When you choose Botox, fillers, or beauty treatments, you should be free to see the trusted practitioner you know, not be pushed into a smaller, more expensive, healthcare‑only system. Right now, privately run healthcare‑aligned organisations, sponsored by pharmaceutical and aesthetic products companies are attempting to push regulations that would drive thousands of experienced independent practitioners out of the UK aesthetics sector.

If they succeed, prices for Botox and fillers treatments will rise, local choice of practitioners will shrink, and many people may be priced out of treatments altogether and there will be a mass exodus from the NHS. Longstanding practitioners, most of them women running small businesses, could lose their livelihoods despite years of safe, compliant practice and loyal client bases. In short, the beauty and aesthetics industry will be monopolised by nurses, doctors and dentists.

This petition calls for transparency, fairness, and genuine evidence‑based regulation. The truth needs to be told and we are asking regulators and governments to investigate how these organisations are influencing policy, to recognise the vital role independent practitioners play, and to ensure future rules do not hand control of beauty and aesthetics solely to a narrow group of healthcare practitioners who are working in beauty and aesthetics alongside other roles, such as the NHS.

Sign this petition if you want to protect freedom of choice, keep treatments accessible and affordable, and make sure independent beauty and aesthetics professionals can work freely in the profession they have chosen. 

PETITION DIRECTED TO
Professional Standards Authority
Charity Commission for England and Wales
Department of Health and Social Care
Scottish Government

WHY THIS PETITION MATTERS - SHARE THE LINK - https://c.org/N5cvbQTYZF

Most members of the public have never heard of the organisations who are attempting to restrict aesthetics to their own members, and that is part of the problem.

Organisations such as the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP), the British Association of Medical Aesthetic Nurses (BAMAN), the Scottish Medical Aesthetics Safety Group (SMASG), and BCAM. These organisations are all linked by trustees, directors and members and, together, they have lobbied the government, MSPs and MPs for many years in order to attempt to ban independent practitioners from doing some treatments, such as injectables.  They have influenced standards,  regulation, and messaging, yet most clients have no idea who they are.

BABTAC, and the British Beauty Council are Beauty based organisations and yet, they have been 'captured' by the JCCP and BAMAN and now sit as committee members and trustees on the JCCP board.

Concerns have been raised about all of these organisations, their policy influence, governance, transparency, and funding relationships with pharmaceutical companies and product manufacturers.

This is despite no clear, independent evidence showing that experienced beauty or aesthetics practitioners are less safe than healthcare professionals purely because of their job title. These concerns need public examination, not private discussion.

WHY COMMERCIAL SPONSORSHIP MATTERS

The public deserves transparency around why companies with commercial stakes sponsor or support bodies that influence who may practise in this field.

A restricted market means fewer providers, less competition, and greater protection for expensive, established brands. In essence, dominant companies benefit when innovation and affordable alternatives are excluded.

This dynamic is similar to other industries where older, costly models resist competition from newer, more affordable innovations, and it is the consumer who pays the price.

At its heart, this is about trust. Are aesthetic regulations being shaped for genuine public safety, or are they protecting entrenched commercial interests?

WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONERS ARE FORCED OUT OF THE AESTHETICS INDUSTRY

If highly skilled independent practitioners are pushed out of the aesthetics sector through restrictive healthcare-led or title-based regulation, the public will feel the impact immediately.

Prices for Botox, fillers, and other beauty treatments will rise sharply because fewer practitioners will be allowed to offer them. Clients may face drastically reduced choice, longer waiting lists, and far higher prices for services that were once affordable and widely available.

For many people, this is the central issue: the practitioner you know, trust, and have seen safely for years may no longer be permitted to treat you, not because of poor skill, hygiene, or training, but because restrictive organisations want rules based on job title rather than competence or evidence.

If large parts of the existing workforce are pushed out, treatments will be concentrated in fewer hands, leading to reduced competition, fewer local options, and rising costs. Many consumers may be priced out altogether.

This will also cause serious economic harm. Thousands of lawful, tax-paying businesses, many owned and operated by women, could be forced toward closure or bankruptcy. Families may lose income, staff may lose jobs, and experienced professionals who invested heavily in training, premises, and equipment could be driven from the industry entirely.

The knock-on effects extend further. Fewer providers mean prescriber bottlenecks, reduced local access, and less availability in lower-income areas or outside major cities, where independent clinics currently deliver vital services.

Rather than improving safety, these restrictions would reduce access, inflate costs, and concentrate control among a narrow group of interests. Worryingly, it would also drive some treatments 'underground' making the aesthetics industry less safe.  There is already a steady rise of members of the public purchasing products online and attempting to do treatments themselves.

Above all, this is a question of fairness. It is unjust to suggest that  highly trained, full-time independent aesthetics specialists are inferior simply because they do not hold a healthcare title. Nursing does not equate to beauty and aesthetics and is an entirely different career path whereas, many independent practitioners have devoted their careers to this field. Their ability, commitment, passion and skill count far more than a nursing PIN on their credentials.

WHY THE PUBLIC SHOULD CARE

When you book Botox, fillers, laser, or skin treatments, you should be confident that the rules governing those treatments were debated fairly, transparently, and backed by proper evidence.  To date, there has been no evidence against independent aesthetic practitioners.

The public should not be misled by organisations claiming to speak for safety while serious concerns remain about fairness, representation, and influence.

