Debate contribution: Non-surgical Cosmetic Products and Procedures
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- 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 4687009
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion and the amendment. The start of the motion refers to "greater regulation", but the issue is that, in many instances, there is, in practice, no regulation. The regulation of non-surgical procedures and products is effectively absent in Northern Ireland. Premises must register with their local council, but there are no grounds to reject such a registration. Those acting as health professionals must register with the GMC, but those who offer aesthetic or beauty products or procedures have no means of getting a licence, even if they want to, as many do. That carries a significant risk to consumers, about which we have heard, but it is also totally unfair on competent practitioners, as they have no means of formally demonstrating their professionalism and training, apart from with course certificates. As I mentioned in a public statement on the topic over a year ago, when, frustratingly, we had no means of legislating to deal with the issue:
"Surveys and consultations carried out by the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health in England and by the Scottish Government have shown over 90 per cent of people, including those within the beauty industry, are in favour of regulation and licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures in the interests of improved public confidence and consumer safety",
as well as, no doubt, in the interests those who wish to provide them competently and safely. At that time, I went on to say that we in Northern Ireland must not be left behind because of our inability to legislate. We now have that ability, yet we are still left behind. I appreciate Mark Durkan's providing an update on what he has been advised; I was not aware of that. This time last year, Scotland had already run a consultation on the topic before the UK Department of Health and Social Care did so for England. Wales is proceeding with similar work. That will likely result in a licensing scheme for providers of procedures such as Botox and dermal fillers. In Northern Ireland, the RQIA has the power to regulate only those who provide laser or intense pulsed light (IPL) cosmetic treatments. Regulation and licensing would also give us the power to consider two further aspects of the problem here. First, we may wish to raise the age of prohibition to 18, as per the amendment and as has been the case for Botox in England since 2021. I would certainly like to see the Health Committee consult on that. There is also a cross-border element to the matter in that we need to avoid people simply popping across the border to get procedures that may carry significant risk. I am aware that concerns have already been raised in England regarding different regulations or prohibitions in Wales and vice versa. The second issue concerns the potential prohibition of some procedures altogether, most obviously sunbeds. As a liberal party, we wish to investigate every option short of prohibition, including the improvement and enhancement of public health information. However, the evidence on the overall public health risks of sunbeds is mounting, and countries such as Australia have already moved to outright prohibition. I very much hope that we will see the issue progressed and investigated by the Health Minister and his departmental officials in order to get us to a position where Northern Ireland at least has licensing and regulation schemes that are similar to those applied elsewhere in the UK. That has clearly been the direction of travel since the start of the decade, and I wish to see no further delay.
596 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).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.83 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.12 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.