TATTOOING OF MINORS (Hansard, 21 January 1969)

§ Mr. Martin Maddan (Hove)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the tattooing of persons under the age of eighteen years. In another place, two years ago, in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, Lord Ailwyn described an admiral under whom he had served who, on his back, had a full hunting scene, with riders and hounds pursuing, in a north to south direction, the fox, which was going to earth. It was, I think, Admiral Lord Charles Beresford to whom the noble Lord referred—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is asking leave to introduce a Bill and we want to hear about the Bill.

§ Mr. Maddan
That story is water under the bridge now, Mr. Speaker, and I will not repeat it. But it was just 100 years ago that Admiral Lord Charles Beresford acquired his edition of this famous hunt scene, which today would cost about £10 to acquire in full, covering the whole back from shoulders to cleft of buttocks.
The modern Royal Navy discourages tattooing, and I therefore particularly welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles). I want to quote from a propaganda broadsheet issued by the Navy, which says: All too often in the Navy it"— that is, tattooing— springs from the urge of immature minds to copy the older men around, requiring only the stimulus of a few half pints to get the young sailors into the tattoo shop. There was a survey in Portsmouth of 2,000 male ratings, which showed that 46 per cent. were tattooed and that, of those, two-thirds were tattooed before they were 18. It showed that, by the time they were interviewed, 50 per cent. regretted having been tattooed, and this proportion rose to 70 per cent. among married men. I should think that the proportion would be higher by the time the men left the Navy.
But the problem outside the Navy is more serious, since 40 per cent. of those 267 in borstals and detention centres are tattooed. Tattooing is prevalent among the young and those of low I.Q. and those in local gangs. There is evidence that the practice is on the increase in many parts of the country and I should like to acknowledge the support of those with knowledge of the industrial areas, such as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) and the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs). Girls as well as boys fall victim to this epidemic, and hence the support for the Bill of the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight).
Tattooing goes in epidemics. Schoolmasters have noticed rashes of tattooing in schools. The people who get themselves tattooed are the children of families where parents exercise little care or control. The consequence is serious social, occupational and matrimonial embarrassment, sufficient to lead to psychological problems severe enough to justify National Health Service operations to remove tattoos.
When one considers the question of jobs, it is not hard to imagine how a shopkeeper would not be keen to employ someone with "love" and "hate" tattooed on the knuckles of his hands, with perhaps a buttercup tattooed on one ear lobe and a daisy on the other.
From the social point of view, the Brighton Evening Argus reported last week about a teenager in my constituency who had been tattooed when he was aged only 14 and who was going to a plastic surgery unit to have three tattooes removed. The youth was reported as having said: I did it because all my friends had tattoos and I did not want to be left out. Now I can't wear short-sleeved shirts or go swimming. I even have to wear a jacket at work because the tattoos show through my shirt. If you get a girl friend she just doesn't want to know when she finds out you've got tattoos. Girls think you are the lowest of the low. I have tried to discourage other young people from having themselves tattooed, but I haven't been very successful. That is an example of the problem.
As for the matrimonial problems that can arise, one can imagine how a husband might resent it if he found that his wife 268 had, say, "Elvis Presley" tattooed across her bosom.
We are talking of something which, in some respects, is akin to a tribal fertility rite. In this case, however, it is one of an indelible character. One may set out to have oneself tattooed in the spirit of such a rite, but one may end up by finding oneself branded as an "out person" or even as an outlaw for life.
On 13th February, 1967 I asked a Parliamentary Question of the Minister of Health about National Health Service operations for removing tattooes and I was critical of the use of public funds to remedy the consequences of an act voluntarily entered into—the consequences of what one might call a self inflicted wound.
Some surgeons are sympathetic, while others refuse to operate to remove tattoos. It might be helpful if I give the House some information about the volume of demand for the removal of tattoos from the experience of three hospitals. A surgeon at Stoke Mandeville Hospital has operated to remove more than 200 tattoos in the last two years, many of them on prisoners whose rehabilitation was considered likely to be impeded by their tattoos.
At the London Hospital in one year 85 operations were performed, 48 for the removal of tattoos on males and 37 for the removal of them on females. The average age of these patients having been tattooed was 17 for both sexes. At the Sheffield Royal Infirmary 90 operations were performed in three years to remove tattoos and one-third of the patients were 18 or younger at the time when the tattoos were removed, so goodness knows how young they were when the tattoos were done.
To cover surgeons' fees and full hospital costs—National Health Service costs including the general practitioner, consultant dermatologist, and so on—each operation may cost the taxpayer up to £250.
The British Medical Association supports the Bill and I welcome the support of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) and the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr). The County Councils Association likewise supports 269 the Bill and the Lancashire County Council and West Riding County Council are among those who are pressing strongly for its support. It is interesting to note that responsible tattooists also welcome the Bill.
My Bill would make it an offence to tattoo a person whom there was reasonable cause to believe was under the age of 18, except in the case of a doctor. I mention this because a surgeon might wish to indicate by means of a small tattoo that an appendix operation had been performed. It might happen that although the patient had been opened up for such an operation, the appendix had not been removed. The surgeon would wish to indicate that fact by a small tattoo.
I have chosen the age of 18 because of the Latey Report's recommendation to adopt 18 as the age of majority. The penalty proposed is a fine of up to £50 in the first instance and up to £100 for a second or subsequent offence. These penalties are in line with those covering similar offences relating to children. The Bill would not extend to Northern Ireland because that is within the competence of the Northern Ireland Government. But it would cover Scotland, although I understand that the problem is not as acute north of the Border. In this connection, I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)
The Bill would not be an attack on liberty. Under the present law a tattooist 270 may be convicted of assault if he tattoos a minor, even with his consent, if it is shown that the minor was unable to appreciate the nature of the act. I cite the case of Burrell v. Harmer, a case which was decided on appeal in the Divisional Court in 1966. This has left tattooists in a dilemma. There is no clear age above which a tattooist may tattoo a person without contravening the law. The support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and the hon. Member for Brad ford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) is sufficient guarantee that our essential liberties within the law of the land are not being eroded.
If the House gives me leave to introduce my Bill it will be a modest move to lessen the difficulties of a substantial group of youngsters who are not in the best position to look after themselves.