Clause 3 - Conduct prohibited without a licence
Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]
12:45 pm
Mr Ronnie Fearn (Southport, Liberal Democrat)
I am not sure whether we shall have time to debate the amendments before lunch or, indeed, whether we shall break for lunch.
We welcome the introduction of mandatory licensing for individuals, which involves all aspects of the private security industry. It goes to the heart of the Bill's intentions in ensuring that certain minimum standards are met. We also welcome the Government's clarification in the other place of who is subject to licensing and who is not. However, if the Bill is to ensure that the entire industry is subject to the same standards, why are licenses not required for in-house operatives? That is the basis for the amendment.
My noble Friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pressed the Government on the matter in the other place and has still not received a decent answer. Perhaps the Minister will answer me today. We support the need for licensing, but why are the Government allowing for a loophole by excluding in-house operatives? Under the amendment, clause 3(2)(b) would stop at the word ``activities''. The other words—
``for the purposes of, or in connection with, any contract for the supply of services under which his employer is or may be so required''—
would be removed. I am not sure what those words mean. Perhaps the Minister will explain.
On amendment No. 21, would it not be more appropriate to add at the end of line 42
``or as required for the purpose of, or in connection with, any contract he has with his employer''?
In other words, if paragraph (b) is to be retained in its entirety, the wording in amendment No. 21 should be added.
It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.