Non-surgical Aesthetic and Cosmetic Treatments

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are witnessing an emerging public health crisis. The cosmetic and aesthetic treatment industry is expanding rapidly, yet our laws have utterly failed to keep pace. In 2023 alone, around 7.7 million people in the UK underwent treatments and procedures, ranging from botox injections to facelifts. Every single cosmetic and aesthetic treatment or procedure is currently under-regulated, both surgical and non-surgical alike. 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. We live in a time when beauty standards are set at impossible heights. Every single day, people of all ages are bombarded, whether through social media, advertising, magazines, or messages telling them how they should look. Young women in particular are relentlessly targeted with new beauty trends, each one more unattainable than the last. Failure to follow them leaves many feeling ugly and unworthy in their own skin, but let us be clear: they are not ugly, unworthy or imperfect.

More and more people are victims of a culture that thrives on selling unattainable beauty standards. One day, you are too fat; the next, you are too skinny. Your lips are too thin, then suddenly they are too thick. Your forehead is too wrinkly. Your nose is too pointed. The list goes on and on. There is always something to make someone feel that they are not enough. The impact is undeniable. In 2020, a parliamentary report found that 61% of adults and 66% of children in the UK had negative body image.

What do people do? Many turn to cosmetic and aesthetic treatments, searching for confidence in a system that profits increasingly from their insecurity, but these so-called beauty standards do not just lightly shape how people perceive themselves; they create shame, pressure and, for some, a devastating impact on their mental health. A parliamentary report in 2022 revealed the scale of the problem: 80% of people said that negative views about their body had harmed their mental health.

As confirmed by the Mental Health Foundation, the two disorders most closely linked to poor body image are eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorder—the number of diagnoses for which are on the rise. Currently, an estimated 1.25 million people in the UK are living with an eating disorder. Between 2015 and 2021, hospital admissions for eating disorders rose by 84%, and over half of those admitted were aged 25 or younger. Body dysmorphic disorder, despite stigma and under-diagnosis, is thought to affect over 1 million people in the UK, and the true figure is almost certainly far higher. Most shocking of all, one in eight people experience suicidal thoughts and feelings because of body image concerns.

This is a crisis. More and more people across the country are suffering, and many are developing life-threating health conditions. However, the truth is that something can be done. The Mental Health Foundation found that 21% of adults said that advertising images had caused them body image concerns, and 40% of teenagers said the same about social media. Yet, right now, the cosmetic and aesthetic industry is free to advertise however it wants. Businesses can digitally alter images beyond recognition and present them as reality, and social media influencers are allowed to push cosmetic treatments straight at young people.

Currently, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of Advertising Practice restrict the use of enhancements that make an image misleading and restrict cosmetic advertising from being targeted at under-18s, but that is evidently not enough. We need tougher regulations—tougher protections for young people on social media and tougher rules to stop the public being misled. The answer? Requiring all images and videos used in advertising on every platform to display a clear symbol showing if they have been digitally altered or enhanced.

That idea was first put forward by my  hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) in a private Member’s Bill, 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.

Of course, advertising regulation changes are not the only changes that this industry is in desperate need of. Right now in the UK, anyone can perform non-surgical cosmetic and aesthetic treatments and anyone on the General Medical Council register can carry out surgical cosmetic and aesthetic procedures. We live in a regulated society, leading to a misconception on the part of many people that the industry is already regulated. After all, the rest of the medical sector is, so why would it not be? Many genuinely believe that the practitioners they visit have a medical background. They may see official-looking certificates on the wall, and they presume that the training claimed to have been completed is of the same rigorous standard as nurses and doctors go through.

The reality is that I could sign up to an online course, complete roughly 10 hours of coursework, attend two days of in-person training and call myself qualified to perform fat dissolution or botox injections. I could sign up to another course, watch a series of “specialist” videos and then be “qualified” to inject lip and dermal fillers. How on earth does watching a few videos or attending a two-day course qualify anyone to perform treatments that carry serious risks, including blindness, tissue necrosis, paralysis and even death?

If I were having a simple blood test, I would expect a nurse trained in phlebotomy to handle the needle. If I needed my appendix removed, I would expect a general surgeon to perform the operation. If I were having needles put into my face or my nose operated on, I would expect the person holding the needle or scalpel to have the medical qualifications required by the NHS, meaning specialist training and Care Quality Commission registration.

Today’s debate is about non-surgical treatments, but let us be clear: surgical procedures are also in desperate need of regulation. After my meeting with the Royal College of Surgeons, it is evident that we must tighten the rules on who is allowed to perform cosmetic and aesthetic operations, and we must amend the health and social care legislation, expanding the powers of the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on operations and making “surgeon” a protected title. I would welcome the chance to meet the Minister to discuss this further, because we must not allow non-surgical treatments to be regulated while surgical procedures are left behind.

There must be one overarching framework that encompasses all cosmetic and aesthetic treatments and procedures, and at the heart of that new framework must be a minimum baseline standard of practitioner training. The absence of such a standard has allowed low-quality, unsafe so-called clinics to spring up across the country. They decay our high streets, feed the black market with untested medication purchases and make access to dangerous treatments easier than any others in the medical sector.

