Lords Sitting of 5 March 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Age Discrimination and the Civil Service
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to end age discrimination in the Civil Service.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have taken steps to end unfair discrimination in the Civil Service on the basis of age. The Cabinet Office has issued age diversity guidance to all departments and agencies and monitors implementation each year and is also working with departments and agencies to review their policies in the light of the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report, Winning the Generation Game. It is considering a scheme for the flexible deployment of senior civil servants aged over 50 aimed at offering a wide range of career and retirement options. These will include increased opportunities for some civil servants more easily to extend their careers beyond the age of 60. Departments and agencies are also considering the feasibility of change in their retirement policies for staff at more junior level.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. But does he not think that the ages of 50 and 60 to which he has referred are extremely junior for him to be looking at? Has not the time come for Her Majesty's Government to say that where there is a job that needs to be done
2
and there is a person who is ready, anxious, willing, fit and well taught to do it, that person should not be ruled out because of age at any age? Having regard to the excellent advice and guidance which the Government are now giving, can he tell the House whether there is even one government department that he knows of that has started taking advantage of that advice to change the system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that people should be judged on the basis of their ability to do the job rather than on the basis of their age. The Government signed up to an anti-age discrimination directive and worked within the Government to try to make that a reality within the Civil Service. As regards whether individual departments have signed up to that, in the junior Civil Service something like 27 per cent of civil servants are now covered by a compulsory retirement age above 60. As I indicated in my initial Answer, as regards the senior Civil Service, we are considering a scheme whereby from 50 plus a career path which does not necessarily end at 60 can be mapped out. Therefore, we are putting our money where our mouth is.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is age discrimination in professions other than the Civil Service, one of them being the Bar? Although there is no fixed retirement age in many parts of the legal profession, the Bar stands accused of age discriminatory practices. Is he aware that it is difficult to get a pupilage even if one is a mature student of about 35? Can the Bar learn a thing or two from the Government's attempts to tackle age discrimination as the Minister has just expressed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot for one moment claim to speak on behalf of the Bar. As regards the Civil Service, as the Civil Service itself recognises, there is a need for change and steps are in process to make that change. If, and in so far as, other professions need to learn from that, I hope that they do.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister think that it is a sign of increasing age that both questions and answers elongate?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for the length of my answers: I am trying to deal as fully as possible with all the questions raised.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that while age discrimination extends to many other areas apart from the Civil Service, there is one example of progressive views on age discrimination; that is, in your Lordships' House?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure whether there is age discrimination upwards or downwards but as one looks around your Lordships' House one sees everywhere the benefit of great experience.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I was glad to hear that the Government have set up the advisory service to help to find alternative employment for civil servants over the age of 50 or 60. Can the Minster indicate the extent to which it has been able to place those who have applied for assistance?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure to what the noble Lord refers when he mentions the advisory service. We are considering a scheme whereby from the age of 50 onwards in the senior Civil Service a career path is mapped out which does not necessarily end at 60.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, as regards discrimination in the Home Office, when I was a young detective inspector I sported a full beard when I was a member of the drugs squad. I applied for a job at the Home Office as a superintendent and I was required to shave it off. Will the Minister assure me that "beardism" does not still exist in the Home Office?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Question is about age discrimination rather than facial hair discrimination. I see that the noble Lord still sports a last vestige of facial hair.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, while being in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord's answers, I ask him how he will deal with the many members of the clan Buggins.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure what the question means. The approach to age discrimination is based on the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Janner: that people able to do a job should not be ruled out because of age.

German Beef Imports
2.42 p.m.
Lord Tebbitasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether German beef imported as carcasses may lawfully be described as British produce after it has been processed into minced beef, pies, beefburgers or other prepared foods.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I shall try to be brief! No. Minced beef may be lawfully described as "British" only if it has been slaughtered in the United Kingdom. More general rules apply to beef products like pies. These prohibit food labelling likely to mislead consumers about a food's true nature, substance or quality.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that most helpful reply. Does that rule apply also to sides of Danish bacon cut into rashers in this country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should have preferred to have some notice of that very good question. In my Answer I referred to beef products. With regard to meat such as lamb and pork or bacon, the situation is different. There is no requirement to give the details to which I referred in relation to beef. The Government want to see an extension to other meats of the beef labelling regime. The chairman of the Food Standards Agency has communicated with the commissioner within the EU who is concerned with these matters to urge that that is done. I agree with the implication of the noble Lord's question. We need implementation as fully as possible. The rules should not relate only to beef products.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, should carcasses be asked which cricket team they support?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I imagine that they would all support Warwickshire.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question which is in the minds of many people. During the past week or so we have heard that five carcasses containing spinal materials have been imported from Germany. Can the Minister explain why the Germans are allowed to refuse to import British beef, which is now clean and healthy, whereas we continue to import German beef?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that it is France, not Germany, which has refused to import British beef. In relation to France, we have complained to the European Union and action is being taken against the French Government.
We have taken vigorous action as regards the SRM contamination found on consignments of beef imported from Germany since New Year's Day. It is the responsibility of the authorities in Germany and the Netherlands to ensure that SRM is properly

5
removed. We have taken up matters with the European Commission and the German national authorities. The Meat Hygiene Service was instructed to check all consignments of German carcass beef arriving at licensed British meat plants. We have asked local authorities to step up their own inspection duties.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I speak as a farmer who has not been near a farm for weeks. Whatever the trade agreements, why are the Government so reticent about preventing the import of beef from countries outside the European Union where foot and mouth disease is endemic? The Government have taken the right domestic steps in relation to foot and mouth disease, but farmers will not feel confident about the future until imports of beef or lamb from countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic are banned.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that EU certification rules require freedom from foot and mouth disease in a country or region before meat from susceptible animals can be imported into the EU. Consignments of meat from third countries entering the EU are subject to checks at border inspection posts.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, have the Government considered imposing a temporary ban on meat coming from Germany until Germany adheres to the regulations? If not, will the Government consider doing so now?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no, we have taken up most vigorously with the EU and the German authorities the need for the German authorities to take the appropriate action. I have no reason to believe that that is not the appropriate way to proceed. We continue to be as vigilant as we possibly can be. If there are any further cases—I hope that there will be none—we shall take up those matters with the German authorities and the commissioner.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, in order to clarify the matter, can the Minister confirm or deny that products are still entering the United Kingdom from countries outside the EU in which foot and mouth disease is endemic?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no, I do not believe that that has happened with regard to legal imports.

Meat Hygiene: Dispute Resolution
2.48 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the implications in law pertaining to the word "arbitration" which made it impossible to introduce an "arbitration system" at the same time
6
as the Draft Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, "arbitration" in the sense of the Arbitration Act 1996 would invoke procedures which would be costly and time consuming for both operators and the Meat Hygiene Service. That is why the Government have approved the Food Standards Agency's proposal for a simpler and quicker procedure involving resolution of disputes by a nominated independent person.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am pleased that the new draft statutory instrument goes a long way towards providing that reconciliation method. Is the noble Lord able to give a categorical assurance that the informal arbitration system will be in place when the statutory instrument comes into force? Can he also state that the extra charges—they will be levied mainly on small abattoirs if there are problems—will not be raised for matters beyond the operator's control? I refer, for example, to diseases (which we have had recently), flooding, machinery breakdown, or even unforeseen illness among the staff.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the aim is to have the revised provisions in place by 2nd April 2001, and I would expect the new charges and the informal arbitration system to be in place also. That would seem right and consistent.
I stress that any increased costs to slaughterhouses would be a result of inefficient operation. The statutory instrument that will lay out the circumstances under which that might occur makes it clear that in the case of mechanical breakdown, for example, a charge might be levied if it was caused by lack of maintenance. The proposals are designed to deal with inefficiencies in the operation of a slaughterhouse rather than any external event.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the action on the Maclean report that the Minister has outlined in the regulations, but are not the Government shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? Small abattoirs are now clearly beneficial in containing the spread of disease and encouraging farmers' markets. Should not the Government be considering incentives for small abattoirs rather than simply a change of charges?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the £20 million that it will cost to implement the Maclean Group's recommendations will be made available. That will benefit small and medium-sized abattoirs. I certainly accept that they have an important contribution to make to the rural economy. We need to find ways of encouraging their future development. However, acceptance of the Maclean Group's recommendations is an important part of that process.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, again further to the Minister's response to the noble Countess, Lady Mar,

7
is he definitely confirming that the independent arbitration service will be in place? His response to our debate on slaughterhouses only two weeks ago suggested that it would not be possible to have that service in place in time. That is why that debate was so important. We are grateful to the Government for having listened to it. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the debate in your Lordships' House three weeks ago was very important and informed the Food Standards Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service of the strong opinions of many in the industry. A meeting was held with stakeholders only last week when the Meat Hygiene Service went through the proposals. If an operator disagrees with a decision of the Meat Hygiene Service to levy an additional charge, the operator may ask for the dispute to be determined within a month by an independent person. The FSA will nominate a panel of independent persons, having first consulted the industry on its nominations. The aim is to have the process in place at the same time as the new charge regime comes into operation.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some slaughterhouses where animals licensed for slaughter are currently taken are charging between 15p and 17p per kilo for the meat that they slaughter? Many farmers regard that as excessive.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was not aware of that. It is a matter of concern if farmers feel that the current very serious foot and mouth situation is causing them extra hardship because of higher charges levied by some people in the industry. On the substance of the issue, the new regime with its system of appeal will provide a stable way forward for the slaughterhouse industry. After the discussions between the Meat Hygiene Service and representatives of the industry last week, I am convinced that those in the industry are satisfied and believe that the proposals are fair.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the working of the new statutory instrument depends on agreement and the setting up of a template between the Meat Hygiene Service and the abattoir owners and managers? How long will the abattoir owners be allowed to develop the template and will they be given any assistance in doing so?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is very important that the Meat Hygiene Service and the operators feel that we have a fair and non-bureaucratic system that will enable us to take forward the proposals as soon as possible. Those proposals include having an independent person to review decisions if an operator disagrees with an MHS decision. I cannot give the noble Countess a definite date by which the template that she refers to will be completed, but I assure her that we wish to do that as soon as possible.
8
The Meat Hygiene Service will also wish to publish some general ground rules on how the independent person process will operate.

Caribbean Banana Exports: US Stance
2.56 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I tabled this Question some days before the Prime Minister's recent visit to the United States.
The Question was as follows:
Whether the Prime Minister, during his visits to the United States, will seek to persuade the Bush Administration to have a more flexible approach than its predecessor to the current dispute with the European Union over its banana import policy.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government have consistently urged all parties to the dispute to negotiate towards a rapid solution that will be acceptable under world trade rules and will address the needs of vulnerable Caribbean banana-exporting countries. It is for the European Commission to negotiate with third countries on behalf of the European Union on the banana import regime.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the efforts that are being made to relieve the terrible poverty that has arisen in parts of the Caribbean through the inability to export bananas to the European Union. Will he impress on the United States, which is the most prosperous country in the world and whose co-operation is needed to achieve agreements, that if it does not agree, it will cause continued poverty and confusion in the Caribbean?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have consistently impressed on the United States that we have commitments to the Caribbean islands and that if the issue is not resolved the impact on them will be devastating. We shall continue to stress that.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, no doubt most of us sympathise with the Caribbean banana-producing countries. However—my noble friend will correct me if I have got this wrong—has not the dispute been to the highest levels of the World Trade Organisation's appeal machinery and has it not twice been ruled that the European Union is legally in the wrong? If so, on what basis can we continue the argument with the United States? Is it simply that we do not trust the appeal machinery and impartiality of the World Trade Organisation? I hope that that is not the case.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: the World Trade Organisation has twice ruled in favour of the United States on the issue. That is why we continue to look for a solution in line with the WTO regulations that also takes account of the fact that we are dealing with very vulnerable

9
Caribbean countries. If they are not able to produce bananas, the effects on their economies will be dire. The social consequences of that would not be in the interests of those islands or, ultimately, of the United States of America.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the sanctions that were threatened by the United States put in jeopardy the existence of the Scottish cashmere industry? The Americans do not grow any bananas themselves, but it appears that American lobby organisations pushed their government to fight on the issue.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly one of the retaliatory actions taken by the United States was against the cashmere industry. The Government helped that industry at a time when the action was unauthorised by the WTO. The action is, of course, now authorised by the WTO. Although one may not agree with the actions of the Americans, it is perfectly legitimate that they support American companies which grow bananas and which believe that they are being unjustly treated by this regime.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a worrying issue in relation to the ACP producers is that, if they were to diversify, it would be into illegal substances? Surely that is the worst thing that any country in the world would want to see happen. In asking this question, I declare an interest as a residual beneficiary of a Caribbean banana plantation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is quite right. As I said, the social consequences would be devastating. Although it was not spelt out, clearly one worrying result would be that the areas into which they diversified would not be socially desirable.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when I replied on behalf of agriculture on this subject, it was without doubt the most difficult part of my portfolio? Can he tell me whether the European Union is speaking with one voice? In the past, Germany ate only dollar bananas and was not at all helpful towards us. Also, what is the state of the Lomé Convention?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as always with regard to these complicated negotiations, there is a range of views as to what is the best way forward. As a government, we voted against the previous proposal on this matter because we considered that it would neither resolve the situation nor deal with the vulnerabilities of the Caribbean islands. There is a range of views as to what is the best way forward. I believe that that is natural if a range of countries is engaged in the negotiations. So far as concerns the Lomé Convention, that has now been taken over by the Cotonou agreement. We have responsibilities under that agreement.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, although the support for Caribbean banana growers, which is
10
evident in all parts of the House, is very welcome, is my noble friend aware that not only is the proposed legislation put forward by the EU Commission in December for a tariff quota system on a first-come. first-served basis in defiance of the Cotonou agreement, but that it would have the effect of wiping out almost entirely the Caribbean banana growers because undoubtedly it would favour the larger dollar importers? In his dealings with the Commission, will he do his utmost to put forward proposals for a tariff system based on past trade? That would at least give the Caribbean growers some chance of retaining a foothold in Europe.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, we voted against the proposal described as the "first-come, first-served" system because we felt that it would neither resolve the issue nor protect the Caribbean exporting countries. We felt that we had to vote against it because it would not achieve the desired ends. There are, of course, other ways forward, one of which is an historical licensing basis. Negotiations have taken place in relation to that. Therefore, other alternatives exist.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is not the attitude of the European Commission flexible enough to help in this matter? However, does not the final solution depend upon the co-operation of the new government of the United States, who seem to be most anxious to co-operate with us when possible?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly the co-operation of the United States is absolutely essential if we are to obtain a resolution of this matter which, as I say, meets our twin objectives of protecting the islands and doing so within the regulations of the World Trade Organisation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, do we still have a special relationship and, if we do, is this not the time to make use of it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have consistently discussed this matter at the highest level with the United States. We shall continue to urge the US to be flexible in resolving the issue.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after the conclusion of the Report stage of the Private Security Industry Bill, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the national minimum wage.
Parliamentary Referendum Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. —(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 [Conduct prohibited without a licence]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 43 and insert—
("(j) in circumstances in which it is proposed to impose a charge for the release of immobilised vehicles, he carries out on his own behalf or on behalf of another person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 4 will make it necessary for a licence to be required not only for wheel clamping on one's own behalf but also on behalf of another where it is done with a view to charging a release fee, whoever demands or collects the fee. Under this amendment, an unlicensed wheel clamper would be committing an offence, whether he was acting for the landowner or on his own behalf.
Amendment No. 4 paves the way for Amendment No. 9, which will prevent occupiers of land allowing the unlicensed clamping of cars parked on their property in circumstances where a licence is required. The amendment creates a new offence which will be committed by an occupier of land—whether he occupies the land in whole or in part—who uses the services of unlicensed wheel clampers under a contract for services or who permits unlicensed wheel clamping on his land with a view to charging a release fee.
These amendments are designed to strengthen further the provisions which we presented to Parliament to protect members of the public from rogue wheel clampers. The need for the amendments became apparent in the light of the debate that we had in Committee on Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The focus of that debate rested on activities such as those of a temporary door supervisor at a jumble sale or other one-off events.
In my reply, I made it clear that it was not the Government's intention to require a licence of those who carry out the activities prescribed by Schedule 2 without financial or other reward where they and those whom they help perform such activities on a noncommercial basis. However, we consider it important to make it clear that such assurances do not extend to people who supposedly volunteer to immobilise vehicles where that involves the motorist being charged a release fee. If we are not to create a loophole which will leave the public exposed to cowboy wheel clampers, such an activity requires regulation.
As your Lordships know, the effect of Clause 3(2)(j), as currently drafted, is to require someone who carries out wheel clamping on his own behalf, with a view to
12
charging for release, to have a licence. We consider that landowners might subvert that provision by letting others clamp cars for a release fee on their behalf. Provided that the clamper was not his employee, the landowner would not be liable for a penalty for having no licence. Similarly, the person who attaches the immobilising device could argue that he did not need a licence under paragraphs (a) to (f) of Clause 3(2) as he was not under a contract for services. The damper could also argue that he did not need a licence under paragraph (j) as he was not acting on his own behalf.
Of course, in a case of that type, it is likely that there would be a contractual arrangement of some kind for the clamper to provide a service to the landowner. However, we recognise that proving that and the fact that a licence was therefore required by the clamper might be difficult. Accordingly, the first amendment in relation to Clause 3(2)(j) seeks to require a licence not only for wheel clamping on one's own behalf but also on behalf of another where it is done with a view to charging a release fee, whoever demands or collects the fee. Therefore, an unlicensed wheel damper would be committing an offence, whether or not he was acting for the landowner or on his own behalf.
The amendment paves the way for our second amendment, Amendment No. 9, which will prevent occupiers of land from allowing the unlicensed clamping of cars that are parked on their property in circumstances in which a licence is required. Amendment No. 9 creates a new offence that will be committed by occupiers of land, whether they occupy the land in whole or in part, who use the services of unlicensed wheelclampers under a contract or who permit unlicensed wheelclamping on land when that is done with a view to charging a release fee.
The offence would largely correspond to the offence of using an unlicensed security operative, which is covered by the existing Clause 5. It is not intended that an occupier of land should be guilty of an offence where he has taken reasonable efforts to ensure that he used licensed operatives or where he tried to ensure that clamping carried out for him on a voluntary basis was not performed for a release fee. We propose therefore that the provision containing the new offence should include the same defences as are provided by Clause 5(2). By the same token, the offence is potentially as serious as the offence that will be created by Clause 5 and should therefore attract the same maximum penalties as are set out in Clause 5(4). I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, my reading of the amendment is that licences will required for unpaid dampers. Those who are paid or who carry out wheelclamping as an owner will already be caught by the Bill. The first example that occurred to me is that of someone who clamps or who arranges for clamping to be carried out on his property but who sends his wife—or maybe one of his larger sons would be more appropriate—to do it. They would not be paid for carrying out the clamping and would not be caught by the Bill as it is presently drafted. The Minister gave

13
some other examples of what might happen. Clearly, there is a potential loophole in this context that we want to be closed. I hope and believe that the amendment will do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert ("; or
(k) he is required in the course of his employment to engage in licensable conduct falling within paragraph (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that I moved a similar amendment during the Bill's Committee stage. The answer that I received then was that the amendment was unnecessary because it would involve double vetting of security staff; a company will vet its staff, but requiring a licence from the authority would be an uncalled for double precaution. I have considered that argument. The amendment is intended to obtain a firm undertaking from the Minister to the effect that he will ensure that the authority will bear in mind the potential loophole. The loophole was noticed by the Government when they produced the White Paper, which states:
"The Government believes that to exclude in-house security personnel from the scope of licensing would create an unacceptable loophole and reduce confidence in the system".
My concern is that should it so happen that firms seek to circumvent the Bill simply by employing unlicensed staff when in ordinary circumstances they would have employed licensed staff through a company—if that loophole exists—the authority will quickly bring the situation to the attention of the Secretary of State, who will remedy it, if necessary through regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, there is some concern in the industry about the exclusion of in-house security staff not so much from the point of view of a company that decides to shift from contracting arrangements to employing its own security staff in-house, but the other way round. If a firm decides that its security arm is going to be contracted out, contractors will be required under the TUPE regulations to take on board security employees who are in the company but who are unlicensed. A contractor may therefore say, "Those employees are no good to me because they do not have licences". Alternatively, he might say, "They are okay, they have been doing the job, but they will have to go and get a licence and pay for it themselves". Employees in the industry are concerned about whether the impact of the TUPE regulations has been considered.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand that the amendment is intended to provide for the inclusion of "in-house" or directly employed staff in the licensing regime. That was certainly the effect that the noble Lord described when he introduced the amendment at an earlier stage.
I am grateful to noble Lords for raising the matter again, not least because I did not respond to it as substantially as I could have done in Committee.
14
I believe that our position on this issue is well-known, notwithstanding what I have just said. None the less, the amendment provides me with an opportunity to explain the Government's position again.
As the noble Lord said, in the White Pa per we envisaged that "in-house" manned guards, along with other groups that are the subject of the amendment, should be included in the licensing regime. However, after further careful consideration we decided not to include them at this stage because we concluded that requiring all in-house manned guards to undergo effectively two vetting processes—by the employer and the authority—would add a largely unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to business. In my view, there is bureaucracy and unnecessary bureaucracy, and we believe that the proposal would contribute to the latter.
The Bill does, of course, seek in any event to regulate some in-house staff—door supervisors and wheelclampers—for reasons that we have debated before; namely, the particular positions of influence and power that those groups exercise over people who may be young or vulnerable or both.
In general, we believe that it is reasonable at present for companies to satisfy themselves about the probity of their own employees or potential employees, as distinct from situations in which services are provided under contract and the hirer has to place a greater degree of trust in the probity of the hired staff. As with the other groups that are the subject of Amendment No. 40—that is, alarm installers and CCTV operatives—we are aware of the arguments for the inclusion of those groups in the Bill's regulatory regime. Indeed, as I noted earlier, we shared those views at the time of the publication of our White Paper. We do not believe, on reflection, that it is currently right to add that group to the provisions. When the security industry authority is established, it will have a duty to keep the industry and the operation of legislation under review. I have no doubt that the authority will receive arguments about in-house staff, and the Government will be very happy to listen to those views in due course. For the present, however, I should like us to get on with regulating those priority groups that are listed in the Bill; at earlier stages, we discussed what those groups might be. I hope that for those reasons the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Gladwin of Clee asked whether the effects of TUPE had been considered. The fairest thing to say is that the question of whether TUPE applies depends on the facts of the case. In some circumstances, it will most certainly apply. The policy remains that contract staff should be licensed. If new contractual arrangements apply, so will the Bill's provisions. I hope that that clarifies my noble friend's point. If he has further questions, we shall try to deal with them during the Bill's passage through the House.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, having received the assurance from the Minister that the matter will be reviewed regularly by the authority and that the appropriate representations will be made to

15
the Government on this possible loophole which may be taken advantage of, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 50, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section a person shall not be treated as acting as the manager or supervisor of an individual by reason only of his giving directions to that individual in a case in which—

(a) the directions are given on behalf of a person to whom the individual's services are provided under a contract for services; and

(b) the person who under the contract provides the individual's services or another person acting on his behalf, acts as the manager or supervisor of that individual in relation to the activities carried out by him in accordance with those directions.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to respond to an issue raised in Committee and to deal with it by adding a further clarificatory explanation as regards the categories of people to whom the licensing requirements of the Bill will apply.
It was suggested in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that managers or personnel directors of businesses who employ security firms under contracts for services may themselves require licences under the terms of Clause 3(2)(d) as drafted. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to concerns raised originally with officials by the Cinema Exhibitors Association which feared that cinema managers might require a licence from the authority for the one or two days a year when they might find themselves managing an extra draft of security staff contracted in for a special gala event.
The Bill requires licences for everyone in the employment hierarchy where door supervisors and wheel dampers are concerned, whether employed in-house or under contract. That is for particular reasons of public concern which I have explained to your Lordships on previous occasions. However, it has never been part of the Government's policy in regulating the private security industry that users of security services should be licensed. The prime focus of the Bill is to provide reassurance for users about the providers of contract security services.
So I should put on record my gratitude to noble Lords opposite for raising the matter and for giving voice to the concerns of the Cinema Exhibitors Association on this issue. On reflection, we can see how the drafting of Clause 3(2)(d) might lend itself to the concerns previously expressed. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, this amendment seeks to add clarification in Clause 3 to the effect that managers and supervisors in client companies are not covered by the licensing regime, regardless of whether they are managing or supervising contracted-in staff directly or through what might be described as intermediate managers who have also been contracted in. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation in moving the amendment but I have one question relating to it. What he said about the general principle of the extension seems rather to differ from what he said in a letter he wrote to those who took part in the Committee stage about non-executive directors.
That letter stated that,
"the question was raised as to the extent to which non-executive and personnel directors should be required to have licences. We believe that it is right to extend the licensing requirement to such senior staff, even though their position in the company may not give them direct responsibility for the security services provided".
That principle seems to be rather different from that which the noble Lord has just outlined in relation to the amendment. I find his letter rather surprising because it refers to "senior staff" and non-executive directors are not senior staff and never can be. Perhaps the Home Office should ask the Department of Trade and Industry for a description of what a non-executive director is.
I realise that the amendment which the Minister moved does not exactly relate to non-executive directors but the principle is the same. It seems to me that we are treating two rather similar groups under an entirely different principle. Perhaps the Minister will consider that issue.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment. It has given the Bill additional clarity because the Bill as originally drafted would have caused concern for those people who bring in additional staff, using contractors, because the question would arise as to whether or not they need to be licensed. Clearly, the Minister and the department recognised that they are not a suitable category to be licensed. Otherwise, anyone who hires a security firm would have to be licensed which would clearly be an unacceptable state of affairs. So as regards the amendment and the specific point which it addresses, I certainly welcome it and the constructive attitude which the Minister and the department have taken.
However, my noble friend has raised some interesting issues about non-executive directors, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply. It is slightly different in that non-executive directors are not necessarily the customer for the security services. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to answer the issues which my noble friend raised.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, acknowledged, the amendment is directed at managers, personnel directors of business and so on. It is the users that we are concerned with here. On the distinction as regards non-executive directors, I shall reflect on the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised, although it is not our intention to cover it by this amendment. I shall certainly seek clarification as to whether that area also needs to be covered.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
REGULATED CLAMPING
("—(1) A licence shall not he required under section 3 of this Act for activities carried out to deter parking on private land without permission, which are conducted in accordance with regulations proposed by the Authority and contained in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations under this section shall include—

(a) maximum permitted charges for release of an immobilised vehicle,

(b) a requirement for the display of a notice describing how to obtain the release of an immobilised vehicle and the hours at which it can be released,

(c) a requirement that when a business owns or occupies the land in question the vehicle can be released at any time during the hours of business,

(d) a requirement that when the land is attached to a dwelling the vehicle can be released at any time during the hours of daylight when the premises are occupied, and

(e) such other regulations as the Secretary of State thinks fit.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put forward this proposition in Committee and received some sympathy from the Minister and others. But at the same time there was also some criticism of the particular formulation which I used and so I return to the charge here.
The underlying point is that I believe that properly conducted wheel-clamping is a valid way for someone to protect his property from rogue parking. Our debates have sometimes proceeded as though there are only rogue dampers and no rogue parkers. But we know that there are rogue parkers. After all, government and more particularly local government have acquired from Parliament over the years all sorts of powers to deal with rogue parkers, including clamping, fines, towing away and so on. So the phenomenon is well understood.
Of course, the more that local authorities attack people who park on the roads in various ways, the more people are tempted to park on a piece of private land that may happen to be available. It is not always easy for individuals to protect their own land which they use for parking by means of fences, gates and so on. For example, it is particularly inconvenient for a shop which wishes to have customer parking in an area where parking is difficult in the middle of a town or for an individual who has a house somewhere near the shops and wishes to park his car on his own land but finds that shoppers are inclined to park on it if he is not careful. That is why I thought it would be a good idea if, subject to a set of regulations to be laid down and varied as necessary if they were being misused, an individual should be able to clamp vehicles on his private land.
When we discussed the matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, expressed some sympathy for the idea but thought that it should be in a separate clause rather than as an amendment to a clause, which is how I drafted it at the time. I have therefore moved it into a separate clause.
The Minister seemed to have some private sympathy with the idea but then read out the ministerial brief which was against it. He even envisaged using clamps to protect his own front garden in certain circumstances. However, I have tried to meet his arguments which were, essentially, that the amendment would open the door to clamping being carried out by criminals.
This formulation gives the authority the power to propose a set of regulations which would have to be followed by anybody who wished to use that power. And if he wished to go outside what was allowed in the regulations, then a licence would be required and he would need to go through all the hoops set out in the Bill.
I have also provided for the Secretary of St ate to keep Parliament involved in agreeing to the regulations. The regulations could easily say that no one with convictions—particularly unspent convictions—could clamp. The Minister also said that the regulations should be clear and robust. I agree. I am sure that the Minister did not intend to suggest that the Home Office is incapable of drafting clear and robust regulations. Of course, it is not. It can certainly achieve that with the assistance of the authority.
Finally, the Minister said:
"it is an offence, with certain common-sense exceptions, to use a wheelclamp without a licence".—[Official Report, 30/01/01; col. 671.]
As far as I can discover., there are no common-sense exceptions in the Bill as it stands. This is an attempt to place some on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for placing this provision in a new clause as opposed to an amendment to the schedule. However, I am concerned about the power being given to anybody to clamp on their land no matter what sort of land it is. It seems to me that this places in the hands of the public a draconian power.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is a liberal power.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is a liberal power from one point of view, but a draconian power from the point of view of the motorist. Most of us tend to wear both hats. I am a liberal but I am also a motorist. I am not sure that the two things marry. If the regulations specified the kind of land that would be appropriate to be designated, I believe that the clause would acceptable. I would like to hear more in relation to that before I gave my wholehearted support to it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on his ingenuity and wit in bringing this new clause before us. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is more liberal than most on such matters, but perhaps I am closer to his position on the amendment than to that of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, putting on one side my initial sympathy.

