Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 26 April 2001.

Standing Committee B

Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I welcome members of the Committee to our discussions on a very pleasant morning, at a time that I describe as the calm before the battle.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

On a point of order, Mr. Winterton. You will be aware that, on Tuesday, I referred to the staging of one-off events, often at short notice, and the difficulty that that might create for an organisation that would otherwise want to comply with the procedure for applying for and obtaining a licence. In reply, the Minister said that he would reflect on the matter and come back to us with information about how the Government intended to tackle it. I wonder whether now might be a suitable opportunity to make the Committee aware of the Government's plans.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

While the hon. Gentleman's question was strictly not a point of order, I believe that what the Minister has to say might be of great help to the Committee. For that reason, I am happy to ask him to respond.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) describes accurately what happened on Tuesday. We share the ambition that he set out in that debate and we have considered the matter further. We do not believe that it is necessary to amend the Bill, but it is necessary for the Secretary of State to lay down a set of procedures to enable the authority to deal with the matters of urgency of the type that were discussed. I want to place on record that we accept the hon. Gentleman's point and that that will be an aspect of the operation of the authority that the Government will put into effect if the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am very happy that the Minister has provided such helpful information. Clause 7 Licensing criteria

Clause 7 - Licensing criteria

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 26, at end insert—

`(2A) Before publishing or revising the document mentioned in subsection (1), the Authority shall consult—

(a) Persons whom it considers to represent the interests of the private security industry in England and Wales;

(b) Persons whom it considers to represent the interests of the police in England and Wales.'.

The amendment relates to the consultation that might be undertaken by the Security Industry Authority before making decisions on the grant of licences. The Minister will know, and I hope that all members of the Committee will be conscious of, the breadth of the powers that clause 7 affords the SIA when determining the criteria for the granting of licences. I emphasise that I am not cavilling at the breadth of those criteria, but with power comes responsibility and, I hope, an emphasis on accountability for its exercise. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled the amendment. It would require the authority before the publication or revision of the document under subsection (1) to consult persons whom it considers to be appropriate. We want to probe the Government's intentions. How are the criteria to be determined? Will there be consultation with the police and the security industry? What element of glasnost is intended to attach to the procedure? Will the Minister provide further and better particulars about what the Government have in mind?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman said about the operation of the authority. We do not believe that it can succeed unless it is in close consultation with the industry, the police and other interest groups. We will discuss the authority's composition further when we come to schedule 2, but we believe that it will reflect the kinds of interests to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I should also emphasise that we envisage the authority not simply as one group, but as having a series of subsidiary supporting groups to deal with particular industries in particular ways—for the reasons that we discussed on Tuesday—in which, in exactly the same way as in the authority itself, the interests of various organisations would be expressed.

We also agree with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman said about glasnost; I was surprised that he used the word, although I know that he is an expert on Soviet history. The authority should be an open and effective body. Frankly, following the Committee that considered the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Home Office is learning how to have better dialogue with industry, and is doing so much more widely and effectively. We want to continue that process, and the establishment of the authority is a way of doing that. That will require open, effective and comprehensive lines of communication. We do not believe it necessary to amend the Bill to achieve that, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I hope that he accepts what I have said in response to his perfectly reasonable points; we want the authority to operate in the way that he describes.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I hope, Mr. Winterton, that you will insist that I am included in the discussions; I should be delighted to participate. Obviously an enormous amount of consultation is still to be undertaken, although there has already been a consultative process. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister appreciates that the industry is so diverse that we cannot simply go to one representative body for advice; we must consult a range of organisations, such as private investigators and the Master Locksmiths Association.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I confirm that the Government entirely accept his point about the diversity of organisations, institutions and industrial sectors involved. The consultation about the establishment of the authority will have that at its core.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

That is fine. One of the dangers is that often people—although not my hon. Friend the Minister—see the industry as a homogeneous entity with one body sitting on top to represent it. However, the industry is worse than the Conservative party and the Labour party used to be in terms of diversity and in-fighting. Even choosing the people to consult will be a delicate decision. There is wide experience of drawing up such regulations in other areas of Home Office responsibility and, above all, many countries have gone through such a process in their private security industries, such as South Africa, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain. It is superfluous to reinvent the wheel; we should see how other countries have drawn up regulatory schemes, look at their application forms and note what criteria they have drawn up. I am sure that from a wide-ranging national consultation and a reasonably wide-ranging set of letters sent to regulatory authorities elsewhere, a great deal will emerge to strengthen the provisions.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Despite what the right hon. Gentleman says about the diversity of the industry, I am sure from his interventions in earlier debates that he would accept that there are a number of entirely reputable representative bodies. In particular, we have referred to the British Security Industry Association, the Joint Security Industry Council and the group of leading corporate investigation consultancies. Does he not accept that it would be helpful to have written into the Bill—as our amendment proposes—that there should be a specific role for the police and the industry, however difficult that might be? The reputable umbrella bodies to which I referred would inevitably form part of the industry representation. He knows—as I do, from meetings that we have had—that the group of leading corporate investigation consultancies that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I met earlier this week are keen for a specific role to be written into the Bill.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that following the Minister's kind offer to meet representatives of those leading corporate investigation organisations, a meeting is being set up. I would not be so boastful as to argue that chapter 5 of my book should be included in the legislation, but in it I discuss the diversity of the organisations—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Read it out.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I am not going to fall for that; I have learned my lesson.

This is a crucial part of the Bill. I know that the Home Office is aware of the problems and that the Security Industry Authority must consult well to get the proper criteria established. It is right that small companies as well as big companies—the guarding side of the industry is dominated by ``one man and a dog'' operations—need to be taken into account. I support what the Government and Opposition regard as the right way to proceed.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am delighted to hear from the right hon. Member for Walsall, South that the Minister intends to meet the group of leading corporate investigation consultancies; my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I can claim some modest credit for that. We met representatives of the organisation earlier in the week and counselled them to seek a meeting as quickly as possible because they have some concerns.

I have noted the Minister's comments—I do not specifically object to what he has said in his attempts to reassure us—but I feel that the specific requirement to consult obviously important sectors is such that, pending the meeting and any outcome thereof, we would wish to insist on the inclusion of the amendment. Not in a provocative way, but by means of a safety valve, I wish to press the amendment on this occasion.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have nothing further to say, except that I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment; not in a provocative or antagonistic way, but because we believe that the requirement to consult is well established in the processes that we outlined. I have sought to place on record commitments to reinforce that. I understand the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman is pressing his amendment, but I ask my colleagues to vote against it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 6, line 28, leave out paragraph (a).

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 36, in page 6, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 37, in page 6, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).

No. 38, in page 7, line 4, at end insert—

`(7) In determining in accordance with the criteria set out for the time being under subsection (3)(a) whether or not a person is a fit and proper person to engage in licensable conduct, the Authority shall have regard to any representations which may be made to it; and if the Authority proposes to refuse an application on the grounds that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence, it shall give the applicant an opportunity to respond prior to the refusal.'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

These are probing amendments, as the Committee will understand. They relate to two broad issues—the fitness and propriety of a person to be granted a licence, and the training and skills required by the unamended clause.

We are worried about the limited definition of the criteria provided in the Bill. Will the Minister comment on the inclusion of a fit and proper person test in subsection (3)(a)? Looking askance at the clause, it seems slightly strange that the Government are including a fit and proper person test while simultaneously proposing to abolish that test for alcohol licenses in the licensing White Paper published last year.

I am conscious of your strictures, Mr. Winterton, and of the firm display of authority that we always have from you, so I merely animadvert to the licensing White Paper, and do not intend to dilate on it. As you will be aware, one of the Deputy Speakers of the House, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), has acknowledged the distinction between animadversion and dilation.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am slightly worried that the hon. Gentleman is becoming a dilettante.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Very witty. If we continue today's proceedings in that spirit, we shall not be doing too badly. I shall try to avoid becoming a dilettante, as the Minister puts it. I have many gripes about him, but I would not accuse him of being a dilettante.

There seems to be a difference of approach between the Government's attitude to the licensing regime as reflected in a Home Office White Paper—and, indeed, widely welcomed, not least by me—and their approach in this context. There may be perfectly good reasons for that, but they have not yet been advanced. These probing amendments provide an opportunity for the Minister to explain.

In paragraph 15 of the licensing White Paper, the Government contend that the test is vague. It is not entirely clear why, if it is vague in that context, it should or can be other than vague in this context. If the Government's proposals on licensing are enacted, as I understand it—I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken—the licensee of a nightclub will not need to be a fit and proper person, but his or her bouncers will. That seems contradictory and presents rather a conundrum, which I hope that the Minister will be good enough to explain or, better still, resolve. It is germane to our discussion whether the authority will take representations on whether someone is a fit and proper person or whether it will merely determine the matter on the strength of an interview or a written submission from the applicant.

In the event that there is an element of interactivity—an exchange of views—will the applicant be able to respond to any adverse comments that have been made about him? In other words, we want to know not only whether an applicant is entitled to a comeback on the decision, but whether he is entitled to know the information or commentary that led to the original decision about which he is vexed.

What is meant by the phrase

``the training and skills necessary''

in subsection 3(b)? Will there be recognised training courses or minimum standards? If so, what sort of courses will they be? Who will conduct them? Where will they take place? Will fees be payable in respect of the service provided? Will there be prerequisites? Such matters are not entirely clear to me, but I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter.

How will the authority verify whether someone has been trained to the required standard? I assume an arrangement will be in place whereby a certificate must be produced. The Minister may consider that some of these matters, particularly the more commonsensical elements, are implicit in the clause, but whether there will be formal mechanisms, formal courses and formal individuals appointed to train is not entirely clear. Such matters require some explanation. I am quizzical about the clause, so will he say what areas are likely to fall under the rubric of ``other matters'' under subsection 3(c)?

The powers are broad. That, in itself, may be entirely necessary, but we need to know what they are. Subsection 3(c) states that the criteria set out by the authority

``may also include criteria relating to such other matters as the Authority thinks fit.''

That may be a moveable feast, and over time new criteria may emerge as a result of situations that were unsatisfactory or deficient. It may be difficult in advance to depict the scenario for those issues to arise. However, will there be a safety valve or an accountability mechanism for the exercise of criteria in relation to such other matters? I look forward to hearing what other members of the Committee have to say, and to the Minister's reply in particular.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Having had to argue, in a previous life, that people were or were not fit and proper in terms of licensing matters, I concur that a consistent approach must be taken when licensing people to undertake particular jobs. The hon. Member for Buckingham advanced a reasonable argument that, not least for the sake of those who adjudicate, there should be consistency. It strikes me as anomalous that there would be no parallel between people who are given drinks licences and music and dance licences—whatever changes occur following Green and White Papers—and those who will be licensed under the Bill.

As my noble Friend, Lord Thomas of Gresford said in the other place, there is a huge amount of case law and history on the fit and proper person definition. Generally, in terms of lay understanding, it is a perfectly reasonable starting point. Without going into the detail, everybody understands what it means: somebody who does not have a criminal track record and will not be inappropriate to do the job. Have the Government thought about whether it is the only possible definition available? Did they consider others and reject them? If they concluded that it was a term of art that has been established, do we not need a system whereby people can challenge an initial refusal, as in amendment No. 38?

I am concerned that many such matters might harm people's prospective careers. It is analogous to teachers being suspended, for example. If, on the basis of an argument brought to the attention of the licensing authority—which might not be well supported, and might be an allegation rather than a proven fact—it was decided to refuse a licence, there should be an opportunity to correct the decision. In the case of credit ratings, for example, somebody might have been taken to court for not paying rent, but it might be discovered later that it was entirely due to the housing benefit process not having paid the rent for the individual concerned. If we are to have a subjective test, which, by definition, the fit and proper person test is, we should have a mechanism whereby people can correct the record and submit their own information before a final adjudication is made.

