asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have held discussions with Corus at the highest level and will continue to do so. It would not however be appropriate to disclose the details of commercially confidential discussions between Ministers and private companies. The Government will continue to take all the steps they can to try to secure jobs in the steel industry.

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the steel industry is of basic importance to the nation? Does he further recognise that at Llanwern there is a highly trained, skilled and adaptable work force which is being treated badly? For months the future of those jobs has been hanging like a gossamer thread, with no consultation whatever. As the Government are so enamoured with Europe, why have they not signed up to the directive on information and consultation? Further, what are they doing about the large quantities of dumped steel which are arriving from Russia and the eastern bloc? America and China have taken action. Must we go cap in hand to Brussels before we can take action?

My Lords, I am more than happy to agree that the steel industry is a key part of the British economy and that it is extremely efficient. Between 1998 and 1999 alone, it increased productivity from 533 to 571 tonnes per person, which is well above the levels in Germany and France.

As regards the directive, we believe that we should not accept it while there are procedures for consultation. We also believe that we should maintain the flexibility which exists in this country. Furthermore, if there is any, the Government would be only too keen to see any evidence of dumping and charges so that they can take appropriate action.

My Lords, will the noble Lord take on board the fact that Corus shed some 2,000 jobs in Wales last year and that thousands more job losses are expected? What plans do the Government have to replace those jobs or are they at a loss on this?

My Lords, I am well aware of the significant redundancies which have taken place in the steel industry in the past months. It is a bitter blow for people in that industry. If further job redundancies are announced shortly, we shall take the action that we have taken in similar cases to ensure that we create jobs in the area and enable people to search for new jobs.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the steel industry is more efficient and competitive than it was two or three years ago it is faced with bankruptcy? Given those circumstances and the fact that the Government recognise that the principal problem is the misalignment of the euro and the pound—indeed, the whole international community recognises that the euro is undervalued—cannot the Government think of short-term ways of compensating Corus so that its long-term capacity and presence will remain and be secured? That would help to meet a relatively short-term difficulty.

My Lords, as far as I know, Corus is not faced with bankruptcy, although it is having to take serious action. We have spoken to it about the amount of action that we can take commensurate with the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty, but it has made it clear that that will not affect its position on saving plants or jobs. We are taking all the action we can to help, but longer-term problems exist.

My Lords, I recognise that it is mainly for Corus to solve its own problems, but there are issues which the Government can take up and I hope that they are doing so in their discussions. First, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, can the Government persuade the company to take a long-term, strategic view? Circumstances vary from time to time and it would be harmful if we now disposed of steel capacity which we could need in the future. Secondly, in view of the forthcoming climate change levy, which will have a major impact on the steel industry as an intensive user of energy, cannot the Government seek to postpone its effect on that industry or modify it in other ways?

My Lords, we hope that Corus will take a long-term view of the matter because, undoubtedly, the major issue is the exchange rate. A movement of 10 pfennigs in the exchange rate has an impact of some £80 million on the company's profitability, which is substantial. Since last December, when the two chief executives left the company, there has been a movement of about 10 pfennigs in the exchange rate; so considerable movement is already taking place. We very much hope that the company will take a long-term, not short-term, view of the situation. As to the climate change levy, in terms of the overall picture and particularly the exchange rate, the levy is a comparatively small amount and is the sort of issue that could be considered in any kind of small package.

My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an indication of how many tens of billions of pounds have been put into the coal, car and steel industries in recent years? Does the Minister agree that none of that money has been successful in reversing the trend?

My Lords, I do not believe that I can give the figure that the noble Lord requests. I agree that as a long-term solution such subsidies do not rectify situations which are due to an uncompetitive position. As I hope I made clear, Corus has had an amazing record in increasing productivity. We very much hope that short-term considerations will not play an overwhelming part in this particular situation.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is the substance and outcome of discussions between the Government and Corus which are important? Can the Minister tell the House about the company's response to the package put together by the National Assembly for Wales, which I believe is supported by the Government, to maintain the current plant configuration? Does the Minister also have a view as to the recent announcement by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to set up a consortium to purchase the plant at Llanwern if the worst comes to the worst?

My Lords, I do not believe that I can go into the details of discussions. However, as I hope that I made clear, there was a package which was subject at least to preliminary consideration. It was made clear by the company that that would not affect the situation that it faced in relation either to plants or jobs and, therefore, that it could not correct that situation.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, while farm incomes in the United Kingdom have been severely depressed by global factors such as world commodity prices and exchange rates, and the aftermath of BSE, the Government have taken a variety of measures to assist farmers financially. Since 1997 we have injected some £1.2 billion into the sector to provide agrimonetary compensation, assistance to hill farmers and offset SRM inspection and cattle passport charges. This supplements the £3 billion paid annually in direct CAP payments.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I declare an interest as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. Does the Minister agree that despite all of that there is still no sign of a "positive improvement in the financial position of farmers"? Does the noble Baroness recall the observation of the chairman of the Hills Task Force last week in the West Country that there remain a number of barriers to farmers who cannot find their way through the system? Is not the first task of MAFF to try to make all the new green schemes (for want of a better expression) more easily comprehensible to the ordinary farmer and see the money allocated to them more quickly?

My Lords, I have sympathy with the point raised by the noble Lord, although there are some sectors of the industry, particularly pigs and to a lesser extent poultry, where there are signs of an upturn. Overall, the industry has had a terrible time over the past few years. However, the very substantial individual grants and assistance provided by the Government, particularly agrimonetary compensation, have helped the financial position of individual farmers. As to the availability of straightforward information about schemes under the rural development plan, for example, assistance to those who seek to diversify, or advice to small farmers, all those matters are in hand and we shall continue to take them forward.

My Lords, will the Minister do her best to ensure that there is an end to stop and go in the assistance given to farmers who convert to organic methods? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind that more than half the organic food consumed in this country is imported and that conversion normally means a reduction in total production?

My Lords, we have put a considerable sum of money into support for organic farming in recognition of its environmental benefits to the country. That sector has expanded. For example, in 1996–97 support for organic farming amounted to about £374,000 a year. This year we plan to spend £18 million on organic farming, which is 50 times as much as before. That steady expansion will continue under the ERDP.

My Lords, can my noble friend say more about the Government's rural development programme and the likely future financial benefits which will flow to farmers?

My Lords, we put great emphasis on the rural development programme. We have an ambitious programme that involves expenditure of £1.6 billion over the next seven years. That allows us significantly to expand existing schemes and introduce new measures to aid rural enterprise, vocational training, processing and marketing, and energy crops. All of that allows the industry to be sustainably redirected in future. One of the sadnesses is that the historic underspend on agri-environmental and rural development measures is responsible for the very low allocation of EU funds to this particular budget.

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that pig farmers are likely to lose £26 million unless it is claimed under the outgoers and ongoers scheme by the end of March? Further, will the Government ensure that the necessary legislation is passed in time to claim that sum and that it is used in advance of the pig levy scheme to compensate pig farmers whose livelihoods have been affected by swine fever or related restrictions?

My Lords, two different issues have to be separated. One is the implementation of the levy that will add 25 per cent, 25 pence in every pound—the industry levy—for those who are affected by swine fever. The MLC has finished its consultation. We have every intention of taking that matter forward quickly. The other is the pig industry restructuring scheme, announced in the action plans for farming. It has taken much longer than we wanted to get EU approval. However, the outgoers element was open for applications on 4th December last year and the ongoers element was opened on 22nd January 2001. We have £40 million available for the scheme in the next two financial years. We are determined to ensure that the scheme achieves its objective.

My Lords, are the Government considering a pension scheme for the many small farmers who will go out of business? I have in mind a bond scheme—a bond issued for a certain number of years which can be cashed by the farmer. And what are the Government prepared to do to help the marketing organisations improve their position against the buying power of the supermarkets and others? It is important that the marketing position is improved to the level of, say, that in Denmark.

My Lords, there is a difference between bond schemes for people who are going out of an industry and pension schemes per se and, indeed, the outgoers scheme in the pig industry restructuring scheme where, obviously, the financial consequences have to be considered. As to marketing, one of the main thrusts of policy with Nick Brown as Minister of Agriculture has been to try to join up the food chain in particular sectors and to recognise the impact on producers right through the chain to retailers. As the noble Lord will be well aware, because I know of the close interest he takes in milk-related issues, we have set up the Milk Task Force as part of the Government's action plan, which includes representatives of producers, purchasers, processors and retailers. That will report at the end of March.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the commission has now submitted to the Secretary of State for International Development its report which she requested, which is a review of the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan and its contribution to international development. This makes a number of recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the CSFP and enhancing its contribution to development. The Secretary of State will be meeting shortly with the chairman of the CSC to discuss these findings and their implementation.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent report of the United Kingdom Scholarship Commission, which was submitted to the Commonwealth Education Ministers in Canada, provides dramatic factual evidence of how many of those who received United Kingdom Commonwealth scholarships have gone on to take up leading positions in their own countries? To use the department's phrase, "Many of them have become trainers of trainers in their own country". Will the Government therefore explore positively how we can build on this British success story and adapt the scholarship scheme to meet the needs of the modern Commonwealth?

My Lords, a report on the CSFP was discussed by Commonwealth Education Ministers at their triennial conference in Halifax. They made a number of proposals to change the administration of the scheme which were designed, for example, to raise the profile of the plan to increase the number of participating countries; to expand its flexibility; to improve communication and overall co-ordination; and, in particular, to strengthen partnerships in the nomination and selection of candidates. The DfID's review of the scheme has come up with a number of recommendations which dovetail with that. We shall be looking at those recommendations. Obviously the Secretary of State's meeting with the chairman of CSC will be important in that respect. We will then come forward with recommendations as to how we can ensure that the scheme dovetails with our development objective.

I agree with the noble Lord as regards the substantial impact that the scholarships have had. It is pleasing to know that 95 per cent of participants from developing countries continue to work in those countries after the scholarship has been completed.

My Lords, will the Minister join me in welcoming the steps taken by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in recent years to promote genuinely shared provision between UK universities and those from developing countries. Does she agree that measures such as split-site qualifications have immense potential to raise long-term capacity in recipient countries as well as benefiting the individual scholars?

My Lords, we agree that some of the developments—for example, split-site qualifications—have been very successful. Some of the review's recommendations will go further down that road. We are looking to develop the long-term capacity and skills of students from developing countries so that they can make a contribution to the development of their own countries, either when they return to those countries or through the process of split-site education.

My Lords, can the Minister think of any way of assisting potential scholars in countries where there is no freedom of expression, bearing in mind that in the past the CSFP was based on the principle that nominations come only from governments? Will the Government consider the possibility that nominations could be made by qualified NGOs of suitable recipients in countries such as Zimbabwe where there is a lack of freedom of expression?

My Lords, that is a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised with me in November last year. It is true that at present national agencies in each Commonwealth country are responsible for submitting nominations. So candidates who are, for example, persona non grata in their own country are unlikely to be nominated. In the review of the scheme we are considering, in consultation with the Hugh Pilkington Charitable Trust, whether changes should be made to address that problem.

The noble Lord talked in particular about NGOs. A limited number of applications from DfID local offices, local NGOs and agencies working with groups such as refugees could possibly be submitted directly to the CSC in London. We are currently looking at that possibility.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that education and learning are the hoops which bind our commonwealth together and give it more power and influence in the global context? Does she recall that when her government came to office one of the big upgrades in the Foreign and Commonwealth Mission Statement was that the Commonwealth would have much more prominence? Yet it seems that the numbers in the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan are shrinking. Can she tell us when, in line with government rhetoric and declarations, that will be reversed and we shall see more people involved under the scheme?

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord is not aware that the UK is the largest contributor to CSFP. We have provided two-thirds of total awards under the scheme over the past three years. The noble Lord will recall that DfID has prioritised the whole area of basic education because of our commitment to meeting the universal primary education target. In the past three years we have spent £500 million in developing countries on promoting universal primary education. So the Government have certainly put their money where their mouth is.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, where a school nurse provides emergency contraception she works within the same legal framework and government guidance as other health professionals providing contraception to under-16s. They must always encourage the young person to involve her parents, but the nurses' professional code states that, if the girl refuses, confidentiality must be maintained unless there are serious child protection issues.

My Lords, can the Minister say how many school nurses are available to the 4,000 secondary schools on a daily basis? Does he not agree that parents can be made responsible for misdemeanours of their children in school and yet do not have the right—I believe that is the import of the Minister's answer—to know when medication is being given to their children aged between 11 and 15 years. Does the Minister agree with that?

My Lords, I do not have figures for the number of school nurses. I will find out if they are available and let the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, know. Certainly, nurses play a very important role. I believe that in relation to sex education they can play an invaluable role in advising young people.

No school would introduce such a scheme without full consultation with the parents. Existing government guidance to schools makes this clear. The guidance for health professionals issuing contraception to girls under 16 makes clear that they must, first, encourage the young person to involve her parents. At the end of the day, if that young person is not willing for the matter to be discussed with her parents then the health professional has to use his or her own judgment. Surely, that is the most appropriate way forward if young girls are to be encouraged to come forward to speak to nurses about these issues.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Family Law Reform Act states very clearly that consent given by a young person of 16 is as valid as if given by an individual of full age? Further, does he agree that during my term of office on the General Medical Council in the 1980s that council agonised over this issue following the Gillick judgment? Eventually the council came to the conclusion that if a doctor were consulted by a young person under 16 about issues relating to contraception then it was the doctor's duty to try to persuade—particularly a young girl—to consult her parents about that matter. If that young girl adamantly refused to do so it was the doctor's duty to preserve her confidentiality even if he did then prescribe for her. Does the noble Lord agree that that applies equally to school nurses?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, puts the matter accurately and effectively. The point I make is that the advice that school nurses and other health professionals can give to young people can often encourage the young people to have the confidence to go and talk to their parents. That is what we would all wish to happen. If that young person is not prepared to do so the school nurse and other health professionals cannot turn that person away. They have to use their professional judgment.

My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. Can the Minister confirm that the guidance issued to schools is entirely in line with the Gillick case decided in 1985, that the Government see good sense in that case and have no intention to change it?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The circumstances that he mentions go back to the Gillick judgment and the Fraser guidelines, as they have been called. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Government have no intention of making any changes.