These cheap, unregulated clinics, run by anyone who fancies giving aesthetics a go, are putting people’s health at serious risk. They buy cheap products that may never have been properly safety tested in order to undercut professionals with bargain prices, and it works. Young people in particular are increasingly drawn in. The clinics do not offer consultations involving discussion of alternatives or risks. They do not offer cooling-off periods. They do not adhere to safe environment standards to prevent infection. In far too many cases, someone can walk in off the street and undergo treatment on the spot, performed on a living room sofa.

What happens if something goes wrong during the treatment or afterwards? For many people, it does. In 2023, the Government-approved register for medical aesthetic treatments, Save Face, received more than 3,000 reports of complications and adverse outcomes. In July 2025, an ITV investigation revealed that more than 50% of women who had undergone non-surgical cosmetic procedures required medical assistance afterwards, with 15% requiring emergency support. Save Face confirmed that those findings matched its patient records. This demonstrates exactly what happens when unqualified practitioners are allowed to continue unchecked. People are suffering serious health complications. Many are left traumatised, and countless others never seek help at all, out of shame and stigma.

When help is required, it often falls to the NHS to provide corrective care, which costs time and money. There is currently no exact data on the costs. However, an NHS Scotland study found that over five years the average cost of correcting botched procedures and surgeries was £9,327. To put that into perspective, a study in The European Journal of Health Economics reported that the average cost of treating breast cancer is £9,450.

What do we want the Government to do? This is not a party political issue and not just a health crisis; it is an economic one, too, and is entirely avoidable. That is why regulations adopting a traffic-light system that categorises every treatment and procedure with a minimum baseline of standards is imperative: green for non-prescription treatments; amber for treatments involving prescribed medicines or that penetrate the skin; and red for surgical procedures requiring anaesthesia.

There must be clear rules. All treatments across the three categories must be performed by CQC-approved professionals, with at least professional indemnity and public liability insurance in a sterile, fit-for-purpose clinical environment. Any treatment involving prescription-only medications, such as botox or certain hormone replacement therapies for weight loss, must be performed only by a prescriber or a regulated professional with the prescriber on site at all times during the treatment.

All treatments involving injectables must be performed only by a medical professional registered with the relevant professional body, such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the GMC. Every consultation must include a discussion of all alternative options and potential side effects, followed by a mandatory cooling-off period before the procedure may go ahead. During this time individuals should feel under no obligation to commit, and any deposit paid should be fully refundable.

Every surgical operation currently required to be performed by anyone on the GMC register must be performed by a specialist surgeon. The United Kingdom is home to one of the best healthcare systems in the world, yet in this area we are falling dangerously short and it is time to put that right. This is not about banning or shutting down businesses, but instead must be viewed as introducing protections for patients, practitioners and public health. The Government’s announcement in July pledging to regulate was a welcome step forward, but real concerns remain about the timeframe. This cannot be a two or three-year project. The industry is growing far too fast for that and patients are suffering too frequently, with the NHS and society already paying too high a price. We need urgency and clarity, along with a firm timeframe.

Right now, because of failures in the law, the industry is instead risking lives. It preys on the vulnerable, particularly the young. It burdens the NHS and leaves countless people traumatised for life. That is the choice before us. We can allow the crisis to continue unchecked, or we can act with the urgency and courage needed to protect the public. Every day of delay is another life put at risk, and we cannot allow that to continue.

13:42

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Desmond. I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing it. I agree with much of what he said, especially the issues about negative body image and the harm being done. I welcome the Government action that was announced recently. The announcement on 5 August of the forthcoming consultation and crackdown on unsafe cosmetic procedures is very welcome. The last Government did not do enough in this area, despite my pushing on one particular area of it, so I am glad that this Government are taking action. I look forward to hearing more about those actions from the Minister.

I am here because in 2022 my constituent, Jan Spivey, came to my surgery with a lot to say. She was one of those surgery appointments where someone bursts into the room. She had so much to say that I had to encourage her to take a moment to sit down. She had been campaigning for a very long time on the Poly Implant Prothèse breast implant scandal, something that I have been raising ever since on behalf of Jan, who has been so affected by this personally, and on behalf of all the women across the UK. Up to 47,000 women have been affected by the scandal. It has really opened up to me the dreadful issues of surgical and non-surgical cosmetic treatments that need to be addressed. I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove about how this is about cosmetic and non-cosmetic surgery. If we do not tackle one and get the regulation right for one side of it, we will not get it right for both sides, and they are really important.

The company Poly Implant Prothèse, or PIP, was founded in France. It began distributing breast implants made from non-medical silicone, and it was later found that what had been put into the breast implants was basically mattress filler. The implants were far more likely to rupture and lead to long-term health conditions: they were found to have a 500% higher risk of rupturing or leaking and a direct link to a rare form of cancer.

In 2010, PIP pre-emptively liquidated, but between 2001 and 2010, 400,000 people globally and 47,000 people in the UK received PIP breast implants. Many of those in the UK probably received them through implant surgery in another country. In 2011, following the death of a woman from the rare cancer, the French Government recommended that 30,000 women in France seek the removal of their breast implants, and removals were carried out. A criminal trial was held, and the founder of PIP was sent to prison for four years.

In 2022, my constituent Jan came to talk to me about the health issues that she had faced as a result of these implants. She said that doctors were not listening to her. That is a pattern for both non-cosmetic and cosmetic treatments: going to the doctor, being told, “You’re an older woman; it’s menopause”—for younger women it might be ME or something else—and being written off. That is why we are discussing this matter today: for a long time women with these issues have not been listened to.

