---

The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to have the opportunity to put on record the work that has been undertaken by the Security Industry Authority in implementing the Private Security Industry Act 2001, and to describe its progress to date. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has done us all a favour by raising these important issues, which will be of widespread interest.

The decision to set up the SIA and to regulate the private security industry enjoyed the support of the whole House. Many Members had campaigned for a number of years to raise standards in the industry and to use regulation to drive out what was seen as the criminal or rogue element within it. It is clear that the industry will play an increasingly important role in our extended police family, so it is vital that we raise the standards and skills of the people employed in it and that we reach a point at which the public can rely on those people having had good training and been properly vetted, and on their being fit and competent to do their job.

The regulation of the industry has the support of virtually all the organisations and companies involved. I do not think that a single legitimate operator opposes the principle of regulation. The industry views this as a positive move forward, and thinks that it will be a tool for increasing both police and public confidence and that that, in turn, could lead to increased business opportunities for the industry as a whole. Where it is well respected, it should be able to expand its operation.

The aims of the SIA are: to increase public trust and confidence in the industry; to increase professionalism and standards; to encourage businesses to improve their standards by creating a framework for developing and promoting best practice across the industry; to create a security industry centre of knowledge and expertise, so that the best people in the industry can lead the development of the rest; and to try to strengthen the extended police family, which we hope to develop.

As for the sectors that we want to be licensed by the SIA, it started with door supervisors, and it will move on to wheel clampers, security guards, personal protection guards, key holders, private investigators and security consultants. The industry that we seek to regulate is wide ranging, and it is a complex task.

The authority has tried to estimate accurately the size of the task that it is undertaking, to set up a proper organisation. The estimate is that about 500,000 people in this country are employed in this sector, and that the industry has an annual turnover of about £3 billion. As the hon. Gentleman says, because much of the work is part time, it is difficult to draw strict boundaries in relation to the exact number of people who are employed. Nationally, it is estimated that about 95,000 people are employed as door supervisors. In the pilot area, the initial estimate was that about 2,000 people were likely to be employed in the industry. The hon.
 
16 Jun 2004 : Column 887
 
Gentleman will appreciate that, because of the nature of the industry, it is difficult to pin down exactly the number of people who are employed.

The starting position for the SIA was an almost completely unregulated sector of our economy. It has therefore had to start from scratch to set up a system that would work and be effective. It decided that a number of things were required: a disclosure through the Criminal Records Bureau to make sure that those employed were fit and proper people to do the job; training to make sure that their skills were up to date and appropriate for the job that they had to carry out, taking into account the fact that the night-time economy has become increasingly important and complex, and that new skills are sometimes required to deal with the difficult and sometimes confrontational situations in which some individuals will find themselves; identification of training providers, which, as they had not been in the field previously, would require a new start; processing of applications quickly and efficiently; and communication of all these issues to businesses and individuals to get the message across that it was an entirely new world of operation.

Given the size of the industry, it was decided properly that a "big bang" approach to regulation was not possible or feasible. A decision was therefore taken to divide the sector into three tranches for regulation: the first is door supervisors and vehicle immobilisers or wheel clampers; the second is manned guarding and key holders; and the third is private investigators and security consultants. The step-by-step, incremental approach of dividing the industry into sectors is absolutely right, to make sure that we learn from our initial roll-out and from the pilots, and that we strengthen the process as we proceed.

The hon. Gentleman is right that although the SIA is starting virtually from scratch, a number of local authorities and police forces have been operating their own local schemes for door supervisor registration. Some of them are of a high standard, but the schemes are patchy across the country, and widely differing criteria operate for the award of a licence. They have not succeeded in raising standards generally, which is a key aim of the authority, and local schemes have not got across to the public the message that standards have been raised and that the minority criminal element has been removed from the industry. A national scheme was therefore needed to give the public confidence that national standards would be developed. There are now three main criteria for giving a licence: an identity check; a fit and proper person check; and a check on professional competence to do the job. If we get those three things right, we will drive up standards.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific issues about the roll-out in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. It was absolutely right to choose a pilot area to see what happened when this system was introduced. The SIA decided the pilot area, taking into account the fact that it was a good area in which to start. It has a range of urban and rural areas. We have heard about Temptations club, and various other clubs and pubs mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
 
16 Jun 2004 : Column 888
 

There was a comprehensive communications strategy, targeted at employers as well as individuals working in the licensed trade. The message has been pretty consistent: both the SIA and Hampshire police have tried to ensure that people are fully aware of the need to acquire a licence. Research has also been commissioned recently to assess the level of awareness. It established that 100 per cent. of door supervisors knew that they would have to be licensed—they had not gone to get their licences, but they knew that they would have to do so—and that 86 per cent. of employers were aware of the requirement.

In Hampshire there has been delay, delay, delay until the very last minute, which has put us in a difficult position. Between 1 March—when supervisors were eligible to apply for packs—and 4 June, the SIA issued 2,128 application packs, 1,186 from the pilot area. However, despite that high level of interest and the almost universal awareness, take-up has been pretty slow. Only 722 applications had been returned by the week ending 4 June, and the vast majority were submitted after the last safe application date. There were some minor administrative teething problems in the case of a few applications, but the vast majority of those were delivered within the four to six weeks specified in the SIA's standards.

The necessary Criminal Records Bureau check takes some time. It is also necessary to establish that the people applying are competent. I think that individuals, including employers, have failed to convey the message that supervisors must be licensed. Without licensing, following the introduction of regulations people would be vulnerable to prosecution. The alternative is delay, delay and more delay. That would mean no incentive for anyone to go out and get a licence and training.

I knew of the difficulties before I signed the commencement order for 4 June, and I considered it very carefully. In the knowledge that there had been 11 months' notice of the enforcement of the legislation, however, I decided that we should press on and encourage as many people as possible to obtain licences. I was also aware that a pragmatic approach to enforcement would be required. It was clear that not enough applications were being received to meet the potential need. Hampshire police and the SIA have agreed to an element of discretion in the enforcement policy, relative to the level of compliance shown. When it is clear that people are willing to apply, are getting on with their training and are complying with the regime, discretion will be shown; when they refuse or are unwilling to comply with what I consider to be an entirely appropriate regulatory regime, that too will be taken into account.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about the lack, or alleged lack, of training facilities in Hampshire and on the Isle of Wight. Many training providers were more than willing to arrange training, but because of a lack of interest and a failure to perceive any urgency, Farnborough college had to cancel no fewer than six flexible courses.

Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
 
16 Jun 2004 : Column 889
 

---