Piercing and Tattooing (Jersey) Law 2012: Approved Code of Practice

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 28 September 2012:

Decision Reference: MD-HSS-2012-0034

Decision Summary Title :

Piercing and Tattooing (Jersey) Law 2012 – Approved Code of Practice

Date of Decision Summary:

19 September 2012

Decision Summary Author:

Medical Officer of Health

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

(State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

Written Report

Title :

Piercing and Tattooing (Jersey) Law 2012 – Approved Code of Practice

Date of Written Report:

27 July 2012

Written Report Author:

Registration and Inspection Manager

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

(State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)

Public

Subject:

Approved Code of Practice as provided for under Article 9 of the Piercing and Tattooing (Jersey) Law 2002.

Decision(s):

The Minister approved the attached Code of Practice.

Reason(s) for Decision:

To provide clear guidance to business operators and practitioners registered under the Piercing and Tattooing Law about how they should conduct their practice to comply with the provisions of the Law and to support Inspection Officers in their role of monitoring compliance with legal requirements.

Resource Implications:

Printing of the Code will be funded through existing budgets.

Action required:

Notification of decision approval to Medical Officer of Health.

Signature:

Position:

Minister for Health and Social Services

Date Signed:

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Piercing and Tattooing (Jersey) Law 2012: Approved Code of Practice

STATES OF JERSEY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Health Protection Service – Public Health Department

PIERCING AND TATTOOING (JERSEY) LAW 2002

APPROVED CODE OF PRACTICE

REPORT

BACKGROUND

Under Article 9 of the Piercing and Tattooing (Jersey) Law 2002

‘The Minister may issue Codes of Practice setting out –

(a) the practice and procedures that should be adopted by a registered person in administering any treatment;

(b) the standards to which registered premises and any equipment used in connection with the administration of treatment should conform; and

The legislation came into force in April 2002, and whilst guidelines about compliance with the Law were issued, these were never approved by the Minister as a Code of Practice.

Approved Codes of Practice (ACOP) have special legal status and while failure to comply with an ACOP is not an offence in itself they are used to give practical guidance on complying with the Law. An individual can be prosecuted for a breach of the Law if it shown that they have not followed the provisions laid down in the corresponding ACOP.

CODE OF PRACTICE

The attached Code of Practice is based on enforcement guidelines issued by Health Protection Scotland and the Health Protection Agency which in turn are based on current best evidence and practice.

The Code sets out what is expected of registered practitioners and the premises in which they practise to comply with the requirements of the Law.

The Code clarifies the procedures and activities that are covered by the legislation and those that are not.

The information is mainly generic however there are also specific requirements set out for particular activities. The Code is intended to complement the Law and will be used by inspection officers in conjunction with the Law itself.

CONSULTATION

A draft copy of the Code was sent to all registered practitioners and business owners of registered premises in April 2012 with a consultation period of a month in which they could provide a response or comments on the proposed content.

A total of ninety two copies of the draft Codes of Practice were sent and six responses with comments were received.

Piercing and Tattooing Activity	Number of Responses
Acupuncture	3
Electrolysis/Semi Permanent Make Up	2
Tattooing	1

Generally the responses were positive and welcomed the Code of Practice and included comments such as:

“Many thanks for a copy of the draft of the new Code of Practice, it looks fantastic and is great to have new guidance to help us improve our standards”
“other than this (two of the points set out below) I feel that the document is well written”
“Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback”
“I look forward to hearing from you and seeing the new Code of Practice”

Some specific points about the Code were as follows:

Acupuncture

Two respondents did not agree with the definition of acupuncture; however the Code refers to the legal definition as set out in the Jersey Law.
Two respondents raised a query about the need for cleaning the skin prior to undertaking the procedure. This is current best practice and advised by both the Health Protection Agency and Health Protection Scotland, therefore this guidance will remain in the document.
One respondent requested that the term ‘client’ be changed to ‘patient’, however as this is a generic Code, client is a more appropriate term to use and so will be retained in the document
One respondent interpreted the guidance as requiring them to wear a plastic apron when undertaking the procedure, there is no such requirement within the guidance.

Electrolysis/Semi Permanent Make Up

One respondent questioned why two sinks would be needed as all the equipment is disposable. The guidance was clarified to reflect this and now states “Where contaminated items are to be cleaned the ‘dirty’ area of the premises should be equipped with a general purpose sink that has a constant supply of hot and cold running water.”
This respondent also questioned the need for wrist or elbow operated taps, as this is best practice advised by the Health Protection Agency and Health Protection Scotland, this remains a requirement in the document.
One respondent wished the definition of electrolysis to be changed, however this is the legal definition set out in the Jersey Law
This respondent also wanted the landlord of the premises to be registered, this is not within the scope of the Law as it the business operator who must ensure they rent or lease premises that are fit for purpose.
This respondent requested that BioSkin Jetting should be included within the Code of Practice; however this does not fall within any of the definitions under the Jersey Law.
This respondent also asked for advice about avoiding tight clothing in the electrolysis aftercare section and the document was amended to include this.

Tattooing

The respondent requested that branding, scarification, beading and stapling to be included as legitimate procedures. These do not fall within the definition of the Law, therefore cannot be included in the Code of Practice

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the attached Piercing and Tattooing Approved Code Of Practice prior to obtaining a Ministerial Decision.

Christine Blackwood

Registration and Inspection Manager

27 July 2012

Code of Practice Report

Page 1 of 3

Version 1