---

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Does he agree that we require from the Government some practical reassurances in the Bill on the subject of the composition of the authority, in order to dispel any notion that either the present, or a subsequent, Home Secretary might try to use the power of appointment to the authority as an opportunity to offer somebody a bauble for loyal service in a wholly unrelated field?

Mr. Luff: As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point. The House is ill advised to give Ministers flexibility unless it is genuinely needed. Whatever Ministers' reasons for trying to distort the purposes for which they were given discretion in the first place, it is helpful if as much detail as possible is included in a Bill. At present, that is an unfashionable view; to be fair,

28 Mar 2001 : Column 1007

it was not especially popular with the previous Government either, but it has become splendidly unpopular--Bills are now largely concerned with setting up order-making powers for Secretaries of State. That is not acceptable.

Group 4's suggestion meets the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and me. It is that the authority should include two members from the industry's employers; two members from employees in the industry; one member from the police and criminal justice system; one member who represents local authorities; one representing insurance providers--an important group; and one member representing customer groups. The industry has some big customers who could easily supply an individual to fill that role. Finally, there should be a member to represent the public. That is a more difficult challenge--I always worry about the appointment of surrogates for the general public.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I understand the intelligent approach suggested by Group 4 and other companies in the field. However, how would the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that I made about the need to ensure that the authority is an independent organisation and not simply an agglomeration of special interests--however significant?

Mr. Luff: That is a philosophical debate. How can we guarantee independence if a Minister is given complete discretion to make appointments? With all due respect to the Minister, for whom I sincerely have a high personal regard, I do not trust him to behave independently in making appointments to a public body. I do not trust any Minister to do that. If Ministers have a framework in which to operate, the prospects of independence are enhanced. There is a debate to be had on that subject. The Minister smiles benignly; I am not sure whether that is from the knowledge that he has won the argument or because he suspects that there may be something in my argument. He nods to indicate the former. However, he needs to reflect on the matter.

The Minister should reflect especially on Group 4's point that there should be more than one representative from the industry. The industry is diverse, with companies of different sizes and scales of operation. At the very least, the authority should include a big fish and a small fish. It would be good if the Minister were to say that during this debate or in the Standing Committee.

I emphasise Group 4's excellent point about the desirability of including employees on the authority. The voice of employees needs to be heard loud and clear; they have often been the victims of badly run security companies.

The authority's powers are also of some concern. The Bill allows for the authority to establish minimum standards. Group 4's view is that minimum standards of training are needed and that they should be specified in the Bill. I made a similar point earlier, so I shall not labour it. Are Ministers really content that so much discretion should be allowed to them and to the authority in the formulation of proposals?

The subject of in-house security staff is contentious. Many people in the industry are worried about the exclusion of such staff from the Bill's provisions. Group 4

28 Mar 2001 : Column 1008

and the British Security Industry Association share those concerns. They believe that a two-tier system of private security could develop, and that

"failure to regulate in-house staff may provide a loophole which could help unscrupulous people to find their way into the industry and undermine the very principles of the Bill."

The Minister of State, Home Office is currently not at the Dispatch Box, although he has been replaced by another Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for whom I also have high personal regard.

I hope that Ministers will consider including provisions on in-house staff. The criminal justice White Paper provides for the extension of private sector work in policing; that is a powerful reason for arguing that case. The growing role of the private security industry in many aspects of the lives of local communities means that the industry must keep a watchful eye on the Human Rights Act 1998. We must be certain that the Government are right to exclude provisions on in-house providers.

The BSIA has concerns on that point:

"There are two main points to consider here, a) businesses may choose to revert to in-house security, as it could become cheaper than employing contractors, once the cost of regulation has been added to contract prices, and b) individuals who cannot obtain a licence may seek work within in-house operations. It will be interesting to see what form of vetting the Government recommends for in-house security. Will businesses be allowed to access enhanced criminal records to assess the suitability of their in-house staff? If so, why not include licensing for in-house officers as a legal obligation?"

That is a powerful case; the Government must answer it.

The burden of the cost of licensing must not fall on employees. I still have reservations about the minimum wage, despite everything that has happened. Recent increases in the rate will pose severe challenges for some businesses--not necessarily because they pay at that rate, but because of differentials. However, in the private security industry, the absence of a minimum wage often led to shabby treatment of employees. There is no doubt that scandalously low rates were paid, so in that particular industry, the minimum wage brought great benefits. The company should meet the cost of the licence and I hope that the Government will keep that firmly in mind.

I am slightly surprised that the Bill lists no exemptions. Group 4 suggests that the Act should not apply to

"a police officer . . . a prison officer . . . a member of Her Majesty's armed forces . . . a member of the Ministry of Defence Guard Service . . . an officer or employee of a Government department, government agency or non departmental government body . . . a person who in whatever capacity carries out any designated activities in relation to a public works or supply contract relating to the provision of prison escort, custody and immigration services."

They are, of course, already separately regulated.

It is strange that there are no exclusions. It is important that correct boundaries and delineations be set out in statute; the case for exemption seems strong.

There is some urgency on these issues, because the Government seem to be planning to make much greater use of the private security industry. Indeed, we seem to be going through privatisation by stealth. I suppose that I should welcome that, but I am somewhat surprised

28 Mar 2001 : Column 1009

because when the White Paper on the industry was published in 1999, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), said:

"I have no plans for police patrol or any other police functions to be carried out by the private security industry, except that we have proposed that the escorting of certain abnormal loads should, in future, be carried out by the private sector. Representatives of the police and other bodies have raised many matters in discussions, but neither I nor my Ministerial colleagues have proposed any changes to responsibility for police patrolling. No Ministerial committees or Working Groups are currently examining any such proposals.--[Official Report, 27 July 1999; Vol. 336, c. 263W.]

I found that answer difficult to reconcile with the White Paper "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", published last month. It seems to have a different vision of the future relationship of the private security industry with the police service. In the chapter on the police, we are told that one of the key measures is

"experimental accreditation of security or patrol staff from other organisations, working under police co-ordination to deliver improved community safety."

In a little less than two years, there seems to have been a huge shift in the Government's thinking.

The White Paper rightly notes:

"There has always been a wide range of people contributing to community safety in various forms. These include park keepers (some with constabulary powers), security guards in shopping centres, car park attendants, neighbourhood wardens, night club bouncers and the private security industry. The issue for policing is how these various activities can be co-ordinated to make the most effective contribution to making safer communities."

The paper talks about the Private Security Industry Bill and the Government believing that there is

"scope for some evaluated schemes to determine the effect on public reassurance of the police accrediting and co-ordinating a range of independent bodies to work in conjunction with them in delivering community safety."

It says that these activities could be co-ordinated with policing needs by an officer with an enhanced role as a community beat manager. That proposal represents a very significant shift in the Government's position.

Now here comes the more controversial part of my remarks--my more partisan remarks.

---