Amendment No. 1 is in the names of Senators MacSharry and Cullinane. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will be discussed together by agreement.
Public Health (Sunbeds) Bill 2013: Committee Stage
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“5. (1) The owner, manager or employee of a sunbed business shall not sell the use of a sunbed on a sunbed premises to a person unless—
(a) the owner, manager or employee has assessed the person’s skin type in
accordance with the Fitzpatrick skin photo type classification system, or
(b) the person has provided the owner, manager or employee with a certificate from a medical practitioner that certifies that the medical practitioner has assessed the person’s skin type in accordance with the Fitzpatrick skin photo type classification system and states the results of that assessment.
(2) A person whose skin type is assessed as Type I or Type II under subsection (1)(a) or(b) shall not be permitted to use a sunbed on the sunbed premises.
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence.”.
I thank the Minister for Health for coming to the Seanad and for taking the time out of his very busy schedule to take the debate in the Seanad when we are dealing with health legislation. Regardless of our many political skirmishes we very much appreciate that he is exemplary in coming to the Seanad.
We are doing very good work in legislating for the use of sunbeds. We are all agreed on the provisions of the Bill and the need to protect citizens.
Senator Cullinane and I agree, as I am sure others will too, that we are falling short in a very critical part and that is the reason we tabled amendments that are in line with the Irish Cancer Society policy. In our amendments, we propose the introduction of regulations to ensure that particular skin types are adequately catered for. The Irish Cancer Society has promoted the identification of skin types and that people with specific skin types that are more vulnerable would not be permitted to use sunbeds on sunbed premises. We also provide that a person must have a certificate from a medical practitioner that certifies that his or her skin type has been assessed in accordance with the Fitzpatrick skin photo type.
I have no need to tell the Minister, who is a doctor, that the incidence of cancer is rising and is a threat to society. My own mother, who is no longer with us, had skin cancer on three different occasions. She had sallow skin. It would be wise to embrace what the Irish Cancer Society is promoting. Senator Cullinane and I were happy to table amendments that encompass their recommendations. The Minister can embrace the thrust of the amendments to build on the good legislation that will be passed by this House.
I welcome the Minister to the House. During the Second Stage debate, Members from Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil and the Independent groupings put on record their support for the Bill. This is a very important Bill and I thank the Minister again for coming in to take the amendments today.
The Minister might recall that there was some discussion on the smoking ban that was introduced by the previous Government, which has worked effectively and no doubt will result in the reduction of the incidence of cancer. No half measures were taken. We can criticise the previous Government for the things it did wrong, but in the case of the smoking ban, it did what was necessary to do. It faced strong lobbying from the Licensed Vintners Association and from the tobacco industry and vested interests and held firm and went for a full ban on smoking. I think that was the right thing to do. I wish to draw a comparison to what is happening here today. The Minister is introducing an important Bill that will have a significant impact in reducing cancer levels by regulating the use of sunbeds, but the Bill does not go far enough.
The amendments are fairly straightforward. They provide that a person who wishes to use a sunbed must provide the owner, manager or employee with a certificate from a medical practitioner stating that the Fitzpatrick skin photo type classification system was used to assess his or her skin type.
The amendments seek to prohibit people with fair skin, and I fall into that category and perhaps the Minister would fall into the same category, people with type 1 or type 2 skin types, from using sunbeds.
During the debate on Second Stage we all agreed that skin cancer is on the rise in Ireland and that far too many are suffering from skin cancer. Skin cancer is the most common cancer in Ireland. In 2010, 9,450 people were diagnosed with skin cancer and of these 896 were diagnosed with melanoma, which is the most serious form of skin cancer. It is projected that by 2040, the number will double. We have a responsibility to do the right thing and put people's health first. There are, in my view, people who are misguided on the use of sunbeds. Some might argue that they have a right to use them and that it is a matter of personal choice. We have a duty of care to people's heath. We have tabled the amendments in good faith and I hope the Minister will support them. If he does not support them, I have no doubt that we will initiate another Bill to amend this legislation.
Should the Minister have a problem with the amendments, will he explain the problems and the reason he is unable to accept them and whether he will be able to deal with them at a future point. Regardless of whether the amendments are accepted, I will be supporting the Bill. I noted on Second Stage that the Minister also introduced legislation on smoking, which I support. This is a good Bill but I hope the Minister will take a step further and that would be a very good day for all concerned.
