Gillian
Merron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I can
reassure him that there will be a proper consultation. From the
Government point of view, it would be wrong to say otherwise. On
whether certain aspects will produce the result that the hon. Gentleman
referred to, it is not for me to predict the outcome of a consultation.
I, of course, will look at the results of the consultation.
On
the question of the difference between unmanned and supervised, that
will be set out in the regulations. They will spell out exactly what is
meant by supervision. We could go further than just a coin-operated
sunbed, which has a member of staff on the premises at all times.
Whatever the result, we must have regulations that work. At this stage,
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman should—he said he was
perhaps
being—
Mark
Simmonds: Suspicious.
Gillian
Merron: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I did not want to
misrepresent him. [Interruption.] The hon. Member
for Worthing, West obviously thinks he is not a suspicious man by
nature. We will specify in regulations what
“unsupervised” and “supervised” mean. That
is the right place to deal with that matter. The time scale for
regulations is to be determined. I hope that that helps Committee
members. 5.45
pm
Julie
Morgan: I thank hon. Members for their
contributions. I
reiterate that there is a commitment from Ministers in the Welsh
Assembly and in Westminster to advance the regulations as soon as
possible if the Bill is
passed. The
hon. Member for Boston and Skegness may be interested in what has
happened in Scotland, where there is a definition of staff supervision.
Coin-operated sunbeds can still be used, but they must be supervised.
People can still pay for use in that way, but there must be supervision
ongoing. There can still be coin-operated sunbeds, because that is just
a method of payment, but supervision will be taking place. For me, the
key issue is that there is
supervision. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
5Power
to require information to be provided to sunbed
users Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Julie
Morgan: The clause gives the power to ensure that
information is provided to sunbed users. It will be necessary for
sunbed businesses to provide and display information about the health
risks of using sunbeds. Regulations, if introduced, will also ban
sunbed businesses from promoting the use of sunbeds as healthy. They
should be prohibited from promoting unproven health benefits. The
information that has already been mentioned in the debate is essential,
not just for under-18s, but for people of all
ages. Sunbeds
have been linked to various poor health conditions, including eye
damage, photodermatosis, photosensitivity, premature skin ageing and
skin cancer. People cannot always see straight away the damage that
ultra-violet light does: the point has been made strongly that it
builds up gradually and may be causing damage for years ahead.
SunSmart, the UK’s national skin cancer prevention programme,
says
that “short
periods of intense, irregular UV exposure, like you get on a sunbed,
are the fastest way to damage your
skin”. That
happens whether the user burns or not.
It is crucial
that accurate health information is provided to users of a salon, so
that adults can make informed choices about the risks to their health
if they decide to use a sunbed. The Bill would introduce a measure to
provide health information in sunbed salons, via regulations, which I
strongly
commend. Promoting
unsupported benefits of sunbeds is irresponsible when we know that they
significantly increase the risk of malignant melanoma, the most
dangerous form of skin cancer, as well as prematurely ageing the skin.
By using sunbeds people run the risk of sunburn and damaged skin for
the sake of little protection against future sun exposure. Sunbeds are
a not a safe way of building up vitamin D levels, as is often claimed.
Other Committee members may be aware that some tanning salons have
advertised to customers by saying, “Get your vitamin D
here.” This
is an important part of the Bill. Along with legislation, it is
important that children and other members of the public are made aware
of the risks associated with the use of sunbeds. The national skin
cancer prevention campaign called SunSmart, which is funded by the
Department of Health and run by Cancer Research UK, aims to do that. It
produces information warning of the risks associated with sunbed use.
Ensuring that clear, accurate health information is displayed is
another critical way to increase public knowledge about the dangers of
sunbeds and to dispel some of the inaccurate myths that suggest that
sunbed use is a safer alternative to the
sun.
Mark
Simmonds: First, the hon. Lady is right. Information is
critical and it is fundamentally important to enable it to be accessed
and understood by those for whom it is
intended. Clause
5(1)(a)
states: “to
provide, in prescribed circumstances and in a prescribed manner,
prescribed health information to persons who are using or may seek to
use a
sunbed”. Will
the Minister say who will be doing the
prescribing? Secondly,
in respect of subsections (2) and (3), I should like to understand how
the health information will relate to the Advertising Standards
Authority, which claims that it already has in place standards and
regulations that would override any false information being
disseminated to the public. The Committee may well be aware that when
the issue was raised on Second Reading, the Advertising Standards
Authority had written to all hon. Members. It stated in that letter
that the advertising code already reflects the UK law that covers
misleading or unfair advertising. Is it proposed that subsections (2)
and (3) should override the law that already covers the Advertising
Standards Authority? If not, how will the two be
juxtaposed?
Peter
Bottomley: May I follow my hon. Friend and say that I am
glad we are now moving from proscription to prescription? I hope that
the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and the Minister might be able to
say that part of the reason for the regulations is that if people are
advertising in a way that is likely to attract the attention and
interest of people under the age of 18, it would be highly undesirable.
The information that should be prescribed could be put forward either
by the Government or a Government-recognised body. Alternatively, it
could
be put forward by recognised operators of sunbeds who can agree with the
Government and the medical professions what would be sensible
information to prescribe. It is perfectly reasonable for the
advertising standards people to maintain, quite correctly, that they
can prevent wrong advertising, but I am not sure that they can require
that the right information is given. That is probably the gap that the
Bill properly
identifies.