19
In Committee we made it clear that our intentions are twofold in relation to regulating wheelclamping on private land. First, we want to keep criminal elements out of wheelclamping and, secondly, we want to make the matter as simple and as straightforward as possible so that, when confronted with a demand for payment or release, the motorist is able to determine that the demand is made in accordance with the law and not in the form of blackmail.
The amendment introduced by the noble Lord is identical to, but in a different format from, that which was produced in Committee. It adds a provision enabling the Secretary of State to make such other regulations as he or she may think fit. As before, it would exclude wheelclamping that conformed to the requirements set out in the regulations from the requirement of a licence issued by the authority. I am afraid that, as before, we consider that the Bill, if amended in the way suggested by the noble Lord, would fail to meet both of the twin objectives to which I have referred. It would permit a loophole for those with criminal convictions to operate as wheelclampers and, sadly, it would not give the public the safeguard of being able to see the licence of anyone demanding a release fee.
Wheelclamping for a release fee is an industry which, if not regulated strictly, will attract nefarious and devious operators wanting to make easy money. I can see how that can be done. Without a licensing system, it is possible for anyone to seek employment, or to act in a self-employed category, without anybody knowing whether he has been involved in a criminal activity in the past. Under the licensing regime proposed under this Bill, the security industry authority would be able to check an applicant's past before granting a licence. It would be proper for the authority to refuse a licence where an applicant had a string of convictions for offences of violence against the person. Not only does the requirement of a licence screen out criminal elements, but it also makes it a criminal offence to operate without a licence as a wheelclamper for monetary gain
I accept that the regulations proposed by the noble Lord could go into considerable detail. They could be, as he says, robust. They could even require an adherence to a code of practice and participation in some sort of an appeals system, but the teeth that come with a robust licensing system, effectively, would be missing. We believe that it is most important that the authority has the power to withhold licences from those who are absolutely unfit to hold one and to withdraw licences from those dampers who fail to adhere to the conditions attached to them.
A further consideration is that we have already provided for some flexibility in allowing for employers who want to wheelclamp vehicles on their own premises and who can satisfy certain conditions to have just one licence that covers all their in-house employees engaged in wheelclamping.
20
To sum up, we feel that this amendment would create in law a situation almost as ambiguous as the current, unacceptable situation. Although I may have sympathised with it, reality tells me that it would be unacceptable and probably unworkable.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister came near to accepting that the regulations could cover all the difficulties in relation to this matter, but although he has some sympathy with it, I understand that he is prepared to put that on one side in order to object to the amendment. In those circumstances I shall not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Offence of using unlicensed security operative]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("activities") and insert ("conduct").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is purely technical. It substitutes the word "conduct" for the word "activities" in Clause 5(3). That clause refers back to Clause 4 which, in turn, makes provisions for exemptions from the need for a licence when circumstances as defined make a licence unnecessary. It engages in certain types of "conduct" that is made subject to the licensing requirement by Clause 3. The exemptions in Clause 4, therefore, also refer to "conduct", and for consistency Clause 5 should also refer to "conduct" rather than to "activities".
As far as we can see, there is no substantive effect other than to make the wording of the Bill more consistent, and noble Lords opposite are keen to ensure that we satisfy consistency. For those reasons, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause
OFFENCE OF USING UNLICENSED WHEEL- CLAMPERS
("—(1) A person who is an occupier of any premises is guilty of an offence if —

(a) any individual carries out, in relation to vehicles on those premises, any designated activities consisting in activities to which paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 (immobilisation of vehicles) applies;

(b) the carrying out of those activities involves that individual's engaging in licensable conduct in respect of which he is not the holder of a licence; and

(c) those activities are carried out with the permission of that occupier or for the purposes of, or in connection with, any contract for the supply of services to him.

(2) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show either —

(a) that he did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, at the time when the activities were carried out, that the individual in question was not the holder of a licence in respect of those activities; or

(b) that he took all reasonable steps. in relation to the carrying out of those activities, for securing that that individual would not engage in any licensable conduct in respect of which he was not the holder of a licence.

(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section in respect of the carrying out of activities which are comprised in any conduct of an individual in which he is entitled to engage by virtue of section 4.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
("—(1) An individual, partnership or company which employs security operatives to which paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act applies (door supervisors, etc for public houses and clubs and comparable venues) shall be liable, in contract and in tort, for the acts and omissions of its security operatives where they inflict personal injury to any person—

(a) at the suit of that person, where that person is or desires to be a guest or customer of the venue,

(b) where that personal injury is inflicted within or in the vicinity of the venue, and

(c) at a time when the security operative is at work.

(2) It shall be the duty of any such individual, partnership or company to maintain, for public inspection, upon reasonable notice and upon the payment of such fee as the Secretary of State may from time to time prescribe, a list of the individuals to whom paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act applies, and the dates upon which they worked, and their hours of work.
(3) For the purposes of this section, an individual, partnership or company employs a security operative if he has security operatives on his premises, notwithstanding the fact that those security operatives may be employed or remunerated by another individual, partnership or company.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 refers to a matter that was discussed in Committee. I attempted to suggest that those who run clubs and have bouncers—this amendment refers to that part of the Bill—should be able to be held responsible for the bouncers' conduct, should they damage any of the customers—although generally those who fail to become customers are affected—or other members of the public in the course of their activities.
The Minister was not prepared to accept the proposal in Committee because he pointed out that the amendment as previously drafted would have made the employer liable for all actions, including those of a bouncer who when driving home had a crash or when he was operating quite outside the control of the owner or owners of the club. We have therefore redrafted the new clause to include a list of such factors. The provision would then apply only to an incident in which the bouncer was damaging someone in the course of his work. It would not apply when he was on a frolic of his own.
The problem is that when someone injured in such a way attempts to sue, it is found that the bouncer has no money; that it is difficult to discover his name and address or to pursue the matter; and that owners of
22
clubs are not always willing to stand behind the actions of their employees. We are attempting to ensure that they are willing to do so. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 10. It contains an element of my Amendment No. 18A in that it seeks to address what lies behind the actions of individuals. I have a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend who believes that individual bouncers might commit offences. They might rough people up or throw them down the stairs and could come into violent contact with customers. The owner of the club or the manager of the company could stand aside and say, "It wasn't me; it was these people we hire under contract with a security firm and any damage they do is nothing to do with us". The customer could be put in a difficult situation if he felt he had a case to make.
The amendment gives managers of night clubs and security companies an incentive to ensure that their employees behave themselves according to the law and the regulations relating to their conduct. They cannot be told privately, "Get tough with such and such a group. Make sure they are thrown downstairs vigorously", or whatever the unlawful instruction might be. If such incidents occur and if customers come into contact with bouncers who are not behaving properly, it should not be the case that only that one individual can be sued. Those who are behind him should be sued, too, and therefore I support the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the new clause is a considerable improvement on the previous one. It confines the scope to a limited situation. The owner of the club is liable only for the acts and omissions of his security operatives in personal injury cases: where the person is a customer; where the injury is inflicted within the vicinity of the venue; and at a time when the security operative is at work. Those are well defined and confined circumstances.
As I said in Committee, the issue is one of insurance. Overall, knowing the problems which exist when bouncers inflict injuries on customers and then disappear, there is considerable merit in the suggestion put forward.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment is interesting and has been improved since we discussed the matter in Committee. It places additional requirements on the employers of door supervisors and those who may use door supervisors without themselves employing them. It also places a vicarious liability on those employers or other users for the actions of the door supervisors.
We had a considerable debate on the matter in Committee and I said that I would take time to reflect further. We have examined the issue again, particularly in the light of the need to balance the interests of the public at large against the need not to over-regulate businesses. Having done so, I remain of the view which I set out in the Committee; that in the

23
full context of the provisions of the Bill, the amendment places a disproportionate burden on businesses.
It is already the case that a member of the public who has a complaint against a door supervisor should be able to ascertain the relevant information from the employer. He could also ask the police to help in his inquiries since a personal injury inflicted by a door supervisor is likely to be a criminal matter.
However, one of the main benefits of the regulatory framework established by the Bill will be a substantial improvement in the quality of staff undertaking door supervisor services. Over time, the security industry authority will ratchet up standards of training and conduct as part of its evolving licence criteria. But perhaps the biggest impact will come early on, when the authority judges licence applications on the basis of an enhanced criminal record check, which will provide it with information about spent and unspent convictions, minor convictions and local police intelligence. The incidence of violent door supervisors operating legally at pubs and clubs should be very substantially reduced.
Against that assumption, the Government believe that the additional duties placed on employers by the amendment to keep publicly available records of door supervisors' names and addresses, and the dates and hours of work, is disproportionate.
Although I have reservations about the regulatory burden of the proposal, there would be nothing to stop the security industry authority from making it a condition of the approved contractor's scheme under Clause 14, into which we expect market forces to draw the majority of contractors. Under such an arrangement, the pub or club could tell a member of the public with a complain the name of the firm supplying its door security services and that firm would be able to say who had been despatched to work at the pub or club at the relevant time.
The second aspect of the amendment relates to vicarious liability which, as I said in Committee, raises further questions. Vicarious liability is firmly established at common law as a principle which makes employers liable for the acts and omissions of employees who are acting "in the course of their employment" rather than, as has been said by the courts, "going off on a frolic of their own".
The amendment would appear to make a door supervisor's employer liable in contract and in tort for relevant actions and omissions of his employees. If a door supervisor decided to assault someone while carrying out his duties, the employer would already be liable to pay compensation for the actions. I am not convinced that the amendment adds significantly to the position already established under common law and it creates uncertainty by introducing new rules of vicarious liability to operate alongside the existing common law rules.
Subsection (3) of the new clause provides that a person or a body is to be regarded as the employer of a security operative just by having one on the premises,
24
even if he is supplied under a contract of services. So a landlord may go to the trouble of employing a reputable company and yet still be liable for misdeeds on the part of the door supervisor. That extension of the vicarious liability principle goes far beyond the needs of common law. In our view, it would impose an unfair and wholly unjust system on those who retain door supervisory staff.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is likely to be a dialogue between the doormen who are supplied on contract and the owner of the night-club? Does he agree that in many circumstances it is feasible that instructions will be given by the owner of the night-club to the doormen? Although they are not employees of the night-club owner, the latter may well say, for example, "This is our policy for tonight", and influence the actions of the doormen, not just their manager.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount is right that it may influence their behaviour on the night, but no doubt the overriding consideration is what is in the contract between the owner of the club and the provider of the service.
Any person who is assaulted by a door supervisor is likely to have redress against that door supervisor's employer. The assault would also probably be a criminal offence—I do not believe that we should dismiss that lightly—with the consequence that any victim would be likely to be entitled to submit a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. We remain unconvinced by the amendment, improved though it may be.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, has the noble Lord considered the great advantage of imposing a discipline upon the owner of the night-club to ensure that his operatives do not indulge in unacceptable conduct? Certainly, the clause provides for more than vicarious liability—it is strict liability—for the acts of bouncers who are employed at the club. That may well be a good thing, because it will ensure that at all times the owner of the club maintains considerable oversight of what goes on, knowing that if he allows anything untoward to happen he will be strictly liable for it. In many instances, strict liability has advantages.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I see the noble Lord's point, but in any event the owners of the club must conduct themselves properly. They will have responsibility for what happens on their premises. In any event there is also the question of the contractual arrangements which are in place. I do not believe that this amendment adds anything of weight. The argument is that it extends vicarious liability too far. It will probably place an unnecessary burden where it does not need to rest. I cannot see any advantage in the amendment beyond what is already provided for in the legislation. Although the amendment has been modified, I believe that noble Lords opposite should reflect on what I have said about the nature of vicarious liability. I hope that at this stage they will not

25
pursue the amendment which would be undesirable. I shall carefully study what has been said during the course of the debate, but I am not minded to accept the amendment even in its modified form.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I admit to being very susceptible to arguments about not placing undue or extra burdens on employers and businesses generally. However, the argument comes less satisfactorily from this Government who in this Bill and the one to be debated later today, as well as in other legislation, are constantly creating more burdens and licences and setting up more authorities to supervise different kinds of businesses. I believe that a clause of this character—obviously, I am not wedded to the precise wording of the amendment—would make the liability of the employers clearer than does the common law, and hence it would have a beneficial effect on the behaviour of door supervisors.
The Minister has generously agreed to consider the matter further. We shall also reflect on it. Meanwhile, we must continue to rely on the common law and perhaps, ultimately, the requirement on the new security industry authority both to raise standards and to keep the law under review in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Licensing criteria]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 43, after ("the") insert ("training and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 is a small and, I argue, perfectly formed but useful amendment which responds to some helpful points made in Committee about the relationship between the authority's functions as established in Clause 1 and the detailed expansion of some of those functions in subsequent clauses. Noble Lords opposite variously commented upon the connection—or, as they saw it, the disconnection—in the Bill between the authority's functions in Clause 1(2)(e) to set and approve standards of, among other things, training, and the licensing criteria as set out in Clause 6(3)(b), which allow the authority to include criteria relating to skills in judging licence applications.
One may argue that the reference in Clause 6(3)(b) to "skills" hits the right target, since what the licence applicant is proved to be capable of may be far more relevant in terms of licensing criteria than training that he may happen to have undergone, perhaps badly. However, we regard the points made by noble Lords opposite as useful in fleshing out the description of the criteria that may be applicable by virtue of Clause 6. This amendment adds a reference to "training" in Clause 6(3)(b) to complement the existing reference to "skills" and to make it clear that both concepts can and may be used to inform the authority's determination of
26
its licensing criteria. I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for their good arguments at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Licences to engage in licensable conduct]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 33, at end insert ("shall carry a photograph of the licence holder and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is a simple amendment which refers to the licence to be granted by the authority. We believe that it would be much better if the licence carried a photograph of the licence holder. After all, passes issued to your Lordships and Members of another place include photographs. The same applies to passports, firearms certificates, shotgun certificates, new driving licences and a good number of credit cards. I am sure the Minister will say that this is a matter for the authority, but we believe that this is important. Problems often arise because of identification, particularly in this industry. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable for Parliament to impose on the authority a requirement that a photograph be included. This is a minimal cost in terms of the licence, and it arises in a number of other situations. I hope that the Minister welcomes the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I welcome the amendment, but that is a rather different consideration. I appreciate the argument that the noble Viscount makes in moving the amendment. He is absolutely right that photographic licences can be seen with increasing frequency. Passes, passports and driving licences now include photographs. This provision is not something that we want to have on the face of the Bill; it is a matter that Parliament traditionally expects to see in the form of regulations. We believe that it is important for this matter to be dealt with in regulation. We do not want to set in stone in a Bill a matter of detail rather than a philosophical issue or something of practical substance. Although we appreciate and sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, for reasons of practicality and the way in which we construct legislation we ask the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment. Certainly, I cannot conceive of an effective licensing regime which does not make use of photographs of licence holders. However, this is not the way to deal with the issue; it should be a matter for secondary legislation. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask him a question. I appreciate what he has said, but is he proposing that the Government will bring forward regulations that

27
include the necessity to have a photograph on the licence? If that is what I think he is saying, I should be delighted to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not quite saying that. It is likely that that is exactly what we will do, but it is for the regulations to deal with that particular issue. I cannot give the complete assurance that the noble Viscount seeks. However, in these circumstances, I cannot conceive of a licence that will not have a photograph on it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister has gone 99 per cent of the way. I am grateful for that. Perhaps between now and Third Reading the Government will consider what is to go in the regulations and write to me. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 6, at end insert —

("(9) In exercising the functions prescribed by this Act, the Authority shall act with reasonable care and skill and shall—

(a) be liable at the suit of the person or persons claiming to have sustained loss or damage for any loss or damage sustained as a result of a breach of such duty; and

(b) have it within its discretion to compensate any person or persons claiming to have sustained such loss or damage.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment concerns the authority's duty to behave with reasonable care and skill. The essence of the amendment is in paragraphs (a) and (b). They state that a person who has sustained loss or damage can ask for compensation because an authority has acted in some way that it should not, and that the authority could compensate. The Minister may tell me about the appeals procedure and so on. In many cases a dispute is better settled before an appeal. Therefore, I should like to know, if the authority feels it has made a mistake, recognises that it has and does not want to go through the whole appeal procedure, will it be able to say, "We recognise that we have made a mistake and that you have had some damage or loss to your business or earnings. Therefore, we have the power to give you some form of compensation". It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether an authority can do that.
We want as much flexibility as possible because there will be cases where people feel aggrieved. Authorities will not get the matter right in every case. As happens in many other instances, we want a system of—what one might call—negotiation because it would certainly not be right for every form of dispute to go through a complicated appeal mechanism. That would be hugely time-consuming for the authority and would not make sense. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment is similar to one tabled in Committee. During that debate I explained that the duties of the
28
authority and the rights of individuals affected by its decisions would be subject to remedies that already exist, either within the drafting of the Bill or elsewhere in existing statute or common law. The amendment does not add substantively to either the duties of the one or the rights of the other.
I believe that the motivation behind the amendment is to explore what might happen in a case where the authority has licensed someone it should not, and, as a result, the wrongly licensed person uses the opportunity to commit an offence which would probably not have been available to him without his licence.
The security industry authority will, in common with other public bodies, have a general duty to act reasonably, including with appropriate care and skill. The decisions that it makes will be made on the basis of published criteria. That should provide for a transparent decision-making process.
Should any individual consider that he has been treated unfairly, he already has the right to take legal action. For example, individuals who consider themselves adversely affected by a decision of the authority not to grant them a licence to undertake security activities, or by a decision to modify or revoke their licences, will have, in addition to any more general rights of redress, a specific right of appeal to the magistrates' courts against the authority's decision.
The position of a member of the public who alleges an assault undertaken in the course of licensed activities for which the alleged assailant should not have been granted a licence is more complex. The fact that someone is injured by a person holding a licence under the Bill does not mean that the authority should be held liable for the injury. The authority would be liable only if it could be shown to have acted negligently. That would be the position under the existing law, and the amendment as currently drafted is not designed to alter that position.
On the other hand, a suit of negligence may not be available as a remedy if the authority has reached its decision to issue a licence properly on the basis of the information available to it, even if that information is subsequently shown to be inaccurate.
I have listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Viscount in support of the amendment, but I remain of the view that I took in Committee. I believe that existing safeguards are adequate. I hope the noble Viscount will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. When I sat down I realised that I should have gone on and actually covered the point about an individual suing the authority if a licence holder does some damage. I was probably keen to hear the Minister's reply and get through the process. However, I am very grateful to him for dealing with that point. That has been helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Licence conditions]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) conditions concerning the use of guard dogs as defined in the Guard Dogs Act 1975;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another small and perfectly formed additional amendment. It is tabled for the purposes of looking again at the Guard Dogs Act 1975. By modern terms, that is quite ancient legislation and, so far as I know, not particularly actively used. I tabled the amendment as a result of correspondence from members of the public who were concerned that guard dogs should be properly used in connection, in particular, with the activities of manned guarding as set out in Schedule 2(2) to the Bill.
It is interesting to see that Schedule 2(2) states the activities as,
"guarding premises against unauthorised access or occupation, against outbreaks of disorder or against damage"
and so on. Those are exactly the kind of activities where guard dogs are frequently used. The amendment seeks to ensure that the authority has control over the way guard dogs are employed to make sure that the licence holder is carrying out operations with proper safeguards. I commend the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should remember the details of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 because I have to say to the noble Lord that—rather depressingly—I was in your Lordships' House at that stage. But some of the intricacies have temporarily slipped my mind; so I shall allow the Minister to deal with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in 1975 I think I was collecting my degree from Sussex University. So my mind was not fixed on the Guard Dogs Act.
Clause 8 sets out the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe the conditions on which a licence must be granted and the power of the authority to impose additional conditions. As has been noted, we previously discussed this matter in Committee. Noble Lords opposite saw the open-ended nature of the list of conditions. It is my recollection that I replied that Clause 8 was an example of what the Government see as the important flexibility of the Bill's framework provisions. The conditions listed in Clause 8 relate to training, registration and insurances of licence holders, the manner in which they carry out their activities, the production and display of licences, the provision to the authority of information, and such other conditions as may be deemed to be entirely necessary.
These licensing conditions apply to all the types of private security activities that are regulated by the Bill; that is, the activities that are set out in Schedule 2. One of these activities is the generic group which Schedule 2 calls "manned guarding", and it is within that group that the activities of private security operatives using guard dogs would fall. It is therefore already the case that the Secretary of State has the power under Clause
30
8 to prescribe any conditions that ought to be attached to licences issued to private security dog handlers by the security industry authority.
Obviously, it is too early for me to indicate whether the Secretary of State and/or the authority would actually want to prescribe any such conditions over and above those already applying by virtue of the Guard Dogs Act 1975. I can, however, assure the House that the authority will be giving careful consideration to the types of conditions it judges ought to be attached to licences in a way which is appropriate to each particular sector of the private security industry, and that, if additional conditions are judged to be necessary in relation to the use of guard dogs, they will be proposed. I hope that, having heard that reassuring explanation, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the Minister has satisfied me that the authority will have this kind of problem very much in mind. It is an important safeguard for the public that guard dogs should operate under strict conditions. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Revocation and modification of licences]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 46, at end insert—
("(4) It shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure that arrangements are in place—

(a) for the notification by the police to the Authority of any matter appertaining to a licence holder which might be relevant to the modification or revocation of the licence; and

(b) for dealing with complaints by members of the public against any licence holder.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment in Committee. I have brought the amendment back on Report because I am not sure whether the Government gave a satisfactory reply in relation to it. Although there are provisions in the Bill for creating criminal offences and for licence holders to be fined or sent to prison, there is nothing in it that enables a court to remove a licence from a person who is a licensed security operative as defined in the Bill. That being the case, it will be for the authority to consider anything that may arise as a result of a conviction, but the authority can do nothing unless it is told of a conviction, a caution or complaints made by members of the public against a specific licence holder. Unless the authority has information, the authority will be unable to act.
In theory, as matters stand, it would be possible for a person who is a licence holder and is employed, for example as a bouncer, to be convicted and for him to continue to hold a licence. No one would tell the authority. Nothing would happen. He could go to another employer who did not know about his conviction, produce his licence with a photograph on it as required under the regulations that we have heard will be imposed, and get another job. That is highly unsatisfactory.
In response to the amendment brought forward in Committee, the Government said that what was proposed was all very detailed and that the issue would eventually be dealt with in regulations. That is not sufficient. I really do think that it is important to place on the authority the duty to obtain the kind of arrangements that are set out in the amendment. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have sympathy with what is proposed in the amendment. Paragraph (a) asks for arrangements to allow the police to notify the authority of relevant matters. Paragraph (b) would ensure that the authority had to set up a complaints procedure which members of the public could use. It might be thought that the industry itself would not necessarily want the authority to deal with complaints. However, the contrary is the case. Only a day or two ago I received a letter from one of the large companies in the industry saying that it is important that the security industry authority should establish an open complaints procedure which is fair, fast, effective and accessible to members of the public and in which the public will have confidence. That is quite right not only as a general point but also because of the Human Rights Act, which requires fair and effective remedies.
I am further told that a similar Bill to this is being considered by the Irish Government. That Bill establishes a system of complaints against licensees by members of the public. In practice, it will often be as a result of complaints about the behaviour of those with licences that the authority will be able to consider properly whether to take away someone's licence or to threaten him with taking it away if his behaviour does not improve. The complaints part of the amendment is important as well as the ability for the police to notify anything that may come to court.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is vital that there should be a proper flow of information between the police, the courts and the authority and that the duty on the authority should be made clear. I suggest that the best place for that is the face of the Bill. I also wonder whether there should not be a duty on police forces to provide that information.
As the amendment is drafted at the moment, the duty is on the authority to ensure that arrangements are in place. I wonder whether, in addition to that, there also needs to be a duty on those who hold the information to divulge it, not withstanding other constraints that might be on them in terms of divulging what might in other circumstances be confidential information.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is right. Proper arrangements should be put in place to ensure that we do not go to the enormous trouble of regulating more than 100,000 individuals and yet the public still do not have confidence because they cannot be sure that the information flows correctly from one arm of
32
government to the other. It is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to demonstrate his commitment to joined-up government.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think that there is a great deal between us on this issue. It is more a case of how we get to the end-point. In keeping with the framework approach that we are adopting in this legislation, we do not consider that it is necessary to place on the face of the Bill a duty on the authority to establish appropriate arrangements with the police service.
The authority will as a matter of course need to establish highly effective channels of communication with all bodies with which it will need to work. In particular, it will need to work closely with the police and come to a detailed operational understanding with them as to how they exchange relevant information. As we said in Committee, we believe that the precise arrangements are best left to the authority, once established, and the police to determine. Placing an explicit requirement in the Bill to ensure that the arrangements are set up in this case might place us under pressure to make similar explicit reference to the other bodies with which the authority will need to work closely.
I have already indicated my reluctance to see such requirements to consult the industry being included in the Bill. Similar arguments might be made with regard to the Criminal Records Bureau, local authorities and so on. That reluctance does not stem from any lack of concern that the appropriate arrangements should be made. Quite the reverse is the case. I am entirely clear in my mind that they are an integral part of the effectiveness of the authority's operations and that they will happen.
The authority will also wish to establish a complaints procedure against licence holders. In deciding whether to continue, modify or revoke a licence, the views of the public and the customers of licence holders will be of critical importance. More widely, the authority's general duties to keep under review the industry, the operation of the licensing system and the legislation in general will mean that it will need to keep its ear close to the ground so as to hear exactly what is going on. A complaints mechanism—and a wider vehicle for other types of public comment—will make an important contribution to the authority's discharge of all of its responsibilities.
I am clear that what lies behind the noble Lord's amendment will happen. However, for the reasons that I have provided, I am reluctant to incorporate his amendment into the Bill. I hope that this explanation will have persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. The issues that he has quite properly identified are ones that the authority will need to address once it is up and running. I do not believe that there is any distance between us on that point.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I very much welcome the sentiments expressed by the Minister, but I am disappointed with his reply. This is an important

