Alex Cole-Hamilton
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I am sure that all members will join me in expressing solidarity with Scotland’s Muslim community after the brutal and unprovoked attacks on the streets of Edinburgh last weekend. That community’s response to those attacks has not been one of violence or revenge; it has been to make a plea for tolerance and understanding.”
“All told, more than 1,400 inmates have been let out of prison since the early release scheme began, and that is because our prisons are bursting at the seams. However, that is not a strategy and it will not protect the public.”
“Let that sink in, because the language of displacement and othering is the antithesis of the cohesion that Lord Offord speaks about so regularly. Liberals believe in reform—of course we do. The Whig Government in 1832— Amanda Bland: Will the member take an intervention? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I will give way to Amanda Bland.”
“This was an opportunity for Reform to prove everybody wrong and to pepper the chamber this afternoon with speeches that were measured in tone and full of bright ideas to fix the things that are wrong in Scotland. We have heard none of that today.”
“I welcome the minister’s remarks about the Edinburgh attacks. Does he recognise, as do members on these benches, that as well as expressing solidarity with the Muslim community of Scotland, we owe them a debt of gratitude that there was no call for activism and action on the streets of Scotland by the Muslim community?”
“That is why the Government is prioritising an economy with a strength that is felt by people, businesses and communities across Scotland. Scotland is a great place and, collectively, we are making it even greater.”
The complete record
Every one of 814 lines we hold for Alex Cole-Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 17.
“That includes the crisis in our health service, which is not just a crisis in our hospitals but is born of the fact that there is such a paucity of social care in our communities that, on any given night, 2,000 of our fellow Scots are stuck in hospital, including Margaret MacGill, whose case I raised many times in the previous parliamentary session. Such people are well enough to go home but are unable to do so without adequate care to receive them. They are stuck in that awful limbo that leads to cancelled operations or to corridor care in our accident and emergency departments because people cannot be discharged into the wider hospital.”
“He has gone only backwards in his efforts and has experienced electoral decline. As the old Parliament rose and we were gavelled out of session, he could not have been clearer: he stated for the whole country to hear that, if he was to achieve the mandate necessary to call for a second independence referendum, he needed the public at large to award his party an overall majority. He fell well short of that. In large part, that was because Liberal Democrat gains in the villages and towns of this country rendered him unable to deliver what he asked the people to give him. As such, I ask that we, as a Parliament, now lay those divisive issues aside, put talk of the constitution in the deep freeze and, instead, focus on the instructions that the people who sent us to this place have been manifestly clear that they want us to focus on.”
“The Scottish election represented a massive leap forward for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, in terms of both vote share and the number of seats returned. When looking at the constituency map of Scotland, we see that we are the second party of Scotland: we have won in places where we have never won before, and we have taken a massive leap forward, with the best result for my party in nearly 20 years. The measure of that achievement was summed up well by The Times when it wrote: “In the final analysis it was the Lib Dems who perhaps did more than any other party to thwart the nationalist march to 65 seats.” [Interruption.] Do not take it from me. That is the story of the election. As much as I respect John Swinney, he has known only regression during his time as party leader of the Scottish National Party.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome you to your new role. I rise to speak to my candidacy for First Minister of Scotland in an atmosphere of hope rather than expectation. Elections are a time of choosing—this election was no different from the previous one in that regard—and the Scottish election that we have just been through was, in itself, a time of choosing. It was an inflection point at which all of us were offered our instructions by the people who send us to this place. The election also represented the final spoke in the wheel of revival for my party. I am heartily glad of that, coming as it did after the best general election result for our party in 100 years and big council gains across the country.”
“I, Alex Cole-Hamilton, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.”
