Meeting of the Parliament 05 February 2026 [Draft]
I will touch on that later in my contribution.
As well as having meetings with members, I have heard directly from a wide range of interested groups and have met practitioners from the clinical and non-clinical parts of the sector. Events were hosted during the consultation period for non-healthcare practitioners and businesses, and we met groups representing doctors, nurses and other professionals. We received more than 2,000 responses to our consultation and almost 600 responses to a survey that was directed at businesses. We also met regulators and professional bodies.
The bill will make procedures safer for everyone. It will ensure that 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 such procedures to a person who is under 18. An order has been introduced separately that establishes a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk procedures.
Although we should protect the right of adults to access non-surgical procedures safely, I am confident that I speak for a large majority when I say that those procedures are not suitable for people under 18. It was reassuring to see the provisions on that being backed strongly by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The provisions also address the gap between Scotland and England, where Botox and fillers are already banned for under-18s. The bill goes further, covering a wider range of procedures, to enhance that protection.
I will cover the point that Mr Cole-Hamilton raised. Although there is compelling support for the action we are proposing, I recognise that, as with all public health actions, there is a need to minimise the impact on legitimate and well-intentioned practitioners. We have listened carefully to all those who have offered views on the bill. I reflect on the concerns of people in parts of the sector that are currently non-regulated and not clinically led. I have been impressed by the skill and expertise of many practitioners and business owners, the vast majority of whom are women. Many are clearly committed to being well trained in their work and operate with careful regard to safety.
I have no interest in putting unnecessary burdens on those businesses. I do so only if I think that it is necessary to achieve the wider public safety aims that I seek to achieve. However, I know that the proposals will be a challenge for some businesses. There is scope for guidance and support for businesses that are looking to transition to the new regulatory regime, and some businesses may be able to offer licensable procedures instead. I have committed to giving businesses time to make the changes that they need to make.