HL Deb 03 December 1981 vol 425 cc1159-73

5.33 p.m.

Lord Willis

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. May I say, by way of preface, that in introducing this Bill it is no part of my purpose to attack or denigrate the security industry. It has its ragged edges and its unsavoury underbelly—and I shall come to this later—but, by and large, it occupies an honourable position in our society and plays an important role in the struggle against crime. Many security guards are in the front line in this struggle, and one can only commend them for their courage and dedication—courage and dedication which, I may add, is often poorly rewarded. I heard only the other day of a security organisation which had been successful in detecting an IRA man and reporting him to the police, and much of that kind of good work goes on with the security companies.

Whether we like it or not, we have to face the fact that the private security industry is here to stay. It has come a very long way from the old night watchman, sitting around his coke fire and cooking his kipper on the blade of a shovel. Since the war, in particular, it has moved on seven-league boots. Figures thrown up by the 1971 census suggested that there were about 80,000 people employed as security guards, patrolmen, watchmen, gatekeepers and store detectives. Since then, the crime rate has soared dramatically and the security industry has expanded to keep pace.

One estimate, in a book issued in 1976, gave the figures of 7,000 security firms, a quarter of a million uniformed men and 10,000 armoured vehicles. That compares with a police force of 110,000 in England and Scotland. There are no accurate figures, but we may safely assume that the security industry has many more men on the ground than all our police forces combined. Other estimates have put it at twice the number, and I would think that that is just about right. And between 75 and 85 per cent. of these people are employed by 10 or so large companies. These people are employed in transport, as guards or patrolmen or on the installation and maintenance of safes, locks and alarm systems. Some are what are known as "in-house" staff, employed by firms which make their own security arrangements. Much of the leadership and management on all sides of the industry comes from former policemen.

There are two associations to which companies in the industry may belong. By far the largest and most important is the British Security Industry Association—the BISA. At a 1978 estimate, this association had 63 member companies, including most of the giants in the industry, representing over 30,000 employees. The figures are almost certainly larger today. Membership is open only to those firms which can satisfy the association that they meet certain strict criteria. There is no doubt that the BISA have done a great deal to establish, maintain and improve standards in the industry. For example, no man can be employed by a BISA company unless a 20-year check has been made on his past, and this, I can assure your Lordships, is done very thoroughly.

The other organisation is the International Professional Security Association, which was founded in 1958. This is much more of an organisation for individuals rather than companies in the industry. By far the largest proportion of its members are" in-house" security people; that is, they are employed directly by the firm for which they do security work. The IPSA is also doing good work in the area of standards. It has 5,000 members and they have written in to support the Bill that is now before your Lordships.

That, then, is the background. We have a growth industry employing, directly or indirectly, somewhere in the region of a quarter of a million people—an industry which performs a useful function in guarding property and people, and which is of considerable help to our over-stretched police forces; above all, an industry which operates in the most sensitive and vulnerable areas of our society.

It has been emphasised by the Home Office and others that none of these firms and individuals has any legal right which sets it apart from, or above, the ordinary company or the ordinary citizen. They have, we are told, no special status in law and this is, of course, true. But I suggest that it begs the question, for the plain fact is that over the years the uniformed security guard has acquired a special psychological status in the mind of the public.

We have all grown conditioned to being searched by uniformed guards at airports, hotels and other places. We have grown accustomed to seeing massive armoured cars, and equally massive guards, ferrying goods and large sums of cash to and from banks and stores, and many of us are glad that they do so. We may know that the security guard has no extra standing in law, but the uniform and the equipment suggests that he has. The housewife, who can be taken in and "conned" by a slick double-glazing salesman, is not likely to question a uniformed guard. She is doubly vulnerable. People think that security men have authority and that is almost as good as having it.

Over the years, people have come to think of security guards, especially those working for such large and excellent firms as Securicor, as police auxiliaries, which indeed—we have to face the fact—they have become. And they are recognised as such unofficially by many police forces. Indeed, it would he foolish and lunatic when you are dealing with such things as the transit of huge sums not to have some liaison with the police. It is precisely because of this relationship and the new, if unofficial, status of private security that I have brought forward this measure.