My Lords, did the Minister in his speech winding up the debate last night imply—when suggesting it did not matter whether chemists could judge accurately whether a girl asking for the pill was 16 or not because doctors gave contraceptive devices to girls under that age—that the Government intend shortly to abolish the age of consent or lower the age of 16?

My Lords, it is some hours since we had that debate. I do not recall making any such remarks. I made it clear that the minimum guidelines laid down by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society have to be followed by pharmacists in exercising their judgment in relation to the sale of emergency contraceptives to women of the age of 16 and over. Pharmacists who are in breach of those guidelines are subject to the disciplinary procedures of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. I fail to see how the noble Baroness could possibly take from what I said any intent to change the law on the age of consent.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Alder Hey inquiry report.

I take this opportunity to confirm that this evening's Unstarred Question will take place during the dinner break. I understand that the white edition of the Notices and Orders of the Day contains a printing error that may have led some noble Lords to believe that it would be taken at the end of business. It will be taken in the dinner break in the usual way.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1. line 7, leave out ("Industry") and insert ("Activities").

Perhaps I may add a few brief words of encouragement to my noble friend in respect of his incisive amendment. Clearly, this is a way to illustrate the fact that the Bill has a wider application than merely to those who work full-time in the private security business. A number of other people will be affected. The arguments put forward so convincingly by my noble friend also apply to a later amendment relating to the Long Title of the Bill. The Long Title states:

"Make provision for the regulation of the private security industry".

However, the Bill goes wider than that. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to my noble friend's suggestion on that issue.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the clarity of his explanation of what he described as a very modest amendment and one which he thought would not be too intellectually taxing. That probably means that I can cope with it.

The noble Lord is right to say that a diverse range of security activities are undertaken by the private sector, some of which are regulated under the provisions of the Bill. But the umbrella term "industry" is well-used and widely accepted and is probably the term that is best understood. For example, it is used by both the main trade associations—the British Security Industry Association and the Joint Security Industry Council. It is also the case that during the consideration of the Bill and in the discussions that have taken place inside and outside the House the notion of it being called the security industry authority has become widely known and probably widely accepted as the most likely and perhaps most useful title for that agency.

I do not believe that we should accept the amendment, although I can see that there might be a desire to try to think up another term. What we have proposed satisfies most people. It is certainly the clearest and most easily understood term. Therefore, at this stage, I do not think there is any useful purpose to be served by accepting the amendment. I certainly did not find anything particularly persuasive in what he said, although I thought that it was an interesting set of observations.

I have another concern about the noble Lord's suggestion. The insertion of the word "activities" may give a false impression that the regulatory body will cover something wider than the private security industry. Some might even see it as covering the Security Services. That would give a very false and misleading impression.

For all those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment. I urge the noble Lord to reconsider his position and withdraw the amendment.

I certainly would not wish to give a false impression, particularly not with regard to the Security Services. At the same time, it seemed to me that the Title of the Bill gives a false impression in another direction. However, I do not think that it is a significant enough matter to pursue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page I, line 12, after ("of') insert ("people employed wholly or predominately as").

My noble friend has tabled a bevy of amendments, all of which are designed to achieve much the same aim. A great deal of harmony exists between the parties on this Bill. At Second Reading, the Minister went to some lengths to reassure the House that that he, too, did not wish to see the legislation and, to an extent, the authority brought into disrepute by having to impose considerable burdens on those for whom security duties were merely incidental to their primary activity. We have taken careful note of those assurances.

Given that, the Minister will need to put forward a strong and convincing case to explain why such groups will not be affected by the Bill. The amendments tabled by my noble friend seek to make the position much clearer.

I am grateful to both noble Viscounts for their contributions to these amendments and for the clarity with which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, moved his amendment. His concluding comments summarised his position; namely, that we need to strike a balance between proper regulation and the need to avoid over-regulation. That probably forms the parameter of this debate and I accept the point. I hope that I cart offer the reassurances sought by the noble Viscount. Perhaps I may address each of the amendments in turn.

As regards Amendment No. 2, we feel that other relevant provisions already contained in the Bill as currently drafted already take into account the level of activity which a security operative would have to undertake before a licence was required. Definitions of the activities which will require a licence are carefully listed in Schedule 2. They provide for the exemption of a number of different employment categories. Exemptions are also provided for those who carry out security activities incidentally to their main employment. There is no question that the authority would wish to impose the licensing regime on individuals who do not have significant security-related duties. We believe that the Bill as drafted will work effectively to cover that point.

I turn now to Amendment No. 9. Here again the Bill already takes account of the aim of this amendment, which seeks to exclude from regulation those individuals whose security-related activities are incidental to their main employment. Again, those are listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill. We have no desire to make the regime inflexible and unworkable and to that end we believe that the current drafting works well.

As regards Amendment No. 10, we believe that the Bill already takes into account the main objective of the amendment and that we are on common ground here. We feel that a significant measure of flexibility has already been built in to respond to this point.

A similar argument could be put forward as regards Amendment No. 11. For regulation to be effective, we think that it is important that those who own or operate companies need to be held accountable. If this amendment were to be pressed, it would exclude directors and partners who do not themselves directly carry out the designated activities. We think that that would shoot a hole through the import of the Bill. Evidence has been gathered of companies which have been established by individuals who have criminal records, some with convictions for violence and drugs offences. Although they themselves may not be directly involved in the provision of security services, I cannot believe that the noble Viscount would wish to exclude such people from the remit of the Bill. It is vital that these individuals should be weeded out of the industry and prevented from establishing themselves in it in the future.

We consider that the licensing of directors and partners will form a fundamental part of the effective regulation of the industry. Licensing will apply to directors and partners not directly engaged in the activities of a security operative but who are directly responsible for the company or those carrying out such activities.

As the Bill stands, the security industry authority will be able to identify and remove criminality at any level within an organisation. This will be a major benefit both for the industry as a whole and for the public. Furthermore, I am sure that noble Lords opposite will be aware that the licensing proposals have been welcomed by the industry. For those reasons, I shall not be able to accept Amendment No. 11.

I turn now to Amendment No. 12. Schedule 2 defines the activities of security operatives which are subject to regulation by the Bill. Paragraph 1(1) of the schedule makes it clear that the activities referred to are those undertaken by "a security operative". The relationship between Clause 3 and Schedule 2 is made explicit by Clause 3(4). That subsection confirms that Schedule 2 defines the activities that are also to be treated as security operations for the purposes of the Bill. Thus the addition of a further reference to Schedule 2 within the text of Clause 3, as proposed in this amendment, is entirely unnecessary. I hope that, with this explanation being put on to the record, noble Lords will feel able to agree to withdraw the amendment.

Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 46. Paragraph 2(5) provides an important clarificatory exemption from the need for a licence as a manned guard. Similarly, important exemptions are made in paragraphs 2(4) and (6). These provisions are designed to ensure that the definition of "manned guarding" used in paragraph 2(1) does not inadvertently take into regulation activities which have nothing to do with the private security industry.

An example of where the exemption in paragraph 2(5) would apply is the teaching profession. Teachers maintain order and discipline but clearly are not part of the private security industry. Without the text which this amendment seeks to delete, it will be less unambiguously clear that teachers—and perhaps people leading holiday expeditions—are not covered by the provisions of Schedule 2. It is important that readers of the Bill should have the minimum possible doubts as regards which activities are included within its scope. I am afraid that this amendment would increase uncertainty and for that reason I am not able to accept it.

I hope that these explanations will persuade the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.

I should like to return to Clause 3(2)(f) which Amendment No. 11 seeks to delete. This states that,

"a director of any body corporate … engages in licensable conduct",

if any of his fellow directors do so under the provisions of paragraphs (a) to (e). A large engineering firm, for example, may hire a private security firm to man the gates and to provide manned guarding at night. That activity is covered by the Bill and would require a licence. Given that, the personnel director or manager in charge of security for the engineering firm as a whole would also require a licence. Under paragraph (d), he will be acting as the supervisor to those engaged in a relevant activity. The guard may belong to Securicor, but the manager is responsible for him as regards his work at the engineering company. For that reason, the manager or the personnel director would also require a licence simply because he is responsible for making sure that the security industry firm does its job. That means that, under paragraph (f), every director of the engineering firm must have a licence.

This appears to apply to just about every company quoted on the stock exchange, and many that are not, because there is a kind of escalation. The guards may be employed by Securicor, Group 4, Reliance, any one of the large firms. The engineering firm—though it could be anything: a chemical firm or whatever—supervising those people is definitely caught under paragraph (d). Therefore, under paragraph (f) every other director of virtually every firm will require a licence. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend, but it seems to me, reading these paragraphs together, that that is how everybody will be caught.

This matter has caused concern in industries across a wide range of activities. For example, the cinema industry has expressed concerns very similar to those expressed by my noble friend, Lord Cope of Berkeley, in connection with paragraph (d). I understand—the noble Lord the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the industry is exempt from some other provisions of the Bill in the day-to-day conduct of its business. But if a cinema company brings in security guards for a premiere, or some other special event, there will be a burden on the person within that cinema company who contracts with the security company in that that person will need to be licensed. This would be a very good opportunity for the Minister to clarify his understanding of the implication of paragraph (d). Basically, the question is this: does it mean that any company that hires a security company must itself be licensed?

I am grateful to noble Lords for their further clarification of the amendment. Perhaps to say that we are at cross-purposes would be to use the wrong term, but there may well be a misreading of the clause, because it is certainly not our intention that the personnel director of the engineering company in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, would have management responsibility for the security staff at the gates of the company's premises, nor that that director would need to be licensed. We are talking about the management of the security company itself, not of the engineering company that is contracting those working for that company.

I hope that that clarifies the point. I shall be more than happy to provide further chapter and verse in correspondence if noble Lords wish, but I hope that I have dealt with the point clearly.

The Minister has dealt with Amendment No. 11 to a degree. What he is saying, as I understand it, is that anybody who uses a firm will not be covered by the provision; it is only in the firm doing the security work that the director is covered. That is fine as far as it goes, but some very large companies contain individual companies—wholly owned, associated or whatever—that have contracts between themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for there to be large organisations that in certain circumstances carry out security work in a plant that they perhaps do not wholly own. Whatever the reason, it seems in principle that if they could be covered it must make sense for liability to attach only to those who are, as it were, licensed people themselves. Paragraph (f) seems to extend the responsibility to those who will not be licensed by the new authority. That seems wrong in principle.

I accept the principle that if one is involved in the security industry and is a licensed person, whether an individual, a partner or a director of a company, one should be responsible, and that that licensed person must be the responsible person. But it seems wrong to extend that responsibility perhaps even to a non-executive director of a security firm and make him or her responsible for the activities of the managing director or someone else in charge. That is in fact what the Bill does, and it is a step too far.

I hope that the Minister will consider the matter, because we shall want to return to it at a later stage. I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention to extend that responsibility further than necessary, bringing in a whole class of people. I am all for making those who come within the orbit of the security industry authority become licensed, making them responsible in a corporate, individual and partnership way, but there must be some ring-fencing or the matter will become very difficult.

I do not find much on which to disagree with the Minister as regards my earlier amendments. As he said, it is very much a matter of how the new authority will work. The more I listened to what he said—and I shall read it carefully in Hansard—the more I realised that we shall have to examine Schedule 2 more carefully, and perhaps look to add detail there. The schedule can be changed by the Secretary of State by order. Therefore, it can be changed in any direction, in effect depending on the Secretary of State of the day. We shall want to make sure that Clause 1 says what it means to say and what the Government mean it to say. There is a tendency in the passage of legislation for the Government to say "This is what we think the Bill says. If we have got it wrong, we shall change it by order later". We should like to try to avoid that and get Clauses 1 and 3 right before the Bill leaves the House.

I am grateful to the Minister for his answers. We shall return to this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 19, after ("engaged") insert ("or suspected of being engaged").

As I understand it, the amendment seeks to extend the authority's inspection function to those suspected of being engaged in licensable conduct. It seems to me to be a novel device for expanding the remit of the security industry authority.

We take the view that the security industry authority already has more than enough powers and teeth to enable it to carry out its inspection function using the provisions contained in Clause 18. After all, these powers would allow a person authorised by the authority to enter premises and to carry out inspections of the documents of any person appearing to be a regulated person. I suppose that "appearing" in these terms could be construed as being in some way similar to "suspected". This refers, broadly, to someone who has, or the authority believes ought to have, a licence. We consider the powers to be sufficient for the effective enforcement of the licensing system. For those reasons we do not think that the amendment is needed.

The White Paper looked at this question and suggested a low estimate in terms of numbers. We do not want to see a massive inspectorate but one which is proportionate to the size of the problem. In constructing the inspectorate we shall, of course, talk very carefully with the private security industry. If we were to expand the remit of the authority in the way suggested by the noble Lord's amendment, we would push those numbers up. As the authority will be financed through fees collected, that would tend to lead to an excessive burden on the industry. That is not what we want. We need to keep the numbers in proportion.

We expect the number of inspectors to be at the lower end of the range. I cannot be precise on numbers today. However, I undertake to take the matter away and do more research. Obviously, in constructing the size of the inspectorate, we shall consult carefully with the industry. In the light of those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I am not sure whether the Minister was hinting that if my amendment was rewritten to say something like "persons appearing to be engaged in licensable conduct" it would be more acceptable. I am not trying to hold out any particular credit for the drafting used in my amendment as opposed to other drafting, but the Minister's words seem to indicate the difference between Clause 18, which allows powers of entry to premises owned or occupied by any person appearing to be a regulated person, and Clause 1 where it is only persons engaged in licensable conduct who are to be inspected. There appears to be a difference between the two clauses, the difference hinted at in my amendment. We may try again with different drafting to see if we can bring this matter into line. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, I wish to make a statement about the inquiry into events at Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool.

"I am today publishing the report of the inquiry into the Royal Liverpool Childrens NHS Trust, known as the Alder Hey Hospital. I am publishing alongside it two further documents: first, the Chief Medical Officer's census into the extent of organ retention in the NHS in England; secondly, the Chief Medical Officer's recommendations for reform of organ retention procedures. All three documents are now available in the Vote Office.

"I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your agreement that the parents affected at Alder Hey should also have access to copies of the report.

"I should like to record my thanks to the chairman of the Alder Hey inquiry, Mr Michael Redfern, QC, and his fellow panel members, Dr Jean Keeling and Mrs Elizabeth Powell, for conducting this difficult inquiry.