I can think of other parallels. Sometimes—nowadays, it is a sensible process—the police indicate that they might be likely to take a course of action in relation to somebody, then ask for that person's representations, and then decide whether to go ahead. In certain cases, a reasonable explanation might exist of which the police did not know. It would be good to have a sequence of events, rather than a heavily bureaucratic procedure, that allowed application to be made, objection to be collected, and then a response to the objection.

The last example that I can think of is in relation to this House and the Government. Select Committees often produce reports in which they inquire into Minister's activities. Invariably, those reports are submitted to Ministers to read at draft stage to make sure that they do not include inaccuracies or misrepresentations.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I want to underline the importance of the point made by the hon. Gentleman about credit ratings and the refusal of credit. I shall not dilate on the matter, because you will not allow me to do so, Mr. Winterton, but I want to draw attention to the fact that an individual can be turned down for curious reasons. It is important that such an individual should know what those reasons are. I do not know whether he has had a similar experience, but on one occasion I sought to have an account with Harrods, although I would not want to do so now because of the appalling Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed. I was turned down, and it transpired that the reason was that I had not previously sought credit facilities, and the company was astonished that I should want them. It was nothing to do with not being a good credit risk. It is important to know such things.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have never sought an account with Harrods.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

For different reasons.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Yes. Indeed, I think that I have only been through the door once in my life, and that was not after queueing for the sales.

The individual concerned needs to know the case against him before an initial adjudication is made. It is good to have an appeals system, but it does not deal with the immediate problem—if the individual is turned down for the job, it may be too late. The job may not become available again. For instance, if someone were to live in a rural area where there was a pub with a dance hall attached—I can think of a wonderful place in Herefordshire called Wormelow Tump that has just such a facility—that might be the only convenient place in relation to the person's home.

Amendment No. 36 relates to subsection (3)(b). I assume that the Minister will say that the authority will be required to set out criteria that may differ according to the particular job for which it is licensing people. We are anticipating the jobs that will be given to others. How will that be done? Consultation with the industry must inform that. However, we will license people to do many different jobs, some of which come within relatively well-defined and confined categories. There should be an easily identifiable set of criteria that apply generally, and some that apply specifically to different activities.

There will always be a need to update the process and revise the criteria, and I understand that that is built into the Bill—the right hon. Member for Walsall, South is more experienced than the rest of us on the matter—on the basis of experience elsewhere. Increasingly, there are international dimensions to the matter. I shall give an example. There is a well-known music and dance club in my constituency, at the Elephant and Castle, called the Ministry of Sound. It is the premier music and dance club in the country. [Interruption.] The Minister is challenging that—he obviously goes to the Norfolk equivalent—but I have frequented the club.

As the Ministry of Sound has expanded its business, the club has gone to Spain and the Balearic islands. It takes its own staff, and sometimes uses a troop of people who are in the same industry, but who move around. That often happens with people who run international companies and hotel chains, and the David Lloyd sports centres may do that. Many people do not stay in one fixed place. What consideration has the Minister given to how certification, regulation and qualification in this country will validate people and allow them to work for the same employer, even if they are in a different place? We are in an age of increasing mutual transferability and recognition of qualifications. Other countries may have tougher regimes than us, and we do not want people who have gone through the validation process in this country, and are then asked by their employer to go on a summer assignment—in Ibiza or wherever—to find that they are in difficulty.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of the transferability of qualifications, it is important to establish how the existing training standards in the UK will be used by the new authority? The hon. Gentleman had other duties during a previous sitting—when his colleague, the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) was here—so he did not hear the concerns that I ventilated on behalf of a lady from Staffordshire, who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). The lady specifically asked whether the new authority would use the current training standards that she operates through the Security Industry Training Organisation and the International Professional Security Association. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful to hear from the Minister about that?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I read the record of that sitting and I agree that it would be helpful to hear the Minister's comments. I have read an article in one of Southwark's local papers about a similar issue. The appropriate committee of the local authority granted a planning application last week for a nightclub on the site of a former cinema in the Elephant and Castle, on the Old Kent road in my constituency. One of the conditions imposed was that those in charge of security for the venue should be men and women; it should not be a male-only regime. I understand the reason for that. Would that be an appropriate set of criteria?

The issue is not about training and skills; these are separate matters. It is about ensuring that the people who are employed are appropriate for the culture of the venue. The criteria should not be overly prescriptive, so that intelligence can be used to decide what is likely to work and to produce a positive public response.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, or any other Committee member, saw the BBC's excellent ``Crimewatch'' programme last night, which showed a reconstruction of an unpleasant attack on a woman shortly after she had left a nightclub. The story provided a good example of how staff could behave appropriately by allowing the victim to re-enter the club to be cared for following the attack. It occurred to me that it was apposite that the reconstruction of that horrifying incident was broadcast while the Committee was still sitting, because it highlighted the task facing the new authority.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I did not see the programme. However, the police are the official security industry, and they have adapted considerably in that regard. They try to use officers who are appropriate in terms of both gender and ethnic mix to reduce tensions and defuse situations, and they increasingly act in ways that are more likely to be effective in managing a mixed male and female clientele. Similarly, well-managed pubs and clubs tend no longer to employ merely a bunch of traditional male heavyweight bouncers who may not always respond appropriately to customers.

Will the Minister deal with the points that have been raised? His reply will determine my attitude to the amendment.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I shall not reply at length with regard to the matter, as I will also address it when subsequent clauses are discussed. However, the amendment is probing, and it addresses an important issue. The significant point is that the industry employs 350,000 people, many of whom are neither fit nor proper to operate either at managerial level or in less glamorous roles, such as security guard or bouncer.

I have faith that the Home Office will draw up the right set of criteria. That faith is based on my experience of how the Department has drawn up legislation over the past few decades. I sought advice from the House of Commons Library, which produced an excellent brief for me about licensing criteria and the meaning of the term ``fit and proper''. I will willingly circulate that brief to hon. Members. It shows that the Home Office has laid down clear criteria for issuing licences in the legal profession—for barristers and solicitors—and in various areas of gambling, such as bookmaking, casinos and gaming.

The brief also contains an excellent section that addresses how various Departments have laid down the necessary criteria for operating within the financial services sector. Strict criteria have also been laid down, within the framework of the term ``fit and proper'', with regard to jobs that are more closely related to the matter under discussion, such as debt collector, insolvency practitioner, peddler and firework retailer.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks, will he express his opinion, based on his expertise and his many years of studying the security industry, of the current SITO and IPSA standards of training? Michelle Mackleston, a former warrant officer, wrote about the matter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

If I were capable of being succinct, I would say that existing training requirements are inadequate. Under pressure, and with a gin and tonic, I would say that they were grossly inadequate and, on occasion, I would be even more critical than that. Good standards are purely optional for those companies that wish to be subjected to them. SITO is a fine organisation and is linked to the British Security Industry Association. Its standards—and those of the city and guilds—are better than standards that are adhered to by most companies.

However, if we want a viable, accountable, professional private security industry, the licensing authority must simply thank all those good bodies for what they have done so far and say that their standards can be used as a form of guidance. It must say that the purpose of the new legislation is to lift the industry by the scruff of the neck—it will be struggling, in some cases—and lay down standards of training that are so different from those adhered to by even the allegedly good companies that belong to the BSIA and have a standard two days' formal training and one day on the job training.

Not all such companies adhere even to those rather pathetic standards. Some areas of private security demand far higher standards; for example, a long apprenticeship is required to be a locksmith. There are different standards. It would be ludicrous to apply a set of uniform standards for an industry that is so fragmented and diverse that it can hardly be contained within a definition of private security.

The Government have said the licensing authority will lay down the standards. We do not know what the standards will be, but I urge the Minister to move towards a professional industry that does not have an optional two days' training, with no examination at the end of it, and which employs people at the bottom end of the employment market. All that is required of them is to sit through two days of lectures, trying to stay awake for much of the time. If they can get away with an alternative, they will; after which time they will be given jobs. Most companies do not even have those minimalist standards.

It is important for the industry to employ not only people who can meet whatever criteria are laid down, but those who consider that the security industry is sufficiently worthwhile to join for a career. It is not equal to the police, although some segments of private security are similar to the police. In fact, many ex-policemen go into the private security industry. Some do so for noble motives, because they want a retirement job, although Robert Mark chased many security staff out of their jobs in the 1970s in his anti-corruption investigation. That happened in my area.

In other countries, security guards are respected. They do not seem bored while guarding; they are vigilant. They are well trained. In Hungary, their training lasts for 300 hours. I am not saying that the industry will want to cope with 300 hours of training, but it is essential to move it up to that level. It is good to debate fit and proper persons and the criteria to be laid down for them. Later we shall be discussing appeals mechanisms—about which I have tabled an amendment—vetting and the standards that would apply. Should a person be told that just because he pinched apples when he was aged 13 he should be barred from working in the security industry? Of course not. However, activities such as arson, rape, murder, fraud and armed robbery should bar such criminals from working in the industry in perpetuity.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Some past activities should probably disqualify people. Does he agree that other matters—people should know what they are in advance—should bar people for a period but then become spent if there is no recurrence? Taxi drivers go through the same sort of process. There must be a clear system so that people know exactly where they stand—what is mandatory, what happens automatically and where there is the discretion to argue mitigating circumstances.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

An enormous amount of consultation will be necessary to get it right—to bear in mind the needs of efficiency and of a society that wants professional and honest personnel guarding property and installing alarms, and looking after children on occasions. There are civil liberties and human rights factors to be taken into account and it will be difficult to achieve a balance. It is ironic that someone who has served time for theft or fraud can become a Member of Parliament but, I suspect, would find it far more difficult to get a job in the security industry. One must be sensitive. I believe—the Home Secretary would know—that many people in the police force now have criminal records. A high percentage of the population has a criminal record of one form or another. The idea that we can look forward to a utopian future in which we appoint only those who have gone through 40 or 50 years with unblemished records is impractical.

The Home Office has ducked out of most of the serious problems in this legislation because it realises that they are far too complicated to make rushed decisions about. Although I do not like the fact that so much will depend on delegated legislation, the virtue of that is that a good Home Secretary will have ample opportunity to say, ``Let's get this right. Let's consult widely on all the different sections that have gone through the Committee stage, through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Now we get down to serious detail.'' I am sufficiently confident in the Minister to believe that the instructions given to the SIA will be clear enough to provide the right criteria for employment, not only for the poor bloody infantry down the bottom, but for management and senior management. One cannot impose standards on security guards to ensure that they are fit and proper persons if the managers and owners of companies are crooked. They must all be subject to the same, or in the case of senior management, even more rigorous standards. I am delighted that we have had this opportunity to discuss the matter, but I shall allude to the greater detail of what criteria should be taken into account in debates on later clauses.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

This has been a useful discussion. The amendments would replace what we believe to be a rigorous and flexible set of requirements with a requirement that would, effectively, be weak and incomplete. However, I do not make any criticism of that because the intention, clearly stated by the hon. Member for Buckingham, was to have a probing debate to raise the issue in a way that has been generally helpful.

I will comment on two basic issues: the criteria and the process. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government are determined—and the legislation sets this up—that applicants will have a fair and impartial process with clear rights of appeal. That is why the authority will publish and consult fully on the criteria, and will produce different criteria for different industries. There will be a full debate.

The criteria will have to deal with the question of criminal records, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and clearly set out what form of criminal record will be a disqualification. That will be an important part of the criteria to be published and consulted on.

