Draft Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendments to Schedule 2) Order 2005
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairman:
Column Number: 1
Chairman: Miss Ann Widdecombe
†Bottomley, Virginia (South-West Surrey) (Con)
Burgon, Colin (Elmet) (Lab)
Chaytor, Mr. David (Bury, North) (Lab)
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey (Cotswold) (Con)
†Dawson, Mr. Hilton (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
†Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan (Huntingdon) (Con)
†Goggins, Paul (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
Harvey, Nick (North Devon) (LD)
†Henderson, Mr. Doug (Newcastle upon Tyne, North) (Lab)
†McDonnell, John (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
†McIsaac, Shona (Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Murphy, Mr. Jim (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury) (Lab)
Norman, Mr. Archie (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Oaten, Mr. Mark (Winchester) (LD)
†Osborne, Sandra (Ayr) (Lab)
†Shipley, Ms Debra (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Alan Sandall, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 3
First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Tuesday 1 February 2005
[Miss Ann Widdecombe in the Chair]
Draft Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2005
2.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Draft Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendments to Schedule 2) Order 2005.
I think this is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe, and I very much look forward to it.
The amendment seeks to close a loophole in the Private Security Industry Act 2001, whereby a company or individual in the wheel-clamping business might seek to sidestep regulation by either blocking a vehicle or towing it away without clamping it first and then charging for release. The Act established a regulatory body, the Security Industry Authority, primarily to eradicate any criminal element from different sectors within the private security industry. That was in response to widespread concern about those who seek to use the private sector industry to pursue criminal activities, and thereby pose a threat to the public.
The Act, generally welcomed by the industry, designates those sectors within the private security industry that are subject to regulation: door supervisors; wheel-clampers on private land; security guards including dog handlers; cash-in-transit and personal protection guards; keyholders; private investigators and security consultants. As the work of the authority progressed, it soon became clear that the more reputable wheel-clamping companies regarded the absence of any regulatory requirement on those who simply towed away or blocked vehicles as a potential loophole. In particular, there was a worry that those who would be unable to meet the standard that regulation now demands of a wheel-clamper—perhaps someone who was known to use violence or who had a record of serious offences—would bypass the system by simply towing vehicles away or blocking them in without clamping them first.
As we know, wheel-clampers are not generally held in the highest esteem by members of the public. Indeed, it was mainly to improve their reputation and public confidence that regulation was introduced. Not closing that loophole would undermine our new approach by providing a way around the system for the more unsavoury elements of the industry. There would be a risk of extortionate release fees, the demanding of money with menaces, threats of violence and even violence itself; the very things we all want to see stopped.
Column Number: 4
Wheel-clamping on private land is legal in England and Wales, within certain limits. It can be an effective way of controlling unwanted parking. Clamping a vehicle is not a criminal offence, nor is charging the vehicle's owner a release fee, as long as the owner of the land has given permission. Following publication by the Home Office of the regulatory impact assessment for door supervisors and wheel-clampers, the vast majority of respondents made their view clear that the regulation should be extended to towing away and blocking in.
The order, therefore, seeks to extend the powers of the Security Industry Authority to regulate those individuals or companies who, working with permission on private land, propose to move a vehicle or restrict its movement by any means, and then impose a charge for its release. The order does not seek to regulate those individuals or companies that may need to move a vehicle legitimately—for example a vehicle blocking an ambulance bay, an access road or a disabled parking bay—and do so without intent to charge for release.
The Committee will be pleased to know that the industry wants the measure; it wants to raise its professional standards and increase public confidence. The measure will ensure that those individuals who fall victim to wheel-clampers are dealt with in a competent, professional and, above all, non-threatening manner.
I hope the Committee will agree with me that it would be unacceptable if individuals or companies were allowed to tow away or block a vehicle and then charge exorbitant release fees without being subject to the same controls as properly regulated and reputable wheel clamper companies. I hope that the Committee will approve this small, but important measure.
2.41 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): This is an important debate for what increasingly could be called a growth industry. The RAC Foundation states that clamping is a boom industry, worth more than £200 million a year in England and Wales. Indeed, the proposals are such that those who stand little chance of getting a licence appear to be increasing their activity on the basis that their days will be numbered by the order.
