Orchids Spa

https://www.facebook.com/share/1FZoh5iNY5/

SAVE FACE EVIDENCE HAS NOW BEEN SENT TO PARLIAMENT, GOVERNMENT, REGULATORS AND THE MEDIA

UK Independent Aesthetic Practitioners has now completed a substantial national distribution of evidence concerning Save Face, the use of Save Face material in Parliamentary and regulatory discussion, and the wider structures helping to shape the future regulation of non-surgical aesthetics.

BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, READ WHAT THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT'S OWN FOI RESPONSES SAY

In FOI/202600511008, the Scottish Government was specifically asked whether it had undertaken any independent verification or validation of complaints reported by Save Face before relying upon them. Its answer was explicit:

"The Scottish Government has not undertaken any independent verification or validation of complaints reported by Save Face."

The same response confirmed that Save Face and the JCCP were among the stakeholder organisations with which the Scottish Government had engaged while developing its non-surgical procedures legislation and associated regulatory proposals.

Read Scottish Government FOI/202600511008

A later and much more detailed request, FOI/202600529341, asked the Scottish Government for recorded information showing whether Save Face cases or figures had been independently verified, whether the identity or professional registration status of the practitioner had been checked, whether the date and location of treatment had been verified, whether duplicate reports had been identified and removed, whether procedure numbers for different practitioner groups were known, whether the information related specifically to Scotland and whether officials had recorded limitations, reservations or cautions.

The Scottish Government's response was that it did not hold the requested information, issuing a formal section 17 notice under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. The same FOI also sought records showing whether Save Face information had been classified as verified evidence, stakeholder evidence, self-reported material, anecdotal information, intelligence requiring verification or evidence capable of supporting legislative restrictions. Again, the Scottish Government said that it did not hold the requested information.

Read Scottish Government FOI/202600529341

These are official Scottish Government FOI responses. They are now part of the documentary record UK-IAP has placed before Parliament, Government, regulators and the media.

A further Scottish Government release, FOI/202600508655, disclosed correspondence and meeting records in which Save Face data, statistics or complaint figures were provided or discussed. The Government also stated that it did not hold the spreadsheets, tables or summaries of Save Face data requested under that FOI.

Read Scottish Government FOI/202600508655

THE EVIDENCE HAS NOW BEEN DISTRIBUTED

The first distribution took place on 7 September 2026, when UK-IAP sent three detailed evidence papers to Parliamentary offices, Government departments, regulators, professional bodies, industry organisations and journalists. A further distribution was completed on 16 September 2026, including BBC investigative contacts, programme teams, replacement addresses where earlier emails had failed and additional media routes.

The UK-IAP distribution register now records 85 unique external recipients or submission routes across those two distributions. Every successful send, failed delivery, acknowledgement, substantive reply and replacement route is being recorded so that there is a permanent evidential record of who received the material, when they received it and what response was provided.

This was not a general lobbying email. The documents were prepared as evidence papers, supported by Government records, Freedom of Information disclosures, source documents, dates, published statements and specific questions requiring examination.

THE THREE EVIDENCE PAPERS

The first paper, Women and Equalities Committee: Save Face Evidence Verification Brief, was prepared because Save Face material has entered Parliamentary and Government discussion about non-surgical cosmetic procedures. Save Face subsequently gave oral evidence to the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee on 9 September 2026.

The question raised by the UK-IAP paper is therefore a basic one of evidential standards: before complaint figures, case histories and safety claims are relied upon in discussions capable of influencing legislation and regulatory restrictions, who has independently established what those figures actually represent and whether the underlying cases support the conclusions being drawn from them?

That question becomes considerably more serious when an official Government FOI response expressly states that the Scottish Government itself did not undertake independent verification or validation of complaints reported by Save Face.

The second paper, The Professional Standards Authority: Institutional Interest in a Restricted Aesthetics Market, examines the PSA's position within this regulatory debate. The PSA operates the Accredited Registers programme and currently accredits both Save Face and the JCCP. It also publicly promotes Accredited Registers as a mechanism for consumer protection within non-surgical cosmetic practice.

UK-IAP has therefore examined the relationship between the PSA's public policy position, its responsibility for the Accredited Registers programme and regulatory proposals that could substantially increase the importance of registers operating within that programme.

Where a public oversight body is advocating regulatory arrangements that may increase reliance upon a programme for which that same organisation is responsible, Parliament and Government should examine the institutional relationship and the evidence supporting the proposed model.

The third paper, The Save Face and Victoria Lee Facial Injury Case, examines one of the most serious individual cases associated with Save Face's public evidence. UK-IAP has examined the documentary basis upon which the cause of those injuries has been described, particularly where different causal explanations have appeared at different times and where the case has subsequently been placed before Parliament within a wider regulatory argument.

