I beg to move amendment No. 34, in clause 9, page 6, line 18, leave out subsection (7).

This amendment deals with the final subsectionof the clause, which removes some people from the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The Minister said in his response to the previous debate that, in the main, approved premises are run by the public sector, but that a number are run by the voluntary sector and one by a private company. I have a feeling that that one has got into considerable difficulties in recent weeks, although I might be wrong. I am aware that one hostel that is not in the public sector has had problems.

As the clause stands, it appears to open up the possibility of considerably more approved premises being run in the private sector. Subsection (3) states that the Secretary of State may make payments to any person in connection with the operation of approved premises. Will the Minister explain the reason for including subsection (7)? It appears to exclude those who manage private sector approved premises from the scope of the 2001 Act, which regulates the private security industry and requires people in a range of jobs to be licensed. As part of the licensing process there are Criminal Records Bureau and identity checks, and training and qualifications are required. I am puzzled  why we should remove from those safeguards people working in approved premises, who will be dealing with fairly dangerous people.

The 2001 Act includes among the definitions of licensable activities

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

That is clearly a possibility in any approved premises. It seems strange that somebody working on security at my local greyhound racing track is required to have a Security Industry Authority certificate, but somebody managing a bail hostel is not. I would have thought that that job would be at least as difficult and perhaps more open to risk.