Official Report 500KB pdf
Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures) Order 2026 [Draft]
Item 3 is consideration of an affirmative Scottish statutory instrument. The purpose of the draft order, which requires approval by resolution of the Parliament before it can become law, is to establish a licensing scheme for the provision of certain non-surgical procedures that pierce the skin and which do not require the input of a healthcare professional. It will ensure that such procedures are provided only in appropriate settings, and it will designate the activity as an activity for which a licence under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 is required from 6 September 2027. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the order at its meeting on 20 January and made no recommendations in relation to it.
We will now have an evidence-taking session on the order with the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health and supporting officials. Once our questions are answered, we will proceed to a formal debate on the motion.
I welcome Jenni Minto, Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health; and, from the Scottish Government, Rachel Coutts, lawyer, and Owen Griffiths, legislation team leader. I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures) Order. The order is part of a suite of legislation to regulate non-surgical procedures—a sector that is currently unregulated. Such procedures can cause serious and lasting damage if they are not performed correctly, and this is one of two substantive steps that we are taking to reduce the potential harm to customers in Scotland across a range of procedures. The order sits alongside the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill, which is currently at stage 1.
The order establishes a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk non-surgical procedures that pierce or penetrate the skin. Such procedures do not require the input of a healthcare professional, as any risks can be appropriately mitigated through the imposition of hygiene standards and by requiring the use of appropriate materials. Procedures covered by the order include laser and light treatments that do not damage the skin’s surface; shallow microneedling; fruit and glycolic acid peels; and advanced electrolysis.
In contrast, the bill regulates a range of more invasive procedures where we believe healthcare professional input is required to ensure safe treatment. Taken together, the two pieces of legislation will allow us to provide a differentiated and proportionate approach to the range of procedures available.
The order sets out a number of mandatory licensing conditions relating to the hygiene of premises, equipment and processes, and it also requires that non-surgical procedures not be carried out on individuals under the age of 18. Those conditions are key to protecting the public, especially young people, and they will give customers confidence in the services that they are receiving.
As with the bill, the definition of a non-surgical procedure in the order does not include procedures that are undertaken by a person acting on behalf of the health service or by a healthcare provider for the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury. Where the removal of skin lesions, for example, is carried out by a person acting for, or on behalf of, the health service or by a healthcare provider as part of the prevention or treatment of an illness, that will be exempt from the definition of a non-surgical procedure.
Again, as with the bill, the order does not include any provision for training or qualifications. That is due to the effects of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which we have discussed previously. We continue to work with the UK Government on that issue, and we will legislate for training and qualifications when circumstances permit us to do so.
I welcome any further questions that the committee might have, and I encourage members to support the progress of this order.
Thank you. The committee does indeed have a series of questions for you, and we will move straight to them.
Good morning. What is the rationale for classing higher-risk procedures as being suitable for local authority licensing, instead of restricting them to Healthcare Improvement Scotland-regulated settings?
We have taken a lot of advice and done a lot of work on this to ensure that we feel that the right procedures are being given the right and proportionate regulation. We expect local authorities to work closely with Healthcare Improvement Scotland to ensure that, if any questions arise on the procedures covered by the order that are being carried out in local authority-licensed premises, they get them right. As I said in my opening remarks, this is part of a suite of legislation to ensure that non-surgical procedures are given the right regulation.
How will the Scottish Government address concerns that, under the scheme, non-medical practitioners could end up carrying out procedures on potentially cancerous lesions? How will the list of skin lesions or blemishes be reviewed to address that risk?
11:00
Those are important questions. I know that the committee received thorough evidence in that regard from healthcare professionals and those who provide non-surgical procedures. We will clearly set things out in the guidelines, but it is fair to say that—this ties in with our promotion of the “Be the Early Bird” campaign on detecting cancer early—if someone has regular treatments, the beautician or whoever provides those treatments could advise that the person sees a healthcare professional if they notice any changes, as one would expect. Our guidelines will support that, because I recognise the importance of the issue and the questions that I was asked by the committee when we were talking about the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill.
On the regulatory boundaries, what is the Government’s response to concerns that the distinction between the respective scopes of the bill and the order might not be clear, particularly in relation to the technical thresholds of procedures? Will the Government commit to fund appropriate training for local authority officers so that they can navigate the technical challenges with enforcement?
We have been doing work in this area specifically to understand what support might be needed between local authorities and Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Those organisations already work together, but I commit to the Scottish Government working with them to ensure that there is a much more collaborative process. There is evidence of them working together previously: for example, the Scottish licensing of skin piercing and tattooing working group brought together different organisations to ensure understanding and consistency among the organisations that would be controlling that process.
We are clear that, if the procedure is covered by the bill, the responsibility is with Healthcare Improvement Scotland, and if the procedure is covered by the order, the responsibility is with the local authority.
How will the Scottish Government ensure that local authorities can develop clear and workable guidance? There are concerns that it can be challenging to distinguish the thresholds relating to microneedling depth and chemical peel penetration, so it will be challenging for those on the ground to distinguish procedures that are covered by the bill from those that are covered by the order. How can we be confident that there will be clear and workable guidance on those technical thresholds?
