House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Nov 1995

Column 223

The door is wide open to criminal infiltration of the industry. Evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee contained many instances, some quoted in the body of the report, of how damaging that can be. The Association of Chief Police Officers produced a report for which the chief constable of Northumbria was responsible. It cited many instances of such criminal infiltration.

In addition, the industry has worryingly low rates of pay. Associated with that must be the risk that people who fail to meet the necessary requirements will be hired. A constant complaint, echoed in the report, is that there is far too little training. Too many people working in the industry have no training at all. The public are being deluded into thinking that someone in a smart uniform is trained, disciplined and accountable in the way that a police officer is.

The similarity of uniform perhaps leads the public to believe that, even if such a person is not the same as a police officer, he is similar. That may be so when the person involved is a highly trained security officer from a reputable firm, working on a specialist task. However, it is not the case with many people working in the industry. A uniform is not necessarily a sign of good quality training or careful recruitment and screening.

The industry has tried to operate a system of self-regulation, but it has been proved repeatedly that self-regulation does not extend far enough and give reputable firms the protection that they require.

During the last Home Office Question Time, I suggested to the Minister of State that it was not acceptable for the Home Office and its agencies to employ private security firms that did not belong to one of the industry's organisations. I was surprised by his reply. He said:

"It would be contrary to European regulations to exclude companies . . . on the basis that they do not belong to a trade organisation."--[ Official Report , 19 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 472.]

Of course, it so happens that, in this industry, the

self-regulating bodies are part of trade organisations. The Government say that, because of European regulations, they and, presumably, other public agencies, cannot insist that the security firms that they employ are part of a self-regulatory system. If that is so--I hope that the Minister has reconsidered the matter since then--how much stronger is the case for statutory regulation. If insistence on self-regulation is precluded in the public sector, statutory regulation is all the more important.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Did the right hon. Gentleman pick up the point that I attempted to make briefly at Question Time, that there is nothing to stop the Government or any other organisation setting their own quality threshold and standards for the employees whom they would take on from a private security company? One cannot use membership of a trade organisation as the sifting mechanism.

Mr. Beith: The Minister said that, as with any contract, Departments can set their own quality standards. He has amplified it a little by saying that they could specify the employees. I take it that he means that the Government could insist that employees did not have any previous relevant criminal convictions, but the fact remains that it undermines the concept of a self-regulatory system to say

Column 224

that one cannot take any notice of whether a company is or is not a member of a self-regulatory body simply because that body is a trade organisation.

That being the case, has the Home Office ever advised the industry to set up a self-regulatory mechanism separate from its trade organisation? I am not aware that it has ever encouraged the industry to find a way around that difficulty to ensure that that can be one of the usual standards and qualifications. We seem to be undermining the whole notion of self- regulation. If the Government cannot make use of it, what use is it? Clearly, we need a better system. It is also clear from the Home Affairs Select Committee report that too few companies chose to take part in a self -regulatory system for it to be effective.

Closed circuit television is another problem. Much of the monitoring of closed circuit television is carried out by private security companies, some of which scarcely qualify to be called that. Closed circuit television is a valuable tool in fighting crime. Although the Home Secretary has occasionally sought to suggest that the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of it, he regularly opens such schemes in Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities which have set them up with the help of the Home Office.

I hope that the Home Office will eventually cough up the money to install a closed circuit system in my constituency. We have been pressing for it for some time. We thought that the latest list was supposed to help the smaller communities, but it seems that too many of the larger places are at the front of the queue.

There is no control over what happens to the video tapes produced by closed circuit television. There is evidence that such material is being obtained for the production of violent commercial videos. It is also possible to obtain it for blackmail and other purposes not related to its proper use. An unregulated activity is being carried out by unregulated companies.

I would expect any system of regulation of security companies to cover their conduct in this sphere. The problem has to be dealt with one way or another. Otherwise, sooner or later, someone will start switching off closed circuit television systems because they are being abused, and the public's co-operation will be undermined. The product of closed circuit television is used to fight crime, but if it is going to finish up as a violent product on video shop shelves and seen by children, the whole exercise will be fatally damaged. We cannot allow that to happen.

Another problem is that of bouncers. I believe that they are sometimes called door attendants, but they are bouncers in the Bigg Market in Newcastle. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Burton visited the many night clubs in Newcastle to examine not only the bouncers but what went on inside--

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I did not.

Mr. Beith: The hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that he did not, but he established that there is a registration scheme, which is an example of good practice and should be encouraged.

