Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 1 May 2001.

Standing Committee B

Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I bid the Committee a good morning. I have read the Hansard of our previous sitting—with considerable interest, I must say. I am sure that it heralds excellent progress at our sittings today. Clause 10 Licence conditions

Clause 10 - Licence conditions

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 8, line 33, at end insert—

`and may consider any complaints made to the Authority by members of the public against the licensee.'.

I wish you, Mr. Winterton, and all colleagues here assembled a happy Mayday. It used to be an innocent day of pleasure, I understand, but politicians have clearly taken over too much.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

In the light of the hon. Gentleman's practices on previous Committees on which we have served, will he tell us of the innocent pleasures on which he has spent his time on Mayday during the past 20 years or so?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I welcome the most charming Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department? I am sure that she will add considerably to our debate today.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I join in your welcome to the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Winterton—a Mayday bonus. The only thing I remember as being specifically a Mayday event was the rather establishment event at a university—of which I was not a member—of getting up early in the morning to walk to a bridge and listen to a choir singing on the top of a tower, which I gather still happens in some city up the A40 on Mayday mornings.

The amendment is simple. It concerns the licensing provisions of the Bill and would write a complaints procedure into subsection (2), formally registering that it should be a duty on the licensing authority to consider any complaints made to it by members of the public. At the equivalent stage in the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lord Thomas of Gresford raised the issue of the lack of a complaints procedure for the public against licensed or approved persons or companies. Similar amendments were moved on Third Reading.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am slightly uncertain about the scope of the amendment. Under its terms, would the licensee be entitled to know the identity of the complainant?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is a proper question, but the amendment does not itself answer it. A proper complaints procedure should allow a complaint to be made, for the person who made it to be known to the person complained against—the licensee—and for the licensee to be able to rebut that claim before any decision is taken. I should certainly be unhappy with a procedure that did not allow disclosure of the information. I can envisage circumstances in which the authority might rule that it would be better that an individual was not known by name, but the nature of the evidence should certainly be known.

The clause deals with the modification or revocation of licences and licence conditions, and the criteria for making decisions about them. The amendment would add a complaints procedure as well. The Committee should consider briefly whether we want to include it in the Bill or whether we should be satisfied with assurances in the record of the debate. That was the response given by the Minister in the House of Lords, and it was perfectly reasonable in that context.

I understand that the Government's view is that there must be an established and effective complaints procedure. We believe that it would be better to include it in the Bill but not to include the detail about it. What goes in a Bill and what does not is one of those issues that we debate often. The Bill is not huge, and the clause is certainly not overly long. I ask the Minister and his Department to consider again whether the Bill should provide for a complaints procedure as well as for the licensing authority and the criteria for granting and modifying licences. People who read the Bill would easily understand, without having to look elsewhere, that there is a procedure for complaints. The provision could be added and the detail introduced later. I hope that I have been clear and relatively brief.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I join in welcoming you back to the Chair for our proceedings this morning, Mr. Winterton, and welcome all members of the Committee.

If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) presses his very sensible amendment to a vote, my hon. Friends and I will support him, because we think that it would be useful to include the provision in the Bill. It is not necessary for me to take up any more of the Committee's time.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, there is no serious point of substance between us on the issue. The Government agree that the effective discharge of the authority's duties to licence only fit and proper persons will inevitably mean that it will need to establish an effective complaints procedure. The authority will need to be able to listen to and, if necessary, investigate complaints that are made against anyone seeking a new licence or a licence renewal. It follows that the authority must also have that facility when considering whether to modify or revoke a licence. Indeed, complaints made by members of the public are likely to be a prime motivating factor for such revocation or modification procedures.

We have discussed on several occasions the authority's general duties to keep under review the industry, the operation of the licensing system and the legislation. It will need to keep its ear close to the ground to know exactly what is happening, and complaints will be an important contribution to the authority's discharge of those responsibilities.

For all the reasons that have been given by me and by the hon. Gentleman, the Government will build a complaints procedure into our planning for the establishment of the authority. However, for reasons that he himself has argued on numerous occasions, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend the legislation. It is better to have less legislation rather than more, and it is not necessary to add the power to the Bill. As he said, our debate parallels the debate in the other place, but I hope that the assurances that I have given will allow him to withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for the Minister's general acceptance of my points.

I am conscious that there are not serried ranks of Opposition Members here, although they are being significantly and qualitatively supplemented as I speak. I was none the less minded, because this is important and I am trying to be selective about when votes are forced, to ask the Committee to divide on this matter. I am now fully persuaded by the arrival of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), because I hope that he will support the amendment. As the Minister knows, I believe that where matters are alterable on a regular basis, they should not be on the face of the Bill. That is common sense. Here the statement that there ought to be a power to consider complaints would not need to be altered. That is a statement that would stand. It is only the procedure that would be subject to variation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 8, line 36, at end insert—

`(4) The Authority may refuse to renew, revoke or suspend a licence if it has reasonable grounds for being satisfied that the licensee—

(a) has supplied information in or in connection with the application for the licence or its renewal that was knowingly false or misleading;

(b) has contravened any provision of this Act or regulations thereunder; or

(c) is no longer a fit and proper person to provide a security service.'.

Again, I concede, this a matter that has been aired before. It is in the nature of a two-Chamber Parliament that matters aired in one place sometimes gain credibility and persuasiveness as they move to another. That also gives the Government the chance to think again. A disciplined system as outlined in the amendment is needed to ensure that those who supply wrong information and are caught later can be dealt with and have their licence revoked. I am sure that many people will test the system and try to get through it and then be found not to be who they claim to be or not to have disclosed previous convictions.

Things also come to light that call into question someone's fitness or propriety to do a job. We need a clear procedure and I should like to give a practical example from a parallel walk of life that may ring some bells with hon. Members. Coincidentally, a court hearing only last week at Tower Bridge magistrates court in my constituency concerned a market stall licence holder's appeal against the local authority's withdrawal of his licence. The authority meets in committee to deal with market traders' licences and it came to the view that he was not a fit and proper person to hold one.

The man came to my surgery as a local business person, and I agreed to look into the case. I saw the committee papers, and it was not a party political matter: members of both my party and the Labour party sat on the committee. In the end, I took the view that his case had sufficient merit to be supported. Previous allegations against him had resulted in court proceedings, but they were dismissed and he was found not guilty of the charges. The controversial aspect was whether those matters could be prayed in aid in the argument about whether he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. A further issue was whether the conduct of his father, the previous trader, could be regarded as relevant.

My view was that those matters had been dealt with and settled. The trader was in danger of losing his livelihood as a result of matters that had arisen since the disposal of the allegations. Before the court proceedings, however, the committee had seen the chronology of his time as a market trader and all those matters listed in gory detail. My view is that the committee would have taken them into account. Its view would have been coloured, and its decision may well have been influenced. In any event, the local authority decided to withdraw the licence, but the magistrates court upheld the appeal.

The question is what makes a fit and proper person, and the answer is relatively subjective. Breaches of regulations here and there, which may not of themselves be serious, may be added to a view taken by the authority's officers. In this case, the comparable authority is the local council.

I tabled the amendment because a procedure is needed to regulate renewal, failure or refusal to renew, revocation or suspension. People need to know that procedure and the ground rules, and it is better to have something setting out the fact that such a procedure exists. The other reason is that there must be a procedure whereby anyone who thinks that there is cause for a licence to be revoked or suspended knows how to feed in that information. He or she may want to do that privately at the beginning by saying, ``Look, I'm very unhappy about this. I've no idea whether you've had other complaints, but if this conduct is not a one-off, I don't want this person to have a licence.'' For example, there may be allegations of racist or sexist behaviour, and minor incidents might be cumulatively important.

If Ministers give assurances only to the Committee, which is a perfectly proper way of responding to the amendment, what assurance can we have that the Security Industry Authority will, by its procedures and regulations, implement the will of Parliament and the expressed concern of both Houses? What is the procedure for hon. Members to see the secondary legislation, which may not be regulations, but in a lesser form, such as guidance or rules, when the SIA is set up and starts to get its act together.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Of course, no one should be the hapless victim of Chinese whispers, tittle-tattle or the vagaries of the rumour mill, but it is not entirely clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks whether the committee meeting to which he referred in support of his argument took place in public or merely in private. Does he agree that it is of the essence that, wherever possible, matters should be publicised and there should be transparency? There should also be the opportunity for people who have been unjustly vilified to take action in response, including, if necessary, recourse to the law.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I agree. Just for the record, the meeting took place in public. My complaint was that it included in the papers before the adjudicating authority evidence and material that had been dealt with before and should not have been available. That is like evidence of previous unproven allegations being made available in a court case.

There is a common willingness across the Committee for the authority to have the power that the amendment would give it. If the Minister rejects the amendment, what assurance can we have that such a power will be available and that, before it comes to a conclusion, the authority will have some wider approbation than just its own for its proposals?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Once again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to press the amendment to a Division, my hon. Friends and I will support him. For the reasons that he gave, it would be useful to have the matters set out in the Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

This is a rather different case from the previous amendment. It is not so much a question of assurances as of examining the reasons that the SIA might have for refusing to renew, revoking or suspending a licence. The clause simply refers to clause 7 and the licensing criteria contained there. The amendment sets out three specific examples, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). However, there are other potential examples and I will give a couple to illustrate why the SIA might decide to revoke or refuse a licence. New information might come to light that demonstrated that a licence holder no longer met the licensing criteria, and criminal cases might take place, which would mean that the person did not fulfil the definition that we described of a fit and proper person.

We ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, not because—as with the previous amendment—we agree with the principle but disagree technically on whether it should be in the Bill, but because we can envisage circumstances that are not encompassed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), in which it would be appropriate for the local authority to refuse to renew, to revoke or suspend a licence. That is the fundamental reason why the wording in subsection (2) is the right approach, and the breadth in relation to clause 7 arises.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I understand the argument, but the Minister's second example is covered by paragraph (c), so he has given only one other circumstance that has not been included in the list so far.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman thinks that my second example is covered by paragraph (c). I can see his point—a new criminal record could be considered as being in that category—and I do not mean this in an unhelpful spirit, but his point illustrates the difficulty of having a tightly defined list of criteria according to which a licence is refused or revoked, rather than a simple reference back to the licensing criteria set out in clause 7.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's other point, which was reinforced by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), about the right of individuals to know about the situation and reasons for decisions, and to have transparency. I can assure the Committee that the SIA will have a procedure to ensure that licensees receive in writing the reasons for any decision made under the clause, so that they can examine them. Then, if they want to challenge the decision under the law, they will have material with which to make a judgment on whether to do so.

More generally, I assure the Committee that the authority will work under the law of the land as set out in the Bill, and as with other such authorities, everyone will accept that the law is paramount. If my giving reasons in writing helps to clarify that and provide assurance, I am happy to do so. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, for a reason that is different from the one that I gave for rejecting the previous amendment: the definition set out in it is too narrow. The authority will have to take account of all the considerations set out under clause 7 about which licensing criteria are to be considered.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I accept the Minister's argument, given that, for all we know, this may be the last complete month that he is at the Home Office, or at any Ministry, depending on the electorate's view. I do not want to give him too hard a time when he came so close to defeat in the previous debate. I would not want to make the Government any more nervous and ruin his reputation, so in a minute I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I would just like one point to be clarified before I do that. If the Bill becomes law in this Session, how does the Minister envisage that the authority, or the Government, will publicise the proposed procedure in consultative form? What say will Parliament and the interested parties have in that second stage of the procedure?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The general issues of timing are dealt with in clause 26. I do not have anything particular to add to that.

I can assure the Committee that we will publish consultative proposals on the procedures for comment by all interested parties before they are finally enacted. That will, of course, include the ability of the House itself to comment on the situation. We have said throughout that having a proper consultative process, to which everyone in the industry is committed, is an important aspect of the effectiveness of the legislation. That is why we will take that approach.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is helpful and will reassure outside interests as much as Committee members. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Rates of duty for recovery vehicles

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I noticed a look of dismay when I rose. It is 28 minutes since the proceedings began, and I have restrained myself so far. I hope that the dam has now been breached and water will flow more freely.

I am not convinced that the appeals mechanism, straight from a refusal by the SIA to a magistrates court or the High Court, is appropriate. There could be 100,000, 200,000 or even more applications subject to a licensing process. I hope that companies eventually will be subject to compulsory licensing. There will then be a lot of people heading to magistrates courts all over the realm and SIA officials will be run ragged from Manchester to Walsall to Newcastle.

I do not understand why we could not have an appeals committee within the SIA, separate from the personnel department, perhaps headed by a senior judge, and involving those not taking part in the normal process of the regulatory authority. Does the Human Rights Act make such a process impossible? If an application were turned down, for whatever reason, within the time constraints, the applicant would write off to the authority or to an independent body within the SIA. Perhaps the Minister might say that only then would the applicant turn to a magistrates court. If members of the Committee are struggling with the complexities of the Bill, and we have not even seen the hundreds of pages of regulations that will ensue, how can a group of magistrates make a decision on whether a licence shall be approved, especially if some of the information is exceedingly confidential and may be based on intelligence sources?

Unless there is an overriding argument under the Human Rights Act, deep consideration should be given to a simple procedure by which the whole process could be expedited. It could be very fair. The Minister is not only taking no prisoners, he is not taking any amendments. I hope that, even at this late stage, it might be possible to have a more efficient and fairer system and to keep it away from magistrates, who are neither interested nor competent to make a judgment in this case.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

That is outrageous.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

They are not competent, because they are overburdened with functions. They will have to read the legislation. They will have to do all sorts of things and this is not an appropriate matter for them.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. My concern about the Bill was not in the direction that he has just suggested, but more that magistrates should have a greater role. As we pointed out on Second Reading, and as I have often said to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, there is a danger not only in that so many magistrates courts have closed during this Parliament, but in that the Government have seemed to move, in relation to liquor licensing, away from the lay magistracy—with all the expertise that it has built up and all its independence from the licensed trade—towards a system of local councillors dealing with the matter.