There is an accountability gap. Many of the private healthcare providers that implanted those breast implants declared themselves bankrupt but then restarted, in the same premises under a similar name. There is also a data gap, because there is no good register of who received these implants. That is also the case with many other non-cosmetic treatments. Who is receiving these treatments and who is doing them? We need to know.

In 2023, I secured a debate in the House to discuss this matter, but I felt that it was pushed aside by the responding Minister. The Minister agreed to produce implant cards with more information about the risks of having an implant put in, but did not agree to tell all the affected women what might be happening in their own bodies and why they were experiencing so many health issues—that it might be because of breast implants—or to remove them and solve the issue.

The PIP scandal is not an isolated event; it is part of a broader, systemic failure in the regulation of medical devices. Both the UK and global systems have long-standing structural weaknesses that create recurring cycles. That is why I am glad that this debate has been secured and the matter brought to the attention of the Minister. There is inadequate pre-market oversight, excessive commercial secrecy, under-researched women’s health impacts, regulatory capture, financial conflicts and poor post-market surveillance. Who are the women affected? Where are they? What is happening to them? Patient compensation mechanisms are weak, and as I have said, women are routinely not taken seriously when they raise these issues.

The key asks from the PIP campaigners are for the Minister to work with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which has absolutely failed them in this instance, and the NHS to recognise and publicise the risks associated with PIP breast implants. If there is a link between breast implants and health issues, the data should be easy to find. The Minister should urge the NHS to collect data to establish how many people have received these implants and how many have had them removed, and to proactively contact everyone affected through their GPs to give them advice. The Government should also conduct a review into the risks associated with PIP breast implants.

I welcome the fact that the Women and Equalities Committee has begun an inquiry into this matter. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the outcomes of that inquiry—I am sure she will. I would welcome the Minister meeting me and PIP campaigners—I am sure that she will find Jan as inspiring and informative as I have—to discuss what actions can be taken to right this injustice and improve the health of thousands of women.

13:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am sure that when Jan Spivey went to see her MP, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), it was a meeting between two enthusiastic people—not just the one. It is lovely to see the hon. Lady here, having stepped away from the Northern Ireland Office, to make a contribution in today’s Backbench Business debate. This always says a lot about the individual person, and I am very encouraged to see her here. She is a friend, of course, but none the less we are very pleased to be together.

I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for highlighting this issue. As he rightly says—indeed, as everyone in this debate will say—it is of great importance, given the increasing usage of non-surgical procedures. We have all read the terrible stories of procedures gone wrong. Most of those that I am aware of are of people who went overseas. One person went to Turkey for a hair transplant—to be facetious, I probably need one very badly, but there is very little donor area around the sides of my head to help. Joking aside, people go abroad to have surgical cosmetic changes made, such as butt lifts, which I understand caused the death of one person, lip lifts, which have left some people disfigured, or breast enhancements, which unfortunately have also led to some deaths. I have tabled questions on this very issue, asking the Government to consider legislation to ensure that there is a system, a regulation or a methodology applied for those who go overseas for these procedures. There must be controls; there must be insurance; there must be a way for those procedures to happen in a safe and secure way. So many disasters have taken place, and unfortunately deaths as well.

In my Strangford constituency, so great is the concern that my local council, Ards and North Down borough council, has put up guidance on making clear choices. The council does not have responsibility for this matter—it is the Department of Health’s responsibility—but the fact that it has done that in my area tells me that the councillors have been contacted by their constituents about these issues and that they feel it is important to put up the signage with guidance on making choices. In Northern Ireland, our local councils have no responsibility for health, so the fact that the council has stepped in shows the depth of concern felt locally.

In 2022, Ards and North Down borough council, in conjunction with other councils in Northern Ireland, wrote to the Department of Health to ask for better regulation of cosmetic treatments in Northern Ireland and for a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures to be introduced. All those councils recognise a need to do something above and beyond what has already been done. In the absence of a licensing scheme, they strongly advise anyone thinking of having a cosmetic treatment to read the advice they have put up on the website, which lists the important considerations.

That is great for those who have considered procedures and are looking for a safe way of getting them, and for those who are trying to find the cheapest solution— I hate to say it, but more often than not, people are driven by the cost factor. That is why they go to Turkey, where these procedures are cheaper. Is there regulation? No, there is not. Should there be? Yes, there should. Those are some of the things we need to see. If there is no regulation and no built-in protection, there is a clear danger.

I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in her place. She and I are often in the same debates; I am always one of those with questions, and she is always very helpful in trying to respond to our requests, so I look forward to her answers later on. I am also pleased to see her retaining her position in the Health and Social Care Department; that tells us all that she is a safe pair of hands, and the Government and the Prime Minister recognise that.

In 2023 alone, an estimated 7.7 million people underwent cosmetic and aesthetic procedures ranging from botox to chemical peels, fat dissolution and facelifts. They are all unregulated, and all of them can go wrong, leaving irreparable damage. That is what we need to make people aware of at all stages.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. This year, in June alone, 28 people in the north-east were left with cases of botulism from botched and unregulated botox injections. That is one of the reasons why the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I chair, will be holding an inquiry later this year into hair products and unregulated beauty procedures. We follow this debate with interest.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has just reinforced the need for this debate that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and others have put forward. These procedures need to be regulated and legislated for. Rules that people can rely on for coverage and security need to be formed and put in place.

