Sunbeds (Regulation) Bill

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the parents are not responsible, even though they have responsibilities under other legislation. There is no responsibility for the users, even if they acted with deception, malice or criminal intent. In the rough world of competition, a sunbed provider might set up someone who looks well over 18—but is younger—to go along to a rival sunbed establishment to get access to sunbeds; then, as soon as access is given, they could blow the whistle. There might be scope for that sort of activity because of the arbitrariness of the enforcement and penalty regime in the Bill. If my hon. Friend looks at the selection list, she will see that it is the second group of amendments—amendments 7, 21 to 25 and 32—that deal with offences and penalties. When we reach that stage of the debate, I hope that she will be able to develop her remarks in more detail. To summarise so far, I have discussed new clause 1, along with amendments 1, 2 and 3, which leave out "18" and insert "16". I now come to amendment 8, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford referred. Under this amendment, clause 3 would be left out. It is a probing amendment, because I wanted to find out exactly in what circumstances it was thought reasonable for a person under the age of 18 to have access to a sunbed for medical treatment. If the promoter's argument is that any exposure by a young person, or child, to artificial ultra-violet light on a sunbed is bad for the health, why does clause 3 contain a special exemption for medical treatment? It would be useful to know in what circumstances that exemption would apply, and whether it would extend to medical treatment not directly related to a skin condition, but related to a person's mental state. Medical treatment can be related to mental as well as physical health, and it is not clear to me whether clause 3 would apply in that context. I hope that, in the spirit of openness and transparency, the promoter will help us to understand the thinking behind the clause. Amendments 4, 5 and 6 are all consequential. They all state""leave out '18' and insert '16'"." Amendment 15 proposes to leave out clause 4(4). The clause is headed "Power to make further provision restricting use, sale or hire of sunbeds". Subsection (4) states:""Consultation undertaken by the appropriate national authority before the commencement of this section is as effective for the purposes of subsection (3) as consultation undertaken after that time."" It seems to me that we should allow the consultation period to run only after the enactment of the Bill. A consultation period cannot suddenly be followed by the announcement of the commencement of a section. The Bill states:""This Act comes into force at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which it is passed."" That makes clear that there is no great urgency, and that whether the Bill succeeds today in whole or in part will make no difference to anyone using a sunbed for the next 12 months. This may be more of a Third Reading point, but surely it is better for the Bill to be perfect—even if it takes a little longer to get it right—than to rush it through, given that, as it will not come into effect for at least 12 months, there is no need for a rush. I consider that provision to be inconsistent with the provisions in clause 4(4) about the consultation period. I think that, as a matter of good practice, only after a clause has come into effect—after a section has commenced—should any consultation arising from that clause take place. I feel that rather than the Bill's containing a lot of the Government's ideas, the Government are holding back, saying "Why do we not deal with this by means of regulations?" When the Minister was asked, on Second Reading and in Committee, what exactly she had in mind, she said that the Department would make a decision before the introduction of the regulations. That was unnecessarily vague. I would much prefer to know exactly what the Government and, for that matter the promoter, have in mind, and I think that clause 4(4) compounds the error. Amendment 16 proposes to leave out clause 5, which is a very controversial provision. It is headed""Power to require information to be provided to sunbed users"," and states:""Regulations may make provision requiring any person who carries on a sunbed business… 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"" and""to display prescribed health information in a prescribed manner and in a prescribed form."" It also states that""'health information' means information about the health risks associated with the use of sunbeds"," and that""Regulations may make provision prohibiting any person who carries on a sunbed business from providing or displaying any material that contains statements relating to the health effects of sunbed use other than… statements containing information prescribed under subsection (1), or… statements containing any other information prescribed for the purposes of this subsection."" That is a very wide-ranging provision, which is strongly opposed by the Sunbed Association. The association believes that, apart from anything else, it would duplicate much of the existing consumer protection legislation. Legislation already exists to prevent people from making false health claims in relation to treatments that are offered. The idea that a Big Brother Government—the Department of Health—should prescribe exactly what can be contained in what piece of legislation is a step too far down the Big Brother route.