“You have had to deal with difficult behaviour— some histrionics have been on display, that is for sure—but I thank you for everything that you have done for us, and I wish you well with whatever is still to come. The final thing that I will say is this. I reflect on the words of Jamie Greene, who I know is not done with Scottish politics, and Scottish politics is not done with him. He said—rightly, I think—at First Minister’s question time that the promise of this new Parliament, the Parliament to come, is there for the taking. It is a blank canvas—we can put aside a lot of the enmity that has held us back in this Parliament and reach for the better nature of the people who send us to this place. I hope that we grasp that with both hands. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the motion of thanks. Decision Time 16:47”
“It would be wrong—entirely wrong—to describe you as a matriarch in the Parliament; I think of you more as a big sister and, like a big sister, you have been there to offer support. When it was difficult for the Liberal Democrats to come in when we were not officially a group, you met me, as their leader, every month to keep me up to speed with what was going on in the Parliamentary Bureau. I wish that I had always taken your advice. There was one occasion—I think that it was actually the funeral of the late Queen—when you suggested that I might consider using the facilities in Westminster abbey before we sat down. Four and a half hours later, I really wish that I had done, and I had to barge past Emmanuel Macron to use the bathroom. Presiding Officer, that support and advice has, I know, been extended to everyone in the chamber.”
“I think of the quiet bedrock of support with which they have provided each of us in those late late-night sittings, while we have considered some very controversial and difficult issues that our constituents sent us here to discuss. Then, of course, there was operation unicorn, when, in the most sombre circumstances—the passing of Her Majesty the Queen—they showed this Parliament and this country at their very best, in particular by working through the night, as I know that so many of them did. It was in those days around the passing of the late Queen, Presiding Officer, that I think I got to know you the most, as you were a constant source of advice on protocol and things like that.”
“I thank especially—he has given me permission to do this—my lovely younger brother, Nick Cole- Hamilton, who is in the booth today. Nick has, in effect, held the broadcasting sword of Damocles over me for much of my parliamentary career, with the power to mute my microphone, and I love him all the more that he has never exercised that power— Members: Do it now! [Laughter.] Alex Cole-Hamilton: Each member of our staff in this institution exhibits professionalism every day, and none more so than when circumstance and situation command it of them. When the Parliament needs to be in full sail in the eyes of the world, they have it thrumming like an America’s cup yacht. I think about the state opening of Parliament, which was conducted while we were still in Covid restrictions, and the staff managed to make that work.”
“There are too many outgoing MSPs to mention by name, but I will mention Beatrice Wishart, my chum from the northern isles, who has been a passionate advocate for Shetland and has kept me right on a thing or two. I thank all those who are leaving Parliament and their staff. Let us remember that our careers as parliamentarians are built on the backs of staffers who have bigger brains but smaller pay packets than we do. We owe so much to them for our success, so I thank them. I also thank the Parliament staff. There are too many branches and directorates to mention, but I thank the cooks, the caterers, the posties, the porters, business information technology, payroll and pensions, human resources and all the clerks for all that they do. My thanks go in particular to broadcasting.”
“I start by paying tribute to both Deputy Presiding Officers, and I echo the words that have been said about you. In particular, I say to Annabelle Ewing, what a loss you will be to the chamber—I wish you well with whatever comes next. There is a poignancy about today. I think about the giants of Scottish politics lost to us not just from this parliamentary session but from parliamentary sessions that have gone before, whether that is Jeane Freeman or our beloved Jim Wallace, but I particularly echo the remarks that have been made about Christina McKelvie, who was always a good friend to me and a wonderful centre of light and warmth at the heart of our chamber. They will all be missed.”
“There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business. Remote, Rural and Island Communities (Sustainability)”
“Presiding Officer, I want to very briefly comment on an individual parliamentarian who is sitting to my left and who is about to respond to the final members’ business debate of this session—Mairi Gougeon. Mairi and I were both elected a decade ago, in 2016. She has been an outstanding Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; she has been an outstanding constituency MSP for the people of Angus North and Mearns; and she has been an outstanding friend. I will miss her dearly when she leaves us. It will be for our next Parliament and Government to consider whether they wish to institute a national ban on mobile phones in schools. I hope that I return to play my part in that debate and decision. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate.”
