Policing a New Century

Some of the changes proposed by Home Secretary David Blunkett appear to be quite radical. That change is being considered at all can be summed up by an old Yorkshire saying. "Too much work, and too little brass".

How we resolve that situation is another matter. After all, the Government coffers are not a bottomless pit. True, the politicians will throw the UK's 43 police forces a few quid now and then when the budgets are administered, but for the vast problems at hand this will be nowhere near enough to solve the vexed issue of declining police manpower levels.

Don't forget, either, that as far as the politicians are concerned the police service is definitely not the only item on the reform agenda. Step forward the National Health Service, not to mention the education sector.

When I started my own business many years ago I was given some sound advice. "It's easier to save money than to earn it again," they said. How true. It's no good going out and rounding up loads of new customers if you are losing the old ones: a maxim that many of today's budding entrepreneurs in the security companies would do well to remember. Adopting hard sell techniques and buying up the smaller firms will gain them new business, but without its oldest and most loyal clients the security company will inevitably struggle.

For the police service the problem is a little different. There are no new revenue-generating customers out there, thus their only option for balancing the books centres on cutting back the services already on offer. In police terms, that leads to a breakdown in law and order, followed by a loss of respect among UK plc's wide and varied communities.

It's probably fair to say that many of SMT's readers will agree that the police service is already some way down that rocky road.

There is an alternative. Enlist someone else to pay for the service or, to be more precise, ask those who want extra police services to pay for them. In reality, this is the option that's being looked into by way of the new Bill.

Expanding the police family
One of the suggestions made by the Home Secretary is to expand the police family. Every day on Britain's streets you can see the growing influence of private policing in the form of traffic wardens. Private security companies patrol our bigger retail outlets. Door supervisors stand guard outside nightclubs, and then there's the dreaded wheel clampers.

Now, its finally dawned on some bright spark that if we could offer such people a measured amount of training, a two-way radio controlled from the local police hq and (perhaps) entrust them with limited powers of arrest, the police service proper would immediately benefit from a vast new set of eyes and ears. Individuals that could take on many of the boring and tedious tasks currently the preserve of local police constables.

In fact, if we were to give said individuals a half-reasonable uniform and a decent wage – and rid ourselves of the scruffy, unscrupulous elements that persist in some security companies – we'd have a real presence for good in our town centres. The 'new' part of the police family could then look after lost children, direct and monitor traffic flows and be a first point of contact with the general public. At the first sign of trouble, they could tune in to the 'BatPhone' and call for 'the regulars'.

Do you realise the real beauty of this scheme, though? The police would not be required to fund it (apart from a nominal amount to manage the scheme, that is). It will be paid for by the people who require these additional services.

For my own part, I have many reservations about taking policing in our communities in this direction, but what are the alternatives (apart from ploughing many more millions of pounds into the current police force)? It would be just as easy – and, arguably, every bit as meaningful – to open a chute from the coffers at County Hall straight to the nearest drain. At the end of the day, though, we must have a police presence to attend to our installed security systems. The basic problem at the moment is that, as fast as the police attend each genuine alarm activation, end users throw them a dozen more false alarms.

With the best will in the world, the security industry only has itself to blame here. Even with all our fancy modern technology, we can still manage a 90% false alarm rate. Small wonder, then, that ACPO is digging its heels in and giving the industry a hard time.

To their great credit, many installation companies have seen the light and are now offering their own response teams. Some are even claiming a faster response time than is offered by the police. This may be so, but those response teams aren't having to wrestle with drunks and petty criminals in the town centre before attending to site.

That said, my guess is that response teams provided by companies in the private security sector represent the way forward. Only one problem? How do we evaluate and select the good response companies and avoid (and, eventually, eliminate) the bad?

The Inspectorate of the Security Industry (ISI) has published a very useful guidance note on choosing a guarding company. The points therein should also hold true for all other inspecting bodies, but that isn't always the case. If end users take a look at the ISI's requirements, though, they can't go far wrong.

