Focus on construction site security

Merseyside Police are in buoyant mood over the success of Operation Seahog – their campaign against protection racketeering on building sites. Since the operation started just over a year ago, they have visited more than 520 sites, investigated more than 50 firms and summonsed more than 230 people.

Last month we saw the latest in a steady stream of prosecutions of individuals for blackmailing and there is more to come. Andy Cooke, the Chief Superintendent, is determined to keep the pressure up on the racketeers and on those who employ them. “We want to make Liverpool a safe city and we expect and demand that construction companies help us.”

For decades Liverpool was so notorious for the racketeering on building sites that few outside contractors would venture there. Plenty of people could, and still can, tell tales of the ugly and unwelcome muscle that turns up on site on day one demanding a weekly protection fee “or else”. Cooke cites cases of arson and of firearms being used as persuaders.

One contractor we interviewed, who preferred to remain anonymous, remembers a case where trouble turned up at the site meeting on day one, knocking the door off its hinges and announcing: “We’d like to introduce you to your site security.” The contracts manager, also a mountain of a man, squared up to the guy, but was warned off by the brewery client who preferred to pay the £2,000 a week and build faster.

If people didn’t comply, the racketeers had a system, says another. “What they did was to go in and demolish everything you have done that day.  It’s not the loss of the day’s work that hurts so much, it’s having to reorder materials. That can put back the job by weeks.”

Uniquely Merseyside police are prosecuting under Section 5 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (PSIA), which targets the managers and directors of so-called security firms, rather than just the guards themselves who are prosecuted under Section 3.

The police have been working with a number of local authorities in the area and government agencies along with the Security Industry Authority (SIA), which gives licenses to companies that comply with the Act. It also runs a kitemark scheme offering approved contractor status (ACS) to security firms that adhere to good standards in staff recruitment and employment. Those achieving the kitemark are listed on the Authority’s website, and construction firms are being urged to recruit them.

There are good reasons for refusing to submit to bullying on site. The rogue element is associated with drugs dealing and benefit offences. Too often their employees are untrained, often unable to speak English, working unlawfully and a health and safety risk, especially on building sites where people also live.

Crackdown

As the city prepares for its Capital of Culture Year in 2008, it is redoubling its efforts to come clean. Some clients are already specifying they will only give work to companies employing kitemarked firms. Liverpool City Council is one of them. In another move, the SIA is targeting the pockets of contractors to force them to think again about who they use for site protection. It is trying to persuade the Association of British Insurers to penalise companies making claims if they have not used kitemarked security. Lucia Howland, its head of investigation for the north, says: “This is a long-term operation and is not going to go away.”

It is also getting a lot of attention at conferences from other police forces in areas where racketeers have had a lower profile than Liverpool’s. Manchester police may be starting a similar operation and other police forces in the north are showing interest. There have been a number of enquiries from Scotland, although the law is not yet in place to enable prosecutions. However, Northern Ireland’s attempt to stamp out racketeering seems to have sunk into the sand. Plans announced in 2005 for the appointment of US- style ‘untouchables’, the so-called ‘independent private sector inspector generals’, seem to have come to nothing.

Behind the scenes, contractors on Merseyside are working covertly with the police using state of the art surveillance techniques that will result in further prosecutions, Cooke says. But the contractors themselves will be protected. They know that anyone reporting incidents can do so anonymously and won’t be dragged forward as witnesses.

At the same time security firms are rushing to comply. There has been a massive increase in the number of ACS operators and a drop in the numbers of unlicensed guards.

Racketeering is not the only site security issue giving contractors headaches as the long summer holidays approach. Kids breaking into sites are a perennial problem. This year the annual campaign by the National Federation of Builders to warn of the danger was boosted by funds from the B&CE, which paid for better signage, school visits and poster campaigns than in previous years.

A costly business

Racketeers apart, the cost of site security can distort budgets, says Ron Wilson, regional director for the Federation of Master Builders. “In the olden days we used to use a watchman and security was a very low paid job, but prices have risen significantly with the introduction of the minimum wage.” 

Chris Noble, managing director of building firm D Noble in West Yorkshire, fleshes that out: “It costs about £8 per hour and we need security on site for a considerable number of hours, especially as we are often prevented by planning permissions from working after 1pm on a Saturday.”  It’s a major irritation to him, and others, that environmental health officers will lie in wait on a Saturday afternoon to issue notices for non-compliance while all around the air is filled with the sound of building work being done for private households that don’t have to comply. What’s more their site security is much better. Given the option between an empty building site and a house being worked on with the residents still in it, most thieves will go for the former.

Across their numerous sites, Noble operates a range of security, from nightly visits to full-timers on site. Now he has shelled out on CCTV cameras for one site that warn intruders they are being watched while transmitting footage to a central monitoring unit operated by Sheffield City Council. They take responsibility for notifying local security firms and the police of intruders. Often he finds the police are unable to come out due to pressures elsewhere. But he believes the cameras will cut his security bill over time as they are redeployed on other sites.

Read the small print

No matter how vigilant, contractors know that the determined vandal will get in anyway and do damage especially with the current upswing in work. And that will only get worse as new programmes to upgrade acres of council housing with new bathrooms, boilers and kitchens get underway in Leeds and elsewhere.

But Noble has detected a disturbing trend that the big boys in the industry will already be aware of, although smaller firms may burn their fingers with. It cropped up a few months ago when he went for an insurance renewal and his broker asked for all the terms under which his firm hired plant and equipment. They discovered some of the plant hire firms had quietly changed their conditions so that when kit is stolen, no matter what its age, the hirer will have to pay the price of a new replacement. 

“I hadn’t realised this and nor will many others who are hiring. My broker says insurance policies will not cover firms for the shortfall because insurance policies will only pay on the value.” So if a firm hires an item of plant that is five years old, but costs £40,000 new and then it is stolen, the company may have to plug the £16,000 shortfall between its £24,000 replacement cost and new in its insurance cover if the conditions of hire demand new for old. “I think it is outrageous to send out a piece of equipment that is 10 years old and expect to receive back a new one.”

Instead, Noble challenged the conditions of his local plant hire companies and they backed down. “We told them we would only hire under the former terms and they have not kicked up too much fuss,” he says.

Even at the smaller end of plant hire there are risks. He has found some of the big hire firms will charge £550 to replace Stihl saws even though they can probably purchase them much cheaper because of their buying power. “I was asked for £550 to replace a seven-month-old saw with new but instead I went out and bought one myself to replace the stolen one. It infuriates me. I can buy them at £380 because I buy around 20 a year, but these hire companies are probably buying 10,000 and paying £280 each.”

Hire Association Europe was scathing about firms that pull this stunt. John Moran of its sales team said people should be informed of the terms of the hiring and should also check their insurance policies. But like most building site problems, you have to be alert to beat the challenges.