Private Security Firms (Regulation)
The next item of business is the first members' business debate of the day on motion S1M-3522, in the name of Johann Lamont, on the regulation of private security firms. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those members wishing to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible. I say at the outset that there will be no possibility of extending the time for this debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the lack of regulation of private security firms and the potential impact of unscrupulous activity by these firms on the safety and peace of mind of local communities within Glasgow Pollok constituency, across Glasgow and throughout Scotland; further notes the serious danger posed by any activity that undermines the confidence of the public in the police's capacity to deal with criminal behaviour within communities, and considers that the Scottish Executive, along with local authorities, the police and other relevant agencies, should develop as a matter of urgency means by which private security firms can be regulated and their activities scrutinised.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of the regulation of private security firms. I am grateful to all those who signed the motion and recognise that there is significant cross-party support for action. I understand that we are under pressure for time. This is a unique timing for a member's debate, and I am grateful that despite pressure on parliamentary time, members' debates have secured the time that they deserve. I will try to keep my comments brief, although it is tempting to go on longer because I am leading off the debate, which is unusual for a back bencher.
The role and activities of private security firms is a serious matter in my constituency, but I am aware that it is also a concern throughout Scotland. The lodging of the motion was prompted by particular events in my constituency, although I am sure that members will understand my caution in discussing the specifics of those events given that a police investigation is continuing. However, I would like to put on record my gratitude to the local police for the way in which they responded when the events occurred.
A series of incidents, including graffiti and wilful damage to cars, caused some distress on a housing estate in my constituency. That distress was compounded when the disorder was followed by the delivery of leaflets throughout the area, offering the services of private security wardens for a payment of £3 a week per household. There must be anxiety about such a conjunction of events—the malicious disruption of a community and the offer of help by private security firms. It is understandable that we should be anxious that private security firms might seek to play on the fears of households about disorder in their communities. Indeed, it might be argued that it is only a small step from playing on people's fears to generating disorder to create a demand for such services. It must be unacceptable that we may create circumstances in which private security firms might promote a service that could effectively be viewed as a protection racket.
Broader issues are highlighted by the experience of my constituents. What kind of security and peace of mind can be offered by private security firms? How will private security wardens enforce their promise of security? What training will be offered and, crucially, who would do the work? The case for regulation is evident and compelling if we are to have confidence in the process. Private security firms need to be open and transparent. We need to know how the businesses are run and who runs them.
There must be a serious fear that some of the private security firms, unregulated, could be run and owned by people with criminal convictions and operated as a sideline to their criminal activities. Regulation poses no threat to those who operate legitimate businesses, and I trust that legitimate private security firms will embrace any proposals for regulation. Crucially, regulations should provide protection for communities vulnerable to predatory business tactics.
I do not believe that it is overstating the case to say that the problem has the potential to pose a serious threat to our society. Much of the activity of private security firms is generated by and thrives on a lack of confidence in the police. If our communities feel under siege and believe that the police cannot take effective action to stop disorder, the market for the unscrupulous activity of private security firms will grow. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that the police and the justice system can act effectively in response to the anxieties of local communities. As I have said before, the first step is for us to acknowledge that such anxieties are real.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Social Justice, Margaret Curran, of £20 million towards neighbourhood community wardens. I am now seeking a meeting with the minister to explore how that approach might help my constituents. It is important that that work, with that of the justice department, reinforces our commitment to peace and security in our communities. I am aware that there has been a consultation on the regulation of private security firms, and I urge the minister to act on that consultation as a matter of urgency. I look forward to hearing what plans are in place.
As I said, the debate was prompted by a particular problem, but one that illustrates issues of general concern. The challenge for the minister, the Scottish Executive and the Parliament is to find solutions that, in particular and in general, will make our communities safer, more secure and free from those who would seek to exploit them. I urge action on the minister and welcome the opportunity to hear his response.
I offer warm congratulations to Johann Lamont on securing the debate. I also warmly welcome the Scottish Executive's consultation document on proposals to regulate the private security industry in Scotland. Indeed, the document's first sentence sums up the matter. It says:
"There is a clear need for regulation in the private security industry in Scotland."
