Ministry of Defence Police (Hansard, 9 February 1990)

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, the standard of security at any establishment depends on the perceived threat to, and nature and purpose of, the establishment. In all cases where the Ministry of Defence police have been replaced, the department is generally satisfied that the security arrangements are adequate in relation to the current state of these factors. But the position is being kept under constant review.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. However, does he not share the concern of Mr. Michael Mates, chairman of the Commons' Select Committee on Defence, that servicemen's lives could be put at risk because of a fall in security standards where the job of guarding military installations has been contracted out to private firms? Those are the views of the chairman of the defence Select Committee. Will the Minister look at the observations of a 1032 member of the same committee, Mr. Winston Churchill, who said that the action was sheer irresponsibility? Can we be told how many establishments are now guarded by private security firms and whether the change has been made on grounds of cost and not security?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, Ministry of Defence police have been withdrawn where the Ministry's security staff are satisfied that the security requirements of the site in question have been adequately met by other means, including the employment of contract guards. The Ministry of Defence reviews and monitors the performance of all contract security guards extremely carefully. Where requirements are not met action will be taken, including the termination of the contract where necessary. Such action has recently been taken.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, in how many cases has there been a termination of contract? Secondly, how can he possibly say that there has been no deterioration in the quality of security, given the fact that the Association of Chief Police Officers has made it clear that a substantial number of people employed by private security firms have formidable criminal records?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I cannot give the details for which the noble Lord asked. However, as regards his second question, it is Ministry of Defence policy as far as possible to employ Ministry of Defence police officers only where there is a need for their constabulary powers, specialised training and/or a requirement to be armed. They are a skilled and specialised force and we cannot afford to employ such scarce resources on tasks for which their expertise is not required.

§ Baroness Phillips
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many noble Lords would like to see the private security companies submitted to a licensing board under government control so that there would be adequate inspection of the employees and the type of work provided? Will the Government agree to support such a Private Member's Bill if brought before this House?

§ Lord Reay
No, my Lords, I can give no such assurance. I repeat that contract guards will be used only under tight control and the arrangements will be subject to regular review.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is it not further the case that one of the witnesses from the Ministry of Defence giving evidence to the Select Committee in another place referred to by my noble friend said plainly that the hiring of private firms for those purposes had not been satisfactory? Is not that a grave indictment calling for a most careful inquiry into that whole area?
Is the noble Lord further satisfied that the vetting procedures in those establishments are adequate? Does he not agree that there is a great deal of work necessary at present if the lives and careers of servicemen are to be properly protected?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point I completely agree that it is necessary to devote additional resources to protect the lives of our servicemen and their dependants from the terrorist threat. An additional £126 million has been allocated over the next three years to improve security at defence establishments in this country and overseas.
An increase of 300 in the strength of the Ministry of Defence police is also expected over the next year to meet the terrorist threat. That simply underlines the need for us to use that skilled manpower sensibly and properly to carry out the tasks for which they are trained.

§ Lord Grimond
My Lords, is it a policy of the Government that the security at the barracks of fighting units should be carried out in certain cases by private security firms?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, as I think I made plain in the previous answer, it is the practice to use Ministry of Defence police where the requirements of their specialised training and constabulary powers are required. If there is a requirement to be armed, only those police are employed.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is not part of the problem, as my noble friend has just said, that whereas Ministry of Defence police can be and often are armed, in general private employees are not permitted to be armed?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, it is certainly the case that contract guards may not be armed.

§ Lord Bottomley
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Defence police was looked upon as one of the most efficient authorities in the country? Can we be sure that the private security firms will keep up that standard? Will the Ministry of Defence take special care to see that they do?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, as I said, the Ministry of Defence reviews and monitors carefully the performance of all contract security guards and will only employ them where it is satisfied that it is proper to do so.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, if the first priority is to protect our soldiers in this country, how can it be right to withdraw Ministry of Defence police who can be armed and replace them by unarmed representatives of private security firms, some of whom have significant criminal records?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I can only repeat that the decision to do that is taken by the Ministry of Defence security staffs only when they are satisfied that thereby security requirements can be properly met.

§ Lord Blyth
My Lords, it seems to my simple mind that it would be cheaper to use your own employees rather than somebody else's. Why is that not so?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I do not believe that that is so.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, does the Minister not accept that the tone and tenor of his replies smack of complacency? What has been demonstrated is that Members from all sides of the House are saying that on a question of cutting costs the House would prefer —and I believe that the country would prefer —to feel that all our servicemen are adequately protected. Will the Minister answer a direct question? Given all that he has said as to the safeguards for the employment of private firms, why is it possible that at the Royal Marines' barracks at Deal and at other places there have been instances whereby private firms have employed people with criminal records? That does not make sense and does not line up with what the Minister said.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, it is not correct to imply that the Government are cutting costs on this matter. As I said, we are devoting an additional £88 million over the next three years to improving security at defence establishments in this country.