The police service as we know it today is in the process of evolving as a result of pre-determined Government policy. That policy, of course, includes the use of alternative resources to carry out certain duties that, once upon a time, were completed so majestically by the rank-and-file police officer. For ‘alternative resources’, read security officers.
Current strategy has arisen at least in part due to abuse of the police service by previous Governments, culminating in 1979 with the much-needed Police Inquiry Committee chaired by Lord Edmund Davies (whose detailed report on police Terms and Conditions brought our Boys in Blue into line in terms of the pay they rightly deserved).
Post-1979, the police then evolved – by way of annual index-linked pay awards – into what was perceived by many as a costly resource and one whose practitioners were overpaid.
During the mid-1990s, Kenneth Clarke – then in his brief tenure as Home Secretary – became infuriated by what he considered to be incompetent leadership and inflexible working practices within the police service. He duly picked an unprecedented fight with the police by commissioning Sir Patrick Sheehy to conduct a similar review.
Sir Patrick’s key proposal was performance (or appraisal)-related pay, a proposed move roundly defeated in the wake of a highly motivated campaign conducted by the Police Federation. Although peace was somewhat restored between ministers and the police, this left a host of issues (including pensions, sick leave and overtime allowances) unresolved.
Subtle alternatives to be found
The attack on police pay and conditions by the Conservatives failed to drastically cut the cost of policing, and was eventually shelved by Michael Howard. The feeling at the time was that more subtle alternatives were needed to solve the UK’s perceived policing problems.
One suspects that, somewhere in the Halls of Westminster, the suggestion of using alternative resources to fully-fledged police officers was discussed. The idea of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) would have been proposed. At the same time, Bruce George MP was fighting tooth and nail to install regulation of the private security industry on the Parliamentary agenda.
The Extended or Wider Police Family was being conceived. In terms of the Wider Police Family, it wasn’t the media that coined this phrase but the Government. It’s a phrase designed to detract from the real issue of how policing – as we know it – is changing. In turn, this is having a knock-on effect for many, including those within the guarding sector.
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett used that very phrase in 2004 when talking about proposals for PCSOs. Blunkett wanted 4,000 of them on the streets before the end of the year. By the end of this year, the Government is intent on employing and deploying no less than 24,000 PCSOs (there are around 16,000 operational at present).
Stronger ties with the community?
“The police cannot win the fight against crime and nuisance behaviour alone,” said Blunkett. “Extending the Police Family will strengthen links with communities to bring about real change in the way we tackle local issues and engage the public in addressing those crimes that affect them the most.”
A strange comment given that the public Blunkett talked of in relation to tackling crime pays for and expects the police service to do that on its behalf. How times have changed.
Police numbers are said to be at record levels. They must be in hiding, then, because I can never find a police officer when the need arises. Surely chief constables under constant pressure to hit targets and meet exacting budgets will soon start to cut their numbers of sworn officers in favour of the PCSOs? Can I pose a question to those SMT readers who are retail security managers or loss prevention specialists? Is the service retailers receive from the police better or worse than a few years ago? Answers on the back of a postcard please.
To assist, let me quote from Professor Joshua Bamfield’s study of October 2006 in which 55% of customers and 47% of employees in the retail environment suggested the police service was unwilling to respond to reported shoplifting cases. I’d suggest that the perception of unwillingness is more about an inability to respond rather than a desire not to.
Erosion of the police service
In terms of the erosion of the police service as we know it, it’s surely no coincidence that many forces now no longer consider applications for officer posts unless they spring from the ranks of the PCSOs (who, incidentally, can be employed from 16 years of age, are contracted to work one weekend in four and not work after midnight).
As a parent, I wouldn’t want any 16-year-old child of mine out on the streets after midnight in any case, particularly now that there are so few police officers about… In 2005, there were 7,000 PCSOs employed in comparison with 141,381 police officers. What will the ratio be at the end of this calendar year? Certainly not comparable with 2005, that’s for sure.
Another level of policing has been added. Who’s to say that, in a few years’ time, an Act of Parliament will not give present day policing powers to PCSOs? At a stroke, you would have a tier of the police service – or should that be Wider Police Family? – whose ‘participants’ are paid almost half of what we pay our police and don’t come with the ‘baggage’ belonging to fully-fledged officers that’s believed to be so favourable and costly.
The downside – apart from the degree of training they receive – will be the fact that, unlike real police officers, PCSOs have the right to strike. Could this be a disaster in the making? I would say so. As an interesting aside, one wonders if PCSOs will need to be licensed by the Security Industry Authority (SIA) if they are expected to trawl through CCTV footage?