Mr. Mullin: What about the Serjeant at Arms?

Mr. Beith: I do not think that the Serjeant at Arms will be required to register. The presence in the world of

Column 225

bouncers of many people with criminal convictions and associations with violent crime was a serious problem on Tyneside. The registration scheme has been a help.

I believe that relevant legislation should be included in the Queen's Speech. The Government should not have delayed as long as they have. It is wholly unsatisfactory that we should have to wait longer even for a Government response to the Home Affairs Select Committee report. We ought to be getting on with it. I know that there are issues still to be resolved, but there needs to be an agency to carry out any regulation. There also needs to be access to criminal records, exemption under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and action to monitor closed circuit television.

The Government must stop dragging their feet. The private security industry needs legislation in order to be able to carry out its important job properly, and the public need the assurance that when they see a uniformed security guard, they are seeing someone who has been subjected to a proper system of registration and control. 10.58 am

Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan): The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) rightly stressed that Conservatives tend to be in favour of deregulation. We should certainly look carefully at how we can avoid regulating unnecessarily, and at how we can keep regulations to a minimum. But the evidence we received from some parts of the security industry was overwhelmingly in favour of some form of regulation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said that he was 75 per cent. convinced by the arguments for some sort of regulation. I would say that it is no good giving the security industry one more chance for self-regulation when we know that we are not worried about the 20 per cent. of the industry which is responsible and which does regulate its own activities; we are concerned about the other 80 per cent., which does not regulate itself.

The Select Committee bore in mind the need to restrict regulation to the areas where there are seen to be obvious problems. Although, for instance, there are problems in respect of the installation of alarms in people's homes and businesses, there is no clear evidence that the situation requires regulation. Current consumer legislation and breach-of-contract law would appear to be the appropriate remedies for people who are dissatisfied with their installations. The problem of corrupt or bent installers using the opportunity of visiting people's homes or businesses to case the joint and then tip off underworld colleagues can be met by regulating those who can be employed, and introducing a form of licensing based on access to criminal records.

The Select Committee was also concerned about the possible growth of protection rackets. That is a worry in many countries, but here, too, I believe that the answer lies in licensing, both for organisations and individuals.

We also briefly considered the question of bouncers. There is a need, I believe, for the licensing of people and organisations in this area. It is possible for self-regulation to be highly effective.

Column 226

In September this year, I visited the Sin Bin, a nightclub in Medicine Hat, Canada. It is a place frequented by British troops stationed at BATUS, the British Army training unit in Alberta. Instead of employing large, thuggish bouncers of the type one often sees in this country, the club employs small, weedy bouncers with a very professional attitude. They are equipped with hidden radios, so that, if one of them is trying to get rid of someone, he is soon surrounded by a group of other bouncers. Numbers, not weight and size, soon persuade troublemakers to leave promptly.

In the end, this debate comes down to the balance between preserving the freedoms of the individual and the costs and inconvenience of regulation. The Government need to negotiate with the industry over the right amount of regulation. Clearly, there are relatively inexpensive ways in which regulations can be introduced. Although no definite figures were produced, the Committee came to the conclusion that a criminal record check might cost £20. That seems little enough to spend on such an important aspect of security in our daily lives.

The members of the industry who gave evidence made it clear that they would be happy to bear the costs of this regulation, so they will not be an additional burden on the taxpayer. The industry would welcome and pay for the sort of regulation that the Select Committee has advocated.

As I say, I believe that the Government should negotiate with the security industry, if they have not already done so, with a view to drafting legislation. If it proves impracticable to deal with the whole problem in the coming Session, I would urge the halfway house recommended by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who so ably introduced this morning's debate. 11.4 am

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on initiating this debate. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and his colleagues are understandably angry that we are debating the private security industry in private Members' time, instead of debating a Government response to his Committee's report in Government time. The need for action has been clearly spelt out by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney).

The need for regulation became clear long before the Select Committee published its report, but there has been no sign yet that Ministers intend to take firm, positive action. The fudge of giving only employers access to the criminal records of employees--an idea that has been suggested--does not go far enough. It simply would not sort out the rogue employers--and rogue employers as well as rogue employees are certainly a problem, as illustrated in the Committee's report.

Proper protection of the public requires the Government to introduce statutory regulation of the private security industry, and it is time for Ministers to stop dithering and prevaricating. The Labour party's view is shared by the police, the public, the industry itself--and even, I am glad to note, by the Select Committee. The Home Secretary has not yet leaked the slightest whiff of an intention to

Column 227

grasp the nettle, which suggests that he intends to allow things to fester for another full Parliament. That is just not acceptable. I challenge the Minister this morning to give us straight answers to 10 straight questions. First, will he promise to introduce a statutory system of regulation for the private security industry--yes or no? Secondly, will legislation be announced in the Queen's Speech and introduced in the coming Session of Parliament? Thirdly, will the Minister specifically include manned guarding, patrol duties and door supervision in the legislation? Fourthly, will he agree that the regulation of those who undertake such tasks must include proper vetting procedures, through a publicly accountable system, together with high standards of training and supervision in the industry? Fifthly, does the Minister accept, in the interests of the companies in the sector which are well run and highly professional, that there should be strict regulation of all companies that undertake such activities? Sixthly, will he accept that these functions can be exercised, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, by a self- financing agency, accountable to Parliament, through the Home Secretary, for both policy and operational decisions? Seventhly, will the Minister accept that, while these areas of activity require urgent regulation, many companies offer a wide range of related services, and that the agency should be capable of dealing with all such issues--as suggested also by the Select Committee's report? That might involve training, certification and registration requirements for those undertaking installation work, via systems already in place in the industry. In short, will the agency have the powers and flexibility to cope with a changing market?

Eighthly, will the Minister make it a criminal offence for an unregulated company to offer services in the three fields of activity that I have mentioned? Ninthly, does he agree that there must be effective penalties for those who fail to follow proper procedures with regard to vetting and training? Tenthly, will he accept the necessity for the police to have the power to intervene in the interests of the public when they need to do so?

Those 10 questions, clearly answered by the Minister, would help a great deal to ensure progress on a matter that has exercised the public a great deal in recent times. By answering positively, the Minister would introduce a system that would be practical and not excessively onerous, bureaucratic or costly.

The fact is, I fear, that we are bedeviled by the Conservatives' obsession with ending regulation wherever it exists and avoiding it even where it is needed--except in the public services. I am the first to applaud the ending of red tape and the cutting of needless regulation, but an unregulated marketplace is a place where bad drives out good and worse drives out bad.

The hon. Members for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) and for Vale of Glamorgan have clearly moved some way on the important issues that we are debating, but at the same time they illustrate the reluctance of Conservative Members generally to grasp the nettle. With the Conservative lurch to the right, the playing field is tilted steeply against responsible and professional companies. Lack of regulation is not freedom, but licence in the worst sense of the word. Voluntary regulation clearly does not work. The Home Office does not insist that firms and their employees are registered under the present system.

Column 228

Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) introduced a private Member's Bill that focused on the private security industry. He said that, if someone wanted to be a tattooist, he would have to be approved by the local authority, but that an individual could set up a security firm and install alarms, or become a private eye, without any qualifications or experience, even after having been released from gaol in the recent past. Those who set up such firms do not have to have local authority approval. Self-regulation is not effective --indeed, it can be avoided. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to those shortcomings. Companies are operating in sensitive areas of public life with a complete lack of accountability. Penetration by criminals is of serious concern, even if it involves only a minority. Wages can be low. The most recent trade union survey of security officers' wages that I have seen revealed average earnings of £2.23 an hour. Many employees are obliged to work 70 or more hours a week if they are to take home a living wage. These matters require the active involvement of government. Ministerial hand-wringing is not enough.

It is about a year since we last debated these matters. I said during that debate that, sadly, we had reached the position where it was difficult to find opponents of statutory regulation, apart from Home Office Ministers and criminals who might be deprived of their work within security organisations. It is clear that Back-Bench Conservative Members have moved on regulation, and it is time for Ministers to move, too.

Many people in different parts of the country have been approached by individuals who tell them that they operate a security system and look after homes in the area for a weekly payment. They may hint that homes might not be so secure if money is not paid. They may not always intend to break the law, but such hints are often interpreted by residents as a form of threat.

Such an approach is sometimes close to operating a protection system, which is unacceptable. There have been examples of those developing a security system on an estate telling the police of their plans, then telling local people that they had the approval of the police when that was not the position.

In a brief intervention, the Minister seemed to reflect ministerial comments last year that, first and foremost, for members of the public, it is a case of "buyer beware". That is not acceptable. Such an irresponsible approach misses the point. A Ministry or a large company that regularly buys in security services can make comparisons, test the market, insist that its objectives are met and have adequate legal and professional advice. At the same time, ordinary members of the public and those running small companies are seeking security services. They are rarely in the position of a Ministry or large company.

