|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Skin cancer is on the rise. Estimates suggest that skin cancer rates will triple over the next 20 to 30 years. Malignant melanoma is the most common cancer in young adults aged 15 to 34. One study estimated that melanomas from sunbed use cause around 100 deaths a year in the UK.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer now classifies the use of sunbeds in its highest risk category, category 1-carcinogenic to humans. That is the same category as tobacco. Research commissioned by Cancer Research UK found that in England 6 per cent of 11 to 17 year-olds had used sunbeds. These findings show that voluntary self-regulation by the industry has not worked and point to the need for legislation.
The evidence is clear and I hope noble Lords will agree that this is an important piece of legislation that will contribute to improving cancer outcomes and reduce the incidence of skin cancer. However, the dangers from using sunbeds are not only linked to skin cancer; as noble Lords have mentioned, there are other health conditions such as eye damage, photosensitivity and premature skin ageing.
Short-term ideas of beauty can have severe long-term costs. We need to challenge the idea that being tanned means being beautiful. As someone who is very light-skinned and burns easily in the sun-I get my sunhat out at the first sign of sunlight-I think it is important that we challenge this on the grounds that we can show that we are not prematurely aged because we protect ourselves from the sun. The Bill will raise awareness of the dangers of using sunbeds and protect young people.
In response to the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, we will be working closely with the representatives of local authorities about all the issues to do with enforcement. Indeed, we have been liaising closely with the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services regarding the costs of enforcing the Bill, and the costs were quoted on the basis of estimates provided by LACORS in the impact assessment that goes with the Bill. Obviously, much of the enforcement work can be carried out as part of routine inspection activity, and compliance and enforcement visits can be carried out on a risk-assessment basis.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl mentioned the issue of raising awareness. The department has been involved in the SunSmart campaign for several years now, a campaign that is done jointly with stakeholders such as Cancer Research UK and which is designed to raise awareness of the risks of radiation and the risks linked to that from sunbeds. If the Bill is passed, it will ensure that there is a specific focus on sunbeds in future campaigns.
The noble Earl spoke about the regulation-making powers regarding sale or hire. There will be consultation on this because it is a statutory obligation. The noble Earl raised several questions about advertising. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, also wrote to me about precisely this matter. I reassure the noble Earl
30 Mar 2010 : Column 1346
The noble Earl made an interesting and useful suggestion, which we should like to consider, about how to integrate the different regimes as we move forward. We will take note of that and investigate it. We are taking regulation-making powers on this but we will not be duplicating existing regulations, so we do not think that Clause 5 is unnecessary. I hope that that will reassure the noble Earl.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for having cited some of the dermatological research-I should perhaps have declared at the outset that I am married to a dermatologist, although he has not had any input into this Bill. This is a problem particularly of the fair-skinned, who burn much more easily and who are much more liable to be the group that, sadly, are caught up in the tanning culture. They get exposed to sunbeds as well as to the sun.
My other comment relates to the local authority burden. One has to remember that when a young parent dies of melanoma, leaving an orphaned child or two orphaned children, the cost to the local authority is massive. These costs are in completely different budgets but if we can cut down the mortality rate in young people and all that goes on afterwards, I suggest that a little bit of investment in driving up standards and inspections would be well offset, and probably more than offset-although, as far as I know, nobody has actually done the sums.
If I may comment on my visit to the salon, the information is not in the advertising. There is another layer of information that has to be much more personalised. It is usually women, but not always, who come in to use a sunbed. They misclassify their skin types, as was said so eloquently by the noble Baroness. They think that they are a darker skin type than they are. They are unaware of the number of moles that they may have. Those who have a lot of moles, or who have moles of different sizes and shapes, and pigmentation moles in particular, should not be using sunbeds. The appropriate use of eye protection is important. In the salon that we visited the salon owners had themselves made a face protector that people could use as one was not commercially available. They were aware of the risk to some people of parts of the face, which was good practice and we welcomed it. The information falls into many layers. It is not just the broad information that may be covered in advertising.
