We intend to support the amendments in the group if they are pressed to a vote.

Amendment 4 seeks to add to the list of people who should be consulted on the preparation of the code of ethics; it provides that representatives of people who have made a complaint against Police Scotland should be consulted on the preparation of the code. The bill does not currently provide for people who represent individuals who have made a complaint against Police Scotland to be consulted.

When the new code of ethics is prepared, it will be important to take into account the views of people who have experience of the system. During evidence sessions, we heard directly from people with experience of the system about the difficulties that they had incurred. To get the best version of a new code, it would be beneficial for such views to be considered.

Amendment 50 seeks to add a new section to the bill relating to the consequences of a new code of ethics for the police’s policies, procedures and guidance. It would require the chief constable to undertake a review of Police Scotland’s policies, procedures and guidance and to consider what changes were needed because of the new code of ethics. Furthermore, it would require that any changes that were identified under the proposed new section should be implemented within a year of the bill receiving royal assent. I had intended the proposed timescale to be realistic, and I appreciate from what the cabinet secretary has said that a one-year period would not be realistic.

The new code of ethics must be reflected in Police Scotland’s disciplinary policies and procedures. The new section that amendment 50 seeks to insert would ensure that the chief constable revisited Police Scotland’s policies and procedures to reflect the changes. That would address the concern that has been raised that the code of ethics will be symbolic and will have no effect. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has shown support in principle for my amendments and has agreed to work with me on them ahead of stage 3. For that reason, I will not move them today.

I thank the minister for that answer. A constituent in my region was told that her daughter had a severe dental condition that required urgent orthodontic treatment in hospital. There, they were told that there would be an 18-month wait, as there was no consultant available to carry out treatment. They were left with no choice but to seek treatment privately because there was a risk that her daughter could, if left untreated, lose all her front teeth, which would have a lifelong impact.

The treatment would normally be funded through the NHS but, because there was no consultant available, a private route had to be sought. What steps is the Government taking to address consultant shortages in NHS dental services, particularly in Ayrshire and Arran?

I thank Stuart McMillan for securing this debate on an important issue that is of real concern to many of my constituents.

Concerns have been raised by medical practitioners that Scotland’s aesthetics regulations are woefully deficient. Every day, vulnerable individuals risk putting their health and their lives in the hands of unqualified laypeople offering aesthetic procedures. Doctors, dentists and nurses are heavily regulated by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, the General Medical Council and other bodies to ensure patient safety, medicine management and insurance coverage. However, laypeople with no professional oversight or competence are free to perform the same high-risk procedures, often in unsafe and unsanitary environments, with little to no accountability when complications arise.

Unqualified and unsupervised individuals are injecting botulinum toxin, or Botox—a prescription-only drug—and dermal fillers into uninformed members of the public with no mandatory insurance or medical oversight. Training courses are unregulated, and some practitioners undergo no formal training at all. There is a wild west element to many treatments.

As Stuart McMillan has noted, there is precious little oversight from any professional body, and the consequences can be severe. It is time that the Parliament looked into the matter, because the treatments seem to be growing ever more popular by the month. Action must take place now, before the situation spirals out of control.

People who undergo shoddy treatment often end up with deep physical and psychological scars from the experience, and we cannot allow that to go on. Although I understand the desire behind the practices and I appreciate how popular some of the treatments have become, it is simply not worth the potential risk to mental and physical health.

The impact goes beyond the individuals who suffer. As Stuart McMillan has said, sub-par regulation is costing our NHS a fortune in time and resources, as our health service needs to step in at a later stage to help those who suffer from a botched treatment. Sometimes, that is correction treatment; other times, the result can be an increased demand for mental health care. In either case, poor practices and the lack of regulation are contributing to the on-going lengthy waiting times in our NHS and are putting medical practitioners under more pressure.

I recently met Lesley Blair, chief executive officer of the British Association of Beauty Therapy and Cosmetology, who highlighted the lack of regulation and standardisation in non-surgical cosmetic procedures. Such treatments are often performed not by medical practitioners but by individuals without proper qualifications, leaving consumers unaware of the risks. Lesley Blair stressed the urgent need for regulation, pointing to the tragic case of Alice Webb, who died following a botched procedure. That shows how vital it is to implement proper oversight as soon as possible. BABTAC also noted consumer surveys revealing that many people falsely believe that the beauty industry is regulated, which only increases the risks involved.

Recently, I had a meeting with the legislation team regarding a bill that would prevent under-18s from receiving such procedures unless advised by a doctor. Such legislation already exists in England. In her winding-up speech, could the minister tell us whether such a measure will be included in her consultation, and could she provide assurances that the Government will move at pace?

I thank Stuart McMillan for bringing the debate to the Parliament. The issue is important and must be examined in more detail. The Parliament has a duty to act to regulate the industry for the protection of people who might suffer from sub-par treatments. I hope that anyone considering a treatment from an unregulated practitioner will think again and exercise caution.

To ask the Scottish Government what compensation is available for any families that are paying for private urgent dental treatment due to delays in accessing national health service treatment. (S6O-03793)

I thank my colleague Tess White for bringing this vitally important debate to the chamber.

