Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 12 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 687 contributions

|

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

Even in that answer, you said, “these things”, but is there a clear definition of which things we are referring to as medical procedures?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

Good morning. I am curious. I was already thinking about this because of the term “medical aesthetics”, which has come up several times. There has been a discussion about the idea that some procedures have been demedicalised, or that the term “medical” is in contention. I have a basic question. What determines whether a procedure is medical? What defines medical aesthetics as opposed to non-medical procedures that people might have for aesthetic reasons? Is it the qualifications of the person who is conducting the procedures, the setting in which they are conducted, how they are regulated or whether they are done for medical reasons—in other words, to treat a medically diagnosed condition?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

There is not an objective definition, then. We are using the term, “medical aesthetics”, but is there a clearly accepted definition of what that refers to and what it does not?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

I appreciate that there are different perspectives. From a policy perspective, I am not sure if I am more confused or less confused, but thank you for the answers.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

I do not want to step on their toes.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

Thank you.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

I think that other members will come on to enforcement and compliance later.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

Is that four-nations dialogue purely among your professional colleagues, or are you aware of that happening between Governments, too?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

Remmy Jones, do you have anything to add?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

My question is about the consistency of regulation. On the question of consistency between different parts of the UK, one view is that we should generally err on the side of consistency and regulatory alignment, because that is simpler to communicate, it is easier for everyone to understand and it avoids unintended consequences in relation to the movement of people between different jurisdictions for one reason or another. Another view is that it is not good to prioritise alignment for its own sake, and that we should align with something only if we think that it is the right regulatory position. According to that view, we should not adopt a lower regulatory position just for the sake of alignment.

On where such regulatory decisions should sit, there is again a view that, in relation to devolved matters, the devolved Government and Parliament should decide whether divergence is justified to achieve a public policy objective such as patient safety. Another view, which is embodied in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, is that the UK Government should decide, in the interests of market alignment and fairness for market operators, to impose a common approach.

What are your general views on, first, whether alignment between the different jurisdictions in the UK is important? Does it matter? Are there any unintended consequences of such alignment? Secondly, to what extent is the level of divergence or difference that is proposed in this legislation workable and manageable?