Welcome to the 14th meeting in 2008 of the Health and Sport Committee. I remind members to switch off their mobile phones and BlackBerrys.
Further to a meeting of the Health and Sport Committee in February, COSLA was asked to communicate its views on sunbed licensing. We undertook to communicate with our politicians on the matter, and have also communicated with professional advisers, including Alastair Shaw and his colleagues. We then engaged COSLA's health and wellbeing executive group for a view, as detailed in our written submission. In general, our elected members are in favour of stronger regulation and would support any licensing scheme that was introduced.
Obviously, I have seen Ken Macintosh's amendments and Helen Eadie's amendments, on national licensing. The amendments seem to duplicate one another, and it is obvious that both sets are not needed. In that context, we prefer Ken Macintosh's amendments. The only issue that we have with them relates to the proposed age restriction on the use of sunbeds. There has always been an age restriction in the Sunbed Association's regulations. We would support a restriction on people under 16, not 18, using sunbeds.
I will make a short statement, if I may. Consol Suncenter is the leading tanning salon business in Europe. We operate 350 tanning salons throughout Europe, 23 of which are in Scotland. We are at the forefront of fully automated, self-service tanning centres. We brought the concept to the United Kingdom in the mid-1990s. The majority of our salons are partially supervised, allowing customers to choose and pay for their sunbed sessions themselves. Therefore, we have an interest in the amendments that seek to outlaw the operation of unsupervised sunbeds.
Throughout the progress of the bill, when asked, the society has consistently expressed a preference for a national licensing scheme. I have no particular issue with the responses from Consol Suncenter and the Sunbed Association, both of whose written submissions emphasise strongly the importance of high quality in relation to the running of premises or facilities. Our view is that a national licensing scheme would achieve that aim. The view that is expressed in the written submission from the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland clearly—and, perhaps, more eloquently than our submission—suggests that a combination of Ken Macintosh's proposed provisions and Helen Eadie's proposed provisions would give us the best balance.
I want to focus on Lene Priess's written submission, which goes to the heart of the matter. I cannot understand why you are calling on the Scottish Government to implement the July 2007 EU declaration, which is about the safety of salons. As you say, the problems are caused by repeated burning and outdated equipment.
The EU declaration, which sets a maximum irradiance level for sunbeds, was published in January 2007. However, it is not legally binding; it simply makes a recommendation. The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 are applicable to the whole of the UK and basically stipulate that any electrical equipment placed on the market must be safe. Any sunbed that is traded must be deemed safe under those regulations; if its irradiance level is above that set out in the EU declaration, it is, under the terms of the declaration, regarded as unsafe. As far as the UK Government is concerned, the relevant regulations are already in force. The EU declaration, which will become a legal document through the revised and soon-to-be-published European manufacturing standard, will provide a means for prosecuting a manufacturer who trades a sunbed with an irradiance level that is above that set out in the EU declaration and is therefore deemed to be unsafe.
You have, for me.
No, no, no—the EU declaration is not a legally binding document.
I know that. My question is whether an EU declaration precedes a recommendation rather than a directive. My understanding is that a directive is binding, whereas the implementation of a recommendation is at one's discretion.
The EU declaration is basically a recommendation. It has no legal status.
I know the difference between a recommendation and a directive.
The intention behind the recommendation was to limit burning from sunbeds.
We are trying to establish the force of the declaration. Mary Scanlon's question suggested that the UK or Scottish Government was obliged to implement the declaration. Is that the case?
No.
I simply wanted to clarify its legal status.
Other European countries are imposing the standards that are set out in the declaration on all old and new sunbeds.
I should say that one of the footnotes in the Consol Suncenter submission says:
Thank you for all those questions.
Not at all. That is what we are here for.
I am not aware of any authorities that have prosecuted premises, although I believe that improvement notices might have been issued under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
I am sorry, but what kind of mark did you refer to?
A CE mark, which is a manufacturing mark. Sometimes beds are retubed with stronger bulbs. An issue that slightly concerns us relates to the provisions on fixed-penalty notices for under-18s using sunbeds and on the provision of information. My understanding is that once beds or stand-in facilities have been retubed using higher-rated tubes, the manufacturer's instructions will effectively be thrown away and people will not have guidance on the strength of the beds. That has been an issue in some premises.