"The inquiry was established in December 1999 following evidence to the Bristol inquiry that a large number of hearts from deceased children had been retained at hospitals in the NHS.

"Alder Hey was one such hospital. It is a world-renowned hospital, treating 200,000 children a year. For many years, the hospital has made use of human hearts for research and teaching. The Redfern report says that,

'there are now more than 1,600 living children who would have died in infancy or childhood without the improvements in surgical techniques and care which were pioneered in Liverpool'.

"But as the inquiry report makes perfectly clear, many of these hearts were obtained without consent. According to the report, in addition to over 2,000 children's hearts, there are large numbers of brain parts, eyes taken from foetuses, over 1,500 stillbirths or foetuses and, perhaps most disturbingly of all, a number of children's heads and bodies.

"The Redfern report reveals,

'a lack of respect and a failure to appreciate the circumstances which led to the taking of human material'.

For example, the report cites entries about foetal material labelled with the words:'neck deeply lacerated. Pull it to pieces sometime and reject'.

"Some of these entries date back many years. The number of organs retained by Alder Hey increased dramatically in the seven years following the appointment by the hospital and the University of Liverpool of Professor van Velzen in 1988. He was appointed as chair of foetal and infant pathology in the department of pathology.

"During van Velzen's time at Alder Hey between 1988 and 1995, he systematically ordered the unethical and illegal stripping of every organ from every child who had had a post-mortem. He ignored parents' wishes, even when they told him explicitly that they did not want a full post-mortem, let alone the retention of any of their child's organs.

"According to the report, van Velzen lied to parents; he lied to other doctors; he lied to hospital managers; he stole medical records; he falsified statistics and reports; and he encouraged other staff to do the same.

"For any parent the death of their child is a tragedy. To bury that child, to grieve, to hold precious their memory over the years is how many families gradually come to terms with their loss. It is hard to imagine the trauma and anguish which each of the Alder Hey parents faced when, many years later, they discovered that their child's body had not been buried intact as they believed but had been stripped of its entire internal organs, leaving the body as a shell.

"This happened not to one set of parents in Liverpool but to several hundred. The hospital and the university now admit that they will never be able accurately to tell parents what happened to every organ of every child between 1988 and 1995.

"What we do now know is that the vast majority of organs which were taken were never used for medical research. Parents cannot even take comfort in the knowledge that their children's organs were used to help other children. It is clear from the report that the understanding of cot death—for which Professor van Velzen was funded—was not advanced one iota by his practice of stripping of organs from children.

"The question in the minds of parents and of others is how van Velzen got away with it for so long. The answer is that the hospital authorities and the University of Liverpool failed to monitor his practices and failed to take action to stop them. Numerous complaints were made. Problems were not properly investigated. Action was not taken.

"These failures were compounded by the incompetence and insensitivity of both the hospital and university authorities once the truth did begin to emerge. The hospital seemed overwhelmed by events; the university simply turned its back on parents. Some parents faced up to four funerals as different organs from their children were returned to them at different times. The pain caused to the parents by this dreadful sequence of events is unforgivable. I am deeply sorry for the wrong that was done to them, their families and their children. Those who did wrong will now be held to account.

"The inquiry report says that Professor van Velzen must never be allowed to practise again in this country. I can tell the House today that he has been referred to the General Medical Council for disciplinary action. I understand that he has been summoned to appear before the GMC later this week. I can also tell the House that the inquiry report has been referred to the Merseyside police and passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. They will determine whether criminal prosecutions should now proceed.

"Four NHS staff—including the current chief executive of the trust—have today been suspended. Their employers will now consider appropriate disciplinary action. The role of other NHS staff will be examined by their employers. The doctors criticised in the report have been referred to the General Medical Council. Other staff have been referred to the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine.

"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked the president of the council of the University of Liverpool to review the evidence in the report and to take appropriate disciplinary action. The current acting chair of the trust board is today leaving the trust, along with two non-executive directors whose resignations I have today accepted. I have today appointed Angela Jones as the new chair. It is right that the trust should have a fresh start.

"Alder Hey Hospital relies on its dedicated staff. They have been as shocked, as we all are, by these events. I want to thank those staff today who, through these difficult times, have continued to provide treatment and care for children from Liverpool and elsewhere. The action I have taken today should assist those staff to re-establish the hospital's relationship with the community it serves. I am confident that Alder Hey can recover and rebuild its reputation as a leading national and international centre for specialist paediatric care.

"What the report describes as 'the exceptional practice of van Velzen' between 1988 and 1995 made Alder Hey unique. But elsewhere in the NHS it is clear that organ retention without relatives' full knowledge and agreement was widespread. The recent national summit on organ retention organised by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, confirmed that this was also the experience of parents in many other parts of the country.

"professor Donaldson's census shows that 105,000 organs are retained across the country. Poor standards of cataloguing and record-keeping mean that these figures may not be wholly accurate. Twenty-five thousand hospitals account for 88 per cent of the organs. At least 16,500 of these organs and tissues have been retained in apparent contravention of the law because they came about as a result of coroners' post-mortems where the organs should not have been kept beyond the time needed to establish cause of death. As at Alder Hey and Bristol, the coroner's system across the country has proved ineffective in this respect. The current law and post-mortem consent forms are both ambiguous. They talk of taking tissues when in fact they often mean taking organs. They record 'lack of objection' rather than positive consent.

"In the last four years the Government have made an unprecedented effort to better protect patients. The changes we have already introduced and the reforms that are still to come enjoy widespread support among both patients and doctors. The NHS is full of good doctors, not bad ones. Our reforms are aimed at supporting them to become even better: a new statutory duty of quality on every NHS trust; independent inspection through the Commission for Health Improvement; annual appraisal of doctors linked to period revalidation; reform to self-regulation to make it faster, more open and more accountable.

"Now we need to go further. The CMO census, the consultation we have had with parents and the medical profession and the reports from Bristol and Alder Hey have formed the basis for Professor Donaldson's recommendations for reform. I am accepting them in full. The major proposals are as follows.

"First, I am establishing a special commission under the chairmanship of Margot Brazier, Professor of Law at Manchester University, to oversee the return of organs and tissues from around the country to their families should they wish to have them. We have made sure that parents seeking more information today can obtain it by contacting the NHS Direct telephone helpline.

"Secondly, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has set in train a review of the coroner's system so that we can learn the lessons of what went wrong at Alder Hey and elsewhere.

"Thirdly, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will establish a review of the accountability and management arrangements between NHS trusts and universities where senior staff are employed on joint contracts.

"Fourthly, we will ensure that all NHS trusts provide support and advice to families at the time of bereavement. I expect this to be in place throughout the NHS later this year.

"Finally, the law will be changed to enshrine the concept of informed consent. The existing law in this area has become outdated. The 1961 Human Tissue Act does not even contain penalties for breaches of its provisions. The law has ill served bereaved parents in our country. It causes confusion for staff. It must now be changed.

"I will bring forward measures urgently to amend the Act to clarify that informed consent must be given, that organs and tissues must be specified and to make it a criminal offence to ignore informed consent. We will also undertake a wider review of existing laws on all aspects of taking, storing and using tissue and organs from both the living and the dead. When the review is completed we will seek to legislate to bring in the necessary changes.

"These changes in the law will be supported by a new statutory code of practice which will be issued to the NHS. It will cover the issue of organs being used by the pharmaceutical industry. The code of practice will be accompanied by a new standardised consent form which will be introduced throughout the NHS.

"There is one other important point. Informed consent need not be at the expense of medical research. Proper post-mortem procedures and archived tissues and organs hold the key to much medical advance—discovering the effects and causes of disease, finding cures for illnesses that disable or kill. But retaining public confidence in these procedures requires public consent. Members of the medical profession share this view. Indeed, it is reflected in recent guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists. When I met families from Alder Hey, from Bristol and elsewhere, many told me that had they been asked properly, they would have been only too willing to allow their child's death to help another child live.

"Doctors and pathologists have an incredibly difficult job to do. They have usually acted with the best of intentions: to bring about greater understanding of disease and to improve standards of care—and to do so in a way that avoids causing further anguish to grieving families.

"These are laudable aims. They are honourable intentions. But as the events at Alder Hey have proven, modern patient expectations and traditional clinical practices have grown apart. The NHS can no longer assume that the benefits of science, medicine or research are somehow self-evident regardless of the wishes of patients or their families. The relationship between patients and the service today has to be based on informed consent. That will require changes in practice and changes in policy. It will require changes in medical education. As I have made clear today, it will also require changes to the law.

"The parents I have met from Alder Hey and elsewhere have acted with great dignity and purpose. I pay tribute to them today. I hope that the reforms we will now make will provide some comfort for the pain they have endured. I commend the reforms to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. We on these Benches accept that this is a balanced Statement which accurately and broadly covers the issues raised by the inquiry, even though it does make for very harrowing reading. We further agree that the NHS is staffed primarily by good doctors, rather than the type of bad doctor exemplified in this Statement.

The situation at Alder Hey and elsewhere is troublesome. We on these Benches extend our deepest sympathy to the families involved. People will be rightly shocked by the revelations emanating from Alder Hey that the NHS has sold retained body parts without the knowledge and consent of parents or families. It is a disgraceful situation and one that rides roughshod over the dignity and respect that should be accorded to families in extremely distressing personal situations. However, we must keep the matter in perspective and resist the temptation to over-react.

There are two clear issues. The first concerns the activities of one specific professor who consistently lied and broke the law in an otherwise outstanding hospital. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether Professor van Velzen is being investigated elsewhere, or indeed in another country. The second issue is a more general one—that of how to approach the retention and use of tissue and organs. The retention of certain body tissue is critical to medical research and must continue. Other patients can and do benefit from the use of otherwise discarded tissue. To ensure the continuance of medical research, we need adequate mechanisms for the giving of consent.

The Statement by the Secretary of State mentioned that the law will be changed to enshrine the principle of informed consent. We on these Benches have offered to incorporate that principle into the Health and Social Care Bill, currently being debated in the other place. From a personal point of view—and I can speak from the heart on this, as I have suffered the terrible tragedy of losing a very young baby—I would have been prepared to allow tissue to be used for medical purposes in order to help others, provided that the pros and cons were properly and sympathetically explained. However, that would require us to ensure that parents and families were informed by carefully trained staff, who will hold these discussions in what are certain to be very trying circumstances. The Statement mentioned that all NHS trusts will have in place support mechanisms for families at the time of bereavement. Will the Minister tell the House what those mechanisms will be, what guidelines will be put in place, and when?

We feel that there is a need for the special commission under Professor Margot Brazier to be particularly sensitive when dealing with the return of organs. Some families undoubtedly will wish to have them returned. For others, that would simply reopen painful memories. We ask the Government to pay particular attention to this matter and to ensure that, if multiple organs are to be returned, they are returned at one and the same time, thus avoiding repeated suffering for the families involved.

In conclusion, we welcome the broad thrust of the Statement. It is vital that the Government act to respond to the real concerns raised by the Alder Hey inquiry.

My Lords, I, too, join the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches also very much welcome the Statement. It is a truly appalling story, which seems to illustrate practices of the 18th century taking place in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The Chief Medical Officer's report is, if anything, more shocking than the Redfern report, because it demonstrates that the culture is at fault. The findings in relation to Alder Hey are particularly shocking because of the activities of one man. However, the CMO's survey appears to indicate that the failure to obtain informed consent was part of the culture of organ retention in many hospitals. Alder Hey is not a completely isolated example of the culture. We therefore need a complete culture change in addition to any legislative change. The problem concerns not only the law but also the language.

I was interested to note that in his Statement the Secretary of State illustrated that the word "tissue" is a euphemism. "Tissue" also covers organs. While welcoming the Secretary of State's commitment to changing the provisions of the Human Tissue Act 1961, we hope that any change to the law will explicitly make it clear for what informed consent is being obtained. That is absolutely vital.

Like the Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, we agree that research is important. In the wake of this extremely harrowing report and the CMO's findings, it is important that the Department of Health should carefully consider what steps can be taken to restore public confidence in scientific research. As we have heard, much of the Alder Hey research into heart surgery was extremely important for some of the children involved. I commend the Secretary of State's speech made yesterday to the King's Fund. The benefits of scientific or medical research are not self-evident, but we should not stifle the benefits of scientific inquiry. I do not believe that the public will recognise the benefit of scientific research unless it is clearly seen to be useful. It is therefore for the scientific and medical community to persuade the public of the benefit of that research; and they must be quite open about the nature of the research.

I greatly welcome the indication in the Statement that other steps are planned by the department. I welcome the setting up of the special commission to oversee the return of organs and tissue, and I add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, about the process by which that is to be done. It is quite unacceptable that Alder Hey parents had to hold several funerals for organs returned at different times. A review of the coroner system is well overdue. In view of the joint tenure of many doctors clinically active in hospitals and engaged in university research, accountability and management arrangements between NHS trusts and universities is also an extremely important issue. We welcome the proposal for a statutory code of practice governing the retention of organs. In view of the recent case revealed at Alder Hey, and only today at Great Ormond Street, it is important that the passing over of organs in return for an administration fee (or whatever euphemism may be used) should be covered by such a code.

I have a few questions for the future. The Statement makes it clear that Professor van Velzen will be pursued under the criminal law and by the GMC in relation to his professional practice. However, other clinicians are also involved. A Dr Bouton practised in the same hospital prior to Professor van Velzen. I have no doubt that clinicians in other hospitals have breached the Human Tissue Act and have, to say the least, been cavalier in their treatment of consent. I hope the Minister can assure us that hospital trusts will be encouraged to ensure that those doctors are brought before the GMC to have their records examined.

The requirement for legislative change is all very well, but the key issues concern monitoring, how consents are obtained and how storage is effected. It is extraordinary that the hospital authorities did not raise their eyebrows in relation to the practice of storing these organs. Can the Minister say what arrangements will be made to ensure that such practices are properly organised in future? What compensation will now be offered to some of the affected parents?

Further, will the General Medical Council be drawing up guidelines to ensure that such issues are properly tackled from now on? In particular, what is to become of these collections? As can be observed from the CMO's report, we are talking about major collections. Can we start afresh with some of these issues? For example, even if such organs cannot be identified, do we need to keep such macabre collections of organs in hospitals and universities throughout the country?