I am very pleased that I have a fellow doctor in the Chamber because I cannot imagine any GP wanting to certify that somebody is fit to use a sunbed, when they know that sunbeds cause damage to the skin. Any tanning is evidence of damage to the skin. They would not want to give a certificate to anybody in their full health to say they were fit to smoke cigarettes. Senator Cullinane's point was there were no half measures when the smoking ban was introduced. They did not ban the sale of cigarettes. They did ban the sale of cigarettes to people with chronic obstructive airways disease, asthma or cystic fibrosis. We live in a free country. Adults are entitled to exercise freedom of choice.
We must be very clear in raising awareness so that people have the full information when they exercise their right to choose to smoke, to use a sunbed or to eat foods with a certain calorie content. I believe the consumer is free to make a choice. We live in a democracy. We do not live in a nanny state.
I will try to explain this in the least controversial or confrontational way that I can. I think the public is with us on these things in a major way. Some 80% of people supported the smoking ban and support what we are doing in relation to plain packaging. I was pleased to get that proposal through the Cabinet yesterday. If we are seen to go too far, in terms of interfering with people's freedoms, we will lose them. If we are overly zealous, and we insist on removing people's rights in certain areas, I think we will get ourselves into trouble. I am not in favour of interfering with the right of people to exercise choice. People need to make informed decisions and to be sensible. We need to continue to raise awareness.
Senator MacSharry's reference to his mother's sallow skin illustrates the difficulty that would be associated with basing a prohibition on skin type. Sallow skin would not necessarily be categorised as skin type 1 or 2. Aside from all the administrative and other problems that would be caused by the measure that is proposed, as a doctor I do not believe I have the right to tell a patient what he or she can or cannot do. I can advise them of what the consequences of different actions would be if they were to choose them. I can hope they are sensible enough to take that advice. As a politician and as a democrat, I do not believe we should go into that area.
I would like to express my gratitude to all the Members who have tabled amendments. I thank them for showing an interest in the Bill and expressing general support for it. I think it shows that the Oireachtas as a whole can and does work, that it has people's public health at heart, that it is trying to protect citizens from harm and, most importantly, that it is prepared to fight to protect our children's health. As part of our duty of care to our children, we must take actions to protect them. When they are old enough to make their own decisions as adults, that is another day's work. Cigarettes are very different in this regard. If a person is already addicted to them by the time he or she reaches the age of 18, can he or she choose to exercise one's judgment at that stage? He or she is already addicted.
On that basis, I cannot accept either amendment. I hope the Senators will understand that. I thank them for their expressions of support for the Bill before the House, notwithstanding the Irish Cancer Society's proposed amendment. I rarely find myself at odds with the Irish Cancer Society. On this occasion, I think that what it is seeking might represent a step too far. Ten, 20, or 30 years from now, perhaps society will have changed and we will have a much more paternalistic approach to life, for lack of a better word, than we do at present. I hope that does not happen.
I commend Senators MacSharry and Cullinane for proposing this amendment, which I will be supporting. There were 400 newly-diagnosed cases of malignant melanoma in Ireland in 1998. That number had increased dramatically to 800 by 2008 and to 1,100 by 2010. Other kinds of skin cancer which are less life-threatening, but are still life-threatening and can certainly be disfiguring, and the treatment of which can pose health consequences, are also increasing. There is a critical need for us to tackle this problem, for example by means of an aggressive education campaign targeted at those who are most vulnerable.
I would like to explain why I support this Bill. I acknowledge that people have a right to make bad choices about their own health. People have the right to sit in the sun and sizzle and burn if they wish. However, we have an obligation to inform them of the foolhardiness of that position. Adults have the right to go tanning parlours if they wish. However, no one has the right to profit commercially from deliberately causing someone else to be exposed to a carcinogenic influence. This is the fundamental logic we have used in our attempt to get Governments in Europe to commit to a long-term policy of criminalising the for-profit commercial sale of tobacco products, or indeed any commerce in such products. No civil or human right to engage in such activity exists. If one wants to grow tobacco in one's back garden and roll it up for one's own use, that is fine.
