New Clause 14 - Regulation of body piercing establishments outside London
Local Government Bill
4:30 pm

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am grateful to members of the Committee for facilitating speedy conclusions of the last couple of debates so that we could have this brief debate. I have already said a little about this and I had the opportunity to have some discussions subsequently with the Minister. I have no personal direct experience of body piercing. I find it difficult enough to keep going with what I have got and fear that at my advanced years if I started to take bits away it could have disastrous consequences.

Many young people experiment with body piercing. It is now a relatively common fashion experience. I first became involved in this issue because a constituent of mine had an especially distressing experience when her 14-year-old daughter came home with her navel pierced. Being the kind of mother she was, she immediately set off to the emporium that had carried out that process, brandishing her cudgels, only to find out that the people there were, frankly, not interested in her concerns, and that neither the local authority nor the police were willing or able to do anything.

That mother was advised by the police, on the ground that her daughter was under 16, that the piercing of her daughter's body could be construed as a common law assault and that she should consider taking out a private prosecution, which is obviously a fairly elaborate process. She came to me at that stage and I asked the Library to research the current state of affairs, which is rather strange. Local authorities in Greater London have quite considerable powers to regulate and to license premises for what is called in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 special treatment. That not only includes cosmetic body piercing, but tattooing, understandably, and, perhaps not quite so obviously, massage, manicure, acupuncture, chiropody, and light, electric and other special treatments. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions about those.

Outside London, local authorities do not have any analogous powers. I had already discussed with my hon. Friends the possibility of tabling a new clause to the Bill before Second Reading to see whether the Government were amenable to the idea that regulatory powers needed to be extended. We had reason to believe that they would be, because in January 2000 the then Minister with responsibility for health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), acknowledged that the Government believed that primary legislation should be introduced to give local authorities outside London powers to regulate the hygiene and cleanliness of cosmetic body piercing businesses, when parliamentary time allowed.

I am glad to say that I have raised the issue with the Minister, that the authorities have determined that the matter is within the scope of the Bill, and that parliamentary time now allows. I hope that the Minister agrees that the scope of powers that local authorities need goes slightly wider than regulating the

cleanliness and hygiene of premises. That is so issues about consent can be taken in, and to ensure that people under 16 have proper parental consent, perhaps through the use of codes of conduct that premises must adhere to. Since I embarked on the process, several responsible body piercing establishments have contacted me at pains to point out that they and many such establishments operate regimes for obtaining written consent from parents and take such matters seriously. As usual, of course, in introducing a regulatory power we are not dealing with the responsible majority but addressing the irresponsible minority to ensure that it complies.

The matter has subsequently been given added urgency and importance by the tragic death of Daniel Hindle in Sheffield just before Christmas. Daniel, who was 17, had his lip pierced in October. To the external observer, he was an apparently healthy young man, but sadly he had a congenital heart defect. Although I did not know this—I certainly know it now—people with such a condition are 10 times or more likely to contract septicaemia from a process of that nature. There is therefore a need to ensure that establishments that carry out such processes not only are regulated on hygiene, cleanliness and consent for people under 16, but are properly informed and understand the potential consequences of the procedures that they carry out. Such establishments should also have in place appropriate mechanisms for drawing the risks to the attention of potentially vulnerable people, such as those with health conditions that are undetectable to the eye, for whom body piercing may be a dangerous option. Daniel's death has highlighted the urgency of the need for action.

I readily accept that the new clause is imperfectly drafted and probably not wide enough in scope. I started by trying to amend the London Local Authorities Act 1991, but the relevant provision in that is some 10 pages long, fiendishly complicated and beyond the scope of anyone other than a professional draftsman. I therefore hope that the Minister will take the new clause in the spirit in which it was tabled, and undertake to use the far more serious resources of the Government to return at a later stage in the Bill's progress with a measure that will address the issue. It is not party political.