You talked about assessing risks. When you assess risks, retubing will obviously be looked at, as it causes greater danger, but do you also assess the potential risk of malignant melanoma? Do you assess the risks in tanning salons that do not achieve safe limits? What is your evidence base for assessing risks?
The evidence base is the available guidance from manufacturers. Tables on cutting exposure times can be obtained if a bed is retubed, but our general view is that operators do not understand the effect of retubing, and arguing about such things can be a long and arduous process. My preference is that they should not deviate from operating beds as supplied. However, it is not a simple matter of saying that they must operate in that way, as risk assessments can be argued about. There can be quite a bit of debate, and there is not a single piece of clear guidance on the matter.
Given that you do not have clear guidance and that I certainly do not understand the guidance that exists, would it be helpful if guidance was given about what is and is not safe as far as melanoma is concerned? Does such guidance exist?
If we went down the licensing road, I would be amenable to the suggestion that guidance should limit the output of beds. I think that it is assumed that information could be provided that would be relevant to all people in all premises, with failure to provide that information resulting in a fixed-penalty notice. However, I am not sure how a member of the public would make a judgment if ratings were not comparable from one premises to the other.
I would like to move on.
I want to continue on the same theme before I move on to another issue. According to the BMA Scotland submission, studies—including one by Oliver, Ferguson and Moseley, which was published in the British Journal of Dermatology in 2007—have shown that
I want to clarify something. Are we talking about four out of five sunbeds in Scotland or the United Kingdom?
The UK, I think. The Oliver, Ferguson and Moseley study, which was entitled "Quantitative risk assessment of sunbeds: impact of new high powered lamps" and published in the British Journal of Dermatology in 2007, was a UK study.
Two counties in Scotland were measured, and the results applied to the United Kingdom. Dundee was one of the counties, but I cannot remember the other.
Do we know how many appliances—
I believe that 794 premises were investigated.
UK-wide?
In Scotland.
Let us get some figures down, so that we know where we are.
The quantification of the risk is problematic because it is difficult to extrapolate an individual's exposure over time.
The point is that if there is a British maximum standard, what on earth does it mean? Is it irrelevant to have such a standard? If it is relevant, how do we apply it?
The maximum standard applies to the manufacturer and to the machine as manufactured. It ceases to apply when someone modifies a machine. That is my understanding. In relation to enforcement in premises, it is problematic for us to recalculate the risk if a sunbed is modified. Personal risk is related to a person's ultimate exposure. A single exposure, even if it is excessive, may not lead to any long-term risk.
I understand all that. The British Medical Association says that a person who uses sunbeds has a risk of developing skin cancer that is two and a half times that of someone who does not use them, but defining the risk for an individual is nevertheless difficult. However, that is not your job, and it is not the job of the Parliament. The job of the Parliament is to ensure that sunbeds do not expose the public to an unknown risk that they are unable to quantify. If there is a British standard, it should be applied. If someone modifies a machine in a way that exceeds the British standard, I would have thought that that was almost a criminal offence. If we do not have the proposed provisions in the bill, how will you, as local authorities and as environmental health officers, protect the public? How are you protecting the public at the moment from the four out of five machines that the study reports have been modified and now exceed the British standard?
Somewhat patchily. Many premises only come to light as complaints or incidents arise.
If we give you powers under a licensing arrangement that ensures that the British maximum standard and the European declaration are followed, that would allow you to enforce them.
I think so.
I wanted to clarify that because it is important.
Information and education are key. We go to great lengths to educate our customers. We have done that for a number of years and we take it seriously. An array of information is available to our customers. We invest in high-spec equipment and technology, such as touch-screens that provide customers with information. We believe that, by obtaining information and educating themselves, customers will make informed choices. We also believe that investing in technology is a better way of safeguarding the consumer than having a person behind a reception desk.
Do people have to sign a consent form, accepting the terms and conditions of using your tanning salons, to indicate that they have read those and that they have used the skin tester? Are those processes ticked off, with the person acknowledging that they have gone through that process, have read the information and are, therefore, making an informed choice?
They cannot sign anything on the touch-screen, but there is a screen on which—before they choose their sunbed—they confirm that they have read and understood the information that is available in the studio and that they have used the skin tester.
Thank you. That is very helpful.
I want to go back to the principle—which rather surprised me—that the British standard applies to sunbeds at the manufacturing stage but not if they are thereafter modified. Does that apply to other equipment that is used elsewhere?