UK-IAP has therefore asked what objective medical evidence establishes the cause of those injuries, what documentary evidence supports the explanations that have been presented, and what verification took place before the case was relied upon within Parliamentary discussion.

WHO RECEIVED THE EVIDENCE

The evidence was distributed across Parliamentary, Government, regulatory, professional and media routes, including the Women and Equalities Committee and its members, Department of Health and Social Care offices, Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament contacts, the Professional Standards Authority, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, the Care Quality Commission, the MHRA, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council, the Health and Care Professions Council, environmental health organisations, the JCCP, professional associations, aesthetics and beauty trade media, national journalists and BBC investigative and programme contacts.

The distribution also included BBC News, BBC News Investigations, BBC Radio 4 File on 4 Investigates, BBC Breakfast, Woman's Hour, BBC Wales and the production company behind Dr Xand's Con or Cure.

The full distribution register is retained by UK-IAP.

WHY UK-IAP IS PUBLISHING THIS

For too long, serious regulatory arguments affecting independent aesthetic practitioners have been built around statistics, complaints and individual cases which move from one organisation to another, into media reporting, into Government discussion and eventually into Parliamentary evidence, until repetition itself begins to give those claims the appearance of established fact.

That is not an acceptable evidential basis upon which to determine the future of an entire profession.

Where an organisation tells Parliament that particular categories of practitioner are responsible for large numbers of complaints or poor outcomes, the underlying evidence should withstand examination. Where an individual case is used to demonstrate a wider regulatory problem, the evidence establishing what actually caused that outcome should be available for scrutiny. Where thousands of complaints are cited as evidence of sector-wide harm, there should be clear definitions explaining what constituted a complaint, whether cases were independently substantiated, whether practitioners were correctly identified, whether duplicate reports were removed, whether illegal activity was separated from lawful practice, and what number of procedures sits behind the complaint total.

A complaint count without those foundations is not a comparative safety rate.

If claims are sufficiently serious to be used in arguments for legislation, licensing, restrictions on practice and the exclusion of practitioner groups, those claims must be capable of surviving the same degree of scrutiny that would be expected of any other evidence placed before Government or Parliament.

UK-IAP is therefore placing the documentary record into the hands of the organisations, regulators, Parliamentarians and journalists who are in a position to examine it.

Over the next posts, UK-IAP will publish each of the three evidence papers separately, together with the Government records, FOI disclosures and source material underlying the issues raised. You do not have to take our word for it. Read the documents and judge the evidence for yourself.

We will continue to publish the records, identify inconsistencies, trace regulatory claims back to their original source and ask the questions that should have been asked before unverified material was permitted to acquire influence over public policy.

REPRESENT • INFORM • SUPPORT • PROTECT

Follow UK-IAP

WHO ARE UK-IAP?

TL;DR: UK-IAP represents independent aesthetic practitioners and has spent years working largely behind the scenes, gathering evidence, submitting Freedom of Information requests, corresponding with government and examining claims made about our sector. We are now bringing much more of that work into public view because, where statements are made about independent practitioners that are not supported by the available evidence, we believe they should be questioned, tested against the documentary record and, where necessary, challenged publicly.

UK-IAP is the Independent Aesthetic Practitioner Register, established to represent and support independent practitioners working within the UK aesthetics sector.

We have been around for a long time, although many practitioners and members of the public may not have heard very much about us because much of our work has taken place behind the scenes. During that time, we have examined policy, corresponded with government departments, scrutinised consultation processes, questioned regulatory proposals, submitted Freedom of Information requests and gathered documentary evidence in order to establish what is actually happening within the aesthetics sector, rather than relying upon repeated claims or accepted narratives.

UK-IAP is run by a small administration team of 10 practitioners, supported by members across the country, and we are entirely self-funded and independent. Our purpose is straightforward: independent aesthetic practitioners need an informed, organised and credible voice when decisions are being made about regulation, licensing, education, prescribing and the future of aesthetic practice, particularly when those decisions may affect thousands of businesses and the clients who use them.

We engage with government departments, politicians, regulators and other organisations where policies affecting practitioners are being discussed or developed, and our work includes submitting evidence, responding to consultations, examining official documents and correspondence, raising questions directly and using Freedom of Information legislation where information is not otherwise available.

We are now becoming much more public about that work because we are increasingly identifying matters which, in our view, require far greater scrutiny, including conflicts of interest, unsupported claims and evidence presented to Parliament or government which does not appear to have been independently verified. We will be publishing much more about those matters in forthcoming posts because practitioners and members of the public should be able to see how regulatory arguments are formed, who has contributed to them and what evidence has actually been relied upon.

Where claims are made about independent aesthetic practitioners that are not supported by the available evidence, UK-IAP will challenge them publicly and show the evidence behind that challenge. We will refer to official correspondence, FOI responses, consultation documents, parliamentary records, published material, complaints and other source documents so that people can examine the underlying information for themselves rather than being expected to accept a statement simply because it has been repeated by an organisation, regulator or professional body.