The criteria will also have to set out clearly the position of training, which we have debated. I make one observation on that debate: a central part of the establishment of the authority is to raise the level and quality of training and skills in the industry, for the reasons argued by my right hon. Friend and by the correspondent of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. However, I am slightly more defensive of some of the existing organisations than was my right hon. Friend. I met them and discussed the issues with them. They are committed to and support the establishment of the authority. I am sure that the training organisations would recognise some of the criticisms that are being made and believe that establishing a framework such as is in the Bill will enable them to improve the quality of their work. I believe that they would accept some of the criticisms made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and that there is a need to improve it and lever it forward in that way.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey talked about training and the transferability of qualifications in Europe. Discussions are being held in the European Union about barriers to the operation of a single market in relation to the private security industry. Meetings are taking place, and the question that he raises is an important element in that context. I understand that at some point in the not too distant future it is hoped that the EU will deal with the matter. We shall be in a better position as a result of the Bill to participate properly in that process, which will allow us to take advantage of experience such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South describes of legislation in other EU member states and to ascertain how the matter can be dealt with more effectively.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

This is an increasingly important matter, and I am grateful for the Minister's helpful response. I am not up to speed. Is it now normal procedure for a Bill such as this to be passed for information and observation to the Commission in Brussels to state whether it contains anything that might constitute a barrier to competition, which, like the free movement of workers, relates to a treaty obligation that we must uphold? The matter seems to involve both a minimum standard, which may be an EU requirement, and other national requirements. Have we sought EU advice, and if not, could we do so?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am not a constitutional expert, so I shall answer off the cuff, with the qualification that I may correct myself later. I believe that we do not as a matter of routine give draft legislation to the Commission for comment on such matters, but we have procedures in the House—about which you, Mr. Winterton, will know more—that involve European Standing Committees, for example, to scrutinise particular parts of legislation. I would worry about a proposition to hand our legislation to the Commission for approval.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Just for comment, I was saying.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I do not know whether we pass legislation as a matter of routine to the institutions of the EU, whether the Council of Ministers, the Parliament or the Commission. I shall find out. I do not believe that we do, and I agree that there might be some merit in doing so.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

At the risk of being appallingly pompous, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that many aspects fall within the pillar of the EU and are exclusively the preserve of national Governments, but some aspects of employment rights fall outside that pillar, and the EU has already passed related regulations on employment.

An organisation that used to be called DG5, in the European Commission, brought together trade unionists and security companies to work out better rules and regulations to recommend to the Commission in the field of employment. I would not have expected permission to be requested for areas that fall exclusively in the domain of Her Majesty's Government, but as some areas fall within European Union competence, some information is relevant to the Commission.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. The operation of the single market in relation to the private security industry is obviously not a matter that falls within the justice pillar but relates to the single market process that he describes. That is why I framed my answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey in that context.

A series of issues are raised about Parliament dealing with the matter. Good practice, as my right hon. Friend suggests, is to have a dialogue about such questions to find out how we can move forward. We are not required to check the Bill with the European Commission and are not doing so.

The final point on publishing criteria, raised by the honourable Member for Buckingham, is the definition of a fit and proper person. For the purposes of this legislation, we believe that that well-worn phrase, given the case history that has built up in the way described by the honourable Member for Southwark North, and Bermondsey, is an appropriate one for this Bill. There are different criteria within the security industry than there are for licensees, although they are clearly related. There is a White Paper on whether the law should be changed to reflect the definition of a fit and proper person for the purpose of selling alcohol, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said. If we are re-elected, we will introduce a Bill to put into effect that licensing White Paper.

I do not want to prejudge that debate, but the hon. Gentleman would do better to suggest a change in the phrase ``fit and proper legislation'' in the context of the licensing Bill, rather than saying that the phrase ``fit and proper person'' is inappropriate for this Bill. I take his point about consistency, but we have retained the phrase because it provides a concept of what we are seeking to do in licensing people, and it has a track record, as he said.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

In the light of that, will the Minister undertake to re-examine the inconsistencies raised by me and the hon. Member for Buckingham, which would result in this Bill being tested in this way, and the other not?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I undertake to pass on the points about comparability to my colleagues dealing with the licensing legislation, for their consideration when drafting the Bill that we hope to introduce to implement the licensing White Paper.

I have said all I wanted to say on the question of publishing criteria. The hon. Member for Buckingham raised a number of points about the ability of an applicant to influence the process, how details are verified, and so on. They were entirely reasonable points, but I would categorise them as being to do with general good public administration. That is an area in which—for the reasons and examples given—Governments of all parties have not been as rigorous as they should. We are trying to improve that. I give the commitment that the operation of the licensing regime, under a new authority, will establish the kind of processes that he describes.

In addition, there is the failsafe of the appeals process, which we shall debate under clause 11, whereby—if they feel that there has been misadministration or insufficient consideration of their concerns, or that decisions have been taken that are not in accord with the published criteria—individuals may seek redress. The principle that the hon. Gentleman described, of a fair and impartial process with clear rights of appeal, is well established under the Bill. I concede, however, that proper and good public administration of the system by the new authority is crucial. It will be a priority for both the new authority and, I hope, the Secretary of State.

I have endeavoured to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, and I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am in a generous mood today, so I hope that the Minister of State enjoys it while it lasts. I have some very brief points to make in response to what he has said. On his concluding point, I accept that some of the matters that I highlighted essentially relate to principles of good administration. I recognise also that the Government have a vested interest in ensuring, in every possible way, that the Security Industry Authority has good procedures in place. If it does not, it will clearly not operate as effectively as it might, and will not enjoy the confidence that it otherwise would. I have no doubt about the Government's intentions on that front. Before the Bill is passed, however, there must be some specificity about the process of appeal, and the extent to which people will be informed about the reasons for being rejected, should be clearly established. Good intentions are valuable but not enough: they are necessary but not sufficient conditions. The opportunity to have a further debate under clause 11 is welcome, and I hope that members of the Committee will take advantage of it. On training, I am substantially reassured by what the Minister said. The debate was boosted by the contribution of the right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South.

As far as the fit and proper person test is concerned, the most charitable interpretation that I can put on the Minister's remarks is that he was unsighted on what we were arguing. We had not discussed the matter in advance, and he might not have been aware that I was proposing to allude to the licensing White Paper. I do not blame him for that—I am, in the most gentle way possible, a little critical of what he said in one respect. He did what he has done on previous occasions, which is to say, ``We're doing what we're doing because we're doing it.'' That is not entirely satisfactory. In a roundabout way, he was saying to me, ``It may be that we've got it slightly wrong in relation to our proposals for licensing, so if that's what the hon. Gentleman thinks, he should argue it in that context when the opportunity arises. I think that what we're doing is right. I know that it contradicts what we're doing elsewhere, but I think that we're right on this one, and it's the only one with which I intend to preoccupy myself at the moment.''

As we are discussing the Private Security Industry Bill rather than the licensing White Paper, the Minister's point is fair in procedural terms, but I hope that he will accept that there is a feeling in the Committee among those who have spoken—not least the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and myself—that there should be consistency between the two pieces of legislation. If there is not to be consistency, there should be a good reason why a different process is adopted.

However, I do not want to press the point further at this stage. In general terms, I am happy with what the Minister said in reply to what were probing amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 44, leave out

`the Secretary of State has approved them' and insert `an order containing such criteria in draft form has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.'.

This point is logically consequential on what we were discussing earlier and it is on well-tried ground. The previous debate indicated the appropriateness of the amendment, which is straightforward. Subsection (5) states:

``Criteria or revised criteria set out under this section shall not have effect for the purposes of this Act unless the Secretary of State has approved them.''

It provides entire ministerial authority and discretion without parliamentary approval.

There are two potential sub-arguments, and I understand the relative strength of one over the other. There is a strong argument for the initial criteria to be approved by Parliament, for the obvious reason that, as the Minister said, there are a lot of interests and civil rights to be protected. It is entirely appropriate that Parliament, with its experience, and not the Government, who have a promoting view only, should be able to feed into and inform that process. I am sure that whichever Ministers are in the Department at the time will be willing to publish the criteria in draft, put them out to consultation in the normal way and ensure that Parliament is apprised of the responses. As we all know, the mind of Parliament focuses much more effectively on such matters if they are on the Order Paper coming down the track rather than in a consultation paper that may or may not be in the pile on the desk at the appropriate time to command people's attention outwith the parliamentary timetable.

The second issue is whether revisions of the criteria must come before the House. It is a matter of getting the balance right. I do not believe that changing dots, commas and minor matters should take up Parliament's time; that would be wrong. Constitutionally, we are developing an intermediate procedure that allows us to examine things without the power necessarily going to statutory instruments, and I am more relaxed about that. For the time being, I prefer us to start by bringing matters here, and later—if we are comfortable that the system is working—we let it go. That is better than starting from a presumption that matters do not come here, and that we respond only in a crisis. By definition, such a response would require the amendment of substantive legislation, which is a much more onerous and time-consuming task.

I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking to examine the proposal and I am conscious that, if Parliament does not have much more time to run, the matter must be addressed quickly. I strongly urge him to indicate that he will be supportive, and I hope that Labour and Conservative Members will see the merit of supporting the amendment. If there must be a process of agreement on drafting and further discussions prior to Report, I shall be happy to participate. It is important that we get the new legislation and the new sector right because, as the right hon. Member for Walsall, South said, the matter affects a lot of people. This is the beginning of a new regime, and it should not be a matter for only the relevant Minister in the Department.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I support the hon. Gentleman, because effective scrutiny and parliamentary approval are the essence of the matter. He may be aware—the Minister is certainly conscious—that the affirmative procedure is a hobby-horse of mine. I do not apologise for that.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made the point that the matters are substantial. He emphasised that he would not be inclined to cavil at every dot and comma, and that that would not be a matter that required or justified a substantial allocation of parliamentary time. It is a common ground that the matters are substantial, and the fact that we have had a reasonable exchange on all the matters demonstrates that there are questions to be asked and answers to be provided. Some answers—in general rather than specific terms—have been provided by the Minister.

We are concerned about the wide power of the authority. Inevitably, perhaps, clause 7 is presented as a shell, because we do not know what will be inside that shell. The Minister has mentioned, in different contexts, that there is always a balance about allocation of time. In relation to other legislation, I remember him telling me that parliamentary time is precious, that there is not a great deal of it and that he did not think that it would be justified to debate matters in considerable detail on the Floor of the House. However, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey knows, that debate is usually only 90 minutes' debate about a statutory instrument, and sometimes the Government conclude that that is justified or essential.

We are discussing the nitty-gritty and detail that affect the rights of individuals, as well as the propriety and efficacy of the procedures of the Security Industry Authority, so the matters are not light or trifling. We should know what we are scrutinising, and know to what—if Parliament is so minded—we are giving our approval. I join the hon. Gentleman in anticipating, as by now I should be able to do, the normal lines that the Minister trots out on these occasions. He tends to say that we do not need to discuss such matters in detail on the Floor of the House, and I always respond—as I shall with monotonous regularity for as long as he trots out his tried and trusted argument—that we must know what the Government have in mind. I am not preoccupied with having a 90-minute debate on the details of the criteria.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

That is not the impression that the hon. Gentleman gives.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. If he listens to the development of the argument—we are delighted to have him here—he will see why. I shall not dilate on the point, but he has provoked me into making it. It should not be necessary for me to explain the point, and it would not be necessary for me to explain the point to the excellent Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Harrow, West, Mr. Daniel Finkelstein, who will shortly be replacing the hon. Gentleman as that constituency's representative in the House.

I want to know in advance what the Government have in mind, because we may then be sighted and be able to say that the Minister has listened and that he has been good enough to provide a draft of the criteria, and, on the strength of that, we can give our assent on Report and Third Reading. We may then not be minded to request the affirmative procedure on a statutory instrument that requires 90 minutes of debate. I tell the Minister—this is also for the elucidation of the hon. Member for Harrow, West—that one or the other will do.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

Thank you.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful for the thanks.