Sorry—I missed the end of your question.
You said that the British standard applies when equipment is manufactured, purchased and distributed. However, if the equipment is thereafter modified, the British standard need not apply. You said that salons put in stronger tubes and so on. Is that correct?
In essence, yes.
Does the principle apply to other equipment across the piece—not just sunbeds, but any other equipment that the public may be using?
It can apply, I guess. If people buy anything and modify it themselves, they stand to move outside the—
That does not matter, as there is an element of personal liability in that situation. I am talking about a person going into premises—a tattooist, a hairdresser, or whatever—in which equipment is used that at one time complied with the British standard but which no longer does. That is not a breach of trading standards.
In practice, to control that we would have to prove the risk rather than say that there was a risk just because the equipment was outside the British standard.
I want to get away from the risk. I am just a member of the public, and when I see that something complies with the British standard, I think that that is it. My car has to pass its MOT every year—that is about compliance with standards. By law, certain things need to be tested. I am not blaming you; I just want you to explain the position to me. When people go into commercial premises, they expect the equipment there to comply with the British standard, but you are saying that it is not a trading standards offence for equipment to have been modified so that it no longer complies.
That would not be an offence in itself, but in order for the premises to comply with the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 it would have to be demonstrated that no risk arose from that specifically.
Thank you very much. I did not know that.
I am about to ask the same question in a different way. I am sorry, but I think that this is an important area to all of us. Is Alastair Shaw telling me that it is not an offence for a person who operates a sun parlour—it could be some other premises—and who presents to a member of the public a piece of equipment whose lamp that member of the public knows is governed by an EU regulation wilfully to change the standard?
Not in itself, but—
Sorry, but I could not care less about the risk. I am interested in someone wilfully changing a standard. Are you telling me that that is not an offence?
Not in itself, unless it leads to a provable problem.
The point is that the standard—the EU regulation—is set: the standard says that if a piece of equipment meets it, that equipment is safe, but if it does not meet the standard, by implication, the equipment is not safe. However, you are telling us that as a trading standards officer you would not accept that conclusion, but would go further and determine yourself whether those who set the EU regulation were right or wrong, and that you would reach your own opinion as to whether something caused a risk. What on earth, then, is the point in having a European standard?
Perhaps an easier analogy would be the MOT example that the convener used. You have your car tested to a standard; you could personally modify the car shortly after that, and it might or might not be—
If I were involved in an accident, I would be criminally liable for interfering with equipment that has been measured against set standards. The police will not say, "Let's see whether that adjustment to the brakes might have contributed to an additional risk." I would be in a sheriff court facing a pretty damned serious charge.
In this context, if modification led to a serious accident, that would be used as evidence, but we are not really talking about—
We are talking about someone getting cancer. Are you trying to tell me that that is any different?
The risk is not as easily quantifiable as in the accident analogy that you used. When people have been severely burned, as happened in Dundee a couple of years ago, the circumstances have been actionable because an incident occurred that led directly from the modifications. There is a point between the two positions, and it is not easy to quantify the risk to an individual, particularly if it is only a minor burn and is not reported.
So you are telling me that deliberately interfering with a standard is a perfectly legal activity. Obviously, trading standards officers are not interested in ensuring that people comply with a standard—they are on a different plane where they assess the risk themselves. As a member of the public, I think that I am protected if I use equipment bearing a mark that sets a standard. You are now telling me that that does not really matter, and that a person who is operating commercial premises is entitled wilfully to change the standard. The only redress that I have is if you assess over a period of time that I might be exposed to risk.
Yes.
Absolutely useless. Not you—the standard.
Thank you.
Mr Shaw is relieved to know that, Ross.
The standard is not worth a row of beans. Indeed, all the trading standards are not worth a row of beans, because everyone in every premises in the whole country can wilfully interfere with standards, and nobody will bring enforcement to bear on them.
It is one of the problematic areas that we face.
It is not problematic—it is pretty fundamental.
We have explored the issue, and we have now established that, so we will move on. The point is pretty well exhausted.
It is serious. There is no protection for the public on the matter. We will pursue it elsewhere.
