| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Donald Anderson: At an all-Europe level.
Mr. Straw: That would be done in part by the European Parliament. However, let us be clear that we in the United Kingdom are against any Communitisation of the CFSP and therefore against the European Parliament, which represents voters around Europe but not nation states, having a formal role in the settling of common foreign and security policy.
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset): In 1975, at the time of the last referendum, we had already been a member of the European Union for two and a half years. The question put to the British people was whether they approved of Harold Wilson's renegotiation. The consequences of their not approving would have been that we either left or sought some other arrangement. The consequences of a no vote in a referendum on this constitution would be very similar, so I do not believe that the constitutional position is any different. However, I do not want the Foreign Secretary to re-rehearse his arguments for or against a referendum. I want him to tell the House whether he believes that, if the Government are successful at the IGC, the British people will support continued membership under the new constitution. If he does, why does he not feel that that could be legitimised by the British people voting in a referendum?
Mr. Straw: I am quite clear that the British people support membership of the European Union. Of course, they also have criticisms of the way in which it operates, as do I, but what they want is a Government who stand up for Britain's interests and get the best deal for Britain in terms of prosperity, and also help to secure the peace across Europe.
Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South): There are many on both sides of the House who oppose our involvement in Europe or have done so for many years, and their position has not changed. However, I welcome the White Paper, as I believe that it is an opportunity to discuss in detail the effects of what has emanated from the European Convention. In the light of the low turnout of 59 per cent. in the previous general election, what level of participation would my right hon. Friend expect in a referendum in this country on the Convention?
Mr. Straw: I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend that I have no idea about his last point, as it is a hypothesis on a hypothesis. I am grateful for his welcome of the White Paper as an opportunity for Parliament to do its proper
job in scrutiny. I find it odd that Opposition Members seem to lack confidence in their ability effectively to scrutinise what the Government are doing.
Angus Robertson (Moray): The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there is consternation in fishing communities in Scotland about the treatment of fishing policy in the draft constitution. He will also be aware of the views of the European Scrutiny Committee, which is concerned about the prospect of exclusive EU competence in the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. Why then did he make no mention of fisheries policy in his statement or in the whole paper? Is it because like the Heath Government, he views fishing as expendable, or as the irrelevance that the current Government treat it as?
Mr. Straw: It is neither. We happen to think that fishing is extremely important, and I know of its importance, particularly to Scottish communities.
Angus Robertson: Why is it not included?
Mr. Straw: The reason why it is not included—this has been the subject of correspondence between his party and me—is that the key competencies from which restrictions on fishing arise are already exclusive.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, since 1 January 1973, the Common Market and the European Union have not been one great big happy family, as has been evidenced by recent events over Iraq as well? Does he also agree that there has been a loss of manufacturing jobs since 1 January 1973, despite the fact that the great visionaries of the Common Market said that that would not happen? What guarantees can he give us that, in this wonderful new 25-member group, loss of manufacturing jobs will be stemmed? How much more will we be paying on the common agricultural policy as a result of the inclusion of a further 10 members?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct in saying that the European Union has not been one great big happy family since 1973 or even since a more recent date. Whatever the arguments were—I remember them well—about whether we should join the European Union or stay in in 1975, the truth is that it would not be in Britain's economic interest for us to leave the European Union or damage our national interest in it. I am quite clear that unemployment would be higher. There is a separate issue about manufacturing that is not directly related to our membership of the European Union. Overall, we and British work people stand to benefit greatly by the enlargement of the European Union.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in many ways, the protection of British interests about which hon. Members are concerned is best guaranteed by enlargement itself? Will he accept from me that it is welcome that the 10 applicant members will be full participating members of the IGC, but ensure that, having not been part of the negotiations, they will have the right to have their
concerns considered? Many of them say that they did not escape from the Soviet Union and acquire their new independence merely to give it up. It is absurd to think that they are signing up in referendums to accession with such enthusiasm in anything other than the belief that their independence is being enhanced.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the position of the accession states. They are proud of their sovereignty and are not going to give it up. That also applies to the other member states. Whatever the question of their involvement in the Convention, those 10 accession countries are now participating on equal terms with European Union Foreign Ministers and will participate on equal terms in the IGC. Under the decisions made at Thessaloniki and Copenhagen, they have the same rights of veto over the final text as any other member state.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): I assume that Her Majesty's Government are not supporting a referendum because the history of referendums on Europe is that if Governments do not get the right answer they keep on having them until they do.