We should have either a draft now or the guarantee of a proper debate later. I hope that the Minister can see that I am being more eminently reasonable than I normally am, which takes a bit of doing. All I want is for him to lift the fog and give us an idea, before Report, of what the Government have in mind. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made the point well, and I have briefly tried to underline the force of that point. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As the hon. Gentleman says, the debate is familiar, and I shall not bore him by repeating what I have said previously about such matters, except to say that I believe that it is right for Parliament to consider such matters fully. We always face a genuine contradiction in that the Opposition rightly, and in accordance with the Government, call for us to consult with industry and various interests about the regulations that we introduce, but want Parliament to discuss them before we have had such consultations. There is a real problem of timing.

I hope that I go some way towards addressing the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey by emphasising that, under the Bill, the Government will need to ask Parliament to approve several regulations in order to give practical effect to the main provisions of the Bill. Regulations will be presented to the House, in due course, on a number of matters. First, a regulation to prescribe circumstances in which persons may be exempted from the licensing requirement will be introduced and, if wished, debated. Secondly, regulations will be made that govern the licence application procedure, which is what we are talking about for the reasons set out by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. Thirdly, we must prescribe conditions on which licences must be granted—which is the same point about establishing structure as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made. Fourthly, we must delegate to local authorities relevant Security Industry Authority functions that relate to the licensing of door supervisors. That also relates to points made by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden.

The fundamental establishing structure, which I think is what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey sought, will be required to be laid before Parliament under the Bill as it stands, for reasons that were set out. However, when we revise the criteria, or establish detailed criteria industry by industry—which was a good point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham and his colleagues, because we may need different criteria for different sections of the industry—I am not convinced that each of those particular sets of criteria ought necessarily to be laid before Parliament.

I accept the general principle of the amendment, that Parliament should have presented to it the core issues that establish the regime under which we shall be working, and I believe that the regulations under the Bill will do that. I think that he said that it was not necessary to put all the technical details, the dots and commas, before Parliament. My argument is not the traditional argument that I have with the hon. Member for Buckingham, but that we have carried out competently what is being asked of us in the Bill. I urge the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It is not entirely clear that the Government have done what the Minister claims, but I hope that they will do so. While I accept his point about the potential for a multiplicity of slightly varied criteria for different sectors and either the impracticability or the undesirability of providing details of them in advance of the enactment of the Bill, they should be in the process of being worked on now or be worked on soon. It would be helpful and courteous if he sent copies of the drafts, perhaps with no absolute commitment, to all members of the Committee before Report stage.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We have a timing problem, as we have with other Bills. We have tried, but it is been difficult sometimes for the Home Office to produce draft guidelines during our proceedings in Committee, because we genuinely want to consult different people about what we are doing. The hon. Gentleman himself rightly urged consultation on us. Obviously, we have ideas, but they are very much in shadow form, and not developed to the level of detail that he would want. I subscribe to the general desirability of his question about providing information to members of the Committee at the earliest possible time, but I cannot give the commitment that he is seeking, which is that within 10 days or a fortnight we produce a document that will be genuinely useful to members of the Committee or the House more generally. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful, but timing is a genuine dilemma, given how it interrelates with the consultative process.

I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful for the Minister's considered reply and for the support of the hon. Member for Buckingham. It will be helpful if the Minister asks his civil servants to write him a note for us that sets out in compendium form the further processes that will come before Parliament so that we can consider them outside the Committee and ensure that they cover the criteria. Furthermore, what is envisaged in the Government's policy in relation to the steps that precede such criteria? We understand the timetable problem that he outlined, but he must bear in mind those who have a direct interest in our proceedings.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am happy to give the commitment sought by the hon. Gentleman. I shall write to him and other members of the Committee with as much detail as I can give on the issues that he raised. I provided some information in my response to the amendment, as he acknowledged, but I shall write to him with whatever further information I have.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On that basis, given that we want the Bill to have broad consensus and be in the best possible shape in a fairly short time, I do not intend to press the amendment. I might wish to return to the issue on Report, as, I suspect, might other hon. Members. I am not persuaded that the situation is resolved, but rather that it might be possible to make do without the amendment. Given our tight timetable, it would be helpful if other such matters could be raised that might help us to make as early decisions as possible about what we will need to pursue in the remainder of the Committee and on Report. For instance, if we were given advance notice of any further amendments that the Government might be minded to table on Report, that would help us to achieve the maximum consensus.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Because of the tight timetable, I am willing to give the commitment to notify the Opposition parties and the Committee of any further amendments that the Government might be considering.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I am not in the Chair, but I wish to point out that the discussion of the licensing criteria has not yet finished, because that matter will also arise in the debate on clause 9. The Minister might think that he has got away with it in the debate on this clause, but I hope that I will be called to speak in the debate on clause 9.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Opportunities to discuss the matter arise in clauses 7, 8 and 9. I do not assume that we shall ever be finished with the matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman is re-elected to the House it will remain on the agenda, which would be a good thing.

In light of the Minister's helpfulness, and the willingness of the hon. Member for Buckingham to help me to keep an eye on the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 69, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Licences to engage in licensable conduct

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 33, leave out `applicant' and insert `relevant person'.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 14, in page 7, line 34, at end insert—

`(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7) above a relevant person is—

(a) the employer, where an applicant is an individual who in the course of his employment with the employers carries out designated activities;

(b) the applicant, in all other cases.'.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

This will be one of my shorter speeches. Historically, most—although not all—sectors of the security industry have been appallingly badly paid. I recall writing 15 years ago, in partnership with the Low Pay Unit, a chapter of a book on low pay in the security industry, and the situation has not improved since then. The introduction of the minimum wage, and the fact that it will be increased in a few months time, will lead, to a degree, to a level playing field for guards, because an employer will not legally be able to pay less than the minimum wage, so long as it is properly enforced.

However, low pay for guards has led to a depression in standards and a downward spiral in quality. Because the industry is viciously competitive, contracts tend to be won on the basis of price rather than quality. Until a few years ago, local authorities were legally obliged to choose the lowest bid. If an authority hired on that basis, it would live to repent its decision, because it would have hired a low-quality service. That was certainly the case with regard to security.

The unfortunate man or woman who finds a job in the security sector is entering into an industry in which wages are chronically low, even allowing for the minimum wage. One must consider the other types of industry with which the security sector is in competition. Would someone who had the choice of working for a contract cleaning company or for a local authority sweeping the road, which involves no licence payment prior to employment, enter the security industry, which already has numerous bars such as late and long hours and low status? The fee for prospective employees could be £30, £40, £50 or £60. I do not feel that many people will say, ``Before I get that job, I shall have to pay some sort of introductory fee in order to be allowed to enter a low-wage industry.'' It will be an obstacle to the free movement of labour.

My amendment is supported by the GMB, just about the only union that operates seriously at the level of guarding. Few companies are unionised, but at least some people have the protection of belonging to a union. I have been approached by security companies such as Group 4, which say that they will pay the licence fee. As they will employ the person, they are prepared to take on the additional burden of stumping up whatever the fee will be.

As I said on Tuesday, when selecting staff, companies will not have people simply coming in off the street, filling in the form and sending it off to the regulatory authority for approval. They would be mad to do that. They should do what any decent company would do in hiring staff: check their background, make telephone calls and ask for letters of testimonial. That could cost £700 or £1,000. An additional £40 will hardly make a crucial difference, but it will put good companies at a competitive disadvantage, as they will have additional costs because they, rather than the individual involved, pay the licence fee.

I have no idea what the Government response will be and whether they will specify in the Bill that payment of the licence fee should be the hirer's responsibility. I can cite examples of when that takes place already. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, he might at least give the industry encouraging words that it should bear the cost.

People coming to the job are not on £25,000 a year and moving from a reasonably well-paid job. It is a working-class, non-specialist job. Some sectors of the industry have highly qualified staff. The possession of a masters degree is almost a minimum in some cases, and vast experience is required. Such people may be able to afford to pay £50, but the humble security guard who has been moving from unemployment to job creation schemes and low-paid jobs is not going to stump up the money, so it is incumbent on good employers—and all employers if the Minister is prepared to reconsider—to accept that the obligation should be on the company, not the individual, who will suffer enough working for the security industry without having to pay for the privilege.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before I call the next speaker, I counsel the Committee, as its servant, that it has agreed a programme, and important matters are yet to be discussed. After this sitting, we have only a further three sittings. I hope that all hon. Members, whether Government or Opposition, will bear that in mind, because I want all important matters in the Bill to be properly debated and scrutinised.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On a point of order, Mr. Winterton. The official Opposition anticipate that, although some substantive issues are likely to be debated this afternoon and will take some time, the Committee will make rapid progress when we reach later clauses, to which few, if any, amendments are tabled. I anticipate that next Tuesday morning, in particular, we shall cover a lot of ground quickly.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that remark, but I am a servant of the Committee, and I want the Bill to be properly debated in Committee. I call Mr. John Bercow—for a few seconds.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The amendments would require employers to pay the registration fee for their employees. Necessarily, that would entail a burden, but equally, as the right hon. Member for Walsall, South said, why should the employee be burdened? That is especially a matter of concern, although it does not affect the principle, if the individuals involved are low-paid.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Clause 8 - Licences to engage in licensable conduct

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 14, in page 7, line 34, at end insert—

`(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7) above a relevant person is—

(a) the employer, where an applicant is an individual who in the course of his employment with the employers carries out designated activities;

(b) the applicant, in all other cases.'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I welcome your return to the Chair, Mr. Benton.

The amendments would require employers to pay the registration fee for their employees. As we adjourned this morning, if memory serves me correctly, I was summarising their purport, and saying that they would inevitably impose a cost on business. Equally, it was only fair to make the point, as the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) did, that if employers did not pay the employee would have to, which could be burdensome. An issue of principle is involved as well as the practical question of whether it is fair to impose a burden on people who are relatively poorly paid. On balance, it cannot be right for people who are poorly paid to be clobbered in such a way.

It would be helpful if the Minister would give the Committee the latest estimate of the level of the fee, if the Government have one. If the employer paid the fee and the employee then left his employment to start work with another employer, would that not be unfair to the original employer who paid the fee? Although on the face of it the case seems to be fairly open and shut, some questions remain. After all, the licence is for the individual, unless it is granted with the proviso that it would lapse on the occasion of someone transferring employment. I do not think that that is the intention of the Government or of the right hon. Gentleman.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

This is an important amendment, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend tabled it. We debated the matter on Second Reading, but important issues have been raised that should be dealt with. In answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), we estimate the cost of the licence to be approximately £35 to £40, usually for a three-year licence. That is the scale of fee that we think is right, although it is a ball-park figure rather than an absolute commitment. We do not believe it to be an exorbitant fee. We believe it to be reasonable, and we do not believe that it will deter those already employed in the industry from obtaining a licence, nor those wishing to gain employment in the industry. I agree with the thrust of what my right hon. Friend said about the drive that is required to raise the working standards of the industry, including the levels of pay and training. That is a key part of the process. The measures that he mentioned such as the minimum wage—I also mention the working families tax credit—are designed to attack the core issue, which is relative low pay and its implications, rather than the various costs that are borne by various people.

In principle, it is right that if the primary responsibility is on the individual to obtain a personal licence, it is appropriate for employers to pay licence fees for their employees. However, I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend that it is more than a hope—it is an expectation—of the Government that reputable companies will wish to pay the fees for their employees. He was correct to say that a number of the serious companies involved believe that that is their obligation. As he said, however, they are worried that the playing field would not be level, because other employers would not be under the same legal obligation to pay the fees. Employers believe that it is right that they should be paying the fees, providing quality training and addressing other issues in respect of raising standards in the industry. We expect that reputable companies will wish to pay the fees for their employees, but we do not believe—and this is where I part company with my right hon. Friend—that we should impose on all employers the duty to pay.