No one has a God-given or constitutional right, or any kind of right, to profit from giving someone an addictive carcinogen. I believe the same logic applies in this case. No business has a right to do something which is clearly without health benefit and is clearly very dangerous for someone who is very vulnerable. To approach it from a psychological perspective, there is a literature which suggests the possibility that there is a low level of addiction to suntanning. There are people who suspend their own logical faculties and make bad decisions because they have become addicted to something that somebody else encouraged them to use for their own profit.
At the moment, the only professional interaction that a foolhardy, bad, poorly, pale-skinned, red-haired and freckled Irish person has when he or she is deciding whether to go to a tanning parlour is the advice that he or she receives from the fellow who is flogging the time on the bed and therefore has a dog in the fight. This legislation would at least impose an obligation on such a person to see a doctor and get medical advice about it. One of the best ways of dealing with this is for people who have had melanoma to start suing tanning parlours. That is the way to do it. I hope people will start doing that some day. If someone has a note from his or her doctor saying that he or she has been cautioned explicitly about the specific and quantifiable risks to health associated with doing something as foolish as this for somebody else's profit, that might well provide a degree of indemnity and immunity against prosecution. It is something I believe the industry should embrace.
I will support this amendment eagerly. I suggest to my colleagues that they should press it today because it is important. I believe it enhances a good Bill. As the Minister knows, I am not sure where the Bill was for a while. I raised this matter on the Adjournment two terms ago because I feel very strongly about it. I see an awful lot of malignant melanoma in my practice. I see an awful lot of unbelievable tragedies that result from this disease, which disproportionately affects young people and young middle-aged people. We need to do everything in our power to eliminate it. This is a step along the way.
I am disappointed that the Minister cannot accept these amendments. While we will support this Bill, we will also press the amendments. I agree that in his capacity as a doctor, the Minister should not prescribe how people act - what they can or cannot do. All he can do is advise them. However, he is in this Chamber in his capacity as a Government Minister who is responsible for determining regulations and for legislating. There are many examples of areas in which the Oireachtas has legislated to provide regulations to protect people's health and discourage them from particular activities.
The Minister said in response to Senator Cullinane that the smoking ban was not a final solution to the cigarette problem because we did not ban the sale of cigarettes to various groups of people, such as those with cystic fibrosis. We did not ban tobacco from the country. If we knew many years ago what we know now about tobacco, we would not have let it into the country. If it was a new invention, we would not permit it. That is a fact. I am sure we could say the same thing about many other products. It is a fact that certain people should not use sunbeds. If the wording of this amendment is a problem, the Minister's officials in his Department should come up with a form of wording that will work better. The fact is that these people should not be using sunbeds.
The Oireachtas has a responsibility to provide guidelines and regulations to society, within which free will still exists. If I wanted to buy six Ventolin inhalers in a chemist shop tomorrow, I could not do so because it is against the law. If I consumed the contents of six inhalers, I would do damage to myself. I might want to use my free will to expose myself to six Ventolin inhalers, but it is prescribed in law that I may not do so. I am sure many other drugs and various things are regulated in such ways. It is right that one cannot get certain drugs without a prescription. We are seeking to provide for the same thing in this case. Certain people should be allowed to use sunbeds.
I agree that no doctor would want to certify anyone to use a sunbed any more than he or she would want to certify a person to abuse alcohol or, as the Minister has rightly said, to smoke cigarettes. Excellent work is being done today and we could finish it off with these suggestions. The Irish Cancer Society has no vested interest other than the protection of people and preventing them from having to go to Senator John Crown's practice or to the practices of other cancer specialists. The motives behind the legislation are noble, whereas the motive of the tanning bar proprietor - one cannot blame him or her - is cash. Anyone in such a business is not going to say to a prospective customer that his or her complexion is very pale, which would give rise to concerns about the impact of a sunbed on the person and that he or she should spend his or her money somewhere else. That will not happen. It will be a case of the customer coming in, telling them what they want, their turning it up high for 15 minutes, and telling the customer they should definitely go for it and that they will look great on their wedding day. There is no reason for us not to do that. We will press the amendments on that basis. We will support the Bill but we will press both amendments to a vote.