The main purpose of the Bill is to make it an offence for any person who has been convicted of a major offence within the past 15 years to practise as a security officer. It is a very small measure, designed in the main to test the temperature of public and parliamentary opinion on this issue. Personally, I would like to see far wider legislation brought forward along the lines introduced by my right honourable friend Bruce George in another place. He proposed the setting up of a private security registration council which would have the power to license security organsations and individuals, much in the same way as the Gambling Board licenses clubs. That has much to commend it. But, as I say, that is not what we are about today.

I have been asked whether there is any evidence that this or any other Bill on this subject is needed. Should we not leave well alone? Should we not leave the industry to regulate its own affairs through its professional associations? As I have said, I have not the slightest doubt that the two professional associations I have already mentioned—BSIA and the other one in particular—can, and do, influence and regulate the standards of their members very adequately. And they do have a system of bonding their members so that there is an additional discouragement to anyone tempted into dishonesty. But I am not concerned with the firms and individuals which are covered by the BSIA and the IPSA. I am concerned with the cowboys. We have more cowboys in our society today than they have in Hollywood.

Returns made by police forces in England and Wales some two or three years ago indicated that there were something like 700 security organisations which were not members of these associations—700 companies. That is an awful lot, and it leaves a lot of people outside the net. In many ways the situation is quite extraordinary. There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone setting up in business and offering security and protection to the public. No training, no qualifications are needed, and there is no compulsion to join any professional organisation and abide by that organisation's standards. You cannot open a stall in the street to sell fruit or clothes without a licence but you can open a firm and sell security devices and services without any restriction whatsoever. I was told only the other day of a man who came straight out of prison and immediately formed a security organization—and even got contracts.

Would anyone use a security business set up by someone with no experience, one might ask? Of course, most large firms would not. They would set up their own in-house operation or seek the advice of the BSIA. But many medium-sized and small firms would not have the resources to handle their own security. Certainly the housewife does not. They might seek quotes from various security companies and accept the cheapest, not the best. Many companies are under the economic whip at the moment and are seeking to reduce the cost of their security—looking around for firms who will do the job for less. There are many of these. The competition in this industry is cut-throat.

Let me again use the example of double-glazing. The big firms in the double-glazing industry lay down strict standards for the members of their association. But that has not stopped the cowboys coming in after the rich pickings. Scarcely a week goes by without news of housewives being robbed by these door-to-door buccaneers. The parallel with security, especially domestic security, is obvious. So while we have this unbridled situation the potential for the criminal is obvious. He can seek to be recruited as an operative by one of the established firms, without disclosing his criminal past, or he can set up in business of his own accord. Getting round a criminal record is very simple. I could quote noble Lords an almost foolproof system, but I do not think that it would be in the public interest for me to do so.

The likelihood of a criminal slipping through the net of one of the big companies is small. But it has happened. And there are dozens of other struggling companies where tests and training are either minimal or non-existent. So the opportunity is there.

Is there any evidence of abuse? Let me quote a few. January 1979: security guards working for Chrysler steal £20,000 in goods; September 1978: security guards steal £2 million from Heathrow; July 1978: two security officers, one with previous convictions, jailed for theft at Norwich; July 1978, Oxford: security guard steals £99,000; January 1978, Surrey: security guard involved in theft; December 1977, Birmingham: security guard jailed for arson; May 1977: security officer jailed for burglary; February 1977: security engineer jailed for burglary—and so on. I have here half a dozen other examples that I could quote.

Practically every case means that the crime was related to the job—that is, theft or arson, of or on the premises in which the guards were meant to be guarding from potential criminals. One of the most extraordinary cases concerned a convicted man, who admitted to 85 burglaries and break-ins, who set up in business to provide security locks for householders and. as an added inducement, offered a key-holding service. Your Lordships might feel that that is rather like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.

There is sufficient recent evidence to indicate that the problem is a real one, and it will grow worse as the need for protection grows bigger. I am not projecting a theme for a television series when I say that criminals must and will enter the security industry. The potential and the possibilities are too obvious, to their minds, to be ignored. This Bill will not stop the most determined but it will act as a small deterrent until the Government introduce proper legislation. It will reduce the odds. And to argue against that is tantamount to saving that it would be useless to have a 30-mile per hour speed limit in built-up areas because some drivers would ignore it.