We believe that lay magistrates should have a central role, so we agree with what the Government are proposing. We see no difficulty along the lines described by the right hon. Gentleman. Magistrates courts have experienced clerks to advise the lay magistrates on the nature of the law. That has always been the case. We want that to continue. Has the Minister had any further thoughts about the possible confusion that we described on Second Reading between the role of councillors in relation to licensing and what we regard as a sensible appellate role for lay magistrates, with possible further appeals beyond the magistrates to the Crown court?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I, too, take the view that a system is needed that goes to some judicial authority by way of oversight of licence granting. There are many licences, such as gaming licences and justices' licences granted for liquor and licences for music and dance. With the new licensing law, the likelihood is that more and more first decisions will be taken by local authorities. I support that. An appeal to the local court seems reasonable. People know which court it is. It is geographically based.

I differ from the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) in that I believe that magistrates are trained to be licensing magistrates. They deal with all the licences, whether for market traders, nightclubs or whatever. They are used to working out who are fit and proper people. There are sometimes lawyers in important cases who do that all the time, too. They deal with licensing matters. They may be different parts of the spectrum, but they are all under the same umbrella.

We seem to have got locked into a historical system that gives us this 21-day rule. Most people do not live life in cycles of 21 days. It would be much fairer generally to allow people a month in which to appeal. People are likely to remember. Occasionally, people fall out of time simply because they do not remember, and 21 days means nothing to them. I simply flag that up. It is really a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department and other legal Departments as much as for the Home Office. The Minister has heard me make similar requests in the past. I simply ask him to consider a timetable that will allow people to understand the appeals process most easily.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South on successfully tweaking the tails of the lawyers. The Home Office has some sympathy with the points raised about the need for a separate appeals system, and had originally proposed that the Secretary of State should establish an appeals tribunal by regulations. The Human Rights Act 1998 and natural justice itself require an avenue of appeal against authority decisions. That is an important part of our system.

There was, however, substantial opposition in the other place—not only on the Opposition Benches—to an internalised appeals mechanism as favoured by my right hon. Friend, and originally by the Home Office, too. A powerful argument was put, which we finally decided to accept, that appeals should be to the legal system—to magistrates courts and to the Crown court.

I do not accept the suggestion that magistrates courts would not be competent to deal with such matters. Plenty of magistrates courts are competent to do so. However, I understand the point that it might be better to have an internal system, which could deal with some arguments more expeditiously than the full-scale legal process.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does the Minister accept that one of the difficulties with an internal system would be that an aggrieved party might nevertheless go to law, and would then do so through an application for judicial review of the Security Industry Authority's decision? That could be much slower and more costly for all concerned than the appellate system to which the Government have, reluctantly but rightly, agreed.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That is one of the arguments for going straight to the legal channel, rather than through other processes first. One of the first political lessons that I learned was from John Smith, the late leader of my party. He told me, at a key time, never to forget that the law will have its way. That is an important lesson, which I learned over many years and could pass on to many others. It is the point that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is really making, and is a reason for going down this path.

I have much sympathy, as do the Government, with the crusade of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South to have more and more such processes dealt with in a non-legalistic way. The only aspect of his remarks that I cannot accept is that magistrates courts might not be competent to deal with such matters.

Substantial criticism, such as that made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, of the idea of a separate appeals process—rather than going straight to the legal system—made us feel that it could stand in the way of people's access to an appeal. That is why we tabled an amendment on Report in the Lords to get rid of the kind of proposal that my right hon. Friend suggested, and to replace it with what is now in the clause. That is the history of the matter.

Points have been made about the general relationship between councillors and magistrates over licensing, but I have nothing further to add on that. It will be debated in the context of liquor licensing when any legislation to implement the White Paper that we have published is considered by the House. That will be the appropriate place for that debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Register of licences

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 9, line 40, after ``requirements'', insert—

``(and which is not his usual residential address)''.

I can make my point briefly, but the Opposition feel strongly about the matter. The point was made strongly on Second Reading, and we have seen nothing since then to change our minds. There is undoubtedly concern, which the Minister will probably acknowledge in his response, about a register of licensed people being open to public inspection. On Second Reading, on 28 March at column 983, I raised the sad fact that we have seen a huge increase in grudge attacks, which occur for all kinds of reasons, over recent years. For example, people have poured petrol through somebody's letterbox and set it alight. Sadly, such crimes can have devastating and tragic effects.

Our concern is that many small operators in the security business work and trade from their home addresses. Security, wheelclamping and operating as a bouncer are fields of work that can lead to grudges. We foresee that there may be grudge attacks, so an element of protection must be built into the legislation. We recognise that the Government want some kind of register, but we know that there is a problem when somebody's home address, which is also their trading address, is open to those who may want to take revenge.

I mentioned on Second Reading that that was brought home to the Solicitor-General and me when we made a joint visit to the Crown Prosecution Service office for my area, which is situated just south of my constituency in Guildford. Even senior people from the CPS have been the victims of threats by serious and organised criminals to themselves and members of their family. The Minister and the right hon. Member for Walsall, South have stressed from their considerable experience that they know that organised crime has played a part in security. When people who are involved in the administration of justice have to be transferred by their employers because of personal threats against them and members of their family by serious and organised criminals, there is clearly a significant danger.

My hon. Friends raised concerns about such matters in proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Representation of the People Act 2000. In section 69(4) of the former, the Government made some changes at our urging. Similar changes could be made to the Bill. We are dealing with important concerns that will not go away. I hope that the Minister will say that he not only takes the matter seriously, which I am sure that he and his officials do, but will consider tabling Government amendments on Report, even if they cannot accept the amendment today. If he is unable to say that, we shall want to pursue the matter today.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That raises the issue of how public people's addresses are, which has arisen in the context of all sorts of issues, such as animal experiments and Members of Parliament standing for elected office. I am keen to know what the process is for ensuring that somebody has an authoritative and up-to-date statement of an address, even if that need not be given in public. I understand the argument—I am not persuaded of it yet—that the personal address of the holder of a licence should not be known publicly. The licence holder may of course be corporate, in which case there is no excuse for the address not being public. I assume that that address should be the registered office of the company, and it would be illogical if it were not. In the case of personal licence holders, I should be interested to know what address would be valid other than their current personal address. In that context, I should be interested to know whether the Minister takes the view that because people are given licences to do a public job, their addresses should be made public.

I assume that the Government intend that the authority will ensure that the register is accessible through all modern methods of communication. The main way in which the corporate and business sector will want to access information is through a website or a national database, rather than a local library, as in the past. Will the register of licences be held in a technologically accessible way? Of course, data protection issues arise. I concede that I have not thought the matter through, but a Home Office official doubtless has. I assume that, having applied for a licence, a person can expect the relevant details to be in the public domain and available to anyone with an interest in the sector.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The amendment would require the licence holder's address as published in the register to be other than his home address. Following the amendment of the clause in the House of Lords, where much of this debate took place, subsection (3)(b) provides that the address published in the register is that

``which satisfies the prescribed requirements''.

In other words, the address must be that which is supplied when a person applies for a licence or a company approval. The clause will not require home addresses for anyone. Indeed, we believe that in the vast majority of cases the relevant address will be the business address of the firm employing the security operative.

The amendment would go a step further by requiring that the address always differ from the licence holder's usual residential address. We cannot go that far for the reason suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Some security operatives work from home as a matter of choice. It is true that the Bill as drafted would require publication of the home address in such circumstances, but I am not convinced that publication of the place of business should be a significant concern. Of course, people who work from home would already have made their address available, not least to potential customers. We are talking about a very narrow group of people who choose to work from home and who have no other address. We continue to believe that there should be an address for everyone in the system. If there is no alternative to a home address, we think it right that that address be given.

I can confirm for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that we intend that the register should be accessible through modern electronic means, rather than the local library.

On publicity, I can offer some reassurance to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. Subsection (4) states:

``It shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure that such arrangements are in force as it considers appropriate''.

That wording was chosen to give the authority a safeguard, in that it can consider whether it is appropriate to publish an address in a given circumstance. That safeguard should reassure him. If the amendment were accepted, there would be no address on the register for those who work solely from home. That would be unacceptable and we cannot go that far. On the basis of my comments and assurances, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister has, as I hoped, responded in an appropriately serious way. I hear what he says, but the problem is that one does not always choose, as he puts it, to work from home. Someone with a very small business, who works alone and has no substantial private means, might be unable to afford separate business premises and have no alternative to operating from home. Although I accept the point about the reference in subsection (4) to arrangements that the authority considers appropriate, there is a danger that it might make an exception only after a problem had been drawn to its attention. The trouble is that it would often be too late: by the time that the problem existed, the revenge attack would have already taken place. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the whole register will probably be on the internet, and those who wants to commit grudge or revenge attacks on others need only press a few keys to find out their home address.

In the light of that concern, I want to press the matter to a vote.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he thinks should happen in the case of those whose operation is so small that they work only from home? Should they not give their address? Should it be handled confidentially and not made open?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My view, and that of my party, is that the authority needs to know the operational address, but it should not be given any publicity through an open register that would be on the internet.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That clarifies the hon. Gentleman's position. If I said to him that I would be prepared to consider whether individuals working from home in that category could ask for their information not to be published under subsection (4), would that modify his approach to the amendment?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That is extremely helpful, and I hope that the Minister and his officials will continue to consider the matter and perhaps table an amendment on Report along those lines. If so, we would welcome the Government's change of heart. However, I still think that it would be useful, ``pour encourager les autres'', to vote on what is in the Bill. If the Government can subsequently improve on that through a Government amendment, as the Minister suggested, that would be of assistance.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would say a little more to persuade me to support the amendment. If I am concerned that a Mr. Nick Hawkins, whom I have come across in a previous existence, is not the sort of person whom I would want to be given a licence for a particular job, and there are many Nick Hawkinses around—as I assume that there are—how will I know that the Mr. Nick Hawkins about whom I am concerned is the right one if I do not know his home address? If one just plucks an address out of the air that is nothing to do with one's home, that is obscuring the truth and putting people off being able to track down the very information that they need.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I call a Mr. Nick Hawkins.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The only parliamentary Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Winterton.

As long as the authority has an individual's full details, if there is any inquiry to which it thinks it proper to respond, it can make its own decision. My worry is that a public register could be used by a person who wished to commit a grudge attack. For example, if he knows that there is a Mr. Simon Hughes who is a bouncer in the Southwark, North and Bermondsey area, he has only to push a couple of buttons on a computer keyboard and up comes that Mr. Simon Hughes's home address. The hon. Gentleman and I, and all those of us who have been involved in court cases, have seen the horrendous consequences of such grudge attacks—which happen far too often and sometimes have the most tragic consequences—and know that we need to protect people against them. Sadly, we are talking about an industry in which grudge attacks are not merely a possibility, but almost an inevitability. It is all too common for people to try to take revenge against bouncers.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I wish to press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 12..

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

This excellent Bill addresses the statutory framework. It will set up regulatory authorities and give powers, where appropriate, to local authorities.

I have already referred to the importance of contractual matters in the maintenance of good standards. We have dealt with issues such as sick pay, training standards and proper employment contracts, and I would hope that when the regulatory bodies exercise their duties under the clause, they will look to those matters as well.

I want to discuss the philosophy behind the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has adequately discussed the industry.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I have listened extremely carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Clause 12 relates to the register of licences, and the philosophy behind the Bill is not relevant to it. Perhaps he will relate his remarks to the subject of the clause.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Thank you for your advice, Mr. Winterton.

The register of licences, and the philosophy behind it, is extremely important. The learned contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South have been about the past. He referred to how the people whom we now prefer to call door stewards have been at the lower end of the scale and have not adhered to standards that the Committee would accept. Local authority licensing must be seen as having a more productive and civilised approach, involving women, for example. When physical contact is necessary, the intent should be about restraint and control, not about bouncing. That is the philosophy that should be behind licensing at that level.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Licensing at local authority level

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 10, line 38, after `Authority', insert—

`and the local authorities for the areas specified in the order'.

The amendment would require local authorities to be consulted, which is a matter about which we feel strongly. It has relevance to a local authority in my constituency, the leader and chief executive of which were amazed when they consulted the Home Office about an effective scheme for nightclub bouncers about 18 months ago, and the Home Office, instead of helping to answer some of the various queries, wrote back saying that they were not entitled to have such a scheme. That was a peculiar response, but I do not hold the Minister personally responsible for that.

A new system is being set up, and I am sure that the Minister and the Committee will agree that it is important for local authorities to liaise closely with the new authority. It would be useful to write into the Bill a requirement for close liaison and prior consultation.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's example, because that is not the general stance that we try to take. Will he be good enough to give me a copy of the correspondence, so that I can look into the matter and respond in detail on his specific point?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall ensure that the Minister has all the details from the chief executive of the local authority. I took up the matter at the time, and one of the Minister's colleagues was good enough to say that it was not the normal response of the Home Office, as the Minister rightly said. Perhaps no one vetted a letter that was being sent to a local authority by an official rather than a Minister.

I was asked to raise the matter, but there is a wider point to make. That example merely showed where things can go wrong between the Home Office and local authorities under the current system. It is because local authorities will have an important role under the new structure that we felt that it would be helpful to have something written into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say that he will keep the matter under review and discuss it with his officials. Even if he cannot accept our amendment today, I hope that he will table an amendment on Report.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the amendment because, with all respect, he has not fully understood the nature of the responsibility set out in the Bill. It establishes the Security Industry Authority as the central and authoritative body for the private security industry. The authority will have significant duties within the overall framework of its responsibility to the Secretary of State. It will have to consult local authorities about the delegation of its functions, as defined in the Bill, as they will be best placed to discuss the practicalities. The arrangements will be between the Security Industry Authority and local authorities.

