Appendix 4 S.I. 2004/916: memorandum from
the Home Office
Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Modification
of Local Enactments) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/916)
1. The Committee has requested a memorandum on the
following points:
(1) Given that paragraph 12 of Schedule 1
to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 is
not a local enactment, identify the power under which article
4 is made.
2. Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1982 ("the 1982 Act") sets out a scheme
for the licensing of public entertainments outside Greater London
and paragraph 11 allows local authorities to prescribe standard
terms, conditions and restrictions. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 1
contains provisions as to enforcement. Some 60% of local authorities
make use of the powers to prescribe standard terms etc. In the
light of this it was considered that the provisions in Schedule
1 were local in nature.
3. The Department however accepts that the 1982 Act
is not a local enactment and that accordingly under section 13(5)
of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 there is no power to
repeal or modify the 1982 Act and that accordingly article 4 of
the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Modification of Local
Enactments) Order 2004 ("the Order") is void. The Department
undertakes to revoke the Order and remake an order without article
4 during the course of the week commencing Monday 3rd May 2004.
4. The Department regrets this error but notes that
as at 28th April 2004 the Security Industry Authority has issued
2 licences it is unlikely that either licence holder will have
been affected by the error.
(2) Article 4 appears to provide a defence
to any charge under paragraph 12 of Schedule
1 to the 1982 Act. Explain:
(a) the relevance of the defence to:
(i) an offence under paragraph 12(1);
(ii) an offence under paragraph 12(2) in respect
of the breach of a condition which does not relate to the registration
of door supervisors;
(b) how section 13(5) authorises the inclusion
of the defence in such cases.
5. As the Department accepts article 4 of the Order
is void and will remake an Order without that article, the extent
of the defence which article 4 purported to offer is to some extent
academic. However the Department accepts that the defence should
have been limited to prosecutions under paragraph 12(2) of Schedule
1 of the 1982 Act where those prosecutions concerned a breach
of a condition relating to the registration of door supervisors.
30 April 2004
| 
