Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I accept there needs to be more detail in the amendment. The amendment is simply to set down a marker. Clearly, we have not prescribed any penalty and, as drafted, it is a rather vague offence. I certainly can come back with a more precise drafting.

I take the Minister's point that the code is supposed to be by way of guidance. There is a bigger issue about how standards are to be maintained within the group of licensees. If it is simply to be by way of a code of practice with which, according to subsection (7), licensees are to be encouraged to comply, that is not imposing onerous obligations on those licensees and it might well be that somebody would make an effort to get a licence and then lapse back into the sort of poor practices we have already seen in this area. More consideration might be given to the strengthening of the provisions on maintenance of standards within the group of licensees that will be created by this, whether it be through a set of statutory duties, for example, that would prevail beyond the code of practice. That might be a better way of approaching it.

I take the Minister's point. The breach of a code of practice of itself might not be a great way of creating criminal offences, but what we are trying to do is set down a marker about the need to ensure standards are maintained among licensees so that once they have a licence, they are not permitted to lapse again. The current wording, especially in subsection (7), is weak. It does not really impose any sort of robust obligation on a licensee to comply with codes of practice. Simply being encouraged to do so does not really do very much. Equally, I am not sure subsections (10) and (11), which state the courts can have regard to breaches, etc., are enough to maintain standards.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 19 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 29.

Government amendment No. 28:

In page 37, subsection (9)(b), line 25, to delete "of" and substitute "in".