I look forward to seeing the correspondence on the issue that the hon. Gentleman identified. It will always be possible and appropriate for a Member of Parliament to bring such matters to the attention of the relevant Minister. There is no sense in bypassing that procedure, and the Government will always want to assure themselves that delegations to local authorities have been properly prepared. It may be that the general liaison arrangements will be between central and local government and that matters will be discussed in a general way.

I want to emphasise that the prime responsibility for the process of delegation lies with the Security Industry Authority, which will discuss with local authorities, both individually and generally, how to proceed. We have discussed the general principle of consultation before, and I can assure the Committee that, as is normal, the Government will consult local authorities, the private security industry and all other interested parties about the details of the process. In fact, it was consultation that led to the White Paper that led to the Bill.

The consultation with local authorities that is the subject of the clause is primarily the responsibility of the SIA. That is why we make the distinction that we do in subsections (6) and (7). I hope that that clarifies the situation and that, on the basis of what I have said, the hon. Gentleman with withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I hear what the Minister says. However, the clause gives the Secretary of State a wide order-making power. According to subsection (1),

``The Secretary of State may by order make provision for local authorities to carry out some or all of the Authority's relevant licensing functions''.

However, in subsection (6), the one that we seek to amend, the Secretary of State is put under a duty to consult the authority, but not the local authorities that will be given the power. That seems inconsistent. Because there has been difficulty in the past, at least in connection with one local authority of which I have personal knowledge—it might be common elsewhere; I hope not—it would be useful for the local authorities, not merely the main authority, to be consulted before the Secretary of State exercises that power.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that there should be both a consultative process by the Secretary of State in the Home Office and a consultative process by the SIA? I should like to be clear about that before we come to a decision on the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We are saying that before the Secretary of State exercises his order-making powers under the clause, he should consult the local authorities for the areas to which the orders would relate. It seems a sensible thing to include in the Bill. Nevertheless, as the Minister said that he will keep the matter in mind and will look at the correspondence in due course, we may be able to persuade the Government to table a further amendment at a later stage once he has considered the matter with his officials, so it would not be appropriate to press the amendment to a vote, but I take on board what has been said and I am grateful that he will consider the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

You almost did not notice that I wanted to speak, Mr. Winterton. I am sure that you did not employ a Nelsonian tactic in failing to look at me through your spying glass. It was merely inadvertent that you did not notice my 18-stone-12 frame.

If an outsider assessed the Bill, he would say that it was all about bouncers and wheelclampers. I do not understand why wheelclamping comes under private security, and some would argue that bouncers—door supervisors—are not strictly part of security either. However, they are, and the matter is in urgent need of reform. I am not convinced that the Home Office's subcontracting the task of licensing door supervisors to local authorities is wise. I hope that if the measure goes through, the Home Office will evaluate how local authorities perform in order to see whether they can—as I should have hoped—be considered to be part of the private security industry, and be licensed and regulated directly by the SIA. That would result in 50,000 personnel paying £50 for a licence, which would greatly enhance the authority's revenue-gathering capability.

One of my concerns is that the licensing authorities of local authorities could be susceptible to party political activity, so judgment that should be legal and rational could be bound up with party politics. I know of an exemplary case, which I will say is hypothetical. A senior politician signs up 40 black cab drivers disenchanted with the way in which the licensing authority has been operating. They are in his political party, and they turn up for a ward meeting to boot out those who are there, and then turn up to a selection conference to endorse that politician. Is there a quid pro quo? Licences are issued, disciplinary action is taken—will political pressure be exerted?

I am pleased to say that, in the case to which I am referring, pressure has been resisted, but the temptation is there. Decisions on licences for local companies and individuals will be made by human beings who are subject to the same pressures as hon. Members, and in many ways to a greater extent. On occasion, those people, be they Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat or of other political allegiances, will be tempted to use political reasons to make what ought to be administrative judgments.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Is not the alternative to my right hon. Friend's analysis that local politicians understand the problems in the locality better than remote civil servants or officers of other authorities? That local knowledge—the understanding that one group of old-fashioned councillors have turfed out another group of old-fashioned councillors—is really important.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

My hon. Friend's argument has its attractions, but there are counter-arguments as well. The Home Office has said that, on balance, this is the route that we are going down. I accept that decision; I am merely making a point and will, in no more than four further minutes, make some other points that I hope the Home Office will take into account.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

In Doncaster, in terms of the licensing of bouncers, the police work at a local level and know what is happening on the ground. That is very important, and as the crime and disorder partnerships are working increasingly well, it would be a shame to transfer the decision making to national level, where those involved would not have that local knowledge.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I am acquiescent, but not enthusiastic, and would like the measure to be under review. One of my great concerns is that we are talking about at least 50,000 personnel. They have, putting it at its best, an image problem. In reality many of the people protecting the public inside and deterring the public outside are part of the drugs scene, and have their rake-off of the profits. That is why it is incredibly lucrative for an individual if he or she wins a contract to be a bouncer or a door supervisor or for a company if it wins a security contract . As a result, a number of gang wars are taking place in our cities, and it is quite right that the Government are stepping in and doing something.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Now my right hon. Friend and others will see the significance of my short comment about philosophy. It is important that we positively promote the activities of women as door stewards and create a training and standards-based environment.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

Women must search women. One cannot have a lecherous 50-year-old male performing an intimate body search on a woman attending a disco. However, there are dangers. I met the head of security of a company, a very attractive woman, who was asked by a drunken yob at a door, ``Do you believe in equality, missus?'' She said yes, and he punched her on the nose, saying, ``There you are, I would have done that to a male.'' It is a dangerous job.

All the bad publicity is directed towards the bouncers, but for the money that they get, those who are honest and professional are in a very exposed and dangerous situation. Although they often mete out severe punishments, there are many door supervisors who have been viciously attacked and need some protection via the legislation. In the absence of any security legislation before now, the only way in which local authorities could meet the problem was by using the public entertainment licence process, in order to fill a vacuum.

I shall now rattle through a few points that will be boring but relevant. I am not certain what role the local authorities will play under the proposed system. Ideally, it should be one of enforcement, with licensing and standards to be met by supervisors in the SIA. The Economic and Social Research Council funded research into local registration schemes that revealed that they suffered several problems under local authority licensing. For instance, there is a problem with reciprocity when, often at great expense, door supervisors have to register in different local authority areas, undergoing vetting and training for each. The standards varied significantly among the schemes, and it was possible for some door supervisors to be granted registration in one area but not another. The study concluded that enforcement regimes were often chaotic, and that in many places revocation of registration was rare. A widespread system of informal practices to get round registration has emerged, including the forging of licences.

The Home Office commissioned research—the safer door project, which was about door registration schemes and was conducted to develop best practice—from a gentleman named Walker. He identified best practice for a national scheme, but did so in the context of there being no national licensing structure for the private security industry into which supervisors could fit. He also identified the need for a national scheme.

I agree, but argue that licensing and the setting of standards should be pursued through the SIA. Local authorities have a role to play in the enforcement of the provisions through their general licensing function, enabling them to receive applications for licences and make decisions on their approval and issue, among other matters. Even according to national standards, differences between schemes may still be created, which will lead to further problems such as those that I have identified.

I ask the Home Secretary not to junk what the Home Office has decided but to look at it carefully. Some licensing authorities have poor standards. It is crucial that the Home Office gets it right on the issue, as there could be a great danger to the paying public and people living or wandering in the vicinity of a nightclub. I merely ask the Home Secretary to give mature reflection to some of my points to see where, if he sub-contracts to local authorities to undertake licensing, he should minimise that role. He should ensure that syllabuses are determined nationally by the SIA and not left to the vagaries of local authorities, some of which are good and some of which are bad. The trainers must be subject to approval, so that their training schemes are good.

The Home Office should carefully monitor the first couple of years of the operation of a legitimate local authority licensing scheme, to see whether the old bad habits are replicated in the new system. The Home Office must lay down strict standards. It should not minimise the role of local authorities, nor give them a great deal of discretion. Local authorities should be allowed to be the agents of central Government, not freewheeling organisations that can replicate the practices that have led to the Government's wanting to take a stronger hand in the process.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The right hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. As he and others may remember, we expressed concern on Second Reading that there might be too great a role for local authorities. The dangers of corruption—people being ``got at''—to which he referred are clear. We had a different solution. Rather than the Government's proposed new authority doing more nationally, we suggested that the system should be much more like that for liquor licensing, with more of the duties and powers exercised by magistrates.

Magistrates have successfully exercised such powers over many years in relation to liquor licensing, because it is far more difficult for them to be ``got at''. In this country, there is no history of corruption by magistrates, whereas sadly, in some cases, there has been such a history in local authorities.

I recognise that there are many success stories for local licensing schemes. I referred to one in a local authority in my constituency: Surrey Heath has had a successful nightclub bouncer registration scheme. Nevertheless, the Government have decided to go down a certain route, and we felt that it would be better to introduce a consultation element, which we suggested in amendment No. 29. We withdrew that following the Minister's helpful remarks, but I want to put on record our concern that the Government are making too great a move in the direction of local authorities, which can, as the right hon. Gentleman said, be ``got at'' in some areas. The Government have been persuaded to take the appeal mechanism to the magistrates court, but not to remove the power to delegate to local authorities.

I hope that the Minister recognises that the matter must be kept under review. If the right hon. Gentleman's fears, which we in Opposition tend to share, are borne out in reality, we hope that the Government—or a future Conservative Government—can reconsider the matter and, if necessary, decide that it might be better to have it dealt with by local licensing benches and lay magistrates, as happens with liquor licensing.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that his over-emphasis on what can happen in terms of corruption at local government level could lead to an anti-democratic position? Such matters must be kept in balance. From time to time, there is a small amount of jiggery-pokery at local government level, but it is dangerous to argue that that could a be reason for not allowing local government a role in this issue.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

There is an issue of judgment. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is on one side of the divide, but we are on the other because a history of what he delicately referred to as ``jiggery-pokery'' does not exist for lay magistrates. When talking about having things done effectively and properly, we have always supported the independent role of the lay magistracy. The Government have made their view clear and come to a judgment. We will see what happens if and when the Bill becomes law, and I will listen with interest to the Minister's response.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We have taken a view that I support, which is that the right level for initial decisions is in the local authority. Of course, local authority members and officers may be open to influence and corruption, but there are ways of dealing with that. By and large, their record is good and is getting better. Better scrutiny, auditing and external assessment are taking place, and there is an appeals process. We must remember that the system is about activities going on in different parts of the country. It is better that those elected to represent the community take the initial decision about the appropriateness of a licence. We strongly believe that that should happen at a local level. The authority will exist—we assume—to maintain a consistency of standards, and I hope that other action by the Government and authorities will ensure that.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I begin by paying tribute to Andy Walker, to whom the right hon. Member for Walsall, South referred, who was funded by the Home Office, as police officers sometimes are, to examine particular problems and make proposals. I met him and read his report carefully during the preparation of the Bill.

I will give the assurance that I think is sought that not only we but the new authority will keep the matter under review.

In essence, we were faced with three options, and we carefully considered each of them. The first was to leave the matter entirely to local authorities, and many of them, although not the majority, are working in those areas. The second was to establish an SIA bureaucracy that is able to reach into every community in Britain and license directly. I should add that we considered the magistrates option, but not at length, because it presented similar problems to those that arise in relation to local authorities. The third option—and, as you would expect, Mr. Winterton, we chose the third way—was the approach set out in the Bill, giving the SIA the power to establish the licensing process by dealing with the issues of syllabuses, training and standards.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Syllabi.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was wondering whether to say syllabi or syllabuses and I decided on the latter to discover whether a pedant would intervene. I am glad to say that the sprat that I laid caught the mackerel—and it must be said that it is a fine mackerel. The syllabi, or syllabuses, the training and the raising of standards will be established by the SIA. The local authority's principal role will be to process and to make certain key judgments.

I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the ability to deal with corruption in the local authority context. That problem is getting better, but the local authority should take decisions in that regard on the basis of a national framework. The clause addresses the question of how that will evolve. In practice, precisely the kind of review that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has mentioned will take place. Different local authorities will adopt different approaches and methods, but the principle of consistency will be promoted by the proposed approach.

I conclude my commendation of the clause by reinforcing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central, that the local crime reduction partnerships, in which the local authority, the police and often—although not as often as I would like—the local magistrates are participating, provide the correct framework within which to deal with city centre issues such as those that we have debated.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

My opinion of local government is coloured by my experiences of my own local authority. However, in general, it has a good record with regard to regulating door supervisors.

My question—to which an answer might not be available at present—is about local authority regulation of fire safety and security personnel at pop concerts. I have been to many such concerts to look at how local authorities supervise them. Indeed, I had to see Tina Turner twice, just to check whether my initial analysis was correct. Is the Minister satisfied with local authority regulation with regard to security, crowd management and safety at pop concerts that can be staged in venues that range in capacity from 500 to as many as 100,000 people, as was the case at Knebworth, where I suffered by watching Oasis perform? That is not the greatest way to spend one's time. [Interruption.]

Is the Minister satisfied that the regulatory structures for the oversight of the security and stewarding of events that might be attended by as many as 100,000 people are covered adequately by the legislation? Will he need to examine further the question of stewarding to discover the answer to that?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I should point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) wanted to put it on the record that Oasis is a great pop group—or rather was a great pop group. I do not think that my colleagues would like the implications of my right hon. Friend's remarks to go unchallenged.