My intention was not to disagree strongly with the Minister because we support the substance of the Bill, but I take exception to his response to the amendments. He has entirely missed the point. I do not agree with the Minister's analysis or the analogies he gave. Senator Crown hit the nail on the head when he spoke about people who would profit from the provision of sunbeds for commercial use. The wording of the amendments refers to the owner, manager or employee of a sunbed business and outlines that a person shall not sell or hire or offer for sale or hire, or permit to be sold or hired or offered for sale or hire, a sunbed. The amendments seek to prevent those who allow people to use sunbeds for profit to expose people unnecessarily to cancer. We seek to prevent those who are most at risk from using a sunbed.
The Minister said he did not want the legislation to appear to be indicative of a nanny state. He referred also to democracy and freedom of choice. If he were to follow through on the logic he would allow a person to drink and drive, smoke in a bar and, as Senator MacSharry said, to get any amount of medicine without the use of prescription. We introduce such restrictions to protect people. One is asked a series of questions by a chemist before one is allowed to purchase Nurofen or other medications which were previously freely available. The situation advances all the time and we take measures not out of any sense of the nanny state but because it is the right thing to do. It is not a question of democracy. It is genuinely democratic if we as Oireachtas Members take a decision to protect the most vulnerable people from using sunbeds. I refer to people with type 1 and type 2 skin.
There is a flaw in the Minister’s argument when he said that no GP would want to prescribe the use of a sunbed. That is not what would be asked of a GP if the amendments were accepted. We simply require that either a GP or other qualified person would carry out a skin assessment test to determine a person’s skin type. As legislators we would then prohibit people who are most at risk from using sunbeds. That is the change we seek to make. To describe the amendments as being in some way silly, suggestive of a nanny state or undemocratic is fundamentally flawed. If the Minister were to follow the same logic, we would not do a lot of things. I hope the Minister is wrong and that if we have a new Minister for Health or a new Government eventually, they will go a step further and ensure we protect people with certain skin types from the use of sunbeds that would unnecessarily expose them to cancer. I regret the fact the Minister will not accept the amendments but I will still support the Bill.
I welcome the Minister. I support his comments on the amendments. As a legal practitioner, if a doctor asked me whether he should issue such certificates, my immediate response would be that he or she should not because it would leave them wide open to being joined in proceedings at a later stage if something went wrong. Doctors would be very reluctant to give such a certificate to anyone because the vast majority of GPs do not support the use of sunbeds and would decide not to get involved.
The fact has been ignored that people travel to other countries. We are tightening up on the use of sunbeds but the same level of regulation does not exist in many other European countries.
Neither does the smoking ban.
I fully accept that but Irish people travel. I also fully agree with what my colleagues have said about education. There is a need to ensure adequate information is available to everyone, in particular young people, on the dangers of using sunbeds. The legislation provides for the Minister to introduce regulations. Part of the regulations must ensure people who use or buy sunbeds receive adequate information on the dangers attached. The dangers outlined in the amendments must be highlighted. However, the amendments are not the way to deal with the matter. We have a lot of work to do in terms of highlighting the dangers. Senator Crown has very much highlighted the issue and the dangers attached to sunbeds not only in this House but in the public arena. The number of people with diagnoses of skin cancer has continued to increase. We must be more proactive. The Bill provides for the necessary legislation and allows for the regulations to be put in place. The way the Minister is dealing with the issue is the correct course of action and I will support him rather than the proposed amendments.
I too agree with the Minister and Senator Burke on the extent to which we want to go with the legislation. Personally, I would be in favour of banning sunbeds entirely but that is not the purpose of the legislation. Senator Crown is correct to draw attention to the increase in the incidence of melanoma and skin cancer.
Section 2, which gives the Minister power to provide regulations, section 10(4) concerning the promotion of health, and section 11 go as far as the amendments seek without banning adults from making decisions that harm their health. While we would not wish to see anyone making such an unfortunate decision, we live in a democracy – a non-nanny state – and it is not something for which we should legislate.
Senator Cullinane drew attention to the analogy with the smoking ban in the workplace and drink driving. The difference is that the practices identified by him cause harm to other people whereas the use of a sunbed causes harm only to the person using it. The analogy therefore is not correct. We would perhaps not accept the amendments in any event on the grounds of constitutionality. The Minister could clarify whether if a medical condition were identified on the Fitzpatrick scale, we could prevent services that are available to other people being available to certain people on the grounds that they suffer from a medical condition.
