Debate contribution: Non-surgical Cosmetic Products and Procedures
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 2 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Non-surgical Cosmetic Products and Procedures
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4686993
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Sinn Féin Members for tabling the motion and the DUP Members for their amendment. We, in Alliance, are content to support both. In recent years, we have seen an increase in the use of aesthetic medicines in non-surgical cosmetic procedures as a result of new technologies and products in that field. The procedures, all of which are growing in popularity, include botulinum toxin, more commonly known as Botox; anti-wrinkle injections; cosmetic fillers; chemical peels; and energy-based treatments. They provide a boost to the local economy and are important to small- and medium-sized enterprises. That is especially important as the majority of business owners in the industry are female. According to the British Beauty Council, it is estimated that, in 2022, the cosmetics sector supported a total GDP contribution of £24·5 billion and tax contributions of £6·8 billion to the UK Treasury. With new procedures come new responsibilities, and the Department of Health here has a responsibility to ensure that any such procedures are safe for the public. In Westminster, the Health and Care Act 2022 gave the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the power to introduce a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England that ensures that people who choose to undergo such a procedure know for certain that the treatment that they are receiving is safe and of a high standard. Such a regulatory framework would be appropriate for Northern Ireland as well. In particular, a licensing scheme would ensure that those who offer specified procedures are suitably trained and qualified, hold appropriate indemnity cover and operate to the highest standards of hygiene, cleanliness and infection control. The motion notes that the Save Face campaign:
"received almost 3,000 complaints in 2022 regarding unregistered practitioners".
That further reiterates the need for a modern and comprehensive licensing framework. As I mentioned, such a framework was legislated for in England earlier this year, and the Welsh Government launched a consultation on the mandatory licensing of special procedures in Wales. The Scottish Parliament held a similar debate recently. It is concerning that unqualified and unsupervised individuals can handle Botox and dermal fillers for the public without the oversight and insurance policies that we would expect for most other medical procedures. We must act to fill the void in regulating the medical aesthetics industry. I also welcome the amendment. We will support the call:
"to make it illegal to administer botulinum toxin (Botox) or a filler ... to a person under the age of 18 in Northern Ireland."
It is important, however, to clarify that there are legitimate medical reasons why someone may be injected with Botox. For example, as a treatment to help with hyperhidrosis, or excessive sweating, it is an approved medical treatment that is carried out by professionals in a professional setting. That is an important distinction, which the amendment acknowledges. It states that it should be illegal to administer such procedures:
"by way of injection, for a cosmetic purpose to a person under the age of 18 in Northern Ireland."
Indeed, the motion and the amendment reference another important aspect of the debate, which is the growing pressure of social media. Part of that pressure comes from unethical advertising, with social media posts offering such treatments with little further detail or presenting them as online raffles or other gambling advertising. That connects to a concerning trend on social media of encouraging unrealistic and unattainable beauty standards through, for example, the use of filtered images. That can have a significant impact on young people's physical and mental health, and any regulation of the use of aesthetic medicines should consider the threats posed by social media in that regard. I thank the Sinn Féin Members who tabled the motion and the DUP Members who tabled the amendment. The issue is important and under-discussed. We encourage the Minister to act by introducing a legislative framework similar to the precedent that we have seen set in England.
660 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.66 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.12 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:37 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.