Before I bring in Owen Griffiths, I note that all the work that we have done to get to this stage has been clear. The consultation responses were clear on whether a procedure should be covered by the order or by the bill, and some changes have been made as a result of those responses. In schedule 1, we have laid out descriptions of each of the procedures that the order will cover.
It might be helpful to provide a few examples of how things might work in practice. This is why it makes more sense for this to be covered in guidance rather than in the legislation.
You mentioned chemical peel. There is a distinction between the types of products that are likely to be used in procedures that are covered by the bill and those that are used in procedures that are covered by the Scottish statutory instrument. It would not be appropriate for the bill or the SSI to list individual brands, products or compositions of chemical peel, but it would be appropriate for that level of detail to be set out in guidance. That will provide an unambiguous reference point for practitioners, who will know what is likely to be acceptable, and for environmental health officers, for example—if they saw certain products being used in premises, that would provide a strong indication as to whether they were appropriate for procedures covered by the bill. As I said, it makes sense to set that out in guidance, which can provide some unambiguous steers of that nature.
That is helpful. I also want to ask about a method of escalation for officers in local authorities. Could a central expert panel or some sort of troubleshooting service be established, or could there be an early introduction of the enforcement mechanisms so that, if there are borderline procedures or other uncertainties, they could be referred to some sort of expert adjudication?
In an earlier answer, I referred to work that was done by the skin piercing and tattooing working group. I am not ruling that in or out, but it is a suitable way of ensuring that those in local authorities have the appropriate training and understanding.
We are talking about guidance rather than putting something into the bill, because procedures will evolve and there will be changes to chemicals or microneedling, which I had never heard of before we started on the bill. Do we need to allow flexibility because procedures will evolve?
I agree, and Owen Griffiths set that out clearly in his response to Mr Sweeney.
The order does not set any knowledge, training or skills requirements for licence applicants. That is different from the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Skin Piercing and Tattooing) Order 2006, which requires councils to decide whether an applicant is fit and proper, based on their knowledge, skill, training and experience, or that of the people who are doing the work. It is not clear whether local authorities will be expected to make decisions on a similar basis under the new rules, or whether guidance will be issued. Will the minister provide clarity on that point?
I recognise the importance of training and qualifications standards, which was also clearly reflected in the views of stakeholders during the consultation. The Scottish Government has set out that we want that level of qualification, but we also believe that section 3 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 will be engaged by any legislation that sets out provisions for training and qualifications, especially standards for practitioners, and prevents practitioners who do not have that qualification from practising.
When I gave evidence during the session on the bill, I indicated that we have been having in-depth conversations with the UK Government about this. Earlier this month, I wrote to Karin Smyth, who is the UK Government minister who is responsible for this area of public health, and I have copied that letter to the committee. Work on this is on-going, which is why it is not included in the order.
Given that we are talking about the safety of those who access the services, what confidence does the minister have that that issue will be resolved with the UK Government so that those safeguards are in place for people in Scotland?
As Gillian Mackay will be aware, the UK Government is also consulting on similar regulations for non-surgical procedures, which is why we are working closely with the UK Government to understand where it has got to on this. Work is also on-going with training providers on what the courses could be.
I want to spend a bit of time looking at local authority capacity and resourcing. Local authorities told the committee that they were concerned about their environmental health officer capacity, because, as we know, there are a lot of vacancies in the system. There is also concern that the licensing fees alone may not cover the cost of the system, especially in the start-up phase, when there is a lot of training and development of processes and initial inspections that will be resource intensive. Will you set out how the Scottish Government intends to support resources or give additional support to ensure that local authorities can fulfil their new licensing duties effectively?
I recognise from other areas of my portfolio as well as this one the stretch that is required for environmental health officers in Scotland and the key roles that they carry out across the board.
I recognise that there will be some additional work for local authority environmental health officers and the licensing departments in processing licences. I also understand that the EHOs are currently doing an amount of work in this area without any direct resourcing, through investigating health and safety concerns. Under the order, they will have the ability to source cost recovery. It will be local authorities that will set the levels of fees for the licensing. We will provide guidance.
I see this as an important piece of public health regulation and, I hope, legislation as well. I will commit to working with local authorities and alongside Healthcare Improvement Scotland to ensure that we have the right structures.
One of the other issues that were raised with us is the fact that, although EHOs have been operating and dealing with tattoo and piercing licensing since 2006, this stretches their expert knowledge to an area that they are perhaps not familiar with and which is outside of their usual expertise. Will you set out how the Government—or perhaps the expert group that you talked about—could facilitate learning in order to extend EHOs’ knowledge to cover this?
This is a replication of what happened with tattooing and the fact that there was a group working together to ensure that there was that knowledge. We have taken that issue away, and we will be looking at it.
Perhaps such a group is where the Government could develop and provide national tools, templates and implementation guidance to reduce the administrative burden on local authorities, which they are concerned about, and ensure that decisions are consistent across the country.