Lord Bradley: My Lords, the two Bills that are before us today-the Manchester City Council Bill, followed by the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill-were deposited before Parliament as long ago as November 2006. While I will speak to the first Bill, I put on record that I do not intend to do the same on the second Bill, which I am dealing with on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Eden, who sends his apologies that he is unable to be in the House this afternoon.
Since these Bills were deposited, they have taken up an enormous amount of parliamentary time and have been scrutinised in great detail by Select Committees in both Houses. There was a good debate in your Lordships' House on Third Reading back in November 2007. Since then, there have been five separate occasions when the Bills have together exercised Members in the Chamber of the Commons. Commanding majorities in favour of the Bills were obtained on the numerous Divisions that were required in the other place. In both Houses, individual pedlars presented detailed evidence in support of their petitions. Both Houses have listened to the petitioners. The House of Lords Select Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Harrison, in allowing the Bill to pass, requested and obtained undertakings from the councils that their officers would be properly trained to enforce the Bills. The Commons Select Committee went a stage further and made a significant amendment. That is Amendment 1 in the Marshalled List, which is the only amendment in this first group of amendments.
Before turning to the amendments, I give a brief reminder of the purposes of these two Bills. They both deal exclusively with street trading and they are both well precedented. The most contentious elements of the Bills have been the alteration of the pedlars' exemption, which I shall come to shortly. The Bills also extend the street-trading regime to the provision of services, which, I am informed, includes henna tattooing in Bournemouth and teeth whitening in Manchester. The Bills would also enhance the enforcement powers of council officers and the police by allowing them to seize articles in cases where they believe that unlicensed street trading is being carried out, and they would allow the court to forfeit those items.
Amendment 1 is the only amendment that was made in the other place by the Select Committee, after it had heard detailed representations from the promoters and the petitioners. Amendment 1 rewrites the key provision of the Bills-namely, Clause 5. As introduced, the Bills followed a fairly long line of precedents promoted by other local authorities. The provision would have placed a restriction on the exemptions that pedlars enjoy from the street-trading licence regime under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The exemption allows pedlars to trade under the authority of a pedlar's certificate, even in streets where the council has prohibited street trading. The Bill, as originally introduced and as passed from this House, would have restricted the pedlar's exemption so that it applied only where the pedlar was trading from house to house. In other words, unless he was trading from house to house, he would need to obtain a street trading licence in controlled streets and would be prohibited from trading in prohibited streets.
In addition to allowing house-to-house trading, the amendment allows pedlars to trade in licensed and prohibited streets so long as they comply with a number of detailed restrictions. To some extent, that seems to put in statutory form the common-law rules that generally require a pedlar to travel as he trades. The councils accept that, with the amendments, there is now clear guidance for pedlars in Manchester and Bournemouth about many of the issues with which the councils were concerned, particularly those about pedlars who did not move on at all and would stay in the same street or use large barrows to display their goods.
Noble Lords may wish to know the councils' views about the recent government consultation on pedlars and street traders in the context of this discussion. The councils welcome the fact that the Government have taken the matter up at a national level and wait to hear what proposals emerge. Of course, there is no certainty about what will emerge and, more importantly, when. If the Government take the view that the Bournemouth and Manchester Acts need amending as a result of their proposals, of course that can be achieved through government legislation.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, for the explanation of the amendments. We have had a stream of such Bills coming through the House over the years. I very much hope that these will be the last of them. As he said, consultation is taking place at central government level out of which will come-I hope, because it is not a politically contentious matter-an agreed programme to be enacted when whatever Government we have have the time. It has long been inappropriate that we should deal with such local Bills on what is essentially a national issue. Now that consultation is in place, it seems entirely inappropriate that we should deal with any further Bills on the subject. We should wait for the national consultation to finish and proceed down that route. I hope that promoters of similar Bills that are on the stocks will not proceed with them in the new Parliament, or that if they do they will be given extremely short shrift. We have much better things to
30 Mar 2010 : Column 1349
That is not least the case because the human rights implications of such Bills are not properly dealt with in private Bill procedure. They are not dealt with by the Joint Committee and our own committee-the Opposed Bill Committee-refused to look at the subject. Particularly when we are clearly dealing with the human rights of pedlars and others in the Bill, it seems inappropriate that there be no proper consideration of the matter.
