The private security industry should be doing far more to help speed up the introduction of regulation and licensing in the sector. That is the view of Richard Childs, chief constable of Lincolnshire Police, who chose the IFSEC Conference Programme as a platform to speak about the ‘wider police family’ – Home Secretary David Blunkett’s brainchild, and one that could see a far greater involvement for security companies contracted to work alongside the police.
“There is a real opportunity here for the security companies,” opined Childs at the National Exhibition Centre. “A prize to grab. However, that all depends on regulation. I’m very concerned about the length of time this licensing is seemingly going to take.”
Childs added: “There needs to be a far greater emphasis by the Government on helping Graham Titcombe [the Home Office civil servant tasked with heading up the licensing Implementation Team] do his job because it really is the key to the door for the private sector.”
John Saunders, the newly-appointed chief executive of the Security Industry Authority (SIA), recently stated that the first security officer licenses will not be issued until late 2003, perhaps even stretching to a 2004 commencement – a situation of which Richard Childs is fiercely critical.
“The door [to a wider police family] is half open, but it will slam shut if regulation isn’t up-and-running quickly. I must say I’m surprised there hasn’t been more enthusiasm from the industry in pushing Government ministers to assist with what is presently a grossly under-resourced SIA.”
Enhancing the debate
A member of Security Management Today’s Editorial Advisory Board, Childs is one of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) more outspoken chief constables. He has often been critical of the private security industry, but accepts the role that it could play in a post-regulated world.
Childs concedes that Government reform of the police service has moved the debate forward, forcing some of his ACPO and Police Federation colleagues to accept change in spite of their concerns. That said, he’s quick to point out that a number of issues “are inviolable”.
“In time, I’d be quite happy to be involved in a wider law enforcement set-up that embraces help and support from the private sector, but some of my expectations would have to be met at the outset,” stated Childs. “I want to see security personnel who are competent, committed, professional, highly trained and skilled in their job. The aim of involving the private security companies would be for them to help us reduce crime and disorder, and help in tackling anti-social behaviour. If those outside of the police service can help us get to grips with such problems then we in ACPO should not waste that opportunity because of prejudice, history, tradition or pomposity.”
Rights for the private sector
Childs noted that ACPOs guiding principles on this particular matter are focused on the powers that the private sector should be granted, its rights to intervene in given situations, its accountability, appearance and funding. According to Childs, funding is a “die in the ditch” matter for the police service.
ACPO believes the substitution of funding for core policing is fundamentally wrong, and that additional funding from identifiable sources should instead be found for community safety/support officers, wardens and other roles which could be taken on by the private sector – without any diminution of police budgets.
Pointing out the fact that policing “requires a different mindset, and is nothing like managing a private operation”, Childs used the IFSEC seminar entitled ‘Community Safety… In Whose Hands?’ to stress that an appropriate “management ethos” would be required from the private sector, which must not – in his view – become embroiled in operational decision-making processes. That is a process which must remain within the public sector. “That’s non-negotiable,” stated Childs.
“The wider police family must be comprised of a group of like-minded individuals who sing roughly from the same hymn sheet,” urged Childs. “We need to possess the same values, but not necessarily the same standards. For instance, there has to be a certain degree of integrity, and a recognition in the ‘commercial drive’ that a public service is not quite like a private business.”
Childs believes there “must be a cohesion and co-ordination in the way that we all operate such that fragmentation is not a possibility.”
The need for trust
Childs went on to emphasise the (understandable) police service reluctance to ‘water down’ their requirements before co-operating with private security contractors, but offered hope that – provided police service conditions are met – opportunities for the private security industry will be tangible.
“It’s wholly right that you [the private sector] should show us that you are worthy of being let in through the front door to join this bigger family,” stressed Childs.
“As a service, we have spent the past 150 years developing a brand that you’d die for, and I’m not keen on sharing that brand unless you can show me you’re up to the task. I will use every trick at my disposal to keep you out until I’m certain that you are indeed worthy. If you are, I should stop being churlish about matters and welcome you with open arms.”
Childs also chose the IFSEC podium to unveil three controversial police duties he believes could be taken on by security companies in the private sector. Stressing that these ideas are not ACPO policy, he firstly suggested that response to intruder alarm activations should be delegated to the private sector.
“The police service cannot charge directly for this, and in my view if we handed the task over to the private sector it would represent little more than a further development of the commercial keyholder operations already carried out by some firms.”
Childs then proposed the contracting-out of police escorts for abnormal loads. “I remain unconvinced that these duties demand the skills and experience of police officers. They could be carried out quite properly by the private sector using trained and organised operatives for the task. This would allow us to channel our resources into other duties, and dispel the general public’s impression that the police service is totally dominated by traffic policing duties.”
Finally, the chief constable suggested delegating the administration of speed camera images. “The misconception that we keep the proceeds from fines as some sort of ‘profit’ is damaging our image,” said Childs. “The police service and its partners should indeed decide on the cameras’ location, the criteria for their operation and should deal with any and all appeals. Beyond that, though, the police need have no further involvement.”
Degrees of accountability
Echoing last year’s warnings to the security industry about the costs and responsibilities attached to licensing and regulation (‘Private investigation’, SMT, July 2001, pp14-15), Childs emphasised that the private sector’s inclusion in the wider police family would entail a specific degree of accountability. “If you as an industry are going to be involved in more areas, I am not going to assume any accountability for that,” he stressed. “If you are being paid to do a specific job, you will have the accountability for that task. That’s only fair.”
Childs sounded a warning note at the end of his address. “The issue of accountability may turn out to be one of the biggest obstacles to the growth of the private sector in this context. It’s possible that security companies will not be able to harness any insurance cover for carrying out these duties. The insurance community might just turn around and say the risk is too great.” Food for thought.