You are right that the discussion that we had at our health and wellbeing executive group was not based on the amendments—that is absolutely true. The committee asked us to discuss the broader issues around any licensing regime that might apply to sunbed parlours. From that discussion, the elected members on COSLA's executive group came to the view that COSLA would support any move towards further regulation and, potentially, national licensing. We then had a look at the amendments and, in so far as we felt that they supported the conclusions that were drawn at COSLA's executive group, we felt that we could support both the proposed measures. More than that, we felt that they were mutually reinforcing. That was the view articulated by politicians, based on evidence that was provided by the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland. We feel that we have articulated a consistent position on the issue.
That is helpful, although we are still in a rather elaborate position with the two proposed measures—they are not mutually exclusive, but there is a bit of a belt-and-braces approach. I ask Mr Shaw the same question, because he used not dissimilar language about wanting both an offence and a licensing regime. I understand that, because some local authorities that do not have the power to make law might have found it advantageous if a national licensing scheme was instigated, but that was in the absence of legislation in the first instance to address the issue. It is not entirely clear from the submissions what the interplay between the regimes might be.
You are right that, when we were asked earlier for our views, we had not seen the details of the amendments. However, you may recall that, in one of the committee's meetings in January, my colleagues Fraser Thomson and Robert Howe said that the society would prefer a licensing control regime. That was based on the experience with the skin piercing and tattooing legislation, which works fairly well and which has certain similarities in relation to risk and user groups. A quarter of Scotland's local authorities already have licensing in some shape or form, but there are inconsistencies from authority to authority, depending on how the schemes are implemented. Arguably, that creates a slightly unlevel field in Scotland.
My final question is about licensing. If I heard Mr Shaw correctly, he said that the difficulty that we have rehearsed ad nauseam because of me—the deliberate modification of equipment—could be controlled through a licensing regime. I am intrigued to know how, by what means and under what authority a criminal offence for the deliberate modification of equipment could be brought into force and effect by a licensing regime. If it can be, that still begs the question as to why the existing law does not permit it to be declared an offence.
That question would stand some scrutiny from lawyers, I have to say. However, my view is that it would be possible for a set of standard conditions in national guidance to contain a condition that sunbeds had to be operated as per their manufacturer's instructions, which would include operating at the rating that they had and, potentially, the issues that Consol raised on sunbeds' ultimate rating. The offence would simply be not to operate a sunbed as manufactured.
I understand that and it is helpful, but you will understand my confusion that an operator who deliberately breaches an EU regulation does not commit an offence but someone who breached some licensing regulation of the Scottish Parliament would commit one. I am not saying that you are wrong, but we need to pursue the point, which seems to me somewhat strange.
Yes. We could pursue it with the Law Society of Scotland.
Yes. Our executive groups in COSLA draw representation from all 32 councils. It is unlikely that all 32 will be represented at any given meeting, but the meeting at which we discussed the issue was certainly quorate. I would have to go back and check the number of representatives that were there.
For completeness, I would like to know how representative the meeting was, how many were there and how the response was split. I have conducted a consultation of my own, for which I got lots of individual responses from councils and a mix of opinions, so I would be interested to know the split. It would be useful for us to know before next week how it worked out. It was rather vague of you to say that elected members generally were in favour. We need something a bit tighter if we are to proceed with licensing and place burdens on local authorities as well as trading standards officers.
I will ask some supplementary questions on some of the evidence that was given earlier. I hesitate to go back to the modification of sunbeds, but I will ask one question for clarification. The witnesses said that, if an operator modified a sunbed, it would no longer meet the standards. There must be manufacturer's instructions on replacing the tubes in sunbeds to ensure that they still adhere to the same standards. That would not be considered a modification, would it? It would just be the replacement of a tube that had blown.
As the operators know, bulbs are replaced regularly in sunbeds because they have a shelf life and their efficacy deteriorates over time. All sunbeds routinely have their tubes replaced, but the issue is whether they are replaced with the manufacturer's tubes or with something different and outside what was supplied. The Sunbed Association might be better placed to answer, because its members are some of the trade, but I imagine that it would always recommend a like-for-like replacement as supplied.
The Sunbed Association's code of practice includes a manufacturing code as well as an operation code. Manufacturers supply sunbeds to salons with instruction manuals. The manuals that I have seen state clearly that, when a sunbed needs to be retubed, the tubes that have reached the end of their service life must be replaced by the same type of tube. Our code of practice also stipulates that tubes cannot be replaced by a different type of tube. I am not saying that it is impossible for someone to do that, but the manufacturer's instructions and our code of practice state that tubes must be replaced by the same type of tube.