“Mr Kerr spoke more broadly about local discretion, which, in practice, he argued, leads to variation. I agree, but that is a feature of our education system—currently. It need not be under a future Parliament. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, I appreciate that you are trying to respond to everybody, but I am conscious of the next debate and of the fact that all the members are here and ready for that to go ahead. Perhaps you could bring your remarks to a close. Jenny Gilruth: I apologise. However, I want to pay tribute to you, too, for your service to the people of Cowdenbeath. [Laughter.] I shared Mr Rennie’s smile as you advocated for Lochgelly health centre. You were always very supportive towards me when I was first elected 10 years ago, and you will be much missed on the SNP benches, too.”
“It was helpful for us to hear yesterday from the outgoing chair of the Scottish Youth Parliament, Ellie Craig, who delivered time for reflection. Paul O’Kane talked about girls restricting their actions on certain apps to protect themselves. That made me reflect on the fact that—I do not know whether he has noticed this—a number of female members of the Cabinet have now taken themselves off the platform known as X. We have taken action to protect ourselves in our roles. It is a gendered issue, as anyone who has seen the recent “Manosphere” documentary on Netflix will attest to. We need to be mindful of that in our schools when we talk about mobile phone technology, because girls experience it in different ways, and the majority of our teaching profession is also female.”
“We need to think about wider behavioural change, too. Willie Rennie made some interesting points about digital technology and potentially limiting the time for certain subjects. I agree with his comments about the narrowness of the debate thus far. The question that is worth asking is whether a national ban, were we to introduce legislative change in the next parliamentary session, would be enough for our schools. If the next Government is to legislate on school education, we need to be much more ambitious than simply considering a mobile phone ban. Sharon Dowey rightly spoke about adult use of technology, as I alluded to. We also need to be mindful of our own behaviour in the chamber. Brian Whittle spoke more broadly about the need for us to engage with young people.”
“If colleagues speak to headteachers about how they have gone about implementing bans, they will find that doing so takes time. The headteacher at Portobello high school, for example, took nine months to implement a ban. Doing so involved engagement with parents and pupils. Getting buy-in and support for the approach took time—it could not happen overnight. I might be the only MSP in the chamber who has ever confiscated a mobile phone from a 15-year- old boy. Such situations can be fractious. It is important that we remember that headteachers and teachers are dealing with young people and that behaviour is sometimes a challenge in our schools, as we heard from Mr Kerr. It is important that we support teachers in responding to those matters accordingly. In itself, a national ban will not provide the resolution that Pam Gosal wants.”
“Miles Briggs spoke about the impact of mobile phone devices on childhood development and children changing but the pace of technology not necessarily keeping pace with what is happening in our schools. It is important to put on the record that the Government has today published the first online safety action plan, which is part of our response to those emerging issues. The action plan is the outcome of a task force that was led by Natalie Don-Innes and Siobhian Brown. I thank both ministers for their vital work in bringing together partners and stakeholders to ensure that the Government has delivered action on the matter before the Parliament rises. Paul O’Kane was quite right to say that a ban in isolation is not the answer.”
“There is a wider, political, point to be made on this issue. I do not want to prejudge what might come from any political manifestos in this space, but I hope that Pam Gosal can hear that I am seriously considering wider action in this space. I want to pay tribute to Audrey Nicoll, to her final contribution in the Scottish Parliament and to her service as the constituency member for Aberdeen South and North Kincardine. Audrey Nicoll has played a key role in convening the Criminal Justice Committee throughout this parliamentary session, and her contributions in the chamber, as Willie Rennie alluded to, have always been thoughtful, intelligent and well reasoned. People listen when Audrey Nicoll speaks, and she will be much missed on the Scottish National Party benches and in the Scottish Parliament when she leaves us.”
