Debate contribution: Non-surgical Cosmetic Products and Procedures
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Non-surgical Cosmetic Products and Procedures
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4687015
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I shall deviate from the motion just for a moment to acknowledge that my counterpart in the Government of Ireland, Stephen Donnelly, the Minister for Health, lost his seat in the general election over the weekend. It is a matter of regret for me, because, over the last six months, we had been building a positive relationship and discussing specifics in terms of service delivery on an all-island basis. I look forward to working with the new Government of Ireland when formed. To the debate, and I thank the movers of the motion and, indeed, of the amendment. I fully empathise with anybody who has been affected in any way and has suffered harm and injury as a result of accessing non-surgical cosmetic products and procedures that have not been administered appropriately. It is an important issue and one that can impact on vulnerable people, in particular. It needs to be addressed if we are to reduce public harm. I note the significant volume of complaints that Save Face, which registers accredited practitioners and clinics, received in 2022 regarding unregistered practitioners. I have no doubt that those issues have prevailed since 2022. Therefore, it remains important that action be taken to increase public safety and awareness of what can happen when the procedures are not undertaken safely. In April this year, my Department wrote to Save Face regarding high-risk, non-surgical procedures and treatments on those under the age of 18. We acknowledged the importance of the issue to Save Face at the time, and it is a matter of concern to me that there is no minimum age limit. To give Members a fuller sense of the concerns from other public bodies around these issues, I can advise that, in recent years, the Department has also been contacted by several local councils on the issue of regulation of cosmetic treatments in Northern Ireland and the introduction of a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures. That is the clear direction of travel in the rest of the UK; indeed, as Members have pointed out, the issue was debated in the Scottish Parliament in October last. My Department therefore recognises the public interest in the area and notes the advocacy by some of the need for statutory regulation. We are aware that the issue of greater regulation is being actively considered by the United Kingdom Government, who have stated a commitment to taking action to address the safety concerns. The new Government are still to set out their position following the consultation in 2023, which was undertaken by the previous Administration. As Members have heard, in England it is a criminal offence to administer botulinum toxin — Botox — or a filler by way of an injection for a cosmetic purpose to a person under 18, even if they have the permission of somebody who is over 18 years of age. Currently, there is no set minimum age at which a person can avail themselves of the treatments in Northern Ireland, nor is there an age limit in Scotland or Wales. It is essential that people are fully aware and cognisant of the potential consequences before undergoing procedures that could have such long-term effects. The passing in March 2022 of an amendment to the Health and Care Bill gave the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the power to bring into force a national licensing scheme for aesthetic, non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England. The treatments in question are many and varied and can include things like dermal fillers and other injectables, chemical peels and laser hair removal, to name a few. I am acutely aware of the wider changing and challenging health and social care service delivery environment, including in relation to cosmetic treatments. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, my Department had developed a new draft regulatory policy framework. However, further development work is required. That will include public consultation on a draft policy. As Members will appreciate, the Health and Social Care system across Northern Ireland is working to address a number of the many profound challenges that it is experiencing. That work, regrettably, has been made many times more difficult by the very constrained budget, and my Department is regularly left with no choice but to make decisions in relation to the work that can be delivered within current resources.
In that context, other critical and priority projects are having to progress ahead of the work on the regulatory policy framework and the review of the regulations here. However, I can assure Members that that remains an important issue for me and the Department.
We will continue to engage with DHSC to keep up to date with the proposals and the progress being made throughout the rest of the UK. That will help us to assess how the approach in Northern Ireland should develop. Currently, as I said, the UK Government are yet to respond to the consultation that was undertaken last year by the previous London Administration, and, given the capacity constraints on my Department, which I have mentioned, it is sensible to await the outcome of the UK Government's thinking on the way forward, unless, of course, that thinking is subject to undue delay.
I thank the Member for his intervention. By way of a response, it would be timely to say that it is not the case that nothing is happening on interventions. When it comes to enforcement, we rely on the Human Medicines Regulations (HMR) 2012. I can tell the Member and the House that between 2022 and 2024, my Department's medicines regulatory group conducted 65 focused investigations into the unlawful possession, importation, advertisement or supply of unlicensed prescription medicinal products for use in the non-surgical cosmetic sector. To date, three persons have been successfully prosecuted, and a further four prosecutions are pending. In that period, the medicines regulatory group has issued 24 formal advice and warning letters and has seized over 4,000 units of unlicensed Botox and fillers. Work is under way, but a self-financing proposal is certainly one that I am prepared to take under consideration.
I thank the Health Committee Chair for the point, which is well made. I am just making the point that if the UK Government are going to announce their way forward in a reasonable time frame, it is worth looking at that. However, we will, effectively, have to quality-assure that against what is happening on the rest of this island, in the other jurisdiction, in order to make sure that we have as much of a seamless way forward as possible and that there are no loopholes that will jar.
Yes.
I will come to councils in a moment, if I may. The figures are local figures, which come from the Department's medicines regulatory group. We are working to ensure compliance with existing laws and guidance. Where evidence or information suggests unlawful practice, the HMR are enforced and, as I said, there have been some successes. We are committed to taking decisive action to combat the illegal promotion, supply or misuse of medicines and to alerting the public about the dangers of misuse outside of the regulated supply chain. I am determined that we will remain vigilant and continue to work with key partner agencies in order to monitor the illicit marketplace. We will continue to take effective action where necessary in order to protect public safety in Northern Ireland. That may involve developing new legislation or reviewing existing legislation in parallel with public health messaging but also considering the issue more widely to assess current responsibilities with a range of organisations — in addition to the RQIA and my Department — such as the councils. That is because some cosmetic services and therapeutic treatments would normally come under council enforcement for health and safety reasons. Then there is the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI), which is the enforcing authority when these are carried out under the supervision or control of a registered medical practitioner, and trading standards. Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, it is an offence for traders to treat consumers unfairly through misleading actions, misleading omissions, aggressive practices or failing to adhere to the standards of professional diligence. In summary, I am committed to considering measures to ensure that the products are safe for the people of Northern Ireland who use them and that those products are administered by appropriately trained practitioners. I will therefore continue to make the case for additional resources for my Department in order that, in the interests of public safety, it can respond to the new challenges. I repeat that we will look to see what the UK Government do or do not say in their response to the 2023 consultation and test that against the provisions from the Government of Ireland in order to ensure that we deliver best practice and close off any potential loopholes.
1,490 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.68 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.28 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 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.