I seek permissive powers for local authorities outside London to introduce a light-touch regulatory regime to ensure that the type of tragedy that occurred in Sheffield in December does not occur again, and that young people having parts of their bodies pierced—we in our dotage may or may not recognise that as very sensible—are not put at risk of such a terrible outcome. I am entirely flexible as to how best that can be achieved. If the Minister assures me that the Government will address the matter later in the Bill's progress, I will be delighted to seek leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

I am somewhat alarmed by the hon. Gentleman's frequent references to being in his dotage. He is a rather sprightly, youngish man, and it leaves me worrying whether I am in the afterlife. Seriously, I thank him for tabling the new clause on this important issue. We are sympathetic to his concern that local

authorities outside London should have powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. Indeed, we are on record as saying that we intend to provide for that. He quoted the then Minister for Public Health as saying so a little while ago.

With regard to the sad death to which the hon. Gentleman referred, we understand that Sheffield city council is investigating it carefully, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage. I understand that a direct link with the lip piercing has not yet been established, but that is neither here nor there. It is obviously a cause for concern and it is important that the case is thoroughly and properly investigated.

The new clause, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, would not be effective in achieving his objective. The London Local Authorities Act 1995 is a private law, and its scope cannot be extended beyond local authorities in London. Section 36 of the Local Government Act 1988, to which the new clause refers, was repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993.

In any event, imposing a licensing regime on local authorities outside London would result in two different regulatory regimes for skin piercing activities outside London: a registration and byelaws regime for ear piercing, tattooing, electrolysis and acupuncture, and a licensing regime for body piercing. That duplication would be in no one's interests and could lead to confusion and unnecessary bureaucracy and burdens.

We also need to consider the wider issues, such as micro-pigmentation and semi-permanent cosmetics. I am not expert in these matters, but I understand that it is important that a policy to address them should be comprehensive. I think that the hon. Gentleman also recognises that. It requires further discussion with colleagues, so we cannot act immediately, but I give him the assurance that he is seeking: the Government will introduce legislation when the opportunity arises. Parliamentary time may not allow such a measure to be introduced in this Bill, but I hope that the issue will be resolved without unreasonable delay, because it is important. It needs to be resolved expeditiously. On that understanding, I hope that he will withdraw the motion.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

I am very disappointed by what the Minister has just said, which was not what I was expecting him to say. I understand that the Government want to widen the scope of the measure. I would readily accept that it might not be possible to do that until the Bill reaches the Lords, but I understood the Minister to say that it may not be possible to do it within this Bill. In other words, the Government are reverting to the position that they took in January 2000 and saying that they will do it when parliamentary time allows. That is, frankly, not good enough.

Such a measure would be within the scope of the Bill. The Government made a commitment in January 2000, but they did not follow up on that and include a provision within the original Bill to deal with cosmetic body piercing. To say now that it may take too long to

include it in this Bill, and that we will have to wait until another legislative opportunity arises—goodness knows when that may be—is disturbing.

I ask the Minister to undertake to chivvy his colleagues along a little, so that in the next four or five weeks, while the Bill is in Committee or on Report in the Lords, an appropriate measure can be inserted.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

I will certainly do my best to chivvy along my colleagues in other Departments, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, but it would be unrealistic to raise expectations about the possibility of an amendment being introduced during proceedings on the Bill in this House. I will look into whether it may be possible in another place and write to him, but he will be aware of the enormous pressures that we are under in relation to the timetable. In my view, it would not be realistic to expect such an amendment to be introduced in the Commons.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

I accept that it will not be possible in this House, because of the time available. The reassurance that I was seeking from the Minister was that the Government would introduce something during consideration in the other place. That does not seem unreasonable. I have no choice but to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the motion because, as the Minister has pointed out, the new clause is imperfectly drafted. I was hoping to be able to leave the issue in the capable hands of the Minister on the assurance that something would be introduced in the Lords. I have not been give that assurance. Therefore, I will have to seek, with my noble Friends in the other place, help from outside experts to draft an Opposition new clause for the Lords stage, in the event that the Government are not able to introduce something in that time. I am disappointed that I have to do that, but that appears to be the way it has to be. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.