Employers have, in general, welcomed the Bill, but we are trying to steer a course between good regulation and over-regulation. To force employers to pay a fee that targets employees who are often highly mobile—a point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham—would not necessarily be the right way forward. I regret that I cannot ask the Committee to support the amendment. I urge my right hon. Friend to withdraw it.

I can, however, take the second step that my right hon. Friend suggested, which is to place on record as strongly as I can the expectation of the Government that good and reputable employers will pay the fees for their employees, provide appropriate training, and commit themselves to the business standards that the Bill aims to achieve. I am sorry that I cannot go all the way with him, although his arguments have a great deal of force. To place such a requirement on all employers would be going beyond the balanced approach that we wish to take.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I will resist any temptation to lock horns on behalf of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, because that would be presumptuous. He is well able to fight his own battles, and no doubt he will continue to do so at every opportunity.

Although there is some logic and wisdom in what the Minister is saying, he may wish to entertain the possibility that, for people at the start of their careers who are very low-paid or who have been through periods of not working at all, the level of the fee could be burdensome. Is he willing to consider a concessionary rate for such people and for those who will be engaged in such work on a part-time basis?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am willing to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He has inadvertently reminded me of a point that I should have made more forcefully in response to my right hon. Friend.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I always like to be helpful.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have noticed that the hon. Gentleman always has that aspiration. Some might call it spin without substance, but I would not say that.

Given how we have drafted the first part of the Bill setting out the obligations of the new authority to review the situation and its implications, it would be possible to reconsider matters after a processing period. If it were established that there was an unlevel playing field that would, in effect, weaken the competitive position of the reputable employer, the situation would be reconsidered.

The point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham about young people coming into the industry seeking concessions is another issue that could be reassessed.

I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart), who I believe, is a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, not the GMB.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

That can be confirmed with pride. There is a problem in trying to address the issues in the Bill that concerns an industry that has such a wide spectrum of expertise and facilities. I want to comment on what are commonly referred to now as door stewards or venue stewards.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is making an intervention. If he wishes to make a speech, I suggest that he waits until the Minister has finished his remarks.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Having identified the end of the spectrum, I want to say only that the virtuous circles that the Government are attempting, I hope successfully, to achieve will be compounded by the industrial relations factor to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South referred. The Bill will not be jeopardised, but compounded in a positive sense. The Government can do so much, but other aspects of the industry cannot assist that process.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It recalls to mind the important debates that we had in the Labour movement some 10 or 15 years ago about whether a minimum wage was appropriate or whether it was up to trade union negotiation to resolve the matter. I am glad, as I know he is, that we resolved the issue in favour of the minimum wage. The balance between the role of the state and that of the industrial relations process is delicate and not easy to resolve, particularly when regulating such a complicated business.

Before urging my right hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment, I must say that his worry about the impact of the Bill on parts of the industry in different ways and the danger to competition that could arise if there were distortions is one that would lead the Security Investment Authority, when established, to reconsider the issue. If my expectation that reputable big companies will pay the fees for their employees is not met, that would also need to be dealt with. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment, although I acknowledge that he has raised a serious matter.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I shall withdraw the amendment reluctantly, not necessarily because of the logic of my hon. Friend's argument, which has a degree of plausibility—I say, a degree—but because what comes out of our discussions in Committee and in the House might be different from what we are debating at present. I am looking to the regulatory process to remedy the short-term failure of the Home Office to draft a Bill that meets my demands.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not want to tempt the right hon. Gentleman to dilation, but it might be instructive to members of the Committee if he were to offer us a brief synopsis of the liability arrangements for fees that appertain in some of the countries with regulatory regimes that he has recommended to the Committee.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I do not need any prodding to filibuster. It is you, Mr. Benton, who intimidate me into not responding to such matters. One of my great fears is that the good companies will be penalised. Not all big companies are good companies. I shall not name names.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

And not all small companies are bad.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

Absolutely. At present, the good company will be saddled with the cost of a licence fee, not the bad company. Good ones will receive the voluntary registration approval bill, but bad ones will not. All sorts of aspects of the Bill will give poor companies a competitive advantage. In-house security will not be subject to control, as it will be voluntary. Lawyers representing the shady or poor companies will find ways, unless the Home Office can devise watertight legislation, in which a contract security company can hire itself out to become an in-house security company. The hirer will therefore avoid having to pay for a private security company, which of necessity will be saddled with higher bills because of the minimum wage and the additional burdens of voluntarily submitting itself to higher standards than other sections of the industry, which will not do anything unless they are legally compelled and an inspector calls. The smaller good company and the bigger good company will be discriminated against in favour of the less good big company and the appallingly bad medium-sized and small company.

When companies are all competing for the same job—and a personnel manager, for instance, is choosing between competing bids—the moment that one company obtains a contract, the other side will know the terms and will write to the personnel manager offering to charge less. That puts companies under pressure. Security is a grudge purchase anyway—companies are not interested in it, their insurance company insists that they hire security, so why spend more money than necessary? They can always claim from the insurance company if there is a robbery. All those factors conspire to give unfair advantage to the duff company, and the proposed legislation will help in that process. I am partly reassured by the fact that the SIA will have to think about the matter. It will be one hell of an organisation to be a member of, because we will have bestowed on it an enormous amount of work.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I just want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the speech that he made on Second Reading. Before he asks the Committee's permission to withdraw the amendment, which raises an important issue on which we have all agreed, will he say what are the minimum additional improvements on which he will insist? What changes does he require before the test that he set—that this is an adequate Bill—is fulfilled? It was not adequate on Second Reading, and we must make changes to make it adequate. If such amendments are to be withdrawn, what will those changes be?

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

One is to subject companies to compulsory registration and approval, with standards laid down to which they must adhere. Others are that in-house security should be included along with contract security, and that the inspectorate should be independent. Those provisions are not in the Bill. There is an option in relation to the regulatory authority for inclusion in the Bill eventually, but the next Parliament will be overloaded with considering statutory instruments that are 15 ft wide. I hope that secondary legislation can achieve the purpose properly.

I am not prepared to wage the battle any longer. I note the irony of the Conservative party joining me in promoting the cause of the low-paid in the industry against a Government who are preoccupied with raising living standards. Life is filled with irony. I hope that when the Minister goes to sleep tonight, he will recall that irony. When we consider the Bill at a later stage, I hope that he will have had a Pauline conversion. Reluctantly, and without the slightest enthusiasm, I am convinced that I am right and that, as usual, the Home Office is wrong. The amendment would have been sufficient because it would have provided an option whereby the relevant authority could be the company or the individual.

Rejecting the amendment is a clear statement that the company pays, and the Minister's exhortation can be read in Hansard. I suspect that not all the rogue companies or poor companies read more than The Sun. They certainly will not read Hansard or the record of this Committee's deliberations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Licence conditions

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in

page 8, line 6, at end insert—

`(ba) conditions containing requirements for the licensee to make himself easily and clearly identifiable to members of the public as a licensed security operative.'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 46, in

page 8, line 8, after `licence', insert—

`and any other appropriate documentation'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Benton. The amendments are extremely important. I imagine that other members of the Committee who have particular interests in wheelclamping, not least the right hon. Member for Walsall, South and the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), may also wish to contribute to our discussions. In an earlier debate, the hon. Lady referred rightly to the good work of the RAC. I am now about to refer to the other leading motoring organisation, the AA, to thank it for the work that it has also done on behalf of motorists.

I make no secret of my welcome for the fact that the AA was able to send us detailed briefings on such matters, but even before we had read them we had intended to table such amendments, because we feel strongly that those who are working for wheelclamping companies should be easily identifiable by motorists. The Government would be wise to write that into the Bill. Security guards and bouncers should also be easily identifiable.

We tabled amendment No. 46 because wheelclampers should show motorists documentary evidence that they have permission to clamp. I make no apology for dwelling on such matters, because motorists throughout the country are a much put-upon species, particularly during the past four years of this openly anti-car Government. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions made great play of his policies that were hitting at motorists when the Government first came into power. Over the years, they have been forced by pressure from the official Opposition and motoring organisations to go back on that. Moreover, the Department's many embarrassments about its policy for motorists were reinforced by the Secretary of State's appointment of Lord Macdonald to the Department, so that he could water down some of the more overtly anti-car policies.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman to keep to the amendment under discussion.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will. We regard ourselves as members of the party that wants to defend the rights of hard-pressed motorists, particularly from the depredations of the Government. We want some protection for motorists written into the Bill.

Mr. Charles Clarke rose—

Mr. Bercow rose—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall give way to my hon. Friend and then to the Minister.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me first. He was wise and discerning to do so, because the Minister of State's intervention is likely to be vexatious and mine assuredly is not. As for the argument about the requirement of proof of identity, there is a parallel or an analogy with the requirement—

Mike Hall (Labour, Weaver Vale)

Interventions should be brief.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I will develop the point, and the Whip will learn his lesson. There is a parallel or an analogy with the requirement to provide proof of identity in the case of, for example, gas inspectors or other officials of either public companies or privatised utilities where there is an invasion of property rights.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree with my hon. Friend. I want to explain why my party and the Automobile Association believe that such identification is necessary.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I do not want to get embroiled in an argument, but I want briefly to place it on the record that the Government are not anti-car. Organisations such as the AA and the RAC have been more involved in making policy under this Government than under any previous Administration. With regard to wheelclamping, the motorists' forum, chaired by Sir Trevor Chinn, has discussed road penalties and other matters.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Motorists will have the right to express their views about the Government's record at the general election. Labour Committee members, some of whom may not be here in a month or two, will no doubt reap the whirlwind.

I mentioned on Second Reading, and in various Committee debates, concerns that have been raised in the area of the country that I represent about the misbehaviour of employees of a clamping company that has been hired by South West Trains. The AA has wisely commented that the new system must address motorists' concerns about the honesty, probity and character of wheelclamping operators. With regard to that matter, the AA has rightly criticised the Government's proposals: the Bill does not explain in detail the conditions that should be mandatory for a clamping operative to gain a licence.

The amendments are designed to ensure that motorists who have been clamped will have certain assurances. Licensed clamping operatives should wear approved uniforms so that they are clearly identifiable. That is already a requirement for contractors employed by local authorities to enforce on-street parking regulations: for example, all contractors who enforce restricted parking regulations in London boroughs are required to wear approved uniforms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, that is also the case for many workers in the security industry who have dealings with the public. Clamping operatives should also carry written consent from the landowner to clamp unauthorised vehicles that is available on demand, so that motorists can request to view it before agreeing to pay their release fee. The Bill must refer to that requirement in detail.

It is important that motorists, and in particular those of a nervous disposition, feel secure. That point has been raised with me by many of my constituents—and, as I have mentioned, by the editor of a local paper, who has published a series of articles on the subject. Many single women commute to London and return to station car parks late at night: we must ensure that they feel safer. Some of them have been threatened. For instance, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central referred to a celebrated case on Second Reading, and I share the views that she expressed about it: an unauthorised clamping operative demanded sexual favours in return for removing a clamp. I hope that Committee members will agree with me that the Bill must include provisions that deter operatives from engaging in such appalling criminal activity.

As the AA have pointed out, if clamping operatives are required to carry written authorisation from the landowner, motorists will be able to discover whether their vehicles have been legally clamped. Motorists often hold understandable suspicions that a clamping operative is not acting with the landowner's authority but merely extorting money.

My party also agrees with the AA's comment that clamping should be practised in private car parks only as a last resort. Landowners should be obliged to demonstrate that all other practical and reasonable means of excluding unauthorised vehicles have already been tried, and that clamping is necessary in terms of parking management. It must be made quite clear to each motorist entering a private car park that only authorised vehicles are welcome, and unauthorised vehicles are likely to be clamped. That can be achieved only with clear and unambiguous signage. Motorists entering the car park must be able to see the signs and be aware of the risk that they run if they leave their vehicles in an unauthorised way.

