The Women and Equalities Committee’s recent evidence session on cosmetic procedure regulation was one of the most encouraging updates on this issue in years, and it’s worth explaining why, because the aesthetics industry has heard a great deal of consultation and very little implementation.
The Keogh Review landed in 2013, following the PIP breast implant scandal, and set out a clear case for tighter regulation of non-surgical cosmetic procedures. At the time, it felt like real legislative change was close. Thirteen years on, much of that change is still waiting to happen, while the non-surgical sector has grown substantially in the meantime.
What made this session different was the tone from the witnesses. Nora Nugent, representing BAAPS, and Ashton Collins of Save Face didn’t simply restate the case for reform. They pushed back directly on the suggestion of another consultation, and made clear that the sector needs implementation now, not further scoping. Among the practical proposals raised, Nora Nugent’s call for a non-surgical treatment passport stood out: a portable record, held by the patient, of exactly what has been done, where, and by whom.
It’s a simple idea and a genuinely useful one. Patients currently have no reliable, portable way to prove what treatment they’ve had, with what product, and from which practitioner, which matters enormously if something goes wrong or if a patient later needs care from a different provider. It’s also precisely the gap that the Tweak app, developed by Dr Kat Bennett, was built to close. Kendrick PR has been supporting Tweak’s communications as it builds this treatment passport model for patients and practitioners, giving both sides a proper record now, rather than waiting for legislation to catch up with a problem that already has a workable answer.
The evidence from this session is strong, and the witnesses are broadly aligned on what needs to happen next. What’s required now is government follow-through on that evidence, rather than another round of scoping and consultation. For an industry that has waited over a decade for meaningful movement on patient safety, that distinction, between being asked for more evidence and being asked to act on the evidence already given, matters more than it might first appear.