���˿���

That is a very good question, and it is one that we have also discussed. As you know better than I do, there are affirmative and negative procedures. If we were adding a new procedure, it would follow the affirmative process in the Parliament, which would allow this committee to consider it and there would be a parliamentary vote. However, the provision that requires people to provide documents to prove their age, for example, is not a policy change but a procedural change. Therefore, that falls into the negative procedure area. It is important that we get this right, which is why we have been quite clear about which procedures follow the negative or affirmative processes.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak about the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill.

Part 1 of the bill was developed in response to rising concerns about the potential harm to members of the public who are seeking non-surgical procedures for cosmetic and wellbeing purposes. Its aim is to ensure that robust and proportionate regulation is in place so that anyone who chooses such procedures can do so safely. The legislation will regulate non-surgical procedures, such as procedures that pierce or penetrate the skin and which might require input from a healthcare professional, whether that is through a face-to-face consultation, the issuing of prescription medications or a medical intervention in the event of complications.

The bill contains the substantive provisions that will make the public safer by making it an offence, first, to provide such procedures to people who are under the age of 18 and, secondly, to provide procedures outwith permitted premises. Permitted premises will be safer settings by virtue of many of them being subject to oversight by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, and by being settings from which healthcare professionals provide or manage services. The involvement of healthcare professionals also supports safe and appropriate prescribing, and the bill will enable healthcare professionals to intervene in the event of complications. The settings will be hygienic and adequately staffed.

The provisions are key to protecting the public, especially young people, and they will give clients confidence in the services that they are receiving.

However, the bill must not simply capture a snapshot in time. It is vital that it can respond quickly to changes in what is a constantly evolving sector. That was a key piece of feedback from those who work in the sector. As introduced, the bill takes account of the fact that new procedures, new technologies and changes to the way in which procedures are performed will continue to occur in the sector, and they will need to be addressed in a timely manner to continue to assure safety.

Although I understand that the committee has questions about the powers that the bill takes, I would like to assure the committee today, as I have done in my letter, that those questions have been considered carefully. The Scottish Government set out its full policy intent in its recent public consultation and in the documents and impact assessments that accompanied the publication of the bill.

The regulation-making power in section 5 will enable ministers to keep provisions up to date in the future, as well as fulfilling those aspects of our intentions that we are not able to address in the bill because of our consideration of the effects of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

I assure the committee that, where regulation-making powers are taken, they will be supported by engagement with relevant stakeholders and consultation where necessary to ensure that they remain proportionate and appropriate.

I welcome any questions that the committee might have.

I absolutely agree. I will pass to Owen Griffiths, who has been leading the discussions from the Scottish Government’s perspective.

That was considered. We do an options appraisal as we gain more information. However, section 5 is not purely focused on the UKIMA situation; it also takes into account that the industry is very fast moving and that procedures can change. We might need the requirement to amend schedule 1 but, from a safety perspective, there is also a need to provide for innovation in new techniques to perform the various procedures, so the bill needs to respond to a fast-changing environment.

I go back to my response to Roz McCall, which was that the bill can makes changes in key areas, such as age restrictions and the premises that are used, that are incredibly important from a public health perspective.

On your first point, convener, it is fair to say that conversations about the bill that I have had with members from across the chamber show clear support for ensuring that we get this right from a public health perspective. I therefore appreciate the scrutiny that this committee and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee have been giving to the bill.

As you correctly pointed out, part of the situation with UKIMA relates to the fact that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are unable to set training and supervision standards for Scotland in this area. We consider that part 3 of UKIMA would be engaged by legislation that sets training standards for practitioners or prevents practitioners who do not hold certain qualifications or are not existing professionals from providing certain procedures. That was a clear concern for us when we were drafting the bill.

As soon as we recognised that, we engaged with the UK Government, and I am pleased that that engagement has been very positive. It is on-going, but we are engaging across the issue because there is a recognition that we need to get it right. As you know, the UK Government is also looking at bringing in legislation in this area of public health concern. We need to get it right for people in both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

In what respect?

The reason for introducing the SSI is to return the statute book to how it should be. The statute book has not been updated, so it still refers to “EU law”, which is no longer factually correct, because we now have “assimilated law”. That is the change that will be made.

The UK Government is currently working to improve relationships with the EU. Of course, the Scottish Government believes that Scotland’s best interests would be served by rejoining the EU as an independent member state, but, until we get to that point, it is important that we rebuild a close relationship. When the work on an EU reset is done, we will have a statute book in which that work can be integrated quickly and efficiently.

I am pleased to join the committee to consider the draft Food Safety Act 1990 Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2026. As the committee will be aware, I am advised on food safety standards and labelling by Food Standards Scotland. The proposed minor technical amendments arise as a consequence of the UK Government’s decision to leave the European Union and the need to ensure that the statute book in Scotland remains operable. Food Standards Scotland worked diligently with the Food Standards Agency and the Scottish Government to update “EU law” references to “retained EU law” references where they were found.

The instrument relates to a deficiency in the 1990 act, which provides the legal foundation for food safety standards in Great Britain. The amendments to the 1990 act were originally going to be made by a GB statutory instrument. However, once it became apparent that the Food Standards Agency and the UK Government were pausing the GB SI, Food Standards Scotland and the Scottish Government agreed that the responsible approach would be to introduce a Scottish statutory instrument instead. The approach serves to enhance the clarity and accessibility of the devolved statute book and give the Parliament reassurance that orderly preparations are being made in Scotland for an EU reset. I stress that the amendments are technical in nature and do not amount to any change in policy. They are necessary to ensure that the statute book is brought up to date. There will be no impact on businesses or any other stakeholder group. I ask the committee to agree to the proposed instrument, and I am happy to take any questions.

I have had a lot of conversations with officials, third sector organisations and public health areas and businesses. My understanding is that most people recognise what calories are, so they can make informed decisions when calories are on the product. Again, we have received evidence from Food Standards Scotland and Public Health Scotland, and more widely through Nesta and Obesity Action Scotland, about the impact of diets that are high in fat, salt and sugar on health outcomes, whether it be type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular issues and so on.

We have to be clear and understand the resource that COSLA believes that it needs.