The original attempt-it has now been amended-by Bournemouth and Manchester to tie up pedlary was inappropriate when it was made, and is certainly inappropriate now. At this stage of the economy, we ought to encourage people to take up their own enterprises-to get involved in business and do something to help themselves out of the situation in which they find themselves. Being allowed to trade house-to-house and on the streets is a way in which some big businesses have been founded, as I am sure that the noble Lord is aware. We should not close that option out for people, merely for the sake of tidiness.
I am grateful to the other place for having made this major amendment. It improves the position considerably, but there are a few detailed matters on which I would be grateful for the detailed guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. Does "location" mean a static location-in other words, that I am standing five feet outside No. 15 Portobello Road, for example-or does it have a wider sense? Are we dealing with a point? What is the technical interpretation of the word?
What is the exact definition of a "bona fide customer"? If someone is inquiring about a pedlar's wares, is he a bona fide customer or does he have to do something more to establish himself as one? Is anyone a bona fide customer who is in some way not a false customer-some aide of the pedlar who rushes up and starts inquiring about the goods whenever the local authority's officials pounce?
What is the definition of "trading"? When these local authority officials are trained, what will they be told that trading consists of? A pedlar, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, will spend a lot of time displaying and talking about the wares that they are selling. Is that trading, or does that require some active exchange of goods and money? I should be very grateful for the noble Lord's help on those points.
Lord Bradley: I am grateful for the contribution from the noble Lord and I share his views regarding the desirability of national legislation on these matters. As he and I have rightly pointed out, a huge amount of parliamentary time has been taken up with a whole series of private Bills of an identical nature which have tried to achieve the same objective for different councils around the country.
On a number of occasions the noble Lord has raised these technical and detailed matters, and they have been very carefully scrutinised by the Select Committees on issues of trading, location and suchlike. Guidance has been emanating from local councils to
30 Mar 2010 : Column 1350
Lord Bradley: My Lords, I move on to the second and final group of amendments, Amendments 2 to 15. All were made at consideration stage in the other place and were tabled by the honourable Member for Christchurch, Christopher Chope. Mr Chope has been a gritty champion of the petitioning pedlars' cause over the past few years. The promoters, in wishing to draw the remaining stages of the consideration of the Bills to a close, decided to agree to a number of Mr Chope's amendments, with which we are now dealing.
In short, these largely technical amendments have four main purposes. First, Amendments 2 to 8 alter the test that a council officer or constable must satisfy before taking action under Clause 6 to seize items connected with unlawful street trading. In general terms, before the amendments were made, the test was that there had to be reasonable grounds to "suspect" that an offence had been committed. With these amendments, the test is that there should be reasonable grounds to "believe" that an offence had been committed.
Secondly, on Amendment 9 to Clause 7, if the council seizes an item under Clause 6, it has to be returned at the end of the relevant court proceedings unless certain circumstances apply under Clause 7. One of those is that any award of costs made in favour of the council has to be paid within 28 days. Amendment 9 removes a clarification which stated that those costs must include removal, storage and disposal costs.
Thirdly, on Amendment 10, Clause 9 sets out circumstances in which compensation is payable for unlawful seizure of items under the Bill. One of the circumstances, unsurprisingly, is that the defendant in the proceedings has been acquitted. As the Bill stood, this was qualified, in that the defendant would have to wait for any compensation until the time allowed for appealing against an acquittal had expired. That qualification is removed by the amendment.
Finally, Amendments 10 to 15 have the unfortunate effect of removing Clauses 10 to 14, but again, that is a sacrifice that the promoters were, in the end, content to make. Those clauses would have enabled the councils and the police to deal with street trading offences by way of fixed penalty notices.
At this point, I should mention the consequential amendments in my name. As a result of the late concession to Mr Chope on the deletion of Clauses 10 to 14, there was no opportunity to make the amendments
30 Mar 2010 : Column 1351
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|