ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

After reading the May edition of Security Management Today (SMT), and in particular your interview with Security Industry Authority deputy chief executive Andy Drane (‘Corporate responsibilities: a shared vision on crime reduction’, News Update, pp13-14), I felt I ought to share those views.

Back in the late 1980s when I applied to join the police service, those of us fortunate enough to pass the long and drawn-out preliminary application rounds were invited to attend a two-day Selection Centre at Hendon Police Training College and Paddington Green Police Station. At the end of Day Two, some of us were successful with our applications and were told that we would be given a date, some time hence, to attend Hendon and undergo 20 solid weeks of training.

The totally unsuccessful candidates, on the other hand, were given the unfortunate news that they would not be joining the service. A number of others were told to go away and join the Special Constabulary for a year or so before reapplying to join the regular force.

At that time – and possibly now, in some cases – the Special Constabulary was viewed by some within the police service as a means of providing policing on the cheap, and of depriving regular officers of overtime opportunities that may have come their way.

Back then, the extended police family went no further than encompassing the police officer, civilian employees, traffic wardens and ‘Specials’ (albeit the last three groups were often reluctantly acknowledged as ‘family’ by a large number of police officers). To be honest, this was neither a fair nor reasonable attitude to adopt as the majority of roles undertaken by ‘civvies’ and traffic wardens were those which the average ‘copper’ would avoid at all costs.

Something had to change and, in an increasingly cost-driven world, better value for money had to be sought by the police service.

Those SMT readers who served in the police in the early 1990s will recall Sir Patrick Sheehy’s Inquiry into Police Responsibilities and Rewards, and the near anarchy it caused among the federated masses within the service. While a large number of the proposals contained in the subsequent Sheehy Report were considered to be ridiculous and totally impractical, it nonetheless left in its wake – at all levels – a realisation (albeit mostly unwanted) that the service had to change and would eventually do so.

In 2002, the Police Reform Act suggested possibly the most significant changes in policing for many years, and introduced the notion of the Police Community Support Officer (PCSOs). These civilians, to be deployed on the streets from 2003, would have four weeks of basic training and limited powers. They would also wear high visibility uniforms, making them not-too-dissimilar to police officers (at first glance, anyway). They would either patrol on foot, on motor scooters or in marked police vans and cars.

PCSOs are clearly intended to create the perception of extra police on the beat. The Government’s aim of raising confidence among the population is their underlying raison d’être. They are paid an annual salary of approximately two-thirds that of a police officer, while enjoying the equivalent length of service. They have no duty to intervene in a situation where a police officer would, but are required to gather information and report on matters to the police. Soon, they will have the power to detain a suspect for anything up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a police officer.

What, though, does all of this actually mean for the safety and security of our streets?

When I joined the police there were circa 28,000 officers in the Metropolitan Police, circa 1,000 in the City of London and several hundred in each of the British Transport Police, the Ministry of Defence Police and the Royal Parks Constabulary (now, of course, part of the Met). The majority would have had a role in patrolling London’s streets. At that time, probationary constables (ie those within their first two years of service) were seldom – if ever – allowed to patrol in vehicles, and were not permitted to drive unless there were the most exceptional of circumstances. The volumes of paperwork for any officer were high, but not beyond the wit of those officers to manage.

Today, there are apparently 35,000 police officers in the Met. I would imagine there has been an increase elsewhere, too, so why is it that – aside from within the City of London and certain other central London locations – I only ever seem to see our PCSOs patrolling the streets of the Capital on foot?

Second, with PCSOs earning two-thirds of a police constable’s salary, according to my mathematics we should be able to employ (and then deploy) two constables for every three PCSOs. Allowing for the additional costs of training that constables must undergo, as well as other associated costs, let’s be fair and say that that figure should be somewhere closer to 2.5 constables for every four PCSOs.

In any event, surely properly-trained and fully-equipped and empowered police officers are the answer to policing our streets rather than PCSOs? At least ‘Specials’ have the full powers of a constable.

That brings me neatly to another point. What is the 30-minute power of detention? What has happened to the power of arrest that we all have under Section 2.1 (4) and (5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act? Why can’t these uniformed officers use those powers not to detain but to arrest a suspect? Could it be because the Government hopes that the general public doesn’t know that there is – in effect – no difference between arresting and detaining someone, and thereby is using ‘spin’ to sell us something less than we already have in the hope we’ll be eternally grateful for it?

I have no problem at all with the police service outsourcing a number of tasks and roles which have traditionally been the preserve of constables, and where there are sound and practical reasons for doing so.

Indeed, in 2002 when I was a senior manager for a major manned security company I became closely involved with establishing a number of Street Warden schemes in central London. These wardens provide both a customer service role to visitors and businesses in their areas as well as the extra set of ‘eyes and ears’ for the police and local authority. The schemes worked well because they were never intended to replace the police, and nor did we even pretend that they were.

However, the truth of the matter is that PCSOs are being sold to us as something more than Street Wardens. We are being expected to believe that they are going to make the streets safer. They are not. Put simply, they are civilians in quasi-police uniforms who, in truth, have little more power than police-employed traffic wardens.

It’s high time we went back to basics and started resourcing the police service properly with the best candidates for the task at hand – regardless of sex, race, religion or any other Government quota deemed necessary. Officers need to spend far less time on paperwork and more time patrolling our streets.

Might I add that I don’t have a problem with the men and women performing the role of a PCSO. I’m quite sure they are all very well intentioned, hard-working and dedicated people. However, they represent a waste of precious resources because they cannot deliver what the public wants, and what the public is paying for. In other words, a police service that responds holistically to the needs of victims of crime and the community at large.

Andrew Williams, Director of Operations, Lynx Security