Concern about the wrong people being involved in private security patrols and their management has been confirmed in different areas. Some of the examples are both frightening and similar in nature. A circular by one group offering patrols by staff free of criminal convictions bore the name of a director who had several convictions for both dishonesty and violence. A senior police officer told me: "I personally find it monstrous that people with convictions for burglary in dwelling houses are being allowed to run businesses and work for such companies whilst having strings of convictions for the offence for which they are purporting to protect the public."

Column 229

Another senior police officer wrote to me about a new security firm as follows:

"You may share my concern and dismay when I tell you that Mr. F (the person who formed the company) is a man with many previous convictions and is currently on bail as well as being a disqualified driver. Working with him in his security business is Mr. G, who has 23 pages of convictions on the Police National Computer . . . most of these convictions involve burglary and theft in domestic properties. He has only recently been released from prison and he too is a disqualified driver."

Claims made by some companies have been exposed as entirely untrue. An organisation which claims to protect homes by charging £1 per week per household issued a leaflet stating that staff were experienced, had a forces background and were in constant communication with the police. It claimed also that all properties were logged on a computer and that the company was registered with the police. The local superintendent who told me about this wrote:

"My view on having sight of this leaflet was that at best the company was misleading the public and at worst their promotional material was a criminal deception. Mr. A admitted that his staff were not trained, not in radio communication with the police, and not registered under the Data Protection Act."

As for being registered with the police, there is no system of registration. When considering last year what were then the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, we suggested that interim measures should be adopted. Our recommendations were not accepted, and a year has passed with no action being taken by the Government. A cry from the Minister of "caveat emptor" and self-regulation provides no answers. How do the public tell the difference between a genuine service and a virtual protection racket? The answer is that they cannot until it is too late.

There are no controls on who can set up a security business. There are no checks on their criminal record. Invariably, staff are inadequately trained. No checks are made on employers. If the industry is to be involved in such work as patrolling the streets, staff must be trained and must follow a code of practice agreed with the police. That should be basic. The Government recognise that, where private security companies run prisons, the Government have the right to lay down standards of training. Yet for patrolling the streets, no standards are laid down.

Last year, the British Security Industry Association's journal, Security Spokesman , highlighted the Home Secretary's claim during his speech to the BSIA that

"there are no grounds for the Government to licence the private security industry because of the insufficient evidence of criminality."

The editorial commented:

"this argument misses the point in one crucial area, that of public accountability".

Referring to the industry's greater public profile, the editorial stated:

"equally inevitably, greater public accountability must follow as a consequence. It is this--not criminality as Michael Howard would have us believe--which is at the crux of the regulation issue." That is a responsible approach to the issue, and I welcome the fact that it comes from within the industry, which has given so much evidence to the Select Committee.

Column 230

Over a quarter of a century ago, Philip Sorenson, then chairman of Group 4 Total Security, said:

"It is the responsibility of the security industry to work towards statutory backing for a system of control. That system should allay any fears about the role of private security companies in our society."

He was right 25 years ago, and his words are even more urgent and compelling now.

The least we should expect from the Minister is a series of straight answers to the 10 questions I have put to him, and a promise that there will be legislation to deal with the issues to which we have drawn his attention in the forthcoming Session.

11.17 am

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) for giving me the opportunity to explain the position that we have reached on the important matters to which he referred. In major parts of the security industry, there is little call for change. In the security system or alarms sector, self-regulation has proved highly effective. The in-house guarding sector has caused no problems. Difficulties in certain areas involving bouncers are being tackled by means of specially designed measures, of which the Select Committee on Home Affairs approved.

That is not to say that the security industry is without problems. As in any other industry or business, there are areas of concern. Like the Select Committee, I think that these problems lie mainly within the contract manned guarding sector of the industry. According to a research report published by the Policy Studies Institute last year, that sector comprises about 24 per cent. of the industry's employees, not 80 per cent. as has been suggested. None of those employees has a police constable's powers. None of them carries out what we have identified as core police functions, and rightly so.

Nevertheless, many of them will be seen in areas where they have frequent and close contact with the public. It is vital that public confidence in them should not be misplaced. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the bad reputations of a few unsuitable individuals or poor companies do not tarnish the reputation of the industry as a whole.

There is little evidence of criminality across the board within the private security industry, but we have seen some alarming data from the police on various incidents throughout the country.

