Debate contribution: Non-surgical Cosmetic Products and Procedures

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 2 December 2024.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic 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 4687043

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the Minister for being present to respond to the debate on this important issue. It is essential that we seek to minimise the chance of vulnerable people being exploited. We need to be confident that treatments are safe and of a high standard. A balance needs to be struck between acknowledging personal consumer choice and protecting the public and building confidence in the safety of the industry. An increasing number of people describe dissatisfaction with their body image. In some cases, that may be exacerbated by mental health difficulties. The timeline for that issue is not unrelated to the rise of social media and so-called influencers. The number of people who undergo non-surgical cosmetic procedures is increasing. There is a growing number of high-street providers, and the procedures are becoming more normalised. Examples include Botox, anti-wrinkle injections, dermal fillers, chemical peels and energy-based treatments. They are mostly carried out by private providers. Botox injections are not licensed for cosmetic use but can be used off licence. The review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions, which was carried out more than a decade ago, singled out dermal fillers as being "a crisis waiting to happen". The use of anabolic steroids for cosmetic purposes has increased, bringing with it long-term risks of cardiovascular disease and brain changes. Many dangerous procedures are undertaken abroad. The British Beauty Council reported that the cosmetic and personal care sector contributed £24·5 billion to UK GDP in 2022. People currently have to register to carry out procedures such as tattooing, semi-permanent make-up, piercing and acupuncture. It would be unacceptable if that were not also the case for cosmetic procedures, which have the potential to cause real damage. It is essential that those who carry out such procedures are competent and safe. They need to be properly trained and qualified and should have indemnity cover. Hygiene, infection control and cleanliness must be strictly adhered to. The risks are much greater when the person who carries out a procedure is not sufficiently qualified, uses unregulated products or operates in unsuitable premises. Potential clients need to be certain that practitioners are adequately insured and of the extent of the aftercare that they offer. Save Face provides a UK Government-approved register for medical aesthetic procedures. Members of the public can also have a greater degree of assurance if individuals belong to organisations such as the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons or the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners. Save Face received over 150 complaints about Brazilian butt lifts between February and April this year, more than half of which had reportedly resulted in sepsis. Clear standards and requirements can be established for every type of procedure and could be applied uniformly across the UK. Training needs to be of a good standard and fully accredited. There should be periodic inspections of facilities, with clear standards for infection control. Those inspections should incorporate practitioners who work from home. That is a massive issue in the cosmetic industry: many people who rent premises are disadvantaged by the fact that there are people who work from home. There should be full transparency for consumers about who is licensed and the procedures that they are licensed to perform. There should also be access to a redress scheme. Predatory advertising can use doctored images, and it should be a requirement to make it clear when that is the case. I will recap some of the contributions. Liz Kimmins related examples of when people lost their lives. She said that it "beggars belief" that there is no regulation. She talked about the situation in the Republic of Ireland and asked the Health Minister to bring forward options for regulation. My colleague Alan Robinson said that "safety must always come first." We support further regulation in this sector. He talked about the cost to the NHS when something goes badly wrong. He also talked about social media pressure, especially on young people, a concern that was echoed in every contribution. Danny Donnelly talked about the industry, the costs involved, the licensing scheme in England and unethical adverts on social media. Steve Aiken discussed how the rise in demand correlated with the rise of social media. He said that consumer safety should be the most important issue. Mark Durkan said that the unregulated industry —

I will leave it there. Thank you.

739 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification