Orders of the Day — Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 8 May 2001.

COMPLAINTS

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Based on my reading of the debate in another place and on having served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I am supremely confident that the Minister will not accept my new clause. I certainly understand the reasons for his reticence, which is due mainly to the fact that time is running out. Some weeks ago, I had to decide whether half a loaf was better than none; after some agonising, I decided on half a loaf—with the possibility of its dramatic expansion. I am not a cook, but there is always the possibility that, with careful nurturing and cooking, bread will expand. I hope that in time there will be more legislation. There are one two gaps in the Bill, to put it mildly. New clause 4 would introduce a complaints procedure and enable the regulatory authority to establish a complaints committee. I hope that the need for that is self-evident, even if the proposal is not accepted. When the authority is set up, it will draft its working procedures and embark on an extensive process of consultation, which I am sure will show that a complaints committee has a place in the authority's committee structure. My hopes that a similar provision would be included in the Bill were dashed, but the omission is not disastrous. The need for a complaints procedure is pretty clear, as there are an infinite number of possible causes for complaint. For example, an hon. Member might be duffed up by a security guard or badly advised by a private investigator; or his daughter might tell him that drugs were being distributed in a night club by a firm of bouncers in league with drug distributors; or a security guard who purported to be licensed might not be. The new clause lists other examples, and it would be superfluous to add to them. Only part of the security industry will be regulated. The industry has been open to enormous criticism, much of it unfounded, but there has been no one to complain to. To whom can one complain in the period before the Bill is enacted? I have no idea, and suspect that very few people know. There are many self-regulatory bodies, and people can seek advice about which one can help. No doubt those bodies have complaints procedure, but the overwhelming majority of companies in the private security industry belong to none of those regulatory bodies. Let us take the example of a person who wants to complain about the firm that installed his alarm, but discovers that it does not belong to the British Security Industry Association or any other body. Where does he lodge his complaint? Should he turn to the local consumer protection department? Should he write a letter of complaint to the editor of a newspaper, or resort to a lawyer in an attempt o secure a legal claim against the company? The process is a patchwork and does not work. Do the trade associations with a self-regulatory structure have teeth? How many firms have they slung out for breaching the rules? If recourse is had to the criminal courts, it will be difficult to secure evidence, and the case will be protracted.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

In terms of the otherwise admirable construction of new clause 4, I am a little perturbed by what seems to be the mistaken insertion of "to" in the second line of subsection (c). Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to substitute "of for "to"? If the answer is no, can he enlighten me as to the purport of that subsection?

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I had not spotted that. I shall look at the new clause carefully and, after the hon. Gentleman speaks, I will, with the approval of the Chair, intervene to correct any mistake. When the industry is properly regulated, it will still produce a large number of complaints. I do not want to encourage frivolous complaints—if the regulatory authority feels that a complaint is frivolous or vexatious, it may not wish to proceed with it—and I do not want to establish a vast bureaucracy, but the complaints committee should be distant from the main body of the regulatory authority to give it a degree of independence. The industry will metamorphose to achieve the standards that will be laid down and built upon by subordinate legislation. Many of the complaints that are inherent in the current process will become redundant and the industry will become more professional. Companies will become better; they will realise that their cards are to be marked and that if they commit misdemeanours or criminal acts they ruts the risk of having their licence withdrawn. I hope that a code of practice will supplement the Bill's provisions. As I said in Committee, private security companies should not be the bases of campaign headquarters in any parliamentary election, as is the case in my constituency; that should not be within the scope of a security company's operations. A company should appear somewhat distant from the cut and thrust of an election. I have no intention of boring the House with speeches of one hour and 20 minutes, as, regrettably, I did on Second Reading and in Committee. I am not a snooker player of any competence—my record break was nine, which included a black—but I know that a player must identify for the referee or opponent the pocket that he is aiming for; that is certainly the case in pool. Every time I speak from now on, I shall indicate the time I will take. I have spoken for less than 10 minutes in moving the new clause, without much expectation of success.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The self-effacement of the right hon. Gentleman is legendary in this House, but I am bound to say that there is no justification for it. As he knows, and as I am happy to communicate to other hon. Members, I invariably find his speeches racy and intoxicating in equal measure. As we are in the dying embers of this Parliament, it is right that we should pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. Not only is he a first-class Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence—a point on which I shall not expatiate, Mr Speaker—but, more particularly, he is without question the foremost authority on the subject of the private security industry in this House. He and I enjoyed a chat on the subject the other day. He profited nothing from our exchange, but I profited a great deal.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I caution the hon. Gentleman against further eulogies; otherwise, his speech may appear in my election material, and my opponent may complain to the party chairman. I urge him to refrain from further compliments if his future in his party is to be secured.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his protective hand, but, as he knows, I am a modest and self-effacing fellow and I know that 1 have a great future behind me and a great past in front of me. None the less, I appreciate his tender care. The nub of the matter is accountability. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to press the motion to a vote, but if he does we are minded to support it. We are concerned to have a lever whereby we can ensure the effective accountability of private security operatives. I long ago gave up seeking to penetrate the inner recesses of ministerial minds, but the Minister might say, "Ah,' tis implicit. No one is arguing that these people should be able to operate without let or hindrance, with no requirement to be subject to scrutiny or assessment." It is certainly the case that the granting of a licence to operate in the private security industry is not a blank cheque. For example, if an operative conducts himself inefficiently, or worse, is guilty of malfeasance or corruption, he is likely to be deprived of that licence. These matters were touched on briefly in Committee and I am well aware that the fact that someone is a licensed operative does not mean that he or she will always remain so, but the right hon. Gentleman has usefully highlighted what I might call the issue of transparency or, if I dare use a late 1980s term, glasnost. I am an enthusiast for glasnost. Are we to know that there is a procedure for complaints? Will there be a procedure for public complaints? Will someone who is genuinely dissatisfied with or anxious about the performance of an operative's duties be able to go to the authority and express both the fact of and the grounds for that anxiety or dissatisfaction? There is an analogy with the police complaints procedure. I am an enthusiast for the police, as Conservative Members are on almost all occasions and as Labour Members are periodically. There would be consensus in the House on the importance of having a complaints procedure, of its being clear and transparent and of people having the maximum opportunity to know about it and be able to use it. We are talking about an embryonic regulatory regime that is being instituted very late in the day compared with those that are already up and running in other countries. People should know what their entitlements are. I have not discussed new clause 4 with the right hon. Gentleman but I have read it several times, and his simple purpose seems to be to let people know that there is a chance to complain, to explain how they can do so and to guarantee that there is a more or less approved, regular and satisfactory method investigating those complaints. I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman any further than I have already done, but in this context, as I have had reason often to observe in others, the point that he makes is so blindingly obvious and sensible that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it. The Minister is an extraordinarily clever person. He is very important, very senior and very industrious, assiduous and ambitious—a man with many commitments and a full diary. I do not doubt that he will want to explain either why he agrees with the right hon. Gentleman and say that it was merely an occasional slip of memory that prevented him from including such a provision originally, or why, despite his brilliance, assiduity, dexterity and ambition, he is unwise enough to disagree with his senior colleague.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall disappoint the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) by saying that his kind remarks will not be included in my election address, despite the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). There is an oleaginous quality to the hon. Gentleman that would not convince the discerning electors of Norwich, South to give weight to his judgment on such matters.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am genuinely taken aback by the Minister's comments. I do not want to prolong this exchange, Mr. Speaker, because you might become restive, and we do not want that to happen, but what I said in all seriousness about the right hon. Gentleman's expertise was very sincerely meant. I have long been an admirer of the right hon. Gentleman—frankly, since I came out of short trousers and observed politics from 1980 onwards. I am a trifle taken aback by what the Minister has said because although I have periodically been accused—unfairly, but I make no complaint—by Ministers and other Labour Members of being obnoxious, I have never been accused of being oleaginous.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was commenting on the hon. Gentleman's remarks about me. I completely accept that his comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South were made in all seriousness. Indeed, I was going to make the same remark. Neither the House nor the Committee has been bored at any stage by my right hon. Friend's contributions because, in almost all circumstances, they have brought light to our proceedings. I say that genuinely, and he should not feel that he has bored anyone in any way. I want to say a word about the missing half loaf that my right hon. Friend mentioned. I support Norwich City football club and am one of its season ticket holders. I take my cooking advice from Delia Smith, who is the catering secretary of a small organisation called Canaries at Westminster, which supports Norwich City football club. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on cooking, and I think that he would agree that the missing half loaf in his assessment of the Bill falls into two categories. One category is made up of the areas of genuine disagreement between himself and the Government about exactly how far and how fast to proceed. Such matters include, for example, which sectors of the industry should be regulated and which should not, and at what time, and some aspects of the regulatory regime, such as whether the industry should be regulated through a quango or directly. However, those genuine disagreements have been more about pace than about direction. The other missing quarter of the loaf is made up of things that are implicit in the Bill, but are not made explicit. I suggest that new clause 4 deals with that aspect of the proposals, rather than with any difference of opinion, such as those that we have discussed in Committee, because we accept that the effective discharge of the authority's duties to license only fit and proper persons will inevitably mean that it will need to establish an effective complaints procedure against licence holders and/or approved contractors. The authority will need to be able to listen to, and investigate complaints made against, anyone who seeks a licence in the first place, or who seeks to renew a licence. The views of the public and customers will be important in that regard. More widely, the authority's general duties to keep under review the industry, the operation of the licensing system and the legislation in general will again mean that it will need to keep its ear close to the ground so as to find out exactly how the legislation is operating. A complaints mechanism—and, indeed, a wider vehicle for other types of public comment, not just complaints—will be an important and necessary contribution to the authority's discharge of all those responsibilities. The authority, like any other effective public body, will need to establish a complaints procedure for matters within its remit. I can give an assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South that the Government will build such a complaints procedure into planning to establish the authority. Furthermore, in the extremely unlikely event—so unlikely that it is not foreseeable—that an appropriate complaints mechanism were not set up by the authority, the Secretary of State could direct the authority under the provisions of clause 2 to establish one. I give an assurance on behalf of this Government—and the hon. Member for Buckingham implied the same on behalf of the Opposition—that such a direction would be issued by Government in such a case. In keeping with the framework approach that we have adopted with the legislation, we do not, however, consider it necessary for such a requirement to appear in the Bill. It is important, but, as we discussed in Committee, our approach has been to focus on the outcomes that we want from the authority, rather than to over-prescribe the precise means by which they may be achieved.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I think that we have had an assurance that the complaints procedure will apply all the time, and not only within the time-limited periods in which somebody is either applying for a licence or seeking renewal of it, but will the Minister confirm that he has ideas in mind for developing the complaints procedure, culled from the practice of other professional services? Can he offer us some inkling of those ideas?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can give the general assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks that the complaints process will cover the range of complaints that could arise. We do not have in our back pock a particular form for that process, but it will be culled from the best practice of similar national bodies to try to establish the best form for the complaints regime. I urge my right hon Friend to consider withdrawing his new clause. I give him the assurance that this Government will build a complaints procedure into our plans for establishing the authority. In the unlikely event that the authority does not establish an appropriate mechanism, the Secretary of State will be ready to direct it, under the provisions of clause 2, to establish such a procedure. To use even warmer words, I might say that we do not believe that such an authority could operate at all unless it operated an effective complaints procedure.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I noted a slight altercation between my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I would have liked to join in, but oleaginous is not a word that I use regularly. I have been called many things but never that by my constituents, and I suspect that most of them are as oblivious of the etymology of that word as I am. I shall look it up and if it is so abusive I shall belatedly come to the assistance of the hon. Gentleman. Once an election has been called is not the best time to become a rebel, and I do not propose to divide the House. I have received assurances on the main points, although I remain sceptical about some earlier promises. The Minister will go on to higher things—I shall not say better things, because looking after the private security industry is a noble task. I certainly accept his assurances. I apologise for the slight error in the new clause; as the hon. Member for Buckingham pointed out, his knowledge of the English language is greater than mine—he actually knows what oleaginous means. Subsection (c) should state that the contractor has been guilty of negligence or misconduct in the course of which the operative or approved contractor is licensed or approved. I hope that the record is clear. With the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