Before I turn to the clauses of the Bill, there is one other vital point that I ought to make. So far I have spoken of the protection of property, but there could be even more serious implications when one considers another growth industry, the protection of people. Terrorist activities, political assassination, kidnapping, extortion, are everywhere on the increase. Businessmen, millionaires, film stars, now often hire guards to protect them and their families. Increasingly, when a major celebrity is due to attend a function, the organisers will hire in security guards for the occasion as an additional measure of protection. Organisers of exhibitions, jewellery displays, art exhibitions and so forth often hire protection on an a la carte basis. There was one firm that specialised in this occasional service and which did rather well. It was called "Dial-a-Guard" and it was run by a man with something like 26 previous convictions. None of his employers was bonded.

I have no wish to be sensational but your Lordships may recall that some two years ago a man convicted of murder and released on parole succeeded in getting a job as a security guard and actually acted as a guard during one of Her Majesty's engagements. I do not need to expand on that, except to say that while there is no control, there is nothing to stop terrorists or political extremists from either setting up their own security organisation and putting their men in uniform or joining someone else's.

As I have said, the Bill is a small interim measure, designed to provide some protection for the security industry against criminal elements. It confers no official recognition or status on the industry. Clause 1 sets out the conditions which would make it illegal for a person convicted of certain serious offences to practise as a security officer. It makes reference to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and proposes that in certain circumstances the terms of that Act should not apply to those who seek employment as security officers. I am not against the rehabilitation of offenders. I simply believe that they should be rehabilitated in a less sensitive area than security.

Clause 2 refers again to the Act of 1974 and sets out the circumstances in which those who give information about a person's criminal record may be exempt from the conditions of that Act. I will confess that this was a most difficult clause to draft. It enters a sensitive and controversial area and I would welcome suggestions and comments from your Lordships. It is possible that one might decide that information ought only to be given through an established organisation like the BSIA. It has been argued that if we have a Bill of this sort there is no knowing where we shall stop. What about bank cashiers? My answer to that is that it is much easier to start a security organisation than to set up a bank. Clause 3 defines penalties for offenders under this proposed Act. These may be rather stiff, but I think they need to be. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with definition, interpretation and the short title.

I shall not pretend to your Lordships that I am confident that I have got it exactly right this time, but of one thing I am dead certain: the problems I have raised are serious ones and they will not go away. I hope that Parliament will not linger over this until there is some kind of serious crime or serious terrorist act before it gets to grips with the problem. We always tend to act too late. We always put up the traffic lights after there has been a multiple crash at the crossing. I hope this time we shall put up the traffic lights before that crash takes place. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Willis.)

5.52 p.m.

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Willis on introducing this Bill and on all the work that he has done on it. It is a subject which he has been studying for several years, so it is not just a passing interest of his or, to use modern jargon, an instant interest. In fact he was considering this matter as long ago as the time when my honourable friend Mr. Bruce George, the Member for Walsall, South, was involved in his Bill, the Private Security (Registration) Bill, to which my noble friend has referred this evening and which was introduced in another place. Whatever view one takes of the Bill before us today, there is no doubt that there are public concern and interest in the matter, so my noble friend has performed a service already in enabling us to debate it. I should like also to pay tribute to my honourable friend Mr. George for the enormous amount of research he has done on the subject and in producing his useful report.

At the outset I would emphasise something that my noble friend Lord Willis also referred to. I believe that the private security industry does very valuable work—indeed essential and important work. Many people would readily acknowledge, too, as I do and as I believe the police themselves do, that it would be quite beyond the resources of the police to take on the work that these security staffs do, even if it were desirable that they should do so; and many people would feel, as indeed I do, that it would be inappropriate for the police to have to undertake much of the work carried out by these security companies. So in my submission they fulfil a worthwhile and indeed essential role.

The security staffs also often perform difficult and sometimes dangerous tasks, as my noble friend has indicated. I would not go so far as one commentator went recently in suggesting that their duties are more dangerous than those of the police. Indeed, after seeing what the police have to cope with in helping to combat terrorism and in dealing with situations like the ones at Brixton in April and at Toxteth later, and elsewhere, quite apart from what we in our comfortable and comparative security are pleased to call "their more normal duties", I certainly would not agree with that. Yet in one respect the security staffs are in a sense possibly somewhat more exposed in some situations because, while some armed criminals would shy away from attacking a police officer, they might have a go at a security guard. Anyway, it can certainly be said that these security staffs carry out invaluable work.

