The extended police family: a security view

In the run-up to May’s General Election, all of our major political parties promised to focus on security and the public clamour for more police officers on the streets. However, the job of tackling crime in general – and specific strands such as drug trafficking, people smuggling and acts of terrorism – is frequently undermined by the combination of a powerful minority voice, political correctness, fragile 21st Century legislation and the thoughts of a few national newspaper Editors.

Despite those obstacles, of late we have seen the emergence of two buzz phrases that have really captured the imagination – the ‘extended police family’ and the ‘police-security mixed economy’.

The idea of an extended police family or extended security family (there are numerous definitions in daily use) is commendable and laudable, but from a security perspective alone it faces several major problems.

The police-security mixed economy

A recent conference organised by Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International (PRCI) at the University of Leicester – entitled ‘The Future of Policing: Exploring The Extended Police Family’ – encompassed a thought-provoking presentation delivered by Robert Quick (chief constable at Surrey Police).

Quick put forward his views on the police-security mixed economy in terms of security playing a supportive role. One in which its involvement could be turned off and on as and when required. He cited the example of retired detectives, but at no time did the Surrey supremo explain how those assets would be resourced (or, indeed, what would happen to them in-between contracts).

Most of the larger private sector security companies boast national branch networks directed from headquarters by the chief executive. Medium-sized contractors frequently operate on a regional basis. Both cut across police boundaries. Conversely, the various police forces generally operate to strict divisional and district boundaries within their own county. That being the case, how are 43 independent, politically-minded chief constables going to be persuaded that an extended police family must operate nationally, and that this does not mean any loss of the police service’s power and influence?

Thus far, those same chief constables have shown a remarkable inability to listen to their paymasters (ie the general public). They are singularly failing to acknowledge the experiences and expertise of practitioners from without, and have displayed an amazing ability to work against each other – sometimes with tragic results.

Most chief constables have neglected to recognise that the security sector’s practitioners are their greatest ally. Nowhere is this more evident than in the development of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), first espoused by former Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John Stevens and now championed still further thanks to current commissioner Sir Ian Blair. Those same PCSOs are being championed at the expense of the Special Constabulary and/or engaging members of the private security industry.

Arguably, the introduction of PCSOs has already driven a wedge in the extended police family concept. Their value is severely limited because of insufficient powers and training regimes. They represent an unnecessary level of policing that could have been accommodated by well-trained security officers forming closer links with the police service proper. If the police service is (apparently) wholly unable to recognise the potential of Special Constables, PCSOs must stand even less chance of acceptance – and, importantly, respect – among the rank and file.

The police-community interface

Special Constables have a long and honourable history both in peace time and when we have been at war. These law enforcement ‘stalwarts’ represent the natural police-community interface. As a band of volunteers, they nurture a level of commitment that is sometimes lacking among their full-time colleagues.

In spite of this, they are denied the same opportunities, training and Terms and Conditions of Employment that exist between members of the regular Armed Forces and its own reserves, and do not enjoy the same highly-valued relationships.

That private security officers are not allowed to join the Special Constabulary because of a perceived clash of interests is equally saddening. While a natural recruiting ground is simply going to waste, it is also a damning commentary on the police service’s unwillingness to forge constructive alliances. In this so-called ‘Year of the Volunteer’, it’s also a ringing indictment of the extended policing family as a concept.

To my mind, such an obvious lack of lateral thinking will inhibit those select security companies already beginning to push the boundaries of accepted practice. There is no doubt that the police are good at policing. In other words, detecting and preventing crime. The Government’s statistics tell us so. However, this does not necessarily equip them to face the demands of protective security.

The basic problem is that every time a once senior member of the police service enters the private security arena, they appear to harbour preconceived views of what it does and how it behaves. Take the Security Industry Authority’s (SIA) deputy chief executive Andy Drane, for example. In the May edition of Security Management Today (‘Corporate responsibilities: a shared vision on crime reduction’, News Special, pp13-14), his comments imply a lack of public confidence in the private security sector. The truth of the matter is that, generally speaking, the public does have faith in the security industry (although there’s little argument that levels of professionalism and career progression need to be developed). The same criticism may also be levelled at the police service.

A sharing of intelligence?

