Meeting of the Parliament 05 February 2026 [Draft]
The debate has been interesting, and I am learning a lot. The bill brings together two distinct sets of reforms that aim to protect the public while strengthening confidence in the regulatory systems around such procedures.
Part 1 addresses the regulation of higher-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures, which are procedures that pierce or penetrate the skin, and products such as dermal fillers, botulinum toxin, thread lifts and deep chemical peels. Those products are often marketed as routine or low risk yet, when they are carried out incorrectly or by those without adequate training, as we have heard several times today, the harm can be very serious, permanent and deeply distressing.
At present, regulation in the area is fragmented and unclear. There is no single framework for setting out where those procedures may take place, who is qualified to perform them or what minimum standards they must meet. That lack of clarity benefits no one—neither patients nor responsible practitioners. For those reasons, the Scottish Liberal Democrats agree that regulation is needed, and we will offer our cautious support for the bill at stage 1.
I say “cautious”, because we attach caveats to that support, which I will lay out. The bill’s attempt to introduce a risk-based proportionate framework, including the proposed two-tier system that distinguishes between higher and lower-risk procedures, is sensible. Restricting higher-risk procedures to permitted premises with appropriate medical oversight is sensible in principle. Although the prohibition on carrying out such procedures on under-18s is long overdue, the inspection and enforcement powers that are to be given to Healthcare Improvement Scotland will be essential if the system is to work in practice.
However, we must pay attention to the potential unintended consequences. I raised that in my intervention on the minister, as did Maurice Golden, because we have heard consistent evidence that, unless implementation is handled carefully, or an amendment is not made to the bill, there is a risk of harm to the well-trained and responsible practitioners who currently provide those services safely and professionally.
The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee highlighted inconsistencies with training and qualifications across the sector. We agree with the committee’s call for clear national standards and a better definition of the competencies that are linked to levels of risk. That clarity matters, not just for future entrants to the profession but for those who are already practising, many of whom have invested heavily in training under the current system.
The Federation of Small Businesses has also raised important concerns. Its members support regulation as a means of flushing out bad actors and improving public safety, but it has warned that the bill as drafted risks harming trained practitioners who are currently operating safely. Scottish Liberal Democrats agree. A constituent of mine who falls into that category recently got in touch and visited me to explain that the bill as drafted risks putting her out of business due to its requirement for her to have a medical professional on site every time that she is working, whether that is in her home or someone else’s. The sector is largely female led and is dominated by self-employed practitioners.