Meeting of the Parliament 05 February 2026 [Draft]
Like many other members in the chamber, I have received correspondence from medical aesthetic practitioners and non-medical aesthetic practitioners. Between both groups, one message is consistent—the need to ensure public safety.
I will support the principles of the bill at stage 1, but with the expectation that amendments are made to ensure that we reach the correct balance that ensures public safety. One botched procedure is one too many, and it can have life-altering effects. We must eliminate cowboy practitioners who have inadequate or, indeed, no training. I have seen horrific photos of procedures that have gone wrong, which also result in additional work for our hard-pressed NHS staff. In that respect, it is disappointing to be told that, due to insufficient data collection, we do not truly know the impact that botched procedures have on our NHS. That area needs to be improved.
If the bill proceeds to stage 2, we must ensure that safe non-medical practitioners can transition and continue to practise. I hosted a round table late last year with a number of non-medical practitioners, who told me of their concerns. Some have paid upwards of £30,000 towards training and even more to ensure that their salon is up to standard. With the lack of a training framework in the bill, they face an uncertain future.
On the face of it, we would assume that everyone with a medical qualification would be more capable of providing those procedures than someone without one. However, some of the practitioners I have met have undertaken extensive training in aesthetic anatomy; meanwhile, someone with a medical qualification that is unrelated to aesthetics could complete a shorter course and be legally allowed to perform those procedures without having the same specialised skill and experience.
That is not to say that either non-medics or those with medical qualifications are more qualified; it is simply that we need a smart approach to who can perform the procedures. I understand that the Scottish Government cannot implement training standards without the consent of the UK Government, due to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I note that the minister has written to her UK Government equivalent, to determine how both Governments can collaborate. Non-medics must be able to transition with Government-approved training. I urge the UK Government to work constructively with the Scottish Government on that point.
The committee makes it plain that there is still vital work to be done to ensure that the bill works, and I agree that it lacks certain important, clear definitions. How many supervising clinicians must be on site? What exactly does supervision mean? Such points need to be tightened up to avoid exploitation. If the bill does not work as hoped, I fear the unintended consequences for the industry. Mass closure of businesses and an increase in running costs and, thus, customer prices might drive practitioners underground and create an unwelcome black market, which would greatly increase the risk to the public.
In order for the bill to achieve its aims and improve public safety, it must include the implementation of a regulatory body. The committee has raised concerns about the ability of Healthcare Improvement Scotland to enforce the bill, and I urge the Government to take note of those concerns.
If the bill passes at stage 1, it is vital that we take the entire industry with us. We have an opportunity to make the industry safer and better regulated, and we must grasp that opportunity with sensitivity and understanding.