Today, 9 September 2026, the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) examined delays to proposed regulation of non-surgical cosmetic procedures, hearing evidence on the ongoing risks posed by high-risk treatments and unregulated practitioners.
More than a year after the Government announced plans to strengthen regulation, MPs from the WEC heard evidence from Nora Nugent, the president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) and Ashton Collins, the Director of Save Face, during an evidence session to follow up WEC’s inquiry and report on Cosmetic procedures.
In February, the Women and Equalities Committee published its Health impacts of breast implants and other cosmetic procedures report, calling for urgent reform of the non-surgical cosmetic procedures sector, an immediate ban on liquid BBLs and stronger action on cosmetic tourism and body image pressures.
In the report, MPs urged the government to move faster to introduce the proposed licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures.
What was discussed in parliament?
MPs on the Women and Equalities Committee heard evidence from Ashton Collins and Nora Nugent, on the ongoing risks posed by high-risk cosmetic procedures, including liquid BBLs, unregulated practitioners and cosmetic surgery tourism. Witnesses called for urgent legislation defining who can perform procedures and where, stronger enforcement and cross-regulator cooperation, alongside sustained public awareness campaigns to help patients make safer choices.
Nora and Ashton described widespread complications from procedures including liquid BBLs, liquid breast augmentation and cosmetic surgery carried out in inappropriate settings.
"To date, we've had over 1,200 women who have had either liquid BBL or liquid breast augmentation complications. Over 50% of those women have had sepsis, have been hospitalized and a further 40% of those have needed extensive corrective surgery, ongoing district nurse care, and I can't stress strongly enough how much of an impact that's had on their lives," explained Ashton.
Examples were given of procedures taking place in living rooms, bedrooms, beauty salons and other unsuitable premises, including cases of patients being left with permanent injuries.
Both witnesses stressed that these treatments are medical procedures carrying potentially serious complications, rather than simply beauty treatments.
Social media as a driver for the unregulated cosmetic procedures market
Social media was identified as a major driver of the unregulated market, with practitioners able to advertise high-risk treatments extensively.
Patients are targeted in an almost “criminal underground” approach in some cases: patients paying upfront, being given the treatment location only at the last minute and being escorted into private properties.
Some patients reportedly felt pressured or intimidated into proceeding even when they recognised obvious red flags, while others were allegedly threatened when they later complained.
Unifying regulatory bodies
Ashton argued that regulatory organisations often operate in "silos," leaving gaps where unregulated practitioners can operate.
"For the last ten years, I've been begging for the establishment of a dedicated task force, because oftentimes complaints involving these types of procedures are complex and require input from a vast array of different regulatory authorities," shared Ashton.
"And currently, these organisations operate in silos, and they don't take these complaints as seriously as they ought to, which means that current legislation is underpoliced and underenforced. I would like there to be much more accountability around the regulators that are responsible for policing and enforcing this legislation."
Remote prescribing and illegal products
Ashton raised concerns about widespread remote prescribing, particularly for botulinum toxin.
"You could go on social media this afternoon and find hundreds, if not 1000s, of practitioners offering botulinum toxin; they're not healthcare professionals, and you never see or speak to a prescriber,” she shared.
They claimed some non-healthcare practitioners advertise injectable treatments without patients ever seeing or speaking to an appropriate prescriber.
Concerns were also raised about illegal or unlicensed imported products, including botulinum toxin, and the potential safety implications.
Better records and an “aesthetic passport”
Recently, BCAM urged aesthetic patients to keep secure records of the treatments they receive, including details of the clinic and practitioner.
This sentiment was further discussed in parliament. Nora explained, "Patients should be given a non-surgical passport, much like they are with their surgical procedures, that they can carry with them, that tells them what products they've had, what treatments they've had, when they've had them.”
This would allow patients to provide accurate treatment histories if they subsequently attend another clinic or require medical treatment.
Cosmetic tourism
The committee also examined cosmetic surgery abroad.
It was discussed that whilst the trend of cosmetic tourism complications may be slowing slightly, the major driver remains price, because procedures can be substantially cheaper overseas.
