The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Martin
Caton
Arbuthnot,
Mr. James
(North-East Hampshire)
(Con)
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
Clegg,
Mr. Nick
(Sheffield, Hallam)
(LD)
Coaker,
Mr. Vernon
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
the Home
Department)
Cormack,
Sir Patrick
(South Staffordshire)
(Con)
Farrelly,
Paul
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Lab)
Jackson,
Glenda
(Hampstead and Highgate)
(Lab)
Johnson,
Ms Diana R.
(Kingston upon Hull, North)
(Lab)
Kilfoyle,
Mr. Peter
(Liverpool, Walton)
(Lab)
Laxton,
Mr. Bob
(Derby, North)
(Lab)
Lucas,
Ian
(Wrexham)
(Lab)
Ruffley,
Mr. David
(Bury St. Edmunds)
(Con)
Sanders,
Mr. Adrian
(Torbay)
(LD)
Skinner,
Mr. Dennis
(Bolsover)
(Lab)
Trickett,
Jon
(Hemsworth)
(Lab)
Turner,
Dr. Desmond
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab)
Wilson,
Mr. Rob
(Reading, East)
(Con)
Celia
Blacklock, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Eleventh
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Thursday 19
July
2007
[Mr.
Martin Caton
in the
Chair]
Draft Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendments to Schedule 2) Order 2007
2.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Mr. Vernon Coaker):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Private Security Industry Act 2001
(Amendments to Schedule 2) Order
2007.
I welcome you to
the Committee, Mr. Caton, and all other hon. Members to our
deliberations. I also welcome the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to
his post, as this is the first opportunity that I have had to
congratulate him on his appointment. No doubt we shall discuss a number
of important issues over the next few
months.
The
draft order was laid before Parliament on 7 June. The Private Security
Industry Act 2001 provides for the regulation of the private security
industry through the licensing of individual operatives working in that
industry. At present, the licensing requirement applies only to England
and Wales. In Scotland, licensing will become a requirement from 1
November 2007. The main purpose of the order is to amend schedule 2 to
the 2001 Act to ensure that, in line with similar functions in England
and Wales, certain prison and police-related activities carried out in
Scotland are not caught by the licensing requirement. The order makes a
number of minor and technical amendments as well. The 2001 Act sets out
certain types of activity for which a Security Industry Authority
licence is required. Those activities, which are designated by orders
made under section 3(3) of the Act, are listed in schedule 2 and
include manned guarding, door supervision, the transport of cash and
valuables, and key holding. When licensing becomes compulsory in
Scotland from 1 November 2007, those activities will also be designated
there.
Crown
employees who hold office and undertake security activities, such as
police officers and prison officers, are outside the scope of the 2001
Act. However, the original legislation had the unforeseen effect of
extending to security guards who undertook manned guarding activities
while working under contract in prisons, in immigration centres, as
prisoner escorts, and in a number of other similar areas under the
control of the police and prison authorities. They were subsequently
excluded in England and Wales. Article 2 of the order will ensure that
the position is the same in Scotland. Article 3 makes a minor technical
amendment. Article 4 ensures that the restriction and/or removal of
vehicles is not caught by the licensing requirement in Scotland.
Vehicle immobilisation, or wheel-clamping, whereby a fee is charged for
the release of the vehicle, is already illegal in Scotland. Article
5(2) and (5) bring the position in Scotland into line with that in
England and Wales to ensure that the door supervision requirements
apply to licensed premises only when alcohol or entertainment is
provided. Article 5(3) is intended to establish beyond doubt that
licensable security activities in respect of cash and valuables in
transit, and close protection, are not caught by the door supervision
requirements. It applies to all
areas.
Article 5(4)
avoids potential problems caused by an incorrect paragraph number in a
similar amendment made by the Gambling Act 2005. The amendment makes it
clear that casinos and bingo halls do not fall under the door
supervision requirements in addition to requiring a premises licence
under the 2005 Act. Article 5(5) amends the list of premises not to be
treated as licensed premises for the purposes of paragraph 8 of
schedule 2 to the 2001 Act, to make provision for the position in
Scotland.
Once the
order is made, the implementation of the licensing requirement in
Scotland will require an order to be made by the Scottish Parliament
applying the offence provisions of the Act to Scotland from 1 November
2007. The order has general support from the security industry, the
Scottish Executive and all stakeholders. The SIA has overcome the
problems of last year caused by a last-minute rush for licences and is
well placed to extend its functions to
Scotland.
2.35
pm
Mr.
David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Caton in my case, for the first time. It is a pleasure,
too, to be welcomed by the Minister, who entered the House at the same
time as me, in 1997, and with whom I have always had a very mature and
grown-up debating relationship. I am sure that that will continue while
he is with the Home Office, which is dealing with some very serious
issues.
