Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am still surprised as to why the Government are seeking to move forward with local enterprise partnerships, leaving nothing at all at the regional level. I have been hoping for some time that there would be a measure of movement on the part of the Government, and I hope to hear about that from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
The East Midlands Development Agency, better known as EMDA, was formed in 1999 and for the past 12 years has done a good job providing help and support to the economy of the East Midlands. It works regionally and sub-regionally where that is appropriate, so it is disappointing that the Government are seeking to abolish this RDA. I am not against reform per se, but it seems a bit over the top and creates a system that is unable to meet the needs of businesses and meet the regional challenges to create jobs and support the regional economy.
Noble Lords will be aware that the East Midlands is made up of six counties. It is the third largest and third most rural region in England, and has a population of 4.3 million people. There are well over a quarter of a million businesses in the region, and it is where I worked for many years. It is made up of largely rural counties with principal town and cities. I should say that I have great affection for the East Midlands. Compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, it is a region of relatively low wages and needs a measure of co-ordination and intervention at this level to protect jobs, boost job creation and enable businesses to flourish with the right sort of support. I am aware that other noble Lords who wish to speak in the debate will refer to the RDAs in their own areas, but I think that a recurring theme will be that at the regional level, this is a big mistake. Local enterprise partnerships on their own will not fill the gap. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 16A tabled in my name and in the names of several of my noble friends. Like my noble friend Lord Kennedy, I am not against reform—I welcome it—but I am against the abolition of the RDAs in a wholesale way. I raised a number of questions on the abolition of the RDAs in our debate at the Committee stage and the Minister was kind enough to write to me with a detailed response. I have to say at the outset that I still have very deep concerns about the abolition of the RDAs, both in terms of the impact on economic growth and the process itself.
I turn first to the Government’s response to the report of the Public Administration Select Committee entitled Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State. The response is brimful of bravado, which I would say is misplaced in this context, but I digress. I refer to paragraph 6 of the response, which deals with the £2.6 billion that will flow from savings on public bodies over the spending review period and the estimate of a reduction of at least £11 billion per year by 2014-15. It has been estimated in some quarters that it could cost as much as £1.4 billion to wind down the RDAs and complete existing programmes. Yet in his letter, the Minister tells me that it is not possible at this stage to quantify the costs of RDA closure. I am sure he is correct, but if so, how can the Government state categorically that total savings as a result of this legislation will be at least £2.6 billion during the spending review period? It would be helpful to have a more detailed breakdown of the savings, especially after the extraordinary hyperbole we heard at the beginning of the process—not, I hasten to add, from the Minister.
I turn now to the issue of consultation, which I raised in Committee. I welcome the increased consultation that is now a part of the Bill thus far, although my noble friend Lord Hunt will move further amendments on consultation in due course. But in relation to RDAs, the Minister told me in his letter that:
“We have not so far undertaken a formal consultation on the abolition of the RDAs”.
I hope that as a consequence of this Bill consultation will in future take place at the appropriate time—before announcements are made and legislation is introduced. I note from the Minister’s letter that the Government are obliged to consult before laying any order to abolish the RDAs, assuming that they remain part of the Bill, and that they will meet this requirement. Personally, I think that such a consultation is far too late in the process. I also asked in Committee about the role of government offices. The Minister told me that BIS is working to put in place a new economic development delivery landscape and that this is the role that the network of small BIS local teams will be designed to fulfil. This is reinventing the wheel. In the main, the government offices do an excellent job at the moment. They may well need reforming but reform should not mean abolition; it should mean just some readjustment of the process which we have had thus far.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for his offer to keep us informed of the consultations as they go on. The Minister was right to say that it is a political decision that has been taken by this Government. We believe that this is fundamentally the wrong decision. We believe that it is wrong for the economic growth of our regions and it is wrong for the economic well-being of our country. Therefore I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, the amendment removes the Security Industry Authority from the list of public bodies that the Minister can abolish by secondary legislation. Some noble Lords may wonder why the Government are supporting an amendment which is the same as one which the Opposition put forward a few weeks ago and which we then resisted. If I go into the Government’s reasoning behind our approach to the Bill, it will then become clear why we are now supporting this amendment.