There are serious issues about the relations between local authorities and the police in stewarding such events. The Association of Chief Police Officers has recently produced new guidelines on dealing with such matters, and it is important to keep the issue under close review, which I assure my right hon. Friend that we will. I cannot give an off-the-cuff answer to how the matter currently operates, but I accept and agree with his point that it is problematic. I hope that the Committee will accept the clause.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before I put the question, I always seek to help the Committee. I did O-level Greek and A-level Latin, and I can tell the Committee that ``syllabuses'' is the English word. I am sure that Hansard will minute that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Register of approved contractors

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful for the ruling and explanation that you have just given, Mr. Winterton. I am not a classicist and I am happy to defer to your superior knowledge, and that of those who advise you.

The clause is part of an important set of clauses relating to the approved contractors register. Subsection (3)(e) contains a reference to

``the conditions of the approval.''

Will the Minister confirm that, in cases in which individuals are registered to provide the same services, there will be no difference in the treatment of such individuals? It will help the Committee if he describes the types of conditions that he envisages, and how they may vary from one case to another. For example, if an individual is registered to provide only some of the services that fall within the rubric of the Bill, what form will the conditions take? Will he give examples of other instances in which a person is registered for the provision of a wider range of services? An explanation or enlargement on subsection (3)(e) would be useful.

The Minister will be aware that subsection (4)(b) states:

``securing that such publicity is given to any modification or withdrawal of an approval as will bring it to the attention of person likely to be interested in it.''

That is probably an innocuous provision, but will he explain the types of circumstances that he envisages? Is the significance of the subsection that people who ordinarily use the services of a person who is registered under the terms of the clause would be such individuals who would be notified of a withdrawal or modification? Precisely how would the individuals or groups of people who were to be so informed be decided, and what form would the publicity take? Will it be standard, has it been decided, does it await decision, when would notification occur, and in what form would it be learned?

Subsection (5) refers to the imposition of a fee that the authority considers appropriate. What do the Government have in mind?

On the strength of my brief inquiries, I am happy to rest my case, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Most of the hon. Gentleman's points were focused on subsection (3)(e). The conditions are a general reference to any other conditions that the authority is empowered to attach to approvals on the register.

Subsection (4)(b) relates to the authority's ability to notify through the trade press, for example, any change that has occurred. It is not an injunction to use a particular form of publicity but an empowerment to enable the authority to deal with the matter. We do not have any proposals for a particular approach to publicity. We consider that to be a matter for the authority.

I cannot say at the moment what level of fee will be involved, but I imagine that it will be low. We envisage that, as I suggested earlier in response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the register will principally be electronic and will therefore always be current. It will be regularly updated, and people will have access to it. The fee may be extremely low, or even nugatory, but we do not as yet have a proposed amount. It depends on the practical issues that arise. I urge the Committee to accept the clause.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister helpfully answered my second and third questions, but I was slightly less comfortable with his response, as I shall accurately describe it, to my first inquiry. It seemed to amount to saying that the conditions of the approval are the conditions of the approval. That is not only tautologous but unhelpful. However, I suspect that further and better particulars on the conditions that the Government have in mind will emerge in due course, and I shall be beady-eyed on the subject at a later stage.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The example of an approval that has just been suggested is that a particular code of practice would have to be adhered to by a contractor in particular circumstances.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That is helpful, but I still believe that there may be scope for giving us further information at a later stage of our deliberations on the Bill. On the strength of the answers that I have received, and content as I broadly am with this relatively unexceptional clause, I rest my case and do not dissent from the Minister's comments.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I am sorry to disappoint you again, Mr. Winterton. Perhaps I should learn some Latin to meet your approval.

The issue of approved contractors encompasses clauses 14 through to 18. I have not the slightest intention of making speeches on all those clauses. I believe that the points can all be subsumed in a four-minute speech on clause 14. I promise not to speak on any of the others, or on my amendment No. 5, under clause 17.

This is a cop-out. The idea of asking companies whether they are to be subjected to additional scrutiny and saying that they will be given a little badge at the end of it is nonsense. Whoever dreamed it up and imposed it on the Home Office wants their collective head reading.

A company is more than an amalgamation of people. It seems bonkers to license individuals but to let the entity for which they work choose whether to be subject to self-approval. Good companies will go through the process of approval, but bad companies will not—until they are compelled to do so. Bad companies will hide behind words by saying that they have been licensed, meaning in essence that their personnel have been licensed, when they have not voluntarily submitted themselves to approval under the Government's ideas. That is truly wrong.

I share the anxiety that has been expressed about excessive regulation of companies, but the private security industry is different from ordinary firms, in which no public safety issues may be at stake. Most reputable firms will be queueing up to be regulated by the authority. There are many jurisdictions throughout the world, some not known for their liking of excessive bureaucracy, that license the companies involved. For example, Hong Kong and most of the states in the United States, especially Florida and Texas, are not known for imposing unnecessarily hard burdens on their local industry. In western Europe, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden fall into that category, as do all the states in Australia. It is nonsense not to include all the companies in all the sectors and to say to them, ``You as a company will be subject to approval and will have to prove all sorts of factors, such as the competence of the directors, the chairman and the senior management—that they are working in the right premises, have the proper insurance and meet the strict criteria.''

In the United Kingdom, one may compare the private security industry with other sectors of the economy. Under the Council for Registered Gas Installers—CORGI—scheme, all gas installers must be registered. In a wide variety of industrial sectors of the United Kingdom, firms are subject to varying forms of special regulation. Regulation applies to agriculture, aviation, banks and building societies, electricity suppliers, financial services, the gaming industry, the gas suppliers, the insurance firms, the meat processing industry—although it has not been applied well enough in that case. The list goes on: telecommunications, television and radio broadcasting and the water industry are all subject to intervention to protect the public, and the companies in almost all those cases must be regulated.

I asked the Library to do research on my behalf, which I will willingly forward to the Minister, investigating company obligations in the financial services sector. I have been told in great detail that the companies themselves must be regulated—not voluntarily. That includes companies providing insurance and banking, as well as those in the financial services sector, credit licences companies and employment bureaux. All those companies are subject to scrutiny and approval, so that if the company fails to meet the standards it is not issued with a licence.

I cannot understand why the private security industry, which has more than its share of criminals, charlatans and rogues, should be allowed to get away without companies being licensed and registered. If the Minister will not accept an amendment to impose the duty for all companies to be licensed, I hope that his successor will persuade the Home Secretary and the authority that the voluntarism enshrined in the clauses should be junked as quickly as possible and that the better regulation taskforce should be asked to regulate and advise other sectors more effectively. The security industry will come of age only if the principle of voluntarism is replaced by compulsory regulation and security companies fall in line with other companies. I hope that eventually, when the legislation is enacted, there will be a swift evaluation and what is now voluntary will become compulsory.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was almost on the verge of making a point of order to get your guidance on how to proceed, Mr. Winterton. As my right hon. Friend said, a number of clauses deal with the points that he makes. If you agree, I would like to deal with the arguments now, although the amendments tabled to clause 17 by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and by my right hon. Friend all address much the same point.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am very happy that the Minister should deal with those arguments now, in the hope that some self-discipline will then be shown by all members of the Committee.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have to say to my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the point is real and serious and was rightly made on Second Reading. We have established a process that is set out in clause 17 and specifically allows the Secretary of State to turn the voluntary scheme into a compulsory one, if necessary, but a decision to do so would be taken only following a recommendation from the authority and after exhaustive and extensive consultation with the industry, the police and other interested parties.

Two propositions led us not to opt for the compulsory route recommended by my right hon. Friend. The first is the question of the wrong that we are attempting to right. What is the extent of the criminality—against which the Bill is principally focused—in particular sectors of the industry? The conclusion that we came to—and we were pressed by the better regulation taskforce—is that criminality undoubtedly applies to certain sections of the private security industry. For those sections, the existence of criminality—my right hon. Friend spoke earlier about door stewards and drugs—is overwhelming, and the need to assume powers undeniable. In other sectors, however, no one could imagine any such criminality emerging in the future.

That is why we set up a process to review the circumstances. I can tell my right hon. Friend that criminality has been at the core of our investigations. I would be interested to know what he believes, but we were convinced of the existence of criminality and of the need for a compulsory approach to deal with certain sectors but not others, and that has led to the structure of the Bill.

My right hon. Friend asked about the worth of self-regulatory schemes. Again, different schemes apply in different parts of the industry. Are the schemes genuine or sham? Are they a reality? How do they operate? Our general disposition—and this is probably the only area of disagreement with my right hon. Friend—is to prefer a self-regulatory scheme that is properly scrutinised under a truly independent authority to a compulsory process further down the line.

Those are the two main considerations that led us to adopt our present course. A third more minor consideration was the scale of work once the authority was established. We debated such considerations in relation to other aspects of the Bill but they are less important in this particular respect. I hope that that explains why we adopted the course that we did.

I want to put it on record, as I did on Second Reading, that it is one of the key responsibilities of the authority to deal with the matters raised by my right hon. Friend. When a case arises that the police, the industry, politicians or the authority believe warrants a compulsory approach, the Bill contains the powers for the Secretary of State to adopt it. Clause 17(1) states:

``The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that persons of prescribed descriptions are to be prohibited from providing prescribed security industry services unless they are for the time being approved . . . in accordance with the arrangements''.

My right hon. Friend's amendment proposes ``shall'' instead of ``may'', but we believe that we should move forward steadily, making proper assessments as we go.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Which significant organisations or individuals recommended the voluntary scheme that the Government are adopting, and which big players were the most important lobbyists for the compulsory scheme?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I cannot help the hon. Gentleman off the cuff, but the Government's overall approach is designed to minimise rather than maximise regulation. The vehicle to carry it out is the better regulation taskforce, to which my right hon. Friend referred. It has been a considerable factor in our thinking on the matter. Certain industries make the case in respect of their particular industries; for example, on Second Reading, we discussed information technology security consultants. Thus I cannot give the answer that the hon. Gentleman is looking for, but that is why we are where we are.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister provide an answer to my question soon, either by writing to me or placing an answer in the Library?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall provide an answer for the hon. Gentleman and members of the Committee. I cannot guarantee that it will be comprehensive, but I shall give the fullest information that I can. Mostly, it will revolve around the responses to our White Paper.

In conclusion, the arguments that I made in responding as constructively as possible to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) are essentially the same arguments that I would put in response to my right hon. Friend's amendment to clause 17 and the amendments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to clause 15. That is the thrust of my case, so I will not repeat those points. I have tried to set out as clearly as I can the basis of the Government's thinking on that important aspect of the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

In trying to rationalise and order what I say, I shall save my comments about my amendments until we come to the next clause.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before we move to clause 15, I seek to give the Committee some help and guidance, so that the whole of the Bill can be properly scrutinised by the Committee. We have approximately another 40 minutes this morning and two and a half hours this afternoon, from 4:30 till 7 o'clock. The amendment paper shows that there are 12 clauses, one new clause, two schedules and a number of amendments still to consider. I urge all Committee members to take that into account as they contribute to the debate. Clause 15 Arrangements for the grant of approvals

Clause 15 - Arrangements for the grant of approvals

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 11, line 26, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

`It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that there are arrangements in force for granting approvals to persons who are providing security industry services in England and Wales.'.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 48, in page 11, line 27, leave out from `who' to end of line 30 and insert—

`(a) are providing security industry services in England and Wales and seek approval in respect of any such services that they are providing, or are proposing to provide; or

(b) are providing security industry services in England and Wales and are deemed to be acting as a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998.'.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

As the Minister said, the amendment seeks to change the nature of the system that we are considering for approved contractors from a voluntary to a mandatory system. There are two alternatives on the amendment paper: amendment No. 49 simply provides that it shall be a duty of the authority to secure arrangements for granting approvals, and it removes the second part of clause 15; and amendment No. 48 seeks to provide the facility of arrangements generally, but makes the arrangements compulsory for those contractors who act as a public authority under the definition found in the Human Rights Act 1998. One option is that the register would be compulsory for everyone; the other option is that the register would be a discretionary, or opt-in, register, except for those contractors who fall within the realm of public authorities.

An obvious example of the second option was the subject of a major debate in the House of Lords. The debate was about sub-contractors to public authorities, such as the police. It could be a school or a local authority housing estate that was employing people as security guards. It could be any number of other people acting on behalf of a public authority. The reason for the amendment and the definition of a public authority in clause 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is to ensure that people who were doing a public service job would be compulsorily registered, even though they were a private firm under tendering and contracting-out processes. If one is dealing with a public agency one should know who is involved in it.

Subject to how the debate goes, I shall certainly ask the Committee to vote on amendment No. 48. I hope that it will receive support from both sides of the Committee. I can be brief because the general nature of the argument has been entered into by both the right hon. Member for Walsall, South and the Minister. I understand the starting point, which is that when we move from no system at all to a new system we have to decide whether it should be compulsory or developmental. The Minister argued for a half-way house, in that we are starting with an opt-in system but the Bill will provide for it to become a compulsory system by ministerial decision. I am grateful that the second option is available.

I do not entirely buy the Minister's third reason, which he said was the least important of his three reasons. He said that the Government were conscious of the scale of work. If one sets up an authority and a register, there are more people if registration is compulsory, but it is a relative difference rather than a significant one. Once a system is going, people will be needed to run it and the more applications there are, the more will be processed. I understand the argument, but once one has bitten the bullet and set up all the overheads and the management costs are all in place, it will matter only marginally whether one has a compulsory or a voluntary system.