Finally, will the Polkinghorne code of 1989, which related to foetal material, now be revamped and incorporated in the guidance on tissues and organs? After all, one of the most scandalous issues relates precisely to foetuses at Alder Hey, which, in a sense—again, it is a use of language—might be excluded from examination if we were purely talking about individual organs.

I accept the statement made by the British Medical Association that it wants to work in partnership with patients in discussing acceptable ways in which organs are used for scientific and medical research. As a result of the appalling events at Alder Hey, and the unacceptable practices discovered in NHS hospitals and universities, I hope that we can use today to make a fresh start.

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking both the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their measured response to the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, the report comprises over 500 pages and makes harrowing reading. He is right: it was a disgraceful situation. Our sympathies are very much with all the parents involved.

I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said—indeed, this was mentioned in the Statement—that, overall, we have very dedicated doctors and other staff within the National Health Service. We need to reflect on that fact when considering the action that now needs to be taken. However, there is no doubt that there has been a significant cultural change in our society over the past 20 or 30 years. What may once have been acceptable practice is no longer so. I believe that many people working in the NHS have failed to realise that that change has taken place. If we are to see good coming out of this report, it will be by way of a change in the overall culture of the health service. We must also strive to make sure that it helps us to change our practices. In turn, that will ensure that the public, parents and relatives are fully aware of what is happening to their loved ones, so that when they are asked to give consent they will do so in the full knowledge of what they are being asked to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked me what action is being taken against Professor van Velzen in other countries. My understanding is that there has been an investigation by the Canadian police, but I have no knowledge of the outcome. As I said when repeating the Statement, the GMC has called a hearing for Friday of this week. In addition, the Redfern report has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Astor, who talked about the benefit of organ retention for research purposes. It is absolutely essential. However, as I said, it can be done only on the basis of informed consent and a proper process whereby parents and relatives can be properly counselled and advised. They must have a full understanding of what it is that they are being asked to do. If we can do that and change the culture of the NHS, I also believe that parents would, if they so wished, give their consent on that basis.

I took note of the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, of the Opposition's help in regard to legislation. No doubt that will have to be discussed in other places. I thank the noble Lord for his suggestion. I can tell him that we shall seek to introduce legislation as soon as possible. That is certainly so in relation to the Human Tissue Act 1961, the core issue of consent, and the issue of sanctions against doctors who do not carry out the provisions of that legislation. One of the problems with the Act at present is the fact that there are no sanctions. As well as the immediate issue of the Human Tissue Act, we shall need to look at legislation in the long term to ascertain whether the whole area of regulation in relation to organs needs to be tightened and considered afresh.

Both noble Lords referred to the position of families as regards the support to be given to them. In particular, they asked what arrangements will be put in place for counselling generally throughout the National Health Service. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that, in terms of compensation, it is up to individual families to decide whether they wish to take legal action. In that event, they would have to establish legal liability. I cannot comment any further in that respect.

I can tell noble Lords that we expect effective counselling and support to be available, both in relation to parents affected by what has happened at Alder Hey Hospital, and in relation to the many other hospitals throughout the NHS with retained organs which are likely to receive inquiries from parents regarding whether any of their children's organs have been retained.

We accept that bereavement advisers should be available in all trusts to explain and/or arrange full clinical explanation of the circumstances of death, the reasons for post-mortem examination and the need for consent to hospital post-mortem and retention of organs. In the interim guidance issued by the Chief Medical Officer in March 1999, we called for a designated person to fulfil that role. I have no doubt that the new commission on organ and tissue retention will follow that through, as will the department, to ensure that that happens. In addition to overseeing the return of tissues and organs from collections around the country, it is worth pointing out that the role of the organ retention commission will be to ensure that suitable counselling is available for families. More importantly, it will act as an advocate for parents if problems arise. Given the sensitive nature of this issue, parents need someone to turn to for help and advice. Above all, while acting as an advocate for parents and handling inquiries from families and the public, the special health authority will have a crucial role to play in that process.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the culture change needed in the NHS. I agree with him and, indeed, have already spoken on that issue. The noble Lord asked how that would be effected. The outcome of the Alder Hey report and the census by the Chief Medical Officer, together with his recommendations, will be very powerful accelerators to that culture change. But the code of practice that will be issued, the change in the law and, I believe, the work of the newly established commission will all have a part to play in that development. I certainly accept the point that the noble Lord made; namely, that we also need effective performance management within the NHS to ensure that that change takes place. In that way we shall restore public confidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is also right to say that we need to do more in the area of public education in terms of research—and not just as a result of what has happened at Alder Hey. More generally, we must encourage greater public confidence in what we seek to do by way of research. Again, the report of the Chief Medical Officer touches on that point.

The noble Lord also referred to the issue of university/trust relationships. One of the most important points in the Redfern report is that Professor van Velzen was not dealt with effectively, despite the fact that poor practices were known about, because of the difficult relationship between the university and the trust concerned. We therefore asked the DfEE to review the issues that arise in relation, in particular, to doctors who have joint contracts with a university and a trust, and it agreed to take the lead in that process. I hope that that review will also examine some wider issues. At the end of the day, we need good, robust relationships between universities and university trusts with regard to teaching, research and further education.

As to disciplinary action, I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we have indeed referred several of the doctors who are mentioned in the report to the General Medical Council. We have also referred two medical laboratory scientists to the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. Several other people who are named in the report have been referred to their employer's authorities for the consideration of disciplinary action.

We have identified a problem with NHS mangers who move from one trust to another and for whom there is currently no professional regulation. We shall institute discussions with the NHS Confederation, the British Association of Medical Managers and the Institute of Health Services Management to establish whether it is possible to develop codes of practice and of conduct for those managers.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we need to consider the future of collections that are put together by universities and hospitals. We look to the commission on organ and tissue retention to advise us on that matter.

My Lords, for two years from 1990 my then two-year-old daughter was operated on and treated at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool. I put on record my admiration for and gratitude to the staff—the nurses and doctors—for the extraordinary love, care and professionalism they showed during that period. I do not believe that I am alone in saying that; I do so on behalf of the many parents whose children have been treated there over the years. We have watched this unfolding scandal become a tragedy for that fine hospital. It is a tragedy that the actions of predominantly one man have brought the hospital into such disrepute. His actions destroyed the reputation of a fine hospital and caused immense grief to parents who had already suffered the pain of bereavement.

I want to put four brief points to the Minister whose Statement to the House this afternoon I welcome. The first concerns the legislative changes that he announced today. Will the Government make it a criminal offence to possess and use any or all human material without consent? Secondly, will he reiterate the importance of the family and its protection, especially at times of sorrow and bereavement?

Thirdly, I turn to the desirability that the Minister and others rightly expressed about the use of organs in circumstances in which consent has been gained. Does he agree that even when written consent was obtained at Alder Hey Hospital, in most if not all cases the retention of tissues and organs was not fully and properly explained? Parents were not told what material would be retained; in particular, as the Minister said, they were not told that whole organs would be kept by the hospital. The word "tissue" was not explained, so that even those who read the consent form would not know that "tissue" could comprise major organs. Parents were not told how retained material would be used or for how long it would be retained.

Finally, following the revelation of the sale of glands of living children, which has already been referred to, will the Minister review the way in which commercial arrangements are entered into and the possibility that such considerations have been allowed to overshadow the high sense of idealism, ethics and humanity that should characterise the medical profession?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for making those important points. Yes, the problems at Alder Hey Hospital are very much focused on one man. Although the system clearly had several failings, which added to the awful impact of what Professor van Velzen did, there is no doubting the fact that he is, by a very long way, the most culpable person in this sorry affair.

I agree with the noble Lord that Alder Hey Hospital has for many years had a wonderful reputation, not just in this country but throughout the world. Although it is suffering at the moment from enormous criticism and adverse publicity, I still say that its work is first class. It is important for people who work in the hospital to have confidence in it and to believe that it is a fine hospital, as should people from Liverpool and others who come to it from all over the country because it is of such repute and quality. The appointment of a new chair today allows a fresh start to be made. The hospital's reputation must be treasured and supported, and improved in future.

In response to the various questions that the noble Lord asked, the answer is, I think, yes to all of them. We want to ensure that, with regard to legislative changes, a criminal offence will apply to those who break the law. As I explained, the current problem, apart from the obscurity of the Human Tissue Act 1961, is that there are no sanctions against a doctor who breaks the law.

I agree with the noble Lord's comments on the family. The report of the Chief Medical Officer is strong in that regard. If there is to be proper and informed consent, parents and relatives need fully to understand what has happened to their loved ones—they should be told in as sympathetic and supportive a way as possible—why a post-mortem is necessary, and why it may be helpful if certain organs or tissues are retained to help with research and education. If we can do that properly, I am convinced that many parents will give their consent.

The noble Lord was absolutely right to say that that approach was not adopted at Alder Hey Hospital. Even when parents signed a consent form, they did not know what they were signing. The word "tissue" does not convey to many people the concept of an organ of the body. Indeed, until I became involved in this issue, I thought that "tissue" meant a bit of skin and that it could not refer to the heart or another organ of the body. Parents did not understand what they were signing. In addition, it is clear that parents were asked to sign a form without any explanation. That is the key lesson that we need to learn.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the great triumphs in the field of public health in this country in the 20th century was the massive drop in infant and child mortality rates? The earlier higher rate was caused by disease and defects. The horrific report and the work carried out at Alder Hey Hospital and Great Ormond Street Hospital have to be seen against that background.

I return to the question that my noble friend asked about culture. The general public are concerned not so much about one doctor as about the desensitising of medicine, especially among senior researchers. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans referred to as the proper respect for human dignity is part of the culture of medical and nursing training? That is an important part of putting right the problem.

The Minister referred to the fact that a number of firmer codes of practice are being put in place. However, the medical profession is notoriously hierarchical. Can the noble Lord assure the House that within the health service protection exists for whistle-blowers? That protection is also a guarantee against mavericks who try to ignore codes of practice.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising those points. I accept the point that he made about the importance of research. Indeed, in the Statement I referred to the enormous impact which the research at Alder Hey Hospital has had on the saving of many lives. We need to reflect on that.

However, the extraordinary and disturbing point about the Redfern report is that, although the practice during the van Velzen years was to retain organs from every child after a post-mortem, virtually no research of any value was carried out during that period. Therefore, parents and relatives did not even have the comfort of believing that at least the organ retention served some purpose. That is a stark and disturbing fact.

The noble Lord then went on to ask how we change the culture and ensure that the code of practice and other initiatives are ingrained in the National Health Service. I am convinced that the medical profession wishes the culture to change. I believe that the Alder Hey case and, indeed, a number of other disturbing cases which have taken place over the past two or three years have come as a profound shock to the profession. From meetings which I have held locally and with the leaders of the profession, I am convinced that the great mass of doctors recognise that they must change. Equally, I recognise that procedures and processes must be put in place to encourage that to happen, and I believe that change will occur in a number of ways.

First, the code of practice will need to be implemented in full by every NHS trust in the country. We shall use our power of direction to ensure that that is the case. That will be backed up by the clinical governance process which will ensure that, just as in the past the boards of trusts have been concerned with financial issues, they must now ascertain corporately that the proper procedures are in place so that clinical decisions are carried out in a framework which ensures effective governance. That process has not been in place before and it is already beginning to bite. Already doctors are approaching trust boards to say that current practices in certain hospitals must change because they are no longer acceptable in safety terms.

In addition, through the new assessment centres which we are setting up, I believe that we have developed a much more robust way of dealing with poorly performing doctors. In the past, culturally the health service has had great difficulty in tackling poorly performing doctors. The new mechanisms that we have established enable us to deal with such a situation in a less confrontational way than in the past and at an earlier stage so that problems can be nipped in the bud. Taking all that into account, I am confident that we can effect the type of change the noble Lord asks for.

My Lords, the Statement and the report sound more like a Frankenstein novel than an actual situation. Our sympathy must go out to the parents who are suffering gravely as a result of the actions at Alder Hey Hospital and elsewhere.

I very much welcome the Government's Statement and the actions that they are to take. Although I understand that they have received criticism, I also welcome some of the statements made by the Secretary of State, particularly in relation to his desire that patients should be treated with respect and consideration. I believe that he is on to a very good point. All too often in the National Health Service patients are treated as supplicants rather than paying patients who, on average, pay £40 per week per family for that service.

We have heard of many scandals in the health service. I have been involved in one or two cases which have occurred, for example, in mixed-sex wards. Such incidents horrify people in all parts of the country. I welcome the new approach of the Secretary of State towards not only this but other matters, too. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that this inquiry will not simply be a flash in the pan but an ongoing examination of how people are treated in the National Health Service and whether they are treated as individuals and not as a mass. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me that assurance.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising those apposite points. I believe that circumstances have arisen in which patients and members of the public have not been shown the proper respect and consideration which are due. My noble friend mentioned mixed-sex wards. I know how much concern that matter has brought to patients—particularly older patients. He will know that we are determined to phase out mixed-sex wards. We have made considerable progress but there is more to do.

I also believe that the National Service Framework for Older People will reflect many of the points that my noble friend has raised. After all, older people are the biggest users of the National Health Service, and it is they who sometimes find that they do not receive the respect and consideration that they deserve. I know that your Lordships have raised the issue of mixed-sex wards and the question of how people should be addressed when they are in hospital. The assumption that people always want to be called by their first name is not necessarily correct. We need to respect how people wish to be treated and addressed.

My noble friend also raised a fundamental question which goes to the heart of the culture and philosophy under which people in the National Health Service work—how the service is led and how people are trained. I believe that we have a massive job to do in turning around that situation. I agree with my noble friend that it cannot be dealt with in a flash-in-the-pan manner. We must ingrain it within everything that we do. I believe that some of the changes announced in the National Plan will be important in that regard—for example, the appointment of modern matrons with more authority at ward level, and changes in the curriculum which affect nurses in particular.

Many mistakes were made in Project 2000. Training was taken away too far from wards and into universities. I am sure that it was right to link training to academic ability and to ensure that universities were involved in the training process, but not at the expense of practical skills and work. I, for one, regret what happened to enrolled nurses. I believe that through phasing them out we lost a huge raft of people who knew how to talk to and treat people with respect.

I turn to the question raised by the noble Lord in relation to whistle-blowing. We issue guidance and advice to all NHS organisations on that matter in line with the requirements of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. We also encourage staff to raise concerns about standards of patient care.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for all that he said about the intention to make respect for persons and informed consent by patients and families central in this area. I first became aware of the legal vacuum some six years ago when, as a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, I worked on our report on the medical and scientific uses of human tissues: tissues being by us well understood to be diverse in their significance and sometimes to include organs.

We were, curiously, least aware of how difficult things might be in the case of tissues removed under coroner's authority. Can the Minister reassure the House that in reviewing the matter, account will be taken of the two other contexts in which tissues are removed and retained for a range of purposes? I refer first to the process of treatment where tissues may be removed for the benefit of patients but may be retained for pathological examination to the benefit of that patient, other patients, medical education, medical audit and, indeed, research. The other context—here, I believe consents are generally much better—is in the case of human subjects of research where a greater degree of understanding of the particular research project has been required. In all of this one has to see that pathologists deal with a large range of tissues procured in different circumstances and for a large range of purposes. It would be a pity to lose the opportunity by looking too closely at the specific events that have caused these particularly sad and appalling outcomes.

I have one further point. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether particular care will be taken in the review to consider the question of the financial transactions that may or may not be involved. I, am sure that I am not alone in noticing the "scare quotes" around the word "sell" in virtually all the newspaper reports. People are not sure whether things are being sold to someone's benefit or whether all that is going on is a handling charge. I believe that steps have already been taken in the case of blood—that, too, is tissue—to clarify these issues. I hope that we shall see them clarified with respect to other tissues. I hope also that we shall take account of the strong differences in practice in different parts of the world; the fact that this is much closer to being a commercial culture in the United States, and that in some parts of the world there is no regulation.

My Lords, we are considering the legislation in two phases. We want to deal immediately with the issue of consent and sanctions as regards the Human Tissue Act. Equally, I accept the point raised by the noble Baroness. We need to look at a number of wider questions, which may require legislative change. I can assure the noble Baroness—indeed, I should be interested if she wanted to talk to the department—that we shall also consider those wider issues.

As regards the commercial uses of tissue, thymuses were collected at Alder Hey between 1991 and 1993. I understand that an annual handling fee was paid by the company to hospitals collecting thymus fragments. We understand that a number of hospitals had similar practices up until 1995. There is clearly an issue of consent, which appears not to have been sought in those cases. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that the code of practice—which, as I stated, will have the backing of statutory direction to NHS organisations—will also lay down that explicit consent must be obtained before tissue can be provided for use in products, product development or research by commercial companies.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page I, line 22, leave out ("training") and insert ("skill").

Amendment No. 4 would mean that the security industry authority was required to set and approve standards of skill instead of standards of training. The Government agree that it is important for the security industry authority to have the ability to incorporate references to skills into the standards which it sets. We believe, however, that subsection (2) as drafted already allows the authority to achieve that. The subsection also requires the authority to set standards of conduct, training and levels of supervision. The provision would therefore allow the authority to incorporate relevant skill levels into the standards it sets for conduct and training. It already achieves the objective of the amendment.

In addition, I believe that it is widely acknowledged that the private security industry is acutely aware of the importance of training and attaches considerable importance to the authority being proactive in setting standards in that area. We believe that to delete the word "training" from the statement of the authority's functions would be undesirable. It would shift the area of responsibility, which we do not think would be wise.

As we envisage the SIA, it will not run examinations itself. However, we do recognise that there is a need to consider how examinations might contribute to its standard setting and delivering role. The authority will have an interest in this aspect, but will not run it. The examinations will be set and run by others. The authority may well monitor this and report on it, and obviously it will have a carefully thought-through role in the examination process.

If we were to accept the amendment it would rather change the nature of the SIA's role, and that would not be wise. Obviously we shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said because these matters will need to be studied carefully within the industry itself.

I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for his undertaking to ponder the matter between now and the later stages of the Bill. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2. line 4, after ("anything") insert (", except borrow money,").

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to explain lines of accountability. The SIA will be established as a self-financing non-departmental public body. The bulk of its income will be derived from fees charged for individual licence applications and inspections under the approved contractor scheme and will be used to fund these processes. However, we believe there is a case—I think the noble Lord accepts this—for the authority to have limited ability to borrow money. I emphasise the word "limited". This would allow it some flexibility in conducting its business. It is not an open-ended guarantee. Any wish to borrow money will require the consent of the Secretary of State. So there will be parliamentary accountability and he will expect to see a proper business case made out.

The authority will also be subject to external controls. It will be required to keep proper accounts and to prepare a statement of those accounts annually. These will be laid before Parliament and will also be subject to audit by the auditor general. So although we understand the nature of the amendment, we think it would unnecessarily constrain the operation of the authority—a point which I believe the noble Lord accepts. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Will any borrowing show up as government borrowing in the main government accounts?

I am sure that this body, as a non-departmental public body, will operate like all other such bodies. Borrowing by the SIA will be reported within the accounts; it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to approve it, and he will consult with Cabinet colleagues as appropriate. This would allow an opportunity for the Treasury to give its 'view. Borrowings would therefore be clearly shown in Home Office accounts and properly fed through to Parliament and there would be all the other checks and balances which operate throughout Whitehall.

I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 2, line 23, at end insert—

("() The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any such direction before each House of Parliament.").

There will probably be a wider variety of possibilities, from requesting special reports about incidents of concern to the addition of reports if need be. I believe that the standard arrangement is for the Secretary of State to be able to give directions to non-departmental public bodies. If necessary, that could include the placing of a cap on fees. Therefore, they are general reserve powers. I understand that they will be subject to the usual statutory instruments procedure.

I hope that that reply is helpful to the noble Viscount. I do not believe that the consideration is as sinister as he suggested. We believe that it is a helpful way of assisting the Secretary of State to conduct business flexibly.

Before my noble friend responds, will the Minister explain the position a little further? He said that directions would comply with the normal statutory instrument procedure but I wonder whether he is sure about that. If so, would they be affirmative or negative instruments?

In giving the Minister time to consider his answer perhaps I may turn to Clause 22, which defines orders and regulations and their use. I have studied the clause with some care. I may have missed something, but I cannot find anything relating to the directions which may be given out by the Secretary of State under Clause 2. Therefore, I do not believe that the directions are given by any form of statutory instrument, whether negative or affirmative. It is important that we have a clear answer from the Minister on this.

On this occasion, the noble Viscount is right and I am wrong. I apologise to the Committee for that. Directions are not statutory instruments; they are merely a mechanism for a more informal way of establishing priorities and registering concerns. I hope that that clarifies the matter and I apologise to the Committee for having misled it earlier.

I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. Will the directions be published?

If the noble Viscount will bear with me, no doubt I shall be able to give him an answer. I would hope that such directions would be a matter of public record because they would be helpful to all concerned. It is important that we are clear about what we are trying to do with orders and directions.

I rise in anticipation of the Minister's reply. We should be extremely unhappy if the directions were not a matter of public record and all those licensed and involved in the industry were not clearly able to see directions made by the Secretary of State.

There is no absolute obligation to make them public. However, having heard what the noble Viscount said, I am prepared to reflect on the matter. In some situations, there may be an advantage in clearer communication and there may be benefit in that communication being in the public domain. I shall reflect on the point and happily write to the noble Viscount.

Will the Minister also agree that there could be circumstances in which the authority would want to see publication of the directions? It could then make clear to those being regulated why it had taken a certain action.

As always, the noble Viscount makes a sensible and telling point and I shall reflect on it. He is probably right.

The Minister's final words in reply to my question went to the heart of my amendment. It is important that the Home Secretary cannot impose secret directions on the authority, leaving those licensed or affected by the authority unaware of them.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect on the matter because if he had not done so I should have been forced to take it further and test the opinion of the Committee. However, I am grateful for the Minister's constructive attitude and I shall return to the matter on Report. By then the Minister will have had an opportunity to reflect on what has been said. It is important, not only in safeguarding the industry but also the authority and the role of the Secretary of State in giving such directions. I am sure that the Minister believes in open government. We must try to make these provisions as open and clear as possible. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 29, leave out ("it shall be an offence for a person to") and insert ("a person shall not").

moved Amendment No. 11A:

Page 3, line 45, at end insert ("; or

(k) he is required in the course of his employment to engage in licensable conduct falling within paragraph (b)").

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the Government have made an about-turn between the publication of the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill. However, unlike the noble Lord I believe that the Government are right to do so. Within the industry many large firms, trade associations and so on are keen that in this field both in-house operatives and those who fit alarms and deal with CCTV should be covered by the licensing system. The Bill, however, provides that only in-house door supervisors and wheelclampers, if a release fee is required, should be included, not those concerned with either alarms or CCTV.

I refer first to other in-house guards. One of the matters to be considered is what I term the "receptionist problem". Almost every business, professional firm or doctor's surgery has a receptionist of some kind at the front door who deals with visitors. From time to time, the receptionist, commissionaire or whoever it is, may have to deal with someone whose presence in the building is not welcome and fulfil guard-type duties. That may involve sending for others to assist in the process. We have heard a good deal recently about violence in hospitals, but it also occurs in health centres and doctors' premises. One of the difficulties is where one draws the line in relation to a person in that position who provides an element of guarding. That will vary from one doctor's practice to another. Some practices will be in inner-city areas where there are drug problems to which they will be much more susceptible. An individual who does that job will spend much more time engaged in that kind of activity, whereas in another area no such trouble may arise from one year's end to the next.

Where does one draw the line between the two? However, there must be a clear line because a licence is required. A person can be fined or sent to prison if he does not have a licence. The public and individuals are entitled to know whether or not a licence is required. Therefore, there is great difficulty in definition. In any case, I am temperamentally against regulation unless it is absolutely necessary. An enormous amount of legislation already affects firms of all sizes and to extend it further is something of which we should be very leery. I made that point at Second Reading and shall not labour it.

I do not believe that there is much difference between alarm companies and locksmiths. In each case someone comes to one's house or business premises and fits the necessary equipment, whether it be an alarm or lock of some kind, and leaves knowing the security precautions that have been taken. To a degree one needs to trust that those people will not misuse the information that they have gained. One can extend that to others who are not locksmiths but fit items that are to do with the security of premises. They may do the job incorrectly or pass on information. There is also a problem as to where one draws the line.

The position in relation to CCTV is a little clearer. We all know what we mean by it. However, I am not in favour of including something unless it is absolutely necessary. A firm or individual who hires a specialist organisation needs to be able to rely on the fact that it is up to the job and has proper standards. The Bill will provide that safeguard statutorily as opposed to the voluntary standards that apply now. I am not in favour of extending it further than is needed. Therefore, on this particular matter I prefer the Bill as drafted.

I declare an interest as a director of Reliance Security. Conceptually, I am very much in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but I believe that this is a matter of definition. If a suitable form of definition can be found to cover in-house security men—I slightly question whether it can—it should be explored very carefully.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for tabling these amendments. It gives the Government the opportunity to explain why we have taken a different view, although some of these arguments were rehearsed at Second Reading. As the noble Lord said, in our White Paper we propose to regulate the whole of the manned guarding sector, including in-house staff.

However, we are a government who listen. We gave the matter further consideration. We concluded that to require all in-house staff to undergo what would effectively be two vetting processes by the employer and by the authority would add a largely unnecessary layer of bureaucracy on to business. Having heard comments today in your Lordships' House, it is plain that there is a fair measure of support for not going along that route.

In general, we believe that we can rely on companies satisfying themselves about the probity of their own, or potential, employees. However, it is also the case that the Bill seeks to regulate some in-house staff. Door supervisors and wheelclampers are sources of particular public concern. These operatives are in a different category. Door supervisors are in a position of authority, often with young people, and wheelclampers are in a position of considerable power over the owner of the vehicles they have immobilised and which only they can release. We therefore believe it is right to extend regulation to all those working in these sectors, the in-house employees as well as those supplying services under contract.

The noble Lord asked, why exclude the locksmiths and the alarm installers? He rightly said that in the White Paper we suggested they would be subject to regulation. We recognise that these industries wish to be included in our regulatory proposals. But we have decided not to include them for a number of reasons: first, there is no evident high level of criminality in either of these sectors. That is a widely accepted point.

Secondly, and this touches on what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, self-regulation has worked particularly well in the alarm installation sector due to the influence of the insurance industry and the police; for example, the police will not guarantee an immediate response to an alarm unless it has been fitted by a company approved by an ACPO recognised inspectorate. That makes a big difference.

Thirdly, there is a significant number of small businesses in this sector. We are conscious of the regulatory burden this might place on them and of the barrier to them expanding and developing their business.

Fourthly, the main focus of the Bill relates to those sectors of the industry where there is the biggest problem, particularly door supervisors and wheelclampers. Could the locksmiths and alarm installers be included later? We have established a flexible framework within which Parliament can include or exclude particular sectors of the industry according to perceived need.

We would prefer to get the SIA, the authority, up and running with the significant body of work the Bill already gives it and then make an assessment as to whether other categories, such as locksmiths and alarm installers, might be a priority for legislation. We are prepared to look at these matters at a later stage. We do not think that at this stage they are a priority. Therefore, we do not believe that they should be brought into the remit of the Bill. It is about getting the balance of regulation right. The Government do not want excessive regulation or to overly burden business. We believe that we have the balance right in this case.

Perhaps I may ask a question which has arisen from what the Minister has just said. An in-house security person on licensed premises need not be licensed unless he is the door supervisor. From what the Minister said, he becomes a door supervisor if he steps outside the premises. I am not sure if we have understood the Minister correctly, but can the definition of a door supervisor depend in any circumstances on whether he is inside or outside the premises? If so, is that what determines whether he is subject to the additional controls?

I am not entirely certain that I have the matter right, but I suspect that one is a door supervisor if one undertakes specific functions and activities. Door supervisors work at licensed premises. They are fairly carefully described in the Bill. We need to rely on the Bill's definition. If further clarification is needed, I am happy to try to provide it at a later stage. But it very much relates to what they are licensed to do rather than necessarily where they are undertaking the activity.