The matter
before us is not as weighty as crime, violence against children or
other matters that we normally address. We do not have any objections
to what essentially is a technical set of amendments, but without
detaining the Committee for too long, I would like to raise one
technical point relating to the amendment in article 5 of the order,
which lists the places in Scotland where licensed premises will not
require door supervisors to hold door supervisor licences. The Minister
alluded to that list, which includes places wholly or
mainly used as a theatre, casino, bingo hall or cinema where a
door supervisor would not need to hold a door supervisor licence. The
owner of the theatre might just want someone to stand outside in a
basic security role or, for health and safety reasons, to count the
number of people going in or out of the hall so that it does not exceed
its health and safety capacity. That is an obvious example, and it is
clear why the article contains an
exemption.
The logic,
obviously, is that the Government regard such places as low risk. We
endorse that, despite the fact that they are licensed premises.
However, I am not sure why other licensed premises are not on that
list. Will the Minister elucidate? I think that all of us would
consider plenty of other licensed businesses, such as hotels,
cafA(c)s and parts of department stores with restaurants, to be low
risk and thus eligible for an exemption, but as I read the order, such
places do not appear to be exempt, unlike bingo halls and casinos. That
is puzzling, not just for me, but the British Security Industry
Association.
To crystallise that point, a
small rural hotel licensed to sell alcohol, and which can serve drinks
in rooms as well as at the hotel bar, might want to employ someone to
stand on the door in a security or health and safety role, but under
the proposed new regime, the owner would be forced to
employ someone who has undergone full training and is a licensed door
supervisor. It seems that that could discourage at the margin such an
owner from employing anyone at all, because they might not want to go
through the full panoply of training someone on the
door.
In
conclusion, the Opposition agree with the principle of exemptions
outlined in the articles, because they will reduce bureaucracy and
paperwork for a large number of small businesses. We are uncertain
about the logic behind exempting businesses such as bingo halls, but
not, on the face of it, small country hotels, so I look forward to the
Ministers
comments.
2.39
pm
Mr.
Sanders:
I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr.
Caton. My comments will not take long because broadly we are in
agreement with the changes. The order appears to be non-controversial,
and most of the changes will bring Scottish law into line with the rest
of Britain. The Minister may, however, be able to clarify two things.
First, the order will mean that casinos and bingo halls licensed under
the Gambling Act 2005 will no longer fall under the door supervisory
requirements of the 2001 Act. I am not clear how those Acts differ in
their requirements for door staff to undergo various tests before they
can carry out their
work.
Secondly, the
Minister said that clamping arrangements in Scotland appear to be
different from those in England. That might be because we do not always
pay attention to what is happening in the Scottish Parliament. Will the
Minister confirm that clampers cannot operate on private land in
Scotland whereas they are free to do that nasty worksome of my
constituents have complained about iton private land in the
rest of the United Kingdom?
2.41
pm
Mr.
Coaker:
The hon. Member for Torbay is correct
that vehicle immobilisationwheel
clampingis illegal in Scotland and that there is a different
situation in England and Wales. Court judgments in Scotland have
ruled that vehicle immobilisers fell foul of the definition of theft in
Scottish criminal law. The definition of theft in Scotland is not the
same as the definition in English and Welsh criminal law. That is why
there is a difference, and the order clarifies that point to ensure
that we take account of
it.
If I may stray
slightly from the scope of the order, the Committee may be interested
to know a little more about vehicle immobilisation in
general. The Government are looking at vehicle immobilisation
arrangements in the rest of the country. As always, the question is a
lot easier than the answer, but we are looking at what we can do,
because the issue is of concern to a number of hon. and right hon.
Members. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
The hon. Member for Bury St.
Edmunds made a point about which premises are exempted. The key point
about restaurants or small businesses is that the measures will be a
matter of judgment. The hon. Gentleman knows that certain
establishments are exempt from the 2001 Act, and he will understand
that restaurants or small business are not required to have contracted
staff or to employ their own staff who would be subject to the Act.
Those establishments would need to make a judgment about whether they
were required to take on such staff. Restaurants and small hotels that
decide to employ people to undertake door supervisory functions would
be unlikely to be the small hotels tucked away in a rural idyll to
which the hon. Gentleman alluded. He will accept that it is appropriate
for small hotels that hold many functions, for example, to employ a
door supervisor who should be licensed.
There is a judgment to be made
about what is proportionate and what is acceptable to impose on
business if we are to ensure that we have the correct calibre of people
working in the industry, but do not over-regulate. As always, we try to
negotiate and to listen to people, and the list has been drawn up in
consultation with the industry and others. While there is not complete
agreement about the measures, we have managed to arrive at a fair
consensus.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendments to
Schedule 2) Order 2007.[Mr.
Coaker.]
Committee rose at fifteen
minutes to Three
oclock.