First, our willingness to accept the amendment does not represent a change of policy; it remains the Government’s intention to abolish the SIA in its present form. We have, however, decided that this will be best achieved through a different piece of primary legislation. As noble Lords know, it was announced on 14 October as part of the public bodies review that the SIA would no longer be a non-departmental public body and that we would take forward a phased transition to a new regulatory regime. I went through the reasons for that during the Committee debate on 28 February, and I do not intend to detain the House at this hour by going over that ground again. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that.
Home Office Ministers asked the SIA last October to consult key stakeholders, including the industry, and to produce a detailed plan of how the phased transition to the new regulatory regime could be achieved. As the House will know, the chair of the SIA, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and its chief executive, Bill Butler, presented their plan to the department on 16 February and there has been a subsequent meeting with the Home Secretary on 14 March, so there has been close dialogue between the SIA and the department.
The key points that emerge from the proposals are that: regulation will shift from licensing individuals to registering businesses, which will have to meet a comprehensive set of conditions set by the new regulator; the regulation of individuals will become the responsibility of registered businesses, which is an important point; the new regulator will have the power to impose sanctions, including removing the right to trade in the private security industry on the part of businesses that fail to comply with the conditions that it sets for registration; and the Government’s aim is for the new regulatory regime to be in place by the end of 2013, using a phased approach to ensure a smooth transition.
We have decided to support the amendment to remove the SIA from the Bill because Clause 1 includes only powers to abolish bodies and transfer functions via secondary legislation. It does not include powers to set up new regulatory bodies, and it has become clear that primary legislation will be required to establish a successor self-regulatory body that will have the power to impose sanctions on businesses that do not comply with set standards. If I understood the noble Lord’s point, he attaches importance to the idea that the regulatory body should have teeth. The Government agree—in other words, it must have powers that will enable it to enforce sanctions against companies that breach standards.
We have therefore taken the opportunity to review, and decided that references to the SIA should be removed from the Bill. The same primary legislative vehicle that will establish the successor regulatory body will also be used to abolish the SIA, so we will put it all in another Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I cannot give further detail on that legislation today, except to say that we will bring it forward when parliamentary time allows.
A final point: the Home Secretary has also written to Ministers in the Scottish Government and in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to advise them of this amendment. Regulation of the private security industry in their nations is a policy decision for the devolved Administrations to make. We are working with them to ensure that transitional and subsequent arrangements meet the needs of all UK Administrations.
Accepting the amendment does not constitute a change in policy; it is a change to the vehicle that the Government will use to deliver that policy. There is wide agreement between the Government and what I understand to be the points made on the opposition Benches regarding the substance. It is still the Government’s intention to abolish the existing body and replace it with another body for the private security industry that is self-regulatory. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I apologise that I did not stand up before. As the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is on the amendment, I wanted to see what the noble Baroness was going to say in response before I could intervene. I have a couple of questions further to her speech.
The Minister suggested that we are thinking very much along the same lines; I think that that was what she said towards the end of her speech. Let me be clear that we do not agree with the Government about the future of the SIA because we believe that it is essentially doing a good job as it is. As we understand it, the industry itself is content with the present situation and willing to pay for the present system.
I return to two issues that were raised in the debate that we had in Committee. One was the attitude of the police. As all noble Lords will know, when we brought forward the primary legislation, one of the main bodies in favour of primary legislation being introduced were the police themselves, who felt that the security industry when unregulated was rather a dangerous industry, not just for the people working in the industry themselves but also for the wider society. It was as a means of protecting wider society that the legislation was introduced.
