Agenda item

The Licensing Committee received a report on the harmonisation of skin piercing registration requirements and model byelaws for skin piercing activities. This report sought Members’ approval for the adoption of model byelaws for the safe practice of acupuncture, tattooing, semi-permanent skin-colouring, cosmetic piercing and electrolysis across the whole district.

Currently Aylesbury, Chiltern and Wycombe legacy areas had adopted the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which required the registration of businesses and persons who perform skin piercing namely tattooing, ear piercing, electrolysis and acupuncture. As part of a consolidation exercise, it was recommended that the provisions of sections 14 to 17 inclusive of the Act be adopted across the Buckinghamshire area.

At present, the Buckinghamshire area had existing byelaws from legacy council areas which dealt with the hygiene practices and procedures in relation to some or all of the practices of acupuncture, electrolysis, ear piercing, tattooing, cosmetic piercing (piercing of the body including the ear) and semi-permanent skin-colouring including micro pigmentation, semi-permanent make-up and temporary tattooing. However, these were not consistent across the whole of the Council area. A draft byelaw based on the consolidated set of model byelaws, which had been produced by the Department of Health, was attached at Appendix 1.  It was recommended that all existing byelaws from the legacy council areas in relation to semi-permanent skin-colouring and cosmetic piercing, acupuncture, ear piercing, electrolysis and tattooing or related be revoked and replaced by the consolidated set of model byelaws for the Buckinghamshire Council area.

If sections 14-17 of the Act and then the consolidated byelaws were not adopted, then there might be some members of the public who would not be adequately protected from unregistered businesses. By extending the range of activities that come within the registering regime, greater protection from the transmission of blood borne virus infections would be provided and improved enforcement provisions adopted.

As part of the adoption and confirmation processes for byelaws, the Council would be required to publish public notices as a one off exercise in local newspapers. Whilst the adoption and implementation processes for both the requirement to register business and byelaws would incur a cost to the Council, this would be met from within existing budgets.

If adopted, as well as the statutory requirements, such policy changes would be publicised on the Council’s web pages and existing businesses would be notified. Existing skin piercing businesses had already been notified of the potential change in policy as part of communication relating to the harmonisation of the registration fees.

If approved by Full Council on 21^st September 2022, the statutory implementation process after adoption of the registration requirements would be completed, new registration requirements policies would be created/extended pending formal implementation and related byelaws for cosmetic piercing, semi-permanent skin colouring, acupuncture, ear-piercing, electrolysis and tattooing would be drawn up in line with the consolidated model byelaws. An application to the Secretary of State would be made for confirmation of such byelaws covering the Buckinghamshire Council area and that once confirmed, related existing legacy byelaws would be revoked.

Members were invited to ask questions of officers. In response to a question about how many businesses there were in Buckinghamshire which offered skin piercing services, the Committee was advised that there were approximately 350 premises and 870 operators. It was noted that there could be a number of operators within one premise.  

Following a query regarding what had happened previously in the South Bucks legacy area, officers explained that whilst the adoption of the registration provisions of the act went through the relevant Licensing Committee, the byelaws were then not confirmed by the Secretary of State. Therefore, whilst there was a requirement to register in the South Bucks legacy area, the actual byelaws were not adopted.

In response to a question regarding how many officers there would be to enforce the requirements of Sections 14 to 17 of the Act and the byelaws, it was confirmed that there were 12 Environmental Health officers. It was noted that not all of these 12 were fulltime employees and their role was primarily food hygiene and covering reactive work in terms of health and safety.  The Committee was advised that with all new registrations, an officer would carry out an inspection of the premises, assess the new operator in terms of experience and qualifications and go through the operations with them to ensure safe practice.   A Member questioned whether it would be beneficial to have more officers to carry out this work as it seemed resource intensive. 

With regard to finding unregistered businesses, it was noted that Environmental Health officers, whilst working in their local area, would often see if a new business had started up. Also, existing businesses would often inform Environmental Health if they became aware of a new business which wasn’t registered. In relation to unregistered mobile operators, officers discovered unregistered mobile operators through complaints, the planning service or by looking at social media for advertisements.   

It was confirmed that the penalty for not registering was a level 2 offence in the Magistrates Court, which would result in a fine of £500.  A concern was raised that this fine was not high enough to encourage businesses and operators to be registered. In response, officers explained that this fine was set down in legislation and therefore the Council had no powers to change this. If the operator was operating in an unsafe way, then the Council could use the provisions set out in the Health and Safety at Work Act, under which there were greater penalties.

A Member queried whether an operator needed a recognised qualification in order to carry out skin piercing activities. The Committee was advised that whilst there wasn’t a recognised qualification that an operator needed to have, as part of their inspection and assessment of the operator, officers did scrutinise operators, including their experience, any qualifications they might have and their practices.

With regard to registration requirements, it was confirmed that if a business changed ownership, that new business would need to register.  Also, if a business took on a new operator, that operator would need to be registered.

In response to a question regarding whether there was any harmonisation across the county boundaries with neighbouring authorities, officers advised that whilst they were not aware of what the provisions of neighbouring authorities were, it was likely the neighbouring authorities would have the same byelaws as the model byelaws which were created by the Department of Health and that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (as amended) applied to the whole of England and Wales.

It was noted that if any Members or residents had any concerns regarding the practices of an operator, they should contact Environmental Health.

On a vote being taken the recommendation was proposed by Cllr Wood and seconded by Cllr Town and:-

RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council:

1)        That the Council resolve to adopt the provisions of Sections 14 to 17 inclusive of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (as amended) in relation to Acupuncture, Tattooing, Ear-Piercing and Electrolysis to apply to the Buckinghamshire Council area.

2)        That following the implementation period for the resolution to adopt the provisions of Sections 14 to 17 inclusive of the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1982 (as amended) the Council resolve to adopt the model byelaws relating to acupuncture, tattooing, semi-permanent skin colouring, cosmetic piercing and electrolysis which appear at Appendix 1.

Note: Cllrs David Watson, Joseph Baum and Nick Southworth joined the meeting after the commencement of this item and therefore did not take part in the vote for this item.