determinants of health. (S6O-05532)

Giving evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the chief medical officer stated:

“Our prevention agenda is one of the most important things that we can try to do nationally to ensure that we have a sustainable health and care system for the future.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 10 February 2026; c 5.]

It is clear that we need to do more on prevention to keep people well and, over time, to reduce the burden on the national health service. When will we see comprehensive bans on marketing of alcohol, foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, and vaping?