That is a good point: we need consistency across the country. There is a role for the Scottish Government to play in that, and there is also a role for COSLA and the providers of these non-cosmetic procedures. I hope that that will be pulled together to ensure that we have consistent regulations across Scotland.
Good morning. In reply to Elena Whitham, you talked about awareness within councils. Do you commit to raising public awareness nationally? It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the public know where to access information and that the public are aware of the status of practitioners and what they can deliver. How will the Government go about dealing with that?
As we have been going through this process, the importance of public awareness has been highlighted. It is fair to say that people assumed that this area was already regulated. The coverage that the committee has been creating in taking evidence and what has been in the media—whether that is radio, television or print—is all very important and has helped to move us along on this journey.
It is fair to say that a lot of the advertising for these types of treatments comes through social media, and the Scottish Government will look to share messages at the appropriate time on those same channels. I think that awareness is very important; indeed, you took very strong evidence on the issue in your evidence gathering for the bill.
11:15
Is it the plan to have a register that the public can access showing the status of practitioners?
What we are looking at is licensing. I will turn to Owen Griffiths to give you a response to that question.
We have not made any provision for or announcements on a Scottish Government-organised register or a national register. However, local authorities are already required to make available information on licences that have been applied for and granted. How local authorities do that varies, but I know that the City of Edinburgh Council has a list on its website of premises and the licences that have been granted. There will definitely be space for work on guidance to make that a consistent approach across different local authorities and to ensure that the information is in a form that people can easily access. There are already some requirements in that space, and that can be strengthened through guidance.
Owen Griffiths is right—the information has to be in a space that is easily accessible, and it has to be easily understood by those who are using the facilities.
Finally, if we are looking to establish national guidance, how will consistent implementation be supported across Scotland?
If there is national guidance, we expect it to be followed consistently. However, as I said in response to previous questions from Elena Whitham, that will involve a collaborative approach with local authorities and COSLA to ensure that we get the right information out in the right places.
Will Healthcare Improvement Scotland have an input into that?
Health Improvement Scotland will have to have an input into that. I was looking specifically at the order, but if the bill itself is passed and becomes legislation, I would expect Healthcare Improvement Scotland to be involved, too.
Thank you.
I have a couple of questions on enforcement and rogue operators. How does the Scottish Government plan to tackle unlicensed and covert operators, and will new enforcement tools or national protocols be developed?
We have experience of rogue operators in other areas of my portfolio—Food Standards Scotland, for example, works closely with Police Scotland if it discovers a rogue operator in the food universe—and I would expect Police Scotland and the local authorities to have powers to search unlicensed premises where there is sufficient evidence to suggest that non-surgical procedures are being carried out. Again, it comes back to that collaborative way of working.
As I have indicated, local authorities have been using health and safety legislation, but the order designates the provision of certain non-surgical procedures as a licensed activity, and that will give local authorities proportionate powers to regulate their provision in a consistent manner.
How does the Scottish Government plan to address concerns that temporary licences can be granted with limited scrutiny and that they might operate for extended periods? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that such temporary licences do not become a loophole for avoiding proper regulation?
That is an important question, and we will be working with the local authorities and COSLA to ensure that, if a temporary licence is permitted, it will be for only a specific length of time, and that the guidelines set out the right procedures for firming up such licences. That will be in the interests of the local authorities as well as the consumer, because it will mean that they will get the resources to continue to monitor and regulate these matters.
Thank you, minister.
As that brings us to the end of our questions, we will move to item 4, which is the formal debate on the instrument on which we have taken evidence. I remind the committee that officials may not speak in the debate.
I ask the minister to move and speak to motion S6M-20213.
I thank the convener and committee members for their consideration of this order, which will establish a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk non-surgical procedures that pierce or penetrate the skin and will modify the general provisions of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 in that respect.
The order aligns with part 1 of the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill, and together they will bring under regulation a wide range of procedures that we know are happening across Scotland. Such procedures can cause serious and lasting damage, and this is the first substantive step to reduce the potential harm to customers in Scotland across a range of procedures. I invite the committee to recommend approval of the instrument.
I move,
That the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommends that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures) Order 2026 be approved.
Motion agreed to.
That concludes consideration of the instrument.
Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Integration Joint Boards) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 (SSI/2025/405)
Item 5 is consideration of a negative instrument. The purpose of the instrument is to extend voting rights on integration joint boards to include service user, unpaid carer and third sector representatives.
The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument at its meeting on 13 January 2026 and made no recommendations on it. No motion to annul has been received.
To support its consideration of the instrument, the committee has written to selected stakeholders to request their written views, and we have received a response from COSLA, expressing certain concerns about the instrument. In light of that, I propose that we invite a representative from COSLA and other interested parties, including third sector organisations and unions, to give evidence on the instrument at next week's meeting, along with the Minister for Social Care and Mental Wellbeing.
Do committee members agree with the proposed approach?
Members indicated agreement.
At our next meeting, we will take evidence from the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland on her initial work priorities since taking up her post last September.
That concludes the public part of our meeting.
11:22
Meeting continued in private until 11:36.
Previous
Budget Scrutiny 2026-27