HC Deb 04 July 1973 vol 859 cc537-9

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Nottingham, South): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the licensing of private security firms, of firms which manufacture, supply and fit security equipment, and of private detectives.

During the last 20 years crime in Britain has increased. One of the results of that increase has been the development in this country of a private security industry which, it is now estimated, employs about 40,000 staff. It is important that we understand why this figure is likely to increase.

In presenting his report last month, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark, spelt out what had been the implication of police policy for some time; namely, that the police must have priorities in investigating crime. The public will expect them to deal with the most serious forms of crime—crimes of violence and armed robbery—but necessarily, police strengths being what they are, other crimes will not get the same attention. It does not necessarily follow from this that these are the trivial crimes. Burglary often has a profound effect upon the individual householder who suffers from it. Yet the facts have to be faced. In London last year there were no fewer than 76,000 burglaries, and it is almost inconceivable that the Metropoltian Police can ever reach the strength where that vast number of crimes can be investigated properly.

We may regard this situation with some regret, but we must also learn the lessons of it. One of those lessons is that the public and business must take better care of their own property. We must all learn to take crime prevention more seriously. If that is the case the private security industry will have an increasingly important part to play. This part should be encouraged, and the intention of the Bill is to encourage good security firms and to ensure high standards. However, it also follows that if we are to encourage the good firms we should try to eliminate the bad ones and the dubious individuals who undoubtedly operate in this area.

I have two examples of what I mean by the bad firms. There are the ineffi- cient firms like the alarm company which was employed by a firm to fit a window alarm. The alarm was so useless that when the very thing happened that it was supposed to guard against and the window was broken into the alarm was not activated. Later tests showed that whole troops of burglars could have processed through without the alarm system being activated. When the company which was burgled tried to sue the alarm company it found itself confronted by one of those exclusion clauses which exclude everything, including gross incompentence.

But the most serious of all aspects of this industry is that there are firms which employ staff with known and serious criminal records. The television programme "This Week" did a recent broadcast on the security industry. It found in Manchester a company run by a man who admitted that he had twice been convicted of grievous bodily harm and who employed four or five staff with criminal records, including one who had served sentences of three and five years for burglary and receiving. Additional evidence of this unfortunate and highly regrettable trend was revealed when the representatives of the police told the Younger Committee on Privacy that ex-criminals and associates of criminals operated as private detectives.

I have given only two examples because I want to be brief. Undoubtedly, there are others, and perhaps I may use this opportunity to ask members of the public and business concerns to send me further examples of abuse so that a full dossier can be brought together for examination by the Home Office and to be presented to this House. It is beyond doubt that the present system is wide open to abuse, and to criminal abuse. The opportunities that the industry gives to criminals are clear enough, yet the situation is that entry into the industry is uncontrolled. Even if a man working in this industry is convicted of a crime in the job that he is working in there is nothing to prevent him returning to it after his sentence has been served.

For example, if a private detective here was convicted of the kind of offence for which the Watergate conspirators are now serving sentences in the United States there would be nothing to prevent him in this country recommencing work as a private detective on the day of his release. I cannot believe that this situation can be in any way satisfactory. Several countries have already recognised the problems and have introduced licensing systems.

My Bill is not a call for licensing for its own sake. It is a recognition that there are important issues at stake, issues involving public policy on crime and individual liberty and privacy. This industry is not one that can go entirely unregulated. The Bill would establish a licensing board on the lines of the Gaming Board. It would aim to ensure minimum standards throughout the industry and to eliminate the criminal element within the industry. It would provide a valuable method of protecting the public and encouraging the undoubtedly good firms which already exist.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Norman Fowler, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Edward Gardner, Mr. David Walder and Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson.