Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2026 [Draft]
Yes, of course we have done an equality impact assessment.
There are a few points that I wish to make. First, I sympathise with Ms Regan’s intentions. I am sure that she is trying to mitigate what many businesses see as the most challenging part of the bill. Secondly, the requirement for a healthcare professional to be involved is the most important part of the bill. The reasons for healthcare professional involvement being essential to public safety were discussed at stage 2. In many cases, prescriptions will be needed at the outset of a procedure. In other cases, it will be necessary for certain emergency medications to be available on site.
Within the United Kingdom regulatory framework for the sale and supply of medicines, non-regulated settings that deliver non-surgical procedures are not able to routinely hold supplies of prescription-only medicines without the involvement of a suitably qualified healthcare professional.
To say that the involvement of a healthcare professional is necessary is not to denigrate the skills, dedication and experience of other practitioners, who should continue to have a role in the sector. These rules can and should be complementary, ensuring that safe, professional and effective procedures are delivered.
There are other benefits to the settings that we have selected and to the rule on the involvement of a healthcare professional—for example, that healthcare professionals are subject to regulation by professional bodies.
I turn to the amendments themselves. Amendments 11 and 29 seek to add
“premises managed by a non-healthcare aesthetics professional”
to the list of permitted premises in section 4(1) of the bill. The Scottish ministers would be able to provide registration requirements for these premises in affirmative regulations.
Amendment 14 defines a “non-healthcare aesthetics professional” by reference to particular levels of qualification. Unfortunately, that training does not qualify a practitioner to prescribe medications, nor is it clear that these settings would be able to routinely hold stocks of relevant emergency medications without the involvement of a healthcare professional. These settings do not provide the safety protections required.
Amendments 12, 15 and 30 would provide for a licensing scheme to be established by regulations. Such a scheme is already set to take effect from 6 September 2027 under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures Order) 2026. That licensing scheme is appropriate for lower-risk procedures, but I do not believe that the risks of procedures covered by the bill can be adequately mitigated without the involvement of a healthcare professional.
Amendment 13 includes “a non-healthcare aesthetics professional” as one of the persons who may provide or manage services from the premises of a Healthcare Improvement Scotland-registered independent clinic in order for it to be “permitted premises” under section 4(1)(a) of the bill. Amendment 14, as discussed already, defines “non-healthcare aesthetics professional”.
I cannot support these amendments, for the public safety reasons that I have given previously. I also note that section 4(1)(a) interacts with the definition of an “independent clinic” in section 10F(2) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. Such a clinic would still need services to be provided by one of the healthcare professionals listed in that section to register with HIS.
With regard to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s support for the amendments, I had hoped to meet him in the lead-up to stage 3. Unfortunately, he was not able to meet me because of his diary commitments.
I also point out that I expect that, in implementing the bill, the Scottish Government will work with businesses in the unregulated part of the sector to ensure that they have access to support and guidance. I understand Ms Regan’s motivations, but I urge her not to press amendment 11 or to move her other amendments, and, if she does, I urge members to vote against them.