Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee 24 February 2026 [Draft]

24 Feb 2026 · S6 · Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Item of business

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Balfour, Jeremy Ind Lothian Watch on SPTV

Good morning to the minister and her team.My amendments are the result of, first, my discussions with a number of constituents who have raised concerns with me about the bill and, secondly, a number of emails from and meetings with the Federation of Small Businesses, which has, again, expressed concerns about the bill.Amendment 37 would require the Scottish ministers, before adding any new procedures to schedule 1, to carry out a formal risk assessment and consult representatives of the beauty and aesthetics sector, small businesses and other relevant stakeholders. Whenever we introduce something that will make a change, it is important that we get the balance right between ministers being able to act quickly and the appropriate consultation taking place. Amendment 37 would introduce a clear safeguard into the bill to ensure that any future expansion of the regulatory regime was preceded by proper evidence gathering and meaningful engagement with those affected. That would prevent a certain group or lobby from being able to go ahead without the proper consultation. It would also protect the bill—which will, hopefully, exist for a number of years—if ministers cannot go down alleys that the rest do not agree with.The amendment would not remove or limit ministers’ ability to amend schedule 1. Instead, it would ensure that their power was exercised through a defined and transparent process. Decisions to bring additional procedures within scope would need to be supported by an assessment of safety risks, consumer protection concerns and economic impact, and would need to be informed by the views of practitioners and businesses that would be directly affected by any change.I think that we all agree that the regulation of non-surgical procedures is a fast-moving area. New treatments and techniques are introduced regularly, and public concern about safety continues to evolve. Therefore, it is likely that, over time, proposals will be made to expand the list of regulated procedures. Although it is important that ministers are able to respond to emerging risks, it is equally important that any expansion is proportionate and based on clear evidence of harm. At the moment, I do not see there being a role for others to raise concerns about any proposal that is made. Will there be any consultation with those who carry out the work?The sector is made up largely of small businesses and microbusinesses, many of which operate with limited administrative resources and on tight margins, which means that regulatory changes can have a significant financial and operational impact. Even well-intentioned reforms might lead to higher compliance costs, service restrictions and unintended barriers to entry.Amendment 37 seeks to ensure that future decisions take account not only of safety but of practical delivery, workforce implications and economic sustainability. It seeks to embed in the operation of the bill transparency, accountability and evidence-based decision making. In doing so, it supports an approach that would be responsive to risk but that would also be measured and would help the sector to respond in a predictable way.If amendment 37 was agreed to, ministers would retain the ability to add new procedures, where that was justified. However, that power would be exercised within a clear and accountable framework. Businesses and practitioners would have greater confidence that changes would not be introduced without proper scrutiny and consultation. In addition, the quality of future regulatory decisions would likely improve, as stakeholder input would inform policy at an early stage.In summary, amendment 37 would ensure that flexibility was balanced by responsibility. It would allow ministers to respond to new risks while ensuring that expansion of the regime was evidence based, proportionate and properly consulted on. I would have thought that that is what good laws should look like, and I am surprised that, at the moment, the minister seems unwilling to accept the amendment. I look forward to hearing her closing remarks.

Search Hansard contributions

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee 24 February 2026 [Draft]

In the same item of business