“Headteachers have a fear of going ahead with something that they do not have your backing for. It is good to hear you say that you see cross-party consensus on the matter, but if you come back into Government, will you commit to making sure that we look at banning mobile phones in schools, and will you provide that direction to schools through legislation? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind the member to always speak through the chair. Jenny Gilruth: I remind Pam Gosal that the foreword from me at the front of the national guidance document makes it very clear that any headteacher will have my backing as cabinet secretary should they see fit to implement a ban but that, ultimately, the decision as to whether to do so is at their disposal. That is because we trust headteachers, who know our schools, to take such decisions.”
“Now, not only on mobile phones but on restraint, as I mentioned, and in relation to Liz Smith’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, there are growing asks from Parliament. The next Government will have to consider legislative change in our schools, which is one of the reasons why I have committed to the wider John Wilson review of our approach to school education. Miles Briggs alluded to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which is a piece of legislation that I have cited on many occasions. Pam Gosal: I have been speaking to the councils in my West Scotland region, and one of the things that they asked for when I brought up the subject was clear direction—guidance, legislation or whatever you want to call it—from Government. That is what they need.”
“In previous debates relating to mobile phones, I have mentioned how we interact in this place and how we listen to each other, or not. This morning, I was at a fabulous visit in Wester Hailes with Sistema Scotland and the little noise programme, and the chief executive pointed out to me the importance of creating such screen-free spaces for mums and dads to come along with their babies, where wee ones can play and listen to one other, without having phones there. Pam Gosal mentioned the number of schools that are now moving to implement bans, supported by the Government’s approach to setting out our views on mobile phone technology in schools. It is fair to say that, as I alluded to, the policy landscape has shifted since 2024, when I updated the national guidance to make our expectations on mobile phones clear.”
“We saw that only yesterday with stage 3 of Mr Johnson’s Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill. On that topic, the Government had published updated non-statutory national guidance, but there was an ask from Parliament and stakeholders for us to be much clearer on providing direction, and we legislated for that yesterday. Pam Gosal was absolutely right to point to the fact that children’s brains are still developing. That was a common theme throughout the debate. Members spoke about the public health implications, which Mr Cole-Hamilton also touched on. We discussed that matter at the Cabinet table only yesterday, as the First Minister mentioned at First Minister’s question time. As adults, we need to be mindful, too, of our use of technology and how it is affecting us all. Sharon Dowey touched on that.”
“I believe that the cabinet secretary has found common ground with the consensus that is emerging in this debate. However, does she recognise that an act of this Parliament is sometimes required to create the kind of cultural shift that we are talking about, as it was for the ban on smoking in public places? Does she agree that we need to back our headteachers by underpinning the guidance with legislation that will give them the confidence to have those discussions with families and, culturally, will mean that we all understand that it is no longer acceptable to have mobile phones in classrooms? Jenny Gilruth: I very much recognise Mr Cole- Hamilton’s point, which is reflective of a growing ask from Parliament for more national direction.”
“I hope that she can put her back and some teeth into the issue, to give us a bit more than just the passing of guidance to schools—to make sure that we have legislation. That is what the Scottish Conservatives will bring back in the next session of Parliament, to make sure that we ban smartphones in all Scottish schools. 13:01”
“We must be proactive in keeping our children safe while improving the quality of the education that they receive. There will be many reasons for parents saying that their children still need mobile phones—which can easily be addressed—such as the need to contact their children during the school day or the fear that their children might feel excluded from their peers. However, on balance, mobile phones do more harm than good, and it is worth sharing good practice from schools that have moved forward with a ban. The evidence is clear: excessive smartphone and social media use harms children’s wellbeing, safety and ability to learn. As MSPs, we all have a duty to protect young people. A ban on mobile phones in schools in Scotland is the right way forward. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s remarks in her closing speech.”
