1.
This Council notes that the Police and Crime
Commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland has proposed an 18‑month,
£2 million scheme to fund private security marshals to patrol town centres
across Leicestershire and Rutland.
2. This Council further notes that:
·
These marshals, while visible, do not possess
police powers, including the power of arrest, formal investigation, or
enforcement.
·
The £2 million funding comes directly from the
existing policing budget, funded by local taxpayers.
·
There is significant concern from policing
professionals, including the Leicestershire Police Federation, that this
approach risks diverting funding away from frontline policing.
· Residents and businesses consistently raise concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour, and the need for a stronger visible police presence, not a substitute service.
3. This Council believes that:
(a) Taxpayers’
money must be used efficiently, transparently, and in ways that deliver
tangible outcomes.
(b) Public
confidence in community safety depends on visible, empowered, and accountable
police officers, not private contractors with limited authority.
(c) Investment in fully trained police officers and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) provides better value for money, stronger legal enforcement, and long-term benefits to communities.
4. This Council is concerned that:
(a) The
proposed scheme risks creating a two-tier system of public safety, where
private security fills gaps that should be addressed by properly resourced
policing.
(b) The
effectiveness of such marshals is limited to deterrence, without the ability to
follow through with enforcement action.
(c) At a time of financial pressure, this represents a questionable use of limited public funds.
5. This Council therefore resolves to:
(a) Oppose
the proposed £2 million private security marshal scheme as an inefficient use
of policing resources.
(b) Call
on the Police and Crime Commissioner to halt the procurement process and review
the proposal.
(c) Urge that the £2 million be reallocated to recruit, train, and retain additional frontline police officers and PCSOs, increasing visible patrols and enforcement capability.
(d) Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the PCC to formally convey this Council’s position and seek a response.
Minutes:
It was moved by Mrs Taylor and seconded by Mr O’Shea that:
“1. This
Council notes that the Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicester,
Leicestershire, and Rutland has proposed an 18‑month, £2 million scheme to
fund private security marshals to patrol town centres across Leicestershire and
Rutland.
2. This Council further notes that:
· These marshals, while visible, do not possess police powers, including the power of arrest, formal investigation, or enforcement.
· The £2 million funding comes directly from the existing policing budget, funded by local taxpayers.
· There is significant concern from policing professionals, including the Leicestershire Police Federation, that this approach risks diverting funding away from frontline policing.
· Residents and businesses consistently raise concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour, and the need for a stronger visible police presence, not a substitute service.
3. This
Council believes that:
(a) Taxpayers’
money must be used efficiently, transparently, and in ways that deliver
tangible outcomes.
(b) Public
confidence in community safety depends on visible, empowered, and accountable
police officers, not private contractors with limited authority.
(c) Investment in fully trained police officers and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) provides better value for money, stronger legal enforcement, and long-term benefits to communities.
4. This
Council is concerned that:
(a) The
proposed scheme risks creating a two-tier system of public safety, where
private security fills gaps that should be addressed by properly resourced
policing.
(b) The
effectiveness of such marshals is limited to deterrence, without the ability to
follow through with enforcement action.
(c) At a time of financial pressure, this represents a questionable use of limited public funds.
5. This
Council therefore resolves to:
(a) Oppose
the proposed £2 million private security marshal scheme as an inefficient use
of policing resources.
(b) Call
on the Police and Crime Commissioner to halt the procurement process and review
the proposal.
(c) Urge
that the £2 million be reallocated to recruit, train, and retain additional
frontline police officers and PCSOs, increasing visible patrols and enforcement
capability.
(d) Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the PCC to formally convey this Council’s position and seek a response.”
An amendment was moved by Mr Crook and seconded by Mr Hamilton-Gray that:
“1. This Council notes that:
(a) The Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland has proposed a scheme to fund Security Industry Authority licensed contractors to patrol town centres across Leicestershire and Rutland, with indicative funding of up to £2 million from the Crime Prevention Fund reserve.
(b) Residents and businesses consistently raise concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour, and the need for a stronger visible police presence in their communities.
(c) The
Police and Crime Panel has considered this matter and has resolved to
scrutinise the proposal by requesting that, ahead of any decision being made,
it be presented with evidence of research undertaken, what that research
indicates, and the Temporary Chief Constable’s proposals in full in a
disclosable format.
(d) No final decision has yet been made by the PCC regarding this scheme.
(e) Leicestershire County Council has no direct jurisdiction over decisions made by the Police and Crime Commissioner, who is independently scrutinised by the Police and Crime Panel and held accountable by the electorate.
(f) The Crime Prevention Fund is a distinct reserve within the policing budget, and any utilisation of such funds would be subject to policing budget rules and relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
2. This Council believes that:
(a) Taxpayers money must be used efficiently, transparently, and in ways that deliver tangible outcomes for communities.
(b) Public confidence in community safety depends on visible, empowered and accountable policing.
(c) Any significant investment in community safety should be preceded by robust evidence of its likely effectiveness, including comparison with alternative approaches such as investment in additional policing capacity.
(d) Proper governance and due process, including scrutiny by the Police and Crime Panel, should be respected and allowed to run its course before conclusions are drawn.
3. This Council is concerned that:
(a) Private security contractors do not possess the constabulary powers, duties and operational responsibilities available to police officers
(b) The evidence supporting the proposal has not yet been made available publicly to demonstrate that the proposed scheme represents the best use of available Crime Prevention Fund reserve when compared with alternative approaches.
(c) At a time of financial pressure on public services, it is essential that all available options are rigorously assessed before committing significant funds.
4. This Council therefore resolves to:
(a) Support the Police and Crime Panel’s request that full evidence and the Temporary Chief Constable’s proposals be made available in a disclosable format before any decision is taken.
(b) Request that the Chief Executive writes to the Police and Crime Commissioner to convey this Council’s expectation that any proposal involving significant expenditure should be subject to transparent, evidence-based decision making, with full consideration given to alternative approaches, including investment in additional policing capacity.
(c) Request that the Chief Executive’s letter makes clear that this Council would welcome the opportunity to understand the evidence base for any proposed scheme and its anticipated outcomes for Leicestershire communities.
(d) Reaffirm this Council’s commitment to working constructively with the Police and Crime Commissioner and other partners to improve community safety across Leicestershire.”
The amended motion was put and carried with 24 members voting for the amendment and 13 members voting against. There were 10 abstentions.
The substantive motion was then put and carried with 24 members voting for the amendment and 13 members voting against There were 10 abstentions.