Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 05 March 2001 vol 623 cc11-61

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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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—

1. (a) the directions are given on behalf of a person to whom the individual's services are provided under a contract for services; and
2. (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 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—

1. (a) maximum permitted charges for release of an immobilised vehicle,
2. (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,
3. (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,
4. (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
5. (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.

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.

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 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 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 —

1. (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;
2. (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
3. (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 —

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (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;
2. (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 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—

1. (a) at the suit of that person, where that person is or desires to be a guest or customer of the venue,
2. (b) where that personal injury is inflicted within or in the vicinity of the venue, and
3. (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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 7, line 6, at end insert —

1. ("(9) In exercising the functions prescribed by this Act, the Authority shall act with reasonable care and skill and shall—
2. (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
3. (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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 19: Leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new clause—

APPEALS IN LICENSING MATTERS

("—(1) Where

1. (a) an application for a licence is refused,
2. (b) a licence is granted subject to conditions imposed under section 7(6), or
3. (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

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) for the period during which an appeal may be brought under subsection (1);
2. (b) for the period from the bringing of any such appeal until it is determined or abandoned;
3. (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;
4. (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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 24: Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new clause—

APPEALS RELATING TO APPROVALS

("—(1) Where—

1. (a) an application for an approval for the purposes of section 14 is refused,
2. (b) conditions are included as conditions of such an approval, or
3. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) for the period during which an appeal may be brought under subsection (1);
2. (b) for the period from the bringing of any such appeal until it is determined or abandoned;
3. (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;
4. (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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 Brighton11/2/2006 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—

1. (i) state the purpose for which the power is being exercised;
2. (ii) show the authorisation by the Authority for his exercise of the power;
3. (iii) produce evidence of his identity;
50
4. (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
5. (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 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—

1. (a) exercise the power conferred by that subsection; and
2. (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 moved Amendment No. 30: Page 15, line 34, at end insert— (""relevant accountancy body" means any of the following—

1. (a) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
2. (b) the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;
3. (c) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;
4. (d) the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;
5. (e) the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants;
6. (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 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 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 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 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.

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, 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) by him;
2. (b) by any firm of which he is a partner or by which he is employed;
3. (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 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—

1. (a) by him;
2. (b) by any firm of which he is a partner or by which he is employed;
3. (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 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 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 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.