The Minister's first argument was about whether what we seek to put right is a weighing factor. The Government have come to a clear conclusion. As the right hon. Member for Walsall, South reminds us, the Bill has probably had one of the longest gestation periods of any post-war legislation, although other matters have been hanging around in the Home Office for a very long time.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the lengthy period of gestation from my right hon. Friend's first Bill is entirely down to the Government. We have moved speedily on the matter. Our predecessors moved rather slowly.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I seem to remember that there was one of those 18-year interludes. The Minister would not expect me to argue that it was an interlude entirely of darkness surrounded by two Administrations of enlightenment. That has not been our view.

The Bill has been around for a long time. The Government decided to grasp the nettle and bite the bullet—two cliches in one sentence—and we are grateful for that. Having done so, it is silly only to go half way. My colleagues and I come from a tradition that says that one should not legislate when it is not necessary. If we are to have a system for customer and consumer protection, it should not be a two-tier system. It is like saying that one can register one's car for an MOT test, but it is not necessary. Half the cars on the road would therefore be ones with, for example, unacceptable emissions. It is like saying that people can set up a pub, but that they do not have to apply for licence.

I do not understand the logic of the public policy argument. Here are people providing services which we think should be controlled, but we do not think that it is reasonable to expect everyone to buy into it. As the right hon. Member for Walsall, South said, those with something to hide will be the least willing to register. Therefore, it is not surprising that, among others, the British Security Industry Association and reputable companies such as Group 4 believe that there should be—another cliche—a level playing field. Having the same rules for everyone is the only way to ensure fair competition, consumer protection and a system that is guaranteed to work.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, with MOTs for cars and licensing for pubs, for example, you are talking about one activity that is clearly definable across the country, whereas with the private security industry, you are talking about a family of different industries, which are related but have different characteristics?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey might be talking about those industries, but I am not.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I apologise, Mr. Winterton. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the private security industry is a family of different industries, to which different considerations of criminality and regulations apply, in contrast with the examples that he gave of relatively uniform activity?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I partly buy that argument, although, if we take the passing of the MOT test, there are rafts of vehicles—commercial vehicles, private motor cars and others. There is also a family, albeit smaller, for music, dance and alcohol licences. The situation is not as straightforward as the Minister described.

One might want to say also that certain parts of the industry are more in need of regulation than others. The Minister seems to be saying that the Government are providing an umbrella authority that, in theory, will regulate in one area but not in another. The problem is that that may not happen. Each sector will be different—wheelclamping, bouncers on club doors or people patrolling estates. There will be a voluntary scheme for everyone and no one will have to register, which is the weakness. Had the Minister said that there should be a voluntary system for wheelclamping, bouncers and private security firms on local authority estates, that would have been fine. There will be no similarity, however, which means that we will be left a system in which there is no guarantee that, when contracts are entered into, someone necessarily buys only the registered scheme. It will take a long time—we should consider the British Standards Institution or the building trade for example. There are still huge numbers of cowboy builders, who normally rip off customers. The surprising experience of the consumer industry is that many users of building industry services do not check whether someone is registered as an approved plumber, roofer, carpenter or whatever. As such, the users have little recourse.

Even the travel industry took a long time to reach its standard, although—I might be wrong; I do not pretend to be an expert—it is now almost impossible to travel abroad without using a company recognised by the Association of British Travel Agents. My experience tells me that, if we are talking about consumer protection in areas of criminality, it is better to have a system that does not rely on the intelligence or perspicacity of the consumer to work out whether he or she is dealing with a kosher or approved system or company. I cannot see a great fairness in the Government's approach, given the strength of the views of reputable representatives of industry, who are in favour of compulsory registration, or of some reputable large players, such as Group 4, which the Government have used for security services in the prison sector and elsewhere.

I do not want to labour my wider points, but let me mention a final specific issue. I urge the Government to reflect that it would discredit and be unhelpful to public authorities to allow them to use people who are not registered. The public sector has enough difficulty making choices. It would make life much easier for public authorities if everyone who wanted to work in that sector had to take the prior clearance route. Otherwise, nothing in the compulsory competitive tender system—the best-value debate—will guarantee that the best-value choice will be someone who is registered, even though officers can report and recommend at both local government and central Government level.

I do not want to open a difficult wound, but people might say, as some Tory Members did on a famous issue recently, that they accept the principle but do not want to sign up. To take that view would not disqualify someone from tendering for a prospective contract.

I am sure that we shall return to the matter. I understand the Minister's arguments, but do not find them persuasive. If we do not take this step now, there will be small probability of moving to a compulsory system in the near future, whoever is in government. Large numbers of people will continue to complain that the system has not given them the protection that they expected. Having waited so long and at last seen the Government introduce a welcome Bill, we should do the job properly, rather than doing only half of it.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will withdraw amendment No. 49, I will happily allow a division on amendment No. 48. I shall ask him to move it formally at the appropriate time.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand the arguments that have been made, but they do not convince me. I think that the arguments that I made earlier address the issues. There are differences between the various parts of the private security industry, and we must learn and identify the ill at each stage before moving to a compulsory stage.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Government are obviously trying to concertina the debate. Ministerial conversions happen rarely, and they are even more rare when colleagues have held the line up the road, so I was not entirely expecting one. I do not know whether either the Minister or I will be around to see who is right, but, for the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 48, in page 11, line 27, leave out from ``who'' to end of line 30 and insert—

``(a) are providing security industry services in England and Wales and seek approval in respect of any such services that they are providing, or are proposing to provide; or

(b) are providing security industry services in England and Wales and are deemed to be acting as a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998.''.—[Mr. S. Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I should like to put two questions to the Minister in relation to clause 15. First, what is the significance and potential application of the words in brackets in subsection (2)(c)? Secondly, in relation to subsection (4), are the regulations to be determined in accordance with the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

On subsection (4), negative resolution procedure is the right answer. On the significance of the words in brackets in subsection (2)(c), which I am carefully studying as I respond, they simply mean that the conditions that are being discussed apply whatever the situation. The wording is clear:

``such conditions (whether or not connected with the provision of the services in respect of which the approval is granted)''

The conditions need not be associated with the provision of the service in relation to which the approval is granted; they can be more general in character. In my view it is straightforward, but I may have misunderstood a subtle point with which the hon. Member for Buckingham seeks to transfix me.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

What the Minister says is both true and, of itself, not entirely adequate. He is right that the literal meaning of the words in brackets is clear. I also accept that it therefore means conditions other than those that relate specifically to defined services for which approval has been granted. All I am saying to the Minister, in the politest possible way, is that it would be helpful to have some indication of what those conditions might be.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am glad that I was clear, because I thought that my answer was confused. I am now even clearer that I was clear when I first answered, which is why my natural eloquence, if that is the way to put it, failed me.

The clause is intended to indicate that the conditions that are laid down and contain the approval can deal with any aspect of concerns about a particular organisation. The conditions do not have to be connected with the provision of the services in respect of which the approval is granted. For example, if an approval is being sought to deal in manned guarding, but there are issues concerning the company's dealings in wheelclamping, that could be a consideration in the establishment of such conditions, even if it was not to do with the manned guarding for which the application had been made. I may have misunderstood the point and, as the hon. Gentleman is always so rapier-like, I am concerned not to make a mistake about this, but I think that my remarks are clear.

I was slightly surprised that Opposition Members voted with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on the last amendment. I was also genuinely interested to see that sea change in Conservative party attitudes, which is important to note. With that in mind, I hope that clause 15 can stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I, at 12.43 pm on Tuesday 1 May, am satisfied.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Obviously, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is not.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I do not want to undermine or undervalue the last statement. Tory satisfaction on the eve of the general election is something that we should all note; if only the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would admit to the same.

Obviously, I sought to amend the clause, but I have failed to do so. However, I may return to the matter with my hon. Friends, and I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Buckingham and his hon. Friends. It is clearly better to have this clause, which provides for the opportunity for approvals to be granted, than not to have the clause at all. A half loaf is better than no bread, which is why I shall not oppose the clause's standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Right to use approved status

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I understand the reason for, and I certainly do not object to, the purpose of clause 16. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister in relation to subsection (1). I understand that the intention is to prevent an individual from misrepresenting his or her entitlements, by which I mean the services that he or she has been approved to provide. Can the Minister explain the basis on which that will be achieved? Can he confirm that subsection (1) will not lead to undue interference in, or a detailed determination of, the way in which an approved individual chooses to advertise his or her services?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

For the hon. Gentleman to go from satisfaction to dissatisfaction so quickly is a matter for severe concern.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That is modern Conservatism.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Yes.

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

At least the hon. Gentleman has an opinion.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

He is never consistent, from one minute to the next.

Turning to subsection (3)(b), what is the current maximum fine and in what way might it be varied? Clearly, the power to impose a significant fine must exist. I understand how the maximum fine for a summary conviction is fixed, but there seems to be no similar mechanism in respect of conviction on indictment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

On the second point, the fine is unlimited and at the discretion of the court. On the first point, the hon. Member for Buckingham correctly identified the reason for the provision. The aim is to establish a set of criteria for the quality mark, including standards relating to technical and other requirements, the question of whether an applicant is a fit and proper person, and so on. The voluntary quality mark would last for three years. In finalising the criteria, the normal consultations will of course take place. It is a relatively universal charter mark, and is not designed to be intrusive in terms of marketing a particular company. However, it is intended to enable an individual who uses a company to know whether it is approved.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I understand what the Minister is saying, and it is genuinely not my intention to nitpick. However, is he arguing for universality, or that the provision is generally provided for in a number of different sectors? As an intelligent fellow, he will recognise that his phrase ``relatively universal'' is a contradiction in terms.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was rather hoping that you were a philosopher rather than a classicist, Mr. Winterton, so that you could give a discourse on the precise meaning of the phrase ``relatively universal''. I was trying to say that everyone who is approved will receive a kite mark or clear mark of approval. Of course, that will not extend to those who are not approved. The provision does not deal with establishing different categories within the same mark for different parts of the industry, but the matter could—and certainly would—be decided by the SIA.

The purpose of the provision is to make as clear as possible to the consumer of a service that a contractor is approved for the type of business that we are describing, but in a manner that will not stand in the way of a company's making its own presentation of its services. With respect, that is a relatively bog-standard—to use a phrase that is currently in vogue—approach to such matters. Many organisations adopt it: it is simply a question of empowering the SIA to do so.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister's colleagues mischievously muttered that perhaps the answer is to put the mark on the forehead—an idea to which the Minister was attracted earlier in our debate—or to put a luminous stamp on the back of the hand. Those of us who frequent what are no longer called pop concerts are sometimes required to comply with such requirements. On the relevance of classicism, it is clear that some people need a bit more of it. When answering a question about his new house, an actor said that it was very nice and had 58 rooms, including seven bedrooms and three ``bathra''. That struck me as somewhat pretentious.

I welcome the Minister's answer in respect of fines, but will he point out to the Government that it would be consistent and good if, on indictment, fine levels were to remain unlimited. That has been a matter of controversy before. For example, people often feel that there should be more significant penalties for breaches of Health and Safety Executive licensing regulations, which involve limited fines, especially if there has been a corporate infraction by a company that then pays relatively nothing for a clear breach of building regulations or the like.

I welcome the fact that the higher courts should be able to impose a fine that means something to the person or company that it is fining. I should be grateful if the Minister would pass on that concept to the appropriate authorities and perhaps contemplate the possibility that we could remove at a stroke the barrier to upper levels of fines across the Crown courts and higher courts.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall pass on those remarks to my colleagues.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Imposition of requirements for approval

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I shall not move Amendment No. 5.

During a number of votes on amendments, Committee Members might have heard my strangulated cries—the small sounds of rebellion. When Fred Mulley, a former Secretary of State for Defence, was asked in 1979 whether he was in favour of nuclear weapons, he said that he was intellectually opposed but institutionally in favour. To reverse that process, I am intellectually supportive of, but institutionally opposed to, many of the amendments that have been discussed this morning. The arguments given by my hon. Friend the Minister are not strong. However, there is no point in pursuing the amendment, because his views are set, at least until the SIA comes up with a better proposal. I find the idea that a company is not an entity unacceptable. Under the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001, the company itself must be licensed in addition to the individuals concerned. There are many examples of companies being so regulated. The idea that they can be excluded from that, and that a good company should get a kite mark of approval for being good, is laughable. I hope that my view—which is, I suspect, that of many others—will be acceptable in future.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. The hon. Gentleman need not seek the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment, as he chose not to move it. Those were his opening words.

Mr. Bercow rose—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Is this a point of order, Mr. Bercow, or do you wish to speak in the clause 17 stand part debate?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I should be much obliged if I could do so.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

You can indeed.

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

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Your natural tolerance invariably gets the better of you, Mr. Winterton, whatever the intention with which you began our proceedings.

I want to refer to subsection (1) of the clause. I shall be characteristically moderate, restrained and understated in my criticism.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

Shame.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's sedentary encouragement.

First, suffice to say that the subsection is mildly circumlocutory. In 43 words, it appears to say that the Secretary of State will be able to prohibit categories of individuals from the provision of private security industry services unless they have been approved under clause 15. Can the Minister explain the need for a cut-across between clauses 15 and 17?

Secondly, as the Minister would expect me to do as surely as the passage of the seasons, I make my habitual inquiry as to whether the regulations referred to in subsection (1) will be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On Second Reading and earlier in this Committee, I asked the right hon. Member for Walsall, South what his preconditions are for agreeing to the Bill. Given that it has not yet been significantly amended on the crucial issues, and that the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is intellectually persuaded by the need to amend it, I assume that if we reach Report stage today—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who has legal qualifications, that the matter he is raising does not relate to clause 17. He tried hard, but I shall not permit him to proceed.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

To be frank, the questions from the hon. Member for Buckingham were so penetrating that I would have welcomed the opportunity not to answer them—you standing between me and him is something that I could have lived with, Mr. Winterton.