33
issue. The authority could declare that, "Our budget is only so much and we will not set up a complaints procedure. We will not put into place these mechanisms because we do not have enough money in the kitty. The Government have given us only so much". This might come down to budgetary requirements. For that reason, I may well return to this matter on Third Reading. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 7, line 46, at end insert—
("14) The Authority may apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for action to be taken under the provisions of the Companies Act 1985, in the event that the Authority considers that the removal of licences would not provide, or had not provided, an effective sanction against a body corporate which it has reason to believe is engaged in illegal activity in connection with the provision of security industry services.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Bill as drafted seeks to tackle the problem of regulating the security industry, which provides an extremely valuable service, but has within it elements that cause concern to the Government, to the police, to other bodies and, indeed, to the vast majority of respectable firms operating within the industry. That is to be welcomed. However, the mechanism on which the Government have decided concentrates on the rogue individual—a person with criminal convictions, who may lie on his job application form or perhaps who has a history of stealing—who is then put in charge of guarding cash. The burden of the Bill is to bring a large number of people under the auspices of what will be the security industry authority and for that authority to have the regulatory burden of issuing over 100,000 licences, or perhaps even as many as 300,000 licences. That is a great burden. To issue such a large number of licences and to ensure that all the details are correct on every occasion will be a major task.
With this amendment I am concerned not so much with a rogue individual, but with a rogue firm. I think that the Minister will agree that there have been circumstances where a disreputable security firm has provided a front for other criminal activities. It might be controlled by criminal elements. What action can the security industry authority take against a firm which, fundamentally and organisationally, is corrupt; that is, the corruption does not lie only with the individuals employed by the firm?
The Bill states that licences may be withdrawn from individuals. Thus, licences could be withdrawn from certain front-line employees, from managers and even from the directors of a firm. However, would this be effective or even fair? Circumstances could arise where the real controller of a firm hides behind a "front" of people whom he has put in place as directors or managers. Those people would have their licences withdrawn, but the underworld individual could simply employ more front men to take their places.
I draw a parallel here with the regulation of the finance industry. Not only are the individuals employed by, for example, an investment bank
34
licensed so that they face the penalty of having their licences revoked if they behave improperly, but also the investment bank itself needs to hold a licence to conduct its various activities. If I, as a regulated individual, were to undertake an activity not permitted by the regulations, I could have my licence or registration withdrawn. However, in the event that a bank behaves incorrectly as in, say, a BCCI-type of circumstance in which fundamental problems are revealed as regards the ownership and control of the institution, those problems can be directly addressed by the appropriate authority.
No parallel to that can be drawn here. If a security firm is known to be involved in criminal activities, the individuals employed in that firm can have their licences withdrawn, but it will be difficult for the authority to take proper and responsible action against the firm as a whole. Simply withdrawing the licences from all the employees in a firm is a clumsy way of addressing the problem. It penalises individuals who could be perfectly innocent. I invite the Minister to explain to the House how he proposes that the authority should take action against a rogue firm. Can he tell us how this could work under the auspices of the gaming legislation covering bookmakers? Earlier the Minister drew a parallel with bookmakers. Is it the case that each individual working for a bookmaking firm is licensed or regulated, or is there an overall licence or permit held by the bookmaking firm?
The Minister has been extremely helpful. He met me in the interval between the Committee stage and Report and he has already written to me on this subject. In his letter he stated that:
"The problems which concerned you are not really problems that the SIA is being set up to deal with".
According to the wording of Clause 1, the Minister is correct to say that. However, I suggest that, in the round, he is not correct. I am extremely concerned that the SIA and the regulatory system being put in place will not be able to take firm action against a fundamentally corrupt firm engaged in criminal or dubious activities. If proven cases of criminal activity were revealed, I see that that would be a matter for the police. However, I suggest that this should also be a matter for the authority in reviewing the operation of the company itself, just as the relevant authorities would become involved if the police revealed details of insider trading in the securities industry.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Cope sought to ensure that nightclub owners could be sued as a result of the actions of those who operate as bouncers on their behalf. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, then rightly pointed out that that would provide an incentive for the owner of the nightclub to ensure that nothing untoward would take place in his name. Similarly, to rely on the regulatory framework provided by the Bill without any additional safeguards will provide no incentive for a firm to manage its affairs correctly; namely, to observe the equivalent of compliance procedures to ensure that employers act properly. We are left in a position where a couple of employees may behave improperly and

35
have their licences withdrawn—a couple of foot soldiers go down—but no real damage is done to the economic interests of those who run the firm.
The specifics of my amendment are not particularly interesting or amazing. They merely seek to put on the face of the Bill what the Minister described as his "last resort", effectively; that is, that the authority may apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for action to be taken under the provisions of, I believe, Section 447 of the Companies Act, which allows the Secretary of State to apply to the court for a company to be wound up in the event that that company is shown to be a danger to the public.
I suspect that the Minister will say that this can be done anyway; that it does not need to be written onto the face of the Bill. At this stage, I am not seeking to up-turn the framework that we have discussed for the provision of regulation of the security industry; I am concerned that the Home Office has not provided a comprehensive explanation of what action would be taken under such circumstances. I invite the Minister to do so. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend has done the House and the Government a service by drawing attention to the problem of what to do about rogue companies as well as rogue individuals. I am aware that my noble friend has been in correspondence with and met the Minister and his officials in regard to this matter. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount on raising this issue. His concern is entirely appropriate. I found our meeting most useful and helpful. I apologise if I did not then provide the noble Viscount with a sufficient explanation of the current position in regard to investigating criminality in businesses. If he wishes me to put that explanation on the official record, I am more than happy to do so.
The noble Viscount is concerned that a shady or downright criminal firm might appear to be legitimised by the granting of licences to its members of staff, its managers or its directors; that such a company might continue to engage in illegal activities, perhaps directed by a real controller whose connection with or dominance of the business was not apparent; and that if some lower grade operatives were found out, lost their licences and were prosecuted, they could be replaced and the business could continue as before, as the noble Viscount said.
I have some sympathy with the noble Viscount's concerns, but I should say, first, that I do not believe that it is for the security industry authority to deal with such matters—which, I believe, is the position taken by the noble Viscount earlier—nor do I believe that the Government are washing their hands of the problem.
There are already extensive powers, both under the criminal law in general and the Companies Act 1984, as amended by the Companies Act 1989, in particular,
36
for action to be taken where there are suspicions similar to those which have been raised in your Lordships' House. I have provided the noble Viscount with details of the powers contained within the Companies Act. These include that, on direction by the Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry, inspectors can seek information about a company and its directors and decide whether they should seek a winding up of the company in the public interest or the disqualification or prosecution of a director.
Where matters in an investigation suggest that a criminal offence may have been committed, the matter will be referred to the appropriate prosecuting authority—for example, the police or the Serious Fraud Office. Where there is evidence of misconduct by a company's directors, the DTI can ask the courts to disqualify them. This would stop a person acting as director for 15 years—a very powerful instrument, I suggest. When the public is at risk, the Secretary of State may ask the court to stop a company trading with immediate effect. It is surely true that if those powers are unable to deal with a sophisticated operation such as the noble Viscount appears to have in mind, then the security industry authority is very unlikely indeed to mount effective action.
However, the noble Viscount makes a profoundly modest proposal; that is, that the authority should simply be able to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to exercise his powers under the various Companies Acts to investigate and, if necessary, close down problem businesses which the authority's licensing regime cannot address.
As I understand the relationship between this legislation and the Companies Acts legislation, there is absolutely nothing to stop the authority drawing very plainly to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry the activities of a company which it has reason to regard with profound suspicion but against which it cannot act within the terms of its legislated functions. I hope and expect that the DTI will be one of the stakeholders with whom the authority will consult regularly in the course of its operations, as we have debated earlier during the course of the Bill.
Having said that, I do not believe that it is necessary to take the amendment into the Bill. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance to the House and to the noble Viscount to enable him to withdraw his amendment. I believe that that is where we should best leave the matter this afternoon.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. He said that my amendment is otiose because the authority can do what is suggested in it without a specific power. I accept that. My amendment was designed to draw the Minister and to discover whether the Government recognised that there was a potential problem.
I believe that there is a serious potential problem. That was highlighted when the Minister said that it was unlikely that the SIA would be in a position to mount effective action in the event of a seriously

37
corrupt firm undertaking security activities. The Minister should be worried about that. If such a situation arose we could be left with the worst of all worlds, where 200,000 or 300,000 people have been regulated and yet still the public cannot have confidence that the regulating authority can do anything about a potentially serious threat to the reputation of the industry where criminal activities can be carried out under the guise of respectability. The Bill could lead to bent firms being given an aura of respectability and the authority being unable to take effective action against them.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that it is not a very sophisticated operation that is required, as the Minister said? A person who was incapable of obtaining a licence in his own name—perhaps because of his past convictions and record—could easily set up a company with nominee directors who would obtain licences and operate in that way? It is a very wide loophole.
Viscount Goschen: Precisely, my Lords. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for his concise explanation. It does not take much for someone to put forward their brother-in-law or their friend—whom they met perhaps not in prison but in school—as the managing director of a firm and perhaps two or three other friends as managers or directors.
There is the potential for a serious problem. I cannot understand why this regulatory framework should be so different from that of the financial services industry or the book making industry. If the Minister has the information available to explain now how this legislation will work, it will be easier for the House to understand.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may return to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, described as a "wide loophole". If the loophole is as wide as the noble Lord suggests and the noble Viscount avers, the modesty of the amendment which the noble Viscount proposes will not be likely to meet it. As I have said to your Lordships, in any event this matter can also be dealt with simply by the SIA communicating with the DTI in the terms which I described earlier. The modest measure which is proposed is provided for already. We can already refer issues to the DTI for investigation.
The noble Viscount asked me to respond to the point about licences for casinos. The noble Viscount also mentioned bookmakers. The gaming industry may he particularly prone to potential criminality—perhaps that is why the noble Viscount mentioned it—because of the large volumes of cash that are handled. However, I do not think that the same concerns apply with regard to security firms. For those reasons we do not think that additional controls beyond the extensive powers in the DTI legislation will be necessary.
There is a parallel here which I have certainly drawn in the past, but we do not see it in quite the precise terms of the noble Viscount. He was right to raise the issue. However, we believe that his concern can be met
38
through the relationship that is likely to exist between the SIA and the DTI as a key stakeholder and regulator of companies. I think that experience will bear out that belief. As I say, the noble Viscount was right to raise his concern but we believe that it can be met. As the noble Viscount said, his proposal is modest. If the loophole is as large as he suggests, I do not believe that his modest proposal would meet it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I certainly agree that my amendment is extremely modest. Strictly speaking it is unnecessary, as the noble Lord has already said that what I seek to do can already be done. I accept that. It was a probing amendment. I apologise to the House for the somewhat lengthy explanation of it. The purpose of bringing it forward was to try to draw from the Minister an explanation of what cards he has up his sleeve to deal with rogue firms. I am in no way convinced that the Minister has a full hand here. He said that the casino industry handles large amounts of cash. However, the guarding industry is probably also involved in the movement of large amounts of cash, and sometimes criminal elements with shotguns try to "stick it up".
I am surprised that the noble Lord has not been able to explain fully why there is a difference between the way in which casinos and bookmakers are regulated and the way that is proposed for the security industry. However, I believe that there will be an opportunity for further dialogue between now and further stages of the Bill. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Appeals in licensing matters]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 19:
Leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new clause—
APPEALS IN LICENSING MATTERS
("—(1) Where

(a) an application for a licence is refused,

(b) a licence is granted subject to conditions imposed under section 7(6), or

(c) a licence is modified or revoked,

the applicant or, as the case may be, the holder of the licence may appeal to the appropriate magistrates' court against the Authority's decision to refuse to grant the licence, to impose those conditions or, as the case may be, to modify or to revoke the licence.
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) must be brought before the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the decision appealed against was first notified to the appellant by the Authority.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (I) the appropriate magistrates' court is the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which is situated, as the case may be

(a) the address for the appellant that has been supplied for the purpose of being recorded (if a licence is granted) in the register maintained under section 11: or

(b) the address for the appellant that is for the lime being recorded in that register.

(4) Where a magistrates' court makes a decision on an appeal under subsection (1), an appeal to the Crown Court may be brought against that decision either by the Authority or by the person on whose appeal that decision was made.
(5) A court to which an appeal is brought under this section shall determine the appeal in accordance with the criteria for the time being applicable under section 6.
(6) Where an application for the grant of a licence by way of a renewal is refused or a licence is revoked, the licence to which the application or revocation relates shall be deemed to remain in force—

(a) for the period during which an appeal may be brought under subsection (1);

(b) for the period from the bringing of any such appeal until it is determined or abandoned;

(c) for the period from any determination on appeal that a licence should be granted until effect is given to that determination, or it is overturned on a further appeal;

(d) during any such period as the appropriate magistrates' court or the Crown Court may direct, pending an appeal from a determination made on an appeal to that magistrates' court.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these grouped amendments are intended to make improvements in the provisions of the Bill relating to appeals from security industry authority and local authority decisions.
In Committee noble Lords opposite tabled a number of amendments designed to make improvements to the drafting of Clause 10, which establishes appeals mechanisms from decisions of the security industry authority to refuse to grant a licence or to modify or revoke one. The main arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Thomas, were that the clause should require, rather than merely permit, the Secretary of State to establish appeals mechanisms; that they should be established by the Lord Chancellor rather than the Secretary of State; that the detail of the appeals tribunals should be set out on the face of the Bill rather than left to secondary legislation; that it would in any case be better to establish a system of appeals to magistrates' courts; and that there should be a right of appeal against decisions to grant a licence, as well as against decisions to refuse, revoke or modify.
I said in reply that I would take away the many points that had been raised and consult further with Members of the Committee. I indicated in my closing remarks on Clause 10 that I believed that the parties were united in wanting to design a simple, effective and cost-effective appeals mechanism. In the light of that I have to tell your Lordships that the Government have given careful consideration to the proposals that were raised in Committee. We have concluded that it would be right to amend and expand the provisions both in Clause 10, which relates to appeals about individual licences, and in Clause 17, concerning appeals about decisions within the approved contractors scheme. Amendments Nos. 19 and 24 amend our proposals for an appeals system by introducing a right of appeal against authority decisions to the appropriate magistrates' court and thereafter to the Crown Court. By "appropriate" magistrates' court we mean the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which is situated the address which the applicant has supplied
40
in connection with his application for licensing as a security operative or approval under the approved contractors scheme. Appeals must be made within 21 days. Where the appeal relates to a renewal of a licence or company approval, the amendments provide that the licence or approval, as the case may be, shall remain in effect while an appeal is pending or under consideration or while effect is given to its outcome.
The amendments do not confer formal rights of appeal on third parties who may disagree with decisions reached. Where an application for a personal licence or company approval has been refused, revoked or modified, the aspirant to the licence or approval may appeal to the magistrates' court. Appeals against a magistrates' court ruling may be made by either the aspirant to the licence or approval, as the case may be, or the security industry authority. The Government have considered the question of the interests of the wider community where a third party considers that the security industry authority has awarded a licence or approved a company when it should not have done so. In these cases the third party is free to draw the authority's attention to what he believes to be the error in the authority's judgment or the piece of information he believes it has overlooked. The authority will need to consider such approaches seriously, and has adequate powers to investigate their veracity and relevance. Where the authority subsequently finds itself minded to agree with the third party's objections, it will have the power to revoke or modify the licence or approval in question, having given the licence or approval holder the opportunity to comment.
It was pointed out in Committee that the Bill as drafted makes no provision for appeals in licensing decisions taken by local authorities under devolved arrangements for licensing door supervisors under Clause 12. Amendment No. 21 addresses that point and applies the appeals mechanisms that will be established by new Clause 10, if your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 19, to decisions taken by local authorities. This means that where a local authority has, under arrangements as devolved to it from the security industry authority, refused, revoked or modified a licence for a door supervisor, the door supervisor has an avenue of appeal to the appropriate magistrates' court in just the same way as he would have had against a decision taken centrally by the security industry authority.
I am grateful for the arguments that were raised in Committee. I believe that these amendments address substantively the concerns that were raised and that the result is a substantial improvement in the Bill and the rights of all of those concerned in the industry. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I also think that the amendments improve the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for considering so carefully the arguments that we made in Committee. I am even more grateful to him for agreeing to them.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for listening to the arguments which we put forward from these Benches and for coming forward with proposals which are entirely acceptable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Register of licences]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, leave out line 18 and insert—

("( ) the name of the holder of the licence;

( ) an address for the holder of the licence which satisfies the prescribed requirements;

( ) the time when the licence will cease to have effect unless renewed: and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments add to the information that must be published in the registers for individual licence holders and approved contractors—namely, the expiry date of personal licences and company approvals. They also seek to allow the authority to be able to prescribe which address should be published on the register.
During the debate in Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggested an amendment which would add a requirement for the register of approved companies to show the date on which a company received approval and the date it was due for renewal. As I said in the debate, the Government agree that the publication of the expiry date of the company approval would he a valuable addition. I also said that it would be equally valuable in relation to the register of individual licences established under Clause 11. I undertook to bring forward our own amendments to address these points.
These amendments will add, therefore, a requirement into both Clauses 11 and 13 that the registers, in addition to the information already prescribed in those clauses, should also publish the expiry dates of personal licences and company approvals.
The second effect of the amendments arises from our having considered some concerns that were expressed in Committee about the publication of addresses on the registers. Clauses 11 and 13 at present require that the registers shall publish the names and addresses of the licence holder or approved person as the case may be. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Cope, expressed some fears that the publication of a security operative's address in a publicly accessible register might leave him or her open to pressure from criminals threatening his or her family. This is an important point, and we have taken it seriously. It is another anxiety to be considered within the current atmosphere of concern about animal rights activists. The Bill as currently drafted places no requirement on the register to publish the home addresses of security operatives; indeed, the address of the operative's employer would be more appropriate and useful given the nature of the registers. These amendments therefore clarify that the address to be published in the registers is that which "satisfies the prescribed requirements"—that is, the address that is supplied when a person applies for a licence or a company
42
approval. In the vast majority of cases, this will be the business address of the firm employing the security operative.
It is true that security operatives who work from home would thereby have their home addresses published. However, people working from home must already have made their address available, not least to potential customers. I am not convinced, therefore, that the publication of their place of business—which seems unavoidable if the system of registers is to work effectively—should be a significant concern.
There is a second effect of requiring the register to show the address that "satisfies the prescribed requirements". Other amendments standing in my name today introduce into Clauses 10 and 17—in response to concerns expressed in your Lordships' House—an avenue of appeal from authority decisions to the "appropriate magistrates' court". Those amendments define "appropriate" as being the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which stands the address for which the applicant is or would be registered. The expansion in Clauses 11 and 13 of the address to be published in the registers establishes a more transparent link to the amendments which relate to the appeals to magistrates' courts.
I hope that the amendments will delight and enthuse Members of your Lordships' House. I think that they satisfy concerns raised earlier. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister has again had the wisdom to agree with some of the arguments put forward in Committee; and I am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Licensing at local authority level]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 5, at end insert
("( ) Section (Appeals in licensing matters) shall apply in relation to a decision made by a local authority in accordance with an order under subsection (1) as it applies in relation to a decision of the Authority; and where it so applies it shall have effect as if the references in subsections (2) and (4) of that section to the Authority were references to the local authority that made the decision in question.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Register of approved contractors]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Page 9, leave out line 28 and insert—
("( ) the name of that person;
( ) an address for that person which satisfies the prescribed requirements;").
Page 9, line 29, after ("approved;") insert—
("( ) the time when the approval will cease to have effect unless renewed;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17 [Appeals relating to approval]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 24:
Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new clause—
APPEALS RELATING TO APPROVALS
("—(1) Where—

(a) an application for an approval for the purposes of section 14 is refused,

(b) conditions are included as conditions of such an approval, or

(c) such an approval is modified or withdrawn,

the applicant or, as the case may be, the approved person may appeal to the appropriate magistrates' court against the Authority's decision to refuse to grant the approval, to include those conditions or, as the case may be, to modify or to withdraw the approval.
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) must be brought before the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the decision appealed against was first notified to the appellant by the Authority.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the appropriate magistrates' court is the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which is situated, as the case may be—

(a) the address for the appellant that has been supplied for the purpose of being recorded (if an approval is granted) in the register maintained under section 13; or

(b) the address for the appellant that is for the time being recorded in that register.

(4) Where a magistrates' court makes a decision on an appeal under subsection (1), an appeal to the Crown Court may be brought against that decision either by the Authority or by the person on whose appeal that decision was made.
(5) Where an application for the grant of an approval by way of a renewal is refused or an approval is withdrawn, the approval to which the application or withdrawal relates, shall be deemed to remain in force—

(a) for the period during which an appeal may be brought under subsection (1);

(b) for the period from the bringing of any such appeal until it is determined or abandoned;

(c) for the period from any determination on appeal that an approval should be granted until effect is given to that determination, or it is overturned on a further appeal;

(d) during any such period as the appropriate magistrates' court or the Crown Court may direct, pending an appeal from a determination made on an appeal to that magistrates' court.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 12, line 43, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 26 to 29.
The grouped amendments standing in my name relate to the security industry authority's powers of entry and inspection as set out in Clause 18. Clause 18 as drafted allows a person authorised in writing by the authority to enter any premises owned or occupied by any person appearing to him to be a regulated person, and to require the production of documents or other information relating to the provision of designated
44
security services. Noble Lords opposite were critical of this clause when it was debated in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out that the power to enter premises appeared to be unfettered and he was very concerned that it appeared to include the right of entry into domestic premises. The noble Lord referred to the safeguards that would accrue if the power were limited to one which was exercisable solely on production of a warrant from a justice of the peace. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked the Government carefully to consider the provisions of Clause 18. The noble Lord saw merit in allowing an inspector to enter business premises in a routine inspection but shared the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about entry into domestic premises. As he often does, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, criticised trenchantly the clause as adding to the number of powers of entry and inspection.
In reply to those criticisms, I indicated that I believed that noble Lords had raised a serious matter. I had reservations about the need for the power of entry to be exercisable solely on production of a warrant, but I was willing to consider excluding from the provisions of Clause 18 premises used solely as domestic premises. I undertook to think seriously about the important issues here.
I have now done so, and I commend these amendments to your Lordships' House. Amendment No. 25 is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 26, 28 and 29. Amendment No. 26 gives effect to my undertaking in Committee to exclude premises occupied exclusively for residential purposes as a private dwelling. As I indicated, I was persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lords opposite on this point. The amendments do not introduce a requirement for a warrant in order to enter such private domestic premises. Amendment No. 26 simply takes such premises out of consideration.
That does not mean, however, that private dwellings that are also used as business premises are excluded from inspection. That is what Amendment No. 27 put forward by noble Lords opposite seeks to do. The principle behind that amendment seems to be that an Englishman's home is his castle, even when it is also an office. I am sure that the amendment would introduce a potentially serious weakness in the authority's ability to enforce its licensing regime. The Government argue that individuals undertaking particular trades or professions implicitly bind themselves into the regulatory frameworks which relate to those occupations. That must include the right of the central authority to exercise, within a proper regard for civil liberties, its duly established inspectorial functions. This amendment would give carte blanche to security operatives and managers who wished for criminal or unscrupulous purposes to evade the authority's reach to do so simply by running their business from home. I cannot believe that such a loophole would remain unexploited by those very people we have most reason to hope will be the subject of some of the authority's closest attention—the unprofessional door supervisor company or the rogue wheelclamper.
It was argued in Committee that warrants should be required for entry by the authority into some or all properties owned or occupied by regulated persons. One might argue that if the Government are not willing to exclude from the authority's reach residential properties that are also used for security businesses, they should consider a requirement for the authority to obtain a warrant before seeking to enter business premises which also happen to be used for residential purposes. For reasons I outline in relation to amendments relating to Clause 18, and as I have outlined above, we are not persuaded that a warrant should be required in order to exercise powers of entry into business premises. An authority which regulates a business sector should be able to exercise reasonable powers with regard to the premises on which that business is being conducted.
A door supervisor, for example, or his manager or employer who arranges future bookings from his kitchen table by means of a mobile phone is conducting a business and should be subject to checks by the authority. In order to do so, however, the authority should need to be satisfied that a business is being conducted in that way. There is no question of the occasional business-related phone call from home bringing domestic premises into the ambit of Clause 18 as we now propose to amend it.
The Government continue to believe that a warrant should not be required in order to exercise powers of entry into business premises. We believe that a valid distinction can be drawn between the need for judicial authorisation before the state interferes with citizens' privacy and the legitimate constraints on members of a chosen trade or profession. Individuals in a wide variety of businesses and professions implicitly agree to be bound by the regulatory and other frameworks that apply to that business. In many cases that includes a right of inspection by a central authority that is proportionate to achieving central objectives.
I stress that nothing in the Bill confers powers of entry by force on the authority. Amendment No. 28 introduces additional safeguards that I hope commend themselves to your Lordships. The person authorised by the authority to exercise the power of entry and inspection must do so only at a reasonable hour. What is "reasonable" must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the business undertaken. For example, firms supplying door supervisor services may still be operating in the early hours of the morning, when those services are still being supplied. It may be reasonable for the authority to want to see what is going on at that time. There will equally be many situations in which a request for entry at such an hour would be manifestly unreasonable. The facts of the case must decide the authority's actions and the likelihood of any action being brought against it as a result.
Amendment No. 28 also imposes a number of requirements on how the person exercising the powers shall proceed. He must comply with reasonable requests for him to state the purpose for which the power is being exercised. If requested, he must also show the authorisation that he carries from the
46
security industry authority and produce evidence of his identity. He must also make a record of the date and time of his entry, how long he remained on the premises and his conduct while there. Finally, he must, if requested, provide anyone on the premises at the time with a copy of that record.
Amendment No. 29 introduces a requirement for the security industry authority to prepare and publish guidance on the manner in which authorised persons should exercise their powers and how they should conduct themselves while doing so. The authority must bring that guidance and any updates to it to the attention of those persons likely to be affected by it—that is, persons in the industry who may be liable to inspection. The guidance might contain information relating to what the authority takes to be reasonable hours according to circumstances, any limits on the number of officials allowed to enter or the length of their stay on regulated premises and the training they may receive in relation to their powers. No doubt it will also cover other issues.
The amendments provide valuable safeguards for those who will be regulated by the security industry authority. I believe that the balance of enforcement and civil liberties is now right. I am grateful to those who made their cases so persuasively in Committee. I hope that the noble Lords will not move Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 is an amendment to Amendment No. 26, which is in this group. I am grateful to the Minister for having moved a long way and entirely in the right direction on powers of entry. He has set out a number of additional provisions that make the powers much more reasonable, not least the fact that they are exercisable only at a reasonable hour.
However, I still have a difficulty with the word, "exclusively". As the Minister said, the protection is provided only to premises that are occupied exclusively for residential purposes as a private dwelling. Of course, in some cases the majority of the premises concerned are used as an office but there happens to be some residential provision as well. Other people conduct a certain amount of their business from their house. Investigators, for example, may live some way away and cover a different area of the country from the main area covered by their company. They may operate their part of the business from their private house. In such a case, to an extent the person with the licence submits himself to the licensing regime to do his business.
However, there may be someone who requires a licence to do his job and does none of it from home, but whose wife conducts an unrelated business from the home. Such domestic premises would not be classified as a private dwelling used exclusively for residential purposes because of the wife's business. Although his home would be protected if she did not work, the fact that she conducted an unrelated business from there would open it up to the powers of entry.