Concerns included:
- Inadequate aftercare once patients return to the UK
- Misleading or trivialised marketing presenting surgery as part of a holiday
- Multiple procedures being performed during the same trip
- Patients being operated on despite significant medical or mobility risk
- Younger patients being encouraged to undergo procedures they may not yet need
“The vast driver in people going abroad for surgery is the fact that it is significantly cheaper, and it's advertised in a very sort of trivial way, whereby you have this procedure done, you get this lovely holiday to recuperate, and then you come back looking fantastic," explains Ashton.
"However, the way in which these things are being sold is very irresponsible, misleading, and there is no aftercare or follow-up when they return to the UK.”
NHS burden is not being adequately captured
A key point was that the NHS does not currently have a complete picture of the complications and costs resulting from surgery performed overseas.
The problem is that NHS coding records the treatment required, for example, wound debridement or skin grafting, rather than necessarily recording that the original surgery took place abroad.
"We have suggested a separate code that could be applied when the surgery has taken place overseas to capture that activity," explained Nora.
Cosmetic surgery and specialist qualifications
Nora said the General Medical Council (GMC) was limited in what it could do without legislative change. She argued that tighter controls around professional titles and clearer consequences for doctors working outside their training or scope of practice could help patients distinguish between appropriately qualified specialists and those without relevant specialist training.
“From a GMC perspective, they can't do anything significant without legislation,” Nugent told the committee. “But two things would help. One would be proper use of titles, so not allowing people to use made-up titles.”
She added that legislation could also provide a basis for action where doctors practise outside their area of training or expertise.
“But without legislation to back it, it's going to be very, very difficult for the GMC to do anything,” she said.
Nugent also raised concerns about proposed changes to the GMC’s specialist register, saying the removal of the register could make it harder for patients to identify specialists.
“The GMC consultation has suggested removing the specialist register altogether and coming out with something called enhancements, which none of us are entirely clear what that would mean to identify a specialist going forward,” she said. “It certainly won't help the current situation.”
Ashton Collins, director of Save Face, acknowledged that an underground market would likely continue even with stronger legislation, but argued that regulation would give authorities greater powers to identify illegal activity and provide patients with a route to justice.
“I think you know there will always be people who operate under the radar,” Collins said. “But I think the important thing there would be if legislation was in place, people would have the tools and resources to identify what is and isn't illegal.”
The need for ongoing campaigning
The witnesses also stressed that public education cannot be treated as a one-off intervention. While individual campaigns can raise awareness around specific procedures or risks, they argued that the impact of those campaigns will diminish unless awareness is continually reinforced.
The need for a sustained approach was particularly clear in Ashton Collins’ evidence, where she highlighted the impact of campaigning and media coverage around liquid BBLs. She said this had led to a “huge increase” in public awareness, particularly because there had previously been little information available beyond social media.
"This needs to be something that's ongoing as a long-running constant campaign; one-off campaigns are fine at the time, but the impact will wane. It has to be a sustained effort," explained Nora.
Calls for urgent legislation rather than another general consultation
The discussion commented on the possibility of the Government conducting another broad consultation.
The witnesses argued that the problems are already well understood and that another general consultation could delay regulation further. If another consultation takes place, they said it should focus on the specifics of legislation and implementation, rather than revisiting issues already established.
Nora and Ashton said legislation needs to establish:
- Who can perform which procedures;
- Where those procedures can be carried out
- What level of training, qualification and expertise is required
Where does this leave cosmetic procedure regulation?
The evidence session reinforced the central concern raised by the Women and Equalities Committee earlier this year: the risks are well established, but regulation has yet to catch up.
The proposed framework would distinguish between higher-risk procedures requiring stronger restrictions and lower-risk procedures subject to practitioner and premises licensing.
For the witnesses, however, the question is no longer whether the sector needs regulation, but how quickly meaningful legislation can be put in place and enforced.
That leaves the Government facing pressure to move from consultation and policy development to implementation. With the WEC having already called for urgent action on high-harm procedures and acceleration of the licensing system, the next test will be whether those commitments translate into legislation, clear responsibilities for regulators and effective enforcement.
