Information Relating to the Memorandum of Understanding

Date published: 23/04/2026

FOI reference: FOI25/26 276

Date received: 24/03/2026

Date responded: 21/04/2026

Information requested

I am writing under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to request information relating to the Memorandum of Understanding between SQA Accreditation / Qualifications Scotland and the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP).

Please provide:

1. The full signed version of the current MoU and any previous versions.

2. All correspondence, emails, meeting notes, internal briefings and draft documents relating to the negotiation, approval, review, renewal or amendment of the MoU.

3. Any internal legal, governance, reputational or policy assessments relating to the MoU.

4. Any documents discussing the JCCP’s legal status, including whether it is a regulator in law or a voluntary register only.

5. Any documents discussing the role of the JCCP in qualification design, standards mapping, awarding-organisation recognition or curriculum influence.

6. Any communications between SQA and the Scottish Government, DHSC or other public bodies referring to the JCCP’s role in aesthetics regulation or qualification policy.

7. Any complaints or concerns received regarding the MoU or the JCCP’s public representations of the relationship.

Response

1. The MoU is attached. Please note that we have removed the signatures of all signatories and also the names and personal details of the witnesses.

2. All relevant correspondence is attached

3. Under section 17 of the Act, when a public authority does not hold information, it must inform the applicant.

We do not hold any information relating to assessments of the JCCP’s governance status.

4. Under section 17 of the Act, when a public authority does not hold information, it must inform the applicant.

We do not hold any information discussing the JCCP’s legal status.

5. Under section 17 of the Act, when a public authority does not hold information, it must inform the applicant.

We do not hold any information discussing the role of the JCCP in qualification, design, standards mapping, awarding-organisation recognition or curriculum influence.

6. Attached are all the email communications held between Scot Gov and SQA relating to JCCP

7. Under section 17 of the Act, when a public authority does not hold information, it must inform the applicant.

We have not received any complaints regarding the MoU or the JCCP’s public representations of the relationship.

Please note that under section 38 (1)(b) we have redacted the names of SQA staff below Head of Service level as well as the names of people connected with external bodies.

We have also withheld some of the information requested under section 36(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Section 36(1) applies to information in respect of which a claim to confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings. This includes communications between legal advisers and their clients (legal professional privilege).

The information withheld consists of legal advice and discussion relating to the establishing of a Memorandum of Understanding between SQA and JCCP, and we consider that it is subject to legal professional privilege.

When an authority applies the section 36 (1) exemption it must undertake the public interest test. We have considered whether the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. While we recognise that there is a public interest in openness and transparency, there is a stronger public interest in maintaining the right to confidential communications between legal advisers and their clients, to ensure that public authorities can obtain full and frank legal advice. There is a well-established public interest in preserving legal professional privilege, as disclosure would be likely to undermine the ability of public authorities to seek and rely on such advice.

On balance, we have concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

We have only provided the final version of the MoU. Any drafts are considered exempt under section 30(b)(i)(ii) as these were drawn up to allow for discussion and sharing advice. It is important that organisations are permitted to discuss issues in a free and frank manner. If this was to be issued, it would dissuade open discussions if these were to be placed in the public domain. People would be reluctant to submit their views and would have an adverse effect on the conduct of public affairs.

When applying the public interest test, it is appreciated that releasing the information would provide openness and transparency. However, it is also important that organisations are permitted to carry out discussions in a safe place where their views are not placed in the public domain, which would hinder open discussion.

On balance, we have concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.