Non-Surgical Cosmetics Regulation: letter to Minister

To: Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health
cc/ Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic
cc/ Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care

From: Professor Russel Griggs OBE, Chair – Regulatory Review Group
c/o RRG Secretariat

I am writing as Chair of the Regulatory Review Group (RRG) to provide independent advice on the Non-Surgical Cosmetics Regulation which aims to create safer conditions for those undergoing non-surgical cosmetic procedures by regulating and licensing those performing these.

This note provides an overview of the RRG’s role and details recommendations on definitions, use of funds, enforcement and communications considerations.

Regulatory Review Group (RRG)

The independent RRG was re-established by the Scottish Government as part of the New Deal for Business to support Scottish Ministers in improving the regulatory environment for businesses and their involvement in that process. The RRG’s membership is detailed in the Annex. The RRG consider upcoming regulatory developments and as part of its work programme identified the Non-Surgical Cosmetics Regulation as a scrutiny priority.

The RRG’s objectives are to:

1. Work constructively with the Scottish Government to ensure that policy officials and relevant Ministers are sighted on implementation challenges with regulations early in development.
2. Deliver purposeful and targeted written and verbal advice to the Scottish Government, drawing upon extensive expert insight from business and regulators across Scotland.
3. Support the delivery of the New Deal for Business by ensuring that the potential barriers to the success of Scottish Government policies are removed through an improved understanding of the practicalities of implementation.

The RRG’s remit is to examine and identify implementation challenges and appropriate mitigations of regulation. The RRG does not provide a view on the appropriateness of substantive policy or decisions to be taken on legislative priorities.

Non-Surgical Cosmetic Procedures Regulation

Along with RRG members, I met with your officials on Tuesday 29 October 2024. Your officials provided an insightful presentation on the policy issue and provided detailed responses to our questions. The proposed regulation has the potential to create an environment where consumers receive these procedures with confidence, wherever they access them. Also the providers of these procedures should have a framework within which they can operate safely and responsibly and it is in the spirit of supporting that endeavour that this advice is provided.

The following recommendations have been made by the RRG for consideration as part of the policy development and legislative process:

1. The use of standards should be considered to allow for changes in procedures and permitted locations to help future-proof the proposed legislation. The RRG recommends having the essence of this policy set out In legislation and for compliance the the consumers and businesses would refer to the set of standards. This would also allow the industry to work with officials to decide who should be the responsible monitoring body and in turn this may alleviate some of the pressures outline in the recommendations below on Environmental Health and Local Authorities. The RRG highlights that the relationship between legislation and standards is not unusual and allows industry and Government to work together over time to ensure the standards are kept up to date. Procedures will change and evolve with customer demand, technological advances and science and using standards should ease the difficulty and allow change without the challenge of rewriting legislation to suit the cosmetic climate. 
2. This regulation could give greater powers to Local Authorities and Environmental Health Officers to intervene when complaints are filed but significant resource will be required to enforce. The RRG highlights the difficult position this may put Local Authorities in when prioritisation decisions on enforcement are needed and could additionally call into question the effectiveness of enforcement provisions. Along with providing the powers for intervention the RRG recommends this regulation provides LAs the authority to revoke licences if the practice being undertaken is unfit.
3. The display of physical licence certifications given to premises that adhere to the regulations could lead to potential fraudulent licences being created. The display, though prominently there to provide the customer the confidence and assurance that the venue is meeting the required standards, may also cause unintended fraud.  The RRG highlights the potential risk that businesses may display false or misleading licenses to attract potential clients which could lead to people undergoing dangerous procedures in unsafe environments which could have deathly consequences. To combat this, the RRG emphasis the need for clear and strong communication to consumers on how to know if a licence is legitimate or not.

The RRG raises concern on the linkages between the current unregulated sector and serious organised crime including human trafficking.

4. Clarity is needed on what forms of procedures are in or out of scope for regulation and licencing. Confusion may arise if the language used is ambiguous or too technical for both business and consumer which may lead to a disparity in understanding. Ensuring ease of comprehension and accessibility will reduce the need for interpretation of guidance and licensing laws which should create consistent country-wide knowledge for business and consumers.

The linkage between this sector and serious organised crime including human trafficking should not be underestimated as licencing may allow operators to use premises as a front for illegal activity. This reinforces the need for appropriate enforcement. The RRG would like to stress the seriousness of the unregulated continuation of this sector and welcomes the potential measures in development for the safety of both business and consumers.

The RRG invites your policy officials to return once this work has progressed and the consultation analysis has been published.

A copy of this letter will be published on the RRG’s webpage and has been sent to your Ministerial colleagues with an interest in this area.

The RRG would be happy to discuss the above recommendations with you and would welcome an update on how the Scottish Government intends to take this forward during the policy development and legislative process.

Yours sincerely

Professor Russel Griggs OBE
Chair, Regulatory Review Group

Annex - membership of RRG

• Chairman, Professor Russel Griggs OBE
• Fiona Richardson, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA)
• James Fowlie, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA)
• Brian Lawrie, Environmental Health
• David MacKenzie, Trading Standards
• Ewan Macdonald-Russell, Scottish Retail Consortium (SRC)
• Susan Love, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA)
• Douglas White, Consumer Scotland

Members are representatives of business, regulators and consumers, however, are acting independently in their RRG involvement.