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

Mackay, Gillian Green Central Scotland Watch on SPTV

My amendments in the group have been developed with the Cleft Lip and Palate Action group and they probably speak to some of the issues that Sandesh Gulhane has already raised.My amendment 83 would place a duty on the Scottish ministers, when making regulations under section 5, to have regard to people whose risk of harm from non-surgical procedures is increased because of congenital facial difference, prior facial surgery or altered anatomy and scarring. Although any initial set of regulations may well include appropriate protections for these groups without the need for primary legislation, regulation in this area will inevitably evolve as new procedures, products and techniques emerge. There is a real risk that, over time, people with increased vulnerability could fall by the wayside. By embedding this consideration in the bill, amendment 83 would provide a lasting safeguard and ensure that these higher-risk individuals remain visible and protected as the regulatory framework adapts.My amendment 88 would enable regulations to impose different or additional requirements where individual client risk factors are present, including risks linked to medical history or anatomical considerations. Risk is not uniform across the population. For example, a person who is born with a cleft or someone who has undergone multiple facial surgeries might have altered anatomy or scar tissue that significantly increases the likelihood of complications from non-surgical procedures. My amendment would ensure that the regulatory framework could respond to those realities, allowing proportionate additional safeguards where higher risk was identified, rather than applying the same requirements to every client, regardless of clinical context.10:45My amendment 89 would require providers to carry out and document a pre-procedure assessment of relevant medical history and to follow enhanced informed consent procedures where factors are identified that might increase the risk of harm. At present, there is no consistent requirement to assess medical history or anatomical risk before non-surgical procedures are carried out. The amendment would embed basic patient safety principles into the regulatory framework, ensuring that risks are identified in advance and clearly explained to clients. It would not ban procedures, but would help to ensure that decisions that are made by the practitioner and the client are made with a proper understanding of potential harms, particularly for people with more complex clinical backgrounds.My amendment 98 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on how the act applies to individuals whose risk of harm might be increased due to congenital facial difference, prior facial surgery or altered anatomy. It would also allow the guidance to cover identification of higher-risk clients, additional safeguards and appropriate referral pathways. Clear guidance benefits practitioners and clients. For practitioners, it provides clarity on how to recognise higher-risk situations when additional precautions are needed and when referral to clinical services is appropriate. For clients and patients, it improves transparency and helps them understand why certain procedures might require extra safeguards or specialist input. Although early guidance might include those protections without the need for primary legislation, guidance will change over time. By requiring guidance in statute, the amendment would help to ensure that higher-risk groups are not overlooked as practice, technology and regulatory priorities evolve.

Search Hansard contributions

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

In the same item of business