While the private security industry in general terms will welcome the business growth potential of privatisation of policing, the probable reality will be that the big players in our industry are likely to grab the largest slice of the cake on offer, believes Jim Gannon, writing in our May 2012 print issue of Professional Security magazine.
In what is likely to be the largest shift of current police responsibilities to the private sector the West Midlands and Surrey police forces have embarked on a journey which will change the face of British Policing forever. John Prescott the former Deputy Prime Minister expressed some clear cut views on this proposal in The Guardian on March 7. He claimed he had the backing of the unions and serving police officers on this one. He stated: “We cannot sit idly by and allow West Midlands and Surrey police forces to tender out a £1.5bn contract to potentially outsource responsibility for investigating crimes, patrolling neighbourhoods and detaining suspects to the private sector. While it is true that Labour introduced the Police Reform Act in 2002 – which allowed chief constables to grant limited powers to non-police organisations to contribute towards community safety – it was never our intention to see private security firms patrolling our public streets. The West Midlands and Surrey police proposals extend much further than their operational responsibilities. To potentially hand policing patrols to private security firms driven by profit and a return for the shareholders is a strategic decision that will massively affect public confidence in the police. What’s more, this is being done with absolutely no public consultation, other than inside the Association of Chief Police Officers – as if it were just an operational matter. The Coalition has made a big play of police and crime commissioners being the voice of the people to provide greater transparency and accountability for the force. But nine months before the PCC elections, the government is allowing forces to contract out essential front-line services without any electoral mandate, denying the people a say in this fundamental change to our police. The former Met commissioner Ian Blair, a man I respect, argued that, while it is being done through the prism of government cuts, outsourcing ‘signals a shift that would allow the private sector to provide staff who can carry out routine and repetitive tasks at cheaper rates’. But if you look at the tender contract it’s clear these tasks are more than that – it’s “patrolling neighbourhoods” “investigating crimes” and “responding to incidents”. This isn’t backroom. It’s front-line, public-facing policing.”
John Prescott called for a nationwide debate in parliament and in the community and urged the public to lobby their MPs and local police authorities to let them know that contracting out essential front line services is not negotiable. Whilst the general media reported on it initially as more or less a done deal, in principle anyway, the facts are that it might not all be plain sailing. Marcus Beale, West Midlands Assistant Chief Constable, was quoted in The Sunday Times on March 4 as saying that private groups would not replace front-line officers but conceded that they might be used instead of police in circumstances such as protecting a murder scene or collecting and analysing CCTV evidence after a crime. He added that it may be that the private sector can do that cheaper and better than police. He maintained that there are some things which are sacrosanct and you are not going to end up with a private sector company patrolling the streets. These proposals do not fit well with Yvette Cooper the Shadow Home Secretary as she warned that public-private partnerships must not cross the line which would put public trust, or the principles of impartial British policing at risk; and she expressed concern over core professional policing. There is therefore a genuine concern emerging that handing certain functions to the private sector could damage the public’s confidence in our police.
Views
I approached some of my ex colleagues from the police service and I quote a couple of views. The first being Derek Bird, an international security consultant and ex Thames Valley Police (TVP) Detective Superintendent and former independent member of the TVP Authority. He said that the police fought the concept of PCSOs, and they were a success. “The Police Federation has a habit of appearing to lack intellectual capacity over such matters because they represent the people, not the service and its needs. The overriding factor here is the service provided to the public and like it or hate it, this country has no option but to provide support to those who arrest and prosecute at a lower cost. It is going to happen and we should do our best to make it happen so we are not the reason it fails. If it does fail, even with our support then that is the time to scrap the scheme. The greater problem is that of Police Commissioners. Police Authorities do not work well, I know because I was once a member of one. But political expediency, rather than public need, steering the service could and would be a disaster from which we would have to retreat. I know from my own experience that the private sector can be successful in the investigation and prosecution of crime and in some cases utilising technology which the police rarely have the opportunity to use in the normal course of investigation.”
Another view came from Roy Bailey, also an ex-TVP superintendent and now a Labour councillor. He said the West Midland and Surrey Police proposals extend much further than their operational responsibilities. “To potentially hand policing patrols to private security firms driven by profit and a return for the shareholders is a strategic decision that will massively affect public confidence in the police. What’s more, this is being done with absolutely no consultation other than inside ACPO as if it was just an operational matter. There is also a big question mark around accountability. Further more who would oversee the selection, training and management of these privatised operatives. I foresee a dramatic drop in standards, which could undermine the very nature of policing. Policing is under attack as never before and we should all unite to resist these proposals.”
While Roy Bailey expresses some valid concerns the fact is that many police forces already use private security firms to run custody suites and transport prisoners to and from courts, so that officers can be deployed on other duties. We also see Highway Agency Officers patrolling our motorways to good effect. The Home Office supports the police in considering the value of private sector partnering in order to achieve cost savings and improve services for the public. With some police forces looking to cut officer numbers over the next three years, to balance the books, is this shift of direction purely a short term answer leading to a long term headache. While none of us can escape the ever-changing financial climate which has touched us all in some way, this exploratory action presents an opportunity for our police service to see if the private security industry can deliver some functions better and cheaper while not undermining the police service itself by destroying public confidence in its role in Britain.
