You are here Home > Resources > Articles

Playing it Safe: Putting The London 2012 Security Budget Under Scrutiny

July 2010

With London 2012 fast approaching, consideration needs to be given on how to be a safe and secure host for large-scale events in a financially challenging environment. Secom’s John White discusses.

The current economic environment and the widely accepted need to tackle ‘the deficit’, ensures that any and all government spending is under the most rigorous scrutiny. The forthcoming London 2012 Olympic Games and its allocated security budget is no exception.

The ‘broad review’ by the Home Office, to be carried out by Baroness Neville-Jones, of security planning and the £600m security budget, while welcome, will be viewed with keen interest by security professionals. Despite reassurances from Hugh Robertson, the Minister for Olympics and Sport, that ‘nothing will be done in any budget that puts security at risk’, such comments follow a £27m cut in the total budget for the games, and moves towards further ‘painful’ cuts.

Security responsibilities for the events at London 2012 reside with Locog (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games), while the Olympic Development Authority (ODA) has security responsibilities encompassing the building and management of infrastructure and assets used for the Games. Locog has a core budget of £600m with an available contingency of £238m while the ODA’s responsibilities come under the £9.3bn total games budget.

Of course security implications still exist outside of these remits for local authorities affected by the games, as well as retailers, who will have to cope with a huge increase in footfall at the time of the games – along with a huge increase in crime. Secom, for its part, provides important security support for organisations, including the Metropolitan Police, at key transport hubs in London such as Heathrow airport and Eurostar at St. Pancras, as well as boosting private sector security for retail outlets at major commercial centres such as Westfield in London.

Some commentators have suggested that the £600m security budget for policing the games is too little for an event encompassing 15,000 athletes from 200 countries, who are expected to be watched by 9 million spectators across 34 venues in the biggest peacetime security operation seen in this country. The budget was originally modelled on the cost of securing the Sydney Olympics in 2000 but was revised after the ‘7/7’ attacks in London in 2005. Questions also exist as to whether sufficient private security personnel can be sourced in time for the games, even with initiatives such as ‘Bridging the Gap’ underway to recruit personnel into security roles.

The doubters may have a point. In February 2010 the ODA’s responsibilities for security operations were increased, potentially adding £160m to their security budget while the original security budget estimate was itself revised upwards by £20m. The closer we get to the event itself, more adjustments will inevitably be made as requirements and challenges become clearer – and revised budgets for Locog, the ODA, and others.

A look back at recent games shows us that final security costs at Sydney 2000 and Athens 2004, which had the backdrop of 9/11 to contend with, ran significantly over budget. The most recent Olympic example, the 2010 winter games in Vancouver reportedly ran five times over the initial $175m security estimate to approach the $1bn mark but from a security point of view, Vancouver was a job well done.

Vancouver 2010 faced a similar challenge with the availability of manpower. In response the Royal Canadian Mountain Police-led Integrated Security Unit and the City of Vancouver installed 1,000 temporary surveillance cameras at venues and public sites. In the absence of these measures the manpower requirement would have been that much greater, and a problem the Canadians would have found challenging – and even more costly – to resolve. Secom’s work across the private sector, and now through our Police & Government Agencies Division, provides similar examples of how a technology-driven security solution can be delivered which reduced overall cost and the total need for manpower.

In dealing with the vast range of potential security problems, the likelihood is that the current security budget for London 2012 will be exceeded, even with the highly skilled planning of security professionals and the availability of increasingly sophisticated technical solutions. The threats are, however, vast. From Munich in 1972 though Atlanta in 1996 to Vancouver in 2010 it is clear the games remain a target from Terrorist attacks down to localised protests on social issues. Vancouver 2010 showed the importance of being prepared. London 2012, despite an incredibly challenging economic environment, must also be prepared.

---

SECOM Says Electronic Security Is First Class For Schools

March 2010

Electronic security provides a powerful deterrent to crime on school property. John White, Sales Director at Secom plc, discusses the possibilities.

When crime against a school makes the national headlines there’s a good chance that an increase in spending on security might have prevented the incident, or at least lessened its impact. Even in schools and other places of learning that suffer petty criminal acts – such as the occasional stone through a window – additional security can be a powerful deterrent. Today’s electronic security solutions, combined with good physical security and a commonsense approach, provide a cost effective method of ensuring safety for a school, its pupils and staff.