Moving down the hierarchy of the Wider Police Family, we come to the security guarding sector. More and more, private sector contractors are being asked to ‘police’ public spaces in our towns and cities. Looking more closely at how the Government intends to use the services of the guarding sector, it’s wise to consider again Project Griffin (‘From Guards to Guardians’, SMT, May 2005, pp40-42). The training given to Project Griffin security operatives is exceptional, including the Friday telephone call for updates on terrorist threats.
Impact on security guarding
As you can see, I’m fully in favour of Project Griffin, but surely we should expect our Government to supply enough police officers to take care of these matters? It’s yet another example of how the Wider Police Family is impacting on our pool of security officers.
The guarding industry has a long way to go before it becomes a career of choice. With licensing limiting the number of available personnel, I wonder from where the increased requirement to supply security officers will emanate? Officers will inevitably gravitate to the highest bidder, which leads me nicely to the ongoing debate concerning in-house versus outsourced guarding.
When I was head of security at Focus DIY, I carried out a good deal of research on the viability of taking our guarding service in-house. I could make a saving of three pence per hour, but then would have incurred all the problems associated with directly employing people and finding replacements for the sick and those on holiday.
We would still have needed to employ licensed officers, even if not yet required by law to do so. Otherwise we could have ended up employing those the SIA was established to help banish from the industry. Premiums would have to be paid to retain officers if the in-house option were chosen. Added to that is the cost of managing the resource. It would be easy to spend more than an outsourced service would cost. The danger for both staff and customers of the client organisation is that the cost of guarding becomes so prohibitive that elements of it are removed to suit the budget. My advice to end users would be to stick with outsourced guarding for as long as they can.
Underpinning SIA licensing was the need for removing less respectable operatives and those with criminal records. In 2004, I was assured by a (then) senior representative of the Regulator that licensing would remove from our premises officers who could neither read, write nor converse in the English language. We were later supplied with officers bereft of any English skills, and I quizzed SIA chairman Baroness Ruth Henig on this very topic last May (‘Pivotal moment’, SMT, July 2007, pp24-27). This simply should not happen. The SIA needs to nip this in the bud, and quickly.
What happens if a security officer comes running towards you gesticulating, sweating and in a state of panic. After five minutes, they manage to utter the word “Fire!”. Where is it? They can’t tell you. The delay costs the company six figures. Maybe some lives. Surely that couldn’t happen? You bet it could.
In fairness, the SIA has reacted when notified of such problems. Perhaps more end users need to be informing the Regulator as and when they are supplied with sub-standard personnel. What respect will an officer command if they cannot communicate with staff and clients or customers? Can they write reports or read and comply with assignment instructions? If not, what use are they?
Let me point out that I have a great respect for security officers, and have always expected the suppliers I’ve worked with to pay them well above the National Minimum Wage such that, for example, staff turnover is minimised.
Perception of credibility
Another stated aim of the Regulator is to “strengthen the Extended Police Family by encouraging and supporting further engagement of the private security industry”. Has the SIA succeeded here? The Regulator has certainly afforded the guarding sector a perceived credibility. The perception is that officers are now better trained, equipped and able to do their duties. With the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), there is also now a ‘badge’ or ‘trade symbol’ perceived to denote that a guarding company with ACS recognition is better than one without.
Personally, I’d argue that point. At the moment, ACS registration shows that a company has paid for and undergone the required audit to prove it’s of an acceptable operational standard. However, the cost of remaining ACS accredited is quite exceptional. Some consider it to be little short of a money-making exercise for the Regulator and, therefore, the Government.
There’s no doubt all suppliers will be forced down the route of becoming ACS registered, but what tangible benefits will accrue to them?
Alternatives for budgetary spend?
So where is the budgetary spend for prevention and detection of theft and customer and staff safety directed if not at guarding?
Well, it doesn’t go anywhere really. CCTV is a deterrent, but not effective in preventing sudden, violent episodes. Security officers can intervene. Cameras cannot. In any case, how many of you using CCTV actually have it monitored in real time?
Electronic Article Surveillance (EAS) may bring its own problems in the retail arena. When activated, such systems can lead staff into conflict with thieves. A trained security officer can intervene or deter by their presence.
At this point I apologise to all of the CCTV and EAS suppliers who wanted a slice of my guarding budget but, as far as I’m concerned, there’s simply no replacement for the good old uniformed officer.