REGULATION HARMONISATION COMMITTEE

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This is my second and final proposed change to the Bill. Under the new clause: The Authority shall establish a regulation harmonisation committee with representatives from government departments and other relevant bodies". In a similar proposal that was not selected for debate in the Standing Committee, I used the phrase "liaison committee". As I am a member of the Select Committee on Liaison, perhaps that was not the ideal wording. Perhaps the Liaison Committee would have thought that additional functions would be bestowed on it. I meant no confusion. In the less than eight minutes available for my speech, I hope that my reason for proposing the new clause will be obvious. I have often been guilty of arguing that the private security industry—unlike almost every other industry in the world—is wholly unregulated and unaccountable. Strictly, that was and is true, as other people have also pointed out. However, the security industry is enormous, and only some of it has been brought within the orbit of this Bill. As much of the industry is outside as is inside—that is one of the main deficiencies of the measure. Even more obvious to me, however, is the fact that a vast sector of the private security "industry" falls within the scope of the public sector. For example, probably as many people are engaged in physical guarding, investigation, installation and monitoring of equipment and information security in Departments, Government agencies and local government as in the private sector. An enormous number of public sector personnel have job descriptions almost identical to those in the sectors of private security that will eventually be covered by the measure. In many countries, the public sector is subject to the same regulatory standards as the private sector. In all honesty, therefore, one must realise that the security industry is well entrenched in the public sector. The reality is that the Government regulate their own areas of competence extremely well; they look after the private security in their own orbit quite well. However, that does not mean that they are good payers. Until recently, some of the worst paid personnel in private security were employed in Departments. Furthermore, I certainly would not argue with anyone who believes that security in the museum and art gallery sectors, for example, is infinitely superior to that in other sectors. I had a good friend who was consultant. Despite my frequent protestations and pleadings for him to divulge the contents of a research project that he undertook on a particular museum. he would not go into any detail. However, he told me that the situation was truly appalling. He briefly mentioned that more people were engaged in guarding the museum, which is enclosed and closed for half the day, than there are policemen in my constituency or, indeed, the three constituencies that cover Walsall. He took the full secret to his grave. I am not arguing that outside the private sector the activities that come within the scope of central and local government are infinitely better regulated. However, in some cases they are. Departments have tried to save for themselves precautions to prevent them from being open to the same criticism as the private sector. That sounds contradictory, but it is true. The Home Office has established statutory and mandatory standards. The privatisation of prisons and prison escorts was implemented alongside a tough regulatory framework set up by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The standards of security in prisons are high, despite bad publicity, and outside the scope of regulation. The Guard Dogs Act 1975 provided powers, some of which have not been implemented. The Home Office employs in-house and contract security guards, and the in-house sector is certainly regulated. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has extensive statutory responsibilities for regulating security in respect of transport. The transport security division—Transec—is responsible for monitoring and enforcing regulations. Its role is to deliver secure public transport systems in accordance with United Kingdom legislation and international agreements, so all those people who fall within the scope of the Department's remit, such as the guards at Heathrow or Gatwick, are clearly subject to strict control and regulation. When I made a close study of Ministry of Defence security, I discovered that its police and guard service employ a variety of private security companies, so it, too, applies strong regulatory standards. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for much activity within the public and private sectors. Guidelines on leisure and entertainment are produced by Departments. They set the norms and are mandated in sports ground licences, safety certificates, occasional licences and contracts. The Department of Health, which has responsibility for a vast number of hospitals and other institutions, has laid down clear standards for the hiring of private security staff. We should consider the role of central Government as a whole. Although I have not tabled parliamentary questions since the 1994–95 Session, it is possible to make a rough calculation based on the figures that were given for those years. I asked how much Departments had spent on security agencies, contract guards, in-house guards, private investigators, in-house investigators, security consultants and the purchase of security equipment. In 1994–95, the total cost of Departments' spending on private security and security agencies was more than £337 million. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Home Office plays an enormous role in funding closed circuit television and neighbourhood or community wardens—four such schemes have been funded in my area. It takes 20 days to train a community warden, and that training is infinitely superior to that carried out by almost any private security company. Organisations in central Government—such as the DETR. those in Northern Ireland, and nuclear and defence establishments—employ private security personnel according to different standards. However, a variety of voluntary standards have been influenced by the Government. For example, the British Standards Institution, Securicor, the Security Industry Training Authority and the International Institution of Security all have different regulatory standards that apply to personnel and to equipment. Hovering in the background—too often, it comes into the foreground—is the better regulation taskforce and it, along with the other organisations, has an influence on security issues. My new clause is designed to give the Home Office and the regulatory authorities food for thought. I wish to make it clear that they deal with just one part of the private security industry. Other Departments have regulatory authority, and other standards—albeit voluntary—apply particularly to security equipment. I suggest to the regulatory authorities that there should be a committee or some form of grand summit—that may sound rather pompous—that involves the Home Office, regulatory authorities, local government associations and other Departments. The aim should not be to standardise procedures, because that is not possible. However, we should at least try to make the different sectors of the security industry—contract, in-house and those within and without the scope of regulation—aware of what the others are doing through a regular exchange of information. If my hon. Friend the Minister shocks us all by accepting the new clause, I hope that the Home Office and other Departments will give serious consideration to the practices of a whole range of bodies, many of which I have not mentioned. Although harmonisation is not feasible, we should at least ensure that the guards employed directly by the Home Office or the Foreign Office are subject to similar standards. Consultation is important, and much of the industry will fall outside the regulations. Therefore, the influence of the public sector is important in ensuring that the different organisations meet each other with the aim of achieving a greater degree of commonality than has hitherto existed. I do not know whether I have spoken for more than 10 minutes, and apologise if I have. None the less, I have pleasure in moving the new clause.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am not certain whether the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has got it right in new clause 5. I have not reached a conclusion on that point, but it is important for right hon. and hon. Members to understand the gravamen of his concern which, I believe, he highlighted on Second Reading initially, and certainly in the enjoyable and stimulating debates that we had in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is concerned that, either by an error of commission or—more likely, I suspect, if we follow what might be described as the cock-up theory—by error of omission, the Government may not provide a consistent regulatory framework. The principle of consistency and commonality has run through his contributions on that point. Whether one is an advocate of big or, to put it another way, heavy regulation of the private security industry or, by contrast, an advocate of small regulation or what might be called the light-touch approach, one can nevertheless form an alliance, which may even be an unholy alliance, in support of a consistent approach. I do not mind conceding to the House that I am a little worried by the reference in the right hon. Gentleman's new clause to "a regulation harmonisation committee", not because I suspect his motives but because I am suspicious of committees. That is the reality of the matter; I am a little alarmed about a new committee emerging. Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's best endeavours to ensure the contrary, a committee under the tutelage of the Minister would be pregnant with peril. My anxiety on that point is not intense, because I do not expect the Minister to chair any committee in the near future in a ministerial capacity, but there is an inherent tendency for regulation, once established, to increase. I am sure that it will not have escaped your beady eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in the debate that we had a few moments ago, I referred to the potential for read-across between the new clauses and other pieces of legislation that the House has digested on previous occasions. To explain my point about regulation, I should like to pray in aid the wise words of my noble Friend Lord Biffen who, over many years, has uttered many wise words on many subjects. When I was taking my A-levels in 1981, I well recall that the then Chief Secretary and right hon. Member for Oswestry—as John Biffen then was—lamented publicly the difficulty of controlling public expenditure and said: You have to run very fast to stand still. There is an analogy with regulation: to keep regulation at a reasonable level at which it is effective, but not burdensome, discipline; and fixity of purpose are required. I—and, I very much hope, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South—do not want a committee to have the ambition to increase regulation exponentially. If the committee had a tightly defined remit—I would be more confident if its remit were drafted by the right hon. Member for Walsall South than by the Minister of State—which was confined to consistency between one sector of the private security industry and another, that might augur well and my initial scepticism about the committee might be reconsidered. However, we do not know—although I imagine that we shall shortly discover—whether the Minister of State has any enthusiasm for the right hon. Gentleman's proposed harmonisation committee. We need to touch briefly on a number of issues because they are conceptually different from each other and should be treated separately. The first is the form of the regulation—I was tempted to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman on this, but I was enjoying his speech so much that I decided not to—and the procedures that govern the regulation of one sector of the private security industry and another. I was anxious to discover whether the kernel of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was a worry about inconsistent practice and procedure between one sector and another, and that some sectors of the industry would be more rigorously scrutinised and held to account than others. A separate, but no less significant, issue is whether there would be more exacting training requirements in one sector than in another. There is a stronger argument for absolute consistency in relation to the issue about form than there is in relation to standards of training or qualification. The reason is obvious. Whether we are regulating the work of man guards—or, for the edification of the politically correct classes, perhaps I should say person guards—or are concerned with those who are engaged, through their private security work, in intelligence gathering, the principle that there should be clear procedures before deciding whether someone is bona fide, and legitimate and should be granted a licence should, presumably, be the same. The procedures need to be rigorous, whether we are talking about licensing person guards, their supervisors or those engaged in the important business of gathering intelligence. I hope that the Minister will accept that things are different when it comes to training requirements. In short, the jobs are very different. The nature and, arguably, the level of skills required for the performance of one function relative to those required for the performance of another are substantially different. I do not believe that the training systems can be the same because the training will be different, and of a different duration. It may be provided by people who on the strength of their experience are expert in one aspect of the private security industry, but not in another. However, there is the principle—I may have been overly pedantic, as this is probably what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—that there should be a system of training requirement, and that it should not be voluntary. It should be obligatory and apply to everyone who wants to enter the sector or to stay in it. If someone working in the private security industry in its unregulated form is an effective operative but has no formal qualification, that individual might be offended by any suggestion that he or she is not suitable to perform the duties that he or she is performing under contract. Nevertheless, that individual is not performing the job on the strength of any professional or other qualification, for the simple reason that he or she has never been required to obtain such a qualification. Presumably, whether or not the Bill is amended, it will be obligatory for existing operatives to acquire the qualifications that we are about to insist that new entrants should acquire. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister of State on that point. Such an approach might be burdensome for people who already work in the industry, but it would be consistent with the letter and spirit of the new clause and would at least prevent the existence of two categories of citizen. It would ensure not only what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) is inclined to call equality of esteem, but equality of treatment. We would be making it clear that everybody who works in the sector must measure up to the standards. It may be an entirely prosaic matter for a very experienced operative briefly to take the relevant course and examinations, to acquire the certificate and to wear the tee-shirt to say that he or she has done so. Nevertheless, the certainty that existing operatives have acquired the qualifications that their new counterparts will be obliged to gain as a precondition of service is likely to he central to the achievement and retention of confidence in the newly regulated industry. I have not the slightest idea what the Minister will say about the matter. I have expressed my natural apprehension about regulation and regulation harmonisation, and my even greater apprehension about a regulation harmonisation committee. The proposal seems a slightly suspect specimen, although I am ready to admit that it is much less suspect in the tender and competent hands of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South than it would be in the hands of almost any other hon. Member. In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, it should be said that the purpose that he has in mind is absolutely sound. The issue is this: does the Minister agree with that purpose and, if he does, does he think that the new clause is necessary? If the answer is yes to the first question, but no to the second, perhaps he would care to explain what I think he would describe in his inimitable terms as his preferred third way.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was glad that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to the definition provided by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) of equality of esteem. I am certain that, after the general election, there will be a debate on that subject in the Conservative party, between the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—the current Leader of the Opposition—and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), as they appeal for the ideological support of various bits of their party. I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham is on the fence with regard to those various attractive propositions.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