Independent practitioners should not have to spend their working lives defending themselves against generalisations or accusations which have never been properly evidenced, particularly when so many of them have spent years building responsible businesses around repeat custom, personal recommendations and long-standing relationships with their clients. Those clients are not abstract figures in a consultation document; they are people we know, care about and take responsibility for every day, and that relationship between practitioner and client is often entirely absent from wider regulatory discussion.

The public therefore has an important place in this debate because regulation does not affect practitioners alone. Decisions about who may provide treatments, where those treatments may take place, what qualifications are recognised and what regulatory structures businesses must operate within can directly affect client choice, treatment availability and price, which means that regulatory policy can have a substantial effect on the people who actually use aesthetic services.

Scotland is particularly important in this respect because the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Act 2026 has now been passed, alongside a separate licensing framework for other procedures, and UK-IAP has been examining that process in considerable detail. We are looking at the evidence that informed the proposals, the organisations and individuals who contributed to the discussion, the representation given to independent practitioners and the likely consequences for both businesses and the public as the new system is implemented.

We believe clients should retain the right to make an informed choice about who provides their treatments, and we do not believe aesthetic procedures should become unnecessarily inaccessible or unaffordable because regulatory systems have been constructed primarily around professional title rather than demonstrable competence, training, experience, standards and evidence.

This is especially significant in an industry in which a large proportion of practitioners are women running independent businesses, supporting families, employing other people and practising aesthetics as their principal occupation. Their businesses, experience and livelihoods deserve proper representation when decisions are being made about the future of the sector, rather than being treated as secondary to organisations whose members may practise aesthetics only as one part of a wider professional career.

Where voluntary registers, professional organisations, commercial bodies, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, training organisations or other interested parties take part in discussions about regulation, we believe practitioners and the public are entitled to know who those organisations represent, how they are funded, what evidence supports the claims they make and what influence they have had upon policy. Financial relationships, sponsorship arrangements, commercial interests and organisational links are relevant where bodies are seeking to influence regulation, and they should be capable of open examination.

The aesthetics sector already contains major statutory healthcare professional registers alongside numerous voluntary registers and organisations, but UK-IAP exists to ensure that independent aesthetic practitioners are represented within that wider discussion and that their experience, evidence and concerns are not overlooked. Our position is that regulation should be based upon evidence, competence, training, public safety and fair representation, rather than professional title alone.

This page will publish UK-IAP activity, government correspondence, consultation work, FOI findings, regulatory developments and documentary evidence concerning matters that affect independent aesthetic practitioners and their clients, with the intention of making that information accessible rather than allowing important decisions to remain buried within consultations, correspondence, committee papers or organisational statements.

Where we make a factual claim, we intend to show the evidence behind it. Where questions remain unanswered, we will say so, and where something being presented publicly does not correspond with the documentary record, we will say that too.

Where decisions are being made that could affect thousands of practitioners and their clients, we will ask how those decisions were reached, what evidence was relied upon, who was consulted, what interests were represented and whether independent practitioners were given a meaningful opportunity to contribute.

We welcome practitioners who would like to join us, but this page is also intended for clients and members of the public who want to understand what is happening within aesthetics, how regulatory decisions are being made and how those decisions may eventually affect the treatments available to them, the practitioners they can choose and the prices they may be asked to pay.

We will publish separately about UK-IAP membership, what we do for our members and how practitioners can become involved. In the meantime, please follow UK-IAP, share the page with practitioners and clients, and follow the evidence as we begin publishing it.

https://www.facebook.com/share/1Gaox2vxhM/

Get in touch!

💋 # # #

We now have available to purchase online professional nail training guides 🎉

Follow the link to buy! (Guides are under 'products' tab)

https://www.fresha.com/book-now/orchids-spa-and-beauty-training-ltd-qtq8jxfh/all-offer?share=true&pId=152746


Orchids Spa

Elegant nails 💅🏼

Builder gel and gel polish in a beautiful, neutral tone.

Perfect for an every day, classy look.

Book your next nail appointment with us at Orchids Spa Stourport

Book online at www.orchidsspa.co.uk

💋 # # #

Book online at www.orchidsspa.co.uk

💋 # # #

An exclusive opportunity is coming for experienced therapists to become certified practitioners of our luxurious new ritual by Orchids Spa.

Selected therapists will receive accredited training and the opportunity to offer this signature treatment within their own salon or spa, while being promoted as official practitioners through orchidsspa.co.uk for a reduced fee!

Certified practitioners will also be featured on our website and supported through ongoing brand advertising and recognition.

We are carefully selecting a limited number of therapists, salons, and spas across the UK to become part of this exclusive launch.

If you would like to be considered, please comment below or send a private message for more information.

💋 # # #

😍 Exciting times!!

Comment 'me' to join the waitlist!

All will be revealed!



💋 # # #