As we know, the Government-approved register for medical aesthetic treatments received more than 3,000 reports of complications or adverse outcomes linked to cosmetic procedures; 48% involved women aged between 18 and 25. I believe that is only the tip of the iceberg.

When I read this point in my research, I said to myself, “My goodness, in Northern Ireland, under-18s are allowed to access non-surgical procedures.” Children who need parental consent for a filling at the dentist do not need consent to go for lip injectables. They then have no recourse. Really? I say with great respect, Sir Desmond, that it seems idiotic that we have requirements for a dental procedure, as we should have, but nothing for cosmetic procedures or similar. It again poses a question, and we look to the Minister for a helpful response. This simply has to stop.

I know that the Government and the Minister are absolutely of the same mindset as those of us here, and have every intention of bringing in legislation. I wish to ensure that there is UK-wide legislation. My request, as always—the Minister probably knew this was coming before I got to my feet—is to ensure that we in Northern Ireland are encouraged to have similar legislation. I know councils have taken the initiative and have been to the Health Minister and Department in Northern Ireland to ensure that this happens, but a start made here could provide the initiative and the fillip needed to ensure that Northern Ireland follows quickly. If we are not legislating for the devolved Administrations, they too must have the information and the capacity to introduce legislation similar to that we hope to see here.

Further, we need to do this on a quicker timescale. I was never blessed with much patience, but I have gained it as an elected representative. I know the very procedures that we hope to push along take time, but some urgency in this matter is important. The campaign group Save Face, a register of accredited practitioners and clinics, received 136 complaints in Northern Ireland last year about injectable complications. These people have been disfigured; some may remain like that for years, and some of the effects will last for life. To have no regulation in this field seems absolutely crazy to me. It is difficult to understand why we regulate—rightly so—the fostering of animals by animal shelters and yet allow poison to be injected into a 16-year-old’s face by any Tom, Dick or Harry. My goodness. Can you believe it? It is incomprehensible.

We need to work on this issue at some pace across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I look to the Minister to ensure that regulation is introduced as a matter of urgency. I think everyone today will speak from the same Bible or hymn book, if that is the way to put it; we will all push for the same things. I am very keen to hear the Minister give us some answers on how we can prevent these life-changing consequences of a botched job from ever happening again.

13:59

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing an important debate.

Cosmetic surgery can be affirming and often makes people’s lives better. Although I have some concerns about some of the beauty standards that it reinforces, as has already been mentioned, I recognise that it can transform the lives of many people, but we need to do more to make sure that it is properly regulated.

In my previous life at the General Medical Council, I remember there being concerns about how this issue was looked at. Increasingly, however, lower-level procedures are being carried out by entirely unqualified practitioners, as has been mentioned, and that is simply not safe.

We clearly need to regulate clinics in the UK, but we have also seen the rise of cosmetic surgery abroad. While that may seem cheaper, there is a real cost to “Turkey teeth”; too often, people are coming home with serious complications that the NHS then has to put right. In the four years to 2022, 324 people needed corrective operations after work carried out abroad, most often after trips to Turkey, the Czech Republic and Lithuania. The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons— I will not use the acronym—reports that UK hospital admissions for those cases have almost doubled since 2020, with Turkey linked to eight in 10 of them. In one year, complications from cosmetic surgery carried out abroad cost the NHS about £1.7 million. That is equivalent to about £15,000 for each of those procedures; we heard earlier that it costs about £9,500 for UK-based surgery.

Behind those numbers are real tragedies. In 2019 alone, 25 British citizens lost their life after cosmetic surgery abroad. The Department of Health and Social Care is working with TikTok and clinicians to warn people of the dangers by urging them to speak to a UK doctor first, avoid package deals and check credentials. It is also licensing high-risk non-surgical treatments so that only qualified people can perform them. Those are crucial steps towards raising awareness, but consumers need to make wise decisions.

We also need to have an honest conversation about fairness. If someone chooses to have an elective procedure abroad and it goes wrong, is it right for the taxpayer to automatically pick up the bill? What responsibility do patients have? More importantly, what responsibility do the unscrupulous companies that offer such package deals have? It is a real risk.

What matters is that no one is sold a dream that ends up with painful complications in a hospital bed abroad. We must do more to ensure that people understand the risks that come with the procedures, and to ensure that people are fully informed to safely make the right decisions.

14:02

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate.

With every cosmetic or surgical procedure, there are always risks, so we need our practitioners to be fully trained and experienced in the work that they do. When we think of cosmetics, we think of products that we might find on the high street, which are well tested, and sold or marketed by well-known and trusted brands. When somebody takes the next step of getting a cosmetic procedure, they need to be able to trust their practitioners in the same way that they trust those brands.

The risk of complications increases significantly, however, when the individual carrying out the procedure is not sufficiently knowledgeable or trained, and is not using regulated products or carrying out the procedure in suitable premises. That appears straightforward, but we have been waiting for some time for regulation. We also need to consider how we provide appropriate information to people who wish to receive the procedures. Normally, a licensed practitioner gives effective and clear advice.