I should like to ask the Minister a question. I declared my interest in the bars business in London at Second Reading. As far as I understand the matter, in-house security personnel who remain in-house looking after the security of the premises are not covered by the licence. But someone supervising the door, out on the street, is covered and has to be a licensed person. But if there is a fracas on the street and someone who is an in-house person steps out into the street and, say, gives them a hand, is he not allowed to do that because he is not licensed for it? I am sure the noble Lord has seen door supervisors in his trawl of the pubs and clubs. Most of them stand on the pavement with a rope, sometimes looking friendly and sometimes looking menacing, saying, "You can come in and he cannot". Do they need to be on the street? What happens to door supervisors who are inside? Are they covered by the Bill? If they are employed by, for example, the club they are in, are they in effect in-house if they are inside? Where is the demarcation line?

We could get into some frightfully complex discussions as to whether, when and how one becomes a door supervisor and someone controlling entry. By the nature of the business, their duties are at the licensed premises. I shall go away and seek further clarification as to in what circumstances they become responsible for particular actions. But they have to be licensed. They have to be licensed for a specific purpose. It is that licence that enables them to carry out particular functions and work. That is how I understand the matter. I am happy further to pursue the detailed points that the noble Lord wishes me to. I shall provide him with further detail on that matter perhaps between now and Report stage.

One of the problems that seems to have arisen is whether there should be door supervisors at the door and a second row inside who are under no control, have no training, skill or whatever and who have not been vetted for violence at all, who simply parcel up a person who attends one of the noble Viscount's establishments and hands him to the door supervisor to throw down the stairs. I do not think that we should leave these definitions up in the air. When one looks at the paragraph it says "Door supervisors etc". It does not say what "etc" is at paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, the matter should be clarified considerably.

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I should hate for someone to have the impression that any person coming to the bars with which I am involved is ever thrown down the stairs. If someone is asked to leave, that person is escorted to the door with great care and respect. We do not operate in Wales, and I have no idea what happens to people who get into trouble there.

I have no personal experience of the noble Viscount's door supervisors or of being escorted to the door at his bars or in Wales.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his considered response. He referred to the flexibility of the Bill in bringing in other people. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to the position of a receptionist as opposed to a hospital guard. Reference has also been made to the need for definition. Paragraph (2)(5) of Schedule 2, which deals with manned guarding, states that the licensable conduct,

"does not apply to the activities of a person who, incidentally to the carrying out of any activities in relation to a group of individuals which … are neither … the activities of a security operative, nor … activities comprising the exercise of any such control as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (4), maintains order or discipline amongst those individuals".

The concept of someone doing something incidentally to their main employment does come out in that sub-paragraph as it does in sub-paragraph (6). Although it is fuzzy, it might cover the position of the receptionist to whom the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred. Hospital guards have a very clear main activity of manned guarding; that is why they are there. It would be very unfortunate if the manned guarding among hospital staff, which is obviously in-house, should be carried out by people not properly qualified, skilled or vetted to perform that function.

I turn to CCTV. The operator at a bank of screens inside a factory or hospital is governing the way in which that building is being operated. They can stop people coming in; they can issue alarms; they can warn the police if something undesirable is happening. My point is that to permit an in-house CCTV operator such access leaves it open for an unscrupulous criminal to get control of an entire factory or hospital. All kinds of problems could then arise. The Government should have a further look at this point. I hope to come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 3, line 50, at end insert—

("() An order under subsection (3) shall not include any activities other than those set out in Schedule 2 to this Act.").

It is important that the legislative framework underpinning the licensing regime is flexible enough to take account of future developments in the industry and concomitant future decisions about the application of the licensing regime. Accordingly, paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 enables the Secretary of State to amend the activities which designated the licensing purposes. Any such orders proposed would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, orders made under Clause 3(3) are designation orders activating the licensing requirements for those security services which have been or will be designated in Schedule 2. Sectors of the industry that may fall to be regulated in future—such as perhaps alarm installers—will first need to be added by order to Schedule 2. Such an order is to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There would then need to be a practical lead-in time to enable advance preparations to be made before licensing was activated by an order under Clause 3(3).

The scope or orders made under Clause 3(3) is limited to the activities that have already been defined through legislation as the activities of a security operative which are subject to regulation. Those are the activities listed in Part 1 of Schedule 2. Amendment No. 13 would not therefore have any additional effect. I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.

I turn to Amendment No. 14. We believe that this amendment stems from a misinterpretation of what Clause 3(3) does. The number of employees in the private security industry who are brought within the regulatory framework of the Bill is, as the noble Lord recognised, probably around 300,000. That is clearly a considerable undertaking and will need to be achieved by means of a phased programme of implementation.

This programme will be activated by means of a series of designation orders, one the security industry authority and the Secretary of State have agreed an implementation strategy. Orders made under Clause 3(3) are designation orders activating the licensing requirements for those security services designated in Schedule 2. Such orders are not normally subject to the degree of scrutiny proposed by the amendment. Orders adding activities to Schedule 2 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 3(3) orders only "switch on", as it were, the activities listed in Schedule 2. I hope that my explanation will persuade the noble Lord not to press the amendment. The arguments I advanced a moment ago apply also to Amendment No. 35.

I turn to Amendment No. 36. We do not believe that there is any need for the amendment. Clause 22(4) requires the Secretary of State to consult the security industry authority before bringing forward any regulations, orders or draft orders. We intend there to be an open channel of communication between the Secretary of State and the authority and full consultations will, as a matter of good business, be essential if the authority is to do its job properly. As well as the good business sense of this consultation, Clause 22(4) already requires it to take place. I hope that the noble Lord will see that adequate provision is already made to secure the objectives that he seeks. The same factors apply to Amendment No. 37. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendments.

The interesting point about the Minister's response to the amendments was the hint that she gave, presumably to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that the Government might extend the order-making power in Schedule 2 to cover alarm installers.

To be fair, and to have placed it on the record, I think I indicated that there is the facility for so doing under the terms of the Bill. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, allowed us to make that clear.

As a matter of fact, it was relevant to the previous amendment. But that later intervention of the noble Baroness has poured cold water on the idea that the Government will extend the provision in the near future. She drew back from saying that it does anything more than provide the facility for them to do so.

For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and also for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, it is important that I place on record that I was neither indicating a willingness or desire to do so immediately nor any rejection of that course of action. Perhaps I should place on record my interest in this subject. On the night before a rugby match I was refused entry to a public house in Wales by a bouncer. Members of the Committee will not be surprised to learn that all I wanted to do was buy a packet of cigarettes. He said that no one who was a stranger would be allowed across the threshold in case they started a fight.

The noble Baroness appeals to our sympathy with her account of that unfortunate experience. We know that in matters of cigarettes it is sometimes important that supplies are available to people. However, I shall draw a veil over that. I thank the noble Baroness for making clear—or clearer—the Government's intentions with regard to alarm companies and others. In view of the substance of her remarks on the various amendments, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 13.

moved Amendment No. 14A:

Page 4, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("A person is guilty of an offence if he wilfully contravenes subsection (1) of this section and").

I should like to support in particular Amendment No. 23B, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, when he moved Amendment No. 14A. He referred in particular to the absolute offence which has been created here.

The Bill will confer substantial powers on the Secretary of State through various order-making procedures and, indeed, by in effect issuing directions to the authority. The security industry is large and complicated. Given that, orders will be introduced over a comparatively long period and the transition period will be lengthy. I believe that it will be extremely difficult for everyone to remain absolutely innocent all of the time. No doubt some corners will be cut and grey areas encountered. The authority needs to be given time to work out those problems.

It seems to me that, without incorporating a defence of some kind, we shall run the risk of convicting a person because there will be no choice but to convict him, simply because that is what is stated in the law. However, that person may have a perfectly valid and reasonable explanation that should, under normal circumstances, be taken into account in any court of law.

The Government consider that, for regulation to be effective and for the authority to have teeth, it is important that the licensing provisions are supported by criminal offences. I would hope that all of your Lordships involved in these discussions and debates would support that principle. However, it is important that the offences created are appropriate for the type of conduct they have been designed to prohibit and that they can be clearly understood.

Clause 3 as drafted creates a strict liability offence of engaging in licensable activity without a licence and no proof of intent is necessary. The penalty for this offence is set out in Clause 5. The purpose of the offence is to put the burden on operatives within the industry to ensure that they are properly licensed for the activities which they perform. To accept this amendment would be to add a requirement that a prosecution of an unlicensed person must also prove that they "wilfully" or intentionally failed to have a licence. In our view that would draw the teeth of the offence. It would be difficult to show that a failure to have a licence was "wilful". A defendant could easily show that, far from being wilful, he had been simply negligent or had made a mistake. As it stands, the clause properly puts the burden on the operative.

Clause 8(4) creates a strict liability offence of contravening the conditions of a licence. The purpose of this offence is to put the burden on operatives within the industry to ensure that they do not breach their licence conditions. To accept the amendment would mean that the prosecution would again have to prove that the person wilfully or intentionally breached their licence conditions. That would effectively shift the burden of proof away from the defendant.

We want to give defendants adequate protection where there is no intention to subvert the licensing system. We also want to put the onus on them to ensure that they hold the appropriate licence for the work that they are performing. That is an important point. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendments and I hope that the noble Lord will now consider withdrawing them.

The Minister pointed out that a person must take steps to have the appropriate licence for the job that he is performing. Perhaps I may cite the example of a person employed by one of the large security firms. That person will hold a licence. Does that mean that many different types of licensing will be necessary for someone undertaking many different tasks? What will be the appropriate licence in each case? Will one person hold a licence for guarding and another person hold a licence for a different duty? If an employee of a large firm is licensed and his firm says, "Tomorrow you are going to do this", is the onus then put on the employee to check whether his individual licence covers that duty, or will the licence be a corporate entity?

I might have misunderstood the noble Lord when he referred to "appropriate licences". I was not entirely clear about what he had in mind.

The noble Viscount will appreciate that licences will relate to individuals. In other words, the individual must hold an appropriate licence to enable him to carry out the duties included in his job. It is the licence which needs to be "appropriate". I hope that that explanation is of help to the noble Viscount.

I believe that an important matter of principle has arisen in relation to these amendments. The Government are not being consistent here. On reading Clause 18(3), which deals with entry, inspection and information, a person is guilty of an offence under that clause if he "intentionally obstructs any person" or,

"fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any requirement".

Furthermore, Clause 20(1) states that,

"A person is guilty of an offence if for any purposes connected with the carrying out by the Authority of any of its functions under this Act—

(a) he makes any statement to the Authority which he knows to be false in a material particular; or

(b) he recklessly makes any statement to the Authority which is false in a material particular".

It appears that some of the offences which can be committed under the provisions of the Bill will be absolute—if you are found guilty you are liable to be sent to prison, even if you were acting with a completely innocent mind and had no idea that a licence was required for what you are doing. That is wrong.

There is no consistency in the Bill because mens rea is required for other offences. The problem is therefore highlighted. I would ask the Government to think again on this point because I shall certainly return to it at a later stage. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 17:

Clause 4, page 4, line 47, at end insert—

("() A person shall not be guilty of an offence if he—

(a) carries out any of the activities prescribed by Schedule 2 to this Act without financial or other reward and he does so where he, and those for whom he so acts, perform such activities on a non commercial basis;

(b) is not ordinarily employed as a security operative or required, in the course of his employment, so to act; or

(c) is employed (whether remunerated or not) by a school, church or a registered charity.").

I support the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, on these two amendments. With the jumble of images that he has given us—the bursting open of the door at jumble sales, the vergers at risk on Christmas Eve and so on—he has painted a picture of the kind of situation in which people become involved in performing, on a temporary basis, some of the activities described in Schedule 2, and those people should not be caught by the provisions of the Bill.

I also agree with the noble Lord that the swift procedure of obtaining an order from the magistrates' court would be of great value. If the application could be heard together with the applications for the temporary liquor licence and the temporary dancing licence, that would be a very easy way of having some control over the kind of things that go on at special events. I am sure that the authority itself would welcome the use of the magistrates' court, rather than having to set aside part of its operations to deal with urgent and temporary applications.

If I ever have to attend a jumble sale in Chipping Sodbury I shall now feel much more secure in the knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is likely to be on the door taking my 10p, or whatever the entry fee is.

It is not our intention to be excessive in the way in which we apply this part of the legislation. No person falling into the categories which are the subject of Amendment No. 17 will be taken into the regulatory regime established by the Bill as currently drafted. The Bill is directed to those who provide services under contract, or, in the case of door supervisors and wheelclampers, those also employed in-house, as I clarified earlier. These are covered by the provisions of Clause 3 and Part II of Schedule 2. The licensing arrangements do not apply to those who undertake the activities of a security operative on a non-contract or reward-free basis, nor to those who carry out security-related activities which are incidental to their main employment, a matter that we have already discussed.

If a school, church or registered charity hires security operatives under contract, we still take the view that it is right that those organisations should expect them to have been vetted to a national standard and licensed. If the security operatives that they use are employed in-house, they will be exempted from the licensing requirement; in those circumstances it will be the responsibility of the organisation to vet its own staff.

The Bill already takes account of the issues which the noble Lord has suggested as the basis of the amendment, and we think that for that reason the amendment is unnecessary.

Perhaps I might add that it is not our intention to cover innocent people inadvertently, and I hope that the clarification I have given will help in that regard. Regulations may specify in greater detail by description who is excluded. Further than that, the security industry authority itself will be able to make it clear that groups such as those mentioned in paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 17 are not covered. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.

Turning to Amendment No. 18, we do not believe that a temporary exemption from the need for a licence is necessary or desirable. It would potentially introduce an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy into the licensing process. It could also lead to different standards being temporarily applied across the country. That would be a recipe for confusion and would lead to the development of a rather uneven package. That is not something we should encourage. We want a level playing field.

Provisions already exist in Clause 4 for exemptions from the need for a licence. Clause 4 permits exemptions where the authority is satisfied that a valid alternative to its own vetting procedures exists. It also allows firms which have received approved contractor status under Clause 13 temporarily to engage unlicensed persons who have none the less applied for a licence.

The security industry authority will be a one-stop shop arrangement. To establish a separate exemption scheme through the courts would again lead to confusion. It would weaken the licensing regime rather than strengthen it and add to the work of magistrates.

The noble Lord suggested that one-off events could be approved by magistrates' courts in the same way as a temporary licence. We would argue that one-off events needing door supervision on a licensed basis should be staffed by properly licensed people, particularly an event such as a pop concert. It is appropriate that such events continue to be covered. In some respects, urgent cases may be an ideal opportunity for criminals to offer their services. Where the need arises rather rapidly is exactly the kind of situation where people with a dodgy background may seek to become engaged.

