Let me say in response to Paul Holmes that we had an extensive debate in Committee, and our proposals were subjected to extensive consultation. A variety of suggestions were made, including the banning of wheel-clamping. In Committee we discussed ticketing systems, and I made it clear then-as I will this evening-that we wished to license the companies that were involved in clamping. We believe that private landowners have a right to protect their land, and that although a system exists to enable them to do so, in some instances it works very badly. We therefore propose to introduce a licensing system. We have considered the proposals, but we believe that, on balance, we have got this right.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has been extremely consistent in his argument, and I am sure he will not be surprised to learn that I shall be consistent in mine. As I promised in Committee, I have reflected on what he has said, but the main reason why we have decided not to change our position is that we want a consistent approach to other areas that are similarly licensed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman calls this heresy, and says he would not choose it as a starting point, but I want to set out our point of view.

Amendments 55 to 57 would remove the option of imprisonment on summary conviction in a magistrates court and would reduce the maximum term of imprisonment on conviction on indictment from five years to two years. It is unclear from the short debate this evening why the proposal is for two rather than five, except that two is less than five. The right hon. and learned Gentleman described that as adequate, but what might be adequate for some will not be adequate for others, and that is the difference between us on this matter. The provision as currently drafted provides for penalties that are directly in line with those contained in section 5 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 for the offence of using unlicensed security operatives.

That is what this is about; it is not about whether or not a vehicle has been clamped properly, or even the methods that might be used and how the law might be brought in in other ways. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about that, and what he said was right, but this is about using unlicensed security operatives, and I fear that if we begin to pick at that, we will end up in a situation where there is no consistency, and where there is a lack of transparency and fairness. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I start from different sides; we accepted that in Committee, and I acknowledge that again tonight.

I acknowledge that many of the cases-I hope all of them-that fall foul of these provisions will not warrant imprisonment. That will depend on how successful these provisions are, but offences against business licence requirements and the terms of the licence could be very serious. That is why we seek to retain imprisonment as a necessary option for the worst offences. Again, these penalties are consistent with those contained in section 5 of the 2001 Act for the offence of using unlicensed security operatives. Individuals involved in wheel-clamping are currently subject to those provisions, and there would be a problem in having the businesses subject to different penalties from the individuals involved in wheel-clamping. The right hon. and learned Gentleman calls this heresy. We simply disagree on the route to take to arrive at these decisions.

Amendments 58 and 59 would require that, in order to be guilty of an offence-under proposed new section 6(1A) of the 2001 Act, as introduced in Clause 42- of allowing an unlicensed wheel-clamping business to work on his premises, the occupier of those premises must know that the business is carrying out licensable activity without being licensed. As we set out in Committee, we believe that what these amendments seek is already provided for in the 2001 Act, as it already provides a defence for the occupier that he either did not know or had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual in question was not the holder of a licence, and that he took all reasonable steps to ensure the individual did not carry out licensable activities when he did not hold a licence. Although the point of these amendments is clear and useful, I hope it will be recognised that their provisions are already catered for in legislation.

Amendment 61 would raise the threshold for liability for an offence committed by an unincorporated association, but why should businesses of different models be treated differently under the law? Amendment 60 deals with the issue of appeal. In our proposals, there is already an avenue for appeal for motorists in respect of release fees imposed by businesses carrying out wheel-clamping and related activities, and that would include issues such as release fees, the length of time taken, and adequate signage. Therefore, we do not see the need to accept these amendments.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about the appellant authority. We are seeking to base this upon the ticketing tribunal that already exists, where people with a legal training act as adjudicators in such cases, and there are-

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 18 January) .

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made.

Question negatived.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).