Could we, for instance, ban the sale of cigarettes to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cystic fibrosis? Could we ban the sale of sugar to persons suffering from type 2 diabetes? Should we go down that road? Should a pre-existing health condition be a determining factor in whether one is prevented from accessing a service or product which may be harmful to oneself? These are important questions to consider.
The proposals contained in the Bill are welcome and worthy of support. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on the positive outcome yesterday of his long and hard fought battle at Cabinet to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco products.
Senator Gilroy has put his finger on it in terms of the problem that arises with some of the analogies put forward by Senator Cullinane. I hope the voters of Ireland are listening when the latter says, on behalf of Sinn Féin, that he would impose his will - it matters little that his will, in this case, is well intentioned - across the natural constitutional rights of the people of this country. The reality is that we can go so far in protecting people but, ultimately, they have a right to make their own choices. As long as I stand, I will, as a democrat, defend their right to so choose. I will advise people against the foolish use of that right, but I will continue to defend it.
On the basis of the logic he is using here, would Senator Cullinane ban the sale of cigarettes to people, for example, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
On a point of information, I have suggested that we should implement a ban by 2030 on all commerce in addictive carcinogenic compounds like tobacco.
That is not a point of information. The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.
These proposals are prejudicial to the rights of groups of adults with a particular skin type. That is completely different from banning commercial activity which can cause harm. Having said that, I do not necessarily disagree with Senator Crown in respect of his stated objective. In fact, our aim is to achieve a situation by 2025 where the prevalence of smoking in this country is under 5%. I notice the young people in the Gallery today. Our concern is to protect them from the harmful effects of sunbeds and from getting addicted to cigarettes before they are 18 years of age. When they are old enough, however, they can make those choices for themselves. Until then we must protect them, which is what this Bill is about. These amendments, on the other hand, are about telling adults they cannot engage in a particular practice. The reality, however, is that they have a right under our Constitution to do so. To confuse this issue with drink driving, having bald tyres or any issue that affects other people is not an argument that stands up.
What about the point I made regarding prescribed medications?
The Minister without interruption, please.
I agree 100% with Senator Crown on the need for education. We must continually drive home the message regarding the harmful effects of sunbed usage. We have included a prohibition in the Bill on claims being made by sunbed operators that their use has a health benefit by, for instance, providing vitamin D. We are insisting that all operators go through a form with customers to ensure they understand the risks. We have stipulated that all premises containing tanning equipment must display warning signs that it is against the law to allow a person aged under 18 to use a sunbed on those premises or to hire or sell a sunbed to such persons, and that sunbed use will increase the risk of cancer, damage the skin and possibly damage the eyesight. There will be plenty of warnings to people about the risks involved. However, in this country, as in most right-thinking democracies, we do not remove people's right to exercise their own choice, regardless of whether their choice is harmful to them.
We have had a very good debate on this issue and it will be a pity to divide on these amendments. I hope the message goes out that the Oireachtas is absolutely committed to protecting people's health, particularly children's health, but we will not interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens. Senator Cullinane asked whether we can legislate for certain things. The answer is that we can legislate for anything, but some things, if we introduce them in legislation, are very likely to be struck down by the courts. Moreover, why introduce a law that would risk losing much of the goodwill that exists towards the initiatives we are taking in the interests of public health?
The Senators are aware of my view, as Minister for Health and as a doctor, that we must stop paying lip service to prevention and begin actually paying for it. That is what we are seeking to do with this Bill, the tobacco Bill and the Bills to come on the sale of alcohol and, if needs be, to make the display of calorie information a legal requirement. In the latter case, I would much prefer to see that happen by way of a voluntary code. Indeed, moves in that direction are starting to gather pace. I congratulate the Food Safety Authority of Ireland on its MenuCal initiative, which is a world first. Its website, menucal.ie, explains very simply how to calculate the number of calories in a meal one has prepared. It is a useful tool for small restaurant and café owners who are concerned about the cost of providing calorie information to customers.
All I want is for people to be able to make an informed choice. It is up to us to ensure they are in a position to do so by raising awareness and educating them on the dangers of sunbeds, tobacco and an unhealthy diet. I thank the Senators for their contributions, but I will not be accepting the amendments.