The security industry already protects vast swathes of the nation with little or no police assistance. In this instance, the focus is on retail centres, public facilities (eg Job Centres), Courts of Law, hospitals and railway stations, sporting and cultural events (to name but a few). It also assumes responsibility for successful key holding, alarm response and Cash-and-Valuables-in-Transit operations. Not to mention the provision of corporate security. The better-managed operations know their territories and partner personalities very well, and want to work with the police.

Are chief constables ever going to recognise that the sharing of selected intelligence – coupled with a motivated private security industry – can make a major contribution to the public’s welfare and safety? The omens are not good. Security is frequently asked to exist and operate in a ‘Black Hole’ of information, shrouded in the mystery of the Data Protection Act 1998. As anyone involved with the intelligence community will confirm, a most reliable information source is the eyes and ears of the static community, not the mobile patrol. The village constable has proven that theory, so too the retail security officer. That would suggest the average security officer is more effective than the average PCSO.

The SIA is now top-heavy with former police officers expecting the security industry to dance to its tune of unachievable targets and, while there are several radical and innovative police officers in existence, the majority oppose and do not trust proactive community involvement of any kind

The private security industry is a vibrant and – generally speaking – effective one whose experience is drawn from a wide pool of knowledge and expertise. It does not necessarily look upon itself as a junior partner. Why should it? Private security provision is very much here to stay, and the quicker police officers of all ranks recognise its value the better (and preferably before they retire).

The security industry represents an accountable body that regards itself as a potential resource, not only to shareholders but also community stakeholders subject to the Law of the Land. It is probably bigger and collectively more expert in security and general management practices than would be the 43 constabularies if they ever merged, and has no desire to replace the unique accountability of the constable (as implied at the PRCI event). The security industry is also able to enhance services provided by the police.

Indeed, security operatives already detect and investigate through recognised agencies. At least one recent private investigation led to a conviction being overturned. The industry can provide technical support and covert operations expertise, and boasts highly experienced corporate practitioners among its ranks – a fact realised by certain Government ministries to be of considerable value.

Only the police constabularies across England and Wales are showing reservations, preferring instead to infer that the security industry is criminalised and (by and large) ineffective. One must make the point that this suggestion is now well wide of the mark. Physician, heal thyself!

Let’s stop marking time

In the field of protective security, the security industry is itself the natural leader because it is more experienced in such spheres. The sooner the police service realises this, the better for the development of any extended police family. The police service desperately needs to engage security practitioners in discussions about that family. In doing so, the police service should never take it for granted that private sector mandarins will dance to their tune. We must now move on and banish preconceptions to the past as opposed to marking time.

The community has no direct desire to fight global crime and/or terrorism. Largely demoralised by its inability to defend local areas, rather it seeks tranquility and to be freed from the fear of crime. The community knows that the police service is best placed to take a lead here, and is prepared to contribute.

Political correctness gone mad

There are two ‘successes’ within the extended police family – the easy (and lucrative) camera partnerships and those alliances formed in the dizzy world of political correctness.

Speaking at the PRCI Conference, Peter Hermitage – chairman of the SIA and a former chief constable – stressed that the private security industry (and I quote): “should not compromise its commercial interests… without seeking to replace the unique accountability and services offered by the police or other family members”.

By delivering such an opinion, Peter demonstrates a natural willingness – as a former police officer – to protect the status quo. It is interesting to note that he did not suggest how the police fitted into this extended police family. Again, a signal from en ex-serving officer of where he sees the police service sitting within such a family. In other words, as its leader.

The SIA is now top-heavy with former police officers expecting the security industry to dance to its tune of unachievable targets and, while there are several radical and innovative police officers in existence, the majority oppose and do not trust proactive community involvement of any kind.

Policing and security are totally different disciplines. The vision that’s alleged to be lacking, according to Andy Drane, is more than likely due to the fact that his own organisation does not include security specialists among the ranks. The absence of genuine security experience at the SIA offers little credibility when the future of private security is debated.

It cannot be denied that the SIA’s presence is a much-needed and valuable one. That said, the private security sector must be allowed to develop as an organisation in its own right within the extended police family, and not be allowed to meander into becoming a bastardised police service.

Security is not about prevention and detection. It is concerned with protection.

Any notion that security should become directly involved with crime reduction must be resisted. That is not the prime focus of public and private sector security at all.

Until the police service affords the security industry adequate resources to combat crime and disorder (for example, by allowing security officers to join the Special Constables, and giving them the necessary resources), security practitioners should simply continue to do what they do best. Protect.