He will go with the wind.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I doubt it. The hon. Gentleman is a rather oleaginous man, and oleaginous people do not go with the wind. On the central point of the new clause, I can answer the hon. Member for Buckingham positively. I recognise its aspiration and I welcome it with enthusiasm. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is right to raise the matter with which it deals. As a minor aside, he should acknowledge that one of the ambitions of the better regulation taskforce, which has its pluses and minuses in his lexicon, is to achieve a more harmonised regulatory regime, with a view to lifting burdens from small business in particular. That is important where inappropriate regulation as a result of years of legislation introduced by Governments of all parties has imposed burdens that might be inappropriate for particular firms, industries and so on. Harmonisation—perhaps "simplification" is an even better word—is an important and worthy aspiration for the Government and I can enthusiastically endorse that aspect of my right hon. Friend's approach. However, the new clause falls into the category of the quarter loaf that I described earlier. There is no fundamental difference of approach between my right hon. Friend and me, but we must consider how to deal with the matter in the context of the Bill. The Security Industry Authority is being established as the central and authoritative regulatory body for the industry and will be given a number of specific and important remits to discharge. To respond to the specific point that the hon. Member for Buckingham made, every organisation that the authority regulates will be obliged to adhere to its standards. That is the right way in which to proceed. To carry out its remit effectively, the authority will need fully to consult all interested parties throughout the industry while preserving its authority and independence. That is axiomatic to our thinking. 5 pm The industry will be one of the prime sources of intelligence for the authority. However, there are also several other stakeholders to whom it will listen. They include the police, local authorities, customers, employees of the industry, and other public bodies and Departments.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister has reassured me that the Bill will require all existing and new operatives to be suitably qualified, and I am grateful for that. Nevertheless, he also said that he wanted to minimise burdens on business when possible. In the spirit of marrying those twin, equally important objectives, perhaps we should provide an opportunity for existing operatives to acquire the relevant qualifications by short-circuited means. It is possible to take a crash course—it is an unfortunate term in relation to driving—of lessons to qualify to drive. Would the Minister therefore admit of the possibility that existing operatives could acquire the standard and gain the qualification through an intensive course over a shorter period, rather than a more leisurely course over a longer period?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I admit of the possibility, but I do not envisage things being as the hon. Gentleman describes them. As everyone involved in change management knows, managing change from the status quo to the required desirable state is one of the most difficult tasks. It is difficult for any organisation, including a regulatory organisation, such as the SIA when it is established, to achieve. I cannot predict specific paths or educational courses for the change from the status quo to the future, regulated state. However, when the authority determines its regime for facilitating the change, it is right for it to take account of the fact that many people who currently work in the industry have not had the opportunity to gain the qualifications to which the hon. Gentleman refers. An overnight transformation in such circumstances would therefore be ridiculous. Such matters are all part and parcel of the art of making the change, which the new authority must tackle. That is one reason for the importance of conducting wide consultation. The board that we have discussed will comprise a range of interests that will enable the authority to operate sensitively. Paragraph 8 of schedule 1 allows the authority to establish specialist advisory committees to help it in its work. That is another important means of establishing a regime. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South knows, we have taken the consistent view that we should not specify at this stage that committee X is right and committee Y is wrong, or that it is right to establish committees A, B, C, but wrong to set up committees D, E and F. That must be a matter for the authority. That is the only reason for urging my right hon. Friend to withdraw the motion. New clause 5 would require the establishment of a specific committee. Clause 1(2)(e) places a general duty on the authority to set or approve standards of conduct, training and levels of supervision". We believe that it is better to focus on outcome rather than to prescribe in detail the precise bureaucratic structure—I do not use "bureaucratic" pejoratively—for achieving those ends. I am enthusiastic about a properly harmonised regulatory regime. I believe that we should move towards universality in the way my right hon. Friend suggests. However, I do not believe that it is right to prescribe in the Bill the precise regime for achieving that. We should allow the authority to determine that, in consultation with all the relevant parties. On that basis, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider withdrawing the motion.

Bruce George (Labour, Walsall South)

I realise that I should have contacted the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) earlier, because his knowledge of the English language is clearly infinitely superior to mine. The words "liaison committee", which I used in an earlier amendment, might have been better for this purpose. Perhaps I should have stuck to that choice, rather than using the word "harmonisation", which has connotations in relation to Europe and the dislike of anything associated with it. The new clause is not an attempt to create homogeneity inside and outside the areas to be regulated. I merely wished to make it obvious that the world of private security is infinitely more diverse and complicated than the Bill suggests. I wanted to introduce food for thought and raise awareness in the SIA, which I hope will be enlarged, that it does not encompass the totality of the private security industry. Because we are part of the European Union, and because existing EU directives and other forms of instructions apply to this country as well as to other member states, there will have to be a degree of harmonisation—as there is already—between the standards in our security industry and standards elsewhere, not necessarily in terms of the Bill, but in terms of training standards, for example. I gave a number of examples of that earlier. The security industry that is to be regulated in this country is therefore part of a larger jigsaw. I have jotted down the areas covered by private security and by security and community safety in local authorities, in relation to the arrangements pertaining before and after the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In Walsall, for example, we have market security for the mediaeval market; an art gallery that might be subject to the legislation; and significant benefit fraud investigations, as does every local authority. Our trading standards department operates according to many of the standards of policing and of private security. It investigates crime and counterfeiting, exactly as the private security industry can do, and its staff has the power to kick down doors, which is more than the police or, certainly, the private security industry have. Because of the way in which that department operates, therefore, it is partly private security and partly police. Local authorities such as Walsall have education security and housing security. We also have architectural liaison officers, because the Home Office has inculcated a set of attitudes relating to security by design. Most local authorities have community safety departments—Walsall certainly does—and risk assessment units linked to insurance, which advise the local authority on how to minimise risk. That can involve building fences and installing alarms, which, in a way, pertain to some of the responsibilities of the private security industry. I presume that every local authority has parks—with what used to be called parkies when I was a kid and what might be now called park rangers—and facilities management services. They have a whole list of facilities that might pertain to private security. I had a long list from the Minister of the projects funded by his Department on risk reduction in community protection, of the vast amounts of funds going into drugs awareness and of what is being done to reduce drug dependency. I hope to have a parliamentary answer shortly to my question about the money provided by other Departments for regeneration. That package contains elements relating to security, including private security. Focusing on one local authority, Walsall borough council—albeit relatively briefly—reveals a bundle of functions within an authority's competence that are somewhere between policing and private security, both before and after the Crime and Disorder Act. I wanted to broaden the horizons of the regulatory authority, and make it realise that there was a world of security outside its scope. I did not wish to lay down communal standards: investigation of art thefts is clearly different from investigation of benefit fraud. Standards cannot be uniform, but it is to be hoped that if different organisations are aware of the nature of private security—and of Government security that looks like private security—best practice will be disseminated from one sector to the other without the imposition of rigid standards. Perhaps reading the record of our debate will at least encourage the regulatory authority to commission research, and give it some ideas about how to operate. Even if no amendments are accepted, we shall have stimulated discussion. I hope that much of what has been said will percolate into the new authority, whose conduct and operations I shall observe with enormous interest. Having received some assurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