There have been many occasions in and around my constituency when inconspicuous signs have been placed where motorists are unlikely to see them, or the signs have not been looked after—the paint has rubbed off. People have had their vehicles clamped without having the opportunity to see a sign. That is why the matter should be dealt with in the Bill.

We feel strongly about the amendments. Even if the Minister cannot accept the precise wording, we hope that he will return to this serious issue on Report. The problem will not go away. Not only do we feel strongly about it, so do the Automobile Association, and other motoring organisations, I am sure. I hope that he will give us some comfort by saying that he will continue to think about the arguments carefully and perhaps table Government amendments on Report.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I am a member of the RAC public policy committee, and knowing the work that it has done over the years on wheelclamping, it is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Government. The previous Conservative Government published a Green Paper on wheelclamping years ago and did nothing about it. Only when this Government came in with pro-car policies such as measures against wheelclamping has something been done. Members of the RAC have welcomed that, as has the AA.

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for wheelclamping operatives to carry identification, but I am concerned—as are the RAC and AA—that the danger of including some measures in the Bill is that one may leave out others of equal importance. Clearly, companies that are issued with licences should agree to follow a code of conduct that should be worked out between motoring organisations, the new authority and other interested bodies. For us to anticipate their deliberations may lead to important things being left out. For example, it is important that vehicles used by wheelclamping companies are clearly marked. At present, many wheelclamping operatives drive around in unmarked vehicles as a way of entrapping motorists. That important issue must be examined.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned signage and other issues that should be included in a code of conduct. However, we should also examine the new measures that wheelclamping companies are taking to entrap motorists, such as using photographs and sending out demands for money later. They are gradually changing their practices. There may be a restriction on the curbing of their activities if too much is included in this legislation, which I fear would be the result of the amendments.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I should have thought that the hon. Lady's anxiety on that point could be assuaged, not least on the grounds that the Government regularly invoke in relation to other parts of the Bill and other measures, that there is always scope for revision. Given the choice between having half a cup and an entirely empty one, the former must be preferable. If her preference is for a code of conduct, does she believe that it should have statutory effect?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Licences should be granted to people who agree to stick to the code of conduct. If the code must continually return to the House for revision, it will become inflexible. The licensing authority needs flexibility to change it if necessary. That is my fear about the amendment and why I believe that we need to consider ensuring that—as I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure us—motoring organisations will be consulted by the authority when it drafts the measures under which licences will be granted.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am sympathetic to the amendments. The consumer or user is likely to have someone say that he comes with authority, and people need to be able to see that that authority is carried. It presents a dilemma for Liberals and others that people increasingly pretend to be what they are not.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Oh, yes?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman provokes me. Tories tried to be regulatory when they were not, the Labour party tries to be new when it is unsure whether it is old or new, and we have all sorts of confusion. No wonder it looks, sadly, as though people will not vote in great numbers. Liberals do not tend to be guilty of the same error, and some of us are consistent over many years and try to be both liberal and progressive all the time.

The argument relates to whether we need to regulate. As the Minister knows, my view is that we should regulate only when we have to and that we should have a presumption against a law unless we need one. I have therefore wrestled a bit with the issue, but I have reached the conclusion that so many people pretend to be meter readers for electricity supply companies, of which there are now so many, or pretend to work for the local authority, for example, that we must have some way of checking. One of the ways of doing so is to have something that attests to the fact that they are what they claim to be. The difficulty is that people can buy a uniform at the local market, put a badge on the cap or the blazer, and fool people who have partial or failing sight or are uncertain. Plenty of cowboys and girls around the country use land, clamp vehicles and make money. It is an extremely profitable activity. Merely saying that people must have something that says that they are authenticated does not get us home, however, because people can pretend to be authenticated by having a false uniform, cap badge and identification card.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman conjures up the alarming and even eerie spectacle of a uniform that has effectively been aped by an organisation that is not authentic or respectable for the purposes of the Bill. Does he agree that a signed warrant, although of course still susceptible to abuse, is a much more reliable instrument for these purposes than a fairly easy-to-imitate uniform?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We seem to be going down the road of neighbourhood wardens, which the Minister knows that I welcome for people in authority, but not the police. My colleagues and I believe that we should go further and have local authority-employed community safety people.

We have discussed regulating people who work in pubs and bars for the licensing trade. There is a strong argument for people who have to be licensed to do their job to have an approval system from the local authority. In this day and age, many people claim to do jobs that were previously in the public sector. Such jobs are now in statutory undertakings in the private sector such as electricity, gas and water supply. Local government is the best level for approval, because there is an easily accessible identification number that can be authenticated. It would not be a great burden on the industry to have to register with the local authority those employees who are to engage in licensable activities.

That is not a fully worked-out thesis but a proposal that we go down the road in the simplest possible manner. That will give us the greatest chance of consistency, because somebody local will say that everybody who does a job in the area must have an easily identifiable and certifiable signed warrant that can be checked. I do not pretend that that is perfect, but it is as good as it can be in the foreseeable circumstances. People must have the right to challenge such a person, so there must be something that is visible about that person. That concept works well with the police, and it is a good idea for somebody who does a respectable job to have an identifiable number that makes them unique. I do not see a problem with people working in Southwark or Doncaster having to wear a number on the outside of their uniform or clothing, without which they should not act with authority.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

I see the merit in simplicity. The hon. Gentleman discussed what Southwark, Doncaster or Lewisham may do under such a system. The problem is that although there may be consistency within a small area, there would not be consistency throughout the nation. Has he considered that?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Of course, there would be the argument about how that would be done nationally. The truth of the matter, as the hon. Lady, who comes from the borough next to mine, knows, is that we are moving down the road in which we have borough voluntary schemes, through which boroughs authenticate people such as bouncers. In each of our boroughs, we have local authority employees who use separate identification methods, and that seems to be manageable at a local level. If a security company wishes to operate pubs, clubs or car parks across boroughs, that must be cleared. There is not an endless number of principal local authorities, and I accept that lower-tier local authorities should not deal with the matter, because there are too many of them.

I have not thought of an alternative for when we have regional government, which I hope will be soon, if the Labour party lives up to its earlier promises that have been delayed—although half the job has been done in London. I hope that we shall be able to introduce a system in regional government, and I understand that we must have a debate. I argue that there should be a system, and I suggest that local government is the best tier under which to operate it, but I am open to persuasion that there may be a better tier.

It is no good having identification that may be seen only if one has sight like a hawk and can read from a great distance, and to have to peer at somebody's right breast in order to identify who that person is, what he or she does and what their number is. Increasingly, we go to conferences and everybody is almost vulgar about their personal relationships, because the only way we can work out who we are talking to—I am serious—is to look down a woman's cleavage or peer at a man's lapel. That is fine in the private world of mutual identification, but, in the public world when somebody is doing a proper job, people should not have to go to such extremes to know who someone is.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

We know the name and address of a good psychiatrist if the hon. Gentleman wants to continue his analysis. I apologise, Mr. Benton.

On a serious point, a sensible argument has been made on both sides of the Committee that there must be a national set of standards. However, the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that the regime should be administered locally. I have sympathy with that, but the wording of the amendment does not lend itself to that. I suppose that the spirit of the amendment is in line with that analysis, but I am sure that he will accept that there is a wide spectrum of circumstances: it is important to be able to identify door stewards and wheelclampers in case there is inappropriate action—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I am sorry to have to remind the hon. Gentleman of this again, but interventions should be brief.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman once more to allow him to finish his point.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

The point that I am making is that certain security staff need anonymity to an extent. It is when they conclude their actions or investigations that they need to make themselves known. I am sure that that can be better dealt with later—not in the Bill but by regulation or codes of practice.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I used to do legal work in relation to prosecutions for shoplifting on behalf of the police or private stores. There are two different types of security jobs—those in relation to which it is important that the public know that they are dealing with somebody who has the authority to take their possessions and remove them from the premises, or somebody who, by definition, does their work on behalf of the employer, privately, until they have to prove their identity at a later stage. The point that I made, somewhat light-heartedly, is that it is no good having an identification method that is so difficult to check that it is no use at the time—it is no good checking the day after—or so difficult to see that one cannot identify the person on the door of the pub or club.

I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the amendments would not take us all the way to the conclusion that he and I would like. That is not a failure of the amendments, but they do not address all the issues. This is a framework Bill rather than a prescriptive one, and I would be grateful to know how the Minister sees us reaching such a conclusion, which, I would guess, is a widely shared aspiration. It is no good having a system that does not work for the consumer 99 per cent. of the time because the identity of the person with authority is not known, so people who pretend to be in authority cannot be prosecuted because they cannot be identified.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was entertained by the hon. Gentleman's remarks about cleavages and how he operates. He told us in a previous Committee that he always used to encourage people to run away from the police. I wonder whether the Liberals will now introduce proposals that everybody should have their name stamped—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister and I will be able to go into business jointly and write a tome based on all the revelations made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey in various Committees on which all three of us have served. It will be known as ``The Confessions of . . .''

Mike Hall (Labour, Weaver Vale)

There will not be a market for it.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend rudely and offensively says that there will not be a market for such a book, because only Liberals would want to buy it.

On the issues regarding utility companies, I advertise the work being done under this Government by the distraction burglary taskforce that we set up. We have put significant resources into the taskforce, which, with the help of the major utility companies, is trying to deal with severe and damaging crimes involving exceptionally elderly people—mainly women over 75—who are targeted in a cynical and vicious way by criminal organisations. We are doing significant work, and on a problem that has not been tackled before.

An interesting point was made about local authorities. Clause 13 envisages a role for local authorities, and we will no doubt debate that more fully later in our deliberations. I think that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey would concede that the approach that he advocated is more general in its application rather than being restricted to the Bill.

I believe that there is no difference between any of us on issues of substance. The Bill sets out: that there must be a personal licence; that the format of the licence will be prescribed in regulations; and that it must be portable, easily recognisable and difficult to tamper with or reproduce illicitly. The licence should include a photograph of the individual and a list of designated activities that the individual is licensed to undertake. That is explicit and clear in the Bill.

On the examples mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, any individual who falsely claims to be a licensed security operative by means of the devices that he described—whether or not he had a name stamped in the middle of his forehead—would be committing offences under existing legislation, namely the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and the Theft Act 1968, which covers the offence of attempting to obtain property by deception.

There are two clear wings in the Bill. First, a licence for everyone, format defined. Secondly, the illegality of passing oneself off as a licensed person if one is unlicensed. Under clause 9(1)(c) and (e) we establish further conditions and obligations:

``(c) conditions imposing obligations as to the production and display of the licence;''

—a highly relevant point—and

``(e) such other conditions (whether or not relating to the criteria that would be applied by the Authority in determining whether to grant the licence) as the Secretary of State or the Authority thinks fit.''

A combination of paragraphs (c) and (e) provides the authority with the right to establish a framework that makes clear the requirement for people to display and operate in the manner that we have described.

There are real issues relating to what conditions are laid out under paragraphs (c) and (e). It is interesting to note that the British Parking Association last year launched a voluntary code of practice for wheelclampers—I was present at the launch and encouraged the initiative. It was a useful step towards preparing the ground for a code that the authority might eventually endorse. The precise form of the other conditions to be applied will—I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central—be the subject of discussion with motoring organisations and others when we discuss how the code should operate.

The existing powers should allow entirely for what the hon. Member for Buckingham was saying. However, I had one flutter of doubt on the question of the wearing of a uniform, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will reflect between now and Report on whether I am satisfied that paragraphs (c) and (e) confer the power to establish a requirement to wear a uniform, if that were desired after consultation and consideration.