Under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, wheel-clamping on private land is controlled as a designated activity and a licence is required under section 3 of that Act to cover any director, manager, supervisor and/or operatives who provide vehicle immobilising services, employers, employees, managers or supervisors engaged in- house or under contract, handling vehicle immobilising services or, if managing or supervising, employees or contractors performing these services. For example, the staff of a supermarket chain who immobilise the cars of shoppers who overstay their welcome in the chain's car parks, and those who directly manage them, would all need a licence. A licence would also be needed by those undertaking or instructing employees to immobilise a vehicle, which would include private landowners who
Column Number: 5
do their own immobilising and charge a release fee, and by a volunteer; for example, a person helping a vehicle immobiliser to attach a wheel clamp on a car.
It is an offence under section 3 to engage in wheel-clamping without a licence where one is required, and it is a separate offence under section 6 for an occupier of land to permit an unlicensed person to carry out wheel clamping activities on that land where a licence is required. Licences are issued by the Security Industry Authority, the non-departmental public body set up under the Act, and applications for vehicle mobilisation licences have been accepted since 1 November 2004. Licences will have to be obtained by 28 February 2005.
The Act also requires the SIA to establish a voluntary system of inspection for the providers of security services under which those organisations that satisfactorily meet the agreed standards may be registered as approved, and may advertise them as such. That is known as the approved contractor scheme. Experience has unfortunately shown that control is necessary.
I do not want businesses to be subject to unnecessary rules and regulations, but the instances of unsavoury activity are many. In November last year, a five-year antisocial behaviour order was issued against a wheel-clamper in Portsmouth for intimidating and harassing drivers and causing them distress. He is believed to be one of the first clampers to be given an ASBO. He was clamping cars parked on land where he had no licence to operate and even impounded cars performing three-point turns, and a police car, which seems a bad move. A police control car was clamped while the officer was following up reports of a burglary. He had parked on a privately owned site in Yeovil next to the property he was investigating.
More seriously, two wheel-clampers suffered knife wounds after an argument with a car owner in Northampton in July last year and a wheel-clamping firm, Metropolitan Parking Services, had to be banned by the High Court from using a name and van design that could confuse the public into thinking that it was part of the Metropolitan police. There are many other examples, such as a threat to hold a mother's three-year-old daughter to ransom until £60 was collected from a bank, and demanding a woman's gold tooth as payment. A hearse with a body in the back was clamped outside a church. Sixty-one-year-old Marina Vine was clamped when, driving home from hospital following a chemotherapy session, she pulled over to be sick. Hon. Members can see that, unfortunately, the industry needs to be regulated.
The effect of the statutory instrument, as the Minister said, would be to stop people moving a vehicle by towing it away and to stop them restricting the movement of a vehicle by any other means, particularly blocking in. The use of fixed barriers at car parks is specifically excluded, which sounds sensible. I note that new paragraph 3(2A) makes it clear that vehicle immobilisation is regulated only so far as a charge is imposed for the release of the vehicle. The statutory instrument is relatively restrained.
Column Number: 6
We see the amendments as relatively minor changes. They will close loopholes relating to blocking in and towing that are being used by certain rogue wheel-clampers. They follow a series of consultations that have taken place over the past few years and which have led to the current position.
Although wheel-clamping can be an effective deterrent to illegal parking on private property, public opinion, as the Minister explained, is generally opposed to wheel-clampers exceeding their perceived powers. There are, however, perceived weaknesses in the regulatory regime that seem to be coming to light. The SIA does not run a public complaints system, for instance. Its voluntary nature can lead to inconsistencies of approach, particularly in relation to inspections, which are carried out on a voluntary basis. I would be grateful if the Minister said whether he is looking into those issues with a view to perhaps taking further action.
In this case, the argument that we could be adding to the bureaucratic burden or the cost borne by the public sector, which would normally concern me, is not particularly persuasive. The statutory instrument only slightly extends the regime already in place. For those reasons, we do not oppose the order.