Since health is not one of the areas that is protected by a veto in the document, will the Foreign Secretary confirm in good faith that if the national health service is told that it must agree to a system of patient payment, Her Majesty's Government will not only oppose, but not accept, such instructions?
Mr. Boris Johnson (Henley): Given that the Government are obviously going to be too cowardly to hold a referendum to consult the British people on this new constitution for Britain and Europe, will the Foreign Secretary at least undertake to abide by the result of an independent referendum, conducted with the co-operation of the Electoral Reform Society and with cross-party support, in which every elector is consulted? Would he accept that result?
Mr. Straw: No, especially if it is to be run by The Spectator.
Skin Piercing
1.31 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for cosmetic body piercing and micropigmentation; and for connected purposes.
It is surprising that current legislation does not cover some of the more fashionable and recently introduced body piercing and cosmetic procedures. Ear-piercing is covered, but other parts of the body are not. Similarly, the traditional form of tattooing is covered, but the semi-permanent forms are not. London has had the power to regulate all such establishments since 1991. I wish that power to be extended to all local authorities in England and Wales. Ensuring that all establishments are registered and observe the byelaws and standards of cleanliness would contribute to public health, consumer protection and, in extreme cases, save lives.
In February, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn)—she is sorry that she cannot be in the Chamber today, as she is away on parliamentary business—secured an Adjournment debate in which she described the tragic case of one of her constituents, Daniel Hindle, a healthy, active teenager with a passion for music. Daniel and his girlfriend went to an establishment in Sheffield, doing what many teenagers do. His girlfriend had her eyebrows pierced and he had his lip pierced. Daniel had been born with a heart defect, but as he had had a healthy and active life he did not think that by having his lip pierced he would risk his health. No one drew attention to any risks, so he went ahead. A few days later, he became ill and was admitted to hospital. He was infected with septicaemia—blood poisoning—which attacked all his major organs and left him so weakened that he could not fight the infection. A few days later, he died.
There is no suggestion that the studio in Sheffield did anything wrong within the current law. It did not warn him because it had no duty to do so. There was a voluntary code, but there were no regulations. The Bill would change that. Voluntary codes of practice, which are used in some areas, are helpful, but they should be put on to a statutory footing. All local authorities need
to have the power of regulation that is available in London, so that establishments that perform all forms of body piercing will issue the appropriate warnings and provide the appropriate safe environment.This is not a trivial matter. Fortunately, tragic cases like Daniel's are rare, but complications with less dramatic outcomes are numerous. In the past year, more than 95 per cent. of GPs in Greater Manchester treated complications caused by body piercing, and in 2001, incidences of damage to the ear in England and Wales increased by almost 2,000.
As I considered the matter more closely, another aspect came to my attention—henna tattoos. Fortunately, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has responsibility for public health, is sitting on the Front Bench, so I hope that she will take note of this. Many families who go on holiday to islands such as Tenerife and Cyprus find numerous stores that offer henna tattoos to children. Because there is no piercing of the skin and henna is a natural dye it is assumed that it carries no risk, but a black dye containing a chemical called paraphenylenediamine—PPD—has caused many cases of allergic reaction. For example, two brothers from Birmingham—one was eight, the other was 10—went at the same time to have a body tattoo in Tenerife. When young Kalum Beckford got home he had developed a tremendous infection as a result of his tattoo and is scarred for life—the Bart Simpson tattoo on his arm will never disappear. His brother, however, suffered no adverse effects. Jade Yates, a child from Staffordshire, will be scarred for life by a henna tattoo.
The Department of Health already issues guidance to those travelling abroad advising them to be careful about any procedures involving needles. It should also draw attention to the problem of henna tattoos for small children. All the cases that I have come across involve children under the age of 10. It is unclear what causes the allergic reaction; it may simply be their youth. I recognise that henna tattoos are strictly outside the scope of my Bill, but I wish to put the matter on record.
The gist and the essence of the Bill that I wish to introduce is that local authorities across England and Wales should be extended the powers that London already has to regulate all establishments that perform any kind of tattooing, whether permanent or semi-permanent, and any body piercing, whether to the ear or any other part. That would be a contribution to public safety and health. I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Gisela Stuart, Ms Meg Munn, Richard Burden, Mr. Philip Hammond, Dr. Evan Harris and Ms Ann Coffey.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |