| Home Page |
Column 211
House of Commons
Wednesday 1 November 1995
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Private Security Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Conway.]
10.4 am
Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise on behalf of the Home Affairs Select Committee a matter of considerable concern in the country at present--the private security industry. I am pleased that some of my colleagues on the Committee have been able to raise themselves at this unusually early hour to take part in the debate.
The Home Affairs Committee inquiry into the matter began a year ago, and we reported on 7 June of this year. The industry has grown so large that it is by common account larger than the entire police force in this country, and, by some accounts, twice as large. Yet there is great concern at the number of cowboys, rip-off merchants and villains involved, to say nothing of the industry's low wages and the danger to the public which is associated with some sections of the industry. There is also concern about whether the industry ought to be acting in the way it is by appearing to take powers away from the police.
There have been calls for state regulation, which, until recently, have been resisted by the Government. The Government's position has been that problems in the private security industry can be dealt with by self- regulation within the industry, and that a licensing system would be expensive, bureaucratic and a burden on the taxpayer. The Government believed that matters concerning the quality of training and wages could be dealt with better from within the industry by the industry and its customers, and that that might be done by strengthening the existing regulations and mechanisms within the industry.
The Committee took evidence from anyone who was interested in the matter, and we were told a number of things. First, we learned that many allegations about the quality of the industry were justified. There was a great deal of evidence about criminal behaviour, poor quality of work, poor working conditions and inadequate training, and we heard about private neighbourhood patrols which seemed to be little short of protection rackets.
Secondly, we were told that there were a large number of self-regulating bodies which the Government had supported within the industry, many of high repute. Those included the International Professional Security Association and the British Security Industry Association, and a large number of established firms were members. Alas, not every firm had joined, and it was estimated that 80 per cent. of private security firms were not members
Column 212
of one of the self-regulatory bodies. Not every employer required the private security firms which they employed to be members of such bodies.Thirdly, we heard that there were problems with ascertaining whether those who were involved in the private security industry had previous convictions. Fourthly, we were told that, whatever our feelings on the issue of non-intervention in business by the state, the state did have a duty to protect citizens from racketeers and villainy. We heard about one firm where 11 out of its 26 workers had between them 74 convictions, with one of the workers having 48 convictions.
As a recorder, I tried a case not long ago in which a security guard opened premises at night to the other members of his gang. When that security guard was eventually caught, it was found that he had been appointed notwithstanding the fact that he had a substantial number of previous convictions for burglary and other forms of dishonesty. We were told that the state had a part to play in establishing minimum standards of employment, and that it certainly has a part to play where police work is involved. In particular, since there was nothing to stop villains and exploiters from setting up in business, the public had a right to expect the state to play some part in controlling the industry.
Fifthly, we heard that the problems were in the manned guarding sector of the private security industry, where the service is bought on a cost basis rather than necessarily according to quality, and where competition is fierce. Those factors have meant that wages in that sector are low, sometimes as low as £1 an hour.
We heard that a third of those in the industry were earning between £2.30 and £2.60 an hour, and that therefore the quality of the recruits was low. That has also meant that there is a high turnover, low training levels and excessive overtime; and that, from time to time, the difference in pay is made up by unemployment benefit. Such are the conditions in the manned guarding sector.
Sixthly, we heard few complaints about the technology and alarm side of the industry.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) rose --
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I give way to my colleague on the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Mr. Mullin: In the light of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about appalling wage rates, does he agree that the introduction of a national minimum wage might be of benefit? Does he recall that one or two witnesses from the industry whom we interviewed said that a national minimum wage would not cause them any problems, and that it would prevent them from being undercut by the sort of cowboy outfits that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just described?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman knows my views about a national minimum wage. I believe that its introduction would harm employment prospects and would cost jobs in our communities. It is one thing to say that there are problems because of the exploitation of the work force in the private security industry, but quite another to take a large leap and argue that the Government must introduce a minimum wage. There is a space in between, in which some improvements to the running of the private security industry will secure much more acceptable wages for its employees. The Government
Column 213
share my belief that it is not for the state to force the level of wages to the point at which large-scale unemployment occurs. Mr. Mullin rose --Sir Ivan Lawrence: I would like to make some progress. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Madam Speaker, and be able to develop his argument.
Mr. Mullin: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way just in case I do not get called?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman is diligent and stays in the Chamber long enough to take part in the debate, he will almost certainly be successful.
Seventhly, the Select Committee was told that, although the level of offending in the private security industry was no higher than it was among the general public, public confidence required the industry to be whiter than white. Eighthly, we heard that the industry was in favour of compulsory state regulation. Furthermore, to our astonishment, we heard that the industry was prepared to pay for it itself so that it should not be a burden upon the taxpayer. That was a significant comment, and I know that the cockles of the Minister of State's were warmed when he read that evidence.
Ninthly, the Committee heard that there was a difference of view about how the vetting of employees should be done to discover their character and whether they had any previous convictions. By whom and to what extent should such vetting be conducted? What should be done about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974? At the end of the day, companies do not have to check employees if they do not want to do so. They cannot ensure that no lies are told, and they cannot check identities if false identities are offered. Nothing much can be done to stop bent firms, especially if the employers are bent. Finally, the Committee heard that, if a regulatory system was decided upon, the necessary legislation could be introduced neither quickly nor simply. Provision must be made for laying down standards; the creation of criminal offences and the introduction of an appeals mechanism. There would have to be a method to distinguish between the size of companies to which certain rules would apply.
Any legislation would have to include details governing conditions of work, including hours of work and pay; gender and equality and the introduction of permits by agencies. The powers of the police would also have to be specified, as would the powers of the Home Secretary. Such legislation would have to be so far-reaching that a truly terrifying list of necessary activities would have to be performed before it could reach the statute book.
In short, the remedies suggested for the ills of the industry were of two kinds. First, tighter controls should be imposed on individuals working within it. That could be achieved by allowing access to criminal records or by licensing approved guards, or both. Secondly, only licensed companies should operate within the industry.
It was clear that, if any of the traditional police roles were being transferred to private security companies, adequate safeguards would have to be provided for the
Column 214
protection of the public. It was also clear that there needed to be firm action to tackle the growing problem of totally unregulated private local patrols, which prey on the fears of the vulnerable. The vetting procedures should also be tightened so that the wrong people do not become guards. At present, the private security industry is not in the list of categories in which anyone can have access to criminal records.What did the Committee recommend? First, we recommended that greater access should be given to national criminal records as part of the vetting procedures of private security industry companies; that vetting should not be done through the companies directly, but through a self-financing agency, which should be empowered to insist on proof of identity of the person to be vetted; that vetting should be limited to recordable convictions and cautions held on the Phoenix database that recently came on stream.
Secondly, we recommended that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 should not apply to the provision of private security services. Thirdly, we recommended that there should not be a blanket ban on anyone with a criminal conviction, irrespective of how long ago the act was committed or how irrelevant that conviction was. We concluded that a substantial reduction in the incidence of unsuitable people operating in the industry could only really be achieved by a licensing system.
We recommended that, first, everyone working in manned guarding system only should have to be licensed to do so. That is where the worst examples of danger to the public occur. Secondly, we noted that the same problems did not tend to arise where companies employed in-house guarding as opposed to contract guarding. Thirdly, we recommended that the vetting agency should also issue the licences. Fourthly, we recommended that it should be a criminal offence for guards to operate without a licence and for companies to employ an unlicensed guard. We also said that, although a case had not been made for statutory regulation of the systems installations and alarm sector, if the industry did not improve its rules and regulations, or were standards to deteriorate in that sector, such regulations should be considered. The rationale for withdrawing from regulating that sector was the old-fashioned one: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We agreed with the overwhelming majority of the evidence that we received, that the advantages of regulation of the manned guarding sector to ensure quality of service and protection of the public, industries, customers and the work force outweighed the loss of commercial freedom. We recommended that a statutory regulatory system should be set up under that sector. That would entail legislation making it a criminal offence for an unregulated company to offer contract guarding services.
It would entail the creation of a new agency, which would have to be accountable to Parliament through the Home Secretary. It is obvious that it should have strong links with the police, industry and commerce. However, it must be independent of the security industry itself. There would need to be time to work out the details, which we did not attempt to go into, and a transitional period to phase in the changes.
Finally, we recommended that the licensing system should be sufficiently adaptable to allow its extension to cover other parts of the industry, such as door supervisors,
Column 215
who we had always thought were called bouncers. Meanwhile, that sector should be the subject of close attention from local government and, in particular, the use of best practice in existing local registration schemes, some of which we examined briefly and seemed to be good and successful, should be encouraged.That was what we reported in June, and normally, we could have expected the Government to reply in about two months. Four months later, they have not yet replied, and I am not over-optimistic that we will have a response today.
In fact, we have received a holding reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister. In a letter dated 25 July to the Clerk to the Committee, Mr. Crispin Poyser, we were told that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary regretted that
"he is not yet able to offer a full response . . . He is considering with colleagues the wide-ranging implications of the Committee's recommendations and will reply in detail as soon as possible."
However, my right hon. and learned Friend made a number of provisional observations. He agreed that the growth of the industry had given rise to concerns; that there was no question of transferring core police tasks to the private security industry; and that the Government shared the Committee's concern about reports of poor standards in the manned guarding sector. It was also clear that the vetting arrangements required further consideration.
The letter added that the Government agreed with the Committee that self- regulation had worked well in the systems installations sector, and they would continue to observe the situation. The Government gave the issue of guidance on door supervisors a high priority and would look at the impact of the advice that we recommended. The central recommendations for access to criminal records for all parts of the industry, with an exemption from the provisions of Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and statutory regulation of companies and licensing of individuals in the manned guarding sector, were now being addressed urgently, and a formal response would be sent as soon as possible.
We know that the Government's attitude to the matter has changed, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the British security industry's annual luncheon recently, as he told the Committee, that a week was a long time in politics. We are greatly heartened by that.
Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan): Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the Government find the issue too complex to respond to in full at this stage, it would be a useful halfway house at least to grant that details of criminal records should be available to those seeking to employ people in the security industry, and that, in respect of such records, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 should not apply?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Naturally, the workings of the Committee are so close and integrated that my hon. Friend has read my mind and anticipated the next and final part of my speech.
We all appreciate that the length of the Government's consideration is due to the complications involved and the fact that we did not produce--nor could we be expected to produce--a detailed framework for legislation, which, of course, would have to be thoroughly worked out and tested. There would also have to be full and thorough
Column 216
consultation with the industry. Therefore, we accept that it is unlikely there will any comprehensive legislation on the subject for some time yet.As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) pointed out, that does not mean that it is impossible to take action on parts of the programme. The most serious aspect of the matter is where crooks masquerade as bona fide security guards. That could be stopped by legislating to allow previous convictions to be looked into by the police, and by extending the operation of exemptions from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to cover the employment of security guards.
I therefore invite my right hon. Friend the Minister to make those changes as soon as possible, or at any rate to encourage hon. Members to choose such legislation if they should be successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills in the new session of Parliament, and to commit the Government to the support of such legislation. If the Government act on a problem that is both worrying and growing, and which is causing considerable distress to sections of the community, they will not only earn the thanks of a nation that has a right to feel trust in those who are guarding and protecting it and its property, but will gain the thanks and admiration of the private security industry itself, which I know my right hon. Friend the Minister once, in an earlier incarnation, graced.
10.25 am
Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South-East): We all know that security and the fear of crime are at the top of the public's agenda, if not that of the Government. Home Office statistics alleging the reduction of the rate of criminal activity mean nothing to millions of people who are afraid to walk out of their own doors. In that atmosphere of fear and alarm, the potential for growth in the private security industry is huge, and the issue of regulation and licensing must be addressed constructively before it spins out of our effective control. As it is, the industry employs over 160,000 people--more than the police service.
There are three main points that I want to make. First, regulation must be implemented to safeguard the public. Secondly, those working in the industry must have certain standards of employment so that they are not exploited. Finally, the issue of accountability needs to be addressed.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs found overwhelming evidence that the industry contains a large amount of criminality. It is obscene that convicted burglars are allowed to protect homes from others who are pursuing their former occupation. Regulation is needed to ensure that those purporting to protect are themselves trustworthy and fit to give that protection. Nothing less than the safety of individuals, many of them extremely vulnerable, is at stake. However, it is not to enough to call for mere regulation. Self-regulation has palpably not worked. Protection rackets have sprung up, where cowboy outfits charge £1 a week or more- -that has happened in my constituency--to protect a home. Responsible firms have taken steps to ensure decent standards. Many have developed membership of trade associations, training programmes and vetting procedures, but many have not, and will not unless they are required to by law.
People who can afford high-quality security will get it, while the poor suffer at the hands of the unregulated and unscrupulous. The Home Secretary has been predictably
Column 217
dismissive of the need for tighter control. He is relentless in his pursuit of a free market dogma that will place people at risk. Home Office Ministers have even sought to apply the principle "let the buyer beware" to the industry. That beggars belief.I stress the need for regulation, because without it we cannot be certain that those in the private security industry are responsible enough to wield the considerable power they hold. I am not calling for restrictive measures that would cause mountains of paperwork and bedevil effective operation. However, the freedom to operate should not be mistaken for a licence to prey on the fears of the public. The unregulated marketplace, which self- regulation unfortunately too often resembles, is an arena for the unscrupulous to drive out the responsible. As so often in commercial life, the good are tarred with the same brush as the bad. A licensing system must be introduced in conjunction with proper training. Companies and individuals must be subject to that procedure.
I agree that the worst cases in the industry involve the manned guarding sector. Therefore, I accept that, for the time being, that sector alone should comply with any new laws; but there should be room in the legislation for those laws to be expanded to other sections should it become necessary.
In addressing the issue of regulation, we must not be concerned solely with those whom the industry serves. Regulation will also protect employees, as standards of safety and pay are appalling in many companies. Many guards must work a disgraceful number of hours simply in order to take home a living wage. While at work, they are often vulnerable to attack and receive no support from their employers.
Many guards are given no training in how to deal with the difficult situations they may face. I have heard reports of security guards who were attacked on site, taken to hospital and then sacked the next day because they could not turn up for work. That is what occurs under the free market of labour: lives are not valued, because irresponsible companies know that their employees can do little to protect themselves.
Regulation would be the first step in halting exploitation of the guards. It would provide training and put in place standards of safety and good practice that would insure guards against putting their lives at risk while their employers go unchecked.
10.30 am
Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on his good fortune in securing a debate on the private security industry. In doing so, he has performed a service both to the House and to the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I do not intend to repeat the arguments that have been presented to the House already in favour of regulation of the private security industry. Anyone who heard the evidence submitted to the Select Committee and who read the Select Committee's report could only reach the same conclusion as the Committee. The arguments in favour of regulation are compelling. Without rehearsing those arguments, I shall summarise them under four headings.
Column 218
First, voluntary self-regulation has clearly failed to establish sufficiently high standards in the industry. That is because more than two thirds--almost three quarters--of the companies involved in the industry are not party to any self-regulatory mechanisms. The practices pursued by the best companies in the industry are constantly undermined by the cowboys.Secondly, we have seen clear and disturbing evidence of criminality in the industry. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the case of a company that employed 26 people, 11 of whom had previous convictions. An even more astonishing example of criminality was revealed in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
It drew the Select Committee's attention to the case of one employee in the private security industry who had applied for a shotgun certificate. His employer endorsed his application for a shotgun certificate, stating:
"I have known X for one year . . . he has worked for X (Private Security Company) this length of time. X has a sociable nature and a good, even temperament.
I recommend him as honest and a very reliable person, who can be trusted".
When the police inquired into that employee's application for a shotgun certificate, they found that he had 15 previous convictions for dishonesty and violence. One of those convictions was for a burglary that had involved the use of explosives. Even more disturbing was the fact that the employee had a conviction for the manslaughter of his wife, who had died when he attempted to perform an illegal abortion.
It is not sufficient for the Government to say--as they have in their evidence to the Select Committee--that the evidence of criminality among members of the private security industry is the same as among the general public as a whole. I do not believe that that is the correct argument. The point is that the evidence of criminality among members of the private security industry is significantly higher than criminality among members of the police force. That is the comparison that the Home Office should have made. Thirdly, the Select Committee found unacceptably low employment conditions, appallingly low pay, a weak training record on the part of most of the companies involved in the industry, and abysmal career prospects for employees. Many employees in the industry must work very long hours under unsocial conditions simply in order to make ends meet.
A job advertisement appeared today in the job centre in Barrow in my constituency. It offers £2.40 an hour, with no enhanced rates for overtime, for between 30 and 60 hours work a week. It is not possible to attract the kind of people that we want in the industry if they are employed under those terms and conditions. The Select Committee believes that a proper system of statutory regulation could make a significant contribution in that regard.
Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) said, we must reassure the public about who is performing those increasingly important services in our community.
We must proceed carefully to a system of statutory regulation. I am sure that there will be full consultation among the police, the industry and others involved. We
Column 219
must be mindful of the costs involved and the impact on the industry of any regulatory system. We must also be aware of the damage that will be done to the industry if we do nothing at all. Therefore, I believe that we should make the decision in principle to move quickly towards a system of statutory regulation as recommended by the Select Committee. That would end the current uncertainty, and allow progress to be made in agreeing the important details of the new regulatory framework.Sadly, there seems to be little immediate prospect of any progress in the field. Many people will conclude that the delay in the Government's response--which the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Chairman of the Select Committee, identified--may have something to do with the confusion that lies at the heart of the Government's industrial policy. It can be described succinctly as a policy of deregulation. The Government's problem is: how can they pursue a policy of deregulation in industry as a whole and embrace statutory regulation for the private security industry without looking foolish?
