SECURING THE VENUE

Henry Havis, head of security at the ExCeL centre, look as at the implications of the Protect Duty legislation for exhibition venues and the requirements it places on security professionals to provide a safer environment

Over the course of the last year, the Association of Exhibition Venues (AEV) has worked closely with its peers in the National Association of Arenas (NAA) security working group, chaired by the brilliant Paul Williams (head of security for the O2 Arena, London) to clearly understand what the potential impacts are from the Protect Duty and what we need to do to prepare ourselves for the future.

What is clear is that since the Manchester attack in 2017, through Figan Murray’s determined campaign for Martyn’s Law and further highlighted by feedback from the Manchester Inquiry, counter terrorism risks have not been taken as seriously as would have been expected and this has been seen across the event industry for some time. The inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders made it clear that the key stakeholders had not identified or managed risks effectively and this may have been symptomatic across the industry.

The Manchester Arena terrorist attack has provided the UK with a key moment in time, as significant as the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, to focus on the importance of effective security - as Hillsborough did on crowd safety and capacity.

So, what the Protect Duty is aiming to do is to provide a legal approach to improve protective security and support organisations preparedness at publicly accessible locations (PALs).
If the public can attend, it’s a PAL. This includes event venues of all sizes.

The second theme of the consultation looked at what the requirements would be with an expectation that we should make consideration for terrorist threats and methodologies, assess likelihood and the impact of those threats and mitigate those risks by taking forward ‘reasonably practicable’ (a phrase justifiably borrowed from Health & Safety) and appropriate security measures.

EXPECTATIONS
So what does that actually mean for the events industry given that no law has been passed at this time? In short, there is no legal obligation to do anything yet. However, since the release of certain parts of the Manchester inquiry, we have seen a significant change in expectations regarding protective security from the Police, Home Office, organisers and the public. Given that it is reasonable to expect that venues would be consulting on the inquiry, it is reasonable to expect that we are now aware that there is an increased expectation to combat the risks that have been highlighted.

RESPONSIBILITY
The Protect Duty consultation suggests that is was likely to look for a key named individual who will take responsibility for the Counter Terrorism Security plan for an event. Loking at the Manchester inquiry, is an extremely difficult task to pin down the exact individual given the different requirements from venue to venue, and event to event. It is likely that venues themselves will need to lead, ensuring all parties understand their responsibilities and that these are completed to a competent level.

The various elements of a security plan brought together through working groups and project teams would be overseen by the venue in accordance with the venue’s security guidance.

Using ExCeL as an example, we could have multiple events in the building with multiple security teams working on site looking after their specific organisers. Each of them has a responsibility to their client as well as to the venue. The venue has a responsibility to the security team and the organisers to supply a safe environment for them to be able to host their events. The circle of responsibility continues to widen in to the local area bringing in key stakeholders, local authorities and even Policing teams. All with the same responsibility – the protection of the public. So in answer to who has responsibility, we all do but it is likely the venue will have a key stakeholder requirement to ensure due process is followed and adhered to, with oversight from local authorities.

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
One way of ensuring due process is followed is through regular attendance from all stakeholders to a working group meeting. Using ExCeL as an example, we host a weekly meetings with all security stakeholders. This isn’t to replace event planning meetings but as an additional tie in to ensure information, risks and actions plans are shared and actioned by operational leads.

Stakeholders should include local and specialist Policing leads where available. The use of Counter Terrorism Security Advisers (CTSAs) and Counter Terror Policing Officers (CTPOs) to provide overviews and briefings is a must. They can’t and shouldn’t be expected to provide feedback on every event, but they can help with the overarching security plan for a venue with regular, and where appropriate, real time intelligence.

Reliance on the police to provide intelligence is only one source available to venues. At ExCeL, we are supported by a multiple specialists that have a wider understanding of the venues operation and risks and have been used to complete vulnerability assessments.

This is just one step that can help protect venues and the public. The realisation that the responsibility for ensuring a ‘Protect Safe’ environment
is everyones.

TRAINING
The Protect duty talks about having a competent person responsible for security. I have heard suggestion that this should be someone who has a higher level of education is this area such as a degree or masters. I have neither, and yet I would class myself as a competent head of security with an experienced background in protective security and proven understanding of the requirements. At present, we don’t know if a NEBOSH style qualification will be created for the security industry as there is in the Health and Safety world but it is something that AEV and NAA are looking at.

On top of this, the Security Industry Authority has already launched a much improved enhanced process for door supervisor licenses. Security organisations are already focusing the training of their teams to include Counter Terrorism training as part of the basic package, including See Check and Notify (SCaN) and Action Counters Terrorism (ACT) training as a basic level.

Again looking at ExCeL, we are further enhancing our capabilities through Behaviour Detection Training and Hostile Mindset training. All of this will ensure we are providing clients and public with first rate officers who are competent, practiced and have an understanding of counter terrorism issues. There is an impact for organisers and public alike, as the training becomes more enhanced and specialised, the cost of a security officer will increase and this will need to be taken in to account.

We should be completing vulnerability assessments considering terrorist threats and methodologies and ensuring these are documented. At present there are no generic documents available for this but it is likely that the Home Office, on the completion of the Protect Duty or in line with the role out of the ProtectUK App, will be able to supply these.

DEVELOPING FURTHER MEASURES
Either way, we need to assess the likelihood and impact of the threats that have been identified and mitigate those risks where reasonably practicable with appropriate measures. That shouldn’t mean that everything has to be done immediately or that an inappropriate amount of money should be spent, that’s the point of assessing the risk. There are measures that may form part of a long-term strategy and will take time to develop further.

What shouldn’t be expected is that every event will have policing support and a full 100 per cent screening process involving bag searches and screening arches. In some cases, this will not been deemed as appropriate and could even have a detrimental effect on people attending events. It needs to be a measured and risk assessed approach.

The positive impacts to the event security industry we are seeing from just the Protect Duty consultation are encouraging and energizing. We are seeing greater cohesion from emergency services, local authorities and businesses throughout the industry.

GUIDANCE
The Protect Duty still has a lot more to give and a plethora of guidance to be provided by the government to ensure we are working to one goal but already the ethos of the Duty can be seen across the industry and a level of reassurance is starting to arise from this.

Protective security risk management should not be confused or merged with other areas of risk and should be managed by a competent people - people with the requisite skills, knowledge and understanding of protective security to ensure that we are protecting the public and creating a safe environment.