“Luckily, some schools have implemented such bans, and the Scottish Conservatives support their efforts, as case studies have shown that such bans work. Portobello and Queensferry high schools, in Edinburgh, are taking part in a two-year trial that involves pupils locking their phones in pouches during the school day, with consultation responses showing that 97 per cent of staff and 94 per cent of parents favour limiting phone access. North London now has more than 400 smartphone-free schools, while Northern Ireland has introduced guidance to ban or heavily restrict phone use throughout the day. Other countries, too, have or are considering a ban on the use of mobile phones in schools. Those include France, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Georgia, Malta and many others. Let us not make Scotland the last place to implement such a ban.”
“There has also been a sharp rise in road accidents and children being mugged after school as they have been walking around staring at their smartphones, completely unaware of their surroundings. The Conservatives were the first party in Britain to support a ban on social media use for under-16s and have long backed a full ban on mobile phones in schools in Scotland. In the next session of Parliament, we will introduce a mobile phone ban bill, to ensure that pupils can focus on learning and to end the postcode lottery of differing school policies. Current guidance that has been produced by the Scottish Government allows individual headteachers to limit the use of mobile phones as they see fit. That risks creating a postcode lottery whereby phones are banned in some schools but not in others.”
“At the same time, we must not forget that excessive smartphone and social media use exposes children to inappropriate content such as violence, pornography and the generation of deepfakes involving, for example, girls’ faces being put on naked bodies. Predators are not hanging around our playgrounds any more, because it is now much easier to find vulnerable children online. We all know that, in schools, children are often distracted by their phones, which undermines their ability to focus in the classroom. Mobile devices disrupt learning and are sometimes used to record pupils, teachers and staff without their consent. We have heard in the chamber numerous examples of girls being filmed in unisex school toilets by boys.”
“Smartphones and excessive social media use pose many dangers to children’s physical and mental health, and they create safeguarding issues. I will now refer to some eye-opening statistics. The average teenager today spends five and a half hours a day on their smartphone. If they continue at that pace, that will amount to 25 years of their lifetime. Teens are twice as likely to have anxiety and three times as likely to have depression as other groups, with one in five 16 to 18-year-olds saying that social media makes them feel that life is not worth living. Two out of three 11 to 17-year-olds find it difficult to put their phones down. Pre-teens lose the equivalent of a night’s sleep per week due to their use of social media. At the same time, 73 per cent of teens take their phones to bed with them. Those statistics are shocking.”
“I am grateful to the member for hosting the round-table event that she has described, which I attended. She is quite right to frame the issue in a public health context. I believe that, in a few years’ time, we will look back on this period with an understanding that mobile phone use in schools has as damaging an effect on public health as nicotine had in the previous century. Does the member agree that we need legislation to back headteachers and that we cannot just leave things to them but must reinforce their position through legislation that takes mobile phones out of classrooms entirely? Pam Gosal: I absolutely agree, and the member will hear later in my speech that the Scottish Conservatives will introduce legislation to address that point in the next session of Parliament.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to protect people receiving and awaiting social care packages, in light of recent reports that industry leaders are warning that home care services are heading towards a “catastrophic breakdown”. (S6T-02979)”
“That is why, with all my heart, I hope that we change the law tonight. 19:05”
“I respect and have great admiration for many of those who have spoken in opposition to the bill, but we have made sure that, if it passes, you will never be forced to choose it. I ask members: please do not take the choice away from the rest of us. I have no real fear of death itself, but I have abundant fear of dying. Uncontrollable breakthrough pain frightens me. Asphyxiation and an inability to swallow frighten me. More than anything else, the loss of my identity and the lack of recognition of those I love frighten me. I want to be able to choose a different end and to remain the author of my life’s story until the very last word, but the law as it stands makes death a lottery—a potentially cruel and terrifying uncertainty that all too many Scots meet the sharpest edges of.”
“We should consider that, over the decades, not a single one of those countries or territories has ever reversed that decision. If this were so readily exploitable or dangerous, there would be examples of repeal—but there are not. The narrow scope and significant safeguards of Liam McArthur’s bill as introduced have only been strengthened and enhanced by the quality and depth of the amendments that we have made as the bill has moved through the Parliament. The guardrails around the bill are unprecedented. This is one of the safest approaches in the world. Please do not vote against the bill because you are waiting for a safer one. In this moment of final decision, all that is left for us to decide is whether we support the idea of choice at the end, or we do not.”