At the same time, there is some concern about the growth of these security organisations and my noble friend Lord Willis has given an indication of their size today. I believe that there are powerful arguments for a measure of control over them, as he has said. It is also clearly the case that their work involves trust and calls for trustworthiness and integrity so it can also be argued powerfully that there ought to be some means to try to ensure that those who are employed in this industry are trustworthy. That, of course, is where my noble friend's Bill comes in.

What the Bill amounts to is that it provides the means for a system of vetting for those employed in the private security industry, and that is just one aspect of a system for regulating or controlling the industry. The whole question of whether we should have a regulatory system was put forward and arguments for and against were posed in the Home Offices document, The Private Security Industry—A Discussion Paper, including the vetting aspect of the problem. That document came out in 1979, while the last Government were in office. As that paper said: Access to confidential information held by the police, including records of criminal convictions, would be essential to any system of vetting"; it continued: that is so whether that access was given direct to the potential employer or to some licensing authority". It also went on to summarise the bases of the policy followed by successive Home Secretaries which were encompassed in words used by the then Home Secretary on 14th June 1973. His words were: The supply of police information will continue to be governed by the general principle that no information is given to anyone, however responsible, unless there are weighty considerations of public interest which justify departure from the general rule".—[Official Report, Commons, col. 1681.] Since then we have had the Act to which my noble friend Lord Willis has referred tonight—the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, with its provisions creating what it calls "spent convictions" and its provisions prohibiting the disclosure of those spent convictions save in specified exceptional circumstances. The purpose of that Act is, of course, to enable those convictions to be forgotten about if the offender kept out of further trouble, so that he could be rehabilitated. So immediately we are confronted by a dilemma and by a choice—mercifully there is a choice—and on both sides of the balance, it happens to be the case, lies the public interest, and we have to choose whether the public interest is greater on the one side or on the other. Is it more in the public interest to provide information about the criminal convictions of a person about to carry out security duties and so, as some would argue, allow that intrusion into privacy and therefore that measure of erosion of civil liberties, or is it more in the public interest to withhold that information and so run the risk, as some would argue, of undesirable and untrustworthy people occupying positions of trust? That, my Lords, is the choice.

It is the case that since the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, to which my noble friend referred, was passed we have had the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. What that order did—and your Lordships passed it in June 1975—was to exclude certain categories of persons and jobs from the protection (if that is the right word) of the Act itself. In other words, the order provided for the supply o information about the criminal records of persons in or entering certain professions; and the reason for allowing that information to be provided in strictly confidential circumstances was to protect the public interest by preventing undesirable people from occupying specified positions of what might be called trust.

Included in those categories, if I may remind your Lordships, are, so far as the professions listed in the order are concerned, medical practitioners, the legal profession (barristers, advocates in Scotland, solicitors), accountants, dentists—with, incidentally, dental hygienists and dental auxiliaries; nurses, midwives and others. So far as officers and employments listed are concerned, there are the judiciary, justices' clerks, the police, teachers, people employed in youth clubs and others. And among those in the regulated occupation lists are people running insurance companies, people running unit trusts, and others as well. So there have already been exemptions or exclusions or exceptions in the public interest long before my noble friend's Bill came along.

Arguments have been advanced against further exemptions from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and indeed the organisation Justice, whose work on such a vast number of matters so many of us admire, has argued against exempting the private security industry in its reply in July 1979 to the Home Office discussion paper. In fact, the discussion paper itself had something to say when it referred to the order that I have mentioned which provided exceptions from the provisions of the Act. What the document said was this: A number of occupations were exempted from these provisions. The security industry, however, was not, although its representative organisation had urged that it should be". Your Lordships might consider it significant that its representative organisation did consider that it should be exempted from the provisions of that Act. The document went on: The Government had received representations from other organisations on the similar ground that people entrusted with large amounts of cash or high value goods should not be given the benefit of the Act. The Government concluded that exemptions on that ground would not be justified as they would be on such a scale as to defeat the purpose of the Act. Very similar considerations apply in relation to the granting of access to the criminal records of people in positions of trust: it would be extremely difficult to decide where to stop and the whole principle of confidentiality would he jeopardised". Those are arguments which are not without some weight, I think, it has to be admitted. But the plain fact is that we have already had, and we have justified having, some exceptions, as we have seen from the order that I have mentioned. Those exceptions have already covered some people and some bodies in the private sector of industry and commerce. There are the unit trusts and insurance companies, for example. Yet so far as the private security industry is concerned we have the argument put to us that to extend the exemptions in this way would be to open the door to all kinds of additional exclusions in a wholly uncontrollable way. That is the way the argument is put. I am not over-impressed by that argument. In the first place, that would be an argument which could be applied to almost anything and is almost an argument for doing nothing about anything. In the second place, of course, it would not be uncontrollable. Parliament would have to consider any proposed extension, as indeed it is doing now at this very moment. If a particular proposal is unacceptable, or if the situation showed any sign of getting out of hand, Parliament could say, No.