47
That is why I have hesitated over the word, "exclusively". I do not pretend that leaving out the word will result in perfect drafting, because the boundary is complicated, but the point is worthy of the Minister's consideration.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for listening to the concerns that we expressed in Committee. We have now witnessed the strange resurrection of liberal Bassam. He has been demugged on the issue and we are grateful to him for bringing forward a reasonable system for entry and inspection.
However, I am persuaded by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, about the use of the word, "exclusively". I understand what the Minister and those who have drafted the Bill are getting at, but there is a danger that the loss of status of private dwelling by reason of an unrelated business could open up the licence holder to inspection without the need for a warrant. The drafting should be looked at again.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I add my tribute and thanks to the Minister for having moved so far. However, there is still a significant difference of opinion—not, perhaps, between the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lord Cope and me, but between the Home Office and us. In the administration of the laws, rules and regulations with which our complicated society is inevitably involved, there is a need for entry to premises. I totally accept that. That need will apply in many spheres, but the philosophy of Amendment No. 27 is that it should be by agreement and normally by prior arrangement. There are some welcome phrases along those lines in one of the government amendments.
However, the power to insist on entry in the case of a refusal is a much more serious matter and should be seen as such by the entering authority and the citizen. It should be flagged up as such. If there is to be any insistence on entry in such a case—I am not talking about forcible entry in the physical sense—it should be necessary to use warrants. It should be a step which any honest citizen would seek to avoid.
If an official had legitimate reasons for coming to see me anywhere on business or private premises, I would certainly expect to be as co-operative as possible. I would hope that the time arranged for such a meeting would be mutually convenient. I should be extremely unhappy if it were felt necessary to obtain a warrant in order to enter my premises. Indeed, as the sort of person who wishes our society to work properly, I would consider that to be a considerable reflection on my status. I suggest that, if there were to be any recalcitrance with regard to reasonable entry, that in itself would show that there was an advantage in making a warrant necessary.
Therefore, I support a regime in which entry is expected to be provided. As the Minister said, people who enter that type of business are effectively signing
48
up to appropriate supervision, just as I, as a farmer, am signing up to appropriate supervision in that. One could refer in paranthesis to the current tragedy in relation to foot and mouth disease. From the press reports, it would appear that there was resistance to certain legitimate entry at the location in Northumberland where the disease started. I should have thought that in that particular instance it would have been desirable for warrants to be obtained. No doubt the inquiries will show that to be the case.
Frankly, if it is necessary to obtain a warrant in order to enter premises—I fully accept that situations will arise in which that is so—that in itself is quite important in illustrating non-compliance. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel able to move that much further and to accept at least the spirit of the amendment—perhaps redrafted at Third Reading—in the name of my noble friend Lord Cope.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I have been reading the amendments in the name of the Minister and I wish to make a small point in relation to Amendment No. 28. It may be simply that I am not a lawyer and therefore do not understand the lawyer's translations of words. However, the second line of subsection (2B)(b) of Amendment No. 28 refers to "and his conduct". I may be naive but, as I understand it, "conduct" means the way in which someone behaves himself—that is, whether he does so well and honourably. I believe that the Minister may be referring to the actions taken while the person exercising the power is on the premises. I suspect that a clever lawyer in court may be prepared to misconstrue that one word in the Bill in an endeavour to get a mischievous client off the hook. I wonder whether the Minister can either put my mind at rest on that point or put forward an amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall deal with the last point first. I am not sure that I could ever put the noble Lord's mind at rest. I would not seek to do so because his is clearly a mind exercised by important points of detail. That is most important. I believe that the noble Lord is right. Here, we seek to capture the details of what occurred, what transactions took place and what was found. That is what we describe when we talk about "conduct"—that is, the business transacted.
I move on to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. He seemed to be making, as I have heard him do in the past, a rather more broad critique of the powers of entry. He was inviting me to sign up to the philosophy behind the—we have used this term previously in these debates—modest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, which seeks simply to leave out the word "exclusively".
I understand the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in relation to the use of that term in this particular context. He raised the matter of a licence holder being exempted by using his home as his business premises and having that qualified by his partner or his wife also having a business on those

49
premises. Therefore, I certainly undertake to take away the specific issue identified by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in his amendment.
In general terms, I have heard nothing other than support for the amendments which we brought forward to qualify what some saw as the rather draconian approach adopted by the Bill. I do not believe that it is draconian; I consider it to be proportionate. As I said earlier, I believe that people in that line of business will expect to be regulated in this way. We have sought to qualify that through our amendments and to set out the reasonable conduct and behaviour that we expect of those who are involved in enforcement in those situations.
However, I believe that it is important that a range of powers is available for entry. It is right that we should be in a position where the enforcing authorities can carry out proper enforcement, given the potential for mischief and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said earlier, the fact that in some limited circumstances there may well be rogue operators at the heart of this business. Therefore, these powers—let us not dismiss them—are essential. We have simply further qualified them and made them as reasonable as possible without fettering the ability of those involved to be effective in enforcement for the good of the industry as a whole.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 12, line 45, at end insert ("other than premises occupied exclusively for residential purposes as a private dwelling").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, Amendment No. 27:
Line 2, leave out ("exclusively").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's undertaking, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 27, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 26 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton 11/2/2006 moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 13, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) A person exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) shall do so only at a reasonable hour.
(2B) A person exercising such a power shall—
(a) comply with any reasonable request made (whether before or after entry is gained to the premises) by any person present on the premises to do any one or more of the following—

(i) state the purpose for which the power is being exercised;

(ii) show the authorisation by the Authority for his exercise of the power;

(iii) produce evidence of his identity;

50

(b) make a record of the date and time of his entry, the period for which he remained there and his conduct while there; and

(c) if requested to do so by any person present on the premises at the time of the entry, provide that person with a copy of that record.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
GUIDANCE AS TO EXERCISE OF POWER OF ENTRY
("—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to prepare and publish a document containing its guidance as to the manner in which persons authorised to enter premises under subsection (1) of section 18 should0—

(a) exercise the power conferred by that subsection; and

(b) conduct themselves after entering premises in exercise of that power.

(2) The Authority may from time to time revise the guidance published under this section; and, if it does so, it shall publish the revised guidance.
(3) A requirement under this section for the Authority to publish guidance or revised guidance shall be a requirement to publish it in such manner as appears to the Authority appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Interpretation]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 15, line 34, at end insert—
(""relevant accountancy body" means any of the following—

(a) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

(b) the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;

(c) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;

(d) the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;

(e) the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants;

(f) the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 37. During the debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, expressed concern that some of the activities undertaken by accountants during the course of their work might mean that they fell within the definition of private investigators, as defined in the Bill, and thus would require a licence. The amendments which I bring forward this afternoon deal with those issues.
As I indicated during the debate, the Government wish to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are targeted on the specialist providers of security services. We have stated that we wish to regulate those providers but do not want the Bill's provisions inadvertently to catch groups which are not relevant to

51
our policy aims. That includes accountants, for whom I have the greatest respect, and those employed in similar occupations.
Since Committee stage, we have held discussions with a variety of specialist bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Services Authority, as well as with a number of private companies. Those discussions echoed the concerns expressed in the Chamber in Committee, and we received some helpful advice on how to deal with the those concerns.
The Government accept that the wording of paragraphs 4 and 5 in Schedule 2 do not make it adequately clear that we are not seeking to include accountants in the Bill's regulatory framework. Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 therefore seek to provide a clear exemption for accountants from the definitions of private investigators. They also provide a clear exemption from the definition of a security consultant, in response to representations from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, which expressed the concern that some activities of accountants may also fall into that category.
Finally, Amendment No. 30 adds a definition to Clause 23, the Bill's interpretation clause, explaining what we mean by the term "relevant accountancy body" as that is used in amending Schedule 2. That definition builds on that proposed in the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, moved in Committee, and expands on it by adding in additional bodies.
We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been expressed to us on this matter, and we are grateful for the constructive nature of the discussions we have had. The amendments will ensure that professional accountants are excluded from the Bill's provisions.
The amendments to our amendments, which were moved by noble Lords opposite, seek to extend the exemptions to employees of members of those relevant accounting bodies; for example, trainees, secondees, support staff and other employees who are not members of the accountancy bodies that are listed in Amendment No. 30. We should remind ourselves that we are talking in this context solely about people who hire themselves out under a contract to supply clients with specialist services. Members of the relevant accountancy bodies and their staff who are working "in-house"—that is, for their own company—fall outside the scope of the Bill.
It is not necessarily the case that only members of those relevant accountancy bodies may be hired out under contract to provide services that are relevant to the Bill's provisions. Many of the large well-known accountancy firms have diversified and provide a wide range of services. For example, the publicity material of one of the very largest firms offers expertise in cybercrime, asset recovery, corruption investigations and fraud risk management.
It may well be the case that members of the relevant accountancy bodies as defined by Amendment No. 30 will play a part in some or all of those services. It is also possible that some employees who are not members of those bodies will also play a part. Amendments Nos. 35 and 38 would exempt the latter group from the need for a licence solely on the ground that they were employed by exempted persons. I do not think we should go that far. Employees of accountancy firms who are not themselves members of the relevant accountancy bodies may, if hired out under contract in some of the fields of investigation that I described just now, be undertaking the same type of work as people who legitimately offer their services as private investigators or security consultants but not as accountants. Those groups are rightly required to have a licence under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. It would therefore be anomalous for non-accountants in accountancy firms to be exempt from licensing when private investigators and security consultants offering the same or similar services would be caught by the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree to Amendments Nos. 30, 34 and 37 and that noble Lords opposite will, having heard my comments in this afternoon's debate, withdraw Amendments Nos. 35 and 38. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this group of amendments concerns accountants, and I should declare an interest as a member of the first of the institutes listed in Amendment No. 30.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for listening to what was said by noble Lords in Committee and by the relevant bodies outside the House and for introducing the amendments. They involve the same list of accountancy bodies as was used on an earlier occasion. It is important to have such a provision in the Bill. I hesitate to agree unreservedly to the provision in view of the matter to which the Minister drew attention. My concern is that the amendment may cover not all of the staff in an accountancy practice but only those who are members of one of the listed institutes. Accountants obviously employ people without the qualifications that they have to do all sorts of administrative and other tasks. Some of those will be "in-house" tasks but others will arise when working for clients. I am not sure whether carrying out an audit of a company involves working for a client company under contract; it seems to me that it does, and should be considered as such.
The Minister made reassuring comments on secondees, trainees and students but they do not quite match my reading of the Bill. Pepper v. Hart may help in that respect; the Minister has explained what he believes the Bill will cover. I hope that it is correct that someone who is employed in an accountancy practice for accountancy purposes would not require a licence, and that the authority will interpret the Bill in that way.
I am also worried about the fact that, if an individual is found to require a licence for an activity such as investigating a fraud in the course of an audit or as a forensic accountant, his managers and supervisors and the partners of the whole firm—this

53
consideration may involve the whole international firrn—will also require licences. We know from earlier provisions that managers, directors and partners of a company require a licence when a company's employees do so. Apart from the effect on employees carrying out an investigation, there is a knock-on effect on the partners and directors of a business. That matter requires further reflection.
If the Minister can respond today, that would be fine; I could give the matter further reflection in the light of his comments. I do not believe that the provisions that exclude "in-house" operations are quite as sweeping as the Minister implied because they do not seem to cover staff who frequently work on a client's premises examining the client's books for audit or for other investigatory purposes.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the Government's position in this regard. It is right to restrict the exemption to members of the relevant accountancy bodies who carry out activities for the purposes of any accountancy practice. The fact of the matter is, as the Minister made clear, that large firms offer a separate service of private investigation and security consultancy. If they want to do that—they are perfectly entitled to diversify in that way—they should fall within the Bill's provisions. They would be carrying out activities that were not for the purposes of an accountancy practice but for other purposes. The position that the Government have adopted and which the Minister outlined is sensible and right and we shall support it.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I want to speak in support of the amendments that were moved by my noble friend Lord Cope. I declare an interest as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and as a former partner of KPMG. The Minister will be familiar with its affairs, having been associated with us briefly. I use the word "us" in the past tense!
The affairs of large accounting firms are very complex and have moved considerably from their early roots—there have been changes in terms of drawing up sets of accounts and auditing those accounts. It is hard to say what the practice of accountancy is. I understand the distinction that the Government sought to draw in this context, but it is difficult to say with any precision what is and what is not accountancy practice because all such activities are carried out in one unified firm. Even the internal divisions of the firm will not give you a guide to what one might call "accountancy what not". Indeed, all-embracing internal divisions such as forensic accountancy can cover a very wide number of activities, some of which noble Lords might think were accountancy and some not. But the firms themselves would think that they were part of their accountancy practices.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to look again at those provisions to ensure that they are practicable. To seek to make a distinction which is not easily reflected in the way in which firms operate in today's world may well cause a number of practical difficulties.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an historic interest in the affairs of KPMG, a company with which I was delighted to be associated for a couple of years. I am grateful for the noble Baroness's contribution in this exchange.
I think we have got it about right. We have taken extremely careful soundings from the various institutions. I should require some further persuasion, more than I have heard during these exchanges, before I gave an undertaking to look again at this matter. As I am very fond of issuing correspondence, I shall invite more persuasive correspondence on this matter between now and Third Reading if noble Lords really want to press the point. I believe that we have it right. The balance is right and appropriate.
We have drawn a clear distinction between different sets of activities, although I take the fundamental point made by the noble Baroness that the world of accountancy and the practices of the large firms in particular are ever-changing and organic in the way that they transmogrify over time. I hope that noble Lords will not take this as too stern a rebuff at this stage but I require more evidence before I am prepared to give the matter further consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Security Industry Authority]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 17, line 5, leave out from first ("of') to end of line 6 and insert ("twelve members").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 30A to 30D relate to Schedule 1 and the composition of the authority. They seek to achieve a number of aims. Amendment No. 30A provides that the authority should have 12 members. We believe that for the authority to be truly independent and impartial, its composition should reflect a proper balance of legitimately interested parties and that, therefore, there should be a reasonable chance of those interested parties obtaining a place on the authority and so a certain number of members is required.
Amendment No. 30B concerns the type of people to serve on the authority. We suggest that no more than two members should be employee representatives; no more than two members should be employer representatives; at least one member should represent consumer groups; and one member should represent the police and criminal justice service. In that way we are trying to ensure that there is a split and that the authority can be generally independent.
Amendment No. 30C provides that the term of office should be for three years, and I should be interested in the Government's comment on that. Amendment No. 30D says that the word "five" should be deleted and that a quorum should be "half" of the authority's members. should be
Here we are seeking to learn more about the Government's thinking on the composition of the authority and how many members there should be. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that those matters are better dealt with in regulations. He may be

55
right. But if so, perhaps he would help the House by telling it the Government's thinking on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, to some extent, we have already had this debate but I want to put on record my unhappiness about and total opposition to this set of amendments which is far too prescriptive. It is impossible to expect the idea of a board with representatives on it to work. I should not like to be faced with the task of trying to get two representatives of the employees whose term will last for three or five years.
The authority of the authority will be dependent upon the appointments which the Secretary of State makes. That is a blinding glimpse of the obvious. But I believe that the idea of having representatives sends completely the wrong message. We have had the discussion about the consultative process. I hope that the Government will consult about what mechanism there will be. But that is the point at which representatives come in. There needs to be flexibility and those representatives can change. It is a diverse industry and we shall need different kinds of representatives. But I believe that to have them as members of the authority would mean that the authority would face an impossible task.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these amendments seek to impose certain specific requirements as to the size, make-up, quorum and terms of office of the authority.
I look first at the size and make-up of the authority. We saw a number of amendments in Committee which sought to specify how many members the authority should have and what interest groups they should represent. I explained then and retain the position now that it would be a mistake to place restrictions on the way in which the Secretary of State may construct the authority for many of the reasons which my noble friend Lord Gladwin has expressed, not least because we require flexibility. I should add also that that is not because the Government have an agenda to crowd the authority with some interest groups to the exclusion of the others but for precisely the opposite reason.
As we spelt out in the White Paper which preceded the Bill, there are a number of interest groups whose presence on the authority will be essential for its effective functioning. Those include the police, local authorities, customers, the industry itself, employees of the industry and others. I have mentioned already, in connection with Amendment No. 2A, that the authority can constitute specialist advisory committees to help in its work, and it is perhaps appropriate to mention that again in this context.
A committee structure is likely to be an additional way in which the voices of important stakeholders can be heard by the authority. But I remain of the view that we do not need to specify the composition of the authority or its committees on the face of the Bill.
56
A related argument is that it would be a mistake to limit the number of members of the authority in the Bill. Our White Paper suggested that a board of about eight people plus a chairman might be appropriate. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested, that there should be no fewer than 10 members. Now the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggests an unequivocal 12. None of those numbers is indisputably wrong or right. There needs to be flexibility to ensure that the number is as many as is needed for the authority's effective functioning, no more and no less.
Having said that, it is logical to look at Amendment No. 30D which would require that a quorum of six members should attend the meeting which determines what the quorum shall be for future meetings of the authority.
It is clear that that assumes an even number of authority members. As I indicated, the Government do not want to become tied on the face of the Bill to a particular number of authority members. Even so, I am somewhat doubtful that the authority will expand to consist of the noble Viscount's projected 12 members. The Bill as drafted sets an initial quorum at five members. That seems about right although, of course, it is not scientific. It is important to remember that that is the quorum for a first orientation meeting of the authority only and that a higher quorum—perhaps even half of the members—may be set for future meetings. In keeping with what we see as the need to preserve the authority's flexibility in operations, we should obviously want to see it reviewing the quorum strength whenever its size was changed.
I turn lastly to Amendment No. 30C which seeks to reduce the term of appointment for an authority member from a maximum of five years to a maximum of three. There is no particularly solemn significance in suggesting a maximum term of five years. It certainly can be argued that a more rapid turnover of authority members, assuming there were no reappointments, might help to keep the authority fresh and bring in regular new thinking and new blood. However, there is also the argument that some experience and continuity in doing the job is important, and that a period of five years is a reasonable period in that it will not allow one to become too stale nor will it be so short as to prevent the accumulation of genuine experience.
I argued on the composition of the authority that the question of "how many members" was not one that had a single numerical answer. That argument may also apply here, although clearly, in contrast to the size of the authority, we have to decide in favour of a specific number. Having received the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, I have become conscious that a term of appointment of five years for authority members would be relatively unusual in terms of non-departmental public bodies for which the Home Office has responsibility.
Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I want to consider the matter further and perhaps return to the matter at Third Reading. In those circumstances,

57
is the noble Viscount able to withdraw, not just that amendment, but also the other amendments in the group?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. His explanation gives us a much clearer view of the way in which the Government perceive the authority and who should be on it. In relation to various non-governmental statutory bodies, it is quite often noticeable that the matter of who should be on them is laid down. Sometimes the Home Office argues that it should have people on a body, so such a provision should be in the Bill. Equally, we have now heard the Minister say the opposite. There does not appear to be a general practice in such matters; it appears to depend on how they feel on the day.
I believe that there is a strong argument for flexibility, but we needed to know the Government's thinking. Having said that, there is also a strong argument for saying that the industry must be representative and fair. I am grateful for what the Minister has said on that issue and for considering the five-year point. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30B to 30D not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Activities liable to control under the Act]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 22, line 39, after ("vehicle") insert ("or bicycle").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment because it concerns my noble friend Lord Cope, who, as I am sure your Lordships will have noticed, bicycles to your Lordships' House. On this side of the House we do not have the use of large ministerial cars like noble Lords opposite, so we have to come by the best means available.
While bicycling to the House, my noble friend Lord Cope noticed a sign outside a block of flats saying that any bicycle chained to the railings would be clamped and not released until £10 had been paid to the caretaker's block. Do the Government approve of such behaviour? Do they believe it is right that caretakers should hold bicycles hostage? If they do believe that that is right, surely such a situation should be regulated. If we are to regulate dampers of cars and motorbikes, should we not also regulate those who clamp bicycles? Such dampers would prevent my noble friend attending your Lordships' House on time, which I am sure would be a serious disappointment to noble Lords opposite!
This is an important issue. What is the view of the Government? Do they consider that bicycles should be clamped? Is it legal? Is it legal if it is done on a pavement as opposed to on private land? Can someone clamp a bicycle or can a local authority clamp a bicycle on a pavement? What is the law surrounding this issue? One leg of the Government's transport policy is that people should use healthy ways of getting to work such as cycling as opposed to driving. What principles do
58
the Government consider are appropriate in those circumstances? I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, initially I was not sure whether to take this amendment seriously, but I can see that the noble Viscount has raised "an interesting point", as it says in my note. Perhaps it is rather more than that. I was not aware that wheelclamping is used as a means of tackling unwanted parking by cyclists. I guess that the noble Viscount is right to seek clarification.
For the record, while I certainly make good use of the ministerial transport, I would not describe it as an expensive limousine. Equally, I have suffered the rigours of travelling on Connex South Central which is not always a pleasant experience. I use a wide range of other forms of public transport, but I do not use a bicycle.
Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to the Bill states that the paragraph applies to,
"immobilisation of a motor vehicle",
and in Clause 23 "motor vehicle" is defined as,
"a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle".
In our view, that excludes bicycles but includes motorbikes, cars and other motor vehicles and trailers such as caravans.
It is true that Section 104 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act provides for the immobilisation of "vehicles" parked on roads, not "motor vehicles", but we are not aware that the parking of bicycles has ever been a problem which needs to be deterred by wheelclamping. Given the relative lightness and lack of security of a normal bicycle, the owner would probably think twice about parking it irresponsibly in any event.
I believe that the Government are right to oppose legislation that tries to meet a need that does not exist. We have no widespread experience of extensive wheelclamping of bicycles and we do not see this issue as being a major problem. No doubt if in the future it became a major problem, the SIA, having received many protestations, may want to review the position and draw it to our attention. We do not consider at this stage that that is something that the legislation should cover.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he could answer two questions. Could the authority add such a matter to its remit without legislation? If so, could the Government, by order, include bicycles within the clamping regime?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the questions posed by the noble Viscount. No doubt that is a matter that could be reviewed. Whether it could be brought into the remit of the Act by order I do not know, although I suspect that the answer is on its way! We can consider whether we should return at Third Reading with a proposal for

59
an order-making provision to allow flexibility as to what additional types of vehicle may be covered by the Bill. I hope that that answers the point.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer. I am sure that it will give my noble friend Lord Cope enormous reassurance to know that if he is clamped he will be able to go to the Minister with proof and that the Minister will look carefully at his plight and consider whether an order should be made. I believe that there is a serious point in relation to this. If there is flexibility in the Bill to come forward with an order when there is a problem, that would be enormously useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 23, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) This paragraph does not apply to any activities of a member of a relevant accountancy body which are carried out by him as such and for the purposes of any accountancy practice carried on—

(a) by him;

(b) by any firm of which he is a partner or by which he is employed;

(c) by any body corporate of which he is a director or member or by which he is employed.").

[Amendment No. 35, an amendment to Amendment No. 34, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 34 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 37:
page 24, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) This paragraph does not apply to any activities of a member of a relevant accountancy body which are carried out by him as such and for the purposes of any accountancy practice carried on—

(a) by him;

(b) by any firm of which he is a partner or by which he is employed;

(c) by any body corporate of which he is a director or member or by which he is employed.

[Amendment No. 38, as an amendment to Amendment No. 37, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 37 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 24, line 24, leave out ("are not the services") and insert ("do not consist in or include the carrying out of any of the activities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to the definition of "keyholder" in Schedule 2, paragraph 6, in order to make it consistent with the wording in the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 25, leave out lines 7 to 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment modifies the definition of "licensed premises" as it is used in the Bill in relation to door supervisors. It deletes paragraph 8(2)(c) of Schedule 2 which refers to premises in which a function is held in respect of which an occasional permission under the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 is in force.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, tabled and amendment which sought to provide that a temporary exemption from the need for a door supervisor licence could be obtained from the local magistrates' court to alleviate difficulties which might otherwise surround certain types of events. I argued against such an avenue and the noble Lord's amendment was defeated in a Division.
However, we have reflected on the issues underlying the noble Lord's concerns and have concluded that it would, on balance, be desirable to delete from coverage in the Bill events which are the subject of occasional permissions under the 1983 Act. This is distinct from events which require occasional licences under the Licensing Act 1964, which continue to be covered by the provisions of paragraph 8(2)(b).
The type of event which is typically the subject of an occasional permission is, we have concluded, peripheral to the main type of events with the potential to cause public nuisances and which the mainstream of the provisions of the Bill is seeking to address by requiring door supervisors to be licensed. These peripheral events—from the standpoint of our policy objectives—are, for example, school fetes or charity events which happen to provide a beer tent or equivalent as an added incentive for the public to attend. It has never been our policy to equate any form of door stewarding that takes place at such events with pubs and clubs, which are the focus of our provisions relating to door supervisors, and taking them into regulation is not, in our view, necessary.
In reaching this conclusion I am mindful of the fact that we are running a slight risk. There are other kinds of events which may also be the subject of occasional permissions that we will not be able to regulate if we delete the paragraph which is the subject of this amendment. The types of events I have in mind are certain types of football or rugby club events where people may decide to hold a function on unlicensed premises, such as in a local hall, and sell drink from a bar. If the event required an entertainment licence, it would continue to be covered by the Bill. But if not, it would be excluded from the requirement to have any of its in-house door staff licensed. Should the club hire contract door supervisors, these would, of course, need to be licensed by the authority in the normal way envisaged by other parts of the Bill.
I am far from suggesting that rugby club events are inherently more troublesome than school fetes, but we must realise that we can either take both types of

61
events into regulation or leave them out. The Government have concluded that in this case it is better to be criticised for under- regulating than to be criticised for over-regulating. I am sure in my mind that by proposing the amendment we are not significantly weakening the provisions of the Bill as regards door supervisors.
With regard to the types of event I have been discussing, it would, quite separately from the considerations of this Bill, continue to be open to magistrates to attach any condition to an occasional permission that they think proper. Such conditions could, if magistrates thought fit, include the use of licensed door staff.
The removal from regulation of events that are subject to occasional permissions should also remove from concern a large number of events to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was referring in Committee. For those reasons, I beg to move the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the amendment tabled by the Minister. I shall study carefully in Hansard what he said—the argument was complicated—but it seemed to cover all the concerns raised in Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

National Minimum Wage
5.55 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the national minimum wage being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will be aware, in June last year I asked the independent Low Pay Commission to produce a further report on the national minimum wage by July of this year. In particular, the commission was asked to consider whether there was a case for increasing the rate of the minimum wage.
"In considering any increase, it was required to take into account movements in earnings; the effect on employment; the impact on individual sectors, including small business; and the likely and future impact on the economy. The commission announced at the end of January that this year it would produce its report in two parts.
"The commission had a clear message from employers that the length of notice given of any changes would be critical. Today we are publishing volume one of the Low Pay Commission's third report. This looks solely at the main rate and makes recommendations to have effect on 1st October this year and next. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
"I would like to thank the chairman of the commission, Professor George Bain, and the other members of the commission for the time
62
commitment and detailed consideration they have given in preparing today's report. The strength of the recommendations in the report conies from the detailed analysis and also from the fact that it is a unanimous report, agreed, for example, by the deputy General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union as well as the deputy Director-General of the CBI.
"The report concludes that the minimum wage has been a success, with nearly 1.5 million people benefiting, without any adverse impact on employment or the competitive position of British business. Over 70 per cent of those benefiting from the minimum wage are women. The commission concludes that in narrowing the gender pay gap the minimum wage has had the greatest beneficial effect on women's pay since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act over 30 years ago.
"The minimum wage has also helped close the gap in regional pay differences. Since its introduction, the largest increases in average earnings have been in traditionally low paying parts of the United Kingdom. While the national average increase in earnings for the first year of the minimum wage was 3 per cent, average earnings in the North East rose by almost double that at nearly 5 per cent. In Wales, the increase in earnings was over 4 per cent and in Yorkshire and the Humber 3.5 per cent.
"The minimum wage ensures that people living throughout the United Kingdom share in the country's economic prosperity. Twenty years ago pensioners made up the largest section of those in poverty. Today it is those living in workless working-age households. Simply compensating people for their poverty through benefits is not good enough.
"The task must be to deal with the causes of poverty. The best form of welfare is work. That is why it is crucial to make work pay. The national minimum wage makes a vital contribution towards achieving this objective.
"Of course, there are those who oppose the very concept of a national minimum wage. They said that its introduction was the height of irresponsibility; that it was a cretinous idea; that it would deal a blow to low earners; and that it would cost over 1 million jobs.
"These critics have been proved wrong. Employment has increased by nearly 450,000 since the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999 and by over 1 million since we were elected with a clear pledge to introduce it. The number of jobs in the hotel and catering sector, which includes a high proportion of low-paid jobs, increased by 14,000 between March 1999 and September 2000.
"In recommending a new rate the commission had to satisfy itself about the likely impact of any increase. A rate that was not manageable would hurt the prospects of the very people it was meant to benefit. The commission is confident that there is scope for a significant increase in the rate. The aim

