The next group of amendments relates to the tattooing of an eyeball. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 36. I call on Caroline Jones to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Caroline Jones.

Amendment 36 (Caroline Jones) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I wish to formally move the amendment in my name.

When we first started taking evidence about special procedures, I must admit I was shocked by the range of things people did to their bodies. However, the one thing that did disturb me the most was the tattooing of eyeballs. It’s not the fact that someone wants to inject ink into their eyeball that shocks me but the fact that someone would put their health at risk in order to alter the colour of their eyes. Eyeball tattooing involves inserting a needle into the sclera, the white of your eye, in several places and injecting coloured ink, which slowly spreads to cover all of the sclera. The inks used in this procedure are usually not designed for the purposes of tattooing, and are mainly designed for use in commercial printing processes or for adding colour to car bodywork. People who have undergone this procedure report that they have wept coloured tears for days and experienced a burning sensation in their eyes, and that is when there are no complications.

According to the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists, who looked at this issue, the health risks are significant. They include perforation of the eye, which can lead to blindness as the sclera is less than 1 mm thick; retina detachment, an urgent medical condition that may leave the patient blind; endophthalmitis, an infection inside the eye that can also lead to blindness; sympathetic opthalmia, an autoimmune inflammatory response that affects both eyes and can result in blindness; bleeding and infection at the injection sites; delayed diagnosis of medical conditions, as the true colour of the sclera is now hidden—for example, jaundice is often a first symptom of many diseases; adverse reactions to the ink; sensitivity to light; staining of the surrounding tissue due to ink migration; and they state that the long-term risks are not yet known.

It is for these reasons that I have tabled these amendments in my name—35, 36, 37, 38 and 41. There are medical reasons why scleral tattooing may be necessary, so it is not possible to prohibit, as Rhun had stated in one of his amendments, its use outright. Instead, these amendments restrict eyeball tattooing to those properly licensed by the GMC—the General Medical Council. I urge Members to support the amendments in group 6. Diolch yn fawr.

Due to previous provisions in the Bill, Welsh Conservatives will be abstaining on the following amendments relating to the tattooing of eyeballs. We accept that the intent of the proposer is to ensure that this extremely risky procedure is only carried out by highly skilled individuals. However, this procedure was not raised as an issue at committee stage by the medical community, and there are concerns that the proposed amendment infringes on an individual’s ability to make decisions about their own life and health.

The provisions created by amendment 22 will, we believe, ensure that there will be a duty placed on those issuing licences to assess an individual’s capability to administer these procedures, as they will need to have previous experience and be competent in their ability to do so. Although this is not necessarily preventative, it will give greater assurance that these procedures will be undertaken in a competent and proper way, and we would suggest to the Minister, especially given the very powerful and descriptive way that the proposer has described the problems that can arise from the tattooing of an eyeball, that this is an area that she might wish to consult on further with a view to adding the tattooing of an eyeball to the list of special procedures as soon as possible.

I call on the Minister. Rebecca Evans.

The amendments in this group seek to create a standalone criminal offence of tattooing an eyeball in Wales, unless it’s done by a person regulated by the General Medical Council. I share the general concern about the risks of this procedure, which underpin the amendments. As I outlined in the discussion on the previous group, amendment 22 tabled in my name makes it clear that the mandatory licensing criteria and conditions can make provision about standards of competence relevant to performing a special procedure on a specific part of an individual’s body, including by reference to qualifications or experience.

Would you take an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you for taking the intervention. What kind of experience do you think will be necessary to convince people that they’re capable of carrying out this process?

When we develop these regulations, obviously we will be consulting widely, particularly with the medical community in terms of what they think would be appropriate in terms of undertaking special procedures of this particular nature.

As I outlined in the previous discussion, the amendment that I tabled does make it clear that the mandatory licensing conditions and criteria can make these provisions, and as such, the criteria and conditions will be able to make specific and targeted provision about tattooing an eyeball, and I do believe that this is the most appropriate mechanism for dealing with this important issue, rather than the approach suggested by the amendments in this group. This approach also provides the flexibility needed to deal with other procedures that might emerge and present similar health concerns in future.

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

The approach that I have outlined would mean that the tattooing of an eyeball would be prohibited from being carried out by anyone who does not meet strict licensing criteria and conditions. To carry out such a procedure without being licensed to do so would be an offence punishable by an unlimited fine. The approach ultimately achieves a similar effect to that envisaged by the amendments in this group, but in a more coherent way that aligns with the overall special procedures licensing system. Therefore, I am unable to support the amendments in this group.

I call on Caroline Jones to reply to the debate. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Obviously, I’m disappointed that these amendments were not supported. One of the reasons that I am very disappointed is that I believe that this procedure should be used for medical reasons only. I’m disturbed that someone can go out, have their eyeballs tattooed and have complications such as those I have listed. I’m also concerned that this procedure could add significantly to our waiting lists in hospitals, and that ophthalmologists already have 18-month waiting lists where people risk becoming blind. Therefore, I think this procedure, if left to its own devices as we are doing—leaving it optional instead of just for medical reasons—can only add to that. What I ask, in this instance, is that it is reconsidered.

If amendment 36 is not agreed to, amendments 37, 38, 41 and 35 fall. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour four, 11 abstentions, 35 against. So, the amendment was not agreed.

Amendment 36 not agreed: For 4, Against 35, Abstain 11.

Result of the vote on amendment 36.

Amendments 37, 38, 41 and 35 fell.