Then there is the argument, which has been put forward in some quarters, that some members of the public already wrongly regard security staffs employed by security companies as having special powers, like those of the police, or at least powers greater than those of the normal individual citizen, and my noble friend Lord Willis has indicated, by referring to the wearing of uniforms and the armoured vans we are used to seeing about, the strength of feeling in that connection.

But the argument put forward by others also runs on in this way and suggests that if we were to have some sort of statutory provision regulating security companies and security staffs that would confuse people even more into believing, again wrongly, that those staffs, by virtue of those statutory provisions, were clothed in some cloak of official recognition and so had some special powers like those of the police. That seems to me to be one of those rather clever arguments which are conjured up as an excuse for not doing something. It is a rather distorted or unclear process, I think, which produces such a convoluted argument. I do not know where it came from originally. I cannot believe it originated in my former department, and I am always reluctant to say anything against it because I have such affection and admiration for Lord Belstead's department. Indeed, I have to be very careful indeed about this, because I may be told that it was I who put forward the argument originally. I hope and believe it was not, but there it is—one has to be careful. Wherever it came from, it does strike me as being the sort of argument which gives that uncannily revealing touch of verisimilitude to that splendid programme "Yes, Minister".

If people do not understand about the powers or lack of powers of these security staffs or companies it is up to the rest of us to do what we can to put them right and to try to see that they do understand what the position actually is, always assuming, incidentally, that that is something which is causing concern in the first place and is worth trying to deal with anyway. I must confess that personally I do not really understand what is the monumental harm that any such misunderstanding that does exist, if it does, is doing to society anyway. More importantly than that, I really do not see why the fact, if it be a fact, that sonic people are under some misapprehension should stop Parliament doing something if it is right and beneficial to do it anyway. It is there, in my submission, that the distortion of thought comes in, in thinking that because there is misapprehension we should refrain from doing what is right.

Your Lordships will clearly decide what is the right thing to do, and it will be for my noble friends to decide whether or not to support my noble friend's Bill. I feel at the very least my noble friend has made out a prima facie case. Indeed, if I can express a personal view, and I do so without committing my noble friends on these Benches, I would say that the balance of the public interest comes down firmly in favour of this Bill, perhaps with some amendments. So I hope it makes further progress. So incidentally, does my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who had such a lot to do with encouraging the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill when he was on the Woolsack. I would just leave one thought with my noble friend Lord Willis. If there is some misapprehension among some people about the supposed powers of security personnel, and if, therefore, we should do what we can to try to put this right, he may feel that perhaps one way of doing that might he to call his Bill the Security Staffs Control Bill instead of the Security Officers Control Bill, for it could just be that in the minds of some the word "officers" might mean more than it actually does. At any rate, I wish my noble friend and his Bill well.

6.8 p.m.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, pretty accurately and quite shortly, because I agree with his approach almost entirely. I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made an unanswerable case for something being done and for a Second Reading for this Bill. I think there will be one or two things we shall want to discuss very carefully in committee, which I shall just refer to in passing. My noble friend Lord Hunt was to have spoken here, but he is not well, and he and I found that we agreed, so I am doing it for him. We were both very strong supporters of Lord Gardiner's Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill and we are anxious not to spoil it. I think this can be done quite easily.

The first point I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, about is that the right thing to do in regard to Clause 2, which is exempting the people to whom the Bill refers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, is to add to the exemptions under the exceptions order which the noble Lord quoted. The exceptions order includes all the people he mentioned and also police, prison officers and probation officers. It is pretty wide, but it is quite illogical, it seems to me, not to include security officers. I do not think that there can be serious argument about it. It seems to me to be a better way of doing it than the way in the Bill. This is the way that is open to us.