Johann Lamont's motion was prompted by incidents in Pollok. As members will appreciate, it was no coincidence that, following certain events, certain parties made offers of help. However, as Johann pointed out, we cannot say too much more about the matter as it is sub judice.
The consultation document touches on the question of what private security firms actually are. Concerns have been raised about everything from private investigators to bouncers who stand outside some of Glasgow's nightclubs. I have gone round clubs with the police and it is interesting to note the difference in the quality of stewardship at the doors of some of those places. Indeed, on that night, I saw via the television cameras at police headquarters someone being severely beaten.
As a result of such incidents, regulation is important. However, we must also take on board the views of legitimate companies, which welcome the Executive's consultation document. It will do everyone good if we can get rid of the cowboys in the industry and ensure that those who provide a legitimate service are allowed to go about their business.
We must ascertain how many companies there are, what they do and how we define the term "private security". Is it some form of community vigilantism or a protection racket in which communities are told that if they pay £3 a week they will have no problems with graffiti or broken windows? Is private security a bit more refined than that? Does it include wheel clamping or the stewardship of nightclubs? The consultation document opens the door to examining the matter in depth and ensuring that we have proper regulation. I look forward to the minister's comments.
I am glad to speak in favour of Johann Lamont's motion, all the more so since carefully scrutinised English legislation has been passed with considerable support.
The British Security Industry Association has stated:
"If security officers are going to assist limited police by moving into areas with more public contact and greater responsibility, it is important that they have the trust and respect of the public—that is why regulation is so crucial."
Following the publication of the Private Security Industry Bill, the chairman of the BSIA said:
"Regulation will isolate the less responsible elements of the industry and make them accountable for any breaches of the new laws. It will give credibility to an industry that has long fought to protect its image from the actions of a minority group of disreputable operators."
There have been concerns in the past about the lack of mandatory inspection of security companies and the absence of licensing for in-house officers. Indeed, David Dickinson, the director of Group 4, said in support of legislation that:
"Self regulation has failed. There are too many horror stories around and too many people who are engaging in criminality under the cloak of the private security industry."
As a result, I ask the minister whether we can expect a Government bill on this issue or whether he prefers a committee bill. Also, given the experience of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, will he carefully consider whether the new security industry authority, which will regulate private security firms south of the border, should have its jurisdiction extended to Scotland or whether Scotland should have a separate authority? Which option would make for value for money? It might make sense for the body to extend its jurisdiction to Scotland if the same principles and experience are present both north and south of the border.
Similarly, under the terms of the 2001 act, every private security operative will require a licence to be issued by the authority, which would have the duty to establish a register of approved contractors. Indeed, those contractors must meet certain conditions laid down by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the local authority. It would be extremely helpful to members if the minister outlined his policy arising from the consultation and said to what extent the English legislation should be followed and whether particular Scottish circumstances will require a different approach—either in principle or in detail.
Johann Lamont's concern that the private security industry should command the confidence of the public is an admirable aim and I hope that the minister will give a sympathetic response that will result in either a Government or a committee bill that will eventually command the confidence of Parliament.
I congratulate Johann Lamont on raising issues that face not only her constituents, but people throughout Scotland.
We must ensure that the security industry does not have the problem of the poacher-turned-gamekeeper; we must have the poacher and the gamekeeper. Certain security companies create crime so that they can run protection rackets and we must regulate to deal with that problem. The Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Government face the challenge of dealing with the associates of those security companies, many of which are legitimate, but are associated with the criminal underworld. I do not know the answer to that problem; that is a question for the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee.
Kenny Gibson talked about the police postcode lottery and ensuring that resources are found in our local communities to deal with crime and to fund the work of the legitimate security industry—our police officers. We must deal with the resourcing of police officers in Glasgow.
Kenny Gibson will remember my call for a top-to-bottom review of policing in May 2000. I suggested that we should consider relocating police officers from the leafy suburbs to areas of high crime in Glasgow. We must take tough decisions about police resources and ensure that they have an impact in constituencies such as Pollok and Glasgow Springburn.
