Information concerning Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) standards: FOI release

Information requested

1. Any records referring to the JCCP Competency Framework, JCCP education and training standards, JCCP approved education and training providers, JCCP practitioner standards, or JCCP qualifications material.

2. Any records discussing JCCP standards in connection with Scottish regulation, licensing, consultation, impact assessment, bill development, policy options, stakeholder engagement, or implementation planning.

3. Any records discussing whether JCCP standards, frameworks, documents, registers or qualifications material should or should not be used in Scottish policy development.

4. Any records discussing whether JCCP standards, frameworks, documents, registers or qualifications material should or should not be referred to in public-facing Scottish Government material.

5. Any records discussing qualification levels, competence standards, beauty therapists, independent practitioners, non-healthcare practitioners, non-medical practitioners, injectables or dermal fillers in connection with JCCP.

6. Any records discussing whether Scottish Government should distinguish between statutory healthcare professionals, voluntary register members, independent practitioners, and beautysector practitioners when considering non-surgical cosmetic procedure regulation.

Response

I have conducted searches relating to the JCCP and a range of terms designed to capture the material you have described in reference to Part 1. I attach two Annexes relating to this information.

• Annex A contains records identified from 1 January 2018 to the end of 2025.
• Annex B contains records identified from 1 January 2026 to 31 March 2026

You will note that these records contain some references to either the JCCP’s standards for their own registrants or proposals made by the JCCP with the intention of supporting decision making about future standards to be set by the UK or Scottish Government. I have considered all these parts of your request and concluded that any records which discussed JCCP standards in any context would also refer to those standards, as such please take these two annexes as containing all the documentation relevant to these four parts of your request. Insofar as that material does not meet the descriptions of documents or records you have given in these parts of the request please consider this formal notification, under Section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not hold this material.

The documents in Annex A precede the introduction of the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill (Now the Act).

The documents in Annex B are from the period where the Bill was undergoing its parliamentary
process.

It remains the case that standards for qualification or training for practitioners have not yet been set, and no decisions about such standards have been made. Consultation is required under the terms of the Act before any regulations setting training standards under Section 5 of the Act are made.

In respect of both Annex A and Annex B some material has been withheld under Section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (personal information) this has been clearly marked and wherever possible contextual information (e.g. email domain names) included to help support understanding of these records.

In respect of Annex B some material has also been withheld under Section 29(1)(a) of FOISA (Policy Formation). As discussed above the relevant information relates to the early stages of policy consideration, in which wide consideration is being given to different options.

This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, I have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. I have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. I recognise that there is some public interest in release because the matter of training standards is of considerable interest to businesses. This consideration in favour is outweighed by the public interest in favour of upholding the exemption. In favour of upholding the exemption I have particularly considered that:

• It is in the public interest that in developing policy there is scope for options to be discussed in a broad sense, without undue consideration for how comments or discussions may be perceived or considered by others. This includes the need for a space for proposals to be made at an official level that are ultimately discounted.
• This is an area of active policy development, and as such the risks of release are particularly high, compared to an area of historical interest where it may be in the public interest to understand how policy was formed, but the risk of material being misinterpreted is much lower due to the existence of subsequently published information on the same topic.

The exemption has been applied as conservatively as possible, and the records will hopefully provide information relevant to your request in that it may demonstrate to what degree JCCP standards are being discussed or considered at this point.

Considering the range of issues highlighted in parts 2-4 of your request, and the need to contextualise material removed from Annex B I have taken a broad view on scope within the documents shared, and have not removed any material, for instance relating to alternative information around training standards from these documents.

Response to your request – Part 5

In part 5 of your request you seek information about various items of discussion with JCCP. For the purpose of this request I have assumed this to be discussion in relation to JCCP standards. I make this assumption considering the wider context of this request, including the preceeding four parts, your explanatory preamble and the title given “JCCP standards, competence framework and Scottish Government policy records”

Insofar as such records are held I am comfortable that they have been released in the two Annexes referred to in reference to Parts 1-4 of this request. In particular I note the following:

• That the JCCP framework for their own registrants highlights a range of discussion levels and competence standards, and these appear fundamental to that framework.
• That the JCCP framework, considering information on their own website, appears to apply to any of their registrants, insofar as the JCCP registers both healthcare professionals and non healthcare professional providers – although the details of this may apply differently.

Insofar as the material released does not meet the descriptions given in this part of the request please consider this as formal notification under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not hold this information.

If you are interested in such a discussion in broader terms I would be happy to consider a further request to this effect, however in the interests of providing assistance and advice in relation to such future requests I would highlight the response you received to the case reference 202600508622 in respect of part 1 and 2 of that request, in which you were advised that broad searches re: JCCP appear to exceed the cost limit. I note that the areas of discussion you highlight are likely to be present to some degree in a high proportion of records relating to JCCP and that such discussion is also not necessarily likely to be evident from document metadata/ titles of emails etc.

In part 6 of your request you are seeking information about distinctions drawn between different types of practitioner or professional. As above I have assumed that this is in specific reference to our engagement with the JCCP, for similar reasons to those set out above.

I have conducted a number of exploratory searches and I have not identified any records further to the material shared with you in Annexes A and B in reference to parts 1-4 of this request. These do contain references to certain healthcare professionals as distinct from other practitioners. I am not aware of any discussion with JCCP about any distinction being drawn between members of a particular register (including the JCCPs own registers) being treated differently from other practitioners.

Insofar as the material released does not meet the descriptions given in this part of the request please consider this as formal notification under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not hold this information.

If you are interested in this question in broader terms I would be happy to consider a further request to this effect. Again in the interests of providing assistance and advice in relation to such future requests (and in partial explanation as to why the Scottish Government may not hold records that you may expect) it may be helpful if I highlight that the regulation of healthcare professionals is largely a reserved matter for the UK Parliament, and certain distinctions between healthcare professionals and other practitioners are not in fact matters for the Scottish Government. In terms of distinctions in relation to membership of certain registers you may find it helpful to consider the discussion of self regulation as an alternative to statutory intervention in the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

FOI 202600517036 - Information Released - Annex A

File type

PDF

File size

934.7 kB

FOI 202600517036 - Information Released - Annex B

File type

PDF

File size

948.8 kB