There is nothing in these amendments that would contravene anybody's constitutional rights. The Minister has simply cherry-picked the examples we gave in a way that suits his position. If somebody drinks and drives, they may harm not only others, but also themselves. Medicines are prescribed by doctors in order to protect the public; we do not allow people to pick and choose which medicines they use. If we were to say, on the logic of the Minister's argument, that people can choose whatever medication they like because they have a constitutional right to do so, it would not stand up. I ask the Minister to listen when I am responding to him. People in this State are not entitled to smoke cannabis. Some argue that such a right should exist, and some might even take the Minister's analysis and claim a constitutional right to do so. We, as legislators, make the decision as to whether such a right is given.
However, that prohibition applies to everybody, not a selected group of individuals.
My point is that we can make a decision as legislators to prevent people from doing something we consider harmful. That is why there is a ban on cannabis. If we were to follow the Minister's logic, we would allow people to smoke cannabis and take whatever medications they want. We would, in other words, be failing to protect people.
If we strip this down to its bare bones, it is a very simple argument. We know that by 2040 there will be a doubling of the incidence of cancer in this country. That is an absolute reality. These amendments are seeking to minimise that increase by protecting people who are most at risk of skin cancer. It is not about singling people out for the sake of it. It is a fact that people with a certain skin type are more vulnerable to developing skin cancer as a result of using sunbeds. The question we must ask ourselves is whether the provisions we have proposed in these amendments would save lives and result in lower cancer rates. If the answer is "Yes", then accepting the amendments is the right thing to do. If the Bill is passed without these amendments, we will have better regulation and some degree of improvement on the current situation. If the Minister accepts these amendments, sunbed operators will be prohibited from exploiting people whose skin types make them most vulnerable to skin cancer and we will, as a result, see a reduction in cancer rates.
Senator Gilroy said that allowing people to harm themselves is a separate issue from preventing them causing harm to others. However, if people with these particular skin types go on to develop skin cancer as a result of sunbed usage, there is a huge cost to the taxpayer in the resulting demands on the health service.
Given that we all pay for their mistakes, we have a responsibility as legislators to deal with such issues. It is not solely about personal choice. A person does not have the right to cause harm that could increase the burden on taxpayers. We can go over and back on the democracy issue, but if one strips it down, the intent of these amendments is to save lives and ensure people at risk are protected.
We can strip this down and call it democracy. The most important feature of a democracy is that people have a choice, even to do something harmful to themselves, misguided as they might be. If we followed Senator Cullinane's logic we would ban everything that entails any risk. Would we ban boxing because people get injured doing it? Would we ban skydiving, skiing-----
People break their necks playing rugby.
Absolutely. Such injuries incur a cost on the State, but it is part of living in a democracy. It is discrimination to provide services to some people but not others because they suffer from a medical condition. Can we ban the sale of sugar to diabetics and alcohol to recovering alcoholics? Can we keep harmful products from one section of society due to a medical condition and not from the public in general? That is the key. This is a question of being a nanny state or not. Although in my preface to this I said I would ban the use of sunbeds altogether if I were the Minister or had the legal authority, it would make the service unavailable to everybody in society, not just to people who suffer from a particular condition.
The sugar analogy is inaccurate because we all need sugar or a certain carbohydrate intake to live.
Hear, hear.
People who have problems with sugar metabolism must have it regulated and delivered in a particular fashion. Nobody needs cigarettes or a sunbed to live. People use these products not for the sake of their health or because they are a necessity but recreationally or - certainly in the case of cigarettes and possibly in the case of tanning beds - due to a degree of psychological addiction. The question is not one of banning people from using them but from profiting from them. A person with light skin, red hair and freckles can sit in the sun if he or she wishes and nobody is stopping him or her from doing so. My colleagues, whom I support, are attempting to stop people from profiting from sunbeds because, inevitably, subtly or overtly, the opportunity to do so gives people an incentive to market their services in some way.
My colleagues insist only that these people must get a medical report in the same way people do for certain occupations. I would be prohibited from doing certain jobs because I have visual impairment and a degree of hearing impairment. When our children were a little younger we have all stood in lines for rollercoasters where there are signs denying entry to people with heart disease. This is not creating a nanny state but using health knowledge to protect people. In the rollercoaster example, the only potential harm is to oneself. It is not even the same as stopping a person who suffers from epileptic seizures from driving a train because in that situation other people could be harmed. It is spurious.