The message to security companies is, keep out of our communities unless you are legitimate.
Johann Lamont raises an important question and what she says is concerning. The business of protection rackets was the basis of the power of Al Capone and his rivals and successors. It is important that we nip that in the bud before it happens in Scotland.
My interest in the subject arose when I was researching the possibility of a member's bill on alcohol abuse. One of the unanimous points of agreement from people I spoke to was on stewards on the doors of pubs and clubs. Many of them are not trained and do not know how to handle people; many have rather dubious backgrounds. I heard allegations of widespread corruption, even from a highly placed police source—not in Glasgow—who said that some door stewards ran a good scam. When one group of people came to the pub, they were frisked and the drugs they were carrying were confiscated. The door stewards then sold those drugs to the next group of people who came along. That is only one example of the way in which door stewards can impact badly on our society. We should certainly do something about that, and I welcome the Executive's consultation.
On Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's point, I would prefer that we had a Scottish system that operated in close liaison with the English system, but the whole thing must certainly cover the UK, one way or the other.
The problem of pubs and clubs can be dealt with reasonably simply if it is written into the licensing rules that a pub will not get its alcohol licence unless it has properly licensed door stewards and that, if the door stewards misbehave, the pub will lose its licence. That way, we would have a licensing system for the individuals as well as for the companies.
Also, the individuals need training. At the moment, door security is not a very attractive career. However, if people could get Scottish vocational qualifications in how to manage people, first aid and how the licensing laws work, that could be the first stage in working in and managing a pub. Such a system would have to take effect in due course and it could not be done instantly, but pubs would not get a licence unless they had done the proper training. That would put the whole issue of pub and club security on a much better basis. I do not claim to have knowledge of the deeper problem of protection rackets, but I share the concern of other members.
I congratulate Johann Lamont not only on raising this issue, but on raising over the course of this session of the Parliament a whole series of issues that really matter to people in her constituency and all over Scotland. I am glad to see that two members of the press are covering the debate, and I hope that they will note that there are members who consistently raise issues that directly affect people's lives. Perhaps they will take the opportunity to note that there is a lot more than trivia going on in the chamber.
The private security industry plays an important role in protecting property and people, especially in the night-time entertainment market. It plays a vital role at many of our sporting occasions, although we often fail to notice that it is even there. Perhaps that demonstrates how effective well-trained and well-resourced companies can be.
The private security industry must complement the role of the police but, more important, it must hold the confidence of the Scottish public. There should be no question of voluntary regulation. If the industry is to hold people's confidence, there must be mandatory parameters. To bring that about, we must establish a base line. What is the scale and scope of the industry in Scotland? As we speak, there are no independently compiled figures.
There are far too many examples of bad practice, which tarnish the good work of the majority of the industry. It is high time that a new Scottish authority for the regulation of the private security industry was established, with powers to oversee every aspect of that industry. There should be no place for dissecting different parts of the industry and giving responsibility to a disparate range of bodies. That one authority should have the resources to monitor the industry properly, otherwise it will be pointless and will fail to gain the confidence of the Scottish people.
It is time for the talking to stop and for positive action to start. We must eliminate the cowboys and allow the professionals, trained to proper standards, to flourish and to provide a service in Scotland.
Not for the first time in recent days, Johann Lamont is speaking a lot of sense, and she is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to the Parliament. There can be no doubt whatever that the lack of regulation in the private security industry is a cause for growing concern.
Our experience is not unique. There was a problem down south, which has been answered, to some extent, by regulating. The experience down south indicated, just as we saw in Pollok the other week, that some of the activities that were going on were more akin to a Chicago operation of the 1930s than to contemporary Scotland. Action is clearly necessary.
Under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, there is a requirement to license people such as taxi drivers and window cleaners. They have to demonstrate that they are fit and proper people to hold those licences. The thinking behind that is quite simple. If a taxi driver is out late at night in some area of the city, he has the excuse that he is there because he is driving a taxi. If a window cleaner is carrying out window cleaning operations, that is clearly his raison d'être. It is essential that we can prove and be satisfied that such people are not criminals, but are fit and proper people to be carrying out such activities. Yet we do not apply any restriction to or seek to monitor the type of person who is involved in private security. I think that the minister will agree that there is a clear inconsistency in that respect.