CONDUCT PROHIBITED WITHOUT A LICENCE

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 5l, at end insert— '(3A) Before making an order under subsection (3) which designates any of the activities specified it paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, which relate to the security of information which is held in electronic form, the Secretary of State sha11 lay a certificate before each House of Parliament stating that in his opinion the order complies with the provisions of European Directive 2000/31/EC (on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market).'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in schedule 2, page 28, line 17, at end insert— '(5) This paragraph does not apply to the giving of advice in relation to the security of information which is held in electronic form.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Amendment No. 3 would require the Secretary of State, when introducing regulation of the information technology security sector, to state specifically that doing so does not conflict with the European directive on e-commerce. The issue, which we raised more than once in Commitee, relates to many concerns expressed by the Confederation of British Industry and others about whether regulation of the IT security industry would conflict with the directive, which is designed to ensure a level playing field for the IT industry throughout Europe. On 26 April, in response to the concerns that we had raised, the Minister said in Committee: I was aware of the directive in general, but not in detail, and if I have any further thoughts on its implications I will comment in the debate on schedule 2."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 26 April 2001: c.146.] As the Minister will recall, when we came to debate schedule 2, time was extremely short, owing to the operation of the Government's programme. The Minister therefore made no further reference to the directive. We shall press him to do so today, but in the meantime yet further serious concerns have been raised. As recently as today, I have read the views of the important and influential group that was so involved in drawing attention to the Government's defects in connection with IR35. The Professional Contractors Group—the contractors' industry body, one of whose leading members happens to be a constituent of mine—says: We're very aware of this piece of legislation and understand that it is not intended to target IT contractors … We would he very surprised if the government attempted to bring IT contractors within the scope of this legislation. If they did we would object to it. More significantly still, the Professional Contractors Group goes on to say: Any government that talks about being joined-up but wants to treat a 21st century industry in the same simplistic way as its approach towards wheel-clampers and getting drunks out of bars effectively is not taking the IT industry seriously, and is making a mistake. Mr. Caspar Bowden, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, said: If the Home Office has no intention of wading into this area, why not grant an amendment? 5.15 pm The Government are in trouble over this issue. On 26 April, when he was responding to our initial debate in Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that, while sitting on a train, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had been badgered about the very obvious conflict between the European directive—to which the Government, in the form of the Department of Trade and Industry, have signed up—and this legislation. However, although the Government have accidentally caught the information technology industry in the Bill, they have thus far been very reluctant to acknowledge their mistake and to do something about it. Chapter II, article 4 of the directive is very specific. It states: Member States shall ensure that the taking up and pursuit of the activity of an information society service provider may not be made subject to prior authorisation or any other requirement having equivalent effect. The directive specifically states that the provider "may not" be made subject to those matters, and its provisions are mandatory. Moreover, the directive—to which the Government have signed up the United Kingdom—is due to come into effect in February 2002. However, the CBI has made it clear that the Government's proposals in the Bill to require licensing of the information security industry—which is of course a key information society service—would be directly contrary to the electronic commerce directive. Very fairly, in responding to our debate on 26 April, the Minister did not for a moment suggest that he could positively state that the provisions and the directive were not in conflict. Indeed, it had all quite clearly taken him by surprise. A requirement, as proposed in the Bill, for members of the information security industry to obtain licences from a regulatory authority to enable them to operate clearly would constitute requiring "prior authorisation", thereby directly contravening the directive. That article of the directive is intended, among other things, to prevent member states from introducing regulation that would stem the much-needed supply of information technology professionals. The directive is therefore intended to prevent member states from doing precisely what the Government have been seeking to do—albeit perhaps initially by accident—in the Bill. As the provision is still in the Bill, we have tabled and moved our amendment to deal with that concern. The CBI has also pointed out that, when considering the conflict between the electronic commerce directive and the legislation, consideration should be given also to article 3 of the electronic commerce directive, which aims to free up the internal market for information society services by requiring member states to avoid any measures that might restrict the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State. As the CBI has pointed out, regulating the information security industry in the United Kingdom would be very difficult to do without putting practitioners outside the United Kingdom at a disadvantage—which would obviously contravene article 3 of the directive. When we raised the issue on 26 April, there was no doubt that the Home Office had not had an opportunity fully to consider the matter. However, the Minister promised that he and his officials would do so. We shall look with interest to see whether they have done so. Nevertheless, those who are commenting on our debates—particularly, as I said in Committee, the journalists on Computer Weekly—are describing the issue, as last Friday's Computer Weekly headline did, as the Last chance to prevent licensing threat to IT consultants".

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Come on.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman may disagree with the learned editors of Computer Weekly, but I think that I prefer their expert judgment to his sedentary comment. Our amendment No. 2 would go further than amendment No. 3 by entirely excluding IT security consultants from the legislation. We say that given the botched nature of the consultation and the hurried way in which the Government have conducted all their dealings in respect of this legislation, the Minister and his officials should ask themselves whether the IT security sector should be included in the Bill at this stage. If the Minister wants to include it after the Bill is enacted, he can always do so by way of amending schedule 2 through a regulation taken under the affirmative resolution procedure, which would ensure that there was proper parliamentary scrutiny. We expect to hear some very firm answers from the Minister today. The IT security consultants will look very carefully at the Government's response. The sector is one of our success stories. I know that from my experience prior to entering the House in 1992 and from the growth in IT security since then. I used to deal with those involved in IT security in financial services and banking and I know that it has been a UK success story. Our IT security consultants are regarded as among the most skilful and best in the world. We do not want the Government to damage their future opportunities, particularly through carelessness and inadvertence. If the Minister gets this wrong, he will be under huge pressure. The Government have already given themselves one self-inflicted wound over 1R35 and destroyed a great deal of their credibility with consultants in the IT field. Labour Members know that perfectly well. The Government have, suffered huge embarrassment over IR35 and it is no doubt one reason why they will lose the general election. However, I hope that even at this eleventh hour the Minister will concede that our amendments Nos. 3 or 2 would improve the matter dramatically and we look forward to hearing whether the hon. Gentleman will at long last see sense on this very important matter.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I want briefly to respond to a couple of points that were made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—via Blackpool—(Mr. Hawkins). This afternoon we have already identified the fact that definitions are rather difficult. Indeed, we have discussed whether or not the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is oleaginous, but I will not get drawn down that route. I tried to make this point right at the end of our proceedings in Committee, at column 229 on 1 May, but unfortunately owing to the timetable of our proceedings I was cut short in my prime. Let me try again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. It is not that there is no problem. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to identify the problem, but he failed to point out the fact that the Minister has offered a solution. The hon. Gentleman needs to respond to Caspar Bowden, Computer Weekly, the Confederation of British Industry and others, is I have responded to people who have contacted me, that the solution lies in secondary legislation. Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman why his amendment fails badly and would severely damage the Bill. Let me say, in the spirit of the way in which the Committee was conducted, that there is broad cross-party agreement on the principles behind the Bill, but amendment No.2 includes the phrase "held in electronic form". That must refer both to the intellectual property that is digitalised and held in electronic form and to the physical medium. It is impossible to separate the two. The amendment must therefore refer to both. If the amendment were accepted, it would be impossible to distinguish between companies that should be regulated and companies that need not fall within the scope of the Bill. Indeed, it could possibly mean that provision of security to a firm with a computer—and that would cover an awful lot of firms—would not require a licence under the Bill. Clearly, that is not the intention and I accept that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is not trying to wreck the Bill, but the logic of his position is flawed. It is right to draw attention to the problem, but the solution is obvious and was presented to the Standing Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will restate that solution when he responds to the debate, and thereby put at rest the minds of the many people in the computer industry with whom I have close contact. It is wrong to try to instil fear in an important sector of the industry with a scare story such as this. I urge the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw the amendment, which could damage the spirit of the Bill. Debate should turn to the extremely difficult question of defining, in the context of this Bill and of future legislation, the difference between the medium in which data are held and the information itself. That matter will crop up in many debates in the next Parliament. However, I am sure that the Opposition by that time will have a new leader, and that the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will be supporting a new tone of Toryism.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I apologise to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for not being here for his opening remarks, although I did manage to hear them. The announcement of the dissolution of Parliament meant that I was trying to organise Home Office business with the Government and the two Houses of Parliament. I shall be brief. I agree that we must uphold and develop Britain's e-commerce industry and information technology sector. We must not frighten people in the sector, or allow unfair regulations and controls to drive the industry out of the country at a time when it is doing well. We must be careful that we do not legislate in part and in haste, and repent much more fully and at leisure. Liberal Democrat Members share the Government's view that it would be wrong for the Bill to sweep in and regulate the information technology and e-commerce sectors. Some issues cannot easily be accommodated in the context of a regulatory system, even if that is an opt-in system. Those issues arise from the legislation covering data protection and the regulation of investigatory powers, which have been dealt with in other Bills. We need to understand the Home Office's approach to this matter, and the relevance of the interests that other Departments—such as the Department of Trade and Industry—have in it. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said earlier that we need proper harmonisation and co-ordination to avoid sending the wrong signal by legislating unwisely. If I thought that there was a clear doubt about the subject—and if I had not been satisfied by the Minister's assurances—I would be sympathetic to the amendment. The Conservative party is perfectly right to raise the issue. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and I disagree only to this extent; I do not think that the Conservatives are unfairly raising an issue, and they are not frightening people It is perfectly proper to raise the issue and to get the position on the record. We always need a balance in this place between getting certainty in legislation on the one hand and not making legislation so long that every eventuality is covered on the other. I understand and sympathise with the genesis of the Conservative proposals, but I am relieved to say that they are not necessary. The Bill adequately deals with the issue. I will be keen to hear the Minister confirm, as he did in Committee, that the Government are not excluding the IT industry from their consideration and that it is on the agenda. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will make sure that there are no adverse consequences of early action?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That is a veritable masterpiece, even by the high standards that the hon. Gentleman has set over a long period. [Interruption.] The Minister of State is chuntering from a sedentary position, to no obvious effect. It is welcome to have the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey's reassurance about the good intentions of the Conservative party in this matter, but his speech has highlighted the problem. He says that he agrees with the Government that it is not intended to regulate the IT sector-but that is precisely the point. There is an apparent disparity—in the intention and, so far, in expressed words—between the stance of the Home Office on the one hand and that of the DTI on the other. It is about that that we are arguing.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