Can you confirm that changing the tubes would be seen as a modification of the sunbed only if the new tubes were stronger than or different from those stipulated by the manufacturer?
All tubes have a service life of between 400 and 800 hours. The tubes must be replaced at the end of their service life, or the people using the sunbed will not tan. They are replaced by the same type of tube.
An array of tubes is available. One tube that can be bought and put into existing sunbeds is a 0.3W per square metre tube, which corresponds exactly to the European Union declaration. If you put low-emission tubes into sunbeds, as we do, you get low-emission beds.
Let us move on.
I have another question.
I was suggesting not that we move on from you but that we move on to another subject.
I am delighted to hear that. I want to explore issues relating to coin-operated or unmanned sunbeds. How do you stop children using those beds? How do you know the age of the people who use them?
Thank you for asking that question, which I expected. As a major, long-standing operator, we have no evidence of children using or abusing our sunbeds, or even of their wanting to do so. That was confirmed by an independent youth omnibus into which we bought last year. The real risk to young people comes from holidaying abroad and overexposing their skin for short periods. We monitor the use of our tanning studios via both closed-circuit television and regular staff visits. That monitoring and the result of the aforementioned youth omnibus show that Consol sunbeds are not used by children. We have always made it clear in all our studios and information, as well as through an array of warning signs, that no one under the age of 16 should use a sunbed. In our experience, they do not.
I do not know how you can make that statement, because at the moment you are unable to prove that no one under the age of 16 uses your sunbeds. It is recognised that some teenagers look very grown up. It is difficult enough to tell how old they are from looking at them, let alone from CCTV. People who are involved in selling tobacco and alcohol argue that, without a proof-of-age card, it is difficult to tell whether folk are eligible to buy alcohol or tobacco, because it is not clear just from looking at them how old they are. You have no way of proving that people under the age of 16 do not use your sunbeds, as you have no one checking their age.
I say that children do not use our sunbeds because we do not see it happen. We have seen no evidence of under-16s using our sunbeds. To prove that, we bought into an independent youth omnibus, the results of which show that there is no use of our studios by under-16s. That is how I can prove it.
What is a youth omnibus?
Carrick James Market Research has 20 years' experience in the area. It asks under-16s various questions and presents the results. It is possible to buy into a segment of the study, which is established market research. That is how we prove that children do not use our sunbeds. We have seen no evidence that children using sunbeds is a problem. It seems that we are legislating to tackle a problem that does not exist.
We have received evidence that suggests that children do use sunbeds. Cases of young people being badly burned from repeat sessions and the like have been reported in the news. We have to propose legislation to cut that risk as much as humanly possible. It is never possible to be 100 per cent sure of anything but, without somebody at the premises to ask people for proof of their age, I do not see how we can stop people under 18 using sunbeds.
You said that you have seen proof; we have not seen any such documentation whatever. It is anecdotal evidence that is being put forward—it is stories and hearsay. No documentation to prove that children use sunbeds has been presented. Mr Macintosh has been referring to an incident in Stirling a number of years ago, in which two boys used a sunbed and one of them got burned, had to go to hospital and got sent home with after-sun lotion. That is the one incident to which Mr Macintosh has been referring. We would be very interested to see any substantial, documented evidence to show that children use Consol sunbeds. If that was the case, we would be concerned. We have not seen that, however. Such evidence has not been presented to us.
May I ask a supplementary question?
You can certainly come in again at the end, but other people would like to contribute. We will move on. Helen Eadie may wish to continue on this subject. I am sorry—Rhoda Grant is not finished.
I have a further question. You spoke about touch screens and screen tests. Do the sunbeds that you operate work without someone going through the process with the touch screen?
No.
So there must be a skin test, and it must come up on the screen.
It is all connected.
And that test tells the machine that it should not operate for longer than what is shown by the skin test.
No, it does not prevent a person from choosing more minutes. It is a recommendation. However, we have chosen to allow a maximum 16-minute session in our salons, which I believe is well below industry standards. The average session time is nine to 10 minutes.
So even if a skin test says that someone is in an at-risk group and should not be using a sunbed—
It can be overruled, yes. It is a recommendation. Information and education are key to ensure that people do not overexpose themselves.
In fairness to you, there is a bit of personal liability there if people override what they have read.
