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 18 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 694 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

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?

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

Are there any other views?

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

The only other point relating to consistency that I—

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

In that case I will stop there.

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 am getting a fairly clear sense—

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

So, from a providers’ point of view, you would say that the bill creates more of a level playing field.

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

On the balance between patient safety, and accessibility or affordability, I get the sense that the whole panel is saying that patient safety must be the priority. Is there any merit in the counter argument that, if we reduce the accessibility of procedures for which there is commercial demand or we increase the cost by regulation, that will drive some people to access the same procedures completely outside the scope of regulation in a much more unsafe setting where they are not at all professionally delivered? Is there any argument that the impact could be negative in that way?

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

You do not, in principle, see problems arising from divergence between the two jurisdictions.