I think that Clause 2(2)(a) is too widely drawn. I cannot find where it came from in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, if, indeed, it did come from that Act. Clause 2(2)(a) says: within the last fifteen years committed or been charged with or prosecuted for"— that is very wide. Then, or convicted of or sentenced for any offence". Certainly. But if you are arrested, prosecuted and found innocent it seems quite wrong that it should be included. It is a Committee point, but one worth mentioning.

There is a further point about which I do not feel too sure but which I think should be aired. Clause 2 of the Bill merely puts somebody applying for a job as a security officer in the same position as somebody applying for a job in one of the other exempted professions. It would mean that the person had to declare his convictions but he would not automatically be excluded from appointment as a security officer. Clause 1 goes much further and actually makes it illegal. That is what we want to look at. It seems to me that if you are an employer of a security organisation and you know somebody very well, you may also know very well that he is now secure although he was not in the past. So long as nobody conceals the fact, I am not sure that it is right to make it illegal to appoint him. However, that again is a Committee point.

Finally—or very nearly finally—I would prefer licensing security companies to anything else in relation to the ordinary fringe people, and I cannot see why that should not be included. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will look at that point. As the exclusions are quite serious I think that one wants to be very careful about minor offences. I wonder whether, if you are talking about offences of drunkenness or possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use, they are really worth a 15-year bar. In Lord Gardiner's Bill the bar was graded in relation to the severity of the sentence. That is another matter that I think we could look at.

My final point is rather a sad one. I hate the idea of never seeing another night watchman. The noble Lord referred to the night watchman who we used to see with his fire and his shovel. When we discuss definitions I think that we might try and make some provision available because I think this is the kind of job which is in places where security is not very serious and there is not very much to steal, very adequate for ex-offenders of a certain age. I think that we should certainly give the Bill a Second Reading.

6.13 p.m.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I had not intended to speak but if this Bill is to proceed I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Willis, might like to look at a small point. The Bill refers to someone "who has been convicted". The person convicted may, in fact, be perfectly innocent and his case may be quashed on appeal. I do not think that there is anything in the Bill which excludes someone in that category.

6.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I should like to say how much I welcome the opportunity which is afforded by the debate on this Second Reading to discuss the role and function of the private security industry in this country which does important work in preventing crime and protecting property. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, made clear that they recognise that good work. But, of course, the effect of the Bill reflects in part the concern which is felt—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, expressed this in his speech—about the rapid growth of the industry and the opportunities it could offer for criminal activity. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, reminded your Lordships that the previous Government issued a discussion paper on the possibilities for controlling the industry and a large number of replies were received from a wide cross-section of interests and they were all carefully considered by the present Government.

Bearing in mind that private security personnel have no special legal powers or privileges beyond those enjoyed by any other citizen, the Government decided that there was no need for any stricter form of limitation or control than that already provided by the law. But although, we saw no case for statutory control, we are anxious to support and encourage self-regulation. Discussions are now taking place to see how this might best be achieved. Indeed, the British Security industry Association, which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred to, have told us of their proposals to set up an inspectorate to monitor the pre-employment screening rules of member companies and to ensure that suitable induction training is being carried out.

Already member companies must ensure that their organisation is soundly managed, that their directors and senior executives are of good repute and that their employees conduct themselves in a proper manner. Also, companies must have adequate financial backing and proper liability insurance, as well as satisfying the association of their business integrity and ethics, especially in relation to advertising and selling practices. Thus, the setting up of an inspectorate, while being a very significant step forward, is only part of the association's praiseworthy efforts to establish responsible standards.

I would not have gone into that detail if the British Security Industry Association only represented a small part of this industry, but the association does, in fact, represent about 90 per cent. by volume of turnover of the contracts security business. It seems likely that a number of the smaller firms will join in due course. I think that it is fair to claim, therefore, that progress, good progress, is being made towards effective self-regulation, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Willis, went a long way towards recognising that.