Looking beyond the brochure
Consider the guarding company itself. Is it prepared to supply details of the structure of the company to prove that it's well set up, and capable of carrying out the tasks for which it is charging? Can the firm's directors supply audited accounts or other evidence of their ability to run a company in the accepted fashion? Sometimes, it might even pay the end user to check if the company is as stated on the brochure, and not just made up of a bunch of cowboys operating out of temporary premises.

Is the company in question suitably ensured to adequately cover the contract needs, and does it offer a suitable contract that sets out its own (and the end user's) responsibilities. Does the company do business on a nod and a wink, with a handshake as its only contract binding tool? Clearly, end users must think carefully.

And what about the vetting of staff? All members of staff, that is, including the directors and office staff/backroom team? Do they keep records? Are they vetted for ten years in accordance with BS 7858? In other words, is vetting taken seriously or merely viewed as yet another arduous task?

Don't forget that these are the people who will be sent to site. Where does it leave the contractor if the end user finds out that his fast response team is straight out of jail?

Training is, of course, another hugely important area. Many guarding companies suffer from a fast and high turnover of officer personnel, thus establishing the training regime for a company like this is little short of a nightmare. It's essential that those officers responding to your installer's alarm systems have at least a minimum training level – and records to prove it.

The British Standards are currently undergoing revision. At present, officers should have spent at least three days in the classroom before being sent out on site. The contractor must also boast a qualified in-house trainer who should establish the educational needs of each individual officer, and make sure they are trained to the right level. There are recognised qualifications that should be in place – the SITO NVQ Level 2 in security guarding being a good case in point.

Does the guarding company operate its own Control Room(s)? If so, go and have a look at it. Is the Control Room locked and secure, or are the officers sat around outside smoking a sly cigarette? Is it well managed, and are proper records being kept? Are regular check calls made to officers working on their own to ascertain their personal safety? Do the relief officers cope under pressure?

Most of you have probably been in the security game for long enough to recognise a poor set-up when you see one.

Properly inspected, justly recognised
We could go on and on. Perhaps the most salient point to be made is that only those guarding companies that have been properly inspected by a recognised inspectorate should be considered for first response.

End users also have to ask themselves: "How can I choose a good inspectorate?" The only answer to that is to opt for one that is UKAS-recognised. At least that way there will be some strong assurances that the inspectorate in question is doing the job properly.

One way of checking is to go for a company that holds ISO 9000, although this in itself can be misleading. The ISO scheme in place needs to be "industry-specific". In other words, does it include all the scopes and standards as required by the industry, or is it just a scheme that merely papers over the cracks?

For instance, the pure ISO 9000 makes no mention of the vetting and screening of staff. Therefore, unless this is included as an 'industry specific' requirement it could be left out, and a security company may claim (quite rightly) that it's ISO 9000 certified. There may be no requirement to include BS 7499 (the industry standard on manned guarding) because it's not mentioned in ISO 9000.

Until such time as the ISO scheme is tailored to the industry and becomes 'industry specific' it will be a huge drain on resources for every guarding contractor (not to mention a waste of money), and it shouldn't be touched – even with a sterilised barge pole.

Making use of properly trained, vetted, inspected and certified security companies has to be the way forward for first response. The only assurances available centre on the thoroughness of the inspectorate, and the standards worked towards.

In the fullness of time, the hope must be that the new licensing of security personnel under the Private Security Industry Act should help to level the playing field – and ease the pressures placed on our police service when responding to alarms, etc. Until then, we're stuck with the status quo.

At a time when the police response section of the intruder alarms market is expanding at a rapid rate, the service itself is under-funded and overstretched. The current situation is intolerable and unsustainable.

Only one conclusion can be drawn. Installers and security companies are going to have to work together pretty damn quick if the reputation of this industry (such as it is) and losses to the end user are to be saved.