I ask myself whether the powers are sufficient, and my preliminary advice is that they are, but I will give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. Between now and Report I will consider carefully the legal advice, and should we decide after consultation to go down the uniform route, we must be happy that the power in those paragraphs is sufficient. I cannot think of any other example raised about which I have any doubt, but I give the requested assurance that I shall consider the matter carefully.

I urge the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to withdraw the amendment. I entirely accept what has been said, but I believe that the Bill allows the authority to do precisely what hon. Members from all parties urge.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I understand that the Minister approaches the matter in a constructive spirit. He has helpfully undertaken to consider the point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I were anxious. Nevertheless, we are confident that the Bill would be improved if such important matters were specified in it, and we shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 10.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 28, at end insert—

`(6) The Secretary of State and the Authority shall take into account mandatory and other conditions set in member states of the European Union in prescribing the conditions under subsection (1).

(7) The Secretary of State and the Authority shall ensure that in establishing the conditions specified under subsection (1) a licence holder will not be disadvantaged by reason of the prescribed conditions in seeking to gain recognition in another member state of the European Union.'.

I have something of a difficulty, as clause 8 overlaps considerably with clause 9. I shall therefore keep strictly to my amendment, rather than dealing with the clause.

I have lost my thread.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My right hon. Friend will be thinking about the exchange that we had in relation to a previous clause, about mutual recognition in the single market and the European Union, and I know that he will want to reflect on that in his comments.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I am eternally grateful to my hon. Friend.

I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the amendment, as it states the obvious. If it has a deficiency, it is that it should be superfluous. However, I am moving it anyway, to ensure that the regulatory authority will bear the matter in mind.

I know that if anyone mentions Europe, Opposition Members sometimes descend to a different plane. However, whether we like it or not, we operate in a European-administrated political environment. The decision to endorse the Single European Act 1985 clearly had an effect on how we operate. Globalisation is a reality and the multiplicity of global initiatives to deal with crime has led to great co-operation between the intelligence services, the police services and Customs and Excise.

When it comes to co-operation in respect of security, however, we should bear it in mind that home affairs and justice fall within a pillar. They are exclusively a national responsibility, and the principle of subsidiarity applies. As for policing, there are many examples of European directions and regulations having had an effect on British regulations, such as the Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992. The single European market opened up scope for co-operation and, although once again justice and home affairs would be a national responsibility, there has been some collaboration and co-operation with regard to private security.

I referred earlier to DG5 in the Commission, which brings together experts from Europe to discuss with trade unions and employers issues that affect trading standards, common procurement and so on. It is important to recognise the areas in which there is European co-operation. Common standards cover equipment, which unfortunately is outside the scope of the Bill. Such standards have certainly been imposed as a result of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the working time directive and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, all of which emanated in full or in part from the European Union.

Standards of training and of selection are infinitely superior in some European countries. Under the amendment, the regulatory authority and the Home Office would be obliged to take into account conditions that have passed into law within Europe, including the ability of a qualification in one country to be recognised in another. I was reminded by my friend, Peter Jones, who has been helping me over the past 25 years in the regulation of private security, of the case in which one Amos took the Italian Government to court—a risky undertaking in the circumstances—and obliged them to recognise his private investigation qualification.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. Let me offer the right hon. Gentleman a word of advice. If the matter is sub judice, it should not be referred to.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

The case was heard in the early 1990s, so it has been well and truly resolved by now, but I am none the less grateful for the advice.

Far better qualifications than there are at present will be available as a result of the Bill and secondary legislation. The quality of training will improve. It is important that the Home Office, in devising standards of training, should take into account European developments. I hope that the regulatory authority can examine in some detail how to exchange qualifications. Qualifications in some European countries are sufficiently impressive and they should be recognised in Britain.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The right hon. Gentleman stated that we will take European practice into account, rather than be compelled by it. However, I am mildly worried by his reference to subsidiarity—with regard, I assume, to the treaty of Amsterdam. I am sure that he is aware that the treaty's protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality states that

``The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article F(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which `the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies'.''

It is perhaps not the decentralising mechanism that he thinks and wishes it to be.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

If the hon. Gentleman were to give that advice to outside clients, I am sure that it would cost them at least £5,000. The Committee is grateful to him for that display of his phenomenal memory. With regard to the qualifications, training and other standards that have been discussed, some of them would fall within the definition of the treaty of Amsterdam, but many would not.

I do not seek to solve all the problems that the regulatory authority will face over the coming years, but merely to flag up that our country is not an island, even though some people might wish that it was. We operate in a European and global environment. The security industry will shortly become a proper profession with qualifications. A spirit of reciprocity should be encouraged with regard to the recognition of qualifications across the industry and, where necessary, outside the sector. Qualifications should also be recognised across national borders. The amendment is intended to prompt the regulatory authority to bear such matters in mind when it administers the Act.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

My right hon. Friend will recall that, in the sitting before last, I referred to some of the international agreements that had been struck between major security providers and large multinational companies. As he has extensive knowledge of the security industry, I wonder whether he knows of any such agreements that contractually require security operatives to work in the United Kingdom and in other countries. If he does, that would illustrate the logic of introducing commonality of training and licence provision.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

Despite the lack of regulations in the UK, airport security is a heavily regulated sector of the industry. It is covered by international conventions, and there is a greater tendency in that sector for qualifications to be recognised across national borders. After all, every country operates in an international environment that is governed by United Nations laws.

However, the harmonisation of regulations between countries will produce great problems. If a vehicle is carrying bullion from France to Belgium, when it crosses the border it will become subject to a different set of regulations, and certain weapons, for instance, might have to be hidden or removed. Such illogicality should be addressed. If a British private investigator needed to undertake work in, say, South Africa, the United States of America, or Belgium, it would be convenient if those countries accepted his UK licence. Such a reciprocal international arrangement would mean that he would not need to operate under cover while working abroad, or apply for another licence, which might be a lengthy and difficult process. I hope that we can approach the matter without prejudice and note that we are legislating about an increasingly international profession, in which the ownership of companies in this country is in the hands of Swedes, Danes and Americans, and in return, British companies have substantial holdings elsewhere.

There are problems of criminals who forge licences rather than applying for them, and move with impunity by operating a computer or jumping on an aircraft. We are slowly starting to co-operate more successfully on a police level, and as a result of the Bill and the growing legitimacy of the private security industry, I hope that there will be more co-operation between our industry and others, and the industry and the police both domestically and internationally. Whether they are publicly or privately funded, all are engaged in a common task of protecting individuals and organisations and putting their hand on the collar of criminals, bringing them to justice or investigating them. All are engaged in similar tasks, although their relationship with the taxpayer may be different from their relationship with the person who hires them.

I know that the Minister is aware of the matter, but I am not sure whether prospective members of the regulatory authority will see matters as clearly as he and the Home Office do.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Once again, the Committee owes the right hon. Gentleman a great debt for raising his concerns and introducing the matter of mandatory requirements across the EU.

I address an important point that was drawn to my attention and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and is linked to a matter that I raised on Second Reading about an accidental bind that I think that the Government have got into. I do not suggest that there is anything sinister happening, but rather that one arm of Government did not appreciate what another was up to. Nevertheless, it is a matter that many people in the industry wish to be resolved, and I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response to the debate.

The Government have signed the United Kingdom up to the European electronic commerce directive. That does not fall under the Minister's responsibility because it is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. It is understandable—as has been suggested to me by senior civil servants who have been seconded to industry—that the Home Office may not have realised the precise terms of chapter II, article 4 of that directive, which is due to come into effect as soon as February 2002. The specific wording, which conflicts with what is in the Bill, is:

``Member states shall ensure that the taking up and pursuit of the activity of an information society service provider may not be made subject to prior authorisation or any other requirement having equivalent effect.''

``May not'', means that the article is mandatory throughout Europe.

I have some expertise from my career prior to coming to the House, although it is nothing compared with the long experience of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South. I was a corporate barrister and worked in financial services and banking, and I had many links with those involved in IT security. The matter that I raised on Second Reading was that the Government—accidentally, because the White Paper did not anticipate it—ended up with the Bill catching those who provide IT security operations, which they did not intend to do because the Bill was to be largely about people such as wheelclampers and bouncers.

On Second Reading, we raised the concern expressed by the IT security industry that it had been caught by a side wind by the drafting. At that stage, those in the industry did not realise that there was an additional point, about which my hon. Friend and I have now been briefed, in relation to the conflict with the directive. I realise that the Minister will not be able to respond on the hoof this afternoon, but I hope that he will be able to respond in some detail next week.

No less an organisation than the Confederation of British Industry—which includes people who have been seconded to the CBI from the Department of Trade and Industry and whose salary is no doubt still paid by the Government—believes that licensing of the information security industry, which is a key information society service, would be contrary to the electronic commerce directive. The amendment is helpful in that regard, as it introduces the subject of mandatory conditions being set across the EU. A requirement for members of the IT security industry to obtain licences from a regulatory authority in order to operate would, in the CBI's view, constitute prior authorisation, which would directly contravene the directive.

The relevant article of the directive is intended to prevent member states from introducing regulation that stems the much-needed supply of IT professionals. IT professionals, especially those with security credentials, are in short supply. Indeed, the Minister may be aware that the Prime Minister's great friend, Chancellor Schroder of Germany, ran into huge problems last year with an attempt to introduce what was referred to in Germany as a green card system. It was nothing like the American green card system—it was designed specifically to import IT professionals from the Indian sub-continent. When I made a political visit to Bavaria almost exactly a year ago, there were posters on almost every bus shelter and billboard attacking Chancellor Schroder over that system. My hosts from our sister party pointed out that it had become a huge issue and was undermining the Government's sister party in Germany. The issue became especially sensitive because of the shortage of IT professionals, and the directive was the result.

We, and the CBI, feel that consideration must be given to article 3 of the directive, which aims to free up the internal market for information society services by requiring member states to avoid measures that might restrict the freedom to supply such services from another member state. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South rightly made the point that a considerable amount of cross-border recruitment will take place. People who have such much-needed and highly prized skills will be able to command very high salaries.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, one of the most difficult areas of recruitment in the banking industry in this country is of the right kind of high-level IT security staff. Such people can almost name their own price if they are at the top of their field. Because of the amount of hacking that goes on and the huge amounts of money at stake, the need to protect banking and other financial institutions in a highly IT-sensitive world—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not want to spoil my hon. Friend's argument, as he is making an extremely important point, but would he not agree that it is important not to over-egg the pudding as far as such high salaries are concerned, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House would not want to tempt the right hon. Gentleman away from his current profession towards an alternative?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would ever be prepared to sacrifice his chairmanship of such a distinguished Select Committee to be tempted by the high salaries on offer. As always, however, my hon. Friend makes a good and entertaining point.

I do not want to detain the Committee for long on this important matter, because the Minister will have to respond, and he may need to take further advice and respond in detail next week. The issue has been taken up not only by the CBI and its experts but by journalists covering the IT field. As recently as lunchtime today, journalists from the distinguished magazine Computer Weekly got in touch with me to find out more about how we would pursue that important issue. [Laughter.] It may be a matter of amusement to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), but in my constituency and many others where the information technology business is a huge employer, such issues are of enormous significance.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Perhaps someone else should have been in my hon. Friend's gun sights. Does he accept that many of us indeed regard Computer Weekly as an excellent journal, consulting it regularly, and that it is profoundly offensive for it to be made the subject of immature skits by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. Perhaps we can return to the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend has once again made an effective point. [Interruption.]

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. The sound level is a little high. Will hon. Members please extend some courtesy to the hon. Gentleman who is speaking. It is difficult to hear sometimes.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Thank you, Mr. Benton. Labour Members are perhaps a little demob happy.