In answer to the first question from the hon. Gentleman, negative resolution procedure will be used in this case. On the relationship between clauses 15 and 17, I am somewhat confused by his question. Clause 15 deals with the arrangements for the grant of approvals and clause 17 empowers the Secretary of State to establish regulations that extend across the legislation, which is why clause 17 relates to clause 15. I may have misunderstood his point, in which case I shall try to answer it more clearly. The purpose of the juxtaposition of those two clauses is to ensure that there is a relationship between the Secretary of State deciding whether or not to lay down regulations and the operation that exists under clause 15.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister's explanation is entirely satisfactory on this occasion. However, in view of his remarks, it is arguable that the contents of clause 17 could have been contained within clause 15, which may explain my quizzical tone.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

One day I hope to achieve the esteemed office of parliamentary counsel, at which point I shall engage in those kinds of discussions.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Powers of entry and inspection

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I should like some advice. While the Committee has so far lost 22-0 in terms of amendments proposed and accepted, the House of Lords did fractionally better. One of the few amendments that it secured was the nonsense in clause 19(3) that inspections can be undertaken only at a ``reasonable hour''. Bearing in mind that we are discussing some of the biggest rogues in the kingdom, if we want to bust them by inspecting their premises to see whether they are doing anything illegal and whether they are undertaking the task that they said that they would, the idea that only a visit at a reasonable hour will be permitted is absolute nonsense. I cannot see how, out of all the amendments that were submitted by their noble lordships, that piece of stupidity managed to slip through the system.

My next point—although I doubt whether I shall be able to make it—is that there will be a multitude of inspectorates. When the Minister chooses an inspectorate, I ask him to be careful to ensure that it is genuinely independent. I hope that I have his assurance on that matter

I cannot understand the idea in the White Paper that there will be only 10 inspectors—one chief and nine ordinary inspectors. That would be enough for my constituency only. The Gaming Board has 35 inspectors who monitor the 5,000 staff who work in 118 casinos and bingo houses. If we are to have a proper inspectorate monitoring the industry, 10 inspectors is clearly a fraction of what is needed. I hope that I shall receive assurances later this afternoon that it will not be a joke inspectorate, which is what 10 inspectors would make it.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. If the right hon. Member for Walsall, South wants to continue his speech at 4.30 pm, I shall certainly call him.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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

Standing Committee B

Clause 19 - Powers of entry and inspection

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made two points of substance, and I can reassure him on both of them. He asked whether the purpose of the inspectorate was serious. My categorical and clear answer is that it is designed to enforce the edicts of the SIA. As he said, it will be an independent body that will not owe allegiance to any part of the industry, nor will it have a duty to be courteous or polite in particular situations. It will be rigorous and effective. I hope that I can set his mind at rest on that.

My right hon. Friend also asked about the meaning of ``reasonable''. An amendment to include such wording was accepted in the other place. As I said on Second Reading, what constitutes a reasonable time may vary according to the circumstances. An obvious case is that 2 o'clock on a Friday morning may well be a reasonable time for door supervisors, but for others it may not. The question of reasonableness must be related to the nature of the business and not the regular nine-to-five day, 46-week year, that a normal working life might imply. It will depend on the particular aspects of the industry in question.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

To clarify, could a wheelclamping company be inspected at night? For example a wheelclamping company may not provide adequate lighting of notices warning of wheelclamping, which is one of the ways that such companies can entrap people. If an inspection can take place not only in the company's headquarters but in the car parks, could it take place at night?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I think that I can satisfy my hon. Friend on that matter. The powers of entry and inspection cover all the powers described, including for wheelclampers. Subsection (3) says that the power shall be operated only at a reasonable hour. The word ``reasonable'' should be defined by the working practices of the industries concerned. I can give an absolute assurance on the example that she gave. Obviously, the person or organisation being inspected can subsequently try to make a case about what is or is not reasonable, but I place it on the record that the Government, in proposing that form of words, intend that the word ``reasonable'' should relate to the working practices of the industries concerned.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I know that the Minister accepts that the powers in the clause are quite broad. An authorised person can enter the premises of anyone appearing to be a regulated person. That is a much broader test than merely suspecting that someone might be regulated, and certainly than having reason to believe that he is. What remedy would there be for someone whose premises were entered wrongfully? That is important, because anyone who obstructs an authorised person is guilty of an offence under subsection (5) and could be subject to imprisonment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Clause 20 describes the authority's duty to prepare and publish a document containing its guidance on the use of the powers, which will reflect my comments about the word ``reasonable''.

I think that I am right in saying that the first point of redress for people who believe that the power has been abused is the law of the land and the courts. More profoundly, as we said earlier in relation to the way in which the SIA will operate, the authority will take account of experience in considering and revising its guidance and updating its practices. It will have to take into account the matter to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention when considering its future practices and how to get them right.

I hope that that clarifies those points. With that, I hope that we can agree that clause 19 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Guidance as to exercise of power of entry

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I have one quick question, which arises from the Minister's response to my question on clause 19. Do the Government currently expect the people who will be authorised to undertake entries into premises to be officers of the SIA or will the authority authorise others to carry out inspections on its behalf?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The phrasing leaves it open to the authority to decide how best to proceed. My expectation—if that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking about—is that the authority is likely to use its own inspectors. The nature of that arrangement will evolve during the process. I can certainly envisage the authority deciding to retain other inspectors, such as local government officers, to carry out its functions. It might conceivably retain private companies, although I cannot quite imagine that. I do not want to prejudge precisely how those functions will be carried out, which is why the clause is phrased openly. However, my expectation is that the key inspection function will be with the authority, which has the power to address the relevant matters.

With that, I urge that clause 20 stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Access to enhanced criminal records certificates

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I have another quick question, which I hope that the Minister can answer equally quickly.

As the Bill stands, the criminal records certificate requirement is intended to apply only to door supervisors, or bouncers. What if a wheelclamping operative has been arrested, cautioned or convicted for blackmail, extortion or threatening behaviour?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That again is a matter to consider. We have singled out door supervisors for the enhanced level of checks because they are a source of particular public concern in view of their frequent contact with young people in nightclubs. They have often been involved in incidents of violence and in drug offences, such as those to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South referred. That is why our current view is that they should be subject to higher levels of checks than exist in other sectors. I say that that is our current view, because the hon. Gentleman rightly said that we might take a different view of the provisions as they carry through in practice. I give a commitment that we will review them in the light of experience, to determine how we should act.

With that, I urge that clause 21 stand part of the Bill

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Orders and regulations

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The purpose of the clause is clear, but its interpretation might not be. Will the Minister confirm that it does not provide in every case, perhaps because it is not intended to do so, an answer to the question whether the order or regulation about which there is debate, inquiry or controversy will be subject to the affirmative procedure? Does he accept that the clause admits of different treatment of different orders, without advance notice of it? It enables the Government to decide the chosen format.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Most of the statutory instruments that will need to or may be introduced will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The exceptions are shown in subsection (3). The first exception is commencement orders made under clause 26(2). Commencement orders are not subject to negative or affirmative resolution. Secondly, orders made in relation to paragraphs 1 or 7 of schedule 2, which we shall shortly debate, will be subject to affirmative resolution.

An order made under paragraph 1(2) of schedule 2 could bring any activity conducted by the private security industry within the definition of

``activities of a security operative'',

which are regulated by the Bill. For example, the Secretary of State could make an order adding the activities of groups such as alarm installers or locksmiths to the list of activities for which a licence will be required from the SIA. That is the kind of approach that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has advocated throughout our debates.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is the Minister saying that such a proposal, which could perfectly reasonably arise later and might well not be anticipated now, would be subject to a 90-minute debate on the Floor of the House?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Such a proposal will be subject to the affirmative resolution, and therefore to those procedures.

An order made under paragraph 7(2) of schedule 2 would allow the Secretary of State to subject certain activities to the additional controls that the Bill currently proposes for only wheelclampers and door supervisors at pubs and clubs. Such an order would require those working in designated activities to be licensed regardless of whether they were employed in-house or under contract.

We believe that the orders under paragraphs 1 and 7 of schedule 2 are significant enough, in extending the powers of the Bill, to require the affirmative procedure. That is why they are excepted from the general requirement of negative procedure as set out in the clause. I hope that that is clear, and I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Interpretation

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

The accountancy profession must be among the heaviest hitters in the relevant sphere. All its venerable organisations are listed to ensure that we know what ``relevant accountancy body'' means. My point relates to what was said earlier about the many investigative organisations. One of your senior civil servants met a group of them on Friday, thanks to your kind invitation—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is attributing to me a power and authority, a meeting and a facility, that I do not have. I am sure that he means the Minister.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I am thankful that my experience of working in Standing Committees is rare and of considerable age. If I fail procedurally, I duly apologise. I am trying to be most compliant with your wishes, Mr. Winterton. My point—it is regrettable that your intervention delayed me from finishing it earlier—was that many legitimate investigative organisations will be subject to licensing. Their direct competitors will be the big accountancy companies, all of which have forensic accountancy departments engaged in investigation. Those will run in parallel with the organisations that will be licensed.

I know that it would be more than the Minister's life is worth to change the law to put accountancy and investigation out of the frame. I merely want to make the point that such discrimination will put those to be licensed at an unfair disadvantage. If it is proven to him or his successor that such competition is disadvantageous and unfair, I hope that they will consider our handiwork and see whether anything further can be done to level the playing field.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We debated the issue on Second Reading, although not at length, and my right hon. Friend makes some serious points. However, I refer him to the Second Reading debate. There is no intention to advantage the great corporations. I know exactly what he refers to when he talks about an unlevel playing field between the big companies and others, but I am aware that there can be confusion on the subject, not least as a result of his interventions on Second Reading. If, as I hope, the Bill receives Royal Assent, I make a commitment to present it directly to the professions and to set out the position clearly and publicly in writing. We have no intention of skewing the whole business in favour of the KPMGs or Coopers of this world.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Clause 26 - Short title, commencement and extent

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 19, line 20, leave out subsection (5).

This is the first and last Government amendment in the course of our deliberations. It is designed to remove subsection (5), which was introduced by the Lords to avoid questions of privilege. Although I must not use the word ``procedural'', because I have been ticked off for my abuse of the word, the subsection is a standard procedural device to ensure that this House retains the right to decide financial matters in Bills originating in the other place, and that is why we seek to remove it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Offence of impersonating a licensed security operative and/or approved contractor

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is self-explanatory, but I cannot let you get away with me sitting down so quickly, Mr. Winterton. The private security industry has a high concentration of crooks, charlatans and those who sail close to the wind. The Home Affairs Committee produced a great deal of evidence, and the police have periodically produced evidence. A decade ago, a report by David Owen, the then Chief Constable of North Wales, was leaked. It contained a long list of criminal offences. Saturday's newspaper included some interesting vignettes on crime in the private security industry. We must do all that we can, even through access to criminal records at the highest level, to ensure that the incidence of crime in the security industry is kept to an absolute minimum. We shall never eliminate crime in the security industry, any more than we shall eliminate it in the police.

The new clause is an attempt to deal with a potential criminal activity of security firm owners and personnel, be they bouncers or security guards. There will be a lucrative market in the sale of false badges and security identification cards enabling security personnel to avoid applying for a licence that they might not get and for which they would have to pay. I know that it happens with bouncers. Why go for a training programme when one can spend £5 and get a card? When one turns up for a door supervision job, one can display the appropriate documentation.

The Minister will probably say that the matter is dealt with by some other provision. However, I am trying to ensure that a person is guilty of a specific offence under the legislation. The penalties will be severe. The measure will not deal with the whole problem of criminality in the industry, but neither will access to criminal records.

The meticulous interview techniques of good companies will also not, on their own, deal with criminality. I said that the cost to a good company of interviewing a candidate was £700, but I have since been told that it is £1,200. A good company will spend £1,200 just to get to the point of sending the prospective employee's documentation off to the licensing authority. People can go bad even when they have been appointed on the basis of such a rigorous process. Even those who are not strictly criminals should be criminalised if they impersonate security officers or private investigators.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

If the right hon. Gentleman presses his new clause to a Division, we will support it. We agree with what he says. Unfortunately, there will be an opportunity for people who are more ingenious than honest to trade in badges and apparent identification documents. We agree with him that the Bill would be stronger if such a provision, with the criminal sanctions applied to it, were included in it. We will listen with interest to the Minister's response to the right hon. Gentleman's new clause, but we support it and the spirit that lies behind it.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It certainly ought to be an offence for someone to claim to be something that they are not and present a document that purports to be something that it is not. There is a common view on that. Does the Minister believe that any of the prospective offences contemplated by the new clause are adequately covered by the existing legislation?

If the law is clear, there is no need for additional offences to be created. However, I would like to know what existing offences would be committed by somebody carrying out the activities set out in the new clause. Would it be necessary to rephrase or adapt the existing law to make it clear that it covers those activities, so that anybody with an interest knows what the consequences are if they offend? Could that be easily done?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was interested in the reference to badges that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made. Throughout my time in the House, every time that I have seen him, as he stalks the corridors of Parliament, he has been wearing the same badge: the pound sign badge that he is wearing now. I wondered what kind of interest he was seeking to represent by wearing it all the time.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

A genuine one.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

A genuine one, he says, from a sedentary position. That is as strong as a pound.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I apologise to you, Mr. Winterton, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath—perhaps also to the Minister—for the fact that I inadvertently left my badge at home. Whether the Minister finds the prospect of seeing such badges edifying or not, I have another wheeze in store for him. It will come when I sport my very desirable pound sign tie.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I hope that the Minister will not spend too long replying to that intervention.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman has forestalled me; I had noticed that, for the first time, he is not wearing a badge. I wondered whether, in his drive to the centre of his party and to fulfil his leadership ambitions, he had decided to dump that aspect of his ideological baggage.