For those reasons—to ensure probity and evenness of application—we do not think that the amendment should be supported. Having heard that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

So far as concerns Amendment No. 17, can I take it from what the Minister said that the Government do not wish to catch people working for charities and so on, even if they are lowly paid or volunteers? The suggestion seemed to be that if they were paid they were covered. Sometimes people who undertake these duties get a small remuneration.

If it helps the noble Lord, that is exactly the case. I completely concur with the extra elucidation given by the noble Lord and with his interpretation.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He also said that regulations could vary. I am not sure which regulations he had in mind.

The point I was trying to make was that in the description of regulations we will be much more forthcoming in setting out how they might work and how the exemptions might work. There will be further clarification then.

We shall look forward to that. So far as concerns Amendment No. 18, I am not really persuaded by what the Minister said. He talked of marginally differing standards. The Bill provides subsequently for local authorities to have powers of licensing. Presumably that will lead to marginally different decisions being made by local authorities. So the Government are already providing for that on a permanent basis. Under the amendment there may be slightly different standards between magistrates' courts—although they are supposed to apply the same rules as the security authority—but, by definition, they will apply only temporarily, for not more than one month. I do not think the Minister has a powerful argument in these circumstances. A licensing system whereby a temporary licence can be granted by a magistrates' court—particularly in combination with an application for a licence to sell alcohol or for dancing and so on, as I described—could be extremely helpful.

I can see the parallel and the comparison, but, of course, singing, dancing and entertainment licences are taken through the local authority process. It is our long-term intention to bring liquor licensing into the local authority orbit as well. The noble Lord's argument—certainly in the medium to longer term—does not hold quite as much water as he would have us believe.

It may be the intention of the noble Lord and his colleagues in government to bring licensing into the local authority's purview instead of the magistrates' court, but it is certainly not Parliament's intention—not yet, at any rate. I am not inclined to think that that is a good idea. But that is not an argument for today.

I do not share the view which seems to be taken by the Government that magistrates' courts are something basically to be got rid of—at least that the lay magistrates' courts are something to be got rid of. The Government seem to want to stick pins in them all the way round. However, that is a much larger argument. We should not involve ourselves too much with it today.

Magistrates' courts will be very good places to go for licences as long as they are responsible for alcohol licensing, dancing, entertainment and so on. If at some future stage the Government lay a Bill before the House to remove that power from magistrates and give it to local authorities in respect of alcohol sales and other matters, no doubt the power to license in this case would be removed at the same time. That would be logical.

But that is a different argument from the one that applies today. We have to proceed on the basis of the law as it is. And the law states that alcohol licensing and so on is carried out by the magistrates' courts. That is why it is a sensible arrangement to have the temporary licence provision arranged in the way I suggest.

From the nature of his reply, it seems to me that the Minister does not want to give this matter further consideration. I am encouraged by the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the Liberal Democrats to seek the opinion of the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 4, line 47, at end insert—

("(6) A person may apply, on notice to the Security Industry Authority, to the magistrates' court having jurisdiction over the area affected by the designated activities, for an exemption from the requirements to apply for a licence and the Lord Chancellor may make an order as to the procedure to be followed on such an application, including on urgent applications; and the test to be applied by the court is the same as that which would have been applied had an application been made to the Security Industry Authority.

(7) A licence under subsection (6) shall not be granted for a period exceeding one month and shall not be renewable.")

moved Amendment No. 19:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

If this amendment is intended to cover a security operative who acts on a frolic of his own, it is a startling extension of liability in contract and in tort. It has wide insurance implications. For example, if a door supervisor produced a knife, which the owner of the club had no reason to suspect he had on his person, and used it, the club would be liable for the injury that was occasioned. As I understand the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, puts the case, it may or may not be desirable from a public point of view, but it does have very wide implications.

With regard to subsection (2) of this new clause, anyone with experience of the Crown Courts of this country will understand precisely the problem to which the noble Lord referred; namely, that security operatives who cause trouble disappear or cannot be identified, either in respect of their criminal liability or their liability in tort. It is a very good idea to have a register of club or public house door supervisors. Whether it should encompass the whole of this clause, with its wide extension of liability, is a different matter.

I support the intent behind my noble friend's amendment. There clearly is an issue to be considered with regard to the relationship between the management of clubs and the actions of door supervisors. I have listened with care to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the various legal difficulties with this approach. There is perhaps another approach that the Minister or another Member of the Committee might volunteer. However, it would be extremely regrettable if the management of a club could say, "We have moved from the previous position of employing any old gaoler on the door. We have now employed a licensed doorkeeper, who has committed an act for which we have no responsibility whatever".

One of my concerns relates to drug dealing by doormen and the control of drug dealing in night-clubs. Responsible night-club owners will want to ensure that drugs are not used in their night-clubs. However, there are rogue night-club owners as well as rogue doormen. In the circumstances that I have described, how does the Minister suggest the relationship between club management and doorkeepers should work? In the example of a doorkeeper throwing someone down a flight of stairs or on to the pavement, the management may say to a doorkeeper, "We employ tough doormen who will throw people out. We do not want any bother. We want to see these guys out on the pavement and treated harshly". The doorkeeper may do exactly that, and the customer may try to pursue a claim against that doorkeeper. However, the fault could well lie with the management of the club for encouraging their doormen to exercise undue violence, or because of concerns relating to dealing in drugs.

I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. However, I am not sure that this amendment deals with it in the right way. I prefer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The amendment would place additional requirements on employers of door supervisors and those who may use door supervisors. I also argue that it places a vicarious liability on those employers or other users for the actions of their door supervisors.

We believe that the duty that would be placed on employers to keep publicly available records of door supervisors' names, addresses, dates and hours of work would impose an additional burden on employers for very little public benefit. Any member of the public who has a complaint against a door supervisor should already be able to ascertain the relevant details from his employers, and, if necessary, the police may be called upon to assist.

We believe that this additional burden would go too far in the direction of a regulatory burden on companies. We take the view that reputable companies should already be able to do what the amendment seeks to impose. Although I am not at present in favour of such a requirement, if a problem should arise and it became apparent that it was larger than at first thought, there would be nothing to stop the security industry authority from making it a condition of the approved contractors scheme under Clause 14—a scheme that we expect the majority of reputable companies to join.

The issue of vicarious liability raises further questions. Vicarious liability is firmly established at common law as a principle that will make employers liable for the acts and omissions of employees who are acting,

"in the course of their employment",

rather than, as has been said, going off on a frolic of their own. The amendment would extend the vicarious liability principle substantially. A bouncer's employer would be liable in contract and in tort for all actions and omissions of his employee. Theoretically, a situation could arise where a pedestrian, knocked down by a motorist who happens to be an off duty bouncer, would be able to claim against the bouncer's employer. More practically, if a bouncer decided to stab someone while carrying out bouncer duties, it means that the employer would be liable to pay compensation for the actions, even if the bouncer were acting independently out of anger or revenge.

Subsection (3) of the amendment considers that an employer employs a bouncer if he has bouncers on the premises, even if that person is supplied under a contract of services. So a landlord may go to the trouble of employing a reputable company and yet still be liable for misdeeds on the part of the bouncer.

The proposed extension of the vicarious liability principle goes far beyond the needs of common law. We believe that it would impose an unfair and unjust system on those who retain door supervisory staff. Therefore, in good conscience, I am afraid that we cannot support such a measure. In view of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. For my part, I shall certainly reflect on the issue raised. However, I cannot recommend the proposed new clause as a solution to the Committee.

I thank my noble friend for his support for my proposed new clause. I believe that there is a problem in this respect. Indeed, the Minister has agreed to reflect further on the matter. As regards subsection (1) of the amendment, I realise that this proposes a very considerable extension of the liability involved. If there is an easier way out of the dilemma that occurs from time to time, we should obviously choose it.

Notwithstanding the support that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I am also very susceptible to the argument that subsection (2) would, as the Minister said, place an "additional burden" on companies. In the circumstances, I believe that we should all reflect further on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 5, line 42, leave out paragraph (b).

My noble friend has highlighted an interesting inconsistency. I recall that we argued a similar point a short time ago. At that stage, my noble friend Lord Cope sought to have the word "skill" inserted into the Bill in place of the word "training" in Clause 1(2)(e). However, we have a direct reference to "skills" in Clause 6. The Minister put forward a convincing argument against the word "skill" at that time. He said that it was much better to have the word "training" in that clause. Nevertheless, a few pages further on in the Bill, the Minister had changed his mind by the time that we reached Clause 5, where we have the word "skills" instead of the word "training". It seems to me that both words should be used. We could then sleep carefully and safely at night.

As Amendment No. 21 has been included in this group, perhaps I make take this opportunity to raise a rather wider point that I trust the Minister can answer at this stage. However, if he cannot, perhaps he will be able to respond in relation to another clause of the Bill. Although the issue is relevant to Clause 6 and Amendment No. 21, the point goes a little further and relates to the issue of revocation. Criticism has been made of the Bill that it will target individuals and that the licensing system is based around the activities and licence ability, if you will, of the individual concerned, not of the firm for which he works. I understand that criticism and to some extent support it. There will be individual licensing of all individual security operatives rather than one overall licence for a firm and the imposition of duties on that firm, which would ensure that the people who worked for it were the right sort of people. There is a difficulty concerning bad firms.

What happens when firms go wrong? One knows that the dodgier elements, to use the Minister's expression, of the security business have in some unfortunate episodes overlapped with some elements of the criminal fraternity and that criminals have been involved with the provision of security services. That is why the Bill is felt to be necessary. I am concerned that licences may be given to firms that are substandard and, perhaps, run by criminal elements.

Amendment No. 21 relates to Clause 6(3)(c), which states that the authority,

"may also include criteria relating to such other matters as the Authority thinks fit".

It would assist the Committee if the Minister said whether the type of employer will be taken into consideration when a licence is issued. In other words, a firm may be known to be dubious—it may be infiltrated, owned or run by criminal elements—and someone in it, perhaps a new recruit, may apply for a licence. That person may be perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact that he works for a dubious firm. Will that be taken into account in an application or would that discriminate against the individual, who may be a perfectly decent person? There may be a failure to impose sanctions on a substandard firm.

My point boils down to this. How can substandard firms—by "substandard" I mean those about which the police and the licensing authority have strong suspicions that criminal activities are going on—be effectively put out of business? As I interpret the Bill, various individuals can have their licences suspended or revoked, or they may not be issued in the first place, but that does not appear to be the case with a firm as a whole.

I do not think that I should prejudge the Minister too much if I guess that his answer will involve a reference to the approval scheme. Some of my remarks definitely relate to it. At Second Reading, he said:

"But we do not believe that the threat of withdrawal of approval will necessarily be a deterrent if companies feel that illegal activities are the way to gain their business objectives".—[Official Report, 18/12/00; col. 600.]

That explanation did not involve the approval process.

That argument, which is relevant to Amendment No. 21, involves the type of criteria that the authority can take into account when deciding whether to issue a licence. However, that argument is also part of a much wider question. I should appreciate it if the Minister would respond to that wider question, but if he cannot at this stage perhaps he would discuss the narrower question of the issuing of licences in connection with an employer.

We have had a useful debate on the two amendments. It is important for the authority to have the flexibility to decide on the licensing criteria that should be applied. Each sector of the industry has different requirements, and the authority may decide, following consultation with the industry, police, local authorities and other interested organisations, that to obtain a licence in order to undertake a particular type of recruitment activity, a particular skill or standard would need to be achieved. That is an important tool, which the authority will use to drive up standards across the industry. The Bill is therefore designed to give the authority flexibility in determining the criteria that will best ensure that standards are raised in an appropriately targeted way, where necessary, and that regulation is overall more effective.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, raised the prospect of the relevant criteria perhaps being skills and/or training.

And training.

Yes. I am attracted to that proposition and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for making it. It may help us to clarify the word "skills" in line 43 on page 5. I shall take the suggestion away without commitment, although I am interested in it. It may help us in relation to the clause and with our earlier debate—it may be relevant in both instances. I hope that we can be helpful in this regard.

When the authority sets out criteria against which it will judge licence applications, subsection (3) will require it to include criteria to establish whether applicants are "fit and proper persons". That subsection will also allow the authority to include criteria relating to necessary skills. Amendment No. 21 would remove the authority's ability to include a third set of criteria relating to,

"such other matters as the Authority thinks fit".

From our perspective, that amendment would reduce the authority's flexibility. It is important for the authority to have the flexibility to decide on the licensing criteria to be applied. Each sector of the industry will have different requirements, and the authority may decide, following consultation—this is important—with the industry, the police, local authorities and others, that to obtain a licence for a particular kind of security work a particular skill standard should be required. That is an important tool, which the authority will use to drive up standards across the industry. That is why we want it. It would be wrong to remove the authority's room for manoeuvre when it responds to particular demands. It goes without saying, of course, that it will not use that flexibility capriciously or without good purpose. It is important to remember that the criteria will continue to be published, so that applicants for licences will know what is expected of them.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked why paragraph (c) was so open ended. The relevant conditions will be published by the security industry authority as part of its public statement on standards. It would need the flexibility to review old conditions as circumstances demand. The relevant conditions will all be published, so people will know what is required.

The noble Viscount also asked about how skills will work when contracting out to local authorities. Local authorities will need to give effect to the authority's standards and published criteria; they will not be able to introduce their own criteria.

In a helpful contribution, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked whether the type of employer would be taken into account when a licence was applied for. Personal licences do not necessarily relate to the individual's employer—such licences are, after all, personal. There is a common understanding in that regard. If the security industry authority knew that a substandard firm was seeking involvement, it might add—I argue that it should add—conditions to a personal licence, which would ensure that the threshold would be raised. Clearly, that would create the necessary difficulties.

Perhaps I may refer to our earlier debate about the need to license directors or those with management responsibility. That would provide another safeguard and check. I believe that I made the point that we need to regulate properly the owners or directors of a company precisely to see off the type of difficulty which the noble Viscount mentioned in his contribution to the debate on this amendment. I hope that I have answered most of the points raised.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and for his helpfulness in covering my wider points. I give notice that I should like to return to this point on Report.