Kenneth Gibson was right to refer to other activities of private security firms, experience of which has not been particularly happy. It is clear that bouncers—or club stewards, as they are euphemistically called—often cause more trouble than they prevent. Many incidents are caused by the inappropriate way in which they deal with people. They can be more concerned about getting into a rough-house than about diffusing any problem that arises.
Such matters must be examined in depth. The Conservatives are not greatly in favour of regulation simply for the sake of regulation, but it is clear that there is a real need for some type of regulation. If we seek to regulate and inquire into who is driving a taxi or cleaning windows, we should look much more closely at those who operate security firms. Several members have mentioned that there is evidence that there are organisations that are run by the gangster tendency.
I, too, congratulate Johann Lamont on bringing this important issue to the attention of the chamber. I hope that there will be serious and worthwhile legislation on it.
I do not want to make the issue political, but I will refer to what Bill Aitken said about regulation. The Conservatives must shoulder much blame as a result of the deregulation that took place throughout the 1980s, particularly in connection with local authorities and compulsory competitive tendering. Unfortunately, the problem is that many businesses that thrived in Glasgow did so because they received copious amounts of public money. There needed to be security around developments and demolition projects in local authority areas. There was a difficulty in that, when local authorities were presented with tenders for security jobs, they were told to take the cheapest tender. Often, such tenders came from the most unscrupulous firms and acceptance would be based not necessarily on the ability of firms to do the job best, but on their ability to muscle in and ensure that nobody else could do the job within the price. That was down to deregulation. Local authorities were not allowed to consider matters relating to wages and conditions and whether there was a proper licensing regime.
It is important that, in considering the security industry, we wage war on the lack of regulation. There was a difficulty in the Local Government in Scotland Bill in that there was not enough in it to allow local authorities to choose the best for their areas rather than simply the cheapest. I hope that that will be corrected as it progresses and also that the taxi industry—and the private taxi industry in particular—will have more regulation, as that is needed, particularly in the city of Glasgow.
Recently, Johann Lamont and I have shared platforms to debate the issue. It is vital that we get to grips with it. I hope that Johann Lamont will agree with points that Paul Martin made—I am sure that she will. Part of the reason for the insecurity in many schemes and estates in Glasgow is the lack of police numbers on the ground. In addition, I hope that the minister will address the points that Paul Martin made. There needs to be an overhaul of policing in the Glasgow area. I do not think that community wardens will satisfy in any way, shape or form the gulf between what people perceive to have been on the beat in the streets in the past, compared to what is on the beat now. We must address that. I hope that the minister will do that in his winding-up, as well as addressing the other issues that have been raised.
I join other members in congratulating Johann Lamont on securing the debate. Its timing is excellent, as we had a debate on crime in general this morning. Yesterday, I spent a considerable amount of time on the first stages of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. The issue is high on the agenda.
Johann Lamont's first point is absolutely valid, as there are real problems in some of our communities. I have visited Inverclyde, in Duncan McNeil's constituency. I have been to Kirkcaldy with Marilyn Livingstone and to Springburn with Paul Martin. I know that my colleague, Jim Wallace, went in my stead to Cardonald. I intend to visit the constituencies of Patricia Ferguson and Elaine Thomson, both of whom have invited me to look at the problems on the ground. Most of the points that members made today were valid.
I want to join Johann Lamont in expressing support for the residents of Darnley in Paisley, who were victims of the vandalism that she described. We could speculate about the linkages, but as three arrests have been made, further comment would not be appropriate in the circumstances.
There are two strands to the issue: the statutory bodies and the private industry. We need to look at both. Regulating the private security industry is one way in which public confidence in the criminal justice system can be maintained and enhanced. However, it is by no means the only way forward.
We must continue to take the steps that we have already initiated to try to make our communities generally feel safer. Although we have put a record amount of funding into the police and although we now have record police numbers—they are up by 200 on a year ago—we recognise that how policing is undertaken is also important.
Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland is about to publish a thematic review that will consider visibility and the public's confidence in policing. I have not yet received the details of that review, but I suspect that it will show us that the numbers of police who are engaged in specialist and backroom activities, such as serving citations, court work and many of the things that were mentioned in this morning's debate, are such that they detract from the visibility that we all agree is necessary. We need to address that. We will work with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and with the police boards to try to improve that situation.
The distribution of resources was raised this morning and ACPOS has been looking at that. Some forces are underfunded, and I think that people will not be that happy about that report, although it has been agreed with ACPOS. However, I do not want to anticipate the outcome except to say that there will be losers and winners, as there always are in redistribution.
What else are we doing? In association with the justice department, Margaret Curran, who spoke in this morning's debate on poverty, is working on the neighbourhood warden schemes, to which Johann Lamont alluded. We are allocating £20 million to those schemes over the next two or three years. There is no doubt that that gives confidence to communities, as the initial responses from those communities have been excellent. We will look at how those schemes work and how much they cost.
In Clackmannanshire, which is in my constituency, the nationalist council has chosen to introduce what it calls "community improvement zones". The council is spending almost £1 million in two wards to achieve the effect, so I slightly wonder about the cost-effectiveness of those zones. However, I welcome the initiative as it is attempting to deal with these problems.
There are other areas that we can address and that we should improve. I am particularly keen to promote special policing, not as a substitute for the full-time police but as an adjunct that can reconnect police to their communities. If we look back to the 1920s, there were something like 13,000 or 14,000 special police and only a small number of full-timers. It is quite appropriate that we now have over 15,000 full-timers, but the number of specials is now down to 1,000. We are looking at that and will continue to look at whether special policing might help in terms of connecting policing to communities.
Let me now turn to the private security industry, which has experienced massive growth over the past 20 years. The industry has expanded and adapted to fill increasing demands. As members have said, the industry is diverse and includes door stewards, alarm and monitoring companies, protection for sporting and other activities, and companies that transport cash and valuables and much else. The industry covers a huge range of activities.
I am sure that the vast majority of those companies are honest and law-abiding. They do an important job and they do it well. They serve our communities effectively. However, there is undoubtedly also an unscrupulous element, which uses the industry as a cover for extortion or other illegal activities. Although that element may not be widespread in Scotland, that does not mean that we should ignore it. The police take all such allegations seriously and investigate them thoroughly. We have given a firm commitment to regulate the industry. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, that has been welcomed by the industry, which wants the cowboys to be eliminated. We should congratulate the industry on the progress that it has made over the years through self-regulation.
When it comes down to discussing the detail, in an otherwise almost unanimous chamber we will debate how much and what form of regulation is best. Our nationalist colleagues may decide that they want a separate body for regulating the industry in Scotland. Others, represented by the Conservatives and Donald Gorrie, would prefer the regulation to be part of the UK set-up. The Executive is considering the matter, although it tends to favour the UK set-up, as Kenneth Gibson will not be surprised to hear.
We are consulting on the issues. Members alluded to the fact that we issued a consultation document on the question of statutory regulation. The intention of that was to reassure the public, to exclude unsuitable people from gaining employment in the industry and to raise the standards in the industry, thereby enhancing its status and reputation among the general public, the police, local authorities and the commercial sector. I can tell members that we will regulate, although the timetable for that is a matter for discussion. I will raise with colleagues the suggestion that a committee bill might be appropriate. Donald Gorrie questioned whether door stewarding should be regulated locally: consideration must be given to how we balance regulation.
The debate reflects an excellent aspect of the Parliament: almost total unity in the belief that we should unite in ensuring more visibility for our police. However, we must have effective and intelligent policing. One matter that was not raised in this debate—although it was raised during the criminal justice debate this morning and I did not have the chance to respond—is the fact that part of our problem is the cross-correlation of information. The housing department knows something, the community council knows something, the neighbours know something and the police know something, but we do not draw all those things together. We must not use the Data Protection Act 1998 as a means of failing to share information; we must find ways to share information.
I welcome the debate and I hope that, in my response, I have been able to indicate how seriously we take the matter.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—