The desire and pursuit for a perfect result is also growing, so it is perhaps no surprise that complications are increasing. Over six weeks in the summer, 38 cases of botulism were recorded in the east, east midlands and north-east. According to the UK Health Security Agency, the evidence so far suggests that all the clinics involved in those cases had used unlicensed, botox-like products. It is incredibly important to remember that such situations are not just about “botched” botox, where the results are not as expected due to an error in placement; they can cause serious medical complications. People are essentially being poisoned.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

As well as botox, I would also like to talk about the dangers of fillers. A patient in my constituency, Alice Webb, lost her life due to a procedure called a Brazilian butt lift. We owe it to her, as a Government and as a Parliament, to prevent that happening again and to protect people in this country.

[Amanda Hack]

The case that my hon. Friend mentions is the reason that we are all here. The pursuit of beauty enhancement should not risk somebody’s life, so regulation is very important.

The most recent cases recorded in the east midlands involve reports of patients experiencing difficulty in swallowing, slurred speech and breathing difficulties requiring respiratory support. Given there have been 38 incidents in just a few weeks, we can imagine the countless cases across the country over the last few years. That is why regulation is crucial. I am pleased that our Government are beginning to act and have confirmed the introduction of a licensing scheme, and that, according to Ministers, that is just the beginning. I am sure that the Minister will talk more about the regulation.

I wonder whether we need to break away from the term “cosmetic”. Having a cosmetic procedure is so much more than using a favourite moisturiser or serum; it is a serious procedure that should be carried out by a qualified individual. When I speak to salons in my constituency that provide these procedures, they want to see regulation in place because they are proud of the work that they do for people and of their clients’ results. They want to make sure that people have good experiences rather than the negative ones that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) mentioned.

Licensing will be important to ensure the consistency of standards and to protect individuals from the potentially harmful physical, emotional and psychological impacts of poorly performed non-surgical cosmetic procedures. I would like to hear from the Minister how the regulation and enforcement will happen. Will support be given to the local authorities asked to undertake that work?

I also look forward to the report by the Women and Equalities Committee on its current inquiry into the health impacts of breast implants and other cosmetic procedures. After the regulations are passed, I will write to each salon in my constituency to update them of the changes and hopefully reassure them that their skills and professional qualifications are not being pushed aside by unlicensed practitioners who take advantage of vulnerable people.

14:07

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, and to take part in a debate where all the contributions have been so thoughtful. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing the debate and making an excellent speech about not only regulation, but the wider issues of negative body image, advertising, eating disorders and other medical conditions that we should consider as part of this debate.

As we have heard, non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments have become increasingly popular, including, but not restricted to, lip fillers, injectables, thread lifts, semi-permanent make up, laser treatments, piercing and tattoos. While there is a registration scheme in England for some treatments, such as epilation, tattooing, piercings, semi-permanent make up and acupuncture, some of the riskier and newer types of procedure are not within the scope of the current regulatory regime.

People paying for a procedure need to be confident that the person carrying out that procedure is appropriately qualified. Currently, there is no single system to ensure that that is the case. Distressing reports of lives shattered by botched cosmetic treatments—tragic cases such as that of Alice Webb, whose buttock augmentation procedure, as we have heard, was carried out by someone with no surgical qualifications—must drive meaningful change in how we approach aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.

It is crucial that anyone carrying out invasive treatment is properly licensed and meets high standards of safety. There are too many instances where that is not the case. I was horrified to read in The Guardian a story about a lady in Leeds who booked into a clinic to get something called an endolift procedure, a laser treatment that works by inserting a thin micro-optical wire deep into the skin layer and is used to boost collagen and melt little pockets of fat. She had visited the clinic before for other cosmetic treatments and thought that she was in safe hands, but she was not. After paying £100 for what looked like a good deal, she was administered a counterfeit version of the procedure, which normally costs around £2,000. It has left her with intense facial bruising and she describes herself as “maimed”.

The BBC reported on another horrifying case of a lady in Hull, who arranged more than 30 separate treatments at a clinic, including a breast filler procedure and facial fillers. She thought she had done her due diligence by checking the clinic’s reputation; its website claimed it had

“won Best Aesthetics Clinic in Yorkshire in 2022 at the England Business Awards”

and referred to the man who saw her as a doctor. He was actually a former tattoo artist who had bought an honorary doctorate in business consultancy on the internet. After multiple facial procedures, her face kept swelling, with this apparent doctor claiming that it was from an insect bite and urging her to continue. Eventually she needed hospital treatment, with plastic surgeons confirming that she had undergone botched procedures and suffered a subsequent infection, leading to the difficulties she was experiencing. More than two years later, she claims that she sees “a gargoyle” when looking at herself, and lives in a “nightmare every single day”.

Multiple other complaints have been made about the same clinic, all from people who were under the impression that the clinical director was a licensed medical professional. It is unacceptable that this could have happened. There is no mandatory licensing for those providing potentially dangerous treatments such as dermal fillers and botulinum toxin, as we have heard, while highly risky treatments such as the Brazilian butt lift are frequently administered by individuals with little or no training.

While a small handful of areas across England have introduced their own licensing schemes, including London, Nottingham and Essex, other under-resourced local authorities rely on a fragmented hodgepodge of byelaws, statutes and tangential regulations to try to regulate practitioners in their area. Many lack the resources to provide effective regulation. Can the Minister reassure us in her closing remarks that, if local authorities are to carry out any new scheme, they will be adequately resourced to do so?