In amendment No. 2, the Conservatives are seeking to exclude for all time from the Bill advice in relation to security and information that is held in electronic form. The Government have said that the Bill is a rolling programme; this is a framework Bill. It is not compulsory, and people can opt into it. Some of us have argued that the Bill should have been compulsory for some sectors. I also understand that sectors move quickly. The Minister will know that I have concerns about accountancy firms that were not doing security work at all but now are and which have fallen within the remit of the Bill. The central criticism of the amendment is that it shuts the door for all time on the matter. That is not reasonable. If an appropriate agreement can be made, there is logic in having everybody who does security work included. No matter which party is in power following the 7 June election, nobody will suddenly sweep the IT industry into the regulations. We have had a perfectly proper debate about an important sector. We may not need to include this type of information in legislation. If we do, we ought to try to identify all the relevant sectors. We would then have a great list in the legislation, and that is not necessary.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

In broad terms, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because their analysis is correct. I am looking forward to fighting the general election campaign if the Leader of the Opposition chooses IR35 as the slogan behind which he hopes to unite Conservative voters throughout the country so as to sweep the Conservatives to power. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, it is reasonable to raise the issue addressed in the amendments. However, the case is not strengthened by arguing that it is on a par with the fixed penalty notice debate that we had on earlier legislation, and that was a trivial point made by the individual who argued the case to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Nor do I accept the adjectives that the hon. Gentleman used. The Bill is not careless, inadvertent, botched or over-hasty, either in relation to the IT sector or more generally. The process, from consultation to White Paper to legislation, has allowed a wide contribution from wide interests to the crafting of the Bill. Amendment No. 3 requires any order designating as licensable conduct the activities of IT security consultants to be preceded by a certificate stating that the order complies with the electronic commerce directive 2000/31/EC, which is designed to ensure the free movement of information society services between EU member states. It relates to the provision of remunerated services at a distance by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services. Services provided in the physical presence of the provider and recipient are not covered, even if they involve the use of electronic devices. Article III of the directive, about which I was questioned, is about the cross-border provision of information society services, and article IV prohibits the taking up and pursuit of the activity of an information society service provider being made subject to prior authorisation or any other requirement having equivalent effect. Article IV does not apply, however, to prior authorisation schemes that are not specifically targeted at information society services, so it would be unlikely to affect the application of this Bill. Nevertheless, the Home Office would clearly need to consider very carefully the implications of the directive if it intended to introduce regulation of IT security consultants under the provisions of this Bill, but—and here I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—as we do not intend to, we will not have to address the issue in the way suggested by amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 2 is more substantive. We recognise that part of the information technology sector has been concerned about what application, if any, the Bill will have to it. Specifically, the sector is concerned that the Government want to regulate it under the Bill. We discussed the point in Committee at some length, and we said that the definition of "security consultant" used in schedule 2 is deliberately broad. That is because we want it to remain usable in the face of changing security systems, in particular those making use of technology. It is in that context that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston are right to say that we must draft the Bill and implement it in a way that is sensitive to how the industry may develop. The term "security consultant" means someone advising on the taking of security precautions in relation to any risk to property or to the person". The licensing requirements under that definition will, as with all parts of the Bill, be brought into effect in due course by implementing regulations, and those regulations will need to specify exactly which security consultancy activities are licensable. Activities that are not specified will not be licensable. It is our fundamental principle to ensure that the Bill is targeted at those specialist providers of security services whom we have indicated we want to regulate, and that the provisions do not inadvertently catch groups that are not relevant to our policy aims. I tried to put the position of IT security consultants in relation to the Bill beyond doubt on Second Reading and in Committee. In the light of the remarks made in Computer Weekly, I should like the IT industry to take careful note of what I said in Committee: I should like it to be clear to the industry and the Committee that the information security consultancy industry is not under threat of licensing at a future date under this Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 May 2001; c. 230.] I made it clear that the Department of Trade and Industry will consult the IT industry on the extent and effectiveness of existing precautions and on whether further action is required. I look forward to seeing the results, because the Government believe that there are issues that need to bo explored in relation to confidence in the information security consultancy industry. The business has a vital role to play in protecting the new economy from vandalism and other forms of crime. Consideration of the Bill has started a valuable debate about how information security consultants may match or exceed the levels of confidence that the Bill will create for other security contractors. The Government's position is absolutely clear and the principles that we set out, of legislating with the industry following proper consultation on an evolving basis, are encapsulated in our approach to the IT security industry. The amendments are helpful in enabling us to elaborate and clarify an important area of concern, but I urge the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw amendment No. 3, on the basis the assurances that I have given. I urge hon. Members not to follow those in the IT security industry who have used exaggerated language about the threat that the Bill might present to the e-business world. That world has absolutely nothing to fear from it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am afraid that the Minister has not persuaded me and, far more importantly, has completely failed to persuade the experts at the Confederation of British Industry. He has repeated yet again that what he is offering is simply further consultation by his friends at the Department of Trade and Industry on the secondary legislation, but the CBI said: Consultation on secondary legislation creates more problems, doesn't solve them. The proposal by the Home Office Minister, Charles Clarke MP, to have the DTI consult on licensing the industry does not help matters. It simply obliges the DTI to carry out a consultation in which all affected parties—the industry itself and its users—are likely to say that regulation is unnecessary. Given that there has been no demand for regulation in the first place, is this a worthwhile use of the DTI's and industry's time and resources? The Minister said Mat we should not suggest that the industry got dragged into the Bill by inadvertence, but the CBI said: Legislative accident, so no consultation:—The IT security industry has fallen under this legislation in an unexpected and accidental way, and this only became apparent during the Bill's passage through the House of Lords. Because of this, the IT security industry and its users had no participation in the consultation that led to the White Paper CM 4254 and the draft legislation itself. The Minister's two arguments have been comprehensively demolished by the leading experts.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will not pursue all the hon. Gentleman's points. For clarification, in the event that a criminal individual or organisation sought to develop a presence in the IT security industry in order to undermine companies' security, is he suggesting that there should be no process for looking into the people involved and no application of the general principle of the Bill?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We are saying that there has been no demand for such regulation and that to use a blunt instrument that is intended to deal with the admitted abuses of cowboy wheelclampers and nightclub bouncers to hit a sophisticated e-business is quite wrong. The Government have recently been criticised for failing to take user interests into account in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

No, I have already given way to the Minister once and I am coming to an end. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, accused the Opposition of indulging in scare stories, but I remind him and other hon. Members that the headlines are written not by us but by those experts in the industry who have considered the Committee proceedings and who have found the Minister's attempted reassurances in Committee and on Second Reading completely unconvincing. They do not think that the problem has gone away at all. 5.45 pm I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for suggesting that they think that we were right to raise this issue, but we go further; we think that we are acting on behalf of one of the United Kingdom's most important industries. The Government have inappropriately used the blunt instrument of the Bill to try to hit a successful industry that was never intended to be caught, so I am determined to press the amendment to a Division.

