Hansard

The Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill seems to be a classic example of the way in which the Government has started to make law, which is that it sees that there is an issue and rushes into legislation while, unfortunately, listening to only one side of the argument. Often, it ignores women’s voices—we have seen that time and again—and it is entirely blind to unintended consequences.

The majority of aesthetics customers—80 per cent, we think—are women, and the majority of providers are women. I make it clear at the outset that I want aesthetics services to be provided in safe, clean premises by qualified practitioners. However, I am concerned that that is not what will happen, should the bill be passed. We are all aware that aesthetics is a growing area. Whatever we think of that, I cannot see it declining over the next few years. New innovations come through every few months, and the number of first-time clients is growing. Therefore, Scotland needs to get this area right.

Eighty per cent of the providers in this space are non-medical. I was contacted by a constituent, who I imagine is far from unusual in this context. I will put her story to the chamber, because she feels that, despite doing everything right, nobody is listening to her. She has been running her own clinic for 16 years, supporting herself and her young family. She also employs other women, many of whom are mothers with small children who want to work flexibly. She holds regulated Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation qualifications in aesthetic practice at levels 5 and 7, which cost her £15,000. The level 7 qualification also required more than a year of structured study covering facial anatomy, complications management, clinical assessment and patient safety. She also maintains level 3 first aid, including anaphylaxis training.

She told me, in her own words:

“My clinic operates as a fully licensed premises. I hold a skin-piercing licence from Edinburgh City Council. My business is fully insured, and insurance within the aesthetic sector requires practitioners to demonstrate appropriate training, treatment protocols, risk assessments and clear procedures for managing complications before any cover is granted.”

Those safeguards are already a fundamental part of responsible practice in this field.

She continued:

“In the past year alone, I have safely treated 496 injectable clients in my clinic. But under the current drafting, the interaction between sections 3 and 4 of the bill means that permitted premises are effectively limited to clinics run by a prescribing doctor, nurse, dentist or pharmacist. In practice, that means that the ability to operate a clinic may depend on professional title rather than on aesthetic-specific training or experience.”

My constituent is what we say that we want: she is someone who is responsible, safe, highly trained in her field and a responsible employer. However, because she is non-medical, like 80 per cent of the providers in the industry, she would not be able to continue her business—which she, like many other women, has built up and invested thousands in over the past 16 years—as it is.

From the reading that I have done so far on the subject, it appears that the Government does not know how many women, like the constituent I mentioned, it will be putting out of business or out of a job. I wonder whether the minister can cover that issue when she next gets to her feet. I feel that this is irresponsible law making and that, potentially, such businesses should be being compensated. If the legislation is going to result in business closure, at the very least, the Government should know how many businesses will be affected.

My amendments in the group would ensure that the bill recognises appropriately qualified non-healthcare aesthetics practitioners and premises within the regulatory framework. Amendments 11, 13 and 14 would recognise non-healthcare aesthetic professionals in section 4. They seek to define that role by reference to a qualification threshold, which I know that the Government mentioned in earlier stages of the bill’s progression. Amendments 12 and 15 would allow ministers to establish by regulation a licensing scheme for non-healthcare premises. Those regulations could set minimum standards for premises and could specify which procedures it was permitted to provide. That would ensure that qualified practitioners and properly regulated premises would not be excluded simply because they sit outside traditional healthcare structures.

Amendments 29 and 30 are consequential amendments that would ensure that regulations that were made under the proposed provisions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would mean that Parliament could scrutinise and approve the regulations at a later date.

Overall, my amendments would support a proportionate and workable regulatory framework that recognises competence and qualifications across the sector.

I move amendment 11.