If, as you say, there is no instance of children under the age of 16 using sunbeds, you should not have a problem with the notion of increasing the age-limit by a couple of years, up to 18. Let that one stick to the wall for a moment—we will probably make up our own minds on the matter. You are welcome to return to that point after I have got to my other questions.
You wish us to comment on it?
Yes.
When people tan, use a sunbed or go out in the sun, it is imperative that they do it responsibly. Repeated burning is a risk factor. Overexposure is a risk factor. Going out in the sun and behaving responsibly does not carry a risk factor. The largest environmental factor for malignant melanoma is overexposure and burning, but the highest risk factor lies in a person's genetic make-up. It is to do with family history of malignant melanoma and skin type. That is why people with skin type 1 should never go on a sunbed and should take extreme precautions in the sun.
You did not comment on the specific causal relationship with sunbeds.
Moderate tanning on a sunbed, in a non-burning fashion, does not increase people's risk of malignant melanoma.
What do you say, then, to the fact that
That particular piece of research is called a meta-analysis, which is a term with which members may be familiar. A meta-analysis combines a number of studies into one study. By combining data from different studies that had different methods and different designs, the results become a bit more shaky. Basically, the same study also concluded:
The research took place over the past 10 years in a range of different countries, not just in America or in any one country. The study was produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
I know what the International Agency for Research on Cancer is. I also know that a number of different studies went into that meta-analysis. Those studies were primarily from Scandinavia, northern Europe and North America—
The British Medical Association's research found that
That piece of research was commissioned by the British Medical Association. I am not a scientist, but—
The BMA is a professional body that is giving a professional opinion. Two or three years ago, a food product was removed from the shelves because of the likelihood that it would cause cancer. Why do we allow unregulated and unlicensed products that are likely to give people skin cancer and kill them?
To say that sunbeds kill people is an overstatement by far—
The statement was made not by me but by the British Medical Association and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Helen, Ms Priess is obviously not going to agree with your point. Do you want to move on?
I will move on to another issue.
Let me quickly comment on the earlier point about the relationship between sunbed use and skin cancer. I draw the committee's attention to a 2002 Luxembourg Health Institute study, which found no evidence for an association between sunbed use and melanoma. In fact, the study concluded:
Will you comment on the study on tanning devices by Wang L in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the study on the risk of malignant melanoma by Westerdahl and Masback, and the cancer statistics registrations for 1998 in England? Will you comment on the fact that malignant melanoma increased by 45.5 per cent in men and 20 per cent in women between 1994 and 2004? The prediction is that that rate will have doubled by 2020.
It is good to put that on the record, Helen, but I do not think we are going to resolve this. The witnesses are not going to say that they agree. You have made your point.
I was giving Kathy Banks the chance to contradict the evidence that we have heard. She quoted evidence, but other evidence—such as the reports that I just cited—needs to be put on the record.
Yes—but I would prefer that you return to the statistics on unattended salons.
Some 89 per cent of salons exercised no administrative control over the number of sessions per customer.
That is a point that the committee would like to hear about.
That statistic relates to the 794 salons that were surveyed.
May we focus on that?
As far as I know, that percentage relates to all sunbed parlours, not just unstaffed ones.
I will read you the precise words that we got—
Please let me finish.
It is holding jackets time, which I have always wanted.
Under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, we asked all the councils in Scotland how many premises were in their areas and whether they were staffed or unstaffed. We discovered that, of the 730 premises in Scotland, 32 were unstaffed. We operate 23 of those premises to what we perceive to be a very high standard. We invest a huge amount of money in technology and in giving our customers information. We applaud any initiatives that would raise industry standards; we just disagree on—
I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to move the discussion along, because we have other business on the agenda. The point is that if we accept that there are 32 unstaffed premises—
It is important to make the point that the study to which I referred was conducted by the University of Dundee and Perth and Kinross Council, in conjunction with the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland. You are challenging their integrity by saying that the figures that they have given us are not valid.
I am not saying that. It is exactly the same study to which Richard Simpson referred some minutes ago, which shows that four out of five sunbeds in Scotland emit higher levels of radiation than the UK standards.
I am sorry, Helen. I know that you have lots to ask, but I am trying to move on. Some members have not asked any questions yet.
Convener—
I will let you back in in a minute, but I want to try to move on, because other members have been waiting a long time.
