The amendments in this group propose a series of changes to the part of the Bill creating a new licensing system for special procedures, namely body piercing, tattooing, acupuncture and electrolysis. I am encouraged that these proposals have attracted widespread general support, as they will provide important protections for the public who choose to have these procedures.

The first amendment in the group is the result of the careful consideration I have given to concerns raised by Rhun ap Iorwerth at Stage 2. These specifically related to the potential serious health implications of tattooing of the eyeball and the need to ensure this practice should only be carried out by appropriately qualified individuals.

In response to these concerns, I made a commitment to work with the Member to ensure the consultation on the mandatory licensing conditions captures tattooing of the eyeball to enable appropriate and proportionate safeguards to be put in place. Amendment 22 fulfils this commitment by putting it beyond doubt that mandatory licensing conditions can make provision about standards of competence relevant to performing a special procedure on a specific part of an individual’s body, such as an eye, including by reference to qualifications or experience.

It’s my intention that the consultation on the mandatory licensing criteria and conditions will seek views on the controls that should be put in place for special procedures, such as the tattooing of an eyeball, including controls linked to qualifications, competence and experience. The objective is that such a procedure should only be carried out if the practitioner is qualified and considered competent to do so.

To perform a special procedure without holding a licence to do so would be a criminal offence punishable by an unlimited fine. This is a better approach than the amendments proposed by Caroline Jones, which we will discuss in the next group. My amendments will provide a more flexible approach to address, through mandatory licensing criteria and conditions, any special procedure developed in the future that raises similar concerns.

Turning now to amendment 23: this is a technical amendment to make it clear that guidance issued by Welsh Ministers must cover matters to be taken into account when deciding whether, and to what extent, an applicant’s fitness to perform a special procedure has been called into question, as a result of their having a conviction for a relevant offence. This builds on changes that were made to the Bill at Stage 2 relating to relevant offences, and will help ensure a consistent approach across the Bill.

Amendments 25 and 26 in this group also seek to address important concerns raised by Angela Burns at Stage 2 about ensuring access to information for the public. The amendments clarify that a local authority must both maintain and publish its register of special procedure licences and approved premises and vehicles. This means that the local authority would have to produce and publish its register, for example on its website, rather than merely making it open for inspection by the public at its offices. It therefore helps ensure that up-to-date information about valid special procedure licences and premises approvals will be more accessible to those individuals considering having a special procedure.

Amendment 24 is a technical change that removes superfluous wording to add further clarity to section 65.

I thank the respective Members for highlighting important issues in relation to Part 3 of the Bill that are addressed in this group. I urge Members to support all of the amendments in the group.