Recently, there has been increasing concern over gender eligibility in elite competitions. This is not an easy debate to have, but it is one that we must have with respect and openness to all. Many people are afraid to speak out because of fears that they will be seen as discriminatory. However, this is nothing to do with discrimination; it is everything to do with fairness in sport and ensuring that female athletes are not disadvantaged by physical differences.

Studies show that male puberty provides significant advantages in areas such as speed, strength and endurance. That cannot be ignored if we are to preserve the integrity and fairness of women’s sport. It is crucial that we approach the matter with understanding for all individuals involved. Transgender athletes deserve respect, but we must find better solutions that do not compromise fairness and safety for female athletes.

It would be unfair to female athletes not to have this debate. It is not about exclusion, but about maintaining a fair playing field. As policy makers, we must ensure an open and respectful debate that is based on facts, backed up by science and focused on fairness—with a pinch of common sense.

Sportswomen should not be made to feel uncomfortable in their own sport. Many have expressed fears over sharing their opinion publicly because of concerns that they would be seen as discriminatory. It does not seem like an open discussion if female athletes are afraid to voice their concerns about justice. In addition, we must be able to have a debate in the chamber without being afraid to take interventions on the subject because it seems controversial.

Ensuring that every athlete gets the opportunity to participate in a fair, secure and safe environment is key to preserving women’s sport in the future.

A lot of the points that I wanted to make have been covered. Are retailers knowingly selling such products or are they unwittingly selling them? You have mentioned it being a mix of the two. We have had the tuna incident, and I also note the Findus incident—that was from a while ago—in which retailers would not have been aware of the horsemeat in the products. However, it sounds to me as though the retailers that are selling the vodka are aware that it is counterfeit, as they are getting it from another source.

You mentioned resourcing earlier. It sounds like a technical job and you need a certain skill set. What are your resources like? Do you have enough staff? Are you able to find enough skilled people to fill the roles? We know that budgets are tight. Have you had any conversations with the Scottish Government about on-going budgets?

You referred to “proportionate sentencing outcomes” in your opening remarks, and to your use of common law rather than food law when progressing cases. Do the current laws provide a big enough penalty to act as a deterrent, or do they need to be strengthened?

What about the proceeds of crime? Are we getting money back from the proceeds of crime? You have said that people are making a lot of money. When we get a result and somebody is charged, does that money come back?

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this pressing issue in Parliament. Retail crime and antisocial behaviour are growing problems, and they must be urgently tackled as they have a hugely detrimental impact not only on workers but on businesses and communities across Scotland.

I am passionate about the issue. Before I became an MSP, I worked in retail for more than 30 years, so I am well aware of the impact on people’s physical and mental health, and of the damage that it causes to businesses and our economy. Abuse and violence were often part of the job then, but were far less common than they are now. Retailers paint a stark picture of the magnitude of the issues that they face and of the difficulties in tackling the problem without more support from the police or Government.

This morning, I was pleased to meet more than a dozen retailers, who told me about the scale of the challenges that they face and the level of antisocial behaviour that shop workers have to put up with, from littering, throwing food and verbal abuse to assault, knife threats and worse.

A recent report by the Scottish Grocers Federation highlights just how bad the situation has become. It reveals an incident in which staff had to confront a man who was wielding a dirty needle. Other incidents include a man throwing a bike and threatening to stab staff; a man hurling a glass bottle; a man pulling a knife on staff when he was asked to return bottles of vodka; and another man trying to bite a worker. In another incident, a group tried to run over a security team in a car when they were challenged in the car park. Those are all horrifying stories. Nobody should have to face such danger when they go to work.

The report also includes a survey of retailers that demonstrates that shoplifting has become a daily occurrence and that violence against staff happens every week. The recent recorded crime in Scotland statistics reveal just how much the problem has been allowed to escalate. When I lodged my motion, the increase in shoplifting was 21 per cent, but the most recent figures show a rise of 34 per cent. In the area that I represent, there was a 40 per cent rise in East Ayrshire and a 22 per cent rise in South Ayrshire—and worryingly, as I heard this morning, those figures only cover reported incidents. Many shops have given up reporting incidents to overstretched and underresourced police, so these criminal acts are allowed to happen without justice being delivered. Indeed, the report highlights that 76 per cent of SGF members are

“unlikely or very unlikely to report shoplifting incidents to the police.”

Behind all those statistics are real people who are simply trying to go about their work or run their businesses. They just want to earn a living, but they are being denied that opportunity, and the impact spreads across the communities that they serve and all of the people who rely on small shops.

On the recent recorded crime figures, David Lonsdale, director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, said:

“Shoplifting isn’t a victimless crime. Shoplifting is the main factor behind abuse and threats towards shop workers and we know from member feedback that thieves are becoming bolder and more aggressive.”

He added:

“The financial costs too are enormous and are ultimately borne by shoppers themselves; in some cases through higher prices on shop shelves.

With a swathe of new mandated rules in the pipeline or under consideration, and which may lead to more flashpoints in store, the SRC wants tackling crime against retailers to be made a greater priority by the authorities, including in the Scottish government’s Strategic Police Priorities, to ensure our shops are made safer.”