Gillian
Merron: All sunbed users need to be aware of the health
risks, which means that those who are over 18 also need to be aware of
them. It is right that we have regulations to ensure that accurate
information is, in a positive sense, available to users, as mentioned
by the hon. Member for Worthing, West. I certainly share the view
already expressed that users should not be misled by information
relating to the so-called health effects of using sunbeds. Regulations
that will prevent non-prescribed information from being available to
sunbed users are, indeed, necessary.
We will
consult on that because, although we welcome the provisions, they will,
nevertheless, impose certain additional regulatory burdens on sunbed
businesses. There will be full consultation on the provisions with
interested parties, including representatives of the industry and the
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It is intended that
those discussions will take place in the period between the legislation
being passed, as we hope it will be, and its coming into
force. On
the question of who prescribes, it will be a matter for the Secretary
of State to prescribe in his regulations, obviously following the
consultation. On the important matter of co-ordination with the
Advertising Standards Authority, we in the Department of Health will
have discussions with BIS and the ASA to ensure that there is no
duplication. For the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Worthing,
West, we quite properly feel that this is about prescribing what should
be provided, rather than what should not be provided. I hope the
Committee will support the
clause.
Julie
Morgan: Again, important points have been raised. It is
important to remember that the Advertising Standards Authority can only
investigate complaints. Obviously, there have been some complaints,
which it has investigated. It is crucial to have clear, accurate and
consistent information throughout the country. I think the Minister has
already said that the provision will be consulted on before it
happens. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
6Protective
eyewear Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Peter
Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Betts. It
might be acceptable to the Committee for the hon. Lady to move some of
the clauses formally. If there are probing questions, she could then
perhaps say a bit more if necessary.
The
Chairman: Of course, an hon. Member does not have to move
a clause. I am effectively saying that there is a clause stand part
debate. If no one speaks, I will move straight to the question, but it
is up to individual Members to take their own position on
that.
Julie
Morgan: Clause 6 is another simple clause. Its purpose is
to ensure that protective eyewear is worn by sunbed users. Any person
who carries on a sunbed business must make protective eyewear available
to the users and ensure that they wear
it. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
7Enforcement
by local
authorities Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Julie
Morgan: Clause 7 puts a duty on local authorities to
enforce the Bill. It is important to say that the Chartered Institute
of Environmental Health, the Local Government Association and the Local
Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services, part of the local
government group, all support the Bill. The message that I have
received from those organisations is that local enforcement officers on
the ground would like to have additional powers to inspect sunbed
salons to ensure that minimum standards are being met. They currently
believe that their hands are often tied because of the lack of
appropriate legislation. Those organisations all welcome the
legislation.
Mark
Simmonds: Clearly, enforcement will be critical if the
Bill is going to be a success, and I am delighted that all the local
authority organisations seem to be uniformly agreed on the importance
of this aspect of the Bill. I have one question about the schedule that
is attached to the clause. The schedule notes the ability of the
relevant authorised officer to enter premises. What is the notice
period for entering the premises? Is it 24 hours, as is the
case for local authorities entering houses in multiple occupation? A
recent pharmacy regulation also gave 24-hour notice for the relevant
officers to enter
pharmacies. There
are pros and cons in having a notice period. On the one hand, the owner
of the salon will know that somebody is coming to inspect and they can
put things right and make sure that nobody under 18 is in there. On the
other hand, it needs to be clarified; otherwise it could be open to
legal challenge, which may stop the enforcement officer being able to
regulate appropriately in the first place. The proper enforcement of
the regulation will be key to the Bill’s success, so it is
important that we understand that key
element. Nia
Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Enforcement is extremely
important and is vital to the success of any legislation. We are
discussing a duty that will probably be undertaken by the environmental
health departments of local authorities. In my local authority, that
department is aptly called the public protection department, and it has
done a good job recently by visiting local retailers
and naming, shaming and punishing those that have been supplying alcohol
to under-18s. It is crucial that we get the same sort of approach in
relation to the
Bill. First
and foremost, an information campaign must be aimed at young people and
their parents to make sure that they are fully aware that a law is
coming into force that will make it illegal for under-18s to use a
sunbed in commercial premises. The message needs to go out loud and
clear that we are banning them not because we are fuddy-duddies, but
because there are genuine health reasons. The vast majority of young
people will fully understand the problem when they are given those
reasons and the facts and figures. We must accompany the legislation
with a far-reaching and hard-hitting publicity
campaign. Enforcement
largely depends on consensus among the general public. Therefore, if we
think that something is amiss, we all have a duty to report. We need to
make sure that people are aware of that, and of where they have to go
and to whom they have to report. That way, we can suss out the sunbed
premises owners and operators who are allowing under-18s to use their
premises and take appropriate measures against
them. Thirdly,
we need to have back-up for the local authorities. The LGA has made a
clear point about the additional resources that it will need, and we
passed the money resolution yesterday evening. We need to make sure
that it has the necessary means properly to carry out and enforce the
legislation. Without enforcement, it will be of little
use. We
have to make absolutely certain that there is appropriate dialogue with
the Local Government Association and the Welsh Local Government
Association to ensure that we get all these points right and that we
make this a highly workable and effective piece of
legislation. 6
pm
| 