Cosmetic clients are not hospital patients, they are adults choosing elective services. They deserve freedom to select a practitioner based on skill, cleanliness, transparency, and trust, not restricted by unseen lobbying or biased policy.

If private organisations are deciding who can and cannot work, the public must know who they are, what they represent, and whose interests they serve.

WHY PRACTITIONERS SHOULD CARE

Tens of thousands of lawful, experienced beauty and aesthetics practitioners, the vast majority women, are affected by decisions made by organisations they never elected and did not consent to represent them.

Many joined such bodies in good faith. Many non-prescribing nurses joined BAMAN or similar organisations expecting fair professional representation. Many beauty and aesthetics practitioners looked to BABTAC or the British Beauty Council for support, unaware of the deeper interconnections and sponsorships now raising concern.

Independent practitioners have the right to ask whether these organisations truly represent their interests or have aligned too closely with restrictive agendas that limit opportunity and undermine established businesses.

Most independent practitioners work full-time in aesthetics, not as a sideline. They have built skill, confidence, and long-term client relationships. They deserve recognition, not exclusion.

THE ORGANISATIONS NAMED IN THIS PETITION

JCCP (Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners) is a voluntary register and charity in the cosmetic field. Serious concerns exist regarding its claimed independence, policy influence, and funding relationships with pharmaceutical and aesthetic products companies. In fact, these very companies have representatives who are trustees and members of the JCCP.

BAMAN (British Association of Medical Aesthetic Nurses) is an organisation representing nurses in aesthetics. Questions have been raised about whether its actions have supported restrictive outcomes for non-prescribing nurses and independent practitioners. They are known to accept sponsorship and payments from pharmaceutical and aesthetic products companies.

SMASG (Scottish Medical Aesthetics Safety Group) is active in Scotland and linked to advocacy and regulation discussions. Multiple concerns have emerged about its influence, governance, and fairness, in particular regarding a leaked whatsapp chat with activity and discussion of how to restrict independent practitioners.

BABTAC and The British Beauty Council are long-standing beauty sector bodies. Critics question whether their involvement and alignment with the above organisations has not been transparent and they have not supported their own members.

Evidence shows overlapping relationships and interconnections between these organisations that are not well understood publicly and this has shaped government perception and policy unfairly, particularly in Scotland.

TO MEMBERS OF BAMAN AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS NAMED HERE

This petition does not claim that every BAMAN member agrees with organisational decisions or policies. Members should review official materials independently and decide if continued membership represents their values, particularly concerning discrimination against a predominantly female led workforce.

The same applies to anyone affiliated with the JCCP, BABTAC, the British Beauty Council, or SMASG. You are entitled to ask whether your membership fees and professional reputation are supporting fair representation or reinforcing exclusionary policies. Do you feel comfortable with such unfair bias? 

If transparency, independence, and accountability are lacking, members have every right to seek answers or withdraw support altogether.

WHAT WE ARE CALLING FOR

We, the undersigned, call for:

An independent investigation into the governance, influence, public representations, funding relationships, and policy role of the JCCP.

A formal review of the interlinked roles between the JCCP, BAMAN, SMASG, BABTAC, and the British Beauty Council to determine whether these relationships undermine fair representation.

Full transparency regarding how these groups have shaped policy, standards, and public messaging.

A policy review ensuring decisions affecting independent practitioners are evidence-based, not anecdotal or selective. To date, there is no evidence against independent practitioners working in the aesthetics industry and this has been confirmed by freedom of information requests.

A public examination of the economic and social consequences of excluding independent practitioners from the aesthetics sector.

A commitment to include fair and balanced representation of independent practitioners in all future regulatory discussions.

Public response from BAMAN, BABTAC, and the British Beauty Council clarifying how they represent independent aesthetic practitioners’ interests.

A call on members of these organisations to reconsider continued support pending meaningful transparency and reform.

THIS IS A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS

The public deserves honesty about who is influencing rules that directly determine prices, access, and choice. Clients will lose freedom, affordability, and trusted professionals unless regulation includes every part of this sector fairly.

Practitioners deserve balanced, fact-based representation.

No private or restrictive organisation should determine who can earn a living, who can treat the public, and whose voices deserve to be heard without scrutiny.

If these organisations are confident in their role, they should welcome independent investigation. If they are not, both practitioners and the public deserve answers.

IMPORTANT PUBLIC INTEREST NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

This petition raises matters of public interest regarding the governance, influence, sponsorship, and policy role of private organisations active in UK cosmetic treatments.

It draws on publicly available materials, including FOI responses, filings, consultation documents, and verified records, believed accurate at the time of writing.

This petition does not assert civil, criminal, or regulatory liability for any individual or organisation. It reflects expressions of opinion made in good faith on matters of legitimate public interest.

Its purpose is transparency, accountability, and fair representation, not harassment or accusation. Any organisation named is welcome to respond and provide evidence clarifying its position.

SIGN THIS PETITION IF YOU BELIEVE

The public deserves openness about who influences cosmetic treatments policy.
Practitioners deserve fair treatment and proper representation.
Rules affecting Botox, fillers, and beauty treatments should be created with transparency, equality, and evidence.
No organisation should be beyond independent scrutiny.
Members should not continue supporting organisations that cannot explain their decisions openly.
Independent practitioners should remain a vital, respected part of the aesthetics sector.

Sign and share this petition.
And if you belong to BAMAN, BABTAC, the British Beauty Council, or any organisation named here, ask whether your continued support reflects your values.