CALLS for tighter regulation of tattoo and skin piercing practitioners and businesses are growing in Wales following the public health alert over a parlour in Newport.

So far 651 former clients of the business that traded variously as Blue Voodoo, Sun Tattoo Studio and Flesh Wound from premises on the city's Commercial Street, have undergone precautionary blood tests.

More than 700 known former clients have this month been sent invitations for tests - for hepatitis B and C, and for HIV - after it was linked to nine cases of serious skin conditions, all requiring inpatient hospital treatment.

The concerns have turned the spotlight on the regulation regime applying to tattooists, skin piercers, and the premises and businesses they run or that employ them.

Gwent's public health director Dr Gill Richardson told the Argus earlier this month that current law governing these invasive procedures is "very lax" and must change.

Now the head of the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health in Wales (CIEH) has also spoken out in favour of tighter regulation, a stance backed too by Newport council.

"It is a matter of huge concern to us that anyone can set themselves up as a skin piercer and can carry out invasive and potentially very dangerous procedures without the benefit of training and without any checks into their background," said CIEH Wales director Julie Barratt.

"We recognise that local authorities’ hands are tied as it is very difficult to refuse registration, and the legislation they are forced to work with is not appropriate.

"We would like to see a requirement for practitioners to be register with their local authority and to be subject to background checks, and to be able to demonstrate that they understand the need for safe and hygienic practice.

Councillor Bob Poole, Newport council’s cabinet member for licensing and statutory functions, said: “The powers local authorities have under the current legislation are extremely limited.

"For example, while applications to register both premises and practitioners have to be made to councils, they can only refuse a registration if they are aware a previous registration has been cancelled by order of the court.

“They are unable to carry out background checks, there is no statutory inspection regime, and they do not have to power to close premises or stop someone trading completely. Only a court can do that following a successful prosecution.

“While there can never be guarantees that such invasive procedures would be completely risk free, more stringent control measures along with age limits for piercing, and compulsory training and qualification standards would give greater protection to the public.”