Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government what actions it is taking to reduce journey times and congestion for commuters travelling to and from Edinburgh and East Lothian, including measures to progress with the delayed upgrade of Sheriffhall roundabout and to improve transport reliability across the region. (S6O-05677)

Public trust and economic confidence require the delivery of essential infrastructure, such as Sheriffhall roundabout, on time and on budget. Scottish people want affordable, reliable public transport, but we should not punish car users when alternatives are lacking.

Currently, there are Green Party proposals to cut an essential weekday link through Holyrood park, which is opposed by many in Edinburgh Eastern who rely on it regularly.

In East Lothian, drivers face imposed parking charges, despite clear local consensus that they are both unnecessary and harmful to the economy.

Will the Government centre communities in such connectivity decisions and not punish car drivers?

I will support Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 5.

Injectable aesthetics procedures are not typically taught as part of most undergraduate medical or nursing degrees. As a result, medical practitioners who enter the aesthetics sector often obtain their training in such procedures through separate aesthetics training courses. By contrast, non-medical practitioners, who often receive qualifications regulated up to level 7 in aesthetics practice, focus entirely on facial anatomy, complications management and safe aesthetics practice. The bill would create the odd position in which highly trained aesthetics practitioners would need to be supervised by a medical practitioner with possibly only a few hours of aesthetics training.

The bill also raises practical questions about capacity, as no clear data is available on how many prescribers actively work in the aesthetics sector or whether there would be sufficient numbers to support independent clinics across Scotland. As the minister has confirmed, the number of such clinics might be as high as 1,500.

The bill would force qualified, responsible providers to recruit medics to supervise them, but the Government cannot tell us whether that would be possible, given that data on the number of prescribers is not available. Furthermore, can the NHS afford to lose hundreds of prescribers to the aesthetics sector? A better way needs to be found, and there needs to be a pathway for non-medical but highly trained aesthetics providers to carry out perhaps not all but some treatments.

My amendments in the group would ensure that future regulations on qualifications and training properly recognise competence across the sector. Amendment 17 would require regulations to ensure that pathways exist for practitioners who hold relevant qualifications but are not healthcare providers. That would ensure that the regulatory framework recognises the range of qualified practitioners who currently operate in the sector. Amendment 18 would require ministers, when specifying qualification or training requirements, to

“have regard to recognised aesthetics qualifications.”

Amendment 23 is a consequential amendment.

Overall and taken together, the amendments would ensure that regulation is based on recognised competence and qualifications, while appropriate safeguards for patients would be maintained. They would not weaken the regulations but would ensure that the framework recognises qualified practitioners and allows ministers to regulate the sector proportionately rather than excluding the sector entirely. I hear from across the chamber that there is recognition that many women-led small businesses are going to be put out of business by the bill. If we do not support amendments such as those from Jeremy Balfour and me, there will be no pathway and those women-led businesses will be put out of business.

15:15

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.

Will the minister take an intervention?

There is a frustration among many of these women, who have spent a lot of time, energy and money building up their businesses and are fearful about what will happen to their businesses, which I think people can understand. The minister seems to be suggesting that it is the Government’s intention to provide a pathway for non-medical providers. Can the minister confirm that that is what she is saying?

I will press amendment 11. The bill will create a situation whereby practitioners who spend more than a year completing advanced aesthetics training will not be able to operate independently. That will mean that women such as my constituent and many others, as non-healthcare practitioners, would need to rely on a prescribing medic in order to operate and supervise a clinic. That is even if a provider could be found, which remains to be seen, and the costs may well be prohibitive.

The bill creates a model in which experienced practitioners will become dependent on prescribers who have no financial stake in their business while potentially offering the same treatments themselves. In practice, that means that a qualified practitioner could spend years building a compliant clinic, only to find that their ability to continue operating depends entirely on securing and retaining a prescriber, who may also be a competitor in the same market. That market—the treatments and the demand for them, in particular from young women—is growing, and in my opinion it will only continue to grow as a result of changing beauty standards that are heavily promoted on social media.

I think that there is a lack of understanding by the Government of those drivers, in particular for the consumers in the industry. I hope that the Government understands, and can see, that those from a lower socioeconomic background will not be able to afford the treatment prices, which will inevitably be driven up if all or many of the non-medical providers in the market are forced to close. It will then inevitably push those consumers into an underground and unregulated sector, which may then lead to an increase in adverse treatment effects. The bill may, through unintended consequences, force out responsible and highly trained women-led businesses and lead, unfortunately, to more women consumers getting treatment from unregulated and unsafe providers.

I ask members to support my amendments, and I ask the Government to think carefully about the issue, the predicament of women such as my constituent and the unintended consequences.

Safeguarding loses effectiveness when ideological confusion weakens practical protections across public policy. The catastrophic consequences of diluting sex-based safeguards leave the vulnerable exposed to avoidable risks. Children in care are among Scotland’s most vulnerable to exploitation, yet children in care were sold a promise instead of a plan to protect them. Brave survivors and whistleblowers have been left pleading for decisive action to close those safeguarding gaps, against talk of political legacy from those who walked away from an unkept promise.

Leadership is judged by outcomes, not slogans, and promises are not protection. Frankly, can the lack of delivery of robust safeguarding and the lack of legal consequences for all those who exploit vulnerable children be judged to be anything other than a failure?

To ask the Scottish Government how it measures success in protecting care-experienced children, in light of reports that its flagship policy, the Promise, has failed to keep vulnerable children safe. (S6O-05596)

::To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact that withdrawing funding for Wave Energy Scotland from March 2026 will have on Scotland’s ability to leverage investment, including through horizon Europe, and on confidence in the marine energy sector. (S6O-05571)