To ask the Scottish Government whether it will introduce a licensing system for local authorities to address the growing number of vaping shops. (S6O-05656)

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 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.

The allegations, and the volume of them, are shocking and will be hugely concerning for everyone using the parliamentary estate. I thank those who have come forward and shared their experiences to help to improve the culture and conduct in Parliament. In 2018, in response to the #MeToo movement, Parliament undertook work to tackle inappropriate conduct and to improve its culture. The report lays bare not only that have we not completely tackled the problem but that it might actually have got worse. That means that parliamentary and members’ staff might have been put in positions that they never should have been in.

It is absolutely incumbent on all parties to take the issue seriously and to address any and all inappropriate conduct in their groups, and I am pleased to hear the commitments that colleagues have made today. I am also pleased that one recommendation is to give staff a direct escalation line to the Parliament’s human resources team, as I think that that will help to address situations in which there are complaints between parties or in which staff feel that they cannot challenge members’ behaviour.

The public rightly expect the highest standard of behaviour from members, and it is clear that some have fallen far short of that. It is on all of us to tackle the power structures that have prevented people from stepping forward and to foster a culture in which everyone is welcome, safe and supported. My party is committed to doing that.

09:40

Thirty years ago tomorrow, 16 primary 1s and their teacher went to school and did not come home. Fifteen more were injured. Those children would have been the same age as me.

When the news came over the radio, my mum was in hospital, having just given birth to my brother. The panic across central Scotland was real. She always told us how her relief at me being safe was immediately dashed by the realisation that others did not have the same fate. Their hopes and dreams were never realised.

No words can do real justice to the pain and grief of the families who never got to see their babies grow up. My thoughts, and those of the Scottish Greens, go to all those who are affected.

We were proud to take action on a cross-party basis to tackle the ownership of handguns. As parliamentarians, we have to strive to make sure that what happened that day can never happen again.

12:05

The inspection report highlighted that the social work post at Skye house has been vacant for around three years. It is unclear whether there are plans to replace that role or, if not, how social work views and knowledge can be accessed. The report states that

“this is clearly a gap.”

Will the minister outline how social work will be engaging with the unit going forward?

To ask the Scottish Government how it is ensuring that newly built housing is adaptable for future needs. (S6O-05607)

In my region, there have been instances of disabled people having to wait for lengthy periods for housing that meets their needs. None of us knows when we might need accessible housing, and, with an ageing population, it seems sensible to invest in that type of housing stock. What action can the Scottish Government take to support local authorities to adapt existing housing that is in their control, to ensure that the long delays that we are seeing in housing being allocated can be shortened?

The Scottish Greens want to deliver free places for every child in Scotland from six months up, but the Scottish Government is not delivering the current commitment on funded childcare once a child turns three, which is an issue that we raised with the First Minister ahead of this year’s budget.

Thanks to Scottish Green councillors, Glasgow City Council is now the only local authority left that offers funded childcare to all children starting the week after a child turns three. Many families elsewhere have to pay thousands of pounds out of their own pockets while they wait for the start of the next school term.

The Scottish Government promised free childcare at three, but it has not funded it. I appreciate the issues with councils not passing on the funding, but councils are trying to plug the gap. When will the First Minister come good on his party’s promise and make sure that childcare in Scotland really is free at three?

High-quality, affordable childcare should not be a luxury in Scotland, but the current system is not delivering. This week, West Lothian Council voted to cut all funding for cross-boundary placements, meaning that parents where I live, Falkirk, who use private nurseries in Linlithgow are set to be hit with a huge unexpected bill.

Parents who have applied for places for their children will be denied them from 1 April and will now have to find alternative childcare at terrifyingly short notice. Children who are halfway through their current placement will be forced to move in August. That is an unacceptable level of disruption for young children and families who were promised funded childcare.

Will the First Minister intervene and help the families who will be impacted? Will his Government provide an urgent solution to councils cutting funding for cross-boundary childcare?