Richard Childs, chief constable of Lincolnshire Police, used the IFSEC Conference Programme as a platform for urging the industry to play a full part in helping to speed up the process of regulation and licensing.
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.

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 a gross

Richard Childs, Lincolnshire Police

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 role of a regulated private security industry in the extended police family

Lincolnshire police chief constable Richard Childs was a prominent figure at the Third Annual Joint Security Industry Council (JSIC) Security Forum 2002. Held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London’s Westminster, delegates at the Forum – sponsored by organisations including The Corps of Commissionaires, Noble Security, the National Security Inspectorate and Security Management Today – debated the role of a regulated private security industry in the wider police family. Chairing one of the afternoon workshops on the likely impact of police reform – as outlined in the White Paper ‘Policing A New Century: A Blueprint For Reform’ – Childs’ polemical comments included an observation that: “The security industry should be trying to articulate the sort of views that I’m putting across when it comes to pressing for faster licensing. However, it’s noticeable that both the BSIA and IPSA have not bothered to send a representative to this event. The industry is still very fragmented. At present, it appears that the Government and police service are advocating what should be done while the industry tags along behind.”

Also participating in the workshop (which tackled a host of issues, including training) were George Mensah and Geoff Deane, the principal partners at Widnes-based Noble Security Services and prime movers in the Trafford Guardsafe voluntary licensing scheme for officers working at Trafford Park in Manchester (‘On Guard’, SMT, December 2001, pp20-24). Trafford Park area police officer PC Nigel Brown, who has been working closely with Mensah and Deane on the Guardsafe project, commented that every security officer who has been on the three-day Guardsafe training course (see ‘Guardsafe scheme energised as 20 officers pass training course’, News, SMT, May 2002, pp14-15) has since asked for more training. Geoff Deane – who stated that Noble would very much like to put its officers on a 13-week residential training scheme if it were practical to do so – added that increased pay for security officers must go hand-in-hand with heightened levels of training. “We’re being pushed by Call Centres in the area who pay their operatives £7.50 an hour, and thereby compete with us when it comes to employing officers. We are also finding that our guards are being poached by competitor security companies for an extra 50 pence an hour because our rivals can see that Noble’s officers are better trained than their own.”

The training issue touched a raw nerve with David Sowter, security and risk manager for the Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust, who reminded the audience that the NHS Executive is now recommending seven weeks as a bare minimum for training security officers working in that sector. Sowter described the BSIA’s stance on five days’ recommended training for security officers in general – as proposed by the Way Forward Group – as being “completely out of touch”.

  • A comprehensive report on the JSIC Security Forum will appear in the August edition of Security Management Today