We shall return to the effect of the provisions as a whole on IT security people, which I raised on Second Reading. However, it is particularly important to alert the Government to the clear conflict that arises, and the CBI's concerns about that. I anticipate that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South will tell the Committee that the amendment is a probing one, but he has done the Committee some service in providing an opportunity for this debate. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I said earlier that I thought it important to recognise the international nature of the industry, including international aspects of domestic parts of the industry, which are called on, sometimes at short notice, to work abroad. Unless the amendment is unnecessary by virtue of the fact that its provisions are covered by other legislation and practice, I hope that the response will be positive. I should like it to be made clear in the Bill or in the rules governing its implementation that compliance with minimum standards across the EU must be dealt with and, ideally—because there is sometimes intergovernmental collaboration as well—that any intergovernmental agreements should be complied with, whether the context is the Council of Europe or another forum.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

This has been a helpful debate and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing it.

In establishing its principles and drawing up the licence criteria, the authority must have due regard to all existing British standards. However, in the same way it must have due regard in particular to the situation in other European Union member states, but also, to take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), to other international agreements as they arise. It must take into account any requirements relating to the single market and the free movement of services. The authority will be able to endorse British or European standards or codes of practice and to draw up new ones.

My right hon. Friend and I differed over amendment No. 13, but there is no such difference of opinion between us on the present question. He is right to raise it. Arising from the Tampere summit, which dealt with police co-operation and law and order, and the current discussions about, for example, the establishment of a European police college—which it is to be hoped will be located in the United Kingdom—increasing collaboration, as my right hon. Friend describes it, is a critical issue. Police collaboration is important in contesting international organised crime, particularly that involving class A drugs and the illegal movement of people, and in those matters co-operation between the private security industry and the police, internationally, is also necessary.

We do not, however, think it necessary to set those requirements out in legislation, as in the amendment, for the reason implied by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, that both practice and law will require the authority to do that.

In response to an earlier intervention, I mentioned that discussions are starting to take place in the European Union on the degree to which barriers may arise to the operation of the single market in the private security industry. I also said that I anticipated initiatives to address the issue in the EU context in the relatively near future. I hope that those will establish a framework within which such matters can be effectively addressed, in the way set out in amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I believe that that will be their effect.

On the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, I am aware in general of the directive to which he referred. On Second Reading and in Committee, I have described the consultation that the Department of Trade and Industry will hold with the IT security industry, and that is the right way to tackle the issue: there are compatibilities that can deal with it. By chance, I was informally discussing the matter with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last night. A consultant in the IT security industry had lobbied him on the matter on a train coming up from Devon. That proves that this is a matter of current debate among politicians travelling among the people.

Mr. Hawkins rose—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I give way to the populist Member for Surrey Heath.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am always happy to be called populist. The Minister is describing someone else from the industry who realised, while badgering the Secretary of State, that the Government had once again got something wrong. I appreciate that they did so by inadvertence rather than design, but the Minister has helped to make my point for me.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The point that I was making—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Were they travelling first class?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I do not know, but I gather from what has been said about salaries in the industry that that is likely. My right hon. Friend told me that it was a civilised and positive debate.

Seriously, however, we are committed to the process that I set out on Second Reading, and we will debate it further on schedule 2. As I said, I was aware of the directive in general, but not in detail, and if I have any further thoughts on its implications I will comment in the debate on schedule 2.

With that, I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment. We agree completely with the substance of what he is saying, but the issues are taken into account in the existing process.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

That was an encouraging response. Perhaps the Home Office could even draft a clause.

I know that time is short, and I am not one to raise a point of order. No filibustering has gone on—with the exception of our first sitting, when I spoke at too great length, although not by my standards. We have proceeded as swiftly as possible, with no one seeking to be excessively political. When the Committee's progress was discussed a few weeks ago, it was said that an extra sitting might be possible. Could the usual channels give deep consideration to the fact that we are trying to produce a better Bill than the one that we received? Could an additional sitting be introduced or could our final sittings be slightly longer than initially envisaged?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

If that is a request for an extension of Committee proceedings, it will have to be made formally when the Programming Sub-Committee reconvenes. I will leave the right hon. Gentleman to pursue that in other quarters.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Following the Minister's humorous intervention, I should say that no one is suggesting branding people on the forehead. However, he will know from visiting clubs, bars and other establishments that it is increasingly common for people to be branded with luminous identification, which can be seen not only then and in the dark, but for some days afterwards. We should not forget modern technology and street practice, which work much more effectively than some of the old techniques.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

Ironically, there is a great deal of debate about the conditions for issuing licences. There is much evidence in the Bill that the Government have given considerable thought to the necessary standards to which the companies must be subjected. That is very good. However, those clauses imply that the scheme is voluntary and that only good companies will adhere to those standards.

On the matter of licences applied for by individuals, the application form that will eventually be drawn up by the regulatory authority should contain the name and address of the applicant and evidence that the person whose name is on the form is exactly who he or she purports to be. A birth certificate, passport or other proof of identity should be required. Letters of support, letters from previous employers and signed photographs taken within the six months before the date of the application may be necessary.

Fingerprints may be necessary, verified by the police according to proper principles. A medical certificate may be necessary. Will there be an age restriction on the form? Will it be between 18 and 55 or 16 and 65? That would depend on the nature of the task being undertaken. The person should put down on the form whether he or she has any criminal convictions. He or she should also put down his or her employment record and details, so that the authority can examine any gaps to see whether that person spent some time in incarceration.

Will there be any restrictions on height, weight or eyesight? Would one need to be a 25-stone obese security guard in order to qualify? These and other factors should be borne in mind.

Phyllis Starkey (Labour, Milton Keynes South West)

I am concerned by the extreme length of the list that my right hon. Friend is producing. Does he accept that it is important that no unnecessary criteria be included, and that the criteria should not in any way infringe good equal opportunities practice?

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

My hon. Friend must have had some very easy forms to fill in. She should consider what is required of somebody applying for a social security benefit. Such forms are, of necessity, complicated. I cannot see anything in my abbreviated list that would not be necessary for the regulatory authority and the police to be able to ascertain that the applicant is a fit and proper person to undertake the task.

Phyllis Starkey (Labour, Milton Keynes South West)

What do height and weight have to do with whether anybody is a fit and proper person?

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I do not know what my hon. Friend had for breakfast this morning, but I did not say that there should be a limit on the height or the weight, I merely said that such factors should be taken into account. If a person wants to be a factory guard and he or she is 25 stone and 5 ft 3, I would suggest that it would be difficult for that person to undertake the task. My hon. Friend looks dubious. I do not know what kind of security company she would like to hire, or what kind of bouncers she would wish to have, but is necessary for certain physical attributes to be taken into consideration.

I mentioned fingerprinting. In 1977, when I approached the then general secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties, I was amazed to hear that she did not object to fingerprinting, if organisations had to do it, as long as it was in compliance with the law.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sound point and should not be deflected from it. He might remind the Committee that such considerations, notably relating to height, for example, apply in the case of the police force, a basic fact of which the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West is obviously woefully ignorant.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

A 6 ft minimum used to apply to men joining the police. We are now far more egalitarian. Why should we not—

Phyllis Starkey (Labour, Milton Keynes South West)

The hon. Member for Buckingham makes a completely inaccurate allegation against me. I am perfectly aware that the police—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

You are pig ignorant.

Phyllis Starkey (Labour, Milton Keynes South West)

On a point of order, Mr. Benton. I did not believe that it was proper for hon. Members to accuse other hon. Members of being ignorant. If I am wrong, I do not understand how parliamentary conventions are intended to distance individuals from personal abuse by other hon. Members.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

The use of the word ``ignorant'', in its true context, is not unparliamentary, but I appeal to hon. Members not to be contentious. This is an important Committee, and we need to make progress. I remind the Committee that we are discussing whether clause 9 should stand part of the Bill.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I know that hon. Members wanted to get away earlier, and I am sorry if the extra time that I have taken has caused any dissension.

I have now disposed with the point about the questions that should be answered by an applicant prior to an application being accepted by the company and the company forwarding the application with a fee, regrettably paid by the applicant, to the regulatory authority in order to verify whether that person is equipped to undertake the task. I did not say that there should be psychometric or DNA testing, which are far more contentious. If we want competent people in the industry, strict criteria must be specified.

I promise to spend no more than five minutes on my next point. It is important under the clause that standards of training and education are strictly laid down. The Bill provides scope for attaching training and competence standards to licensing conditions, which the Minister said would challenge the industry. We need to send the board and chief executive the message that current industry norms and BS 7499, the standard advocated by the British Standards Institution, for two days off the job and one day on, are not enough.

The clause will make it clearer to the SIA that minimum training standards will have to be much higher. In Belgium, security officers have 120 hours' training in eight months and must pass a test, 40 hours initial specialist training in handling weapons—which would not apply in this country—75 hours' additional training for those engaged in the protection of people, 16 hours' additional training in handling guard dogs, 65 hours' additional training for cash-in-transit security officers, 70 hours' additional training for managers, and 45 hours' additional training for those engaged in installation companies.

In Denmark, the figure is 120 hours. In Finland, operatives have 40 hours' basic training and additional special training. In Germany, which is more like us, they have 24 hours of basic training and 40 hours for managers. In the Netherlands, they have three weeks of basic training, and in Spain they have 200 hours of training and must pass an examination—80 of the 200 hours are spent in class, and 120 on the job—and up to 75 hours a year thereafter. In Sweden, they have 217 hours of training—97 hours in class, 120 hours on the job, 25 hours' additional specialist training for security officers in public areas, 40 hours for cash in transit, 40 hours for additional guard dog services, 21 hours and additional tests, with a further four hours for armed guards and an additional 80 hours for bodyguards. I sent that information to the Minister. The mother of all training systems is in Hungary, with 350 hours. For that, people could obtain a masters degree in most British universities.

The current situation is grossly inadequate. We need trained officers to undertake a difficult job professionally. They are there to assist people in a crisis. If they are not trained, they can be a menace to themselves and to the people whom they are supposed to be protecting. They are subject to dangerous situations and they must know how to handle themselves. They require a range of skills for those companies that regard themselves as blue riband companies, the training for which cannot be imparted in two days. Given that the industry is engaged in retail security, airport security, investigations, security shredding and safe deposit centres, each sector requires different standards of training.

At present, many voluntary training schemes are offered by organisations such as the British Security Industry Association, the Security Industry Training Organisation, the National Approval Council for Security Systems, the International Professional Security Association, the Joint Security Industry Council, the Loss Prevention Council, the National Association for Information Destruction and the Association of Security Consultants. Qualifications are certainly demanded by the Association of British Investigators, which runs an excellent course.

I come now to my last point and thank members of the Committee for their indulgence. The regulatory authority must engage in discussions with the whole industry and work out different forms of training for each sector. Having devised that, it must bear it in mind that qualifications and training for a man guard or someone engaged at the coal face should be different from those demanded of managers and directors.

The regulatory authority should bear in mind existing schemes, such those operated by City and Guilds and SITO. Courses are available for managers at universities such as Portsmouth, Leicester, Loughborough and Cranfield. Managers should ultimately undertake such courses. The authority should lay down syllabuses that are based on existing standards and, bearing in mind the European standards, set out details of courses for operatives, managers and directors. It should then instruct that the trainers be subject to approval, because it would be wrong to inflict on prospective employees trainers who themselves had not been trained. There should also be an examination at the end of the training.

If training is taken up in sufficient detail, professional people will be able to operate in all the dimensions of the industry. We must achieve greater professionalism. It will not happen overnight, but the Bill and the orders consequent on it will lay the firm foundation for an ethical, responsible, accountable and professional private security industry. I do not expect such recommendations to be contained in the primary legislation. I am merely illustrating some of matters that must be taken into account when the orders are drafted after considerable national and international consultation. That said, I shall not inflict any more lectures on members of the Committee until our next sitting.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall pass his remarks to the authority for its consideration. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Four o'clock till Tuesday 1 May at half-past Ten o'clock.