63
has been to make recommendations which are bold enough to make a real difference but prudent enough not to have any adverse impact on employment or the economy.
"The report of the commission is unanimous. It recommends that the adult rate presently £3.70 an hour should increase to £4.10 on 1st October of this year. The Government accept that recommendation. It will mean that someone on the minimum wage and working a 40-hour week will see his earnings increase by £16 a week. It will mean a £10 a week increase for someone working 25 hours a week. Coupled with the working families' tax credit, this Government are ensuring that work pays.
"The commission also recommends that the adult rate should increase in October next year to £4.20 an hour. In principle, the Government also accept this recommendation, subject to the economic conditions prevailing at the time.
"The commission's report looks in detail at the impact of an increase to £4.10. It finds that the estimated wage bill impact will be modest—lower than the wage bill increase which resulted from the introduction of the minimum wage.
"With regard to inflation, it finds that the minimum wage had no discernible impact on the main measures of inflation. Analysis shows that the rise in the wage bill which follows from the proposed increase to £4.10 adds 0.07 per cent to inflation in the first year and 0.05 per cent in the second. This new rate for the minimum wage will apply across the board: to part-time and full-time workers; to agency staff and those who work from home.
"I understand that there are some who would exclude businesses which employ fewer than 100 people from all legal requirements apart from health and safety. That would mean nearly 8 million people being denied basic decent rights in the workplace. We reject such an approach. That is why the minimum wage will apply to all of those in work whatever the size of organisation that employs them.
"The introduction of the national minimum wage has been one of the great achievements of this government. It has already had a real and much needed impact on the lives of many hard-working people and their families—helping to raise the pay and standard of living of almost 1.5 million people. The minimum wage combines economic efficiency and social justice. Increasing it to £4.10 an hour will take people further out of poverty pay. It is a significant increase which is both affordable and will make a real difference to those who receive it. It brings reality to the phrase 'dignity of work'".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another
64
place about the national minimum wage. I also thank him for letting me have sight of the Statement more than two hours ago.
Last October the national minimum wage was increased by 10p and there was no oral Statement about it in the House. Today, the national minimum wage is to be increased by 40p and there is a Statement. Does the difference in the amount of the increase and the treatment of it in this House have anything to do with an impending general election, or am I just being somewhat cynical?
As from tomorrow, businesses will plan for this increase and adjust their payrolls accordingly, so when we come into office there will certainly be no intention to change it. However, perhaps the Minister can answer a few of our concerns. The British Chamber of Commerce estimates that since this Government have been in power the annual burden of new regulation costs is about £10 billion. Can the Minister confirm that that figure does not include the national minimum wage?
Can the Minister say how this burden, together with the new increase of 11 per cent in the national minimum wage, will affect small businesses and the impact that that will have on jobs and our competitiveness? There could be an effect on small shops, sub-post offices and care homes, to give just a few examples. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware—I refer to it anyway—that care homes receive funding of between 1 and 2 per cent from the Department of Social Security and local councils. How is the uprating of 11 per cent on the one hand and the 1 to 2 per cent funding on the other to be managed? It was said today that an average 20-bed home would have to find an extra £2,600 a year. This will probably be a problem for them. Can the noble Lord say whether the Government have given thought to such issues?
Interestingly, about a week ago I heard about a new kind of business which employs house-sitters. When a house-owner is away, people move into the house so that the property is not left empty. The reality is that the house-sitter is glad to live in a comfortable home for a while, and perhaps also feed the cat, and the owner is happy in that he does not have to pay a huge salary for that service. I read an article in a newspaper which stated that that new type of activity, which until then I had been unaware of, might go out of business because the costs would make it impossible to continue. Have the Government given thought to such businesses?
It is true that there has been a decline in unemployment over the past six years. I should be most grateful if the Minister can confirm that unemployment fell more slowly in the first three years of this Government than in the last three years of the previous Conservative government. Can the noble Lord also confirm that it is the Government and not the Low Pay Commission that must be concerned with the economic effects of the increase? I note that the Statement says that the Low Pay Commission has taken all of that into account, but at the end of the day the economic effects must be dealt with by the

65
Government. As this particular increase is above inflation and salary increases, is the Minister absolutely satisfied that it will not have any adverse effect on jobs? Could Her Majesty's Government do anything if there was a downturn in the economy? Is there a failsafe method in case something happens?
Finally, can the Minister confirm the report of the Office for National Statistics that the sharpest rise in taxation has fallen on the poorest one-fifth of households? Since the Labour Government came into power, the tax burden on the poorest 20 per cent of households has risen from 37 to 40 per cent of gross income in 1998–99. I believe that this is a serious matter. If the House is concerned with the lowest paid—I believe that everybody is—it should be concerned equally about the extra tax burden on the poorest households as with the national minimum wage.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches agree with the Statement. No one can deny that manifestly the national minimum wage has been one of the achievements of this Government. This is perhaps the moment when noble Lords on the Tory Opposition Benches should admit that they were wrong. When the national minimum wage legislation passed through this House, they forecast that it would have a dramatic effect on employment and spell disaster for large areas of the economy of this country. The report of the Low Pay Commission, not the Government, manifestly demonstrates that that analysis was wrong. It well behoves politicians of all parties when they are wrong to say so.
Certainly, I am prepared to say that I was wrong in relation to the representations to the Government by these Benches about the regional impact of the national minimum wage. We were very concerned that to introduce an across-the-board rate for the minimum wage which applied equally to central London as to Cornwall would have distorting effects on the economies of those different regions. I am delighted that the Low Pay Commission's report demonstrates that our fears were unnecessary. I am particularly delighted by the indication in the report, which the Minister highlighted, that there have been significant regional increases in income as a result of the introduction of the minimum wage. There has been the regional disparity that we feared would not occur.
Having said that, perhaps I can ask the Minister to clarify one or two points. As he knows, and as is clear from these remarks, the Liberal Democrats have fundamentally supported the Government on the introduction of this long-needed provision. First, can I ask him to confirm—I suppose it is a statement of the obvious—that the movement of the minimum rate to £4.10, rising to £4.20, will not bring low-paid employees into the marginal tax rate problem that so bedevilled low-paid employees in the past? In other words, the marginal tax difference between being employed and not being employed was very dramatic
66
in relation to unemployment benefit as against low pay. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government have taken that matter on board.
Secondly, I would welcome some clarification on what will happen in October 2002. We can calculate that a £4.10 increase this year is a significant increase over and above the current rate. I enjoyed the reference of the noble Baroness to the pending general election and whether that might have something to do with the issue.
The Minister indicated that the rate will go up to £4.20 next year if economic circumstances permit. Perhaps he can help us on what those economic circumstances might be. An increase from £4.10 to £4.20 as a percentage is so de minimis that he cannot be contemplating that the increase to £4.20 will not happen. Therefore, is he actually saying that if economic circumstances remain buoyant, the rate will go above £4.20, or is he simply saying that the Treasury will never take the view that a year is short enough in politics to be able to give a definitive answer or a definitive commitment? I cannot see any possible prevailing economic circumstances under which £4.20 would not be a minimum appropriate figure if £4.10 is appropriate one year earlier. I would welcome the Minister's views on that matter.
My final point is one that again is consistent with the line that the Liberal Democrat Benches have taken on the Bill. We were very concerned to ensure that the Low Pay Commission stayed in place. The third report of the Low Pay Commission demonstrates the wisdom of having the commission, which in many ways takes the politics, or certainly the partisan politics, out of these issues. Can he confirm that the Low Pay Commission will remain in place and that we can look forward to many more reports from that body?
6.13 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I emphasise once again that this was a unanimous report from the Low Pay Commission. It has nothing to do with a general election. We received the report, and it seemed right, having taken a decision on the matter, that we should come to the public and this House and say how we were going to treat it. I am sure that if we had left it until after the general election the noble Baroness would, as usual, have said, "Well, of course you were concealing it during the course of the general election so people didn't know the cost to industry". I am sure she will accept that it has nothing to do with a general election whatsoever.
The costs are quite clear. What the British Chamber of Commerce has in its figures is for it to say. All I need to say at this point is that there are no administrative costs involved in this issue at all. The only costs involved are the costs of paying a decent wage to people. We hope that the British Chamber of Commerce will at some point acknowledge that the national minimum wage figures in their Burden's Barometer are based on the draft regulations back in 1998 before the Government dropped certain administrative requirements. If it cares to correct that point, that would be very helpful.

67
Figures of £10 billion have been bandied about. May I emphasise once again that the total administrative costs are about £50 million? The rest is simply the cost of paying additional wages or giving additional holiday pay. If the other parties in this House want to say that they will roll back the national minimum wage or they will change the Working Time Directive, it is their prerogative to do so. But to confuse that with the administrative costs is constantly to try and make something of the administrative costs which is completely inappropriate.
I do not have the answer to what happens with regard to care homes, but I shall write to the noble Baroness to let her know about that particular situation. In answer to a question about the jobs of people who house-sit people's homes for them while they are away, we discussed such subjects when we introduced the national minimum wage. It was said then that all kinds of jobs would disappear. That has not proved to be the case.
So far as concerns this Government's record on unemployment in the past three years compared with the last three years of the previous government, again I do not have the figures. However, I shall be very happy to write to the noble Baroness, but I do not believe that they are totally relevant. The argument always was that there would be a sharp rise in unemployment because the national minimum wage existed. The Low Pay Commission has made it very clear that that has not happened.
I do not have the answer to the question on the marginal tax rate and how this minimum wage impacts on it. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, on that matter. I agree with him that it is very unlikely that there will be circumstances in which we might not want to go ahead with the £4.20 rate. But it seems right, in giving industry warning of this increase, also to be cautious and prudent and to say that if there are economic changes, it will be looked at again.
I can confirm that the Low Pay Commission will stay in place. Its latest report is a further example of how extremely valuable it is to have an independent body. It has done a great deal of work on this matter and has produced an excellent and very fair report.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this welcome announcement demonstrates that the regular reporting from the Low Pay Commission—a consensus body with representatives of trade unions and employers—has stood the test of time? Although this announcement is not timed to do with any general election, nevertheless, it has been a notable achievement of the Government to get the rate up to £4.00. That was, I remember, at one stage, thought to be a far-fetched campaigning objective of the trade union movement.
Does my noble friend also agree that it is particularly welcome that the emphasis is consistent with the idea that opportunities at work are relevant and a key to dealing with the problem of endemic
68
poverty, both in particular regions of the country and among those under-privileged sections of society and people who have normally taken the most low paid and menial jobs?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the Low Pay Commission has done a remarkably good job. It has looked at issues that are always of great concern to government; for example, whether it would lead to a rise in unemployment or bear heavily on particular industries with low wages and therefore create unemployment. The Low Pay Commission has done that in a very detailed and fair way and its advice has been extremely helpful.
As the Secretary of State made clear in the Statement, it is fundamental to make work pay for people because that is the best way to deal with poverty. It is important, therefore, that the national minimum wage is not seen as a one-off increase, which is then allowed to wither away. It should be kept in line with the growth in earnings.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for having missed the first part of his Statement: my desk, I am afraid, is in the rather far-flung territory of Abbey Gardens. However, I am reasonably confident that he has not dealt with the point I wished to put to him, as it is an example of where the right and left hands of government are not working entirely well together.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, the Inland Revenue runs a simplified deduction scheme for employers with one or two employees, but it is available only if they pay less than £160 a week to an employee. This figure is wholly out of date and becoming more so with every movement in the minimum wage; and indeed it has been out of date for some time for those who wish to pay rather more above this level. Will the Minister look at this figure to see whether he can lift the burden of filling in a number of forms which are more appropriate to a supermarket than to small employees in the economy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would be very happy indeed to look at this matter. It has been our intention throughout to minimise problems of administrative work. We will certainly look at the situation.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, having represented low-paid workers for 30 years, I welcome the Government's decision to increase the national minimum wage. However, I am a little disappointed that Her Majesty's Opposition have not also warmly welcomed this development. I think that they should acknowledge today that their prophesies of doom, which they made when the minimum wage was introduced, have not been realised.
The Opposition have asked what will be the economic effect of the increase. We are talking about raising the standards of the most vulnerable workers in this country, who represent 1.3 million out of a labour

69
force of up to 28 million. Seventy per cent of them are women and two-thirds are part-time workers. It would be incredible even to think that by increasing the wages of low-paid workers economic disaster will follow. That reminds me of a point in the 19th century when it was said that if we did not take children out of the mines and the mills there would be economic disaster in this country. It did not occur then, and it will not occur today.
I am well aware that on 1st December 1994 in another place, when the issue of the minimum wage was raised, the right honourable Michael Portillo stated:
"Attempts to increase wages through legislation do not work".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/94; col.1366.]
When I worked on wages councils, low-paid workers benefited tremendously, and I think that the Opposition should support this development.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that that question was directed at me, but I should like to say that it will represent 0.14 per cent of the total wage bill, and the impact on inflation will be very small.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a national minimum wage is not the same as a national minimum standard of living? We are all in favour of a national minimum standard of living, even if actors, hill farmers and many other self-employed people do not achieve that at present. A national minimum standard of living is a desirable objective, but can it be achieved other than by compelling employers to pay certain employees more than what their output is worth to the employer, thereby leading inevitably to their speedy unemployment?
Finally—and this is a different point from that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—what about the preposterously low maximum set-off for accommodation that is provided free by the employer to the employee? At present, that allowance equates to only one-fifth over the country as a whole of the cost to the employer of providing accommodation, perhaps one-quarter in rural areas and up to one-eighth in London. Are there any plans to raise that set-off to a more realistic level?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have been working towards a national minimum standard, and the working families' tax credit is part of that strategy. It is equally important that work should pay in the context of the wages that people receive. There is an interesting relationship: if there is no national minimum wage but the working families' tax credit, then it is likely that wages will not respond as they should do. Both have to form part of a national minimum standard.
I should like to emphasise again that this unanimous report clearly states that it has not led to speedy unemployment, as some people predicted. We have seen a rapid increase in employment, and those fears were unfounded.
70
The accommodation point is exactly the kind of issue that the Low Pay Commission is reviewing.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the emphasis placed on the position of women. The introduction of a national minimum wage for low-paid women has always been a priority. When I was on the EOC we expressed continued concern about the ghettos of women's employment. Women were nearly always underpaid, and it became increasingly difficult to do anything about it. As my noble friend rightly says, the minimum national wage is as much of an advance for low-paid women as the original Equal Pay Act.
I am not happy, however, about possible exceptions. The issue of care homes has already been raised. I should like to see the employees in these homes also paid the national minimum wage. Standards in some of these homes have been criticised, but if people are paid at substandard rates, that will contribute to a low level of care, something to which we should all be opposed.
Nevertheless, this is a remarkable step forward, and I am obliged to the Low Pay Commission. which has done a marvellous job. I am very grateful that we now have at least a reasonable standard for very low-paid people.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I had not understood that an exception was being sought for people employed in care homes but that it was a right hand/left hand government issue about whether the care homes would be compensated and how that would be treated. On that basis, I had intended to obtain further information.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I urge the Minister urgently to remit to the Low Pay Commission the issue of the value of accommodation and the point raised by my noble friend Lady Miller about house sitters. It is my understanding that previously they were not classified as workers, and therefore there was no obligation to pay them the minimum wage, but the change has put the whole little industry in doubt.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I know, that has not been changed. I shall certainly look into the matter to see whether it has been changed and house sitters are now classified as workers. However, as far as I know, that is not part of the Statement today.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I wish to refer to a matter that arises out of the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. Is there a problem in the Government's eyes with avoidance? I have in mind particularly the possibility that those who are in reality employees may be told that they have to become independent contractors and that what they receive under their contracts will be less than the minimum wage.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I know, there is no general problem of avoidance. In

71
fact, the extent to which industry has conformed to the national minimum wage is remarkable. It has done so almost always before the actual legislation has come forward. As far as I know, there has been no major attempt at avoidance.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, who could not be pleased to hear the Minister's announcement? After all, there are 1.5 million beneficiaries, the majority of whom are women. There are also the regional benefits, to which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, referred. I have one question for my noble friend the Minister. He may have covered the point but I did not catch it. What is the position of young workers—those aged 18 to 21, those aged 16 to 18 and those on the magnificent New Deal, with which Labour has been so successful?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are dealing with the first part of the report of the Low Pay Commission. Volume 2 of the report is expected in May. That will cover the whole question of the rate for young workers and any other regulatory changes that are felt appropriate.

Vehicles (Crime) Bill
6.32 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Requirement of registration for motor salvage operators]:
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, after "vehicles" insert "or any trailer or caravan".
The noble Viscount said: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. It is my intention to be very brief because I raised the subject matter of this amendment at Second Reading, as did the noble Baroness.
While it is right and proper to deal with the illegal acquisition and disposal of motor vehicles and their parts, there is a very lucrative trade in trailers and caravans and, as I said at Second Reading, some of the component parts of these trailers are very expensive and sophisticated. Consequently, I think that both trailers and caravans should added to the general description of motor vehicles.
Before coming to your Lordships' House this morning, I happened to watch a small portion of "Crimewatch Daily", a fairly new television programme concentrating on various criminal
72
offences. In today's episode, there was a haulage contractor who had had one of his extremely valuable trailers stolen. The director being interviewed acknowledged that the value was substantial and that the very large trailer could be dismantled in two to three hours by those who stole the trailer. This is a perfect example of the scenario which my amendment seeks to address. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I put my name to the amendment on the basis that this is a vehicle crime Bill. However, from my reading of it, the Bill appears to concentrate on the theft of motor cars. Motor cycles and trailers are not properly covered, a point to which I shall return later. I support the noble Viscount.
Viscount Astor: I am rather worried about the amendment. I quite understand the concern of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about large trailers that are pulled by large trucks and are worth large sums of money. They are valuable and if they are stolen it is a considerable problem. However, I do not believe that the provision should be extended to any trailer or caravan, as suggested by the amendment.
I have a trailer at home that I use to take rubbish to the local council tip. If someone offered me £20 for it, I would probably sell it on the spot. It is worth nothing.
Viscount Simon: In the noble Viscount's example, the trailer is not being stolen. He is offering it for sale.
Viscount Astor: But if such trailers were included in the Bill, all the rules and regulations under Clause 1(2) would apply. It is patently silly for such trailers to be included in the Bill. It is patently silly that old caravans should be included. They do not have identifiable numbers. How would you know where one has come from? I imagine that large trailers pulled by trucks have on them the maker's number, but that is probably not a nationally recognised number. The trailer may have been made in this country or it may have been made on the Continent, whether inside or outside the EU. While I sympathise with the noble Viscount about large trucks, to extend the Bill in the way suggested would be wrong and would not make sense.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cope raised the issue of number plates on caravans and trailers which the Minister did not address when he replied to the debate. I ask him to address it today, as we are discussing trailers. As we know, number plates fall off the back of trailers. If Members of the Committee are as bad as I am at backing up their trailer, they will usually back it into something and one of the letters of the number plate will fall off. Trailers need lights, indicators and a legible number plate.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cope was concerned that there should be no restriction on number plates so that if one owned a trailer one could go into a garage or shop selling number plates and buy a number plate for one's trailer. One would not want to be in the position of being unable to use the trailer. The Minister did not address that point. It would be

73
helpful if he could use this opportunity to do so. However, I cannot support the amendment as what it proposes goes far too wide.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 1 would bring trailers and caravans within the scope of Part I of the Bill. Part I is primarily concerned with preventing ringing, where the identity of a stolen vehicle is disguised with that of a written-off vehicle and an insurance fraud takes place. We have had representations from the police to suggest that there are serious problems, but they are ones which mainly apply to motor vehicles. We have not had the same representations from the police to suggest that the same problem applies to trailers and caravans.
As Members of the Committee will know, this part of the Bill introduces regulations. We feel that the regulations are more than adequate to tackle the problem of ringing and insurance fraud. However, we do not wish to impose an undue burden on business by widening the scope of the Bill to areas where, frankly, there does not appear to be a problem, or certainly not a problem of a significant size or order. We have not consulted the police or industry about the inclusion of trailers and caravans and we would not wish to introduce regulations until we had undertaken a full consultation exercise.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about number plates on trailers. I apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord Whitty did not cover the point at Second Reading. What I can say to the noble Viscount is that legislation on motor vehicles as regards the regulations will also apply to trailers. I recognise that this may disappoint the noble Viscount, but that is how the legislation will work.
Viscount Astor: I rise to speak briefly in order to enable the Minister to gather a little more information. It would be helpful if he could explain what would happen if I had a trailer which needed a new number plate. What steps would I have to take? Would I need to show the registration documents relating to my car? How is this to work?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that I can answer that point. Primary legislation is already in place to enable registration to extend to trailers. In this Bill we shall make some adjustments to ensure that the new provisions regarding vehicle registration plates can be extended to trailer registration plates. That probably means that the noble Viscount might well have to follow procedures similar to those followed in regard to motor vehicles.
I should like to reflect on the point put by the noble Viscount. I am not sure that I have been able to provide him with an adequate response this evening. Perhaps he will allow me to take the point away and return at a later stage.
Viscount Simon: Unlike the Minister, who said that he had not consulted the police, I have consulted the police. It was on their advice that I have put forward
74
the proposal that trailers should be included. Furthermore, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that caravans should be included here.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that no identification numbers are used on the component parts. A considerable number of large trailers now have microscopic identity numbers painted on to various component parts, along the lines of a VIN number. If they are retrieved, they can be identified as having come from a certain truck. The noble Viscount also said that his £20 trailer is fairly irrelevant. However, how does one separate small trailers from large trailers? The law cannot cover one type of trailer, but ignore other types. Furthermore, for a number of people, if even a small trailer towed on the back of their car was stolen, they would be very unhappy, as would the owners of caravans.
I thank my noble friend for his response. I shall study what he has said and I hope that we shall be able to have further discussions to see whether this matter should be pursued at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Registers of motor salvage operators]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) The register shall be in such form as any requirements may prescribe."
The noble Viscount said: This short and simple amendment seeks to remove the local authority's discretion to add to the contents of the register for its area. The register will therefore be produced in a centrally prescribed format. We believe this to be important in order to prevent over-zealous local authorities from increasing the burdens on small businesses. Furthermore, it will avoid confusion in the interchange of data between local authorities and other agencies, including the police and central government.
This will be an entirely new area of regulation. It seems sensible to provide that, throughout the country, the same rules will be applied. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The effect of this amendment would be to impose a common format for the register for all local authorities. We do not think that that will be necessary. Local authorities keep many records and it may be that they would like to make this register consistent with others so that they will be easily recognised and understood by their employees. In addition, they may be able to make use of information being kept for other purposes and include a reference to that in the register, rather than repeating the content.
It is true that we may feel that it would be useful for all local authorities to keep some parts of the register in the same format, in particular if those parts contain information which would be shared with other agencies. That is why we have included a provision to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe certain

75
requirements. We shall discuss the format of the registers with local authorities and, in conjunction with the Local Government Association, we shall provide joint guidance. We feel that this will help to ensure that the format of the registers will not vary widely between local authorities.
I hope that this meets the intention behind the noble Viscount's amendment and that he will feel able to withdraw it. We have in place provisions to enable us to get to grips with any variations that might otherwise occur.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I shall consider carefully what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out line 34 and insert—
"fees as are necessary to recover the costs of inspection only"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 3, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7, 34, 36 and 37. All these amendments relate to fees and what is "reasonable". We all know that what is reasonable for one person might not be reasonable for another. Amendment No. 3 seeks to tighten the legislation here by stating:
"fees as are necessary to recover the costs of inspection only".
Unless such a form of words is included, the opportunity for other costs to be added would be too great. All of us know that in these stringent times, local authorities tend to charge what they can. What they regard as "reasonable" may on occasion be what will satisfy their budgets. The amendment seeks to introduce an element of transparency which is not present in the Bill. Amendment No. 4 seeks to achieve the same end in subsection (10).
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 introduce the same form of tightening of the language in Clause 3(1)(b) and (2)(a) by introducing where relevant the words,
"necessary to recover the costs of processing … the application".
Similar to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, these amendments seek to ring-fence the fees so that they remain reasonable.
Amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 37 relate to Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill concerning the imposition of requirements as regards registration plates. Again, the amendments seek to narrow down the definition to ensure that the costs recovered relate only to the request.
All the amendments pursue the general principle of ensuring that charges are restricted to cover exactly what they are supposed to cover and are not extended to other areas. Furthermore, they should remain "reasonable" and reflect the amount of work undertaken. We believe that the test of reasonableness is not merely to state that aim, but to define much more clearly what the charges will be for. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have much sympathy with my noble friend's amendments. I cannot add anything to what my noble friend has said. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would require the local authority to charge for inspection and copies of the register, but only a sum equivalent to the cost of meeting the request for inspection or copies. The fee could not be less, nor could it be waived, and the amendments would remove all flexibility—perhaps an unintended consequence of the noble Viscount's desire for transparency.
Clause 2 as drafted provides that the fee, if charged, cannot be set at a level higher than would be "reasonable". The ultra vires rule prevents government from raising more than costs through fees. In practice, the clause will allow the local authority the flexibility to vary or waive fees according to the circumstances of the applicant and its own circumstances.
Amendment No. 6 would require the local authority to charge for registration the amount necessary, if any, to recover the costs of processing applications only. No recovery of the costs of reviewing or cancelling registrations would be made, which could leave the authority severely out of pocket.
Amendment No. 7 would have the effect of requiring the authority to set any charge at the level necessary to recover the costs of cancelling registrations and maintaining the register. Clause 3 as drafted provides that the fee cannot be more than the "reasonable" costs incurred for administering the registration scheme, but could be less. It therefore creates greater flexibility and is more appropriate than either Amendment No. 6 or Amendment No. 7.
Amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 37 would have a similar effect on Clauses 18 and 19, which relate to number plate suppliers. As they stand, the clauses allow the Secretary of State to prescribe a fee for the disclosure of information from the register and the registration of a supplier. The level set must cover the cost of the request or application. However, the clauses do not make it mandatory that a fee must be charged. A power to charge a fee does not provide the Secretary of State with the power to trade—a very important point upon which the noble Viscount may care to reflect. Therefore it would be ultra vires to charge a fee which exceeds the cost of administering the request or application. This means that the prescribed fee will be set at a level to recover reasonable administrative costs only. It can go no further.
Although no detailed calculations have yet been made on the level of the registration fee, it is anticipated that the costs of registration may differ according to the size of the business. For example, a national chain store with multiple retail outlets necessarily would have a larger and more complex entry on the register than a small business operating from a single outlet. Further consultation with the industry is needed before making final decisions. We

77
take the view that it would be a mistake to remove the flexibility afforded by the fee-charging power in advance of those consultations.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 are not necessary as the clauses already allow the Secretary of State to prescribe a fee to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the administration of this part of the Bill. For the reasons already stated, Amendment No. 37 is not necessary and subsection (2) should stand to require the payment of the prescribed fee at the time of registration. With those explanations, I trust that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Viscount Astor: The Minister's answers were helpful, particularly in regard to the latter amendments, and have put my mind at rest. I shall of course study carefully what he said. I noted with interest that he said my amendments would prevent local authorities from charging less. The chances of a local authority charging less are pretty remote; I doubt whether the flexibility goes that way. It may be, of course, that, in his experience of local government, the Minister found that authorities did charge less for certain services. I thank the Minister for responding to the amendments; I shall study his reply carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Applications for registration and renewal of registration]:
Viscount Astor moved Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 44, after "prescribed;" insert—
"( ) shall be accompanied by a notification of the outcome of any application for registration by that person in that particular area, or in any other area of a local authority, in the preceding six years;"
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 5 is a probing amendment which deals with applications for registration and renewal of registration. It is designed to ensure that a person seeking registration provides the local authority with the outcome of any previous application.
As I understand it, Clause 10 provides sanctions for the making of false statements but, at the moment, without seeing the prescribed form, we do not know whether applicants will be required to provide information of previous applications. It may be that my amendment is unnecessary but, until we receive some indication or confirmation from the Government of what applicants will be asked, the situation is unclear. The six-year period was chosen to cover two three-year periods. I should be grateful for an explanation, which may put my mind at rest. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 5 would require applications for registration to be accompanied by notification of the outcome of any earlier such applications over the previous six years. In our view, it is unnecessary for the Bill to be amended
78
in this way; it would make for inflexibility if that were the case. The noble Viscount has assured the Committee that this is a probing amendment and I am sure that he is not trying to inflict inflexibility upon us. Clause 3(1)(a) already provides for applications to be made in accordance with any such requirements that may be prescribed.
I am happy to confirm that there will be full consultation over the content of any regulations before they are made. We are more than happy to take on board the noble Viscount's point. Matters of detail such as those to which he has drawn attention in moving the amendment will be addressed at that point. We shall pick up the issue and I am confident that we can bring forward suggestions to cover his understandable concern.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The Minister mentioned a period of six years. If it is a new registration, how can evidence from six years back be given when it has not even started?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is not my amendment; it is the noble Viscount's amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord should ask his noble friend that question.
Viscount Astor: Perish the thought that I should answer. I shall leave the answers to the Government. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 9, after "area" insert—
"( ) notify the police and receive any representations that they may have occasion to make; and"
The noble Baroness said: At Second Reading, I referred to some of our worries in regard to increasing the regulatory burden. I also explained that because of the rising tide of vehicle crime we were happy to accept some degree of regulation in the Bill. However, I am worried that, while bringing in a new regulatory regime and the associated bureaucracy, Part I of the Bill is rather weak in some respects. We may end up with the worst of both worlds; that is, some new regulation, but regulation which is not tough enough to do the job. It is against that background that I have tabled a number of amendments to Part I of the Bill and put my name to others.
As it stands, Clause 3 simply requires the local authority to create and keep a register. It makes a presumption quite rightly that an applicant will be registered unless the local authority decides that he or she is not a fit and proper person. However, it is not at all clear from the Bill how the local authority is to arrive at that judgment. While I am usually in favour of a high degree of local autonomy, I am rather concerned that in this case there ought to be

