星空传媒

At long last, regulation of the private security industry is no longer a pipe dream. It is now very much reality. This should provide the police service and society at large with reassurances that criminals working within the sector 鈥� or at least the worst parts of it 鈥� will be identified and expelled, and a more professional regime put in place. As a result of that reassurance and improved quality, an ever-increasing trust and respect should develop.

Ministerial comments suggest that Parliament is determined to make the Security Industry Authority (SIA) both powerful and independent. Clearly, we now have the dog. Whether or not it will want to bark and bite remains to be seen. Personally, I would like to hear the bark AND see the teeth because that is what will make or break this legislation, and will either give you an industry to be proud of or one that remains 鈥� for the police, at any rate 鈥� one to be both wary and suspicious about.

The SIA must never be seen as a 'rubber stamp', and under no circumstances should the industry (or any part of it) be subcontracted to monitor or inspect itself. To do that would be tantamount to putting a fox in charge of a hen coop. ACPO and, I suspect, the media at large will keep a very close eye on developments.

The two words I would use to encapsulate the police service approach to regulation are caution and enthusiasm. Why caution? Well, before I or any of my colleagues can be enthusiastic I want to see that the Act actually delivers, and that any compromises sought by the industry to lessen the rigour of regulation by criticising the bureaucratic or financial burden on it are very critically scrutinised, and that the raising of standards is not just empty rhetoric.

Enthusiasm because a properly managed, controlled and regulated industry will provide another very effective weapon in the social arsenal against low level crime and disorder.

Private sector and public policing
The ACPO's position on how the private security industry should operate in the public policing arena 鈥� still being pulled together in light of the Private Security Industry Act 鈥� has developed from that adopted for neighbourhood wardens, and provides a high level strategic framework for the industry to operate in its relations with the police if that relationship is to be a positive one. In essence:

• there should be no diminution of the powers of police officers and, for those employed in private security companies, there should be no enhancement of powers or rights beyond those of an 'ordinary citizen';
• the police must remain the only body with the power to intervene in situations without consent 鈥� other people employed in a security role should only intervene with consent, or under a clear and publicly available protocol appropriate to the specific situation;
• private security operatives must be accountable to their employers, with clear and publicly available and advertised ways of complaining (and, in whatever circumstances they work, they must bear responsibility for their own actions even when operating with or on behalf of another body);
• the appearance of non-police operatives and patrol personnel must be distinct from the police in terms of uniform, livery and corporate image;
• 'specimen' standard operating procedures should be developed for a range of different locations, circumstances, relationships and purposes 鈥� this must include reference to such matters as recruitment, training, managing processes and recording, investigating and resolving complaints;
• complimentary private security activity should be funded from identifiable sources which do not involve any diminution of police budgets.

For the police service, security industry regulation provides us with a real opportunity to further increase the work done across the board to reduce crime and disorder, in partnership and collaboration with the private sector. The crucial feature of any growth in the role of the private security industry in delivering a service in what I would describe as the more 'public' areas is that it's done within a framework which, as far as public space is concerned, retains police primacy and co-ordination. The industry is not capable of 鈥� and should not try 鈥� replacing the police.

Within such a framework, regulation should mean that we will be able to work more confidentially with the private security sector in the belief that we are dealing with reputable and professional individuals who are of good character, are well trained, have sensible conditions of employment, accept and embrace the boundaries of their work and are effectively supervised, managed and monitored. In other words, they can be trusted.

A view from the private sector
What about the private security industry itself? To many, the Private Security Industry Act must surely look like an opportunity for a whole range of new commercial opportunities, and a chance to help society as well. But is it?

There are seemingly greater opportunities for patrolling, guarding, escorting, custodial work and investigations. Anything is possible, and chief constables and local communities alike will wish to explore just what that means.

If you can deliver, are effective, accountable and cost less (within certain guidelines), policing should basically remain a state service which acknowledges the public interest.

The ACPO would not object to this in principle. What it will resent, and fight against, is a profit-driven exploitation of crime and disorder 鈥� and the fear of it 鈥� by companies without a social conscience or exhibiting badly-monitored standards.

Regulation could well be seen as something of a mixed blessing, with a big downside. That downside is the cost to the private security industry. Not just in terms of financing, but also in terms of how much corporate freedom security companies will enjoy as they begin to operate in more public arenas.

Remember that security companies have won contracts to manage prisons, and some have since lost them. In the public sector, the spotlight of public and media accountability is blinding. Ask Railtrack about Government interest in their business when things don't go according to plan...

While many in the security industry have striven to achieve high standards they have also been able 鈥� for the most part 鈥� to set their own standards in line with what they have seen as being acceptable and viable. From now on, that should not be the case. If the regulator operates as I would hope he or she will, the industry may have some difficult decisions to make if it is to grow as it wishes.

It cannot be a 'regulated creature' without a significant investment across its entire operation. And there will only be a return on that investment if customers are charged more.

While this will sound the death knell for the cowboys, it will also affect the profitability of the good guys.

Security companies might even find that their costs start equating with police costs in a way they never thought possible. Take the Working Time Directive. These regulations are not going to be optional for security companies once they are properly policed. While companies might obtain an agreement from workers to work outside of their boundaries, they cannot make them do so. Remember that the industry will be regulated, and will need to be respectable and conformist in a whole range of areas that may not have survived much scrutiny up until now.

As the provider of what will amount to a public service, security companies will have to become Human Rights-proof and transparent, responding directly to criticism and being compliant in a way that they are perhaps not used to. How will security companies build up a corporate culture within their organisations which approaches the much-maligned but critical public service ethic that drives the police service at all levels? How are the security firms going to ensure that customer-care is not just budget-driven, and that complaints against a member of staff 鈥� who, in this brave new world, could be working alongside a police officer 鈥� are investigated independently, and that the investigation is subject to sufficient scrutiny to make it credible? Even the police service finds that difficult enough. It too will be subject to an unprecedented level of external scrutiny once the new complaints procedure is in place.

If the security companies are playing in the same field as the police, the public will want the same safeguards. While those safeguards are absolutely essential in a democratic society, they don't come cheap.

Regulation: is it such a good thing?
I believe that some of the major players in the security sector are beginning to question whether regulation is, after all, such a good idea because of the baggage it brings with it. They can't really say that, though, because it would be difficult to justify beyond the fact that regulation obviously costs more money.

All in all, the gap between our costs and those of the security companies could well shrink. What then of the security companies' competitive edge? What of their margins in a regulated and more accountable world where a wish to provide a public service will need to drive a larger element of the business than just shareholder value?

What's even worse is that every little bit of research that's carried out suggests that, if there is a choice and if costs are similar, the public prefers a uniformed police officer to look after it rather than a security operative.

It would seem to me that the challenges which lie ahead for the private security sector will become more intense. What is to stop the police, as they gain a better handle on their costs, competing with the security companies for any money that's on offer? Money that could go to any one of a number of bodies who can offer the kind of services those paying the bills actually want. Namely reassurances and responses to low level anti-social behaviour.

And, of course, there are lots of places around the country where the police have benefited from additional money and put more bobbies out on the beat. The police 鈥� just as well as any other body, and better than most 鈥� can provide neighbourhood wardens and support them with well-integrated back-up, training, supervision and accountability, and give them the all-important brand.

I must stress that I greet the new Private Security Industry Act with genuine enthusiasm. I do indeed envisage a great many opportunities for very close and productive partnerships and delegation, provided that delegation and costs 'cut the mustard'.

That said, I also see that the cold light of the regulation morning may have more than a little touch of frost about it.