Of particular note is the part played by bouncers. I am hopeful that the registration schemes for door staff, which are being set up by the police and local authorities in areas where there are problems, will meet that need. Both the police and the Select Committee believe that it could, and we shall shortly issue guidance on the setting up and running of schemes for those who wish to introduce registration arrangements. At the same time, we shall ask the police to help us to monitor the number and operation of the schemes. My hon. and learned Friend and his Committee offered us three options for improving quality in the manned guarding sector: licensing for individuals; regulation for companies; or to combine the two and set up an agency to run new arrangements for the licensing of individuals

Column 231

and to ensure that companies fulfil certain minimum criteria. The Committee proposed that the licensing of individuals should be based on mandatory criminal record checks, and that there should be greater access to criminal records for a widely defined industry. I am well aware that one of the main concerns about the private security industry is the employment of individuals who have in the past committed criminal offences. Many see it as essential, therefore, that there should be a means of checking whether a prospective employee has a criminal record.

At the moment, there is no legitimate method of obtaining that information, other than by putting pressure on individuals to exercise their rights under the Data Protection Act 1988 for access to the information on convictions that is held on police computer systems. The problem is that that circumvents the safeguards available to individuals under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which aims to strike a balance between giving offenders a chance to reintegrate themselves into society and the need to protect society from those who might offend again. It allows convictions that have been become spent, through the passage of time and the individual's subsequent good behaviour, to remain unknown to prospective employers.

There are groups, of course, who are exceptions to the Act, but they do not include any part of the private security industry. I know that that is something that parts of the industry would like to see changed, and it is one of the issues that the Home Affairs Select Committee's report recommended that the Government should consider. It is, though, an issue that needs to be put in the context of the more general question about pre- employment vetting.

That whole subject has been of concern to the Government for some considerable time. At present, criminal record checks are carried out by the police only for certain groups of employees. Most checks take place to protect vulnerable people, such as children, while others are necessary for the purposes of national security or for probity in the administration of the law.

The Government have therefore been reviewing very carefully the current arrangements for vetting. Towards the end of 1993, we issued a Green Paper, "The Disclosure of Criminal Records for Employment Vetting Purposes". It posed 12 questions that had arisen from the Select Committee's deliberations on vetting.

In the light of the 180 responses that we received to that consultation exercise, the Government have been considering a new approach to vetting. We believe that a system of pre-employment checks of criminal records is needed that is more accessible and more open, and which will meet the needs of employers and other organisations who need to employ people in positions of trust. A White Paper will shortly be published setting out our views. Although I cannot go into details about its contents, I can tell the House that it will discuss ways of enabling a much wider range of employers to obtain relevant information about criminal records quickly and cheaply.

Mr. Michael: The Minister has specifically addressed the issue of checks on employees. Will he now tell us whether the White Paper will also deal with checks on employers, and who will undertake those checks and be accountable to the public?

Column 232

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman will have to be patient and wait for the White Paper.

As I said in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee last December, the introduction of an easily obtainable criminal conviction certificate would be one way of achieving that. Developments of this kind will be possible largely due to improvements in technology, and particularly the development of a comprehensive criminal record database on the police national computer, which will provide access to a much wider range of information than was once the case.

Those proposals would go a considerable way towards meeting the concerns of the police, the industry and others, but it is also fair to point out that criminal record checks on their own will not be enough; not everyone with a criminal record is necessarily unsuited to all jobs, and not all those who are unsuitable for employment in the industry will necessarily have a criminal record.

If criminal record checks are to have a part to play in determining who may be employed as a security guard, the next question is whether unspent convictions should be revealed--that is, whether the industry should be excepted from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I believe that the Act has worked fairly well since its introduction 20 years ago, and we must be sure when considering any case for making a new exception that the purpose of the Act would not be undermined. It may be the case that, under new vetting arrangements, for example, sufficient information could in any case be made available within the current provisions of the Act. The Select Committee's report also outlined new criminal offences to lend teeth to the new statutory arrangements. We must be very careful to ensure that any new criminal offences, with all the implications that they carry for the criminal justice system as a whole, are created to deal only with a serious nuisance that cannot be dealt with otherwise. That may be the case here, and again it is something that we are still considering.

Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best predictors of future criminality is when one has committed offences in the past?

Mr. Maclean: It is certainly a clear predictor, but it is also the case that offences are committed by some in the manned guarding sector of the security industry and also by those who are responsible for children and have passed all sorts of security checks. It is an unfortunate fact of life that, despite some 600,000--perhaps coming on for 1 million--checks per annum, mainly involving people who may be working with children, many people who are involved in offences against children have never had a blot on their record before, so there is no perfect predictor of criminality.