REGISTER OF LICENCES

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 9, line 42, at end insert— '(3A) (a) The Authority may, at the request of any person who holds a licence, remove the particulars specified in subsection (3)(b) from any copy of the register which is available for inspection by members of the public under subsection (4) if the following condition is satisfied. (b) The condition is that the Authority is satisfied that the availability for inspection by members of the public of particulars of the person's usual residential address creates, or (if the Authority were not to comply with the request) would be likely to create, a serious risk that he or a person who lives with him will be subjected to violence or intimidation. (c) Nothing in this subsection shall be interpreted as allowing any person not to provide the Authority with any of the particulars required by subsection (3).'. The amendment deals with 42an important concern, which we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, about the security of the details of people who are licensed by the new Security Industry Authority, which will be available for public inspection in the register that it maintains. We have repeatedly stressed the fact that there will be obvious difficulties for people who are engaged in sensitive security work, or who are night club bouncers or wheelclamping operatives, if they are placed at risk of grudge retaliation attacks by having their addresses made publicly available on a register that can be accessed through the internet. We recognise that disgruntled criminal elements could carry out revenge attacks. In the Committee's final sitting on 1 May, the Minister said that a similarly worded amendment might find favour with the Government. His approach has been constructive. He recognises that, sadly, links have been proven between more disreputable night club bouncers and the trade in illegal drugs. That world is heavily populated by criminal elements. I have raised with him more than once the possibility of attacks on people's homes if they are trading from their home address and it is published on the register. It is not hard to envisage the consequences of such an unpleasant attack, in which petrol is poured through someone's letterbox and set alight. We see that all too frequently in our towns and inner cities. In many of those tragic cases of criminal arson, people in the house have no connection with the subject of the grudge attack, and young children have been burned to death. That has always worried us, and I am glad chat the Minister has been sympathetic to the issues that we have raised. We drafted the amendment along the same lines as the measure that the Government included in the recent Criminal Justice and Police Bill on the security of company directors' addresses. It would set the same test, whereby the authority should be satisfied that there is a serious risk of violence or intimidation before an address is removed from the register. The issue is serious and we make no apology for returning to it. In the light of the Government's response to it in earlier debates, we hope that the Minister will take a positive approach and, perhaps even at this late stage, break the habit of a lifetime and accept an amendment from the official Opposition.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I, too, shall be brief. The amendment deals with an important issue and, once again, we have to consider the difficulty of balancing interests. The Bill allows people to opt into a registration system for the security industry. When they register, they become part of the database of information that allows the consumer to discover the nature of the industry, who the owner of a company is and the details of prospective licensed security people. That proposal was debated in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and there has been no disagreement that it is a good thing, but we have to consider whether people should then be able to hide themselves once they have opted in. Although we are sympathetic to the idea, I want to flag up the need for consistency in Government policy. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was right to refer to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which is before the other place. The ability of animal rights activists to get hold of the addresses of shareholders and company employees with a view to protesting has been debated. A separate debate has taken place on whether Members of Parliament should be able to conceal their residential address, because some have been harassed or intimidated. Those arguments raise proper democratic issues. I do not believe that Members of Parliament should be entitled to conceal their residential address because it is important that the public know where their MPs live. I am more sympathetic to shareholders and people involved in companies that deal with animal experimentation. They do not stand for elected office and are not, in that sense, seeking to do a public job. The caveat is that we need two assurances before they, or people involved in the security industry, are able to conceal their addresses. First, a proper process must be in place to establish whether it is justified to keep them out of the public domain. Secondly, we need to protect people against the fiction of the corporate state. The reality is that to pursue the details of a registered company, it is necessary to go first to the register at Companies House to get its address. However, that might be only a post office box number, which simply receives post, or the head office of a set of companies, from which the company in question might not operate. Technically, the address is a link, but it might be a distraction because it does not get us any closer to the action. I shall be interested to discover where the Minister's sympathies lie. First, should the address be concealed only in exceptional circumstances, after proper authority has been applied, and when it can be challenged? Secondly, would there be protection against a fictitious or meaningless address being displayed? We are worried that people who opt into the registration system might try to opt out of giving their personal details so that the consumer, who might have a complaint about or an interest in the registration, is unable to track them down and obtain the necessary information. As a postscript, I want to refer to something that was raised in Committee. I do not know how many Charles Clarkes there are in England or how many Nick Hawkinses there are in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I think that the Minister might have been to a certain football ground in Norwich recently. I heard him utter an almost descanted, "There's only one Charles Clarke." I hope that I am allowed 10 seconds of self-indulgence to tell the House that I was on Millwall's terraces on Saturday when it won its last home game of the season 5-0 and took the second division championship. We made a similar chant, although in our case it was a collective "There's only one Millwall football club." That is certainly true, which some people have said is a good thing. My serious point is that there are many people with the same name. For example, a much more famous Simon Hughes is a very good cricketer, and I was honoured to speak at his benefit. If the residential address is removed, it may be difficult to track down the person who is registered as a licensed private security operative. Nothing will identify the one Charles Clarke, Nick Hawkins or John Bercow from the tens or hundreds of people who share the same name. We need a sensitive response, and I am not sure that removing the address from the register will solve all the problems.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First, may I congratulate Millwall on its promotion to the first division? I assure the team of a very warm welcome when they come to Carrow road. Incidentally, there are more Clarkes in this Parliament than any other name. We are divided only by the presence or absence of the letter "e". The superior clan, such as me, have an "e" and the less distinguished members of the family do not. [Interruption.] The surname of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has an "e" and he is a very distinguished Member of the House. We can only commiserate with those who do not have an "e" and regret their carelessness in losing it or their absent-mindedness in not having one in the first place. It is not entirely fair of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to chide me for not accepting amendments tabled by the official Opposition. I do not accept every amendment that they table, but I have a reasonable record in accepting their amendments to several Bills that have been considered this Session.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister confirm that the factual record will demonstrate—not least in relation to the passage of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001—that, although he did not accept any amendments from the official Opposition. by way of a face-saving alternative he accepted the gravamen of the amendments and introduced new clauses of his own at a later stage?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

