If You Pay Peanuts....

The shape of things to come?....

"Westshire Constabulary PLC today went into liquidation. This was after a a run of mishaps and blunders that could not be investigated due to privatisation of the organisation. Due to the loss of confidence in the board by shareholders and the glaring media spotlight, share prices plummeted and insolvency practitioners were called in...."

The above is of course fiction but could be accurate in the future as West Midlands and Surrey Police constabularies are inviting bids from security companies to carry out particular types of jobs usually done by police officers such as investigating crimes or patrolling neighbourhoods.

Claiming that money is tight after the budget slashes, these constabularies believe that this is the way forward for saving money and increasing front line presence.

Is it the way forward though?

In my humble opinion, no, it isn't.

Private companies such as G4S are answerable to the shareholder, where the constabulary is answerable to the public.

That means that the security company will put one thing only at the front of their agenda and that's "Profit" for its shareholders.

This could mean cutting corners as other companies in PPP to save money possibly affecting safety of those working with and working for the company. Reduced wages, reduced equipment all to save on costs.

I have never been a believer in contracting out to other companies. Yes I appreciate it creates business and therefore employment opportuniities but you need to look at the broader picture.

Take hospitals as an example, cleaning used to be done by the ward nursing staff. Nurses were responsible for the cleanliness of their ward and they were cleaned to within an inch of their lives. As a result, viruses such as MRSA were not in existence.

Give the contract to a cleaning company who's one sole aim is to make money and you could find that wards are quickly dusted due to there not being enough cleaning staff or mopped with an old dirty mop as buying a new one will effect budgets.

You only have to look at the failed Public-Private Partnership of London Underground to realise just how dangerous this move can be.

The collapse of Metronet in 2007 cost us, the tax payer £410 million. Who's to say that this would not happen again? No one dreamed it would happen to Metronet and them winning the contract with Tube Lines was like the Golden Goose.

Has anyone thought of asking the tax paying public what they think of this and do they have their permission?

So let's ask?

You have been burgled, who would rather arrive to investigate?

A police officer, duty bound by law to investigate? The police officer would have been fully trained, experienced and have knowledge of forensic procedures.

Or a security guard who's company will want them to check it out as quickly as possible as they have three guards off sick and it's costing them to send a substitute guard subcontracted from another company?

Who do you want to see patrolling your streets?

A fully equipped police officer who can not only arrest a person breaking the law but deal with the investigation when necessary?

Or a security guard who cannot arrest, will not be fully equipped and in some cases may not speak much, if any English?

Once you start cutting costs to improve efficiency you effect the quality of service.

West Mids and Surrey are claiming that it will help protect the frontline during cost cutting restraints.

How?

If security guards are patrolling the streets, how is that protecting the front line? In my opinion, that's a significant cut back.

Also, how is it a better option for saving money? and who's decision will it be that one neighbourhood will get police officers and another will get security guards?

If that neighbourhood is paying the same contribution from their Council Tax towards policing, I would want a refund or a significant reduction as you are not getting a police service.

It's a cheaper option and from my experience of many things, quantity isn't quality.

The company, once it's landed a contract over several years, may suddenly find that they need to put their prices up a significant amount to keep up with other businesses alike.

The constabulary may well then find themselves in the middle of a price battle that spirals out of control. In several years time, the contract could cost more than having actual police officers doing that job.

That's when it will go full circle.

You see, this is my point. If I buy a cheap garden shed from a budget supermarket that sells other products as well as garden furniture, I may be making an initial saving but in the long run it will show why it was so cheap when the wood rots and the roof falls in and I have to buy another one or pay out a lot of money to repair it.

If I bought from a company that specialises in garden furniture, yes, it will be considerably more expensive than the cheaper option but it will last several more years and will not need much money to keep it maintained.

I know that the police are not perfect and I would be a fool to claim that they are but if you invest the money back into proper policing you will get results even if it costs more in the short term.

This is why I believe policing should remain with the police and let the guards look after the shops.

Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/responseplod
Or @responseplod #ResponsePlod