The private security industry is a large and diverse organism, and the question whether, and if so how, to regulate all or part of it does raise complex questions. I know that my hon. and learned Friend understands that we are giving very careful consideration to his report. The Select Committee has identified a range of issues and given a steer on how they might be tackled, but, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, he has not given us a detailed blueprint on how it could be done. I must say to him and to the House that it is not a matter of Ministers making a grand pronouncement in principle without having tried to work out some of the detail that might follow such a pronouncement.

Column 233

My hon. and learned Friend's debate today is both timely and helpful, and, as I said in my evidence to the Select Committee, we go a long way together in agreeing on the areas of prime concern, but we must ensure that we get the solutions right. The recommendations in his report touch on the interests of many, both within Government and outside, and, like the recommendations of every Select Committee, they merit close attention.

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maclean: I shall conclude now. My hon. Friend can reply if he gets the House's permission.

We will give my hon. and learned Friend and his Committee a full reply when we have managed to give the report the full and proper consideration that it deserves.

10.4 am

Sir Ivan Lawrence: With permission, perhaps I might reply. The debate has been of a very high standard, and it has been across party lines. There has been a minimum of rancour, and the debate has shown the House at its best. It has brought out the important point: that the industry is honourable and is working well, in the main, and it is a sign of the maturity of its leaders that they are prepared to have Government restriction and legislation to control it, to take account of the relatively small section of the industry that is working badly.

We have demonstrated that we recognise that the problem of immediate legislation is very difficult, but if the Government act soon on the question of criminality, that will provide a measure of satisfaction.

Hon. Members have mentioned the conflict between the Government's well motivated desire to deregulate, and the fact that here we are calling for regulation; but the fact has been strongly made that, where the industry is itself calling for state regulation and where there is an outstanding need to protect the public--and where the industry is prepared to pay--this is not a question of relying on the shibboleths of political dogma. There is a practical need to introduce the kind of legislation that has been requested by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

We are, to some extent, encouraged by the Government's response. The public and the industry will also be encouraged. But we shall only be encouraged--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must now move to the next debate.

Column 234

Manufacturing Industry

11.30 am

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about manufacturing, as I come from an industrial area. I am concerned about the human misery of unemployment--the sheer waste of people, many of whom are running out of hope.

A third of my constituents receive some form of income benefit. That should be set against Bradford's proud industrial heritage. The town must now create 700 new jobs a year just to retain its present employment level. In the early 1980s, we lost 22,000 jobs in four years, and we have never recovered. Companies such as GEC, International Harvesters and Baird Television, employing thousands, have completely gone; other major employers have drastically reduced their work forces. Hepworth and Grandage, a leading engineering company that employed 5,000 in its prime, now employs fewer than 250.

Bradford is not unique, however. Britain's industrial regions have been devastated by the growing cancer of long-term unemployment. We hear today that Britain has slipped to 18th in the league table of world prosperity; it is bottom of the league in terms of investment and job creation. I know that other hon. Members will want to share their experiences of the failure of Tory economic policy. The history of Britain over the past 150 years could be portrayed as the inevitable effect of the decline of manufacturing industry. In the Great Exhibition of 1851, Britain was clearly seen as the strongest and most dynamic economy in the world, whose strength was based entirely on the success of manufacturing. Our competitors then were Germany, France and the United States--which long ago outstripped us, along with many other countries.

There are many reasons for our decline, but one of the most significant is the fact that in certain parts of the establishment there is still a feeling that to work in manufacturing is somehow inferior, confining employees to the tradesmen's entrance for life. There is a snobbish attitude to the industry. That attitude must be consigned to the dustbin. We are still a manufacturing

nation--just--but we have a whole new series of challenges to face. The Conservative Government have presided over the two deepest recessions since the second world war. Our economy has not the capacity for strong growth. In August, a survey conducted by the Business and Technology Education Council showed that more than half the firms employing more than 100 people thought that their profitability would be affected by skill shortages among young workers. We heard yesterday that the Deputy Prime Minister is to call for a job skills audit: he, too, recognises that Britain is way behind other countries in terms of competitiveness.

The rate of growth has been slowing seriously. Between 1979 and 1993, the economy grew at an average annual rate of only 1.7 per cent.; that is the slowest rate of growth in the United Kingdom since the 1930s. The Treasury forecast implies that the average growth rate between 1988 and 1998 will also be only 1.7 per cent., as against a pre-1979 post-war rate of 2.7 per cent. The United Kingdom's average growth between 1979 and 1993 has been the slowest in the 18 countries in the G7 and the European Union.

Next Section

Home Page