When we discussed the issues in Committee, I genuinely tried to do that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I shall ask my friend Mr. Mark Seddon—the hon. Gentleman's opponent at the general election—to pay the appropriate tribute to him when the opportunity arises. I have also accepted Opposition amendments straight off with whatever loss of face that may result for me. That is the right way for the House to consider such issues. The issue is serious and was discussed fully on Second Reading and in Committee. However, the best debate that I have attended on the subject took place in the Committee on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill when we discussed animal rights activists. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for the way in which he moved the amendment. There is common ground in the House on the need to deal with these issues properly. As I explained in Committee, the wording of clause 12(3)(b) makes it clear that the address to be published in the register is that which satisfies the prescribed requirements". In prescribing the requirements for addresses that are entered in the register, the Secretary of State can take account of the personal safety concerns that lie behind the amendment. Our intention is that the regulations will require that, in the vast majority of cases, the address entered in the register should be the business address of the firm employing the security operative, or from which the operative works. Some security operatives work from home, so it may be necessary to require the home address to be included in the register, but—as we have said before—we are open to alternative suggestions. The important thing is for the licence holder to be identifiable and to be traceable by the authority. 6.15 pm Clause 12(1) requires the authority to establish and maintain a register containing the details laid down in subsection (3). Clearly the authority must itself have full details of those it has approved for licences, but that does not mean that the authority must publish that register in full. Indeed, subsection (41 makes it the duty of the authority to ensure that such arrangements are in force as it considers appropriate for members of the public and others to inspect the contents of the register. It will thus be open to the authority to establish a means for individual licence applicants to make a case for limiting the personal information appearing on the publicly available register, and for a suitable mechanism to be established for that purpose. The general usefulness of the register to the user of security services will depend on its ease of access and the reliability of its contents. The balance is an issue that the authority will have to consider carefully. The key point that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath must consider is whether it is necessary for the authority to consider the appropriateness of publishing information on individuals or more generally. Although it is important for the Secretary of State to take account of personal safety concerns in prescribing requirements, the evidence factor must be a consideration. In the case of the animal rights issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there is clear evidence of such organisations' preparedness to attack people in their homes. Evidence is clearly a factor.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister for the serious way in which he has considered these matters. As he said, there is same common ground between the parties, but is he prepared to go a little further? In any discussions that he might have with his officials over the next few days, which might lead to the Home Office advising the authority when it is set up, will he specifically draw attention to the fact that he will urge the authority to exercise flexibility when people work from home? It would be vary helpful if he could say that.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am happy to give that important assurance. Two factors are important. First, the Secretary of State can take account of personal safety when he or she specifies the requirements for addresses and, secondly, the authority must decide whether it considers it appropriate to publish the register in full. In both circumstances, evidence—specific or generic—must be taken into account. I can give the hon. Gentleman the specific assurance that he seeks. I will make sure that the issue is drawn to the attention not only of my officials but of any future Government—whether of his persuasion or mine—after the general election. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I had hoped, the Minister has been helpful. In the light of what he said about the advice that he is prepared to give and the fact that the authority will examine all our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and tonight, it would not be helpful to press the amendment to a Division. We have ventilated the concerns that are widely shared by all three major parties and this has been a useful debate. We remain concerned that there will be cases in which the authority feels that it needs to give someone who is in the security sector and who works from home a dispensation so that his home address is not published in a register—either one that is open to physical inspection or one that appears on the internet—so that that person, his family or anyone who stays with him is not in danger from a grudge or revenge attack. The Minister placed much stress on the need for there to be evidence of a threat, but sometimes there is no warning of a revenge or grudge attack, which creates a difficulty. We recognise that the Minister has been helpful and has said that the authority will consider carefully the use of its powers. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 15, line 18, at end insert— '(3A) A person exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) shall do so reasonably only in the course of his duty and only as part of a series of routine checks or as a result of reasonable suspicion of breach of regulations or commission of an offence under any provision of this Act.'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 9, in clause 20, page 16, line 23, at end insert— '(4) No document shall be published under subsection (1) or (2) unless a draft of the document has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The amendments are straightforward. They relate to clauses 19 and 20 which are among the four clauses that deal with entry, inspection and information. For various reasons, these matters were not debated at any length in Committee. Once a regulatory authority for the security industry has been set up under the Bill and people and concerns are regulated, clauses 19 and 20 give power for the authority to go in, inspect and regulate. One cannot argue with that; a regulatory authority has to go in and see what is going on. The amendments seek to make sure that that is not done with oppression or harassment. To step back for a second, there is a difference between the way we regulate activity subject to a licensed regime and the way we regulate normal daily activity that does not need licensing. Motoring is an obvious example: if people apply for and obtain a driving licence, they do not have to drive a car—that is optional. However, if they do, by definition they subject themselves to a regime involving both inspection of the vehicle that they drive and related controls. People do not have to run a pub, but if they apply to run one, they know that there are certain rules and conditions when the magistrates grant a licence. That is different from the way in which we should be regulated as we walk down the street or live in our homes. I am against the idea that people should be able to climb up drainpipes, climb through windows and stop someone for no good purpose, claiming that they are just carrying out a spot check to see if he is behaving himself. That applies even to controversial things; without reasonable suspicion, the police and other authorities should not be able to stop people going about their lawful business just because they think that someone might be carrying a stolen item, a little cannabis or whatever. Quite rightly, criminal law states that there must be reasonable suspicion of an offence before an authority can act. A distinction therefore has to be made when we talk about the licensing regime. People do not have to be bouncers or employ others to run a security business; they do not have to be wheelclampers or work for a wheelclamping firm. The regime is therefore an opt-in regime so, naturally and reasonably, there will be powers of entry and inspection that allow the authority to exercise its proper functions, as agreed in legislation.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not embarrassed about what he has just said, as he certainly does not need to be. Does he accept that his objection to the idea that police officers and other agents of public authorities should be able to go marauding around private property or commercial premises without authority or good excuse should not divide the parties in any way? The argument is between those who might genuinely be considered libertarians and those who are unthinking and arrogant authoritarians.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I agree. I do not want to be over-distracted, but the tension between the two tendencies is interesting. Sometimes the hon. Gentleman's party expresses excessively authoritarian sentiments which, in all probability, he does not agree with; the Labour party certainly includes libertarians, but it also has people who are clearly authoritarian. I know that the example I am about to give is not central to the Bill, but it is a parallel. Later this evening, the House of Lords will debate DNA sampling, a matter which hon. Members have already discussed. The lords will consider whether it is appropriate for the police to take samples and keep them if people are innocent of suspected crimes. Those of us with a libertarian perspective believe that it is wrong for the state to keep acquiring possessions if that cannot be justified on the grounds of an offence against the rules of the state. That is the issue. Amendment No. 8 would impose, at an appropriate stage, a limitation to the power exercised under clause 19. The other place accepted an amendment stating that a person exercising the power of entry and inspection shall do so only at a reasonable hour. I am conscious of the fact that we are at the end of the parliamentary Session, but we are seeking to persuade the House to add to clause 19 a statement that a person exercising such power shall do so reasonably only in the course of his duty and only as part of a series of routine checks or as a result of reasonable suspicion of breach of regulations or commission of an offence". We are obviously trying to guard against someone in the regulatory authority calling on a certain person, company or club every Thursday simply because they have decided to do so. It is reasonable to have routine inspections, a bit like those for schools, and the odd spot check, and it is certainly reasonable for the authority to go in if it is tipped off that something funny is going on, but we must have protection against oppression. When the Minister responds. 1 should be grateful—if the amendment is not accepted—for an explanation of what protection the legislation provides against the abuse of power. He may deal with the drafting of clause 20, to which we tabled amendment No. 9. Clause 20 recognises that the power of entry is controversial and states that the authority shall have a duty to prepare and publish a document containing its guidance on how people should go about discharging their right to enter and inspect premises. In Committee, we had a long debate about the different things that the authority will do. The Bill makes provision for guidance, and the Government may introduce secondary legislation. We are pleased that there will be management of the power of the authority by a guidance document but, because rights of entry and inspection are civil liberty issues, it is important that that document should come before Parliament for approval. Amendment No. 9 requires that the guidance document will not be published unless both Houses of Parliament have seen and approved a draft. Colleagues will know that that is a common procedure when Parliament deals with sensitive matters: we allow someone else to do the work, but want to sign off the document as appropriate, having ensured that we will protect the liberties of our citizens. I hope that the amendments appeal to the House in their detail, but certainly in their spirit; I commend them to the House.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has tabled a sensible set of amendments; he will be aware of the significance of our exchanges on the subject in Committee. I am always a generous-spirited fellow, as you will readily testify, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Far be it from me to accuse the hon. Gentleman of plagiarism; he would not be guilty of any such thing because he has an original and penetrating mind. However, he would be prepared to concede that there is a commonality of spirit between his party and ours on the subject. Because of his recollection of our deliberations in Committee, he will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) argued that the power of entry and inspection should not be exercised by an officer unless he reasonably suspects a breach of the regulations or the commission of an offence under the Act. To his credit, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has followed my hon. Friend's train of thought on that occasion, as well as before and since, in deploying the formulation "reasonable suspicion" in amendment No. 8. He makes an eminently sensible point. Nobody disputes that there should be powers of entry and inspection; the argument is about the means by which they are exercised. The hon. Gentleman chose to focus on an important point about the nature of the exercise of the power. As he put it, his concern is that, unless the power is reasonably circumscribed, not least by the use of the word "reasonable" or by a reference to ordinary hours of the day, an overly zealous officer, probably in the minority but nevertheless burdensome for the person suffering from the exercise of the power, may choose willy-nilly, almost at random and without obvious good cause or excuse, to rampage through—I accept that that is an evaluative and strong-minded term—the property of the person who, however unreasonably and without evidence, he suspects of a breach of the regulations or the commission of an offence. 6.30 pm The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has a point—there is a danger that inspections will otherwise take place without justification. There is also a possibility, again highlighted by the hon. Gentleman, that an overly zealous officer might choose to make regular inspections at the same time on what might be regarded as such a repetitive basis that it becomes intimidating. There are other possibilities. Far from choosing to visit at the same time for a series of weeks in succession in such a manner as to appear intimidatory, an officer might choose to visit the same property, premises or sets of premises held by a company on various days and at various times but without obvious authority or good cause. That would be equally intimidatory. In fairness, the Government have said that there must be an element of unpredictability. If people know in advance that they are to be visited or that they can expect to be visited at exactly the same time, they are likely, particularly if they are in breach of the legislation, adequately to prepare themselves to ensure that they are not caught out. The Minister has said that on a number of occasions, and he has a fair point. However, I understand that there is to be an obligation under clause 19, in its unamended form, for the person who is conducting the inspection to be authorised in writing. If so, I assume, for the purposes of the argument and our assessment of the merits or otherwise of the clause, that that will mean not only authority in writing to make the inspection but notification in writing of the intended date and time. If I have misread the clause on that significant point, I should be happy to be corrected by the Minister and thereby reassured. The Minister, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will have noticed, has looked eagerly in the direction of those whom I cannot name or refer to by title, but whose responsibility it is to provide the Minister with advice. They are what might be described as the nameless and faceless ones, but they sit not far from the Minister.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Even obliquely, the hon. Gentleman should not pursue that.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am very grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not proposing to dilate upon the point; I thought that I might get away with the occasional animadversion to them, but you have told me, with your formidable shake of the head, that I cannot, and therefore I will not try. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to have some guidance on the point I raised. [Interruption.] Does the Minister want to intervene? No, he was merely chuntering from a sedentary position—beneficially, I am sure, as far as our exchanges are concerned. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has highlighted a significant possibility, and there are others. Inspections could take place at awkward times, possibly in an over-zealous way, and in a manner that would be calculated to intimidate or would in practice do so. The hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I share a basic unease about the exercise of entry and inspection powers, which leads us not to dispute the need for them but to try and build in the maximum protection for those who are to be subject to them. 1 make no bones about it—some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may think that I am a wet liberal on these matters—

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

Oh no

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am greatly reassured by the hon. Lady's remark, made from a sedentary position. However, I am concerned that people should be properly protected. I am always anxious about the overweening power of the state to busybody and interfere, to harass people and subject them to impertinent inquiry without good cause. In short, this is an issue of civil liberties. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is a champion of civil liberties, but so are my right hon. and hon. Friends and me. I should like to put a slightly different point on the amendments to the Minister. It is a new point in the consideration of the Bill but it is not new in the exchanges that the Minister and I have had. I have a feeling that, with his remarkable perspicacity, the Minister will have anticipated this point, which is culled from the experience that we shared in the Committee 'cage of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman and I simply disagreed about this point, and we may do so again. It is this: it seems to me that under the terms of the unamended clause 19, people who are or who appear to be—I will come back to the point about appearing to be—regulated individuals under the terns of the Bill will be entitled to greater protection under its terms than people who are not registered or who do not appear to be registered. As not everybody is familiar with this argument and as I do not want an entirely self-contained and, to everyone else, unintelligible argument with the Minister, it is worth explaining what I have in mind. Clause 19(1) provides that someone who is authorised to enter and inspect the premises of any person who appears to be a regulated person can do so if he or she has authorisation in writing. However, it specifically refers to an entitlement to enter and inspect the premises of someone who appears to be a regulated person. What about those who do not appear to be regulated persons or to have a licence to operate but who are suspected of a breach of the regulations under the legislation or the commission of an offence? Those who are not thought to be regulated—and, to put it more accurately are thought not to be regulated under the legislation but who are thought to be practising, illegally or as cowboys, and to be committing offences—should surely be subject to the not insignificant powers of entry and inspection that clause 19 is intended to confer upon officers. I am not sure what the answer is. The Minister is a sometimes sagacious fellow but almost invariably a resourceful one I feel sure that he will have some sort of answer and that it probably will have been provided for him in advance of our debate. I will be fascinated to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about those who do not appear to be regulated—indeed, who appear not to be regulated—but who do not seem to be subject to the substantial power of clause 19(1).

