MPs gathered in Westminster Hall today, September 11, to debate the urgent need for the regulation of non-surgical cosmetic treatments.
The debate, led by conservative MP Bradley Thomas, highlighted growing concerns that the aesthetic industry remains largely unregulated. Thomas called the lack of regulation a “public health crisis” explaining that despite the specialty’s rapid growth, the laws surrounding it have “utterly failed” to keep pace.
Thomas said, “Each year, more people undergo these treatments, and each year, more are left vulnerable to devastating complications because of a systematic failure in our legal system. The statistics paint an indisputable picture without raising the baseline minimum level of clinical standards, millions across the country will continue to suffer, and some will pay with their lives.”
He touched on wider societal issues that are related to this debate, including negative body image, eating disorders and the mental health impacts of beauty advertising, suggesting that these should be considered part of the broader legislative conversation.
Thomas called for stronger regulations with greater protections in place for young people and clearer rules to prevent the public from being misled. One solution mentioned was to require all images and videos used in advertising across all platforms to display a clear symbol indicating if they have been digitally altered or enhanced, an idea originally put forward by Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) in a private Member’s Bill.
Thomas continued, “This was put forward in the Digitally Altered Body Images Bill, which sadly did not make it through all its parliamentary stages before the Dissolution of the last Parliament. That requirement, alongside stricter enforcement of the advertising ban for under-18s, would protect young people from harmful online content, expose the false promises of cowboy practitioners and help people finally see the reality behind the images.”
Thomas also suggested that the health and social care legislation be amended, expanding the powers of the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on operations and making “surgeon” a protected title.
Also in attendance was Unionist Party MP for Strangford Jim Shannon, who echoed calls for reform saying, “This idiotic. It simply has to stop.”
Shannon went on to question why in Northern Ireland, a child requires consent from a parent to get a filling from the dentist, but under-18s are allowed to access non-surgical procedures.
He urged the Government to implement changes more quickly, saying, “I wish to ensure that there is UK-wide legislation. My request, as always is to ensure that we in Northern Ireland are encouraged to have similar legislation.”
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, Karin Smyth, responded to the questions raised in the debate, saying, “People think this specialty is regulated, and are shocked to find out that it’s not. This sector is growing to meet a demand as more and more people are seeking to take advantage of the increasing availability and affordability of cosmetic treatments. And that’s a good thing, but for too long, the sector has been left with little in the way of safeguards, and we need to balance the priority of public safety without stifling creativity and innovation.”
The minister explained that the Government plans to prioritise developing legal restrictions on the high-risk cosmetic procedures, as outlined in last month’s response to consultation, in which the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed plans to introduce a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England.
Smyth said, “We will come down on providers who flout these rules like a ton of bricks with tough enforcement from the CQC. It’s currently far too easy for someone with minimal or no training to set themselves up as a practitioner.”
Smyth went on to explain that cosmetic procedures require maturity for informed decision-making and should not be performed on children still developing. She said that the Government plans to introduce further restrictions on cosmetic procedures to protect young people.
The debate concluded with a motion being passed for the regulation of non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.
Aesthetics will continue to follow these developments as they are reported.