I am not particularly concerned about whether the Government look foolish; they manage to do that without any help from this side of the House. The problem is entirely of the Government's own making. We need a little less ideology in this area and a bit more common sense in order to make the progress that we all want to see.
10.36 am
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on the work that he and the Home Affairs Select Committee have done in this area. He does the House a favour by debating the subject this morning. There is clearly a good deal of concern in the community about the private security industry, and the Select Committee has provided evidence of the industry's shortcomings.
I am concerned to ensure that, in a society that is prone to hyperbole, we do not damn an entire industry because of the malfunctioning of part of it. We should be aware of the fact that the majority of the industry is honourable, honest and efficient. It is a large industry, that has grown considerably recently. It has high standards generally, and it would be a great shame if the whole industry were condemned because of the malpractice of a few. Nevertheless, we must address the existing problems, and I shall confine my remarks to three areas.
The first is access to criminal records. It is very important that the industry should have the right to access criminal records. The effectiveness of the industry is reliant upon its ability to employ honest people who can be trusted under pressure. Therefore, people with records of assault or dishonesty should clearly not be employed in the industry. If industry personnel are to be trusted, employers must have the right to check the backgrounds of job applicants. It will be possible for employers to carry out checks via the Phoenix system when it is operating properly.
It is important that such checks should be confined to convictions, rather than any other information that may be held by the police. Convictions are on the public record, in any case. It has always mystified me why so much fuss is made about criminal records. After all, the courts operate entirely in the public domain, and public records and press reports of convictions are retained. It is not too
Column 220
difficult for an enterprising individual to search through press records--particularly with the advent of computerisation--and unearth any previous convictions.I therefore believe that there is unnecessary concern and caution in that respect, and I would welcome the opening up of those records to employers. The Select Committee recommends that. Even Liberty has said that it should be possible, so I strongly back that proposition.
After all, if I may draw a comparison, any statement made by an hon. Member of the House that is recorded in the Official Report , be it 30 or 40 years ago--certainly in the past 10 or 15 years--is readily accessible. That is something that has been said in the public domain. A similar rule should apply to any action that has taken place that is recorded in the public processes.
However, there should be a balancing right for an individual to be able to correct any error of recording, and to explain any detail that may be general or vague. A simple record of a specific conviction does not tell the whole story. A conviction for assault may result from a serious, unprovoked assault which may be part of some other criminal activity, such as a robbery; but the assault may be an example of youthful exhuberance.
Perhaps a student, who had taken part in a demonstration, had been carried away in the heat of the moment and had been involved in an assault on the police when resisting a police instruction. That person would never do such a thing later in life, but they might be subject to condemnation along the same lines as for a serious criminal assault in the pursuit of some other crime if they did not have the opportunity to correct or explain the record as it was kept. It is important to have that balance right.
Secondly, I support the Select Committee's conclusion that it should be right for the private security industry to be exempted from the requirements of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I have always been dubious about that Act. It creates a legal fiction about which I feel uneasy. Although I would not want in any way to deter the right of a person to rehabilitate themselves after a crime after sufficient years have passed, when their conduct in society had re-established itself, nevertheless the idea that there should be a legal fiction that the crime never took place worries me in principle.
There are exemptions from that concept. They have multiplied over the years, for good public reasons. They should be extended to the private security industry. The Select Committee is entirely right. Thirdly, I am uneasy with the idea of statutory regulation in any industry, unless it is proved to be absolutely necessary. Although there is a good deal of convincing evidence that it may be necessary in the private security industry, I remain cautious. I would prefer a proper system of industry self-regulation; there is evidence that that can work well in certain industries.
I appreciate that self-regulation has been tried in the private security industry, and that considerable difficulties have arisen, that it has not turned out to be effective so far as a concept, and that the main trade organisations in the industry have now said that statutory regulation is necessary. I regret that.
In the advertising industry, in which I worked for a while, there is a good and efficient system of self-regulation. I was involved in some of the early work
Column 221
that resulted in the setting up of self- regulation in the direct mail industry. There are established examples of self-regulation operating. However, I accept that that is a different industry, and that the rights of the public regarding advertising, although important, do not bear comparison with the much greater protection that is needed in the security industry.I am three quarters of the way along the line to accepting statutory regulation, but I continue to have doubts. I hope that time will be given, before statutory regulation is introduced, for the industry to have one more chance--perhaps a short time--to try out the development of proper self-regulation, perhaps under the threat of statutory action otherwise.
Mr. Mullin: The industry is begging to be regulated.
Mr. Merchant: I am well aware of that--indeed, I said that a few moments ago--but that does not alter my principled objection to statutory regulation as a concept unless it can be proved to be absolutely necessary. I am not convinced that that is the case. However, as the hon. Gentleman heard me say, I am a long way along that route, and, if a final opportunity for self-regulation can be shown not to work, I would reluctantly accept the need for statutory action.
Last year, I supported in some detail the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995, which introduced regulation in those centres. I hope that that shows the hon. Gentleman that I do not take a hard line that would oppose statutory regulation in every case; far from it. Nevertheless, it must be shown to be absolutely necessary in each example.
The problem with statutory regulation is that, once introduced, it starts a creeping process. I read an article in The Guardian dated 8 June on that subject, which specifically said, referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary:
"Let him start on the narrow front, leaving the regulations open so that wider areas could be included later."
That is always the process with statutory regulation. One starts on a narrow field, and there is constant pressure to widen it, until one is regulating everywhere.
I do not want a society that has unnecessary regulation or regulations extended into every aspect of life. If we must have statutory regulation, I would put in a plea for limited regulation--perhaps only the licensing of individuals, rather than the licensing of individuals and the regulation of companies. I leave the House with the following thought. If there is to be licensing or regulation in the manned guarding sector of the industry, applying to contract guarding, I fail to see the logic of confining it to that sector and not extending it to non-contract guarding. If it does not apply in both sectors, I envisage a strange anomaly developing.
All those strict regulatory requirements will affect companies offering the service, but an individual company that wishes to recruit its own individual guard--not a contract company, but a person--will be able to do so without being subject to licensing requirements. That would be a route for contradiction and abuse. I hope that, if we must go down that route, it will be done more comprehensively, so that regulation covers the whole logical area of one sector of the industry.
Column 222
10.47 amMr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): The Liberal Democrats believe that regulation of the private security industry is essential and has been shown to be, and that that opinion is shared by all the most responsible people in the industry.
That issue has been before us for some time. In 1990, the Defence Select Committee took evidence on the way in which private security companies were being used for defence installations, and expressed great unease about the way in which the pressure to keep the contract price down was leading to unsatisfactory regulation, in some cases by inappropriate organisations.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has introduced private Member's legislation with support from all parties, including the Liberal Democrats, to try to do something in that industry. In September 1994, the Liberal Democrat conference passed a resolution calling for regulation of the private security industry.
We have before us the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee of May 1995--the Committee of which the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who introduced the debate, is Chairman. It is an excellent report, which details the matter extremely well, brings together a great deal of evidence and makes an extremely cogent case.
The report draws attention to the growth in the size of the private security industry, and especially the expansion in the role of the private security industry into areas that were previously the domain of the police, which, it said,
"give rise to reasonable and increasing concerns about the industry's relationship with the public and about standards within the industry."
Part of the background to that is concern that the private security industry should not be taking over police duties and
responsibilities.
We feel strongly that the job of policing and maintaining law and order is a job for accountable, disciplined and trained police officers. There have been too many instances lately in which communities and organisations have felt compelled to use private security, not for its proper role, which is extensive, but to provide services that they believe the police cannot supply because of a shortage of resources. The police service itself is anxious about that.
The private security industry is expanding into prisons: first, it undertook prison escort duties, and it is now involved in the running of private prisons. We are unhappy about that, because we believe that the deprivation of the liberty of an individual, where required by the state in pursuit of the law, is a job for the state, not one that should be handed to private agencies.
Despite all that, there is still a massive role for the private security industry. There are many responsible firms and people in that industry, and their leaders want a regulatory system. It is too easy for criminals to be employed in the industry, and it is too easy for criminals to set up their own businesses.
There is absolutely nothing to stop someone walking out of Wormwood Scrubs, hiring a van--or, as someone said when I mentioned this before, stealing a van--acquiring a dog and setting up as a private security firm. That is not good enough,, and it is of course a constant threat to the reputation and credibility of the responsible firms in the industry. They feel that especially strongly.
| Next Section
| Home Page |