The case is as stated by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Every member of the Committee no doubt agrees with the ambition of the new clause, but the matter is dealt with in existing legislation. It is right that properly licensed operatives should be able clearly to show themselves as such. The format of the licence and the approval will therefore be important. The format will be prescribed in regulations. It will need to be portable, easily recognisable and difficult to tamper with or to reproduce illicitly.

The assurance that my right hon. Friend is looking for can be found in several pieces of legislation. First, clause 16(2) creates an offence of falsely claiming to be an approved provider of services or being registered in terms that have not been approved by the authority. We put the belt and braces of that clause in the Bill to ensure that such serious matters are recognised as offences.

Secondly, any individual who falsely claims to be a licensed security operative is committing offences under existing legislation, particularly the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and the Theft Act 1968, which deal with attempting to obtain property by deception. Those Acts, combined with the powers under clause 16(2), ensure that unlicensed people who attempt to pass themselves off as licensed security operatives or as approved contractors will be committing criminal offences. They will therefore be liable to prosecution.

We do not disagree with one iota of the new clause, but we believe that the Bill and existing legislation together will provide all that is needed to achieve what would have been the effect of the new clause. That is why we resist the new clause, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider not pressing it.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

The Bill will be a bit of a mystery to outsiders. Someone running a small private security firm, who accesses the Bill on the internet, will see very little because first, he will have to wait for two or three years before the regulations are made and, secondly, much that he will be looking for will not be in that document. If he cannot access our proceedings or read the Counterfeiting Act of 1797—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

May I add a word of clarification for my right hon. Friend? Someone looking on the internet will see not only the Bill, but also all the guidance published by the SIA. That will answer all his questions.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

The new clause was meant to be informative; the information is being elicited reluctantly. I shall go, as I did during in my footballing career, rarely on the winning side. I am not sure whether, at the end of these proceedings, I shall be on the losing or the winning side. We shall have to wait for three years to see whether our work has any real effect. I hope that it will. I reluctantly beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 - The Security Industry Authority

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 20, line 5, after `members' insert—

`(being at least five but not more than fifteen)'.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 10, in page 20, line 14, leave out `five' and insert `three'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The amendment is designed to change the number of members of the authority. We believe that the Secretary of State has too wide a discretion. The Minister will recall that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 established the Electoral Commission; that body bears some similarity to the new authority as it has broad regulatory functions, and is required to keep registers and so on. Section 1(3) of that Act imposes a precise requirement in relation to numbers. It states:

``There shall be not less than five, but not more than nine, Electoral Commissioners.''

Why cannot something similar be provided in the Bill?

The Bill is inconsistent with other legislation promoted by the Minister. Paragraph 1(4) to schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which the Minister and I debated not so many weeks ago, states:

``The total number of members of the Authority shall not at any time be less than eleven.''

The Government seem quite happy to put that sort of requirement in other recent legislation. Why not this one?

The quorum for the new authority is to be determined at its first meeting, at which at least five members must be present, as provided in paragraph 10(2) of the schedule. However, it is open to the Secretary of State to appoint fewer than five members. The amendment would ensure some consistency within the Bill. We believe that there should be consistency within the Bill and also within the Department.

Amendment No. 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, seeks to reduce the maximum time of membership of the authority from five years to three. I do not know whether it is simply a probing amendment—the right hon. Gentleman is nodding—but amendment No. 30 is substantive. We seek to limit the Secretary of State's discretion not to fetter him but to ensure consistency. Even if the Minister cannot accept it, I hope that he will at least consider the matter and table a Government amendment on Report, so that the Bill is consistent with itself and with other recent legislation.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested, I believe that a three-year term would be better. I have been a member of various Select Committees for 20 years, but I sometimes think that membership should be limited to six months. Five years is a long time, especially for someone who may not be terribly interested or who makes no contribution to the proceedings. I suspect that a considerable number of people would be prepared to make a contribution—we could get 200 from the private security industry alone, which we would not want. A three-year term would mean that they had to prove their worth. If they were good, their term could be extended, as happened with the old Commission for Racial Equality; if they did not pull their weight and make a real contribution, three years would give the chairman and, initially, the Secretary of State the opportunity to move other people in—there will be many takers. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am not sympathetic to amendment No. 30, but I am to amendment No. 10. The reason for my lack of sympathy for amendment No. 30 is that there is no great virtue in consistency in the size of such bodies. They are created in different circumstances and perform different roles. It would be unnecessarily restrictive to tie ourselves to a minimum of five and maximum of 15 members in the development phase of the SIA in particular, because we are starting from scratch and want to have a consultative process and to ensure that the authority is broadly based.

However, I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to the extent that I acknowledge that the size of the body is important and that it is difficult to get the balance right, as we discussed on Second Reading and elsewhere. I will certainly take his points carefully into account. However, my initial inclination is to say that the Secretary of State—whoever that is after the general election, and whatever his party—should have the flexibility to build a body that can properly meet the needs of the industry and carry out its role.

I am much more sympathetic to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South. The Bill sets a maximum term of five years. When the matter was discussed in the other place, we acknowledged that there was no particular significance in the number five. Indeed, the terms of appointment in the majority of non-departmental public and other similar bodies for which the Home Office has responsibility are nearer to the three years proposed in the amendment than the five years in the Bill. I therefore commit myself to reconsidering the matter. In addition, I am prepared to make a commitment that if the Labour party returns to government, it will be committed to a maximum three-year term of appointment in such circumstances. We will examine changing the legislation to reduce terms from five to three years more generally.

The point is powerful and reflects experience, but a proper rotation and a proper time in service are appropriate. I have given my right hon. Friend two commitments. First, a Labour Government would appoint for only a three-year period, despite the power to appoint for a maximum of five years. Secondly, we will consider tabling an amendment on Report. With that, I hope that he will withdraw—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South does not need to withdraw amendment No. 30, because it is grouped with the amendment No. 10.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I apologise for not being clear about that, Mr. Winterton. I hope, however, that my comments go some way to dealing with my right hon. Friend's concerns. I think that I am right in saying that Conservatives in the other place also favoured a three-year maximum term. I hope that Conservative Members on the Committee will acknowledge that I am trying to respond to that view.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I certainly acknowledge that the Minister is trying to be helpful. He is not, at this stage, prepared to go quite as far as we would like, but he correctly described the attitude of my noble Friends to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South.

I hope that the Minister and his officials will reflect further on the precise numbers. I genuinely think that there is a need for consistency between the new authorities that the Home Office is creating. I do not seek to press the point further, and will withdraw the amendment with the proviso that we might return to it on Report if the Government do not table their own amendment.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait for a moment before seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, because I first intend to call the right hon. Member for Walsall, South to make a few closing comments on amendment No. 30.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

Because the Minister was standing up, Mr. Winterton, you could neither see nor hear me falling to the floor with a thud, having heard that he would accept one of my amendments. Having fully recovered, I now express my delight. What else can I do but enthusiastically withdraw the amendment? The score is 18-1. I am on a roll, and I hope to increase it to 18-2 before our proceedings conclude. With great pleasure, and a deep sense of shock, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 30.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The right hon. Gentleman does not have to withdraw the amendment; it would not have been put unless he had asked for a Division. I should have been happy to grant one, but as the Minister has conceded the point, there is no need.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I return to what I was saying, Mr. Winterton, when you said that you would call the right hon. Gentleman. With the proviso that I mentioned, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—

`(4) In making appointments to the Authority the Secretary of State shall have due regard to the desirability of ensuring the Authority includes persons representative of, or who have experience of

(a) the private security industry,

(b) the police service,

(c) the employees' interest,

(d) the insurance industry,

(e) the consumers' interest,

(f) local authorities

and that no single interest will predominate.'.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 31, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—

`(4)(a) At least one of the members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be a person whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of the police in England and Wales; and

(b) At least one of the members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be a person whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of the private security industry in England and Wales.'.

No. 52, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—

`(4) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the membership of the Authority includes persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of

(a) the private security industry

(b) the police service in England and Wales

(c) the employees' interest

(d) the insurance industry

(e) the consumers' interest

(f) local authorities in England and Wales.'.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

It has been instructive to be a member of this Committee, and my knowledge of procedure has doubled. Sadly, that knowledge is superfluous, as I have no intention of sitting on another Standing Committee for a considerable time—not because of your Chairmanship, Mr. Winterton, which is an inducement, but because I find Select Committees more edifying.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The right hon. Gentleman is being brave. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), the Government Whip, was listening when he said that he had no intention of sitting on further Standing Committees. The Whip might have found his contributions to this Committee so entertaining that, in another Parliament, what will then be the Opposition Whips Office will call on him a lot more.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. We have been most interested to hear that, but it is not relevant to the amendment.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

Thank you for your protection, Mr. Winterton. I did not divert the Committee from the straight and narrow.

We come to the composition of this eagerly sought-after board. As with much of the Bill, what is intended is rather unclear. The amendment would describe the kind of men and women who should be considered. I am not too exercised about how many members there should be—it could be nine, 10, 11 or 12. In one way, the more the better, because more members will bring with them a wider range of activities and experience and a greater ability to make the authority work. Those who are chosen by the Secretary of State will have to read not only the Bill but the document from the House of Lords telling them what is to be laid down by statutory instrument. If they can survive that, and take up their positions, they will have assumed enormous responsibility.

The selection criteria should be such that they ensure that the board is not dominated by one group or another. Although the security industry must be well represented, it must not be in the majority—representatives must include people from all the constituent parts. As the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments does its work, I hope that more sectors of the private security industry will be added to the list of those who may undertake licensable conduct. Places should be available for other groups to be represented on the board.

That is my thinking in proposing that the private security industry should be well represented. It would be impossible to exclude the police service, the insurance industry, representatives of consumers' interests and local authorities, but will the Minister consider including representatives of employees' interests?

Regrettably, we will be licensing not the companies but the employees. They are not well unionised—in fact, they are hardly unionised at all. They do not necessarily have to belong to an official trade union, but I would hope that they would. I must declare an interest. I am a member of the GMB, which, like the Transport and General Workers Union, provides membership services. However, it would be quite wrong to have all the gaffers, owners and retired chief constables on the board without including somebody who works at the security coalface.

I hope that the governing principle in the compilation of the list will be to ensure that no single interest dominates and to ensure that the definition of who should be included is broad. If there are not enough places on the board, the establishment of sub-committees—not a plethora, but some—would give the opportunity to those who do not make the main board but who have an enormous contribution to make, to participate at a low cost to the authority and the taxpayer. I believe that that would make this important organisation representative and help it to do a splendid job of work.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I very much support the thinking that lies behind the amendment No. 6. The Committee will realise that amendment No. 31, which is grouped with it, is intended to have a similar effect. We have dealt with these issues previously. We feel very strongly, as do a lot of the trade bodies, including the leading corporate investigation consultancies, that there should be a specific provision to ensure that the industry and the police service are represented. In addition, it does no harm at all to include the other groups that amendment No. 6 would write into the Bill. I have no strong feelings about whether amendment No. 31 or amendment No. 6 should be incorporated, but one or the other should be.

Should the right hon. Member for Walsall, South listen to the blandishments that I expect the Minister will shortly offer and decide not to press amendment No. 6 to a vote, I will be seeking your approval, Mr. Winterton, for a separate Division on amendment No. 31. That is subject to what the Minister may say. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has his own amendment to deal with, which is also grouped with these other two.

I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South. We feel strongly about the issue, for similar reasons.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The idea that there should be a broad spectrum of people on the authority is clearly widely supported. Amendment No. 52 sets out the same six categories of people as amendment No. 6, and amendment No. 31 sets out at least two of the categories as being prerequisite. We cannot leave the matter entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It looks bad and it allows for abuse. As it stands, the Bill does not include proper controls.

This is the first piece of legislation dealing with this industry. The core provision of the legislation, without which the rest cannot happen, is to set up the regulatory body. Whatever the precedent may be, it must be better for that body to be representative. I need not elaborate the point. I want the Minister to explain why on earth we cannot have minimum criteria for the representative categories on the authority. That would at least allow for proper consultation about who should come from each of the sectors, which would be represented and be able to make nominations.

My supplementary point concerns the procedure for appointments, which will be public appointments to a quango. What, under the new rules, are the procedures for nominations and for scrutinising them? What is the procedure for advice on appointments? What procedure is in place as regards minimum qualifications and other considerations to ensure that people are perceived to be fit and proper candidates? Will there be a declaration of relevant interests and the like?

Let us please move from total discretion on the part of the Minister to a much more transparent and appropriately represented system. If he thinks that there are obvious omissions, he should tell us so that we can table a better amendment on Report—I would be happy to do that. What criteria and public processes exist to ensure that those appointed, by whatever means, are fit and proper people and are seen to be so? Such criteria will be necessary to give the authority the reputation and respect that it will need to do its job for the purposes that we intend.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

There are some interesting points in the amendments, and I shall deal with some of the more straightforward ones immediately.

We are clear about the fact that the form of appointment mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is the standard Nolan process. That should obviate many of his concerns about the potential corruption of a decision by a Secretary of State to nominate someone.

It is clear from everything that has happened that the Secretary of State will look for someone who has experience of the industry and who comes from one of the wide range of organisations set out in amendments Nos. 6 and 52. He will also be looking for a broad range of representation on the authority, in precisely the way set out in the amendments.

