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.