Chamber and committees

I have a slight recollection of its saying that it did not have that information, but I think that it might be useful to ask how that information might be established if it is not currently compiled.

I welcome that sensible suggestion, Mr Choudhury.

That brings us to the last of our new petitions this morning. PE2137, on fair regulation for non-medical aesthetic injectors, which has been lodged by Jordan Morrison of Mr Skulpt Aesthetics Ltd, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce an aesthetics licensing scheme to ensure that non-medical practitioners meet training and safety standards.

The petition argues that a complete ban on aesthetic injectors risks driving treatments underground, where unregulated and untrained individuals could operate without oversight, which would significantly increase the risks to public safety. The petitioner states that, by contrast, regulation would mandate accredited training, on-going education and adherence to strict safety protocols, thereby ensuring that injectors had the necessary knowledge to perform procedures responsibly.

The SPICe briefing explains that, currently, the only clinics that are regulated are those where qualified registered health professionals work; they are registered and inspected by Healthcare Improvement Scotland. A review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions recognised that, because many procedures are not fully covered by existing regulatory frameworks, anyone can purchase and administer products, despite the potential for significant harm.

The Scottish Government consulted on the regulation of non-surgical procedures that pierce or penetrate the skin in 2020, and the analysis was published in 2022, with the Scottish Government indicating that it might introduce a licensing scheme for all practitioners who carry out such work. However, that did not happen.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that its most recent consultation, which closed on 14 February, builds on the 2020 consultation by putting forward more detailed proposals for what further regulation could look like. It also states that the consultation does not propose a ban on non-healthcare professional practitioners performing injections of Botox or dermal fillers; instead, it is proposed that certain procedures should be undertaken in a premises regulated by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, and that they should be undertaken by a trained practitioner working under the supervision of an appropriate healthcare professional, who would be available to prescribe any prescription-only medicines that might be required in the procedure or to support the management of any complications.

The Government will confirm any plans for legislation that might be required once the consultation responses have been analysed.

We have all been made aware, through the media, of one or two quite distressing examples of this issue manifesting itself. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Let us not try to find appropriate metaphors, Mr Ewing.

Since you are keen to make hay with the petition, we will keep it open, if colleagues are content with that proposal. We will seek clarity from the Scottish Government on the timetable for the equine guidance, which is much anticipated, and we will then invite the petitioner to comment. Does the committee agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much for that, Mr Ewing. I can see that you have mined the depths of the Official Report of the previous meeting to resurrect the commitment that I made on that occasion, which is very good of you.

Will we agree to keep the petition open until we see the regulations, which we believe are forthcoming, and perhaps just write to ask the Government whether it can give us an indication of when it thinks that that might happen?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes, we are running out of time in this parliamentary session, and we have quite a number of health-related petitions before us. Perhaps we could identify a basket of them for the cabinet secretary, with a view to taking evidence across a number of fronts in order to get to a satisfactory point on a number of petitions that remain open in this parliamentary session.

It might be sensible that that meeting takes place after the cabinet secretary has had an opportunity to consider what the response that we are seeking will be to this particular petition, but perhaps we could flag up the opportunity to have a broader discussion with the cabinet secretary about a number of open petitions.

I suspect that the session would be post summer recess, so we would expect to have the information by then. However, given that the Parliament will dissolve in a year’s time, it would also allow us to bring all the various health petitions before us. Given the rate that we are able to discuss petitions, that would ensure that we make progress on a number of them.

We will keep PE2071 open and, as has been suggested, write to the cabinet secretary, with a view to hearing evidence from him later in the year. Are colleagues content with the proposals?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next continued petition, PE2073, was lodged by Robert Macdonald and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require the police and court services to check that address information is up to date when issuing court summons and to allow those being summoned the chance to receive a summons if their address has changed, instead of proceeding to issue a warrant for arrest, as under the current system.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 April, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Police Scotland. As noted in our papers, Police Scotland declined to provide a formal response on this occasion, indicating that the SCTS held the information that we were requesting.

The SCTS response notes that, in cases in which the accused has been released on bail, the onus is on that individual or their legal representative to ensure that the personal information that the court has is current. An application must be submitted to the court if the accused intends to change their address. Where the accused fails to appear at a pre-conviction hearing, having been lawfully cited, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service may apply to the court for a warrant for the apprehension of the accused. It is then a matter for the court to consider whether such warrants should be granted based on the information provided by the COPFS.

The SCTS publishes an annual overview of the number, type and stage of warrants that have been issued by the courts. Indeed, an extract of the latest report is included in our papers.

In view of that direction, do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Agenda item 1 is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE1964—committee colleagues might recall our discussing it at some length—which was lodged by Accountability Scotland and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an independent review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in order to investigate complaints made against the SPSO, assess the quality of its work and decisions, and establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 15 May 2024—it does not feel like it was as long ago as that, as I can remember the conversation quite vividly—when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament Finance and Public Administration Committee.

The Scottish Government has reiterated its view that an independent review of the SPSO, including a review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, is not required—colleagues might recall that that is all in relation to the fact that it has been in existence for 20 years and no review has ever actually taken place. The submission highlights the evolution of the SPSO’s functions and scope since its inception, stating that its powers and responsibilities have not remained static. The Scottish Government also highlights the existing accountability and scrutiny functions. The submission reiterates that the Scottish Government does not have the available resources or capacity to initiate and take forward an independent review due to existing commitments and competing legislative priorities.

The petitioner’s written submission of February last year called for Accountability Scotland to present oral evidence on what an independent review should consist of. Since then, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee has held a call for views on the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and has taken oral evidence from Accountability Scotland, alongside other stakeholders, so that opportunity has been afforded. It also took evidence from the SPSO. In her evidence to the committee, the ombudsman shared options for how an independent external review could operate. She said that, although a review would be attractive, there would be costs involved and stated the importance of defining the remit of and outcomes from any such review.

The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee has subsequently written to the ombudsman to share its observations. That correspondence raised a number of points, including a lack of available performance data, levels of customer satisfaction and neutrality in external evaluation. It also highlighted the SPSO’s suggestion that it might be time to reflect on the way that the Scottish public scrutinises the SPSO and proposed that the Finance and Public Administration Committee could have a larger role in scrutinising the accountable officer. Since the petition was last considered, the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee was established. It also took evidence from the SPSO in February this year. Its role is to review and develop a framework for Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body supported bodies, and it is expected to sit until 30 September this year.

Do colleagues have any comments?