“That is the barbaric and inhumane compromise that we have settled for, where emaciated bodies are made as comfortable as possible but are still left to a lingering death that can take many days. The provisions in the bill offer patients in the end stages of life a far more gentle and dignified alternative to that—but only if they are terminally ill, only if they are aged 18 or over, only if they have mental capacity, only if they are acting of their own volition and only if their clinicians agree that they have fewer than six months left to live. That is a powerful matrix of safety, and the member in charge has drawn from the very best practice of those jurisdictions that have gone before us. We benefit from that because we are not pioneers in this. More than 300 million people live in jurisdictions that already offer assisted dying.”
“I have no comparable experience from my own family or friendship group to offer the Parliament, and I am profoundly grateful for that, just as I am grateful for the strength of those who have shared those stories, framing the debate around the human at the heart of this, speaking about their loss of agency, their loss of dignity, the agony of it and the terror of it, distilling into heartbreaking clarity what really matters at the end and how, all too often, people are robbed of so much of that in their final days. Medical culture and practice have led us to a point where life can be foreshortened, but only with the removal of sustenance and fluids.”
“I start by echoing the tributes that have been paid to my friend Liam McArthur and his excellent team for getting us to this stage. Throughout our consideration of the bill, I have listened with quiet awe and, at times, great sadness to the testimony of colleagues and constituents who have lost the people they love in the most brutal and unforgiving of circumstances. I have nothing to match that.”
“As the framework that the bill will introduce is implemented, it will be important for the Government to engage closely with practitioners—I am glad that we have heard that today—to keep the framework under review and to ensure that the regulations remain proportionate, workable and focused on patient safety. Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the overall aim of improving safety and strengthening oversight, but we offer the caveat that we must protect hard-working and well-qualified practitioners who just want to protect their businesses. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 16:22”
“However, there remains the risk that, if the system is implemented with the inflexibility that we saw at stage 1, some responsible practitioners—many of whom are self-employed—in the largely female- led sector could find themselves regulated out of the profession altogether. I do not think that any of us wants that to happen. I am gratified that I think that I saw a chink of light in the minister’s remarks, in that, through regulation and the bill’s implementation phases, her Government will work with the sector on a more rational implementation. An inflexible approach would not improve safety; it would simply remove skilled providers and risk pushing activity outside the regulated system. If we do not get this right, some of the procedures will still take place, but in a black market setting and at higher risk.”
“However, I reiterate that we still have concerns about the bill’s potential impact on trained practitioners who are currently operating safely and responsibly. Those practitioners also want regulation and bad actors to be removed from this field of work. Throughout the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, we heard consistent evidence that many practitioners in the sector have, at massive personal cost, invested heavily in training, qualifications and professional standards under the existing system. As I said, many of those practitioners support regulation, because they want bad actors to be removed and confidence to be strengthened.”
“There has been no single framework that sets out where such procedures can take place, who is qualified to perform them and what minimum standards should apply in their administration. That lack of clarity benefits no one—neither patients nor responsible practitioners. For those reasons, Scottish Liberal Democrats have supported the principle of regulation at every stage as the bill has progressed through the Parliament. We believe that the move towards a more risk- based and proportionate framework, with a distinction between higher-risk procedures and lower-risk ones, is sensible. Likewise, restricting higher-risk procedures to appropriate premises, providing proper oversight, prohibiting procedures for under-18s and giving Healthcare Improvement Scotland inspection and enforcement powers are all important steps forward.”
