Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak on this legislation, which I support. It has four main planks. The first and second planks are broadly the ban on salon sunbed use for children under 18 years of age and the prohibition on the sale and hire of sunbeds to children under 18 years of age. The third plank is mainly about regulation, registration, supervision, improved standards and inspection, which is very important in terms of ensuring eye protection is provided and so on. The fourth plank is about a health information campaign.

Of these four planks, the fourth is the most important because the key here is to change attitudes. By changing attitudes, we will change behaviour. It is not easy to change the attitudes of a nation and there is no doubt but that it will be a slow process. However, an ongoing campaign of substantiated and accurate information will, ultimately, inform attitudes and alter behaviour. If that did not work, companies would not spend millions of euro on advertising, so it will work.

Over the past number of years, attitudes have already changed as information about the science behind these machines has become more widespread. Usage has dropped by almost a half over the past ten years, although I am not sure to what extent that is due to economic circumstances in Ireland. Nevertheless, there is more information available about sunbeds.

What I find most disturbing is the fact we need this legislation at all. I am amazed there are people who are so uninformed that they would expose their children to sunbeds. It is hard to believe the information about the potential damage caused by sunbeds and crucially the particular vulnerability of children to damage by sunbeds has not filtered down to the general population, in particular to parents.

Ongoing dissemination of accurate information and regular information campaigns are crucial if we are change behaviour and ensure people make informed decisions in their homes because not all sunbeds are in spas, hotels or salons. If there is a problem with the legislation, it is that it does not, or probably cannot, control or ban home usage. Statistics in this whole area are very hard to come by. I know the Irish Cancer Society said 140,000 people in Ireland use sunbeds regularly but I am not sure how it knows that. It may be of that order but accurate information is very difficult to come by.

It is accepted that we do not know how many premises hire out these facilities and how many are providing these facilities in salons, gyms, spas and hotels. We certainly do not have a clue how many of these products are in people's homes. Whatever about sunbeds, the single lamps are relatively cheap and it would be fairly reasonable to assume there are probably quite of lot of them in people's homes, certainly more than in the commercial setting.

At least in the commercial setting, there is the possibility of some professional advice and supervision and there is someone to prevent people from staying on sunbeds long enough to burn themselves. However, in the home there is absolutely no such outside controls and no one to ensure there is not overly long exposure, one uses eye protection and children under 18 years of age or, indeed, under ten years of age do not have access to sunbeds. As long as ultraviolet lamps are available to buy on the Internet or elsewhere and people have them in their homes, the vast majority of sunbed use will remain largely outside the scope of this legislation, a point which others have made. I suppose it has to stay outside the scope of this legislation because even if we thought it desirable to legislate for what happens in private homes, it would be impossible to enforce it.

If we want to achieve a situation where there is a real reduction in the number of people exposing themselves or their families to what the World Health Organization gives the status of a group 1 carcinogen and to do what the Minister said is the purpose of this legislation which is to reduce the incidence of skin cancer which seems to be heading towards high numbers, the only way to do so is by persuasive information about the potentially damaging effects on children and the particularly damaging effects it has on certain skin types. Although it is not covered by this legislation, it should be because the skin type which is most prevalent in Ireland - the real Celtic skin - is particularly vulnerable to damage from ultraviolet rays.

The information campaign is the most important aspect of the legislation because it will have a society-wide impact whereas the legislative ban will only touch the tip of the iceberg. I do not think there is any doubt among the experts and most of us in this House that ultraviolet rays are carcinogenic and that they cause skin cancer. The word "cancer" puts such fear in people's hearts but the timelag between exposure to a lamp and the development of cancer cells could be 20, 30 or 40 years, or even longer and somewhere in between, the message is lost. If such a campaign is to work, we need to have a lot more information about attitudes, what causes the attitudes we have to tanning, what is the motivation behind them and why it is more prevalent among young women. The most common usage is between 15 and 34 years of age.

In our society, we talk about a healthy tan and associate a sense of well-being with having a tan. On the other hand, we talk about people being pale and miserable. It seems that we have a positive image of the whole process of tanning. If we really want to change attitudes to tanning, we need to learn more about the psychology of our attitudes. People in Victorian times had a completely different view. A pale face was regarded as a thing of beauty. Any sign of a freckle or a tan was a sign of something highly undesirable and was associated with poverty. We need to change attitudes so that we return to that point. I know some research has been done on attitudes, but we need to know much more. One cannot change an attitude if one does not know what causes it.

Despite the limited application of the proposed legislative ban, I believe it is worthwhile. This Bill will require the registration of premises which provide the commercial setting for tanning activities. It will also ensure certain standards are met. I am sure that many premises are already meeting these standards and equally that some are not. I have heard of gyms that have coin-operated tanning beds in their changing rooms which can be used entirely without supervision. Nobody would know someone was in there. Information is not necessarily provided in such circumstances. The length of time for which people use such machines is not controlled as there is no way of knowing the machines are being used.

I will give an example of an even less regulated environment. I have heard of women buying tanning machines to run mini-businesses in their own homes. They charge their friends and neighbours for the use of sunbeds. It is hard to see what training these operators might have. Basically, they are just ordinary women who see a business opportunity. They have no training, really. They are not able to provide any proper supervision to protect against misuse. While it will be a challenge for the HSE authorities to inspect sunbed facilities that are provided in private homes, it will be important for them to do so. The inspection process should not concentrate solely on those who run spas and salons. They are an easy target because they advertise their businesses. Many of the publicly available and highly advertised sunbed businesses are already operating to the standards that will be required of them.

I will add some balance to this debate by pointing out that we need some sunlight and sunshine. Those with dark-pigmented skin might need more than the rest of us. We all need vitamin D to ensure calcium absorption. There are reports of children of good, careful and conscientious parents in the developed world showing signs of rickets, which is often regarded as a disease of the past and associated with poverty. These children might lack vitamin D because they have been exclusively breastfed. If they are smothered in factor 50 suncream, they might never get a ray of sun on their skin. This problem is caused by parents who listen to medical advice but bring it to such an extreme that it ultimately damages their children. The lesson is that campaigns should be balanced, moderate and comprehensive. Parents should be given an idea of the dangers of sunbeds and sunburn and the need for minimal exposure to natural sunlight. We have been waiting a long time for this legislation. I am delighted to support it.

See this speech in context