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I follow that point but I am not certain that everyone listening will follow the regulated and non-regulated alternatives proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Is not the logic of the conundrum or dilemma to which the hon. Gentleman refers that it is far better that there is one regime and that everybody should be regulated? Otherwise, there is a two-tier system. Policing those who have opted for regulation means that when someone knocks at a door and the defence is, "Sorry, mate, I am not regulated", nothing can be done about it. That cannot be in the consumers' interest.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that everybody who has characteristics in common in terms of job description and the functions they fulfil should be subject to equal treatment. That is a longer but, I hope, accurate way of saying that we should treat like with like. Obviously, we should not treat in exactly the same way people who are in very different categories and who are not performing similar functions, but the hon. Gentleman is otherwise right to say that people who are performing similar work should all be subject to the same regime, so that there is no scope for the inequality of treatment that would otherwise almost inevitably result.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument, will he pause and give his attention to clause 19(8)? Will he consider paragraph (b) in particular?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am always happy to be referred to a subsection of any clause of which the Minister is the parent. I have focused my beady eye on clause 19(8), which features on page 16 of the Bill, with which I am sure all hon. Members who are present will be intimately familiar. For the avoidance of doubt, I point out that subsection (8) deals with the meaning of the term "regulated person". That seems clear, but I think that the only provision of even modest significance in the subsection—this point is important if the hon. Gentleman is trying to develop an argument—is paragraph (d), which refers to any person who is not so approved but provides security industry services which he is prohibited by any such regulations from providing. I assume that the Minister is suggesting that an individual who is not fully approved, but who is nevertheless providing services, will be subject to the entry and inspection powers contained in clause 19(1). That is not entirely clear, but if that is what the hon. Gentleman says, I shall not object. Indeed, I shall be tempted to dance around the mulberry bush in appreciation of the fact that the Government have seen the point and have incorporated it in the clause. However, although I am grateful to the Minister for moving me on from page 15 to page 16, I see no good reason why such provision should not be included in subsection (1) to ensure that the matter is clear beyond peradventure. That is my answer to him, but if he tells me that the matter is dealt with and that there is no need for any further i-dotting and t-crossing, I shall be happy to accept his assurance. I would be grateful if he made the matter clear, as it is not trivial. I hope that he will accept that civil liberties and the important issue of equality of treatment, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I keep returning, are of the first importance. I should like briefly to comment on clause 20 and on the attempt of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to amend it. As I understand it, amendment No. 9 would ensure that no document on the guidance about the way the powers are to be exercised should take effect before a draft of the document has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. In short, that is an argument for the affirmative method—I use that term for want of a better one, as we usually use it in relation to the statutory instrument procedure— rather than the negative one. The hon. Gentleman was slightly doubtful about whether everybody would understand the distinctions between regulated and unregulated matters. I argued only that people who are not regulated should not be treated preferentially in comparison with those who are regulated. The point is simply stated: the question of affirmative and negative procedure should be clear beyond doubt to those outside the House who take an interest in these matters. As the Minister, but not everybody, knows, the negative procedure does not allow debate. It means that measures are rammed through the House on the nod, without the opportunity for speeches or voting. However, the affirmative procedure gives hon. Members the chance to express an opinion. My view is consistent with that of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I believe that the guidance on the exercise of entry and inspection powers is critical. Great issues are at stake. The powers of the officers must be adequate, or there will be no point in providing for them. Equally, there must also be adequate protection for those who will be subject to the exercise of those powers. It is not entirely a matter of those words that Ministers tend to use in the context of amendments to proposed legislation—our old friends "minor" and "drafting". Issues of judgment, evaluation, degree and what I might best describe as proportionality are involved. In that context, I think that the hon. Gentleman has a good point. Let us see the draft, which can be placed before this House and the other place, and let there be a debate on it in which we can offer our opinions about whether the Government have got the balance broadly correct. 6.45 pm Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath expressed with a world-weary cynicism born of his nine years in the House his hope that the Minister would change the habits of a lifetime and accept an Opposition amendment. I want to renew that plea in an unselfish fashion. on behalf of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The request in amendment No. 9 for an opportunity to see a draft document and to scrutinise it, as well as for an acknowledgement of hon. Members' right to speak and the possibility of a vote, is of the essence. That request is so transparently reasonable that only an extraordinarily unreasonable Minister could resist it. The Minister is an assiduous, eager and very ambitious man, as I continually remind him. He is a man who was described by Mr. John Kampfner, the distinguished political commentator of The Guardian, as a future leader of the Labour party, and he is now under inspection.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I shall perorate in a moment, but how can I refuse to give way to a man who is not only older than me, but substantially bigger?

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

What my hon. Friend says about the Minister is true. Does he agree that it would be a terrible shame if blind, untrammelled ambition were to stand in the way of such a reasonable request from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). and such profound and splendid oratory from my hon. Friend"

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I say to my hon. Friend frankly that I am in danger of becoming emotional. We had a rocky start when this Parliament began. I think he doubted whether I had any right to sit in this place at all, as I went to a state school, paid a mortgage and bought my own furniture. Since then, he has been reconciled to me, and we have what might almost be described as a symbiotic relationship, so often do we see eye to eye on matters of state, both great and small. His interventions are invariably sensible and eloquent. With his unfailing skill in hitting the proverbial nail on the head—a skill that only somebody who has spent as much time on the Clapham omnibus as he has could demonstrate—he has got it absolutely right. We are considering a question of ambition versus reasonableness. I say to the Minister, who is always anxious to throw red meat in the direction of his under-utilised and ordinarily militant Back Benchers—

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Ah!

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I say to the Minister that he should prove reason, independence of mind and generosity of spirit. I say to him that now is the opportunity to show oneself to be a man of independent mind and generous nature. Will he pass or fail the examination? I await his response and the answer as to success or failure with bated breath, eager anticipation and beads of sweat upon my brow.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Before I begin, let me say how glad I am to see my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her place. I would not say that I have a symbiotic relationship with her, as I have been advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) that the only known example of a symbiotic relationship in the natural world is that between a plover and the crocodile from whose tongue it plucks leeches. When the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) described his symbiotic relationship with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), I was trying to work out which of them was the soft little bird and which was the crocodile. I think that most people would acknowledge that, at a time such as this, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex has the more meat-eating characteristics. I was amused that the hon. Member for Buckingham began his speech by referring to the alleged plagiarism of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I do not think that he was correct. Plagiarism is often a two-way relationship. When we discuss the relationship between libertarianism and authoritarianism in the Conservative party, we get into deep waters. At the end of the Conservative party conference last year, everyone lined up behind their libertarian or authoritarian leadership challengers. Some people listen to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Some libertarians in Conservative party ranks—perhaps including the hon. Member for Buckingham—may support him, but others would not. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) would not agree with him. In all friendship, I therefore advise the hon. Member for Buckingham not to go far down the road on which he embarked. However, it is an interesting debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not make the same mistake as some do of confusing civil rights and libertarianism with the rights and interests of the legal profession. Let me consider more serious matters. I asked the hon. Gentleman to examine clause 19(8), which defines a regulated person as either the holder of any licence granted under this Act or any person who engages in licensable conduct without being a holder of a licence under this Act". Licensable conduct is defined in clause 3(2). Clause 19(8) defines the powers that we are discussing as applying to licence holders and people who are engaged, without holding a licence, in the sort of activity that the Bill tries to regulate. I do not, therefore, believe that the hon. Gentleman's anxiety has substance. Clause 19 provides the authority with an important power that will help it to enforce its licensing regime effectively. It gives it the power to enter premises and require the production of documents or other relevant information. A person who is properly authorised by the authority will be able to enter premises owned or occupied by a regulated person. Proper authorisation is defined in clause 19(1) and in clause 20, which states It shall be the duty of the Authority to prepare and publish a document containing … guidance about the way in which authorised people will act. There is no precondition in the Bill for an authorised person to provide prior notice. In general, one would expect prior notice to be given of a visit for routine purposes. However, there is no requirement to do that. Clause 20 provides for the production of guidance, which will set out the terms for giving prior notice. That is also the burden of amendment No. 8. The Bill provides for guidance, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey argues that Parliament should consider that guidance. The answer to his question about whether prior notice will always be given under authorisation is no. He also asked whether the notice and the operation of the authorisation would be set out in clear guidelines, which were publicly available and hopefully agreed. The answer is yes A regulated person is defined in clause 19(8) as anyone who has or who ought normally to have a licence. Such a person may be required to produce documents or information about licensable conduct, the provision of security services or conditions attaching to approved contractor status under any compulsory scheme, should the voluntary scheme ever be converted into a compulsory one. Amendment No. 8 would require a person who was authorised to enter premises to do that in a reasonable manner and only as part of a routine check, or as a result of reasonable suspicion of a breach of regulations or commission of an offence. The main effect of the amendment would be to limit the authority's ability to conduct random checks of regulated persons. The provisions already place several requirements on any person authorised by the authority when exercising the powers. They include: exercising the power only at reasonable times; operating only in relation to persons "appearing" to be regulated—mere suspicion is not enough; and stating the purpose of the inspection. The inspector must produce evidence of identity and authorisation; a record must be made of what happens during the inspection; and a copy of that record must be given to those on the inspected premises if requested. That would form the basis of any subsequent challenge. Those measures place several requirements on persons entering premises. They take appropriate account of civil liberties while providing a powerful and focused tool to enable the authority to enforce the licensing regime.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister deal with the specific question that the hon. Member for Buckingham arid I asked? What provision protects against misuse, harassment and obsessive interest by the regulatory authority? Such behaviour could be covered by the random check, the routine check and the reasonable check but be oppressive none the less.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the guidance will include dealing with such an effect. However, I do not believe that the state of affairs that he described is likely to arise. The need to state the purpose of the inspection, for which the Bill provides, makes it difficult to make the repeated inspections that he fears. Amendment No. 9 would require laying before Parliament the guidance, which the SIA will draw up under clause 20, on the exercise of its power of entry. The Bill already requires a significant amount of further parliamentary input to get the authority and its regimes up and running. Several clauses allow the Secretary of State to introduce statutory instruments that activate or specify in greater detail the operations of the SIA. The content of the statutory instruments will be central in establishing the authority's detailed operating framework, and it is right that they should be brought before Parliament. I am therefore not persuaded that we need to ask Parliament to approve the detail that the amendment would require. The Bill's main purpose is to establish the SIA and vest in it appropriate discretion to regulate the industry, backed up by specific parliamentary sanctions for its most important aspects. I believe that the authority's approach will be sound and that to require the laying of draft guidance and, perhaps more important, revised guidance—we shall conduct regular revision—before Parliament would detract from the ability to be flexible in evolving circumstances. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The debate has been important, and the Minister has given welcome assurances on the first issue that we mentioned. However, the Bill could be described as an outline measure, and we do not know the details. We cannot judge whether the guidance will be adequate until we see it later. I was amused when the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) had the exchange with the hon. Member for Buckingham. It was suggested that serried ranks of militant Labour Back Benchers sat behind the Minister. There was a gasp of astonishment from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) because she shares the view that although the Government may want to claim much credit, claiming that their Back Benchers are militant, nearly militant or even active—let alone interested and critical—is an exaggeration well beyond the understanding of anyone who has watched our proceedings in the past four years. The Government may not have had an easy ride from the Opposition, but they have had a mighty easy ride from their Back Benchers. Whatever the result of the election, I hope that that does not continue in the next Parliament. I sense that interest in the debate has risen to an unexpected height. The Bill has taken on a new and greater importance. For once, I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. On one occasion only, and with no promise of a repeat, I beg to ask leave to withdraw an extremely good amendment.