John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. What seems to be the strangest thing about this legislation is that it is not already on the Statute Book. The Minister's figures about the incidence and increasing rates of skin cancer make it self-evident that this legislation is necessary and overdue. The link between the use of sunbeds and skin cancer is well established and I do not think anybody would argue against it with conviction. Knowing this risk, I find amazing that people would willingly put themselves in harm's way. If I am amazed that adults would do it, I am incredulous that people would pay to put their children in harm's way. Unfortunately, we might see that in the coming weeks, with confirmations and first holy communions coming up, and we will probably find children as young as seven years of age walking around with grand tans from sunbeds. It is mind-boggling. I do not intend to say too much about the generality or necessity of this legislation, because the Minister has made the case strongly enough. It is, of course, important to re-emphasise that sunbeds are a group one carcinogen. That alone should be enough to deter any responsible person from exposing children or those under 18 to sunbeds.

I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about the legislation. Section 3 points to the difference between the cosmetic use of sunbeds and the use of sunbeds for necessary phototherapy. Do conditions exist that can be treated at a cosmetic studio that has a medical intent? We will hear people making that case in defence of sunbeds, but surely if it is a medical treatment it would be delivered in a medical suite as opposed to a high street beauty salon.

Section 6 states that a person who supervises the use of sunbeds must be over the age of 18. Is there is a risk of exposure for someone supervising, as opposed to using, a sunbed? I am a bit concerned that we are closing off career paths and opportunities for younger people who might choose to work in the beauty trade. I will accept the Minister's guidance on this, but are we really saying that the risk of exposure for someone supervising a sunbed is greater than the risk involved in actually using it?

In respect of section 8, is it necessary to legislate that a sunbed clinic should be clean and hygienic? Surely that should be the most basic requirement of any premises or business offering a public service. I wonder why we are singling out sunbeds in respect of legislating for hygiene. I have a suspicion as to the reason why, which I will come to in a minute.

Section 13 deals with the requirement of the HSE to maintain a sunbed business notification list and outlines the powers of the HSE and Minister in this regard. Senator van Turnhout's concerns might be addressed in this area, and I suspect that this might be part of its intent. The legislation might place such an onerous burden on the providers of sunbed services that it is economically unviable to provide them in the first place. If that was the intent, the Minister could not really say it. If that is the case, why do we not seek to have a fully licensed service, as opposed to just maintaining a register, or go even further and ban the provision of sunbed services outright, which Senator van Turnhout is in favour of, as indeed am I?

That said, I do not believe either of us would find much use for sunbeds.

The Minister spoke about the qualifications and training of the people providing services. What does he think these might be, given that it seems a rather simple service to provide in terms of qualifications and training? Under section 15, there is a requirement that the clinic ensure that the instructions on the use of sunbeds are read and understood, and that this form is maintained for two years. Is this a mechanism whereby the provision of the service is made so burdensome that people might not be bothered doing it?

Section 17 refers to the authorised officer and how such an authorised officer may enter a private dwelling. It is noted in the Bill that a warrant from a District Court would be required in order to enter a private dwelling. Is it an oversight on the Minister's behalf that he excludes a peace commissioner from providing the warrant? In most other legislation the provision of a warrant can be by either a District Court judge or a peace commissioner, who can step in to sign the warrant if a District Court judge is not available. As a peace commissioner myself, I do this all the time for gardaí when a District Court judge is not available, particularly on weekends, when the use of sunbed services would be at its greatest.

We recently passed in the House some stages of the legislation that prohibits smoking in cars, under which the onus of responsibility and the penalty would apply to the person who is actually doing the smoking in the car. Is there any scope to have an additional level of liability for parents who expose their children to the use of sunbeds, in addition to penalising the premises itself? Does the Minister believe class 1 and class 2 fines are sufficient in this area, given that they are limited to €4,000 and €5,000 respectively?

As far as I can see, there is no provision in the legislation for action to be taken against a consistent breaker of the rules in order to close the premises entirely. The Minister might give me his opinion on that.