Loopholes remain even for surgical procedures. For instance, any doctor on the GMC register can legally perform cosmetic surgery in the private sector, regardless of whether they have the relevant surgical training. Complex procedures such as liposuction are being performed by non-surgeons and potentially in non-clinical environments. That is without doubt a huge risk to patient safety. As things stand, not only are consumers being placed at risk of life-changing difficulties, but the NHS—and therefore the taxpayer—is footing the bill to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.

I have heard it asserted that any standardised regulation or licensing is somehow an impediment to people’s choice and self-expression, but I am sure that a lack of safety is not a crucial part of the appeal of getting these procedures done. If we do not act now, many more people will face unwanted, irreversible, life-changing and even life-threatening consequences.

It is notable that 90% of people working in the industry who were surveyed in 2020 support a new licensing regime. They know, as do the public, that no one benefits from the current arrangement other than those who want to cut corners and ignore their duty of care to clients. The Liberal Democrats therefore support organisations such as the Royal College of Surgeons in calling for a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures, such as lip filling and liquid enhancements. It is astonishing that one is not already in place.

The last Government consulted on a mandatory licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures, but it has never been implemented. Minimum standards of safety, including training and premises that are clinically safe, are simple, basic steps that can make a huge difference. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will be consulting on bringing forward new legislation to tackle this issue. We urge them to do so as soon as possible, and they will have our support to ensure a robust and speedy implementation of regulations.

In closing, I also draw the Minister’s attention to the issue of data collection on cosmetic procedures. There is no systematic collection of data on treatments and their outcome, even for the most invasive treatments. That makes it incredibly hard—or even impossible—for consumers or the Government to assess the risks associated with cosmetic procedures or what licensing changes might be needed. I urge the Minister to address this issue as the consultation progresses. As I have said, the Government will have our support in introducing a suitable licensing regime.

14:13

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important and increasingly pressing issue. I also thank the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), who all made important contributions.

A report by the British Beauty Council showed that spending on non-surgical cosmetic treatments totalled £10.1 billion last year. That includes the 900,000 botox injections that are performed in the UK each year, and other non-surgical procedures, which continue to grow exponentially in popularity. We are not talking about a minor issue here; this is a multibillion-pound industry, which is snowballing at breakneck pace.

Yet this sector remains dangerously unregulated. Although there are training standards, such as the national occupational standards for practitioners in beauty aesthetics, there is no legislative framework to require all practitioners to meet those standards. As a result, some practitioners are not only unlicensed, but unqualified and inadequately insured to perform the procedures they are performing. We cannot sit back and allow patients of these procedures to entrust their safety to unlicensed cowboys profiting from the lack of regulation. It is time to call an end to this wild west free-for-all, and give patients in this industry, and the responsible operators, the protection they need and deserve.

To that end, I am delighted that the previous Government kick-started this process, first by banning cosmetic fillers for under-18s in England under the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021. That was followed by the Health and Care Act 2022, which gave Ministers the power to tighten regulations by introducing a new licensing regime. The current Government are slowly and finally getting into gear on that scheme, but when do they expect to implement this protection as a matter of public safety? What steps will be taken to raise awareness of new regulations to improve public confidence in the non-surgical cosmetic sector as these measures are introduced?

Of the 27,462 procedures performed and recorded by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons in 2024, approximately 93% were performed on women. Young women aged 18 to 25 years old also made up 48% of the 3,000 complaints to Save Face, a Government-approved register of medical aesthetic practitioners. That means that the Government’s failure to get on and implement regulations in this sector is disproportionately affecting a vulnerable group to a significant degree.

Furthermore, the governing voice in this area is social media, again, disproportionately placing the burden of risk on younger people. Researchers at the University of Edinburgh interviewed female Instagram users aged 18 to 30. All of them had undergone, or hoped to undergo, cosmetic surgery, and all of them looked to Instagram influencers for information about cosmetic procedures. With nine in 10 children owning a mobile phone by the time they reach 11, and 75% of eight to 17-year-olds having their own social media account, there is a real danger that our children and grandchildren could be exposed to cosmetic surgery at a young age, unaware of the risks of a cheap bodily enhancement.

Mental health struggles and body image challenges are unfortunately well documented, with almost 850,000 children accessing NHS mental health services in June 2025, and two in three children feeling negative or very negative about their body image, according to a survey commissioned by the Women and Equalities Committee from 2020. Social media, combined with heightened self-scrutiny on video calls since the pandemic, has sadly cast the way in which young people view themselves in an increasingly negative light. As such, the cosmetic surgery “boom”—as termed by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, following a 102% rise in procedures in 2022—is alarming but unsurprising.

A failed procedure can have potentially life-threatening repercussions, and an unlicensed practitioner’s lack of training, skills and experience significantly increases the risk of failure. We owe it to the livelihoods of patients, who are predominantly young women, to improve the safety of non-surgical cosmetic procedures as much as we can. Governments are there not to stifle growth and innovation—the kind that creates jobs, rewards entrepreneurship and helps businesses to grow—but to protect the interests of British citizens in times of need. This is one of those times. The safety, and even the lives, of consumers are at risk if we do not act.

With that in mind, will the Government commit to swiftly implementing a licensing framework to combat such life-threatening risks? Furthermore, the problem in this area is precisely that unlicensed practitioners carrying out procedures are operating under the radar. How do the Government intend to support local authorities to actively and effectively enforce the licensing framework, to ensure that such practitioners are prevented from operating on patients in backroom shadows?