I have a couple of questions for Mr Shaw. Unfortunately, I want to return to standards. Would the proposed amendments give officers who deal with licensing of premises the powers to inspect whether UV tubes comply with the British or EU standards, and to take enforcement action if they do not?
I envisage that the licensing provisions will be accompanied by separately prepared guidance that will set standards covering such matters.
Will the intended enforcement provisions be sufficient in that respect?
The advantage of a licensing scheme is that when premises breach their licence, the matter will come before the appropriate council committee, which will decide whether the licence should be suspended. Such a procedure is simpler than mounting a prosecution, with all that that entails.
That is helpful, because the guidance for a licensing scheme will be crucial in application of the standards. Have you been involved in any discussions about that guidance?
No.
In the discussions that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has had on the matter, did its elected representatives envisage a licensing scheme that would involve regular inspections of premises by council officers to ensure that the premises comply with British standards?
I am not sure that we reached that level of detail. At the end of the discussion, the view generally was that the health and wellbeing executive group would support further regulation and, potentially, a national licensing scheme. That point was not discussed at the meeting.
You will admit, however, that it is pretty crucial. It is fair enough for COSLA to come out in favour of a licensing scheme but, as we have already heard, if there is no good enforcement regime, particularly with regard to safety standards, the licence will not be worth the paper that it is written on. I am surprised that COSLA has not considered the matter in that kind of detail.
We hope that the new regulations or any new licensing scheme will be financially neutral for local authorities. In other words, authorities would be able to charge a fee that would enable any regime to become self-funding.
That is helpful. Has COSLA discussed with the Government the content of any guidance that might accompany the bill?
No.
As the guidance will be key to the effectiveness of the proposals in the amendments, the committee will need a better idea of its exact contents if we are to have a feel for how a licensing regime might be introduced.
I ask the witnesses not to take this personally, but the fact is that at this stage a broad-brush approach is not much use to us. At stage 2, we have to nail things down and ensure that the bill that goes before Parliament at stage 3 is subject only to minor tinkering—if I might put it like that—and not to major upheavals and amendments. I have to say that this feels more like a stage 1 evidence-taking session. For example, in response to the questions about the consultation that had taken place, you have used terms such as "generally" and "potentially". I know; I wrote them down. It is all a bit too vague, and in the end the burden will fall on trading standards and environmental health officers in local authorities.
Can I—
I want to let Michael Matheson finish his point.
Given the importance that the witnesses have placed on the guidance, the committee needs to understand clearly how the licensing regime will be implemented and operated and whether it will enforce the British and EU standards. We have to ensure on behalf of the Government and other parties that might lodge amendments that these issues will be addressed in the guidance. To date, we have had absolutely no evidence that they will.
I am aware that time is moving on. I will let Joe FitzPatrick in and then Rhoda Grant, Richard Simpson and Helen Eadie. At this rate, we are going to be here until teatime, but that is not my fault.
I will be as brief as possible—Michael Matheson covered many of the points that I was going to make.
Yes—I think so. One issue that arises repeatedly with such premises is the lack of training of staff. I have fears that the measures on information provision as envisaged in the bill could be undermined by staff not knowing what they are doing. In my authority, we have had one or two instances in which folk have said, "I don't bother using eye protection, so you don't need to."
We must get through the business of the day, so I will have to stop this discussion at 11.15. I will allow members to ask very short questions, with short answers. I am beginning to sound like the Presiding Officer—perhaps I have plans. We have an awful lot of business to get through: we must get through all the amendments today.
The Sunbed Association and Consol Suncenter oppose increasing the minimum age for use to 18. The World Health Organization recommends that the minimum age should be 18. It is difficult for the committee to go against that. I ask the trade organisations to give us further written evidence on that, if there is time, because we need to understand the issues better. If we introduce a minimum age of 18 and agree to the amendment that sets out three or four types of identification, how will non-staffed premises manage that?
I return to photosensitivity in people who are taking medication. I ask the industry representatives how unstaffed salons, which we heard about in evidence, will deal with that.
Mary Scanlon has a question, too. If it is terribly short, she can ask it. I will ask the witnesses to write to the committee with the answers, because I will stop this discussion at 11.15.
What is the role of the Health and Safety Executive in the matter? I know that it issues guidance, but it is not being followed.
The clerks will write to all the witnesses with the questions and they can e-mail the responses to committee members, so that we will know what the answers are. I thank the witnesses for their time—we have had brave performances all round.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—