My first proposition is to make a case for the flexibility that we have discussed. Flexibility is important, although it can be contested as an abuse or for leaving too much open. However, under the system in this country, the flexibility of the Executive to address such matters is a positive, not a negative factor.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister seemed to be making a general statement about flexibility. In the light of that, will he not concede that his case is somewhat undermined once again by the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which was recently introduced by none other than himself. Paragraph 1(3) of schedule 4, on the Central Police Training and Development Authority, does not give such flexibility. It requires two people to represent the interests of the police authorities, two to represent those of chief constables and one Crown servant. If that was appropriate for that authority, why not for the SIA?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

For the very good reason that I gave earlier. Police training springs from the tripartite nature of our police system, which involves chief constables, police authorities and the Government. That new police training authority is very narrow and has a narrow but important responsibility. That is in strong contrast to the regulatory body that we are establishing.

Leaving aside the general arguments for flexibility, I want to make two important points that flow directly from the wording of amendment No. 6. There are different emphases in the amendments. Amendment No. 6 uses the words

``ensuring the Authority includes persons representative of, or who have experience of''

the various categories. Amendment No. 52 includes the significantly different phrase:

``whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of''.

That raises the issue of what type of body the authority will be. It is important that we do not simply see it as an agglomeration of representatives of various interests. To take an obvious question, which has been the subject of entertaining exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, is the Transport and General Workers Union or the GMB a more appropriate representative of employees in the industry?

In amendment No. 6, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South speaks of

``persons representative of . . . the private security industry'',

and in amendment No. 52, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey speaks of

``persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of . . . the private security industry''.

The slight differences in those two formulations are important. The question concerns who is represented and the nature of that representation. One of the criticisms of the quango structure is that such bodies are less executive and represent a wide range of interests rather than taking action. I would argue positively for an executive authority to carry out the proposals that we have set out in the Bill rather than a representative body.

Determining who is representative in that sense is a major difficulty and it raises non-trivial questions on each of the categories set out in the Bill. Most people accept that the Association of Chief Police Officers is the appropriate body to represent the police, although some might argue that the Police Federation or the Police Superintendents Association is more appropriate in certain circumstances.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

My hon. Friend should rest assured that the trade unions are probably better equipped to sort out such problems. The Transport and General Workers Union and its sister union the GMB have a long history of being able to decide which of them would be appropriate. That should not be a problem.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend is right. I, too, have attended drinks parties hosted jointly by the GMB and the TGWU at which such matters have been sorted out amicably and effectively—earlier or later in the evening, according to the difficulty of the problem. It is a tribute to the trade union movement that it can resolve such problems. Consumers are represented by the National Consumer Council or the Consumers Association, but they are different types of body—that is another non-trivial question. I do not cavil at the word ``representative'', but it is not quite the right way to go about it—a fact that is implied by the different formulations of amendments Nos. 6 and 52.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I hope that the Minister noticed the other distinction between the amendments. Amendment No. 52 would impose a requirement:

``The Secretary of State shall ensure that''.

Amendment No. 6 states that the Secretary of State

``shall have due regard to the desirability of''.

My amendment would be tighter. Whatever the number of members above six, six of them will come from the six sectors mentioned in the amendment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I hear the point, and I note the distinction, but I shall come in a moment to another that is at least as important.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am a little perturbed, as most of us must be, that the Minister, probably inadvertently, should have outed himself by saying that he attended joint drinks parties of the TGWU and the GMB. It is a distinctly old Labour characteristic. That might explain the otherwise inexplicable absence of his name from articles by two respected political journalist in The Sun and the Daily Mail—respectively, Mr. Trevor Kavanagh and Mr. David Hughes. He did not feature in their recent speculation about imminent promotions.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman's efforts to promote me must have ensured that any speculation about me was removed from consideration. I am delighted that that is so, and I thank him for the work that he has done to achieve it. I have always described myself as modernising old Labour.

The more substantive distinction between the amendments is serious and revealing. Amendment No. 6 reflects a powerful and important argument, which my right hon. Friend has made not only in Committee but on the Floor of the House. The final phrase of the amendment states:

``and that no single interest will predominate''.

The thrust of my right hon. Friend's argument—he will correct me if I misunderstand him—has been that the independence and autonomy of the authority is a critical factor in its successfully carrying out its functions under the legislation. It is significant that that phrase does not occur in amendment No. 52. I agree that that amendment, with its tighter definitions, would have a rounded effect, and I do not charge the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey with a deliberate attempt to take us away from independence.

The same cannot be said of amendment No. 31, however, which was tabled by the Conservatives. It does not list the private security industry, the police service, the employees' interest and so on, as the other amendments do. It simply relates to the police and the private security industry. A major thrust of the debate has been that bodies other than the police and the private security industry should be represented on the authority.

The Government are absolutely determined that the body will be independent, and that no single interest will predominate on it. I am at one with the spirit of amendment No. 6, which argues a critical position. However, that is in opposition to amendment No. 31, which refers to only two important parts of the ``family'' with which we are trying to deal.

I make the general argument for rejecting all the amendments on grounds of flexibility. That has been especially contested by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. However, I have two specific arguments. The first is about the difficulty of establishing such a representative process. It would be undesirable for the authority to be seen as representative and nominated in such a way, because we want it to be, in effect, an executive body. The increase in its effectiveness will go with ensuring that we pick the right people to carry that through. The second argument is about the single interest predominating. My right hon. Friend deserves credit for the fact that only his amendment, No. 6, pays specific attention to that. I hope that hon. Members will vote against amendment No. 31, if the hon. Member for Surrey Heath presses it to a vote—he implied that he would try to—because it does not do so.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My amendment and that of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South set out six categories of people. Does the Minister regard it as necessary or useful for people with that relevant experience or background to be included, to ensure that there is more than mere abstract representation? What guarantee is there that the authority will not be composed of the great and good, as others are? For example, the long process for the people's peers ended up with exactly the sort of names from the top shelf that we would have had with no process at all.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The people's peers were appointed under a different process. We do not propose to nominate any hairdressers. There is a serious point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking me to commit to inclusion of all the groups that have been mentioned in amendments Nos. 6 and 52. I commit to that, absolutely and without qualification. All the interests have a direct part to play and cover exactly the range of people that we would consider when establishing a direct body.

On the point about the people's peers, it may be appropriate to appoint a door steward to the group, rather than necessarily someone from a trade union. It is more likely that one would consider the latter, but I can see an argument for one or two members of the authority having direct and immediate experience of carrying out such responsibilities.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Lay trade unionists.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As my hon. Friend says, some members could be lay trade unionists rather than trade union officials. I commit to the range of interests and experience on the authority that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wants. It is critical that it has that, so that it has the independence that my right hon. Friend has argued for throughout the process.

However, I ask my right hon. Friend to think about the word ``representative''. It is a difficult word in the context of how one deals with the issues, not only for employees but in all other aspects. For example, it may be better to have someone from a private security company rather than someone from the trade association, in certain circumstances. I do not say anything on the subject trivially.

I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendments to a vote and will accept my arguments and the assurances that I have tried to give. In the event that they do press them, I will ask my colleagues to vote against them.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I knew that my luck could not last that long. I scored perhaps one goal and hit the woodwork with my last shot, which was a speculative effort from 50 yards. I understand what the Minister said. Mine was a probing amendment, and the Home Office will ultimately decide the issue. I accept that the word ``representative'' is perhaps inappropriate.

My perspective over the years has been that the security industry has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point of regulation. I have always been of the view that its members would be more likely to endorse statutory regulation by a regulatory authority, which most of them resisted and some still do, if they felt that their voice would at least be seriously listened to. The industry is fragmented, but a three-year period of office would mean that its different sectors would realise that their turn would come and that they would have the opportunity at least to comment on the serious issues of the day that affected them. In that sense, I am reasonably happy with what the Minister said.

The Minister's comments have also reassured me that my nightmare scenario will not become a reality. I want the private security industry to be represented, but I do not want it to become the regulatory authority as it transfers from self-regulation to statutory regulation, and I am assured that that will not happen. I do not want members of the industry to provide one of their own from the list of the great and the good. Such a person could influence events directly or, more likely, indirectly, particularly in the second term, when the Home Office's influence declines somewhat. That would be a disaster because people would say that nothing had changed and that self-regulation had been transformed into statutory self-regulation. The Minister is aware of those criteria. I look forward to seeing who is chosen as chairman, who the board members are and what bodies they derive from, if not represent.

I do not mind withdrawing the amendment, because I never thought that it was likely to be incorporated into the Bill. However, I have got the point over and I have been considerably reassured that my nightmare will not become a reality. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—

`(4)(a) At least one of the members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be a person whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of the police in England and Wales; and

(b) At least one of the members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be a person whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of the private security industry in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 21, line 26, at end insert—

`(c) powers to appoint directly members of its staff to be inspectors for such period and subject to such terms and conditions as the authority may determine.'.

As I have discussed the inspectorate—although not in detail—I shall not repeat my remarks, except for one point. There is a plethora of inspectorates operating within the private security industry, all of which are self-regulatory. Most are linked to business interests in the security industry: the large employers to BSIA Ltd and the insurance industry to the National Approval Council for Security Systems. NACOSS and the inspectorate of the security industry, which is derived from BSIA, have formed a joint inspectorate that would be keen to be appointed as the inspectorate. Indeed, I have no objection to the expertise in those organisations being incorporated in the inspectorate. However, I am delighted by the Minister's comments that whoever is appointed to the inspectorate will be employed, pensioned and under the control of the SIA. That will give the inspectorate the legitimacy and independence that is an essential pre-condition for its success.

The inspectorate will be crucial. It needs competent, enthusiastic and qualified personnel who know the wiles of the security industry. Such people cannot be plucked out of other industries. It takes a long time to get to know policing and security; it is not something that can be learned quickly. There should be a regional inspectorate attached to Government offices such as the Government office for the west midlands. As I have said, such an inspectorate should not employ 10 people; the figure should be nearer to 100. We should not worry if the work force is that large because the more, better-trained employees there are, the better job they will do, in which case the inspectorate would be serving the SIA, and the public interest would also be served.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I want to make two or three points in response to my right hon. Friend. First, the Bill already takes account of the aim of the amendment, which is to allow the authority to appoint its own staff as inspectors. I draw the Committee's attention to paragraph (9)(1), which states:

``The Authority may, to such extent as it may determine, delegate any''—

I emphasise ``any''—

``of its functions to any committee of the Authority or to any employee of the Authority.''

The relevant functions are established in clause 19(1), which we discussed earlier. It states that

``a person authorised in writing for the purpose by the Authority may enter any premises owned or occupied by any person appearing to him to be a regulated person''.

The authorised persons will be the inspectors who enforce the licensing and approval regimes. The current legislation makes it clear that the authority can decide to appoint and use its own employees as inspectors, should it choose to do so.

The second point, which I made during our discussion of clause 19, is that the new authority must have inspection arrangements that are independent of the industry that it is inspecting. However, as my right hon. Friend said, the authority must have the knowledge and understanding of the industry to be able to inspect it effectively. It is a matter for the authority to establish an inspectorate that is fully under its control, but it is also for the authority to decide how to do that. It may create its own in-house inspection regime or it may try to work with one or more of the existing industry inspectorates. Indeed, it may try a combination of the two or a variety of different approaches.

The key point, which my right hon. Friend made, is that the inspection process must be under the specific control of the authority in order to achieve independence. It might be of interest to the Committee to recall paragraph 74 of the explanatory notes, which states:

``The public service manpower necessary to staff the Authority is estimated at between 90 and 110 persons.''

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that the authority will employ every inspector, but it will have control and will be empowered to take such a route if it wishes to do so. However, we are not trying to pre-judge those relationships. I hope that that is clear, and I am happy to give way to my right hon. Friend if necessary.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I shall need to consider the Minister's arguments carefully. At the moment, I am not entirely convinced that an inspectorate from the private sector could be brought under the control of the SIA. Personnel who are part of an existing inspectorate should be chosen for their expertise and brought directly within the employ of the SIA. As a result, one could be certain that their bosses—those who determine their activities—were the regulators.

I am concerned about the prospect of a hybrid. The question of control might arise, even though a fee was paid to an employer, which might be a self-regulatory body. That would certainly not be popular, but inspectors should be seen to come from the industry, notwithstanding the question of hybridity. Until I have a good deal more evidence to the contrary, I shall remain convinced that this provision is a worrying prospect. I look forward to the Minister's clarification.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can indeed offer some clarification. First, the option that my right hon. Friend describes is entirely possible, and I can envisage its taking place. Secondly, the Bill as drafted allows for it unequivocally and directly, even without his amendment. He said that an arrangement involving those employed directly and others from existing associations is not desirable, and although I hear what he says, that, too, is a possibility. However, the authority will resolve matters at the relevant time. I accept the force of his argument, but at this stage we do not think that his is the only approach. I accept the aim behind his amendment, and nothing in the Bill should make that less possible to achieve. Indeed, we believe that the Bill is consistent with that aim.

In the light of those comments, I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment. If he will not, I hope that he will consider my arguments carefully, and I am happy to continue the discussion at a later date.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I am not entirely reassured, and I shall talk to the Minister and others, but I do not want to press the amendment to a vote at this stage. I hope that the Minister, or his successor, will realise that my approach is the better one. Sucking up to the industry will make some very happy, but it will make me and others very unhappy. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

We come to amendment No. 11, which is also in the name of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I do not want to move amendment No. 11.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The right hon. Gentleman does not wish to move his amendment, so amendment No. 11 is not moved.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I am in no way questioning your authority, Mr. Winterton, even though I might wish to do so. However, given that the best amendment that I tabled—on the complaints committee—has bitten the dust, may I make a four-paragraph contribution on the schedule?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

That particular amendment was not selected because it was not considered appropriate. If the right hon. Gentleman briefly refers to what he would have said had the amendment been selected, I will not have time to rule him out of order.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.