I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow for having raised the matter and other hon. Members for their contributions. I understand why, at first glance, there might seem to be a diminution in protection and supervision. I hope to reassure the Committee that that is not the case. The term “manager” here includes all staff working in approved premises who are able to do the job and have had adequate training. As the Committee has requested, I shall go into the matter in more detail.

Clause 9 is based closely on the current legislation on approved premises, namely section 9 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. However subsection (7) is new. It ensures that the requirements of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 for the licensing of individuals supplied under contract to provide manned guarding activities do not catch those involved in the management of approved premises. The aim is to protect the public by driving up standards in the private security industry and removing the criminal element. That background might help the Committee.

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 sets out the licensing requirements for the private security industry established by the Security Industry Authority, and requires the authority to regulate the industry through the licensing process. The Act works by defining for its purposes what is security activity and the conditions under which such activity becomes licensable. One condition is that the relevant activity is supplied as a service under contract. Under the terms of the Bill, services in approved premises will in future be delivered under contract, so we need to consider whether any of the activities carried out in such premises meet the Act’s definitions of security activity. If they do, the Act could apply to those activities unless they are exempted. Security activity is defined in Schedule 2 to the 2001 Act and covers activities such as manned guarding and wheel clamping.

Manned guarding is defined as

“(a) guarding premises against unauthorised access or occupation, against outbreaks of disorder or against damage;

(b) guarding property against destruction or damage, against being stolen or against being otherwise dishonestly taken or obtained;

(c) guarding one or more individuals against assault or against injuries that might be suffered in consequence of the unlawful conduct of others.”

We do not think that the work of staff in approved premises fits that description, but we are concerned that somebody might argue that it does and that it should, therefore, be subject to the licensing regime. That would be inappropriate. The work of staff in approved premises does not constitute private security work in the sense intended by the 2001 Act, nor will it in future. The fact that the services will be delivered under contract will not change that. We think it prudent to put the matter beyond doubt to prevent unintended consequences or uncertainly later.

It has been suggested that by not subjecting services in approved premises to licensing, we put at risk standards in security and risk the involvement of undesirable elements in sensitive and dangerous work. Nothing can be further from the truth. Anybody bidding to run approved premises will have to meet stringent tests and demonstrate an ability to run premises to a high standard. Managers and staff of approved premises will receive training appropriate to their work. That will often replicate the relevant part of the wider training of probation staff. The purpose of the training is not to enable them to carry out guarding activities, as defined by the 2001 Act, but to equip them better to carry out their duties in connection with assessing, supervising and managing offenders and the risks that they pose in the context of approved premises.

This is not a blanket exemption for approved premises. If security operatives were provided on contract to such premises, for example to guard them, they would need to hold licenses issued by the Security Industry Authority in the normal way. However, for normal probation work in approved premises, the 2001 Act is entirely inappropriate and would do what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow does not want us to do, namely to dumb down the service. I hope that with that explanation—