However, in addition, as regards "in house" security, which the noble Lord mentioned, which covers all sorts of duties undertaken by people directly employed by a wide range of organisations, there is an equally active professional body in the International Professional Security Association. It also aims to promote good practice and a valuable training scheme is run through the Institute of Industrial Security. Following the Government's decision not to seek statutory powers of control, that association is now compiling a code of good practice to which its members will be expected to adhere.

In so far as the activities of private investigators come within the scope of the Bill, the two main representative organisations, the Institute of Professional Investigators and the Association of British Investigators, are united in their aims of trying to establish uniform standards of conduct and competence. The Institute already has an excellent educational system and examination procedure for its members, and the Home Office is currently discussing with the two organisations how best to ensure that professional standards are adhered to.

The noble Lord's Bill seeks to prevent the employment in the private security industry of persons with certain criminal convictions and to disapply certain provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. But when all is said and done, the absence of a criminal record does not tell the potential employer about the other important aspects of character that should be taken into account in assessing whether the applicant will make a good employee. I think that one can discuss almost till the cows come home whether there is a worrying amount of crimes committed by people in this industry who have, in addition to that, already got a criminal record. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that one crime is too many, but I mean "worrying" in the sense that one feels that one must put something on the statute book specially to deal with it instead of going down the other road of self-regulation.

I would simply say on this point that the impression we have in the Home Office is that the majority of cases of dishonesty within the industry have related to people who have, in fact, no previous convictions but who have succumbed to the temptations which they have encountered. The only exceptions to the 1974 Act granted by Parliament have been confined to those justified on certain limited grounds. These relate to national security, the public interest—mainly the administration of justice—the protection of particularly vulnerable groups, and the maintenance of confidence in licensing systems. I am afraid that if there were too many exceptions, it would nullify the effect of the Act. This would be most regrettable in view of the steps towards self-regulation which the security industry is undoubtedly taking.

It is true that some people are employed in jobs which afford a greater opportunity for committing crime than others, but, if we were to accept this criterion, it would open up the way for many requests for exception from all sorts of organisations and individual firms concerned to protect valuables and large sums of money. As the noble Lord, Lord Boston, made clear, as I understood his speech, the previous Government took a decision not to extend the exceptions to the 1974 Act in that particular way.

Apart from the general points of principle about the need for any statutory control, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out, the enactment of this Bill as at present drafted would bear very heavily on some offenders who had lived down their conviction for many years. Parliament specified that the longest rehabilitation period set out in the 1974 Act should be 10 years, and that applies only to offences for which the offender was sentenced to between six months and two and a half years in prison. The Bill, on the other hand, establishes a 15-year period, and relates it to some offences for which it is unlikely that a period of rehabilitation of even 10 years would have been appropriate under the Act, given the likely sentences involved. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made this point very clearly.

Clause 1 also goes a good deal further than the 1974 Act, in that it seeks directly to penalise past offenders, as defined in the clause, by preventing them from being employed as security officers at all. The Act simply describes circumstances in which offenders are rehabilitated and in which they need not disclose past convictions. I really think that to create such substantial exceptions to the 1974 Act for security officers alone would set them apart from all other occupations, and I am bound to say that I think this would not be the right road to go down.

Finally, the question of the pressure that the Bill would put on the police to disclose details of criminal records to private employers, thereby breaking a longstanding principle on non-disclosure to them, is also worrying, as is the alternative, which would be that the police would find themselves in the position of needing to pursue checks on the backgrounds of employees in order to enforce prohibition. As there may be upwards of 240,000 people covered by the Bill's wide definition of "security officer"—and I understood from the noble Lord's speech that his assessment is that there are a good many more than that—this would impose a considerable burden on the police.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I do not quite understand this point. I think that what is suggested is that it should not be an offence to disclose, not that there is an obligation for the police to do anything. I do not know where the noble Lord gets this.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, there would indeed be an obligation on the police because employers would approach the police. There is absolutely no doubt at all about that if this Bill were to go on the statute book in either this form or indeed a modified form. Employers would be bound to make use of the provisions of the clauses and would approach the police, and would wish to know. If the sort of assessment of the number of people who are concerned with the private security industry which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, gave us in his speech is anything like accurate—and, as I say, the assessment of the Home Office is somewhat lower—this would be a very considerable additional burden upon the police.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, we must not have a long argument over this, but surely at present the noble Lord is suggesting that the police are under obligation to answer questions about anyone who is not covered by the 1974 Act; in other words, for every sentence over two and a half years. I had no understanding of that.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I must look again at what the noble Lord is saying, but I do not entirely take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has just said. My point is that if this Bill goes on the statute book, employers will avail themselves of the need for the police to provide information. I must say that I believe that to be what will happen in practice. Perhaps I may look at what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, and I will certainly write to him if there is anything further that I should add.