79
consistency right across the country. In that regard I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
It is also important that information is available across local authority boundaries. It strikes me that police records are probably the best way to achieve that. My Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 14 which follows on from it, seek to strengthen the Bill by ensuring that when a local authority is compiling the register it will notify the police of any applications it has received and will also take note of any comments the police have made on an applicant.
I am sure that it usually is the case that local authorities and local police work closely together and would consult. However, I should be happier in this case to see something on the face of the Bill. That approach would be entirely consistent with other kinds of local authority registers where it is common to conduct police checks before someone is placed on a register. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: On behalf of the motor cycle industry, I support my noble friend Lady Scott. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned caravans and trailers. However, under the Bill as drafted motor cycles in particular have been somewhat diminished in importance. Some criminals make a good living from stealing motor cycles. I declare an interest in that I was for 10 years the chairman of the MotorCycle Industry Theft Action Group. Over that period we have seen the rise and fall of the statistics of motor cycle theft. At the moment they are rising. We have not only the traditional kinds of motor cycles which are so popular in this country—sports bikes mainly—but we also now have many scooters and small machines which are popular as a means of commuting.
Recently criminals have had a field day with the smaller vehicles due to their owners' ignorance of the necessity properly to protect them. The police, and in particular the Metropolitan Police stolen vehicles squad, with whom I have had a close association over the years, have done a great deal of detailed and important work in this whole area. They have liaised with local police vehicle squads and also with Interpol.
As criminals make such a good living from stealing motor bikes and are relatively immune from prosecution because of the technicalities involved, they are anxious to keep ahead of the game. They do so in a sophisticated manner, even to the point of infiltrating companies developing new technology.
I support the point made by my noble friend Lady Scott; namely, that local authorities may not be aware—as, indeed, many motor cyclists are not aware—of the important work that the police have done and the amount of technology that has been brought to bear in this area. The help of the police will be invaluable to local authorities when they are making these decisions. I support absolutely what my noble friend has said. It is vitally important that local
80
authorities take note of the expertise which has been built up by the police and that that should be recognised on the face of the Bill.
Viscount Astor: I make one brief point. There is, of course, a major difference between a motor cycle and a trailer in that a motor cycle has number plates and it is licensed. The point that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made about motor cycles deserves careful consideration on the part of the Government. However, it is an entirely different matter from trailers which are not licensed and do not have number plates.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I may be entirely wrong but having listened to the Private Security Industry Bill from another place from where I am standing at the moment there seemed to be some relationship between the police and local authorities in that Bill. I wonder whether that could be reflected in this Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his persistent representations on behalf of the leather-clad variant of commuting transport. He is certainly to be congratulated on the imaginative way in which he always introduces these matters at important stages of legislative consideration.
I pick up a point that is not immediately obvious; namely, that since the passing of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 there has been much closer cooperation at a local level between the police and local authorities. They work closely together. This legislation in part is designed to encourage that and to ensure that we have a war of attrition against vehicle crime. That is the background to the situation.
Amendment No. 8 as drafted reduces the flexibility of the Bill. It would require a local authority to notify the police of all applications for registration and renewal of registration of motor salvage operators. When considering applications we would expect local authorities to consult the police as a matter of routine as stakeholders, as it were, in the exercise of rooting out criminality in this area. It is our intention to have discussions with the Local Government Association so that we can include this measure in jointly agreed guidance on implementing the provisions of the Bill. As we see it, there is no justification for a statutory requirement.
Amendment No. 14 is not needed. It is not necessary to specify who should make representations. The local authority can receive representations from the police under the clause as it presently stands. Therefore, I think that the point is already covered. As we see it, there is no need to make further provision in that respect.
In response to another point which I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised, I can tell him that motor cycles are covered under the definition of a motor vehicle under Clause 16(1). I think that that is probably understood. NCIS has a large project designed to tackle motor cycle crime which is an indication of how seriously we in the Government take the issue of motor cycle crime in general. In response

81
to the point about the content of regulations, we shall be happy to place the regulations in draft on the Internet. We shall consult fully with businesses and other stakeholders. We shall be delighted to receive comments and in particular comments from the important lobby which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, represents.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am a little disappointed but not surprised. It seems to me that if local authorities are to consult the police as a matter of routine, it would not do any harm to make that clear on the face of the Bill. However, I shall not press the point this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 14, after "applicant" insert ", or any person employed by him in the business or associated with him in the conduct of the business,"
The noble Baroness said: In line with my earlier comments about strengthening Part 1 of the Bill, I have tabled Amendments Nos. 9 and 11. I refer to a situation where some kind of conviction might lead a local authority not to register an applicant. I believe that at the moment someone in that position could use an associate to make the application on his or her behalf. It is a case of people being "rung" rather than vehicles. I seek to prevent that.
My Amendment No. 13, which is grouped with the amendments to which I speak, seeks to ensure that particular categories of offence will be considered a bar to registration. The term "fit and proper" on the face of the Bill is rather vague and ill-defined. I understand that it will be left to the Secretary of State to define at a future date. I would prefer to be a little more specific on the face of the Bill and include a provision for people associated with an applicant to be included in the measure. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: I support the general tone of Amendments Nos. 9 to 13. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, and Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, are very different. It is good to note that the Opposition parties cannot agree on the right wording. It is important to make the category of an applicant and any person employed as wide as possible to assist local authorities in their discussions with the police.
Should reference to work on motor vehicles, including bicycles, include the parts? It is important to include the parts in the definition. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, refers to "parts" in the second but not the first part of Amendment No. 13. I am not sure why. My noble friend will no doubt explain that the provision is unnecessary or the matter is covered elsewhere. However, it is important to make the powers as wide as possible to assist local authorities in their tasks.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord said that it was surprising to have two such different amendments put
82
forward by the Opposition. What is surprising is that the amendments have been grouped together; they are somewhat different provisions.
The issue was discussed in great detail in the Commons Standing Committee. No doubt the Minister has studied the debate carefully. It will not help us to repeat the arguments. We are talking about the best way to achieve the principle underlying the amendments. The central point of our amendment is that the Bill allows employers to evade the new law by employing unsuitable people even though the employers may be judged suitable for registration by the authority. The Government need to take account of the issue.
During debates in Standing Committee, the Government did not satisfy our concerns. I am sure that the Minister has considered the issue during the passage of the Bill to this House. I look forward to the noble Lord's response.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, accepting this group of amendments would mean that local authorities would have to determine not only whether directors of companies or members of limited liability partnerships were fit and proper to operate in the motor salvage industry but also all their employees and business associates—an extensive exercise which we feel would be an almost impossible administrative task. If a fit and proper test had to be carried out on all employees and associates, it would create a huge burden on local authorities and businesses. For instance, what would happen when employees leave a company and new people start? Would it mean that local authorities would continually update their information?
We believe that it is necessary for directors of motor salvage companies and members of motor salvage limited liability partnerships to have a "fit and proper" test. There is evidence of criminal activity within this industry. That is why local authorities with local knowledge will set standards for the industry by operating a "fit and proper" test. But directors are responsible for the companies within their industry and not their employees or associates. The same applies to members of limited liability partnerships. The effect of the amendments would be to add criteria to which the local authority must have regard when applying the "fit and proper" test when deciding whether to register an applicant. We do not feel that this is necessary. Local authorities will not be operating alone when deciding whether someone is fit and proper. More importantly, we shall be developing joint guidance with the Local Government Association to help local authorities to decide what should be taken into account before registering an applicant.
Under normal administrative law principles they should already take into account all relevant offences and matters, whether or not expressly specified in the Bill. In addition, if during the consultation period following its enactment, it is decided that some particular offences should be taken into account in every case—that is, it is decided that they will always

83
be relevant for the "fit and proper test"—we have the power to do so through regulations by virtue of Clause 3(4)(b).
We do not feel that it is essential. We believe that the burden would be administratively excessive. In any event, it is possible for us to add specific offences at a later stage through regulation.
Viscount Astor: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do in relation to Amendment No. 9, perhaps I may respond briefly on Amendment No. 10. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. I shall study carefully what he said. I shall not move my amendments in this group.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: The purpose of the amendment was not to impose on local authorities the burden of having to check every employee, down to the person who makes the tea. If a local authority has information about one of the employees, my amendment seeks to provide that it should be able to take that into account when applying the "fit and proper" test.
The Minister has not accepted my other amendments. The amendments would be important with regard to working more closely with the police. If the police were aware that employees of a company had a record for vehicle theft, the local authority would then be able to take that into account. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Cancellation of registration]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 36, leave out "28 days" and insert "56 days without good cause or reason"
The noble Lord said: Clause 4 relates to the cancellation by a local authority of a person's registration. That can occur if a person has not carried on business for 28 days. That seemed a rather short period. A person involved in such a business might be ill and away for a month. Business may be slack; he may not have been active in business for 28 days. To have his registration cancelled automatically at that time seems harsh. The amendment proposes:
"56 days without good cause or reason".
Sometimes there will be a good reason, in which case the local authority does not need to cancel the registration.
It is suggested that we should discuss Amendment No. 40 with this amendment. On page 12 of the Bill there is a similar provision with respect to registration
84
plate suppliers. Again, after 28 days the registration is to be cancelled. There is no magic in 56 days but 28 days seems to us somewhat short. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I put my name to Amendment No. 40, although I also agree with many of the sentiments expressed about motor salvage. I was particularly concerned about the short period of 28 days for those issuing registration plates. Apart from the fact that that period could easily be accounted for by holidays or sickness, in rural areas it is entirely possible that a garage may not issue a registration plate over 28 days.
To show that our contacts on these Benches extend beyond those wearing leather, I have also had discussions with the caravaning fraternity, who tell me that during the quiet winter months many outlets do not sell a caravan and therefore fall outside the 28 days for supplying a registration plate. If they lost their registration, someone who bought a caravan the following month and wanted to register it might have to go a long distance to do so.
I do not understand why such a short period has been specified, how it will work in practice or what bureaucracy will be required to chase up the issue. Will people be sent a 15-page form on day 29 that they then have to fill in? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to understand the issue better.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I, too, support the amendments, mainly for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Caravans are very seasonal and cars are not sold all year round in rural areas, unlike in towns. There could be long periods when someone in the north of Scotland, for example, is not producing any number plates because nobody is buying any cars.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 4 provides that a local authority may cancel a registration if it is satisfied that a business has ceased trading as a motor salvage operator for at least 28 days. Amendment No. 15 would extend that period to 56 days. Clause 21 has a similar effect for number plate suppliers and allows the Secretary of State to cancel a registration if he is satisfied that the business has ceased trading as a number plate supplier for at least 28 days. Amendment No. 40 would extend that period to 56 days.
We consider 28 days to be a sufficient period. This is not a punitive measure. I do not understand where that view comes from. It is only a means of ensuring that the register is kept up to date. The provision is permissive. That is another important consideration. If a person had good reason for not trading for 28 days, the local authority or the Secretary of State would be likely to take that into account and would not exercise the power of cancellation. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the business has ceased to trade. Before cancelling the registration, the Secretary of State must also serve notice on the person concerned and give him the opportunity to make representations. That will guard against cancellations based on misinformation.

85
As an additional safeguard, there is an appeal procedure under Clauses 6 and 23. In most cases, the Secretary of State or the local authority will learn of a cessation of business from the suppliers themselves. Suppliers are required to give notice of a cessation of business under Clauses 11 and 27. Furthermore, the use of 28 days is entirely consistent with the period for notification in Clauses 11 and 27.
Having heard those observations, the noble Lord ought to feel confident in withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I appreciate that there are some relieving provisions, if I can so describe them. The measure is permissive and there is an appeal mechanism. I am not sure that the Government have justified the choice of 28 days. That seems a short period, particularly for registration plate suppliers. However, I am not prepared to press the issue at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Right to make representations]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 16, leave out "14" and insert "28 days nor more than 42"
The noble Lord said: It will be sensible to consider Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 with this amendment. They all relate to what happens when a local authority refuses to grant someone a licence. It has to serve a notice saying that it is not going to grant the licence and giving its reasons. It then has to give the individual concerned time to make representations before the final decision is taken. I have summarised the provisions, but I think that that is broadly accurate.
The Bill provides 14 days for a person to make representations in favour of being given a licence. Amendment No. 16 would change that to not less than 28 days from the day on which the notice is served.
Amendment No. 17 concerns a slightly later stage in the process, when the local authority has to allow what is vaguely described as "a reasonable period" for representations. We have tried to tighten up the timetable by specifying the same period as in Amendment No. 16—not less than 28 days and not more than 42. If the local authority subsequently proceeds with its proposed refusal or cancellation, it must serve a notice on the person concerned informing him of its decision.
The local authority should not have an infinite time to make up its mind. This is quite late in the process, after the representations have already gone backwards and forwards several times. Amendment No. 18 would limit that period to seven days, to give the local authority a spur to make its decision promptly and put the chap out of his misery if it is going to insist on cancelling his registration.
Cancellation is particularly important, because it is an axe hanging over the chap's whole business. Cancelling his registration will put him out of business. It is slightly different from not granting registration in
86
the first place. In the case of a cancellation, the local authority will be closing down a continuing business. It should not be allowed to keep him hanging on too long while it makes its final decision.
Amendment No. 19 relates to how long someone whose registration has been refused or cancelled should have to appeal. The Bill suggests 21 days, which seems very short. We have proposed 28 days for representations, so we believe that the same period should be available in which to decide whether to appeal. There could be legal matters involved. The person concerned could need to take advice before deciding. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has summarised accurately the effects of Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 deals with refusals and cancellations. Clause 6 deals with appeals. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 aim to extend the period in which a motor salvage operator may make representations from 14 days to between 28 and 42 days. Amendment No. 18 aims to ensure that local authorities notify the salvage operator of their intent to continue with their decision to refuse or cancel registration as a motor salvage operator within seven days of their decision. Amendment No. 19 seeks to extend from 21 to 28 days the period within which an appeal may be brought to a magistrates' court against a refusal to register or renew registration or a decision to cancel registration.
With regard to the time limits set out in subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 5, we believe that 14 days is sufficient. It must be borne in mind that this is not a punitive measure but simply a means of ensuring that the register is kept up to date. However, if a representation is not made during that period, it is possible to make appeals under Clause 6.
The Government do not consider it necessary to impose a time-scale for service of notice of a decision to proceed with a proposed refusal or cancellation. We expect local authorities to be prompt with their decision and notification, and certainly we expect them to do so within a reasonable period of time. In addition, if notification is delayed, it must be taken into account that salvage operators will have a chance to appeal under Clause 6.
We consider that in all those circumstances 21 days is a reasonable period in which to bring an appeal. Before refusing or cancelling, a local authority is required under Clause 5 to serve notice of its intention on the person concerned and to allow him at least 14 days to indicate whether or not he wishes to make representations. If he indicates that he does, the authority must then allow him a reasonable period in which to do so.
In practice, at least 35 days will have elapsed between the notification of intention to refuse or cancel and the expiry of the period permitted for an appeal. In those circumstances, I believe that the time limits that we propose are entirely reasonable and

87
more or less in line with other similar processes and procedures. For those reasons, I trust that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I did not detect much in the way of argument in that reply; merely a statement that the Government consider that the time limits in the Bill are reasonable. However, that is the nature of the discussion on this matter. There is no way in which to decide objectively what is the right period of time. We shall reflect on what the Minister said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Appeals]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage should not begin again before 8.30 p.m. Perhaps I may also remind noble Lords who are to take part in the debate on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we have allocated the dinner hour for this debate—that is, one hour. It would be for the convenience of noble Lords who are to take part in the Vehicles (Crime) Bill if that debate could be concluded within the hour.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Chinook ZD 576
7.33 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to move to resolve, That, whilst recognising that the final decision will be a decision for the whole House, it is desirable that the Liaison Committee should consider the appointment of a Select Committee to consider all the circumstances surrounding the crash of Chinook helicopter ZD 576 on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for the apparent confusion about the wording of the Motion, which is of course as it appears on the Order Paper and not on the speakers' list. However, I hope that my intention is clear. In the words of the Companion, I am asking the House to agree to this resolution as a formal expression of the decision of the House that an ad hoc Select Committee should be set up without delay.
Perhaps I may begin by making clear at once that this Motion does not imply criticism of Ministers either of this Government or of their predecessors. The accident to which the Motion refers took place under a Conservative government. A succession of Ministers, both of that Government and of the present one, have dealt with it in a perfectly normal way on advice from their officials in the Ministry of Defence. Of course,
88
official advice to Ministers is normally a confidential matter. Incidentally, I would be the first to agree that service discipline should normally be a matter for the services alone. However, as will be obvious as this story unfolds, there is absolutely nothing normal about this sequence of events.
It began at approximately twenty minutes to six on the evening of 2nd June 1994 when Chinook helicopter ZD 576 took off from the Royal Air Force station at Aldergrove in Northern Ireland. The crew of the aircraft were two experienced special forces officers Flight-Lieutenant Tapper, the captain, and Flight-Lieutenant Cook, the co-pilot—and two Royal Air Force crewmen. There were 25 civilian and military passengers, most belonging to the Northern Ireland intelligence community. Their destination was Fort George in Scotland. However, at about 6 p.m. the helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre.
That is all that is known as fact because all four crew and all 25 passengers were killed, and the aircraft carried no accident data recorder or cockpit voice recorder—the items known popularly as black boxes. Therefore, anything else about the incident is speculation or subjective judgment, except one thing. There is one other fact which is of vital importance and which I ask your Lordships to bear in mind throughout this brief account. It is as follows. At the time of the accident, Royal Air Force regulations contained the following sentence:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent".
I repeat: "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
Incidentally, since the crash of that helicopter, that has been altered and boards of inquiry are no longer able to make any apportionment of blame. Noble Lords may regard that change in RAF regulations as significant.
On 3rd June, the following day, a Royal Air Force board of inquiry assembled to inquire into the accident by order of Air Vice Marshal Day, the Air Officer Commanding No. 1 Group—an officer who will figure prominently in this story. After examining more than 20 witnesses, the board of inquiry came to the conclusion that on the available evidence it would be incorrect to criticise either of the pilots for human failings.
That finding was, on the orders of Air Vice Marshal Day, reviewed by two senior RAF officers—the relevant station commanders at Odiham and Aldergrove. Group Captain Crawford at Odiham concluded that,
"in assessing human failings, the evidence is insufficient to be specific".
Group Captain Wedge at Aldergrove commented that,
"the exact train of events can never be determined with absolute certainty".
In other words, neither the board of inquiry nor the two senior reviewing officers was able to say that there was no doubt whatever about the causes of the accident.
However, when the proceedings reached Air Vice Marshal Day, he declined to accept the findings of the board of inquiry which he had convened. He remarked:
"It is incomprehensible why two trusted, experienced and skilled pilots should, as indicated by all the available evidence, have flown a serviceable aircraft into cloud covered high ground".
He made that remark at the beginning of his comments. Nevertheless, on the same evidence that was available to the original board of inquiry, he concluded that both Flight-Lieutenant Tapper and Flight-Lieutenant Cook were,
"negligent to a gross degree".
The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command, Sir William Wratten, agreed with Air Vice Marshal Day, although he began his summing up with another significant sentence. He said:
"Without the irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and a CVR—
in other words, the two black boxes—
"there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact".
To me, if language means anything at all, "a degree of speculation" implies an element of doubt.
Those conclusions were based on the subjective judgments that these two senior Royal Air Force officers were quite entitled to reach. In their position—they were reviewing the board of inquiry—they were entitled to reach those conclusions. However, subsequent developments suggest that there is a distinct possibility that they may have reached wrong conclusions, especially given the requirement that there should be absolutely no doubt whatever about the causes of the accident.
The first of those developments was the setting up in Scotland of a fatal accident inquiry in 1996 under the direction of Sir Stephen Young, an experienced Scottish judge. After taking 16 days of evidence and taking into account all the evidence that was available to the RAF board of inquiry, Sir Stephen dismissed the air marshals' findings and concluded that the cause of the accident could not be established.
Meanwhile, the families of the dead pilots had mounted a campaign to clear the pilots' names, and in April last year three senior members of the flight operations group of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Captains MacDonald, Hadlow and Kohn, compiled a detailed report—an independent report—on the crash. Those three experienced aviation experts, one of whom, incidentally, was a former service helicopter pilot, concluded that the case was,
"certainly not a case in which there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
They went on to say that this episode,
"must inevitably involve the jealously guarded honour of the armed forces".
That is a very serious statement.
In July last year, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, a former Lord Advocate, examined all of the evidence independently and concluded that the two air marshals may have misdirected themselves in overruling the
90
findings of the original board of inquiry and that in that case their verdict could not stand and should be revoked or at least suspended pending a reopened inquiry.
In November last year, the Public Accounts Committee, an influential all-party committee in the other place, published its 45th report. On the subject of the crash it concluded:
"We do not understand how, given the absence of the definitive information that black boxes could have provided, the Board of Inquiry and the Department can have no doubt whatsoever that crew negligence caused ZD 576 to crash".
Incidentally, the report went on to comment that the preferences of the Ministry of Defence for the results of its own proceedings over those of the fatal accident inquiry constituted "unwarrantable arrogance". The Ministry of Defence has not yet replied to that report.
Finally, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was Secretary of State for Defence at the time of the accident and who accepted the verdict of the air marshals, said recently that if he had known at the time what he knows now, he would never have accepted the verdict.
What is known now that was not known then? A great deal. There have been serious doubts about some of the computer software equipment on board the aircraft. I will not weary your Lordships with all of the technological details except to say those problems were serious enough to cause flight trials on the Mk II helicopter—the type involved in the crash—to be suspended on 1st June 1994, which was the day before the crash. Various other events have come to light since 1994, but this is neither the time nor place to catalogue them in detail. They will certainly emerge in evidence before any Select Committee that your Lordships may decide to set up. Meanwhile, throughout the whole of that period, numerous approaches have been made to the Ministry of Defence asking it to review the verdict of gross negligence in the light of all of the evidence, and either to set it aside or to reopen the inquiry. Every approach has been rejected, usually on the pretext that "there is no new evidence". All the evidence is already available—it is the interpretation of that evidence that is in question.
My aim today is to remind your Lordships once again—it may become boring but it is necessary to say this—of the requirement that is set out clearly in the RAF regulations at that time that deceased aircrew should not be found guilty of negligence unless there was no possible doubt whatever about the causes of an accident; and to point out that a number of distinguished and experienced people, including judges, aviation and computer experts, former Ministers and politicians of all parties have the gravest doubts. It seems to me that only two air marshals and their colleagues in the Ministry of Defence apparently have no doubt whatever, and it is on their subjective judgment that two outstanding special forces pilots have been found guilty of making a joint decision—the decision must have been made by both of the pilots—to risk their own lives and those of their passengers and have been deemed to be guilty of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, described in your

91
Lordships' House on 2nd June 1998 as the exact equivalent to manslaughter—and that without any legal representation and no right of appeal.
It is for that reason that I seek the establishment by the Liaison Committee of this House of an ad hoc Select Committee. Of course, if the Minister, when she replies, would undertake on behalf of the Ministry of Defence to reopen the inquiry, I would at once withdraw my Motion. If, however, she cannot do so, I shall not be surprised. I should have much sympathy with her because she will be speaking from the same official brief that has been provided to every Minister, including the Prime Minister, who has had to answer questions on this matter.
For my part, I can give the following undertaking. If a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, having examined all the evidence, concludes that the verdict of the air marshals is fair and just, that will be the end of the matter so far as I and the families of the pilots are concerned. I have their permission to say that. On the other hand, if the Select Committee that is set up finds that the verdict was unsafe and unsound, we expect the air marshals and the Ministry of Defence to accept that decision. That would be no reflection on the integrity or professional reputation of any of the RAF officers concerned. Anyone can make a mistake in all sincerity and with the best intentions.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, I inform your Lordships that when I respond to the debate on behalf of the Government, I shall make it clear that I shall not ask your Lordships to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that intervention. It may avoid the need for a good deal of detailed argument. I find that a very constructive step forward.
Moved to resolve, That, whilst recognising that the final decision will be a decision for the whole House, it is desirable that the Liaison Committee should consider the appointment of a Select Committee to consider all the circumstances surrounding the crash of Chinook helicopter ZD 576 on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.—(Lord Chalfont.)
7.48 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whose persistence and tenacity in pursuing this matter deserve to pay off. In view of the Minister's intervention, it seems that it has done so. I am sure that all who have an interest in it are extremely grateful to the Minister for her comments.
Like all noble Lords who have followed this matter, I have studied the speeches, debates and ministerial answers in both Houses and the reports and press comment. That has left me with a profound sense of unease. I understand the position that the Minister
92
adopted in previous replies to debates of this nature and that adopted by the distinguished Air Marshals, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day.
The two pilots, who were self-authorised—that is, cleared to determine their own flight route—were flying at an extremely low level under visual flight rules which required them to keep in sight of the surface. They chose to fly towards the Mull of Kintyre, where they knew that the weather conditions were bad, and they went straight towards high terrain. Only at the last minute did they appear to climb slowly, turning away right at the end, just before the crash.
That really is quite extraordinary. I find it so extraordinary that it really is hard to believe. There must be some explanation for it. Was it pilot error, pilot negligence? Surely not in this case.
Let us consider this for a moment. These were two skilled and highly experienced pilots who had been cleared for special forces operations. They were well aware of the particularly sensitive nature of the precious human cargo they were carrying. Yet, with otherwise clear skies, they apparently chose to fly straight at and into a bank of low cloud concealing steeply rising terrain at more than 1,400 feet above sea level. It just does not add up.
It is even more astonishing when one recalls that one of the pilots, shortly before that flight, had expressed his strong anxieties to his father, asking him to look after his young family should anything happen. Why did he do that? Why did he have a premonition of disaster? What was it about that aircraft that gave rise to such concerns?
Evidently there had been a number of problems affecting the Chinooks in 1994, prior to that. May not some of them have been connected with the software used in the full authority digital control? It had already been suspected of initiating what is known as "uncommanded flight control movements" in other instances; for example, sudden bursts or reductions of speed. It has been noted that in this case the Chinook was flying at great speed.
The honourable Member for Tatton, in a debate in the other place on 27th June, reported that according to the Ministry of Defence there were 6 UFCMs involving Chinooks in 1994, five in 1995, six in 1996, five in 1997, seven in 1998 and six in 1999. That is 35 incidents in all, in six of which the cause was never found. As he said, there is a steady pattern which suggests something disturbing and mysterious.
Given those facts, there are good grounds for a further and wholly objective examination of that tragic incident, including why it was that the day before the crash on the Mull of Kintyre the aeroplane and armament research establishment at Boscombe Down, the Ministry of Defence's own airworthiness assessors, had grounded non-operational Chinooks. It was the Air Marshal Sir William Wratten himself who overruled the Boscombe Down decision commenting that the grounding did,
"nothing to engender air crew confidence in the aircraft".

