The Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) has renewed its call for urgent restrictions on high-risk cosmetic procedures, warning that delays in Government action are prolonging a significant risk to patient safety.
In a report published on 11 September 2026, the cross-party committee said it was clear that high-risk procedures were still being performed by unqualified practitioners and in unsafe settings.
MPs called on the Government to introduce immediate restrictions on the highest-risk treatments, require practitioners carrying out invasive cosmetic surgery to have specialist training and appropriate board certification, and publish a timetable for wider regulatory reform.
The report followed an evidence session held on 9 September with Nora Nugent, president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS), and Ashton Collins, director of Save Face.
In February, WEC published its report into the health impacts of breast implants and other cosmetic procedures. It recommended that ‘high-harm’ procedures, including liquid Brazilian butt lifts (BBLs), should be removed from the high street immediately, without another broad consultation.
The Government’s response was due in April but had still not been received when the committee published its latest report, almost seven months later.
WEC said the delay had left important recommendations unaddressed and warned that the Government was not moving quickly enough to introduce the proposed licensing system for non-surgical cosmetic procedures.
In a letter published by the committee in June, Health Minister Karin Smyth acknowledged concerns about the pace of progress. She said the Government intended to issue its formal response alongside a consultation setting out its proposed approach and the legislation that would support it.
The Minister described this as a complex policy area requiring a balance between patient safety, new requirements for businesses and regulation that is both proportionate and enforceable. She also confirmed the Government remained committed to introducing licensing during the current Parliament.
WEC has now warned that the lack of timely action is fostering complacency around self-regulation in the aesthetics sector.
During the September evidence session, Nugent and Collins described complications arising from liquid BBLs, liquid breast augmentation and cosmetic surgery performed in unsuitable premises.
The committee heard about procedures taking place in living rooms, bedrooms, beauty salons and other settings that were not equipped for medical treatment. Some patients had reportedly been left with permanent injuries.
Both witnesses stressed that these are medical procedures carrying potentially serious complications, rather than simply beauty treatments.
Interim WEC chair and Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine said the committee had previously heard testimony from a woman who developed sepsis after a liquid BBL. She argued that this experience and those of other patients demonstrated the urgent need to address what she described as an evolving “wild west”.
The effect of the regulatory gap is also disproportionately felt by women. During the evidence session, the committee heard that the “vast majority” of these treatments are carried out on women and that women are ultimately paying the price for the lack of regulation.
Social media was identified as an important driver of the unregulated market, allowing practitioners to advertise high-risk procedures directly and extensively to potential patients.
In some cases, Collins described an approach resembling a “criminal underground”. Patients may be asked to pay upfront before being told the treatment location at the last minute. They may then be escorted into a private property for the procedure.
Some patients reportedly felt pressured or intimidated into going ahead even after recognising warning signs. Others were allegedly threatened after complaining about their treatment or its outcome.
Although public education can help patients identify unsafe practice, the witnesses argued that responsibility cannot rest with patients alone. This is particularly important where misleading advertising, pressure selling or deliberate attempts to avoid regulatory scrutiny are involved.
Collins also raised concerns that regulatory organisations can operate in “silos”, leaving gaps that unregulated practitioners are able to exploit.
Remote prescribing was discussed as one example. The committee heard concerns about non-healthcare practitioners advertising botulinum toxin treatments without patients seeing or speaking to an appropriate prescriber.
Questions were also raised about illegal, unlicensed or unauthorised imported products, including botulinum toxin, and the possible consequences for patient safety.
Practitioners should source products through reputable and authorised suppliers, understand the legal and professional requirements that apply to prescription-only medicines and maintain clear records of the products used.
The British College of Aesthetic Medicine (BCAM) recently encouraged patients to keep secure records of their aesthetic treatments, including details of the clinic and practitioner.
Nugent expanded on this idea during the committee session, suggesting that patients could be issued with a non-surgical treatment passport similar to the information supplied following surgical procedures.
This could record the treatments and products a patient has received, when they were administered and by whom. It would allow patients to provide an accurate treatment history if they moved to another clinic, experienced a complication or needed medical care.
Good record keeping is already central to safe aesthetic practice. Practitioners should accurately document the consultation, consent process, clinical decisions, product and batch details, treatment delivery and aftercare advice.
The committee also examined the risks associated with travelling overseas for cosmetic surgery.
Concerns included inadequate aftercare when patients return to the UK, marketing that presents surgery as part of a holiday and several procedures being performed during the same trip. The committee also heard about patients undergoing surgery despite significant medical or mobility risks and younger people being encouraged to have procedures they might not need.
The NHS does not currently have a complete picture of the complications or costs arising from surgery carried out abroad. NHS coding may record the treatment needed to manage a complication, such as wound debridement or skin grafting, without identifying that the original procedure took place overseas.
This makes it difficult to establish the scale of the problem and its wider effect on NHS resources.
Nugent told the committee that the General Medical Council was limited in the action it could take without legislative change.
She argued that tighter controls around professional titles could help patients distinguish between appropriately qualified specialists and doctors without relevant specialist training. Clearer consequences for doctors working outside their training or expertise could also provide a stronger basis for regulatory action.
WEC has reiterated that anyone performing invasive surgical cosmetic procedures should have specialist training and hold appropriate board certification for the procedures they carry out.
For all aesthetic practitioners, working within scope of practice remains fundamental. This means only providing treatments for which you have the necessary qualifications, training, competence and insurance.
The possibility of the Government carrying out another broad consultation was also considered.
The witnesses argued that the main safety concerns are already well understood and that another general consultation could delay regulation further. If a consultation is held, they said it should concentrate on the detail of the legislation and its implementation.
The committee said legislation needs to make clear:
The proposed licensing framework is expected to distinguish between higher-risk procedures requiring stronger restrictions and lower-risk procedures governed through practitioner and premises licensing.
The latest report reinforces the central concern raised by WEC in February: the risks are well established, but regulation has yet to catch up.
The Government has confirmed that it intends to introduce a licensing system within the current Parliament. WEC is now calling for faster progress, immediate action in high-harm areas and a clear timetable for wider reform.
Practitioners should not wait for new legislation before reviewing their own standards. Safe and responsible practice includes working within your competence, using suitable premises and authorised products, following prescribing requirements, keeping accurate patient records and making sure you have appropriate insurance for every treatment you provide.
Hamilton Fraser has supported aesthetic practitioners and businesses for 30 years and continues to monitor regulatory developments affecting the sector. If you are introducing a new treatment or changing the way you practise, contact our team on 0800 63 43 881 to check that your cosmetic insurance reflects the procedures you perform and the risks associated with your work or visit our website to get an online quote.
