REFRAMING THE SECURITY QUESTION

As the Protect Duty legislation approaches, increased public awareness and understanding about threat perception from terrorism would enable people to become more resilient citizens. Figen Murray OBE and Ian Palmer, principal lecturer and academic lead for UG Policing and Criminology at the University of Central Lancashire, consider public engagement and the motivation of staff involved in delivering the Act’s requirements

Personal and communal security will be enhanced by the inclusion of citizens who are resilient and empowered, as safety will not be achieved merely by the creation of legislation, but by its effective enactment in the real world. The central role of resilient citizens was amplified by those professionals from counterterrorism, policing, politics, and specialised journalism, who were interviewed during Figen’s research.

Raising awareness of the changes in the Protect Duty legislation is one important element towards empowering the public to support effective security and challenge poor security more assertively. In this article we will discuss other critical considerations for those who will take on the new statutory duties.
Whilst work around the finer details of the Protect Duty carries on in the background progress will inevitably be delayed due to the current political situation.The Prime Minister has resigned, as have other members of the Government, including the security minister, Damian Hinds. As we write, it is concerning that there is currently no figure head leading this process, but it is the nature of our democracy that prioritises the need for effective structures of government to be in place before the business of Government can be progressed.

The business of Government, of which the Protect duty is part, cannot happen in vacuum, and by dint of current circumstance we must be patient but vigilant that a temporary delay is not allowed to become a postponement.

Public engagement
Public engagement is one of the key elements to ensure the success of the amended Protect Duty. Raising public awareness about threat from terrorism with a soft touch campaign will enable the people to gain a better understanding of the need for security. The public can be instrumental in improving security at venues and events as there will be opportunity to challenge poor security if people feel unsafe. At the very least an informed public can share the responsibility for their own security simply by being more alert and aware of their surroundings.
Other communities work together with their members by educating people through a series of training programmes.

One such organisation is the Community Security Trust. Here is what they say:
“The Community Security Trust (CST) is a charity that for decades has provided the security at the UK Jewish community’s 650 communal buildings and 1,000 events a year. SAFE (Security Advice for Everyone) shares CST’s security knowledge with groups outside the Jewish community that are vulnerable to violence, extremism or hate crime.
We should all be able to lead our lives in safety and security, especially when we congregate with our communities.
SAFE provides free help and support to people who want to make their community as safe as possible.”

The Protect Duty public consultation generated much discussion in the security industry due to concerns of what the detail of the legislation will entail, and what specific duties will be required. The cost of security has been a major issue, with concerns that security needs to be affordable, especially for smaller organisations, or those operating on smaller budgets.

cost vs quality
We expect the legislation to operate upon the basis of proportionality which means that one size will not fit all. Sound risk assessment and mitigating measures may not necessarily involve high costs.Training for security and risk mitigation is available from a variety of sources, some of which are free of charge and online.The very basic, and some of the more advanced ACT e-learning packages are free of charge. Regular staff training and incentives will keep people motivated. Well-looked after staff will look after the interests of their employer and their customers.

However, the remuneration of security staff has also featured in Protect Duty conversations and there needs to be a reconciliation between the affordability of security staff and the quality of those attracted to undertake those roles.

The industry needs to correlate the profile and skills required by effective security roles and the remuneration offered to ensure they reflect the level of decision-making, and the soft and hard skills required.

Some individuals in the Protect Duty conversations suggested that increasing the remuneration of security staff could result in a more motivated and dedicated workforce.

Good security as an outcome can be influenced by how an organisation treats its staff. Investing in its people through a great work environment, sound and regular training, a decent pay packet and a real sense of being a valuable member of staff are all recognised as high-return motivators across people management globally. An authentic sense of social responsibility towards staff will reflect on the wellbeing of customers because staff will buy into the mission, vision and purpose of their employers.In circumstances, such as security, where so much is at stake, actions to promote staff behaviours which translate into customer wellbeing and safety have got to be seen as a sound investment.

The development of Battersea Power Station is an example of that principle in action.They understand that staff are an asset worth looking after and promoting a sense of community.

All employees are focussed on giving customers a great experience when visiting the power station.Paul Considine, head of security and contingency at Bidvest Noonan says:
“An investment in well trained, professional security personnel and systems not only achieves safe and secure spaces for customers to work, live and socialise in but as an extension of the client, security staff will engage with customers resolving their issues and thereby elevating the customer’s experience resulting in positive feedback and repeat business. The earlier security professionals are consulted in the design process the more likely they are to identify risk providing bespoke solutions to mitigate the threat. Delayed consultation can prove more costly in the long run or compromise the Security solution adversely impacting any mitigation implemented.”

Security is a customer service
What is clear to us, however, is that security measures associated with the Protect Duty must be viewed with the same care as the reputation of the business itself. Security does not have to be a department or a budget line, it can, and should be a state of mind. Associating security with customer service is a progressive stance, regardless of any statutory duty. Providing customers with the confidence that their safety has been considered and provided for is good for profile, good for reputation and quite simply the right thing to do.

The reality of cost
The industry needs to be united in tendering practices. Should venues or event organisers seek to reduce what they are willing to pay for effective security, then reputable providers need to walk away rather than compromise the security of staff and customers. A uniformity of practice and standards will create and sustain the reality that proper security and their costs must be proportionate to the venue, the event and the prevailing context of threat and risk. Some of the larger providers can be instrumental in leading the way for good practice and thereby supporting smaller companies through the re-education of venues. This will take time and tenacity, but the reality is that risks cannot be reduced in the interest of cost-cutting.

Organisations can consider a range of factors to identify the level of security they require.Whilst the legislation is expected to focus on premises with capacity of 100+, there is great variability beyond this threshold. High volume does not necessarily suggest high-cost security and neither does low volume suggest low costs.

Factors such as anticipated risk, the ability for customers to contribute to the security effort, availability and suitability of technological solutions should be correlated with the mission and purpose of the venue or event. It is widely recognised that iconic locations are part of our country’s heritage and are targets by default. However, it would not be necessarily appropriate or effective to have airport style security at our iconic religious building, for example.

The cost of security should never be the insurmountable obstacle as the cost of no security can be unquantifiable.Should the worst-case scenario happen, it will be costly in so many ways beyond the tragic human cost, such as inquiries, compensation, and reputation. For these reasons the cost of security cannot be seen as a binary trade-off towards profitability.
It is recognised that this extra financial commitment would need to be covered. Some organisations have covered the costs of additional security measures by their customers paying a security levy. Others have built these costs into their business plans.There is no single solution to the financing of these measures and each business will make their decisions based on their individual circumstances and their market.

Security versus liberty
Keeping people safe is the ultimate customer service an organisation can give. This will enhance people‘s sense of liberty through peace of mind. Sound security measures are also imperative to protect the brand of the venue and what it stands for.

Democracy cannot work without security. Low and inadequate security measures can affect liberty as much as unnecessarily high security measures, as the costs could be in terms of human life, well-being, confidence, and reputation. We do not necessarily need more security but better security.

The Protect Duty has at its heart the safety and security of people in the UK.Whilst the legislation has generated a lot of discussion the general awareness is that change needs to happen. Change can be exciting and invigorating when people desire it, however, the Protect Duty is a change that has generated fear and scepticism as well as hope and positive engagement. We should recognise that a section of the industry is already making necessary adaptations to their venues and working practices.

Whilst there will be a period of adaptation and initial teething problems, this legislation is going to be instrumental in saving lives. Preserving life is at the heart of the legislation and therefore makes it worth every effort.