I will be grateful if the noble Baroness can tell us whether or not a consultation with the police and other concerned bodies will take place before a Bill is introduced. I will also be grateful if she can tell the House when a Bill is likely to be introduced. One of the issues that concerns these Benches is the fact that, in future, it is hoped by the Government that the regulation of individuals working within the security industry should become the responsibility of the security businesses themselves. That is precisely why primary legislation was introduced in the first place. The industry was not properly investigating or in charge of the individuals who were working in the industry and this led to endangering some of the people who depended on the security industry—for example, the young in nightclubs.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised a question about prisoners in the last debate on the subject. At the moment where prisoners are moved from prison to prison, the wherewithal to do it is provided by the security industry. That is an extremely important part of the industry that needs to be properly regulated. Will the Government consult with the Ministry of Justice and everybody else who has anything to do with the movement of prisoners and the wider care of prisoners? As I understand it, people who work within the security industry are sometimes employed within private prisons. It does not seem a sensible move or good idea to reintroduce some form of self-regulation rather than to have proper regulation for an industry that is extremely important for the well-being of our society.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, I do not have that information available, but we know the amount of money that is available for the fund, which I have stated.
Finally, noble Lords raised the question of what will happen to RDA assets and activities. There has been some concern that there might be a fire sale. That is not the case. These bodies will be run down, the relevant clauses of the Bill will become law, and the RDAs will finally be abolished. RDAs have been liaising with the relevant local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and other local partners. On 31 January, all RDAs submitted detailed plans for the disposal of their assets. They recognised that there will be a variety of destinations for these assets, depending on their nature and associated liabilities. These plans are currently being scrutinised by the Government. After scrutiny, each RDA management board will sign off its plan and begin implementation. RDA asset-disposal plans have been developed while taking into account the principles that we set out in the White Paper. These include maximising value for money from these assets, ensuring that liabilities follow assets and passing control down to local level where possible. Where this is not appropriate—where, for example, an asset is of national importance, such as that set up in the south-west and mentioned in the debate, and considerable resources are needed to run it—other options will be considered.
Similarly, co-ordination of some activities formerly undertaken by RDAs will be taken back to national level, and some activities, such as those of the England Rural Development Programme, will retain local accessible support. In some cases, such as managing the European Regional Development Fund and the England Rural Development Programme, we need to ensure compliance with our obligations to the European Union. In other cases, such as co-ordination of inward investment activity, we need to ensure that we can put over a coherent and effective message to potential investors. However, even in those cases, we are setting up mechanisms under which local partnerships have the opportunity to influence policy and help drive the decisions we make. For all these reasons, we do not believe that retaining all or any of the nine RDAs will help to achieve local growth. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, and for noble Lords not to move theirs.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which I will carefully consider, and I look forward to the letters that he has undertaken to write. All around the Chamber we would agree that regional development is key to the economic recovery of this country. RDAs have been, and for the moment are, excellent strategic catalysts for growth. I have to say that I am not confident that their replacement by LEPs will suffice. However, I will take into consideration what the noble Lord has said. At this juncture I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to bring something back at Report.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, this amendment is on the abolition of the Security Industry Authority. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Henig, who has been its chair. My Government established the SIA in 2004 to reduce criminality in the security profession and to raise standards in the industry. This is exactly what the SIA has done and what I would like it to continue to do. The body has two main duties: the compulsory licensing of individuals undertaking designated activities within the private security industry, such as security guarding, door supervision, close protection, public space surveillance by CCTV, and protecting cash and valuables in transit; and to manage the voluntary approved-contractor scheme.
It is easy to understand why the police campaigned for the industry to be regulated, why they are content with the way in which the authority is working and why they do not want it to be abolished. Neither do I. It is not difficult to see why such an industry should have been regulated. You just have to think about how the actions of nightclub bouncers have, according to my children and their friends, improved exponentially over the past few years. You just have to think about the potential for people who wish to harm our society with acts of terrorism and how much easier it would be for them to find employment in an unregulated industry. You just have to think about the potential for employing people—perhaps illegal immigrants—at below the minimum wage. I realise that employers in the industry have a responsibility but I am sure that they are greatly assisted by the SIA.
