Chamber and committees

:I think that the Scottish Government’s response is deeply inadequate, if I am honest. I think that the Scottish Government has determined that there is a series of definitions that it is seeking to make around fresh produce and ultra-processed food. However, ultimately, the petitioner’s aim is to provide our children with healthier options at school and I honestly think that the Scottish Government has missed the point.

That said, I also feel that there should be consideration of local authorities and those who provide school meals and data should be gathered. However, I struggle to see how it is possible for us to do that. Perhaps more worryingly, were we to keep the petition open, given the aim of the petition to ban ultra-processed foods in school meals, we might end up with those who provide the meals—whether it is food service providers or local authorities—mimicking the Scottish Government and going down the definition route, rather than ultimately trying to help our children to have the healthiest possible start that they can have during school time.

Therefore, unfortunately, I think that the petitioner’s aims would be best served by closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders and for the petitioner to look at the issue again, perhaps with a petition that is more focused on healthier options and not focused on terms such as “ultra-processed”, in order to let the new committee in the new session of Parliament look into the issue in some detail.

It is a dilemma for the committee because the process has not concluded. All we have to offer the petitioner from the Scottish Government is potential, in the form of a series of reviews and considerations, which may or may not yield the results that the petitioner wants. It is difficult to see how we can adequately conclude on the basis of that.

Nevertheless, I think that the best outcome for the petitioner is to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders and then allow the petitioner—if, heaven forbid, these reviews do not yield the results—to come back with a petition that is specifically targeted at the remaining asks. That is probably the best way forward because—we would hope—there should be some movement in terms of the various reviews and considerations that are going on.

:It feels as though the committee has not got to the bottom of the issue, but the central point is to do with the number of different responsibilities that are split across different agencies and different parts of Government. For example, we have SEPA, the Scottish Government’s national flood resilience strategy and local authorities, of which there could be several along a riparian basin. The nub of the petition is that the petitioner would like there to be someone who holds responsibility and accountability for flood risk management, but that is not the approach that is taken in Scotland. That is a potential problem. In the north-east, I have seen that communities want support, but everyone blames someone else.

Nonetheless, although I am loth to close the petition, I struggle to think of anything that the committee could reasonably do, given the substance of the ask and the Scottish Government’s comprehensive responses. Unfortunately, the petitioner might have to go back to review the position and resubmit the petition. The committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

:I was reminiscing about working for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority 20 years ago. That is another story.

:I think that the Scottish Government’s response is deeply inadequate, if I am honest. I think that the Scottish Government has determined that there is a series of definitions that it is seeking to make around fresh produce and ultra-processed food. However, ultimately, the petitioner’s aim is to provide our children with healthier options at school and I honestly think that the Scottish Government has missed the point.

That said, I also feel that there should be consideration of local authorities and those who provide school meals and data should be gathered. However, I struggle to see how it is possible for us to do that. Perhaps more worryingly, were we to keep the petition open, given the aim of the petition to ban ultra-processed foods in school meals, we might end up with those who provide the meals—whether it is food service providers or local authorities—mimicking the Scottish Government and going down the definition route, rather than ultimately trying to help our children to have the healthiest possible start that they can have during school time.

Therefore, unfortunately, I think that the petitioner’s aims would be best served by closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders and for the petitioner to look at the issue again, perhaps with a petition that is more focused on healthier options and not focused on terms such as “ultra-processed”, in order to let the new committee in the new session of Parliament look into the issue in some detail.

:I have lodged probing amendments on two areas, the first of which is permitted premises. The rationale behind those amendments is that they would allow permitted premises to be outwith a healthcare setting if they were able to meet the safety criteria, which is where I believe the committee and the Parliament are coming from.

The route of allowing licensed non-healthcare premises could be aligned to risk level, infection control standards and inspection requirements. That would allow services to operate safely while maintaining accessibility for communities. Aligning premises requirements with the risk and complexity of procedures would support patient safety while avoiding unnecessary service closures or market consolidation.

My second set of amendments is about prescribers on premises and explores the idea that the default model of requiring a prescriber to be physically present on premises risks creating barriers to service provision. The amendments acknowledge that patient safety is determined not by physical presence alone but by clear governance, accountability and access to appropriately qualified prescribers when clinically required. A named prescriber model within a defined geographical radius, supported by robust protocols, escalation pathways and remote availability, would reflect how prescribing oversight already functions safely and lawfully in the majority of healthcare and aesthetic settings.

:I am happy to press amendment 59.

:Amendment 76, as well as the other amendments in this group, seeks to ensure fairness in the regulation of the sector. In my opinion, the sector should have been regulated at least a decade ago, and perhaps before that. Had that happened, the market would not display the distinctions that we see today. Through no fault of their own, non‑medical aesthetic practitioners now face a perilous future, and the amendment seeks to assist them in the transition to a newly regulated sector.

Unfortunately, neither the minister, committee members nor anyone else can go back in time and ensure that the regulations were brought in when they should have been. We are where we are now, and we must address the issue of those who now face being outwith the regulated sector unless they do a significant amount of additional training. Essentially, the amendment attempts to fix what Parliament did not do.

I move amendment 76.

As a result of an article appearing in a national newspaper today, I should put on the record that my girlfriend works in the aesthetics sector. Private lives should remain such. I have no financial links to the sector and am happy to speak privately to members following the meeting.

Amendment 36 is intended to prevent the expansion of scope without evidence, enforceability, assessment or consultation. Amendments 38 and 39 make the case that, as the minister has highlighted, there is less risk with the procedures to which the amendments refer. However, I accept the minister’s argument that those procedures are not risk free. My intention is not to move the amendments at stage 2.

:Amendment 59 would require transparent evaluation of whether the regulatory approach improves safety without having a disproportionate impact on access, business viability, workforce and enforcement capacity. Alongside that, I would hope that it would help to improve data capture and therefore inform future regulatory practice, and ultimately improve safety.

I move amendment 59.