I cannot let this amendment pass without commenting on the fact that the region of our country with the highest incidence of skin cancer, the sunny south east, has no dermatology service. The dermatologist resigned a few months ago leaving 3,000 untyped but dictated reports with no support for a service which he provided with many months of advance notice that his colleague would be taking maternity leave. Now that the colleague is on maternity leave, there is nobody to see patients who may have skin cancer in the part of the country with the highest level of skin cancer. This is wrong. The HSE has made the decision not to provide the service by omission, not commission, and it is a terrible blunder.
The Senator is digressing.
It is relevant to the amendment. I heard the details of it today while discussing melanoma and sunbeds with some other experts and I am beside myself with anger. Recently I met the latest spin doctor appointed by HIQA. While we are not hiring doctors to treat a cancer which has tripled in incidence in this country in 13 years, the health service is spending money on spin doctors for the national agency.
The Senator is unnecessarily broadening the debate.
It is as if when the Titanic was sinking somebody said the White Star Line did not need more lifeboats but to hire better press representatives for its lifeboat inspectors.
People have made points and there are two entrenched positions. Tic-tacking back and forth is not helpful to the Bill.
I would like to make one point.
Do not try to draw fire from the other side, which is unhelpful.
This Bill brings forward regulation and puts an obligation, which did not exist previously, on the people who offer these services. Part of it is that these people be made aware that the use of sunbeds is risky for certain types of people. Under this legislation they would have a legal obligation to ensure they give adequate warnings, otherwise they would leave themselves exposed to future litigation. The one good thing about this legislation is that it would bring forward and establish a proper regulatory system regarding registration and the rules about the services that can be offered. The obligation to warn people of the dangers did not previously exist and the debate is missing that point. It is a welcome piece of legislation and we should accept what the Minister is setting out and the reasons the amendments should not be accepted.
A considerable number of warnings will be there for people to see. I have a copy of the warnings used in Northern Ireland, and ours will not be much different. It is a long list, which I will not read. I am tempted to remark on the appropriateness of the Leas-Chathaoirleach's advice not to "draw fire" when I am addressing Senator Cullinane.
Try to navigate a centre course.
Senator Crown made the point that we need sugar and cannot live without carbohydrates. Do we need sugar-sweetened drinks and sweets to live? We could follow this argument forever. The sports analogy is not about some sports being different. While rollercoaster operators have the right to refuse entry to certain people, they are not prohibited by law from riding rollercoasters by virtue of their medical histories. It is not the law but the operator's opportunity to minimise accidents.
I will now be drawing up the rollercoasters regulation Bill.
I ask the Minister and Senators not to draw unnecessary fire on each other but to concentrate on the Bill.
I must address the suggestion that we will not protect people. We will protect people but not dictate to them, as Senator Cullinane wishes us to. This is a good Bill and I will not accept the amendments. I can think of a host of other areas with which I could draw analogies, such as banning people with disabilities or without the full use of their four limbs from riding horses because it would be more dangerous for them, yet we can all think of some very famous people who have done that and who get great enjoyment from it. Show jumping is possibly the most dangerous of sports, with the highest incidence of serious spinal injury.
We are a free nation and let us not go back over it again. I would greatly appreciate it if the amendment were not pushed but if the Senators want to press it that is fine. I will oppose it and I will say no more.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 5 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, after line 36, to insert the following:
“6. (1) A person shall not sell or hire or offer for sale or hire, or permit to be sold or hired or offered for sale or hire, a sunbed to a person unless—
(a) they have assessed the person’s skin type in accordance with the Fitzpatrick skin photo type classification system, or
(b) the person has provided the owner, manager or employee with a certificate from a medical practitioner that certifies that the medical practitioner has assessed the person’s skin type in accordance with the Fitzpatrick skin photo type classification system and states the results of that assessment.
(2) A person whose skin type is assessed as Type I or Type II under subsection (1)(a) or (b) shall not be permitted to use a sunbed on the sunbed premises.
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
As it is after 1 p.m. I ask the Leader to report progress.
Progress reported.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.