Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2026 [Draft]
I confess that when I saw this bill come before Parliament, I did not expect to engage directly with it. However, over the past few months, like Alex Cole-Hamilton, Ash Regan and others, I have been approached by numerous sole traders and businesses about the effect that the bill will have if it is passed, particularly on small businesses and on the young women who have sought to carry out these procedures as a trade.
The intention behind amendment 5 is to ensure that non-surgical cosmetic procedures are carried out safely and by people who have the appropriate level of expertise. Although the procedures are often described as non-invasive, we know that, when things go wrong, there can be significant consequences, including infection, tissue damage and long-term complications. For that reason, it is essential that those who carry out the procedures independently have a sufficiently high level of training and competence.
At the same time, I recognise that many practitioners in the sector who have spoken to me have invested significant time and effort in gaining meaningful qualifications and building professional standards. Amendment 5 is very much about recognising expertise. It would ensure that those with the appropriate level of qualification could practise independently with confidence, and it would give the public assurance that the standards would apply across the sector.
Specifically, amendment 5 would allow practitioners to provide non-surgical procedures unsupervised if they were a regulated medical professional or a non-medical practitioner with a qualification relevant to the procedures that they were providing
“at a level at least equivalent to level 11 of the Scottish credit and qualifications framework.”
Such qualifications reflect a high level of knowledge and competence, as would be appropriate for independent practice.
Importantly, amendment 5 is not about shutting people out of the sector. If a practitioner did not yet meet that threshold, they could still be allowed to practise, but they would do so within a framework of supervision by an appropriately qualified medical professional. That would allow people to continue working, gain experience, develop skills and, ultimately, get the qualification.
Amendment 5 aims to strike a fair and proportionate balance. It would recognise and support practitioners who had undertaken advanced qualifications, and it would ensure that robust safeguards were in place for the public.
Ultimately, we need to provide public safety and protect small businesses. If we do not do that, people will go to other parts of the country, they will set up completely unregulated businesses and there will be greater health consequences as a result. Many small businesses will close, and people who have put in a significant amount of money will be put out of work. Ultimately, people who undergo such procedures deserve to have confidence that the person treating them has the right expertise and that the appropriate oversight exists.
I believe that amendment 5 would provide for that, and I encourage colleagues to support it.
I move amendment 5.