Meeting of the Parliament 05 February 2026 [Draft]
I declare an interest as a practising national health service general practitioner.
At the heart of the bill is one simple issue: patient safety. At present, that safety is far too inconsistent, and in some parts of the non-surgical cosmetic sector, it is worryingly fragile. Let us be clear about the procedures that we are discussing: they are not ordinary beauty treatments. They involve needles, injections, prescription-only medicines such as botulinum toxin, and substances being placed under the skin. When things go wrong, the consequences can be not minor inconveniences but permanent scarring, tissue damage, psychological trauma or even emergency hospital treatment.
Many practitioners operate responsibly. They maintain clean premises, follow proper consent procedures and know how to recognise and, most important, manage complications. Those professionals deserve recognition, and many of them actively support and want stronger regulation, because they want a level playing field. They do not want to be undercut by individuals who complete a brief training programme and immediately begin carrying out invasive procedures without the same standards or safeguards.
In one case that I heard about, a practitioner failed to recognise that a patient was experiencing a severe allergic reaction following dissolution treatment, which required urgent intervention and emergency hospital treatment. In another instance, a client received the wrong injectable product under the eyes, which caused severe swelling and required medical referral, yet they struggled to obtain follow-up care or even basic accountability from the practitioner involved.
There are also examples of proper consent procedures clearly not being followed. One patient who was uncertain about proceeding with a treatment of Botox was encouraged just to undergo the injections immediately, so that she had no time to think about it, before being given an additional procedure that should never have followed the injection. The result was significant facial complications only weeks before her wedding.
Such situations are not hypothetical risks; they are real, and they are being experienced by real people in Scotland today. We have also seen cases in which complications such as vascular occlusion following lip filler treatments have left patients with lasting disfigurement. In several of those situations, complaints were reported, but little or not effective action followed, leaving patients uncertain where to turn and responsible practitioners frustrated by the absence of consistent enforcement.
We would never allow someone in a hospital to carry out minor surgical procedures in an environment that lacked proper infection control, medicine storage, documentation or emergency preparedness, but at present those same minor surgical procedures are occurring in settings that would not meet basic clinical standards. This bill is about drawing a line. There should be proper training, proper consent, safe storage of medicines, clinical hygiene and clear mechanisms for accountability when things go wrong.
Some concerns have been raised about the potential impact on small businesses. That is an important consideration, and consultation with the sector must continue to ensure that regulation is proportionate and workable. However, patient safety cannot depend on the size of the business or the setting in which treatment takes place. Procedures performed in a small or home-based practice must meet the same hygiene, safety and professional standards that larger facilities such as hospitals have to meet. Responsible businesses understand that, and many welcome the regulation, because it protects their reputation and their clients.
It is clear that some people are buying injectables from less than reputable places, which is resulting in questions about the quality and safety of those medications. When unregulated or poorly regulated procedures lead to complications, the cost—both financial and clinical—does not disappear; it is simply transferred to the NHS, corrective medical services and, most important, to the patients who have to live with the consequences. Not only is preventing harm in the first place safer, but it is the far more efficient and responsible thing to do.
The bill should not be about restricting a sector—it should be about modernising oversight so that regulation matches the reality of current practice. The number of non-surgical cosmetic procedures has expanded rapidly during recent years, and we have simply not kept up. By establishing clearer standards, stronger oversight and appropriate safeguards, we can protect patients, support practitioners and ensure that when people choose to undergo such procedures, they can do so with confidence and in the full knowledge that safety comes first. It is for those reasons that I am pleased to support the general principles of the bill.