Debate contribution: Non-surgical Cosmetic Products and Procedures
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Non-surgical Cosmetic Products and Procedures
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4687001
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The debate is topical and timely, and I thank the signatories to the motion for bringing it to the House. In recent years, there has been a rapid growth in the popularity — indeed, even a greater normalisation — of non-surgical cosmetic procedures. A number of reasons lie behind the spike in demand. Perhaps one of its biggest drivers, alongside advancements in technologies and treatments, has been the rise of social media. People of all ages, but especially younger people, now effectively carry around with them 24/7 an infinite advertising display in the form of their smartphone. The cosmetic and personal care sector is booming as a result and is now more accessible than ever before. Although, on the whole, that is a positive, because people are absolutely entitled to spend their hard-earned money as they wish, the sector's rapid growth also carries with it risk. Even though treatments may be classified as non-surgical cosmetic procedures, they still entail making changes to people's physical bodies. It is therefore essential that, at the bare minimum, those undergoing such procedures have confidence that the treatments that they are receiving are safe and of a high standard. Thankfully, the vast majority of treatments are perfectly routine and safe, and the majority of providers are entirely responsible. My party and I, however, are concerned that there has been such growth in the sector, combined with such a prevalence of information online, that some people may be exposed to an unacceptable level of risk. Indeed, as the motion references, there has been an uptick in the number of complaints being made. Regrettably, the figures will include a number of people who have experienced serious complications as a result of treatments and procedures.
Therefore we support the motion. We also support the amendment because we have concerns about the risk to young people and perhaps, sometimes, those whom we would class as children of receiving such treatments.
As was referenced, England has already implemented an age limit and announced a new regulatory framework. I am sure that the Minister and Department of Health will be closely watching the developments in England. No doubt, there will be important learnings for us to take from the changes being made, and, resources permitting, I am sure that the Department here, just like its counterparts across the rest of our nation, will be keen to explore and make progress on the broader issue, because, ultimately, whilst it is important to strike a balance with consumer choice, consumer safety should be what matters most.
423 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.89 | 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 | 0.69 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.28 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.