The number of complaints from patients with failed non-surgical cosmetic procedures shows no sign of plateauing. Again, I refer to the figures from Save Face, which received almost 3,000 complaints in 2022, 35% more than in 2020. Complaints about dermal fillers—treatments to add volume, typically to smooth out wrinkles or enhance facial definition—made up almost 70% of that figure.

As we debate this matter today, let us remember the enormity of the influence we are privileged to have. When they go wrong, cosmetic procedures can be life-changing for all the wrong reasons. I urge the Government to accelerate the licensing framework for non-surgical cosmetic procedures and treatments—therefore requiring practitioners to be licensed, qualified and insured—for the sake of public safety and the sake of saving lives.

14:22

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing today’s debate on this important issue, and other Members for their contributions. This is an area of significant interest to colleagues, and indeed the public.

I think this may the first time the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) has spoken formally for the Opposition, so I congratulate her on that, and I wish her colleague, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), well. She made the point that we had been slow. Let me make the point gently back to her that this is an issue I inherited and that, as people will know if they have read Lord Darzi’s report—if they have not, I really commend it to them—both the breadth and the depth of the inheritance for me and my colleague, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, is sometimes beyond description.

I was therefore determined to make progress on this issue, and was absolutely delighted to be able to announce in August that we will, as a Government, step in to regulate in this space. As colleagues will know, doing a press round on an August morning is often not the highlight of everyone’s day, but I was humbled by the responses from families, journalists and campaigners—those women who have shared their stories over many years. I pay tribute to many of them, particularly lots of young women journalists who have taken those stories and told them so powerfully.

The response to that announcement, and the interaction with journalists, was humbling. Indeed, it was a pleasure to make those announcements in my home city of Bristol, where some surgeons have been campaigning on this issue for 20 years, and for them to see what has happened and that the Government are prepared to move in. We are really aware of this issue, and I thank hon. Members for the cross-party support for us moving in this area. We have all seen those troubling headlines about the devastating consequences of unsafe cosmetic practices, and all our inboxes have been inundated by constituents who rightly expect us to make things safer. I am grateful to those who have shared their stories about what can go wrong and who have pushed for action.

I have particular concern for parents who are worried by what their children see on social media, as we have heard this afternoon: young women and girls who are made to feel unhappy in their own bodies by what they see online and feel the need to go through risky and unregulated procedures to ease their concerns. Also as we have heard this afternoon, people think the industry is regulated and are shocked to find out that it is not

The Government of course back small businesses. We recognise the benefits that the industry brings to people and communities. I am also mindful that the sector is full of female entrepreneurship. It is an industry led by women, largely for women, and is a success story to be celebrated, especially in the face of fierce competition from medical tourism. Getting a cosmetic procedure can be a very positive experience—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) and others. The sector is growing to meet a demand, as more and more people seek to take advantage of the increasing availability and affordability of cosmetic treatments. That is a good thing, but for too long the sector has been left with little in the way of safeguards. We need to balance the priority of public safety without stifling creativity and innovation.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) made some excellent points. She visits salons to talk to women—there might also be an occasional man running one of those salons, and we want to work with them, too. She talks to them so that she is informed. I encourage her and others to keep sharing views from the frontline, because people want to do a good job and we are keen to hear from them.

So what are we doing? First, we will prioritise developing legal restrictions on high-risk cosmetic procedures, as we outlined in last month’s response to the consultation. I urge anyone listening to this debate to look at “The licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England”. High-risk procedures include the so-called liquid Brazilian butt lift, which tragically led to the death of Alice Webb in September last year. Her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), has been talking to me about these issues since he became a Member.

Bringing the restricted high-risk procedures into the Care Quality Commission’s scope of registration will mean procedures being performed only by suitably qualified, regulated healthcare professionals working for providers who are registered with the CQC. We will come down like a ton of bricks on providers who flout the rules, with tough enforcement from the CQC.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove raised a really important point about qualifications. He is right that it is currently far too easy for someone with minimal or no training to set themselves up as a practitioner. We will introduce a local authority licensing scheme in England for lower-risk cosmetic procedures such as botox and lip fillers. This was widely supported by many people who responded to the 2023 consultation started by the last Government on the scope of licensing. That consultation received over 11,800 responses. Licensing will ensure consistency of standards and allow action to be taken against practitioners who fail to comply with the requirements. All practitioners will be required to meet rigorous safety training and insurance standards.

Local authorities will run and enforce the scheme, under which it will be an offence for anyone to carry out specific non-surgical procedures without a licence. I understand the excellent points made by many Members about local authorities. It will be an offence for anyone to carry out procedures without a licence. If the rules are breached, businesses risk fines or financial penalties. Detailed proposals will be set out in the consultation in the new year, which will seek views from local authorities on suitable enforcement powers and costs. Many hon. Members here who are experienced in local authorities know that we need to do that carefully with them. We also understand that that will add to local government’s workload, so we will work with them closely to understand what support, training and resources are required as we try to strike the right balance and ensure that councils have enough time to prepare and implement proposals safely across England and to swiftly protect public safety. That will be an ongoing discussion as we go through the next stage of the process.