Can the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary has decided that there will be no significant changes to the SIA until after the Olympics in 2012? If that is the case, it is certainly very telling. I suggest that our citizens should be able to enjoy a properly regulated security industry at any time, not just in the period leading up to and during the Olympics. I ask the Minister whether there are plans for a smooth transition to a self-regulated industry and whether the police are content with the transition. Finally, what reviews do the Government intend to carry out following the proposed changes to ensure that the public can continue to have confidence in the system? I simply do not understand why the Government wish to abolish this body and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. I do so partly because I was in on the beginning of the campaign to regulate the security industry when I still worked for my trade union, which organised the more respectable end of the security industry. However, 20 years ago, and indeed more recently, it was an industry with some very dodgy people in it. There was an element of criminality; there were occasional outbursts of violence; there was fraud; and there was a straightforward dereliction of duty to the businesses and individuals that employed so-called security companies. There was much in the industry that, to put it at its mildest, was short of customer service.
It was not a pleasant industry but in many respects it was one on which, because of the nature of our society and the value of the goods in which we trade, more and more businesses came to rely. They needed to be assured that the people they brought in to protect their premises, their transit arrangements, their valuables and, in many respects, their staff and customers knew what they were doing and did not have any record of transgression. That is what, after a long campaign, led to the setting up of the Security Industry Authority.
The Home Office has ummed and ahed about this for many years and has done absolutely nothing about it. The first time the authority’s abolition was proposed, it was suggested that its responsibilities went back to the Home Office, but that would have been absolutely disastrous. Now, a degree of self-regulation for the industry is proposed. However, the problem with that is that the more respectable end of the industry will undoubtedly attempt very effectively to ensure a degree of quality of service and vetting of staff and individuals but the less respectable end will re-emerge and so-called security firms will spring up all over the place employing people who have not been through the vetting procedure. Therefore, any self-regulation is dependent on the majority of the industry participating in it and being able to exclude others.
There may have been criticisms of the SIA but most of those have probably been invalid. I feel that there should have been a mandatory system of approving companies, as well as individuals, but the authority, together with the police, undoubtedly helped to clean up the industry. Taking away this protection from businesses and individuals is a big risk for the Government to take. I hope that the Home Office will think again, because it cannot do this job itself. Those at the respectable end of the industry do not really want to be reduced to self-regulation. They will operate such a system if the Government insist on it but it will not be as effective as the development of the SIA. For that reason, and in the interests of protecting a lot of small and large businesses and public premises, I ask the Government to think again.
Baroness Neville-Jones
Having removed the basis for the present regime, we obviously need to have a basis for the new regime.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am utterly perplexed at the end of this very good debate. We have a regime which was introduced seven years ago at the behest of the police and the industry itself—the good elements of the industry—as well as Parliamentarians. The Minister herself has said that standards have been raised as a consequence of this good regime; it is working well throughout the United Kingdom. Usually, when there are demands for a regulatory body to be disbanded, it is because the industry itself wants it to be disbanded or because of an exorbitant cost. It seems to me that there is no cost in this; the industry is very happy to meet the bills and is content with the present situation. It looks very much as though the Government are tinkering around the edges—forgive me if it sounds rude—and they are tinkering with a system which is working well and that everybody is content with. I simply do not understand why we are dealing with this issue now.
I recognise, as the noble Baroness has said, that the industry is content to have a phased transition, but it seems to be a complex way of going about things. I do not feel at all reassured by what she has said this evening. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the interaction between the security industry and the prison service—which, if I had thought about it, I would have been dismayed and concerned about—makes me even more concerned about the proposal before us today. The noble Baroness has talked about the need for transition and has said that consultation is already taking place. She has also said that primary legislation will be needed for a new body, so I am slightly perplexed as to what we are doing now. Notwithstanding that, I am content to withdraw my amendment now, but I will certainly bring back an amendment on Report.