“However, I repeat the caveats that I made in my intervention on the minister and in my earlier remarks in relation to Ash Regan’s amendments: we must not plough on with this legislation and send to the wall those high-quality businesses and professionals who have sought to get the maximum qualifications and deliver the highest quality of service that they can. As we know, part 1 of the bill addresses higher- risk procedures that appear to penetrate the skin, including treatments such as dermal fillers, botulinum toxin, thread lifts and deep chemical peels. Those procedures are often marketed as routine or low risk, but when they are carried out incorrectly or by people without adequate training, the harm can be serious, lifelong and deeply distressing. For too long, regulation in the area has been fragmented and unclear.”
“I start by clarifying that the Liberal Democrats have sought to engage with the bill. It is unfortunate that the minister and I could not make our diaries align so that we could meet directly on it. I am grateful for her offer to do so, and I will take that up if there is time before the dissolution of Parliament. I will certainly work with whoever the minister in charge is in the next session of Parliament to make sure that the legislation works for everyone. The bill brings forward important reforms that are necessary. Its intention is to strengthen public safety and, by so doing, improve confidence in the sector and in the regulation of non-surgical cosmetic procedures. We will support it at stage 3.”
“Further information, guidance and advice on seeking support will also be produced. I expect the Scottish Government to work with businesses and the associated industry in setting training and qualification standards and in considering the requirements of Healthcare Improvement Scotland registration, to ensure that there are no unnecessary hurdles for businesses. I do not know what will be the composition of the Parliament that oversees the implementation of the bill if it is passed, but I am sure that that Parliament will hold the Government to account on all those matters. Once again, I thank the committees, members, business owners, providers and clients whose input has helped to shape the legislation. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill be passed. 16:06”
“As a result, I believe that the bill that we are voting on today is a balanced one that will achieve public safety aims, especially the protection of under-18s, while protecting the space for a thriving sector. To Mr Cole-Hamilton’s point, the journey towards a safe, regulated and thriving sector does not end with this bill. I will take this opportunity to set out what I think must come next. In particular, I will set out how the Scottish Government should work with businesses in both the regulated and currently unregulated parts of the sector. Clear information is needed for all businesses. If the bill is successful, officials will host a webinar for businesses before the start of the pre-election period, to explain the bill as amended today and more about what it means.”
“In her carefully considered contribution, Ms Mochan stated that “introducing further restrictions is a necessary step towards improving patient safety”.—[Official Report, 5 February 2026; c 88.] Many of the amendments today and at stage 2 sought to amend the bill to mitigate the impact of some of the requirements that the bill introduces. I urged members to resist those amendments not lightly but because they weakened aspects of the bill that are necessary to achieve our public safety aims. Neither the provisions in the bill nor our plans for future regulation go as far as some members would like, and they do not restrict procedures as much as in many European or comparator countries. However, I was not prepared to endorse proposals that I did not think were absolutely necessary.”
“I recognise that it is not possible to bring regulations to a fast-growing sector without causing some disruption to the businesses that are already operating within it. That was raised clearly in the stage 1 debate and had been raised with me well before that, too. I assure members that I understand the impact of the bill. I have considered it carefully and, in doing so, I have met currently unregulated businesses and have heard which aspects of our approach are most challenging for them. In explaining my approach to those concerns, I recall some of Carol Mochan’s comments from the stage 1 debate.”
“I also thank the members of the bill team. Their determination and dedication to capture every detail required for the bill has been key to ensuring that the right balance has been struck. The bill will make procedures safer for everyone. It will ensure that all procedures take place in appropriate hygienic settings, where healthcare professionals are involved in the provision or management of services and can assist if there are complications. It will also make it an offence to provide procedures to a person who is under 18. The bill is complemented by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures) Order 2026, which establishes a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk procedures.”
“I thank members and their constituents who have tirelessly raised those issues with Government. I hope to hear from some of those members this afternoon, and I hope that those constituents are watching our progress. Most of all, I hope that the bill meets the challenge that they set out for us. I am also grateful to the members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which have given the bill careful consideration. Their recommendations were balanced and reflective of the need to protect public safety while ensuring that our approach was proportionate and balanced. Likewise, the contributions of members who lodged amendments or who have spoken to me over the past few weeks are very much appreciated.”