For all these reasons the Government have—as I hope I have revealed—some pretty serious reservations about the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, although, as I said quite genuinely at the beginning, I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this Second Reading, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will think that it is not necessary to proceed further with it through the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages. I say that not because I believe that inactivity in this very important area of employment is the right course, but because in view of the positive encouragement towards self-regulation within the private security industry which the Government have given, I am confident that the initiatives which are now under discussion, if put fully into operation, will go a long way towards raising standards of conduct and control.

6.27 p.m.

Lord Willis

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for their warm support and for their very positive, sometimes critical, approach to this Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, trotted out some of the same arguments, slightly retreaded, that we have had on this queston over the last few years; for example, the old one that to pass a Bill of this sort would be to confer, or would seem to imply that we were conferring, some official recognition on the security organisations. I do not think that it would confer any more recognition on the security organisations than we confer now.

As I tried to say in my speech, the fact is—and this is the new factor that I hope the Home Office will take on board—that there is now a psychological recognition of these uniformed guards. What would the noble Lord do if he went to his bank tomorrow, and was met at the door by a uniformed guard who said: "You can't come in"? Would he say: "You have no legal right to stop me; you have no legal powers in law"? No, he would obey that security guard. One sees that sort of thing more often in America than in Britain, for in America practically every store and jewellery shop has a uniformed guard who orders you about as if he is a policeman. I do not resent it. I believe that, on the whole, these security guards are doing a very good job in protecting property. But we must recognise this psychological approach in the public's mind. Therefore, to talk about recognition or non-recognition is not the point of the argument. They already have that. In my view that point has not been taken sufficiently into consideration in all the Home Office documents that I have read on the subject.

The other main point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was the question of self-regulation. Like him, I very much welcome the fact that BSIA and the IPSA are going in, in this very strong way, for self-regulation. I recognise, too, that they represent 90 per cent. of the industry. This is precisely the point that I was making; there is a hole in the bucket, and a rather big hole. Ten per cent. of security firms are not recognised. The point I was trying to make is that there is nothing to prevent anyone setting up a security organisation, and if he has criminal intent, he certainly would not join BSIA or the other organisation. He would just simply keep outside it. Why should he go in for that kind of self-regulation? Seven hundred firms, on the police's own reckoning, are not members of the BSIA or the other organisation. That is a rather large hole, and I am surprised that the Home Office should be satisfied with this powerful and good self-regulation and not see the danger that is looming up on the horizon from these other organisations.

I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made about security staff. That may be a rather important point. There is one other point to which I should like to refer, and that is that the exemptions would create an open door. I do not see why they should. It has not created a particularly open door since we made the exemptions in 1975, and if we exempt the private security industry from those regulations we can always put the bar up if somebody else comes along and says: why not postmen, bank cashiers, why not everybody else? They cannot make out a case, but surely nobody in their right mind could say that the security industry, which deals in the safety of people and property, should not be controlled in some way, and that they should not be exempted because it only opens the door. That is an old argument, and it is rather weatherworn now.

The crucial point was made partly by my noble friend Lord Donaldson and partly by my noble friend Lord Boston. That is the dilemma that I have in Clause 2 where, on the one hand, we want to protect the privacy of the individual, we do not want to come down too hard on offenders—and I take the point about some of the paragraphs and the sentences—and on the other hand we want some kind of control over the security industry, and there is this constant dilemma between the freedom of the individual and the needs of the public.

I was persuaded by the arguments that were put forward—and I hope my noble friends Lord Boston and Lord Donaldson will not be too disappointed by this—that in fact my Bill goes too far on the one hand and does not go far enough on the other. I rather feel, therefore, that I personally should like to have another think about it and come back to your Lordships' House on another occasion, with perhaps something a bit more widely drawn but more precisely drawn, if that is not a contradiction in terms. Therefore, while thanking noble Lords for their help and assistance, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for a Second Reading.

Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill, by leave, withdrawn.