93
It certainly did not. Sadly, it would seem that at that time, in 1994, some lack of confidence was more than justified.
So if the finding of negligence cannot be set aside to end the matter there, then there are still too many questions to which no satisfactory answers have yet been given. As Sir William Wratten wrote in the Sunday Times on 18th June last year:
"Why they [that is, the two pilots] elected to ignore the safe options to them and pursue the one imposing the ultimate danger, we shall never know".
Why indeed? We must try to find out and the inquiry proposed by the noble Lord will help us to do that.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I have spoken in your Lordships' House several times about my confidence in the findings of the board of inquiry into this tragic accident. The board was properly constituted. It undertook a full investigation with the aid of the Air Accident Investigation Branch. The Chinook was being flown below safety height and into cloud. No technical evidence was found of any relevant flight malfunction, let alone one which might overwhelm the pilots' ability to manoeuvre into safe flight and discharge their primary duty of care for their passengers and aircraft.
The board of inquiry is not a court of law. Its overriding purpose is to establish what happened, particularly when so many lives were lost, and to learn lessons to help to avoid such a disaster in the future. The search for evidence is therefore very thorough. The professional aviation judgment—and that is the key judgment in this sad case—on the evidence found was a rational and reasonable one. In the absence of new and unconsidered evidence, it should stand.
Those who had the heavy responsibility to decide on negligence have not been persuaded that they were wrong, despite all the media and parliamentary scrutiny. A great deal of emotion and some confusion has clouded the fundamental issue of pilot responsibilities.
The Motion this evening is about the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to consider yet again all the circumstances surrounding the crash of the Chinook. But the circumstances have been most thoroughly considered and reconsidered over the past six years.
In this House four noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert and the Minister—have stood at that Government Dispatch Box and have given their support for the integrity of the board and its findings. Six Ministry of Defence Ministers have stood at the Government Dispatch Box in the other place and have equally strongly given their support. Do we ignore them all? Of course, they will have been briefed by the senior members of the board and by the Chief of Air Staff. But they will also have had the advantage of the most thorough consideration of the board's findings by their civilian secretariats. They will have had the opportunity to study the board's report far more
94
thoroughly than has any other noble Lord who has ever spoken on this topic. That combination of 10 well-briefed senior Members of both Houses equals, if not betters, any ad hoc Select Committee in examining and understanding all the circumstances of that tragic accident.
Against that background, is it reasonable for the House to support yet a further examination by an ad hoc Select Committee as envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont? I welcome the noble Lord's late change of wording which better recognises the reality of the House's procedures.
The House recently agreed to set up an ad hoc committee to consider the many complex arguments surrounding stem cell research. To do so, all the resources supporting one of the sessional committees, a science and technology sub-committee, had to be transferred. The Liaison Committee has had a number of other bids for Select Committees which cannot be met at all in the short term and some may be met in the longer term only if additional resources were to be approved and provided.
Noble Lords may agree that recent events such as the foot and mouth epidemic, criticisms of modern farming methods and food production or train accidents, to name but three, should also be candidates for inquiries in your Lordships' House. All have attracted great public concern and involved considerable loss of life and livelihood.
However, I do not advocate inquiring into any of those matters. I merely draw attention to difficulties that the Liaison Committee and the House must face in the allocation of available resources. I, for one, would question whether this tragedy, important as it is to the families of those involved, merits the appointment of an ad hoc Select Committee in your Lordships' House to consider what has been so thoroughly and extensively considered over the past six years.
8 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, it is now widely known that on the 2nd June 1994 Chinook ZD576 left RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to fly to Fort George, Inverness with a crew of four and 25 civilian and military personnel. The Chinook crashed on the Mull of Kintyre and there were no survivors. In the subsequent inquiry the two experienced pilots were found guilty of gross negligence in having failed to choose an appropriate rate of climb to overfly the mull.
I have never suggested that, on the basis of the evidence, the pilots cannot possibly be guilty of having caused the crash by gross negligence. However, the rules for a finding of negligence are formidable for there must be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". That is a higher standard of proof than for a normal court where proof of guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt.
I have thought long and hard about the reasons that I should put before your Lordships as to why a Select Committee should be appointed, always accepting that a new inquiry, to which the Ministry of Defence is unwilling to agree, would be preferable.

95
I have read and studied more than 300 pages of evidence including that of the full RAF board of inquiry, the Fatal Accident Inquiry, the Computer Age Report, the Tench report on Accident Investigation Procedures, to mention just some of the reports. In addition there have been numerous Parliamentary Questions, newspaper articles, TV programmes and meetings with officials of the MoD and Ministers. In that latter connection, I especially want to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for her agreement to numerous meetings and for her unfailing patience in dealing, at times, with what may have seemed unusually persistent questions.
I can, of course, spell out for your Lordships many examples of why I believe that there must be some doubt about the verdict. In 1997, three years after the accident, the same type of Chinook helicopter was involved in an incredible near miss in the USA. In flight it turned upside down and hurtled towards the ground while the crew desperately struggled to right the aircraft. About 250 feet above the ground it righted itself and was landed safely. That provided the investigators with a perfect opportunity to find the cause of a near-fatal accident. The investigation found no definite cause, but a possible suspected hydraulic contamination.
That demonstrates clearly that the absence of proof of malfunction does not of itself prove that there could not be a malfunction, as there clearly was in that case. In relation to the Mull of Kintyre accident, it may help to give a brief description of what happened. The helicopter was flying at about 400 feet on its first sector towards the lighthouse on the Mull of Kintyre. The planned route was to make a left turn before reaching the mull. About one mile from the mull, the pilots changed the way point to head for a new direction, namely, Corran. The way point change can be described in layman's terms as an indicator of intended change of direction. The helicopter did not turn, but continued to fly directly at the mull from a height of 400 feet, climbing gently. Only three seconds before the crash did it attempt a rapid climb. To overfly the mull safely the helicopter should have been at a height of 2,500 feet and not the 400 feet at which it approached the mull, nor the 800 feet at which it crashed into the mull.
If the purpose of over-flying the mull was to achieve a more direct route to Inverness in order to save time, as has been suggested, that was operationally impossible because of icing limitations on the height at which the helicopter would need to fly.
In this case the RAF board of inquiry concluded that it would be incorrect to criticise the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Tapper, for human failings based on the evidence available. It also concluded that there were no human failings with respect to pilot Flight Lieutenant Cook. So one may be somewhat surprised that the reviewing officers overturned the board's finding and found both pilots guilty of gross negligence.
96
I ask your Lordships to consider the evidence of just one of the reviewing officers, namely Group Captain P A Crawford, the Station Commander of RAF Odiham. I shall begin with his conclusion. He stated:
"There is no indication of a major technical malfunction. Flight Lieutenant Tapper as captain of an aircraft in peace time had an overriding duty to ensure the safety of the aircraft, its crew and passengers. Whilst there may arguably be some mitigating circumstances I am regrettably drawn to the conclusion that he failed in his duty".
Bearing in mind that there must be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", let us consider some of the evidence given in Group Captain Crawford's report. Regarding the attempted overflying of the mull, he states that the pilots would have had to use a speed and power combination that is unrecognisable for a Chinook; that such actions would go against all the crew's instincts and training; and would be the antithesis of the professionalism and careful planning that had gone before. He goes on to say that, after consulting other senior Chinook operators, he found the suggestion that the crew believed that they could overfly the mull incredible.
Regarding the suggestion by the board that the crew could have placed inordinate reliance on GPS accuracy, he found that concept as stretching credibility too far.
Regarding distraction, he accepts that that could have been a factor, but does not accept the implication that the decision-making process was complex and vulnerable to distraction. The crew had straightforward choices. I shall abbreviate what he said: when approaching high ground in poor weather the decision, which would have been ingrained in this crew, and indeed in all helicopter crews since basic training, would be to slow down, even stop, or turn away from high ground.
Regarding technical malfunctions, he stated that at this stage of the Chinook MK 2's service, spurious engine failure captions lasting, on average, seven to eight seconds, were an increasingly frequent occurrence. He goes on to say that they are now well understood, but at the time they were not. Had such an indication occurred, it would have caused the crew considerable concern, particularly as they were over the water with no obvious area for an emergency landing. Such a warning would have required an urgent and very careful check of engine instruments and FRCs. FRCs are flight reference cards which may be used in emergencies. At the time of the accident another witness, Squadron Leader David Thomas Morgan, was asked:
"What unforeseen malfunctions have occurred on the Chinook HC2 since its introduction to service?"
He replied:
"The unforeseen malfunctions on the Chinook HC2 of a flight critical nature have mainly been associated with the engine control system FADEC. They have resulted in undemanded engine shutdown, engine run up, spurious engine failure captions and misleading and confusing cockpit engine indications".
Finally, he was asked:
"Were these malfunctions covered by drills in the Chinook HC2 Flight Reference Cards (FRC)?"

97
He replied:
"No, the Chinook HC2 FRC were based primarily on the Chinook D model which is not fitted with FADEC"—
in other words, an earlier model—
"Drills relating to FADEC were based on the best information available on how the system would respond during certain malfunctions".
Finally, with regard to human failings, it is my understanding that gross negligence must come within that description, so it is of the utmost importance to pay regard to what Group Captain Crawford had to say on this subject. He stated:
"in assessing human failings the evidence is insufficient to be specific".
I do not know whether your Lordships share my concern, but Group Captain Crawford's findings of gross negligence by the two pilots, for which there has to be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", does not, in my opinion, fit the serious expressions of doubt set out in his report.
Therefore, I urge your Lordships and the Government to support the appointment of a Select Committee until such time as the MoD agrees to reopen the inquiry.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have a short and simple submission; one which I believe to be wholly sound. The Air Marshals, in finding the deceased guilty of gross negligence—that is tantamount to a finding of manslaughter—without being able to present their defence, a point commented on by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman at an earlier stage in the debates, acted without jurisdiction. Accordingly, their verdict must be set aside ex debito justiciae, which means, "because justice demands it". It is as simple as that.
The grounds upon which I base my submission can be shortly stated. First, boards of inquiry are held in private. Secondly, there is no right of representation on behalf of the accused or their personal representatives. In such circumstances, one would not expect a board of inquiry to have jurisdiction to attribute blame in reporting the causes of an accident. In fact, my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley said that the overriding concern of a board of inquiry is to discover what happened.
Such indeed is the present day position. However, at the time of the accident there was jurisdiction but it was heavily circumscribed by an onus of proof which exceeded that in a criminal case; namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt. The RAF Flight Safety Manual, AP3207, provided—and these are vital words—that only in cases where there is absolutely no doubt whatever should a deceased airman be found guilty of negligence.
On that test, there must therefore be absolute certainty. Only in such very limited circumstances is there jurisdiction to find negligence. Here is the very limited power which the Air Marshals had. Only where there was absolute certainty could they make that finding. However, there is no need for us to adopt the
98
fascinating task of analysing those words because the Air Marshals never got near to satisfying the ordinary criminal onus of proof.
Perhaps I may quote from the report and the words of Air Vice-Marshal Day, which I recently came by through the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. These are the vital words of his decision:
"The Board and the Officer Commanding RAF Odiham postulate various factors and scenarios, including possible distraction or disorientation, in attempting to explain why the crew might have failed to make a safe transition to Instrument Flight Rules".
I stress the following words:
"In my judgement, none of the possible factors and scenarios are so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight".
Clearly, it is being said that none of the factors or scenarios is of sufficient strength to provide a likely explanation. That does two things: first, it puts the onus upon the deceased, which is wrong; and, secondly, it deals in probabilities. It does not deal with reasonable doubt and it does not deal with the certainty which the words of the manual require.
Later in his observations the Air Marshal stated:
"Therefore, while aware of the difficulty of attributing negligence to deceased aircrew, I am nevertheless forced to conclude that Flight Lieutenant Tapper was negligent to a gross degree".
The phrase "while aware of the difficulty" is a clear understatement of the task that faced him. The difficulty of finding certainty is not a difficulty; I respectfully submit that it is an impossibility.
Towards the end of the observations, the Air Vice-Marshal stated:
"It is incomprehensible why two trusted, experienced and skilled pilots should, as indicated by all the available evidence, have flown a serviceable aircraft into cloud covered high ground".
If it is "incomprehensible", then he does not understand how the accident happened. And if he does not understand how, he is not in a position to exercise the very limited jurisdiction which has been given to him. Those are my submissions.
It is interesting to note that when the matter first came before this House on 22nd May 1997 I raised the difficulty in the debate. I said:
"Via the Library, I managed to achieve a summary of what was in the full report. I was told that I could not see the full report because it was not available to the public. I noted that the … very heavy onus is not referred to at all. The summary states:
'The Inquiry therefore concluded that the cause of the accident was that the two pilots had wrongly continued to fly towards the high ground"'.
I concluded my intervention by saying:
"I hope that when replying the Minister will devote some time to demonstrate to us to what extent the very high test in regard to the onus of proof is reflected in the decisions and is reflected, in particular, in the views of the two very senior officers who, on review, appear to have departed quite clearly from what was the initial finding".—[Official Report, 22/5/97; cols. 552–53.]
That hope was expressed in vain.
Being obstinate by nature, I returned to the charge in June 1998. On that occasion noble Lords did not hold a debate but considered a Starred Question. On

99
that occasion noble Lords had the advantage of a contribution from the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. On that occasion I asked the Minister:
"My Lords, is the Minister aware that the relevant RAF regulation states that in only those cases in which there is absolutely no doubt should the deceased air crew be found negligent? Is the Minister satisfied that that very heavy onus was borne in mind by those who found negligence; or is a possible explanation that they reached their conclusion on the basis that it was highly probable that it was negligence".—[Official Report, 02/6/98; col. 179.]
The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, replied:
"My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that precisely those considerations were in the minds of the distinguished Air Force officers who came to the painful conclusion to which they felt compelled to come".
In what I have read out I cannot find anything to suggest that those precise,
"considerations were in the minds of the distinguished Air Force officers".
Accordingly, I tabled a Motion to ask that the decision be set aside, but my noble friend Lord Chalfont beat me to it and, accordingly, I awaited this debate. I firmly support my noble friend. To exercise power without having it is an abuse of power, and that is what has happened in this case. I strongly support my noble friend's application.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as I have done on many earlier occasions, this time I shall concentrate on only one issue which I have regarded as central ever since I raised this matter in May 1997. I refer to the vital need to have cockpit voice and flight data recorders—black boxes—in all Chinooks. Had there been one in ZD576, two experienced and splendid young pilots would not have been held grossly negligent. I say that with confidence because over the past four years the mounting evidence pointing to a technical fault has become impossible to set aside without further consideration. A black box would have recovered that evidence.
When I raised this matter in May 1997 the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, told the House that cockpit voice and flight data recorders were being installed in all Chinooks. I asked again in November 1999 and the response from his successor was that it was a matter of regret that the programme was somewhat behind but it was under way. Progress has been lamentably slow. Flight trials of a new version of the black box, Humus, had been completed by February 2000 and four of the 40 aircraft involved had been so equipped by June 2000. In October the Ministry hoped to complete the programme by August 2001, but then the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who has been scrupulous in keeping me informed, wrote to say that an urgent operational requirement had arisen which required the same facilities as had been earmarked for Humus. Therefore, although one more Chinook would be modified by December 2000, the other 36 would have to wait until early 2002.
100
Surely, only a serious shortage of resources and perhaps skills can explain, though not justify, the continued delay, which is not only dangerous but leaves the RAF open to further unexplained ZD576 incidents. None of the Mark 2 Chinooks recently used in Sierra Leone and Kosovo and currently in Northern Ireland has been fitted with a black box yet they are operating in potentially dangerous areas. According to an Answer that I received in October 2000, the Mark 2a was procured in 1995 at a unit cost of 20.2 million US dollars. That excluded the engine, which was provided by the MoD from existing stocks. The replacement cost of a Chinook engine as of October 2000 was 2.1 million US dollars. I do not know what it costs to train a pilot, but it will be a significant sum. It is impossible to cost the damage to morale which must result from a verdict of gross negligence passed on the pilots of Chinook ZD576 on the grounds that no other explanation can be found. Each black box costs £326,000. Set against the other figures that I have quoted, surely the economics speak for themselves.
I recognise that only the services can judge what priority they must give when two operational requirements conflict. Presumably, lack of manpower and money, not least a shortage of operational aircraft, means that aircraft cannot be taken out of service to undergo modification. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister accepts that urgent priority should be given to the completion of the black box programme for all 40 aircraft. It is pitiful that four years after we were told it was being done nearly the whole fleet remains vulnerable. We can surely not afford to risk another ZD576. We owe it to those two pilots, and to all their fellows, that in future everything should be done to enable the true cause of an accident to be established, if that is at all possible.
I hope that the admirable Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will be accepted and that a Select Committee will be set up. It is encouraging that the Minister has indicated her willingness to see the Motion passed. I can think of few subjects more worthy of a Select Committee's consideration than this issue which touches the reputation of the armed services and our care for those who serve in them.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I have always felt uneasy about the finding of gross negligence. As has been said time and time again, to cause death by gross negligence is the crime of manslaughter. The evidence of gross negligence on the part of the pilots is wholly circumstantial; there is no direct evidence. Gross negligence can only be an inference from the surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the question is whether it is right to make a finding equivalent to the crime of manslaughter when the accused are unable to tell their story. I do not believe that it is just, unless the facts are so compelling that no other cause is a conceivable possibility. Examination by a Select Committee would help to answer that question.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise simply to say that yesterday afternoon I looked over at the lighthouse on the Mull of Kintyre from my little cottage in Country Antrim. On a number of occasions I have gone out of my way to visit the crash site and to see the memorial stone erected there. On each visit I have spoken to people who live in the surrounding area. I have spoken repeatedly to the lighthouse keeper, who is still there. I see the lighthouse flashing into my home.
Every time I have gone there I have become more and more convinced—not only from listening to those who live in the vicinity, the people and the policemen who were there immediately after the terrible tragedy, but from seeing not only yesterday, the day before and the day before that, and almost every weekend and every day when the House is in recess, how the clouds and the fog can create different impressions almost within minutes. At 10 minutes past three in the afternoon I have seen the Mull of Kintyre clear and visible; at 20 minutes past three I have seen it completely blanked out by fog and cloud.
There may have been a malfunction in the helicopter, but the fact that weather conditions can change from minute to minute should be taken into consideration as well. Even if there were no malfunctions in the helicopter, I would agree that the pilots could have been deflected from their flight by the weather variations at that time.
This House has on many occasions set up Select Committees. They have come up with conclusions that have been a credit to this House. I wish deeply to thank the Minister for her indication this evening that she will not oppose the request that has been made. I am quite certain that the findings of a Select Committee will do a great deal completely to exonerate those two young pilots.
I knew many of the 28 policemen who were killed on that flight. I believe that it was totally and absolutely wrong for the Ministry of Defence or anyone else to lay the blame for their deaths on the shoulders of those two young pilots.
Again I thank the Minister for not opposing the request. I believe that this is a great step forward in the campaign supported most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The noble Lord has shown great tenacity in keeping this case in the public eye. I have no doubt that when and if the Select Committee reaches a conclusion, it will be to exonerate those two young pilots.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I too must not detain the House. I apologise that my name is not on the list. I was not sure that I could be present. From these Benches, I also want to welcome the Minister's acceptance of the need for a further inquiry. There clearly is reasonable doubt here, and that justifies further inquiry.
I simply add that the argument that this House does not have the resources for a further Select Committee is the weakest argument against one. If there is an
102
argument for another Select Committee, then the resources need to be provided. Clearly, there is room for some further discussion as to the exact nature of the inquiry for which this Motion calls. But in this House, which is remarkably inexpensive for a second Chamber, that should not be held as a reason not to have one. I very much hope, therefore, that we will move to a Select Committee or another inquiry which will satisfy all sides that justice has been seen to be done.
8.33 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for returning to this issue once again, but now applying rather more pressure on the Government. In responding, I remind the House that I have a peripheral interest.
I can see the advantage of taking this business during the dinner hour. However, with the importance of the Motion, I am constrained to respond fully. I had not planned for a timed debate and neither did certain other noble Lords.
We have had a good debate, but obviously it has not been enjoyable for anyone either inside or outside your Lordships' House.
This is one of the most difficult issues that I have had to deal with during my short time in your Lordships' House. First, there is the issue of whether we should become involved in reviewing the decision of the Armed Forces' disciplinary machinery. Our Armed Forces are under full political and parliamentary control. They are proud of that. Indeed, they are active in preaching the need for that overseas. Noble Lords will be aware that we shall shortly be debating the armed forces Bill—the quinquennial review.
However, it is clear that we must exercise great caution before delving too deeply into our parliamentary tool kit, and especially as some of the tools are so sharp. To question the finding of a military inquiry is a serious matter. On the other hand, there are few noble Lords better placed to decide to do so than the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. He has pursued the matter with measured and responsible steps and with a suitable period between each one. It would clearly be preferable for the inquiry to be opened up again by the MoD in response to concerns from Parliament. So I have no difficulty with the noble Lord's course of action, especially since he has amended his Motion.
The noble Lord has implied no criticism of either Ministers or the staff and neither do I. The second problem for me is whether or not there is a problem to be addressed. I will not repeat all the arguments, technical or otherwise, that we have heard tonight. The Ministers, in both this and the previous administration, have relied on the principal argument that the two pilots broke the visual flying rules and were therefore grossly negligent. I am no aviator but I can understand the basis of the rules. What I cannot understand is why both pilots would simultaneously take leave of their senses and break VFR when they were within a minute or two's flying time from the Mull and flying far too low.

103
Furthermore, we have no evidence that there were not free and frank discussions in the cockpit as to what they were doing. If there was serious dissent from one of the pilots, how could he be held to be grossly negligent? That point concerns me greatly. I hope that the Minister can offer a reply to it.
I have another worry. We have heard tonight about possible serious faults with the aircraft's avionics. There is always the possibility that the aircraft suddenly developed a mind of its own and the pilots, while valiantly trying to overcome that problem, broke VFR and then crashed into the Mull. Nevertheless, the pilots are still found guilty of gross negligence.
The third problem for me is that a review might still find that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has carefully considered that possibility and advised the relatives accordingly.
I have concerns regarding the RAF inquiry procedures. I am worried that some personalities and organisations are, possibly of necessity, put in an invidious position. But I am not sure that it is helpful to name names. They have to determine the technical standards against which an aircraft will be procured; whether it meets those standards; whether it is otherwise acceptable; and, then, if something goes wrong, whether there was an equipment failure.
As for the issue of data recording equipment, there is a balance to be struck between cost and security issues on one hand and the risk of not knowing exactly what went wrong, in the event of an accident, on the other. It is a little surprising not to have had a full fit of such equipment from the start. Apart from anything else, it would be a useful deterrent against unauthorised flying practices. However, having voluntarily taken the risk of having a lack of information, I believe that it is questionable to find the pilots guilty of gross negligence in these tragic circumstances.
Some noble Lords have raised the issue of why so many vital personnel were carried on one aircraft. Using that well-developed art called hindsight, it might appear to have been unwise, but I doubt very much that it was a factor in the accident.
The last time we debated this matter, the view taken by the right honourable Sir Malcolm Rifkind was raised. I spoke to Sir Malcolm this morning. He was grateful for the opportunity that he had been given to refresh his memory at MoD and spent half a day doing so. He is adamant that he was not aware of the technical malfunctions of Chinook when he was involved in this matter as Secretary of State. He was told that they were not thought at the time to be relevant to his decision, but they are central to our concerns tonight.
For the reasons we have discussed tonight, I was minded to support the noble Lord's original Motion. However, I did not believe that the time was right to make that decision this evening and thought that the Minister should have time to reflect on our deliberations. There are well known constraints on the
104
ability of noble Lords to support further committees, and the views of the Liaison Committee would be helpful. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that if noble Lords decide that there should be a select committee, we will find the necessary resources.
As I have indicated, however, it would be preferable for the MoD to open the inquiry itself. In addition, noble Lords will soon be debating the Armed Forces Bill, and the issue of boards of inquiry will be in scope, as it were. During the passage of the Bill a number of other matters will have to be decided by noble Lords.
I very much welcome the intervention of the Minister at the end of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont's speech.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for moving the Motion, and all noble Lords for their participation in the debate, which has been very balanced and constructive.
It is a debate about the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the circumstances surrounding the crash of the Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994. All noble Lords have reiterated that this was a tragic and heartrending accident, following which the RAF board of inquiry reached perhaps the most difficult judgment possible: that both pilots had been grossly negligent in flying their aircraft into cloud-covered high ground. No Minister, standing where I stand now, could fail to be aware of the strength of feeling that this judgment generated. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has been unswerving in his wish to make certain that there has been no injustice in that judgment, and that no stone is left unturned in examining all the circumstances of that tragic flight. I pay tribute to him for the steadfast way in which he has approached the campaign and for the obvious sincerity and measured way that he has again advanced his case this evening.
I also admire the families, who have been so committed in defending the loved ones they have lost.
There has been much said and written about the accident, and many hypotheses have been advanced to explain the crash. These mainly centre on a possible technical failure causing loss of control, although the RAF board of inquiry found no evidence of any technical malfunction. The pilots chose to carry out the flight under visual rather than instrument flight rules. This meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton reminded us, that they had to keep clear of the cloud at all times, and keep the surface in sight. But, as they had been warned, there was very low cloud and very poor visibility over the mull. The Mull of Kintyre is 1,463 feet above sea level. A witness reported that at two nautical miles from the mull the aircraft was flying at between 200 and 400 feet. At 0.95 nautical miles, or just twenty seconds from impact, the crew made a manual change to their on-board navigation computer. At that point, the pilots must have been in control of their aircraft and known how close they

105
were to the mull. Given the deteriorating weather and the strict visibility requirements under visual flight rules, they should by this time already have chosen an alternative course. Immediately, they could and should have either turned away from the mull, or slowed down and climbed to a safe altitude.
At 15 to 18 seconds before impact, the aircraft's height was still only 468 feet, as recorded on the tactical air navigation system. The pilots would have seen this information clearly, but at that point the aircraft was still climbing only gently. At four and a half seconds before impact, the crew exercised an emergency manoeuvre and climbed a further 150 feet in those final seconds. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, the aircraft crashed in cloud at a height of 812 feet at a ground speed of 151 knots, or 174 mph.
Those are the circumstances of the flight, and it is important that we remind ourselves of those. The essence of the judgment of gross negligence was that all the available evidence indicated that the pilots flew a serviceable aircraft at speed, and at low level, into cloud-covered high ground, which they had been warned to expect.
So much has been said and written about it over the last six and a half years. We all feel great sympathy for the families of the dead pilots, and we entirely understand their wish to clear their loved ones' names. However, as I stressed the last time we debated the issue, we must also remember with sympathy and understanding the relatives of the others who so tragically lost their lives. For them also, the accident is relived every time we debate it or it appears again on the television or in the press. They also deserve our sympathy and sensitivity.
The circumstances of this crash, the conclusions of the hoard, and the supporting evidence have been reviewed many times. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said, the Ministry of Defence has looked at every piece of possible new evidence. He reminded us that since 1997 the circumstances of this accident have been subject to a full debate in this House, and five Oral Questions. In another place, Ministers have answered an Adjournment Debate, and three Oral Questions. There have been over two hundred Written Questions about the accident and a similar number of parliamentary inquiries. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I discussed the issue in meetings and informally. I know that he understands that Ministers are well seized of the need to determine the case sympathetically and with understanding, but always based on the evidence that the relevant information has to offer.
The Defence Committee of the other place thoroughly and comprehensively investigated the lessons to be learned from the crash. It published a report, which concluded that there was no compelling evidence to support the claims of fundamental flaws in the design of the Chinook Mark 2 helicopter or its components.
106
The Select Committee on Public Accounts in the other place has also looked recently at certain technical aspects allegedly surrounding the accident. The Ministry of Defence will respond formally to their report very soon.
I should like to emphasise that we have been consistently willing not only to examine any new material, but also to respond fully, with our appraisal of it. I regret that we have not yet come back to the noble Lord with our analysis of the information and material that he sent us at the end of August last year. I hope that we will be able to do so very soon. The noble Lord should not read anything into this delay. It is simply that we are conducting a very thorough and careful analysis of his submission and inquiries, and we must get all the information together before responding to the noble Lord.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, did the noble Baroness say August of last year?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed I did.
My purpose in reviewing all that has happened is to emphasise the close examination that has already been made of the case. It is true that opinions differ and hypotheses also differ, but at no point has anyone come up with any genuinely new evidence that would cause us to reopen the board of inquiry.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner,, has made some very trenchant criticisms this evening. Much comment has been made, and continues to be made, about the standard of proof required to sustain the judgment reached through a board of inquiry process. The inquiry was very thorough, as indeed have been all the subsequent departmental reviews which have followed the many and various submissions and letters on this accident. In making their final determination, the reviewing officers, both of whom are very experienced aviators, exercised their professional judgment. They did so in the full knowledge of the import and the impact on all those involved of their judgment, which was taken only after the fullest consideration of all the evidence. They were required to look at this tragic case in the most objective and impartial manner and that is what they did. The fact that others may disagree with that judgment does not make it wrong.
No government should overturn the results of a properly constituted board of inquiry because others disagree with the findings. The passage of time, and the view of hindsight, might make this to some a tempting proposition. However, this is not a political issue. It is an issue to be decided on the evidence. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, nods his head at that point. I remind him that the board of inquiry sat for seven months. It then deliberated for around a year before it issued its report, a report which covered four volumes together with the supporting annexes. There is a huge amount of evidence on which that judgment was based. A Select Committee, if it is indeed set up, will have a very great job before it.

107
If it is the feeling of the House that the course proposed by the noble Lord is desirable, your Lordships will wish to be clear about the principles under which any committee may operate. I am sure that your Lordships will not wish to provide a vehicle for some of, if I may say so, the more sensationalist members of the media; nor wish to see an attempt to overturn the board of inquiry report as a way of attacking the integrity of the two senior officers involved. These officers were required to consider their judgment against the stringent demands of the burden of proof which then existed for such cases. They took their decision on the basis of the facts and their detailed professional understanding, as senior RAF officers, of the very high standards under which RAF aircrew are required to operate.
A number of points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, had many questions which he said had received no satisfactory response. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, reiterated his misgivings, which we have indeed discussed on a number of occasions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was mainly concerned about the requirement of proof by the manual in reaching a conclusion about negligence. That was to some extent echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who expressed concern about the pilots not being represented on the day. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, reiterated her concerns over the lack of black boxes, a point about which I have been keeping the noble Baroness informed, as she was kind enough to say. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, reiterated his heartfelt concern about what really happened in the uncertain and difficult circumstances of that day. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, added his voice to our deliberations.
If your Lordships so decide, perhaps I may suggest that all these matters are ones that a Select Committee might look at. But I make one point. The air marshals will then be able to explain properly, in their own words, to the Select Committee why they reached the conclusions that they did, something they have not been able to do properly before.
It would be wrong to re-run the board of inquiry. It is important that all the views are carefully listened to and very carefully balanced. I must say that that has not always been what has happened in the past, although I know that the House today has been very balanced in the way that it has approached the issue.
Yes, the Government have reservations about the noble Lord's proposal, not least because of the thorough way in which the accident has already been investigated. I believe that successive Ministers have been fully and honestly briefed on all aspects of this case. I believe that Ministers of both parties have been honest in their dealings with this House and with another place. Nothing has been or is being hidden. That is because we believe that there is nothing to hide. It follows that we will, of course, co-operate fully with any committee that your Lordships may decide to establish.
108
Finally, I am very grateful for the courteous and understanding way in which your Lordships have contributed to our debate this evening. It is an incredibly difficult subject. Every time we debate it in your Lordships' House I know that all noble Lords who are closely concerned with the issue are at pains to be detailed, cogent and sympathetic in what they are saying, but judgments must always be based on the evidence that we have before us. I should like to put firmly on the record my sincere and heartfelt sympathies for the families of all who lost their lives in this tragic accident.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she confirm that if, by any chance, a new inquiry were to be opened, under the present rules it would not be possible to find against deceased persons?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as has already been said by other noble Lords, since the findings of the board of investigation were made, the rules have indeed been changed. It is not now the case that findings of gross negligence are possible against those who have died in such accidents.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I agree with the Minister that it has been most valuable and constructive. I thank especially the Minister, both for her handling of her reply to the debate and for the very early indication that the Government will not oppose the Motion.
The noble Baroness said that the issue had been dealt with many times through a series of questions and debates answered by a series of Ministers and therefore suggested that we had covered the ground as fully as we can. The point is that all those Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who answered all those questions and all those debates were all talking from the same official brief. So it is not surprising that we have not had any different answers.
However, I shall not go into any of that at this point because it can all be left to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for saying that absence or shortage of resources is the least of all the arguments against the setting up of the Select Committee. As the Motion says, in accordance with the procedure of the House, the final decision is for the whole House to take. If the House decides, as I hope it now will, to set up a Select Committee to examine this issue, a Select Committee there will be; and if resources are needed, the resources should be found. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and to the noble Earl for making that point.
The integrity of the two air marshals or of anyone else involved is not at issue. Never at any time in the years that I have been helping to conduct this campaign have I cast any doubt on anyone's integrity; nor do I so do today. The air marshals were entitled, as part of a normal board of inquiry procedure in the

109
Royal Air Force, to come to the conclusion they came to. They think that they were right; I think that they were wrong. That is what I hope the Select Committee will decide.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Vehicles (Crime) Bill
8.57 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 7 [Keeping of records]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 36, after "keeping" insert ", and submission to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,".
The noble Lord said: We come now to the question of the keeping of records by those individuals who will be licensed under the Bill as motor salvage operators. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for the keeping of records by registered persons of the vehicles that they handle. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to insist on registered persons notifying the DVLA of the destruction of motor vehicles.
There is sometimes a long period between a vehicle being taken off the road—either following an accident or when it has broken down—and the vehicle being destroyed. It is not always a quick process. Outside more or less any sizeable town, somewhere or other there is a breaker's yard with large numbers of old vehicles piled up. They are there for a reason; they are cannibalised and, over time, different parts are reused as opportunities arise. However, those cars, or parts of them, can also be used as the basis for creating illegal vehicles, which is the main concern of the Bill.
In those circumstances, we thought it wise to suggest that the regulations might provide for submission to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of vehicle records by the keepers. Often those records will be in electronic form and thus submitting them should be extremely easy. If they were submitted to the DVLA, then should the police want to check on a particular vehicle which has been involved in a crash and has been taken off the road but had not yet been destroyed, it would not be difficult for them to trace in which salvage yard the vehicle was supposed to be. As things stand, unless those records are submitted to the DVLA, then other than by visiting every salvage yard in their vicinity, it will be impossible for the police to trace the vehicle.
That covers the sole purpose of this suggestion. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I rise to support my noble friend on this amendment. The main benefit to be derived from this proposal would be to allow a police investigation of a suspect vehicle to identify that it had entered the salvage chain of supply and, if so where.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): The effect of this amendment would be to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all salvage operators to send their records to the DVLA. However, under the Bill, it will be the local authorities that will have the responsibility for maintaining registers of motor salvage operators, not the DVLA. As the noble Lord pointed out, the central objective of the Bill is to prevent the crime of ringing, whereby the identity of a stolen car is disguised with that of a legitimate vehicle. It is clear from the police and other bodies that ringing is a serious problem and that a significant level of crime is involved. Because of that criminal element, we have opted for a scheme that will be monitored and enforced locally.
Local authorities are in the best position to operate the scheme. If we adopted the amendment and the records had to be sent to the DVLA, that would in itself impose on both local authorities and the DVLA an administrative burden which we do not believe is necessary, since it would not help significantly to reduce crime. In order to combat ringing, the DVLA needs to know only about vehicles which have been destroyed. The other information—that which will be collected under Part 1—is of no direct assistance in that process. While it might be appropriate to inform the DVLA if the information would assist in fighting this crime, it is not appropriate to impose the requirement on local authorities and salvage operators.
I should also point out that at no point in our consultation did we consult business, local authorities or the DVLA on the prospect of the additional burden of supplying to the DVLA all the records kept by registered persons. I feel that this would bring in a new element which has not been discussed with the industry or the local authorities. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Before my noble friend responds, the HPI has said that a small benefit would be that the DVLA could then pass this information to organisations such as HPI so that the public can be put on notice about the possible condition and ringing implications should they subsequently be offered an exchange vehicle for sale.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Towards the end of his remarks, the Minister used one argument which is totally unacceptable. He stated that the Government have not consulted on this proposal and therefore it should not be pursued. With respect, that is not an acceptable argument in your Lordships' House, because practically every amendment put forward concerns a matter on which the Government have not consulted. If the amendment were accepted, it would only permit the Secretary of State to make regulations. Ample time would be available in which to consult on the content of those regulations. If, at the end of the consultation period, the Secretary of State felt that a great deal of objection had been registered, at that

111
point he would be able to decide not to proceed with the proposal. On this occasion, therefore, I do not feel that the Minister has put forward an acceptable argument.
However, the Minister's early remarks in response to the amendment went to the nub of the argument. In the light of his remarks, although I shall think a little further on it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I declared my interest at Second Reading so I shall not declare it again tonight. However, I should tell the Committee that, in the 30 years that I have been in your Lordships' House, this is the first time that I have taken part in the Committee stage of a Bill. Furthermore, I have never proposed a Bill. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I make a boo-boo on my amendments.
In moving Amendment No. 21, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 53 and 55. I can assure noble Lords that these are purely probing amendments. The reason for tabling this group of amendments is to invite the Government to offer guidelines to all the agencies that will be associated with the enforcement of the Bill. I doubt whether they will understand the text of the entire Bill. Indeed, I suspect that I, along with other noble Lords, am in the same position.
In Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, offences are recognised and the scale of penalties recorded, but it is not, in my view, always clear who should be prosecuted. Will it be the company itself, the directors of the company or individuals who can be clearly implicated in a particular offence? By my reckoning, offences are recorded in 15 clauses. In all cases it would be helpful if the Government could respond to address my concern as outlined.
I sat on the Woolsack during the proceedings of the Private Security Industry Bill. I noticed that Clause 21 addresses the criminal liability of directors as follows:
"Where an offence under any provision of this Act is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—
(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate,",
and so on—I will not go on. Would it be possible to put something like that into the Bill to make it clear to people outside who, like myself, cannot read Bills properly or find them difficult? I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have sympathy with the amendment. There is confusion in the Bill between what happens when an individual, a sole trader, a partnership or a group of individuals are to be registered under the Bill and when a company is to be registered. This point runs through several clauses, including Clause 13, on which we intended to raise similar concerns later. It is difficult to know who will be held responsible within a company for carrying out the obligations which will have to be carried out by
112
individual traders, a partnership or a sole trader. In particular, who will be held liable and who will have committed an offence if something is not done in a proper manner? Similar considerations arise with Clause 13.
As to this clause, after dredging up what little legal education I had in the course of gaining my qualification as an accountant, I can say that in those days "person" clearly included "body corporate". I do not think that it is the precise amendment moved by my noble friend that is required but an explanation of how on earth one will deal with bodies corporate if they are thought to have committed an offence. Who will get into trouble?
Lord Whitty: The point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Brougham and Vaux, goes somewhat wider than the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, the amendment simply explains that "person" includes "a body corporate". As the accountancy training of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, clearly taught him, "a body corporate" is included within the term "person". Were we to spell that out in the Bill, a different implication would be placed on a whole body of English law where "a person" actually subsumes the term "a body corporate".
As to the issue of directors' responsibilities when the body corporate is the "person" in question, under these clauses we would prosecute the company. In addition, Clause 39 allows for the prosecution of directors and officers of that company. The amendment relating to the spelling out of "including a body corporate" is contrary to legislative practice. It may be incomprehensible to lay persons—and even to such followers of legislation as the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux—but, nevertheless, that is the position. I suspect that the education in accountancy of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pre-dated the Interpretation Act 1978, but Schedule 1 to that Act consolidates that position in legislation as guidance for us all. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I said that it was a probing amendment and I shall not pursue it. However, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cope for his remarks. I should also like to thank the Minister for putting on record what the term means so that people as ignorant as myself can understand it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Notification of destruction of motor vehicles]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert "or trailers"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 22, I realise that I could be accused of being bizarre, as it were. On the face of it, the Minister could

113
accuse me of putting forward a contradictory view on this amendment after listening to my argument on Amendment No. 1, where I argued against trailers.
However, while I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about his wide definition of "trailers", he made a reasonable point in relation to large trailers as opposed to small trailers, caravans and so on. The amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to the notification by registered persons of the destruction of trailers. The Government might consider that process. If they found a way of defining and identifying large trailers—which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was concerned about—they could make regulations at a future date with regard to the notification by registered persons of the destruction of trailers. I hope that the Minister will consider that. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In replying to this debate I could use the same speaking notes as I used earlier. They look remarkably similar and therefore I shall not use them. The noble Viscount referred to registration plates and towing vehicles. The present arrangements are that the towed vehicle has the same registration plate as the vehicle that is towing it.
The point that the noble Viscount made does not come within the scope of the legislation. It is a matter to which we are giving careful consideration. There are plans to register testable—that is, large—trailers. This is currently being discussed. We shall not have the opportunity to deal with the matter under this legislation. However, the noble Viscount makes a good point. There are trailers and there are trailers. We are confident that by dealing with the issue in terms of weight we may come up with a workable solution. We may have to address that matter by introducing a register. My reply does not precisely meet the issue which the noble Viscount seeks to address but I believe that it meets it in most respects. I hope that he will accept that and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor: The Minister and I are moving in the same direction and perhaps towards the same goal. Clause 8 states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the notification by registered persons of the destruction of motor vehicles".
The amendment seeks to add the words "or trailers". If one adds the words "or trailers" or perhaps "and/or trailers", that gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to include them in the future if he so desires if there is a sensible way of categorising them by weight or by some other factor. Presumably we have to come up with some mechanism in the Bill so that if in the future the Secretary of State wishes to include trailers he could do so. I believe I am right in saying that one would have to amend Clause 8 to include the words "and/or trailers" to allow the Secretary of State to do that. I do not want to press the point now but I hope that the Minister might consider it between now and Report and that we can debate the issue again.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We shall consider the issue. I believe that it is covered. However, I shall certainly consider the issue. If I can help the noble Viscount before we reach Report I shall write to him.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister. We are thinking along the same lines and between us I believe that we have gone halfway to address the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Rights to enter and inspect premises]:
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 17, at end insert "; or

(c) any other premises that a constable has, with reasonable cause, to suspect to be used by a motor salvage operator in connection with motor salvage"

The noble Viscount said: It is perhaps pertinent to point out that the Bill as formulated deals with legally operated premises and allows a constable to enter and inspect registered premises. However, the Bill fails to deal with premises that, for whatever reason, are outside the system but still carry on the business of a motor salvage operator. It must be recognised that there will be those who choose to ignore the requirement to register. Yes, they can be reported for the offence, but why bother to register in the knowledge that any prosecution will take at least six months to be processed and that, in that time, the CPS can be convinced that the company has registered and will drop the case?
Therefore, all premises that are believed to be used for motor salvage must be subject to the same scrutiny, whether registered or not. Why should a police officer bother to visit the lawful premises when he cannot, with reasonable cause to suspect, visit the unlawful? This amendment therefore seeks to correct this anomaly. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, makes a good point. I am content with his arguments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The proposed amendment is already covered under subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 9. The subsections enable a constable, after obtaining a warrant, to enter premises suspected of carrying on business as a salvage operator. To confer the right of entry in order to carry out inspections without a warrant at premises suspected of carrying out business as a motor salvage operator would be heavy-handed and unacceptable.
To uncover evidence of involvement in the motor salvage trade may well involve a search of the premises. Unregistered or suspected businesses are entitled to the same protection as businesses in general. A general search of this nature should be undertaken only with the authority of a magistrate.

115
We do not need the provision. We think that we are covered. We believe that the course proposed in the noble Viscount's amendment is unnecessarily savage. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: While I am sure that many salvage companies are respectable, will there not be one or two rogues who might need a heavy hand? Are we still covered?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The degree of roguery is hardly the issue. I have argued that we are covered in these circumstances.
Viscount Simon: I question one word used by the Minister. Why is the provision "heavy handed". What does my noble friend propose as an alternative?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The clause already enables a constable to enter premises where there is a suspicion. We think that the noble Viscount's proposed course could well be described as heavy handed. However, the important point is that we are covered. That is the critical issue.
Viscount Simon: I am delighted to hear that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Offence of making false statements]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, line 1, after "recklessly" insert "or negligently"
The noble Viscount said: The Minister knows that I am not a lawyer. However, I understand that there has been a considerable amount of litigation over the years on the definitions of "recklessly" and "negligently". The amendment is designed to promote a discussion about what the Government want to do with the legislation. "Recklessness" is usually defined in relation to a statement as,
"a state of mind which does not care whether the statement is true or false".
I am advised that in Supply Stores v. Cloote and Regina v. Staines—I am sure that those cases will roll off the tip of the Minister's tongue—it was held that a deception, in order to be reckless within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968, had to be more than merely careless or negligent. There had to be indifference as to whether a statement was true or false. A negligent misstatement of fact is by comparison one made honestly but carelessly. "Negligence" means generally the breach of an obligation imposed by law to take reasonable care or exercise a reasonable degree of skill, but not any stricter duty, in carrying out any particular task.
I believe that the proposed amendment would increase the scope of the legislation. Its purpose is to promote a debate on the legislation. It is a probing amendment. It is an area where there has been
116
difficulty as regards interpretation. The Minister's comments during the passage of the Bill could help the courts to interpret it when it becomes law.
I hope that that is not too convoluted an explanation of my amendment. Neither the Minister nor I is a lawyer and we have struggled to understand all the aspects of the Bill, but the definition of "recklessly" is important. I shall listen closely to his response. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I recognise that I made an error this morning. Over tea and toast with my partner, who is a lawyer, I should have exchanged some observations about the meaning of "recklessly" as an alternative to "negligently". Next time I shall make sure that I bring Archbold or some other such legal volume.
The amendments would make it a criminal offence for a person negligently to make a statement that was false in a material particular when he applied for registration or renewal of registration as a motor salvage operator or as a registration plate supplier. That would be heavy-handed and inappropriate. That is why the provision applies only to knowingly or recklessly making a false statement.
The offence is aimed at deterring those applicants who deliberately or recklessly provide false information, not those who do so innocently, although negligently. That is the distinction. It is a question of an applicant being slightly wild in the way in which he provides information rather than doing so innocently but tending towards negligence.
I am not a lawyer and I have tried not to give a lawyer's explanation. Perhaps I should have sought legal advice earlier in the day.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has answered half the question. There was slightly more to the difference between negligence and recklessness, but I am sure that he might get his legal advisers to consider the issue. If there is something that he and I have missed out in our short exchange, perhaps they will be kind enough to write to me before Report. That would at least clear up the issue in my mind. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Notification requirements]:
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 27, leave out "level 3" and insert "the statutory maximum"
The noble Viscount said: This is purely a tidying amendment. I do not see why the penalty for false statements should be different from that in other statutes. In recent statutes, false statements have attracted a statutory maximum penalty. This Bill should be in line with other statutes and should not set the penalty at level 3. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The Explanatory Notes say:
"Clause 11 requires the person registered or applying to be registered to notify the local authority of any changes affecting the accuracy of information provided. Failure to do so will be an offence, although there is a due diligence defence".
That seems to be in line with what the noble Viscount is asking.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The level is quite important. On the standard scale, the statutory maximum would be a fine of level 5 or £5,000. We believe that that is too draconian for failing to notify changes. Such a fine would put the offence on the same level as carrying on a business as a salvage operator while being unregistered. We believe that operating an unregistered business is the most serious offence. If we were not to tackle it, that would allow a person to carry on operating regardless of any regulations. That is why we have allocated such a high fine.
This amendment would also create an inconsistency in notification of changes under Part II of the Bill. Therefore, we need a proportionate response in order to induce and encourage and not one which we believe would be excessive. I invite my noble friend to consider that in those circumstances a fine of £5,000 would be excessive. I trust that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Simon: I can understand my noble friend's response and, to a certain extent, I agree with it. However, I am trying to say that in a similar situation in all other statutes such an offence attracts the maximum fine. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 22, at end insert—

""destruction" means making changes to a vehicle which prevent it from being used on the road in future;"

The noble Earl said: The Bill refers to the destruction of a vehicle. However, I believe that perhaps the destruction of a vehicle's identity is more important than the destruction of the vehicle itself. Members of the Committee may not be aware that in some cases vehicles stand in a vehicle salvage yard for many years while components are removed from them. Eventually, no salvageable parts are left. The body in the case of a car or van, and the chassis in the case of a lorry, is then sent away as scrap metal.
I believe that it is important to make provision in the Bill with regard to the destruction of the identity. I refer in principle to the vehicle identification marked on the chassis or the body; that is, the stamping of the vehicle identification number and, most importantly, the VIN plate riveted to the body. Of course, the number plate is irrelevant because, although it is useful for keeping records, it is easy to manufacture. We shall come to that point in later clauses.
Can the Minister say how the Bill affects the destruction of the identity of a vehicle? In the Home Office consultation paper, that seemed to be an important issue. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 27 seeks to insert a definition of "destruction" in the interpretation section of Part 1. That relates to Clause 8, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for notification by registered persons of the destruction of motor vehicles.
We consider "destruction" to be an ordinary term with a clear meaning. As such, it requires no further or additional definition. Defining it in the way that is proposed could cause confusion; for example, would removing the wheels of a car, perhaps taking off a wing mirror, removing hub caps or any such similar action fall within this definition? The amendment refers to changes which might make a vehicle unroadworthy in the future.
That definition will probably cause confusion—at first sight it could certainly do so. We do not want vehicles that are not literally destroyed to be notified to the DVLA. I begin to see the issue with which the noble Earl is concerned but the amendment does not come anywhere near grappling with it. The problem with which he is concerned and to which the amendment is directed is probably—I am speculating here—best dealt with in other ways. I shall think about the matter further. I do not think that the amendment's definition of "destruction" takes us towards a solution. I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving the amendment, which could touch on some important issues.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The Minister is being kind this evening; this is a non-controversial Bill and we are trying to get it right. However, he referred to the removal of four wheels from a car. If that is not destruction, I do not know what is.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The term "destruction" has an obvious meaning. Although it might not be helpful to include that in the Bill, does the Minister accept that the destruction of a vehicle's identity is more important than the destruction of a vehicle? He seemed to be content about the possibility that a vehicle in a vehicle salvage yard with a complete identity could be bought by another person. It is important to remember that some vehicles have come to grief as a result of a vehicle accident and have been notified as a total write off. DVLA will have a record of that; we will know that it is a problem vehicle. Equally, however, although some vehicles have been written off, perhaps as a result of a fire, there is nothing in the DVLA's records confirming that. We need to be extremely careful and ensure that the identity of a written-off vehicle about which no records exist is destroyed at the earliest possible opportunity. Does the Minister accept the need to destroy the identity of a vehicle in a scrapyard at the earliest possible opportunity?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I certainly accept the noble Earl's point. However—I am trying to be helpful here—the amendment's definition of "destruction" does not grapple with the problem that he has identified. We can probably grapple with that problem in other ways. As I said earlier, I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising the matter. Clearly, there are difficulties in this regard. However, I do not think that the amendment solves the problem.
Earl Attlee: I have tabled quite a few amendments and I accept that this amendment does not precisely do what I had intended. I shall return to this matter—the destruction of a vehicle's identity—at a later stage of the Bill's passage through the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 8, line 26, leave out from "1(2)" to end of line 27.
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to the phrase, "motor salvage yard" and its interpretation in the Bill. The Bill specifically excludes any premises in which only parts of vehicles are kept. I am worried about that exclusion. The theft of cars in order to break them up into spares is not a significant contributor to vehicle crime, although it is significant with regard to the theft of motorcycles, because breakers buy parts from vehicles that have been stolen or because people buy whole stolen vehicles and break them up. That is not a theoretical problem. Only 14 per cent of the 25,000 motorcycles that are stolen each year are recovered, compared with 56 per cent of stolen cars. That graphically demonstrates the fact that the fate of most stolen powered two-wheelers is to be broken up.
I understand that the Government have specifically excluded spare parts because they have not consulted on that measure as part of the preliminaries to the Bill. On that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that the fact that something has not been specifically consulted on does not mean that we should not consider it here. That would be significantly infringing our rights as a House.
I should appreciate some clarification from the Government as to why they have made that exclusion. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: The noble Baroness has raised an important point, although I am not sure that she has gone about it in the best possible way. It seems to me that the word "salvageable" is suspect. It may be more accurate to use the words "salvaged components" because "salvageable" components could cover a whole range of things with no intention, necessarily, to resell them. "Salvaged" could relate to a dealer who deals in recovered engines. I believe that the noble Baroness is barking up the right tree and I support the way that she is going but it may be better to use the word "salvaged".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was thinking that we might move towards "savaged" components! The
120
effect of the definition of "motor salvage yard" as drafted is plainly to require motor salvage operators to register premises where they carry on their business and to give the police a right of access without a warrant.
Where a parts store is located in a different local authority area from the one where the motor salvage business is registered, the Bill does not require the motor salvage business to register the parts store and consequently pay a fee and the police have no right of access without a warrant.
We do not consider this amendment to be justified. The police already have the power to enter parts stores which are located in the same local authority area as the registered business by virtue of Clause 9(1)(b). If the police have concerns that a parts store in another local authority area where the business is not registered is being used as cover for dismantling vehicles, it is open to them to seek a warrant in the usual way to gain entry and make investigations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised the issue of matters on which there had been no consultation and which were being brought forward for discussion at this stage of the Bill. Of course, we are all at liberty to raise and discuss those issues in your Lordships' House. But with this piece of legislation, we are trying to establish regulation by consent. Thus far, we have published our plans and consulted on them. If we start to bring forward extraneous measures on which we have not sought to establish consensus, we are in some difficulties. But that does not preclude us from discussing those issues. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am rather disappointed and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Falkland will share that disappointment, as will his leather-clad friends, some of whom ride bicycles. I may return to this issue and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his support. Although I fully accept that the Government have not consulted on this proposal, the motorcycle fraternity is very concerned and has made representations about it. I believe that those views should be taken into account.
We may return to this matter at a later stage and I should be very grateful for the help of those Members of the Committee on the Benches alongside me. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 38, after "access;" insert—

""trailer" means a vehicle drawn by a motor vehicle;"

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 29 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30 standing in my name. The amendments are somewhat similar to Amendment No. 1, on which I was shouted down by my noble friend on the Front Bench. That drew attention to the financial gains to be made from

121
the salvage of trailers and caravans. Amendment No. 29 seeks to define the word "trailer" and Amendment No. 30 seeks to add the words "trailer or caravan" to Clause 16.
As I said when speaking to Amendment No. 1, there is a lucrative trade in the parts of trailers and caravans. For that reason I want to include these provisions on the face of the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that I know what the Minister's reply will be in advance. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I seem to have become the trailer expert on this side of the House for this stage of the Bill. There may be a requirement for a definition of the word "trailer", but Amendment No. 29 appears to be entirely in the wrong place. It refers to the part dealing with roads, and trailers do not really have anything to do with roads. I do not understand how that would work. It does not appear to make any sense at all, but maybe I have misunderstood.
However, I believe that Amendment No. 30 raises an issue on which I have one question for the Minister. Should the Secretary of State decide to add trailers, as we discussed on an earlier amendment, it seems to me that there would have to be a change to Clause 8(1), which would need to refer to the destruction of motor vehicles or trailers. If it were to be inserted there, would we require a definition of "trailers"? If so, would Clause 16, where the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has, in my view, rightly inserted it, be the place for such a definition? However, I do not believe that this is the right definition. Perhaps the Minister will consider that between now and Report stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was going to try to consider the matter between now and the time at which a response is provided, but I shall do my best with what I have.
The effect of these amendments will be to define trailers and to bring trailers and caravans within the description of "written-off vehicle". As the noble
122
Viscount, Lord Simon, said, this is similar to the amendment discussed earlier that will bring trailers and caravans within the scope of Part 1 of the Bill. Let us remind ourselves what this part is trying to achieve. Part 1 is concerned with preventing "ringing", where the identity of a stolen vehicle is disguised with that of a written-off vehicle, and consequently an insurance fraud is committed. We have had representations from the police to suggest that these are serious problems, as I said earlier, but ones that mainly apply to motor vehicles. We have not had the same representations that suggest that this problem exists in relation to trailers and caravans.
We do not want to impose an undue burden on business by widening the scope of the Bill to areas where we do not believe that the problem is as significant. This is not something on which we have consulted the police or industry. For that reason, I do not believe that we want to introduce legislation of this sort and certainly we would not want to introduce it until we had some detailed consultation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raises an issue to which I shall not be able to provide a response this evening but I shall try to do so before we reach Report stage.
I trust that my noble friend Lord Simon will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.