Given the Minister's explanation of where the matter now lies within the context of the Bill, I am not sure that sufficient leverage can be applied to a rogue firm. I understand his point with regard to the licensing of directors. However, as we know, the nominal directors of an unscrupulous company may not reflect who controls and, indeed, owns the benefits from the company. I believe that such information would be more difficult to tie down. If an individual is not overly concerned about having people "roughed up" or if he deals in drugs, and so on, he will probably not be too concerned about the provisions of the Companies Act or shadow directorships. Therefore, I believe that the Bill is not yet sufficiently tight in that regard. However, I appreciate the Minister's explanation thus far.

I understand the issue that the noble Viscount raises. He is trying to get to grips with the character of a company and the company which its owners or directors might keep. I shall reflect further on that matter but I do not believe that there is an easy solution. We may well get to the root of it by taking the approach which we suggest in relation to setting standards and criteria. I am prepared to give the problem further consideration. If the noble Viscount is able to put forward any ideas in the interim, I shall happily pursue those, too. In the meantime, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that he withdraws his amendment.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goschen for putting forward the argument about skills and training. The words in the Bill are almost contradictory in that Clause 1 refers to training and Clause 6 refers to skills. The Minister kindly said that he would address that issue.

I want to put three questions to the Minister. First, I believe that the criteria will be crucial to the successful running of the authority. I should like to receive a commitment from the Government that they will publish draft criteria for consultation. Secondly, the security industry training organisation has been established. Can the Minister tell me whether that will be used in assessing the criteria for training?

My third question is a request for confirmation of what the Minister said. I believe he said that if anything were contracted out to a local authority, that authority would have to take note of the criteria. In order to clarify my understanding of the situation, am I right in believing that he is saying that the security authority would not contract out to a local authority unless that local authority, in effect, signed up to the criteria and that, therefore, there would be no question of a local authority using criteria which were different to the criteria decided by the authority?

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and, of course, shall withdraw Amendment No. 20. With regard to Amendment No. 21, I note his reply and am somewhat delighted by it because I feel that it will provide me with a far more powerful argument when I come to deal with my Amendment No. 23. In the meantime, I give the Minister the opportunity to respond to those questions.

The answer to the noble Viscount's points are: yes, no and yes. That is as brief and as complex a reply as I would wish to give at the moment. However, I believe that we do meet the points that he raises. First, yes, the draft criteria will be published for consultation. Secondly, no; possibly they will be used to examine training criteria, but we do not want the SIA's hands tied at this point. Thirdly, yes, the local authority will not be able to introduce its own criteria; we believe that that would be quite wrong.

I am grateful to the Minister for being clear. With regard to my second point, the security industry training organisation has been in place since 1991 and has a number of years' experience. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider how that industry organisation, which is well respected, will be brought into discussions about the authority. Obviously, I shall let the Minister consider that point and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 6, line 14, at end insert—("() In determining whether or not a person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, the Authority shall have regard to any representations made to it, whether in orally or in writing, and it shall in any event seek such representations in advance of refusing to grant a licence, giving the applicant an opportunity to respond to any grounds upon which it proposes to refuse a licence.").

Amendment No. 22, moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, would oblige the security industry authority to have regard to any representations made to it and require it to seek such representations before it refuses to grant a licence. The Bill already provides for a transparent system of licensing. The criteria upon which the authority will reach its decisions will be published. The authority will wish to ensure that applicants are given every opportunity in their application forms to provide the strongest case in support of their applications. Unsuccessful applicants will have rights of appeal against the decision to refuse them a licence.

Therefore, the Government do not believe that it is necessary to add a further requirement for applicants to be afforded an opportunity to comment when the authority is minded to refuse a licence. The noble Viscount recognised that we are already proposing a complicated process. To do what he asks in the amendment would add a disproportionate further layer of bureaucracy and cost in contrast to no real gain in natural justice for the applicants. There is already a duty to make a speedy response so as not to cause applicants to have to wait too long. The SIA's published criteria should include a statement of its turnaround times for applications and targets. Some applications may be more difficult than others. However, applicants are justified in expecting to know when a decision should be available.

I hope that that has reassured the noble Viscount, who we know does not want to see the system become more time-consuming or more cumbersome. There will be a system of appeals against SIA decisions, as the noble Viscount said. Ultimately, there will be the availability of judicial review, but that would be additional to the right of appeal which is set up under the Bill.

I turn to Amendment No. 23. We believe that the duties of the authority and the rights of individuals already exist within the drafting of the Bill or elsewhere in existing statute or common law. Therefore, Amendment No. 23 would not add substantively to either the duties of one or the rights of the other. As the noble Viscount said, the security industry authority will, in common with other public bodies, have a general duty to act reasonably, including with appropriate care and skill.

Similarly, individuals already have the right to take legal action where their rights have been infringed. We believe that individuals who consider themselves adversely affected by the decision not to grant a licence to undertake security activities or to modify or revoke their licences will, in addition to any more general rights of redress, have a specific right of appeal against the authority's decision.

I hope that in the light of those explanations and assurances the noble Viscount will not press his amendments.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those explanations. She referred to a general right of appeal. I presume that she referred to Clause 10. As far as I can see, the Secretary of State has to make an order for the bringing in of appeals. I wonder whether she could answer my question on that. Is there a right of appeal elsewhere in the Bill or is it just in Clause 10 and has to be initiated by an order?

The process of setting up and enacting the Bill on completion of its passage through Parliament is one that has to be phased through a series of orders by the Secretary of State, as we recognised earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, recognised that there needs to be discussions with industry. That is why there is a process. The process of bringing into effect the matters referred to in Clause 10 is the one which I have outlined. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount. If it does not, I shall write to him with further clarification.

I think that means that the noble Baroness agrees with me that an appeal system will be brought in by order by the Government under Clause 10. We shall see what that order says. I give the Government due warning that if I am to withdraw my amendment now, we want them to take note of what has been said during this debate so that they may get right the order. Otherwise, we shall have to look at it. I am sure the noble Baroness will consider that.

As regards Amendment No. 22, the comments of the noble Baroness satisfied me to a degree. I am not quite so happy with her reply to Amendment No. 23. It is always difficult for someone to obtain compensation. That is always a good test to put on anybody. Perhaps this should be dealt with by an order. It may not be right for it to be dealt with on the face of the Bill. I shall consider that point and read carefully what the noble Baroness said.

It may assist the noble Viscount if I remind him that in responding I also said that the right of appeal is set up by the Bill. The procedures, details and timing are obviously part of the negotiations and discussions with the industry. However, the right of appeal is established.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating her comments. My point is that we shall have to consider the nature and terms of appeal. As regards Amendment No. 23 and compensation, we shall have to consider whether we need to be specific. The noble Baroness said, quite reasonably, that the authority will have to have targets and turnaround times. We all know about government targets and turnaround times. We know how long it takes to reach targets, and about the targets for asylum seekers, which have not yet been met. I think that almost no turnaround time in government has ever been met by anybody. That was the same when we were in power, just as it is now. Perhaps it has become worse; perhaps not. Who knows?

It will be extraordinarily difficult for the authority to keep to its target. The only way it will do so is by having a long transitional period. Otherwise, it will never get through all the people who are to be covered by the Bill.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am somewhat satisfied by her reply to Amendment No. 22. I shall consider carefully whether I wish to come back on Amendment No. 23. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 23A:

Clause 7, page 6, line 41, at end insert—

("() The Authority shall state its reasons in writing, by reference to the criteria, for—

(a) a refusal to grant a licence under subsection (4), and

an imposition of additional conditions under subsection (6).").

Before the noble Baroness replies, I should like briefly to say that we support the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his amendments. In these he might have gone a long way to satisfy the concerns which were behind our earlier amendments. Therefore I look forward to the Government's reply.

Before the noble Baroness replies, I have said nothing about the proposed subsection (5). It seems to me that there is missing from the Bill a duty to notify the authority of matters which may lead to the modification or revocation of a licence. Two bodies are concerned: the police and the public. If the police hear of something adverse to the licence holder there should be an arrangement enabling the police to inform the authority of that so that consideration can be given to the continuation of the licence either as it exists or in some modified form.

As for members of the public, no doubt they will have complaints against licence holders from time to time. How are they to be dealt with? It is no use writing to the authority if its response is, "I am sorry: we have no way in which we can give effect to your complaint." There must be some way in which the authority can respond to the proper concerns raised by members of the public in respect of their particular licence problem.

I think all sides of the Committee share a concern that this system will work. We do not believe there is a need for the requirements to be on the face of the Bill. The establishment of an appeals mechanism against licence decisions by the authority will require the authority to state in all cases the reasons for a decision it has reached—a point which I hope will please the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—and these must be set out very clearly against the criteria which it must also have published. The SIA will need to work closely with the police, as the noble Viscount recognised, and come to an operational understanding with them as to how to pass on relevant information. We believe that precise arrangements are best left to the authority, once established, and the police to decide that they are required to do this. We do not want to shackle the arrangements that will be reached in achieving the objectives we all share by prescribing them in detail on the face of the Bill.

The authority will also wish to establish a complaints procedure against licence holders. In deciding whether to continue, modify or revoke a licence, the views of the public and customers of licence holders will, as your Lordships recognise, be an important factor. Therefore it is important for the authority to establish and publicise a complaints system. Again, we see no need to specify this as a requirement on the face of the Bill.

I hope I have been able to give an assurance that will enable the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to withdraw his Amendment No. 23A and not press Amendment No. 23D. I can assure both speakers in this short debate that the Government share their concern that this procedure should be absolutely clear and reassure them that the Bill requires that this process be followed.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, replies may, I say that it seems to me rather a contradiction for the noble Baroness to say, "This is what we are going to do but we don't want to put in the Bill that we are going to do it." If the Government are going to do it, I do not see why it should not be in the Bill. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will consider that.

Before the noble Viscount sits down, can I make it absolutely plain that the detail of how to achieve the objectives we all share, we believe, should not be on the face of the Bill. The requirement to provide that detail and to work closely with the police to make it work is a duty to be achieved by the Bill.

I have listened to the very helpful reply of the noble Baroness. I am not seeking for detail on the face of the Bill, as she will observe. So far as subsection (5) of Clause 9 is concerned, I am simply setting out the duty of the authority to do precisely what she says it is going to do. I do not think that that unduly clutters up the Bill. It is not detail, and it is not seeking in any way to impose a straitjacket upon the negotiations with the police or to prescribe precisely how complaints from the public are to be handled.

I should have thought that as a matter of public presentation a duty of this sort should he made absolutely clear because unless it is on the face of the Bill it is impossible for anybody to demand it of the authority, once set up. I shall think very long and hard about what the noble Baroness said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee begins again at 8.30 p.m.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to ensure sufficient financial support for British competitors at the next Olympics.

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord. Lord Brougham and Vaux, for initiating the debate, not least because it gives the House the first opportunity, although belated, to congratulate Britain's Olympic athletes who performed so spectacularly well in Sydney.

It is also an opportunity for me to say how much I miss Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge. He encouraged me to speak in the debate on school sport soon after I joined the House and he was a model of kindness and courtesy on that occasion. I certainly miss him a great deal and miss his presence in a debate such as this.

I intend to speak mainly about the new elite sports funding review group which the Government have set up under the chairmanship of Dr Jack Cunningham. The establishment of that body is most welcome but I want to hear from the Minister more about what it is doing and hopes to do. It seems to me that there a number of issues which it must address. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham, referred to one of the most important—the devolution issue. We must maintain a United Kingdom approach for as long as there is one team representing Britain at the Olympics rather than separate teams from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The second issue is the quality and availability of world-class facilities for practising and competing. UK Sport needs to take the lead in strategy and planning and ensuring that the facilities are built as part of the same United Kingdom approach. The chief executive of the British Olympic Association, Simon Clegg, spoke to me, and I assume to a number of your Lordships, while I was preparing for the debate. He said:

"Achieving British success at future Olympic Games will depend largely on implementing a successful strategy to increase the funding, available for UK distribution as opposed to home country distribution. This will ensure that smaller home country sports councils do not suffer at the expense of their larger better funded neighbours and that sufficient and appropriate facilities exist across the United Kingdom as a whole. When the country competes as Great Britain the team may as a result be representative not only of the country as a whole, but also be selected from a larger and high quality pool".

The third issue is the need to maintain and sustain funding levels for our elite athletes. Traditionally, they have received financial support from a variety of sources. I briefly mention the Foundation for Sport and the Arts with which I am associated as a trustee. My noble friend Lord Attenborough and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, also sit on that body. When the funding of that foundation was at a higher level than it is today it was able to provide substantial sums to Olympic athletes. Among many grants, it contributed sums of £39,000, £40,000 and £30,000 to individual athletes who competed in 1996 and 2000.

Obviously, today the main source of funding of Olympic athletes is the lottery, but there is some uncertainty about it. The level of funding will depend on the fluctuating sales of lottery tickets, unless it can be underwritten in some way by exchequer funds to guarantee stability. What will happen if lottery sales fall? Is there any possibility that a fixed sum of money rather than a percentage of lottery income can be guaranteed?

The announcement of £750 million of National Lottery money for school community sports facilities was very welcome news. The investment of New Opportunities Fund money will start to provide funding for school sports facilities, which is long overdue, and may allow the Sports Lottery Unit to release additional funds for elite sport. But what will happen when the three-year NOF funding of school sports comes to an end? Is there not a risk that the Sports Lottery Fund will be squeezed and unable to fund elite athletes without having to reduce community sports funding?

It is also important not to lose sight of the role of the 150,000 voluntary sports clubs, for it is as members of those organisations that many of Britain's Olympic medal winners learn to compete and succeed. It is also in those clubs that sports such as sailing, shooting, rowing and cycling are developed. Those sports produced seven of Great Britain's 11 gold medals in Sydney.

Finally, there is the question of whether we should again seek to host the Olympic Games in the United Kingdom. The benefits of doing so are enormous. The Spanish Government calculate that the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 were worth £7 billion to the country. Further, the staging of the games acts as a catalyst in improving a nation's sporting success, in its briefing the BOA refers to how many more medals a nation wins if one of its cities is chosen as host, South Korea and Australia being two particularly good examples.

Tonight I do not have time to enter the debate about the future of Wembley, other than to say that we shall require a first-class venue if we are serious about hosting any great international sporting event. However, it is important that in our pursuit of the long-term dream of staging the Olympics we do not lose sight of the need to ensure that our athletes are fully prepared and financially supported for the games in 2004.