Chamber and committees

I am pleased to speak in the debate and that the minister has introduced legislative proposals this session.

There has been a massive expansion of the non-surgical procedures industry, against a backdrop of a lack of regulation. We know that procedures that can carry the risk of serious complications, ranging from burns and infections to stroke and, as the minister said, even death, can currently be routinely offered by individuals with minimal training, sometimes with a lack of infection control, consent or aftercare. I have met some of the survivors of such procedures who have suffered significant injury.

It is clear that the lack of regulation is leading to real harm. Clients deserve to know that everything is being done to ensure that a procedure is being carried out in the safest way. At the moment, many users of services are unaware of the risks involved with the procedures that they are getting and of the lack of regulation.

Over the past two years, Advice Direct Scotland has handled 430 cases relating to beauty and cosmetic procedures. Analysis of a random sample of 50 recent Advice Direct cases relating to non-surgical procedures found that 48 per cent involved reports of physical harm or adverse effects and that, in most of those cases, consumers sought professional medical assistance and required treatment.

There is a proliferation of procedures being provided, and the increase in demand for them is amplified largely through social media advertising. They harm young women in particular.

Charities have warned that Scotland’s standards for patient safety are falling behind those of the rest of the UK and other countries in Europe—a point that was made earlier in the debate. The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland has reported that 16 per cent of surveyed medical practitioners have treated someone between the ages of 16 and 20 following complications from unregulated cosmetic procedures.

Many of those young women were probably not aware of the potential risks. We have heard reports in the media about children as young as 15 seeking help after experiencing medical issues from receiving Botox and filler. Save Face, a UK Government-approved register, has warned that, year on year, nearly 90 per cent of the people who make a report to it found their practitioner on social media, and the ages of people who report are getting lower every year. The need for fair and proportionate regulations to ensure the highest standards in patient safety is clear.

I therefore appreciate the efforts to introduce through the bill a statutory framework to regulate high-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures. I was concerned that we might not get any legislation on this issue this session, so I am genuinely grateful to the Scottish Government that we have the bill in front of us today, because we need regulation to be in place as soon as possible.

I welcome the recommendations that were sent out in the stage 1 report. I believe that the Scottish Government must put in place appropriate support and guidance to help the transition to the new regulatory regime by clarifying requirements for clinical supervision.

The Parliament has to say very clearly today that we need regulation as soon as possible. I am therefore pleased to support the general principles of the bill.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to thank our colleague Monica Lennon and her staff for all the work that they have undertaken to bring forward this important bill. I also thank the committee members, clerks and all the stakeholders who have been involved in scrutinising the bill ahead of the stage 1 debate, and I thank those who have campaigned for it.

Today, the Parliament is being given the opportunity to support the general principles of the bill and to take a clear stance in defence of our environment. We recently passed the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which rightly set targets in relation to environmental protection, but those targets will be meaningless if they are not backed up by action.

As members have made clear in the debate, ecocide is a serious threat to our environment that we must act to prevent. Monica Lennon is correct to say that we must be more ambitious. Ecocide is the destruction of our natural environment by human beings through deliberate or negligent acts. We have already seen various examples of potential ecocide internationally, from the use of chemical agents in warfare to mining, fracking, destructive fishing practices and the deforestation of the Amazon. We have also seen many deliberate actions that harm our environment in the UK. Water companies have been accused recently of illegally dumping sewage in our rivers and seas.

The bill is a way in which we can begin to take more action to deter the environmental threat that is posed by ecocide. As members have highlighted, the bill would create a new and specific criminal offence of intentional or reckless acts that cause severe environmental damage. We hope that it would deter individuals and corporations from engaging in environmental harm through sanctions, including imprisonment for individuals and limitless fines for corporations, and empower courts to seek compensation to address environmental damage.

Although Scotland would be the first nation in the UK to pioneer such an approach to deter ecocide, members have rightly noted that the bill would align Scotland’s approach with actions that have been taken by a number of other countries. Countries including France and Belgium have already passed legislation to address the threat that ecocide poses, while the environmental crime directive requires member states to strengthen penalties for severe environmental harm.

The committee made clear in its stage 1 report that Scotland lacks a clear offence that reflects the consequences of deliberate or reckless environmental destruction. I understand that the committee expressed concerns, which members have spoken about today, about definitions and how the bill would interact with existing legislation. Monica Lennon has indicated that she is willing to work with the Scottish Government and other members to address some of those issues should the bill progress to stage 2. Given the lack of time remaining in this session, I hope that that work is undertaken.

Scottish Labour is clear that the Parliament should agree to the general principles of the bill. We hope that it would never be used but would act as a deterrent. We also think that it is important to have it in place, in addition to the offences that currently exist, in the event of serious destruction of the environment. Adding a specific criminal offence to deter ecocide to the environmental offences that already exist could send an important signal that Scotland is serious about environmental protection. I hope that we will pass the bill at stage 1 today and that that will lead to further discussion about what more we can do.

You obviously want to keep up a good relationship with your employer, and that is a positive thing, but the obvious worry is that there has been a delay due to the forthcoming election. What is likely to be proposed might be very unpopular—and the money has not been allocated in this year’s budget for the expanded role.

What impact do you expect this year’s budget, which we are examining now, along with the 2026 spending review, to have on plans for service reform? Will the proposed budget that you have now seen have an impact?

You are saying that you fear that both station closures and job losses are coming.

In your submission, on the potential reforms that are being considered, you say:

“it is unlikely that we will be in a position to make a final decision before the pre-election period begins in March.”

Can you give us more detail on the work that is being done on service reform and when you expect to make a final decision? Are you able to share any information on the timetable?

Are some of those issues around climate?

I understand that you will be publishing your proposals and your thinking, but will all the raw data and submissions be published? Will that be available to the public?

I am a little concerned that we are straying from the legal point. I understand that you have a long-term programme of work, and I have heard many people mention that wet wipes are being used at the scenes of incidents, but the point that I am making is that you are sending firefighters out when there is no safe system of work and you have legal liability. What is your response to that? It is clear that firefighters are regularly being contaminated when they attend scenes and that there is no safe system of work in that regard.

I appreciate everything that you have said—we have heard that evidence previously—but I need to put to you the point that the fire service is exposed. What is your response to that?

Will you be publishing submissions?

There may be practical issues around it, so it would be very helpful if you could write to us about that.

I have a supplementary question that picks up on some of the points that were made at the end of the earlier evidence session, which you may have heard. I know that you are well aware of the risks to firefighters in relation to decontamination and no doubt are giving a great deal of consideration to how the service responds to that. You have already mentioned the requirement to provide a safe system of work for firefighters. Legally, you have to provide a safe system of work and you should not be sending firefighters out unless there is a safe system of work in place. It is quite clear that, currently, there is often no safe system of work. How are you responding to that? What are you doing now to ensure that you meet your legal responsibilities as an employer?