Licensing will allow people to be confident that the practitioner they choose to perform their procedure has the skills to do so safely. For those in the sector who do the right thing, as so many do, this will protect their businesses and position them as trusted providers in a regulated market.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove also warns about so-called lower-risk procedures falling through the gap. I can assure him and other hon. Members present that we will work closely with all our partners on where we should set the bar to make ensure that the measures we introduce to protect the public encompass all necessary procedures, and that all legislative safeguards are proportionate and informed by a careful evaluation of risk. As I said, we will prioritise action against the highest-risk procedures first. We look forward to setting out the changes in a detailed public consultation early next year.

In terms of the impact of regulation, I want to make it clear that this is not about stopping people from getting treatments altogether; it is about preventing the cowboys, the crooks and the chancers from exploiting people. We want to support legitimate and safe businesses to continue to provide treatments while, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, saving taxpayers from footing the bill when things go wrong.

I began my remarks by talking about societal pressures and the influence of social media. Children and young people can be particularly vulnerable to concerns around body image. The Advertising Standards Authority places a particular emphasis on protecting young and vulnerable people. In 2022, new rules came into effect across all media, including social media, banning ads for cosmetic procedures being directed at under-18s.

To meet the challenges of regulating online, the ASA has rebalanced its regulation away from reactive complaints casework and towards proactive tech-assisted gathering, monitoring and enforcement, using artificial intelligence to proactively search for problematic adds and ensure that children are not being influenced by inappropriate and irresponsible marketing.

Choosing to go through a cosmetic procedure is a serious decision, which requires a level of maturity to undertake an informed consideration of the risks and benefits. That is why many procedures should never be performed on children who are still developing physically and emotionally. In England, it is already illegal to give botox or fillers for cosmetic reasons to under-18s unless it is done by a qualified healthcare professional and approved by a GMC-registered doctor. We want to extend this level of protection, and will be introducing further age restrictions on a range of cosmetic procedures.

This is a UK-wide issue, and it is good to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I thank him for his kind words. I can assure him and others that we are working closely with the devolved Governments to understand and share information on approaches being taken across the country. We are pleased that Scotland is also considering similar information, and I have been really encouraged, in my conversations with officials, to learn about the relationship between our officials and the shared learning that is going on with colleagues in Scotland. This is a really complex area and it is changing all the time, with new things coming on board.

The changes we make will affect livelihoods, and it is essential that we get the balance right, given that we know that people are at risk and the sector is expanding. Government action must be proportionate to protect public safety without restricting the legitimate activities of those businesses. We want to collect data, gather more evidence and give businesses their say through the public consultation. That will take time, but we will leave no stone unturned and work tirelessly with expert partners and people across the sector. The proposals will be taken forward through secondary legislation, and therefore subject to parliamentary process in the usual way before legal restrictions or licensing regulations can be introduced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised an issue around implants. She has been a fantastic campaigner for her constituent, Jan Spivey. I know that she has been in touch with my hon. Friend about that, and has played a key role in ensuring that this issue, along with others, received due parliamentary attention in previous Parliaments when women raised the issue. I myself am due to appear before the Women and Equalities Committee, which has an interest in this issue and PIP. We will certainly want to work with them and await the outcome of their review, to see whether any further work is needed in that area.

I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove for raising such a vital issue and all hon. Members for their contribution. Due to different things happening in London, many parliamentarians who would have liked to be here this afternoon cannot. The hon. Gentleman did excellently by getting in early after the announcement.

It is our duty in this place to protect people like Alice Webb from unqualified practitioners who cut corners, while backing British businesses that do the right thing. This is something we take seriously. Colleagues will want to hold us to account as we deliver, and I give hon. Members my commitment that we want to work with colleagues as we develop these regulations. We want to get them right, and that will take time. This is complex, as people understand. I look forward to working with colleagues to make this a success.

14:34

[Bradley Thomas]

I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for attending. First and foremost in my mind remain Jan, Alice and anyone who has had a treatment that has gone wrong or, in Alice’s case sadly, been fatal.

I put on record my thanks to a constituent of mine, Nicky Robinson, who first brought this issue to my attention, around 12 months ago. Nicky is a CQC-accredited nurse and practitioner. She summed it up to me when she visited my surgery and said, “This is not about banning; this is about raising the baseline clinical standard, not just to protect patients but to protect the industry as a whole.” That is the fundamental point we have to bear in mind. We do not want to be in a society that prevents people from having treatments; we want to enable people to have whatever treatments they want in as safe a way as possible.

Let me acknowledge a few contributions from hon. Members. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) talked about Jan and the crisis that has taken place with regard to implants. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of ensuring that any regulations apply throughout the United Kingdom, not just in England. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) talked about the cost to the NHS. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about confidence in practitioners and highlighted the horrific cases of botulism in the midlands and the north-east. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) emphasised the fact that most in the industry want there to be a standard that protects them, so that they can be confident that people who come to see them are not questioning whether the procedure will be conducted in a clinically safe way.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding. This is one topic that will not go away; it is only going to be on the increase, particularly as societal concerns around body image are exacerbated by the continued use of social media. When the Government introduce a regime around these treatments, it is critical that we work closely with local authorities, so that they have the confidence to administer it properly, with a baseline level of consistency across the country. We must be careful not to place burdens on local authorities that they cannot or do not have the confidence to enforce.

As the Government consult on this issue in the new year, the whole industry will be holding their feet to the fire. Although they have to go through a period of consultation, I encourage the Minister and the Government to work at the utmost pace to get whatever baseline level of clinical standard in place as swiftly as possible, so that we can give confidence not just to industry but to society at large.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.

14:38

Sitting suspended.