On the beat | The case against privatising the police

Since I last wrote about privatisation of the police on 24 May 2012 three more police forces have indicated that they will also consider privatising police staff on similar lines to the Lincolnshire Police deal with G4S in February this year.

Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Bedfordshire Police and Hertfordshire Constabulary will present their Police Authorities with plans to outsource support services later this month after a recommendation for a full business case was discussed by the Police Authorities Joint Collaboration Working Group last Wednesday, 30 May 2012. If the Police Authorities approve the plans it will see more police staff transferred to the private sector by April 2013 without a public consultation having taken place.

The deal to transfer 540 police staff from Lincolnshire Police to G4S was a watershed moment in the history of policing, but it was undertaken behind closed doors and the public was not consulted at any stage.

However, that is not the only criticism that has been raised against the deal to outsource policing services worth £200m to G4S. The deal which also includes plans for G4S to build and run a new police station in the village of Nettleham, Lincolnshire is also the subject of a conflict of interest accusation. Police bodies argue that there was a conflict of interest in the deal between Lincolnshire Police and G4S as the firm, White & Case represented G4S when Tom Windsor, a senior partner at the firm was undertaking the independent review of police officer and staff remunerations and conditions commissioned by the Home Office.

Nick Herbert, the Police Minister has responded to the accusation in his letter to the Police Federation of England and Wales on 24 May 2012 and seems to have declared war on the police. The language and tone of his letter, usually reserved for responses to trade union activists, is another blow to the damaged relationship between the state and the police. Will the police now “desist from intemperate attacks” as ordered by the police minister or will they look for a new alliance with trade unions for support and assistance as they did in 1917? I hope it is the latter and that militant mood of the police takes charge and we see a real change in their approach towards the Government.

The damning criticism of the police procurement process by the Home Affairs Select Committee in their report of 29 May 2012 is further proof that there is a case against privatising the police. The committee stated that the Business Partnership Programme “lacked clarity” and that West Midlands and Surrey Police had not “fully understood” the costly joint procurement exercise that they were undertaking. Regardless of these findings, both forces have now shortlisted six groups of bidders or consortiums following the bidders’ shortlist meeting on Friday 25 May 2012 and include: British Telecommunications, Reliance Secure Task Management and Vanguard Consulting; Capita Business Services; G4S Care & Justice Services; Kellogg Brown & Root and IBM United Kingdom; Logica UK, Amey Community and Northgate Information Solutions; and Serco, HP Enterprise Services and Accenture.

Even though the names of the bidders have been announced it is surprising that the scope of which police services will be in or out of the procurement process remain unknown. The Home Affairs Select Committee has asked the Chief Constables of West Midlands and Surrey Police to draw up a list of services that they envisage will form part of the procurement process. It is hoped that the list of services will be made available to the public as part of the public consultations planned to be held over the summer so that everyone knows exactly what is being proposed. A recent survey by Unite the Union has uncovered that the public are less likely to report a crime if their personal information was being accessed by a third party. Similarly, they were uncomfortable with private firms handling 999 calls, crime detection or investigations. It has been repeated of late that core policing services will not form part of the procurement process but I can not see how they will not, as some police services overlap while others fit together like a jigsaw. A clear line can not be drawn between each part of the police so it will be difficult to compile a list that will not in some way encroach on core services.

This “dangerous experiment” may seem like the only option to budget-driven analysts but the detrimental impact on core policing services outweighs such a move and instead a public-centric approach should be considered. The public want a publicly-run police service and without their consent I can not see how that can be allowed to change.