With the growing pressure on finances in the education sector as a whole, additional security is something that governors and bursars would probably rather not be considering. Yet they cannot afford to overlook the fact that if better security deters crime, then it also avoids the cost and inconvenience of repairs – and slows the rate of increase in future insurance premiums. Good security also enhances the reputation of the school.

Schools have traditionally been easy targets for petty criminals because they often have sprawling buildings, many windows and doors, and they tend to be surrounded by playing fields. Many schools are completely unattended overnight and for much of the weekend – and even if school buildings are sited close to a residential area, the proximity of neighbours is no guarantee of security. Sadly, some schools’ degree of vulnerability to crime may reflect unhealthy social conditions in the surrounding community.

Neighbourhood schools are vulnerable to a variety of crimes ranging from petty burglaries to vandalism and arson – and some incidents can be seriously disruptive, creating problems for pupils and teachers. Schools may also be affected by daytime criminal or anti-social behaviour, including assaults, drug or alcohol related crimes, and child protection issues.

Current technology enables us to design electronic systems that significantly increase security standards – without turning a school into a fortress, or costing the earth. So what is required, and how should a school address its security needs?

For a start, ensure that basic physical security is in good shape – all windows and external doors should close and lock properly, and there should be a procedure for checking that everything is locked. Locking some internal doors will provide additional barriers for intruders – but check that compartmentalising in this way does not block any fire escape route during normal hours. Steel window screens, grilles and doors may provide necessary additional protection in some areas.

The recommended minimum requirement for internal security is an intruder detection system, often coupled to a fire detection system and typically using infrared sensors hard-wired or wirelessly connected to a central control panel. If an intrusion (or a fire) is detected, the system may trigger an alarm on the premises or, more effectively, silently notify an Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC), such as Secom’s where security specialists are on duty around the clock to respond appropriately. In a typical example, our ARC was alerted by a late night alarm from a school in Yorkshire. One of our key response officers was immediately dispatched to investigate, and discovered evidence of a break-in – and an intruder still on the premises. Police were called and an arrest was made.

In one school with Secom security solutions, staff wear personal attack (PA) buttons which they can use to alert other staff if assistance is needed in any emergency situation. A central display shows where the distressed teacher is located, so that help can be directed immediately to the right place. Another school has a disabled toilet alarm as part of an integrated electronic solution designed for excellent security with minimum effort from teaching and support staff.

In schools, as in many other situations, intruder detection systems are used alongside CCTV systems which provide photographic evidence from the scene. The advent of digital recording means that CCTV images from multiple cameras can be stored for examination, if necessary. Modern CCTV recording equipment is extremely compact, so does not take up much space. And with cameras triggered by movement, the system will only start recording if there is an after-hours intrusion or ‘suspicious’ movement. Of course, CCTV also provides the opportunity for daytime monitoring – in the school office, for example – so that unauthorised activity in or around the school can be observed.

More sophisticated CCTV systems enable remote monitoring, which is particularly useful for overnight internal and external protection of school premises. Cameras remain on standby until activated by movement, after which images are immediately transmitted to the ARC. Our trained operators can easily identify the difference between a legitimate movement and a suspicious one, and in the latter case they will assess the situation carefully before responding. Some installations allow the operator to challenge the suspect via an audio link – which usually provides enough deterrent to stop the incident.

Access systems provide strict control over the people who are allowed to enter the premises and can also automate the process of registering attendance. Enhanced security, provided in a Secom installation at a Scottish primary school, makes designated areas, such as toilet blocks, selectively accessible.

Increasingly, intruder alarms, CCTV and access systems are being linked via existing LAN systems, using internet protocol (IP). The advantages of this are that systems can use wiring (or wireless networks) that are already installed, while remote monitoring or management is possible without the need for dedicated ‘security’ landlines – and from anywhere with internet access. In some cases, schools are monitored remotely with out-of-hours CCTV images transmitted via the local authority’s IP network.

Overall, the aim of security systems is to combine free movement with enhanced personal safety for staff and pupils, while providing adequate protection for the investment in teaching aids, equipment and school facilities. Security helps reduce crime statistics, keeps schools safe – and prevents publicity they don’t want.

---

SECOM IP Signalling Takes The Alarm Out Of Recession

March 2009

Internet technology comes to the help of recession-hit high street retail chains and other multi-site businesses, with Secom plc offering an enhanced electronic security solution with significant cost savings. The solution uses Internet Protocol (IP) signalling over customers’ own networks and the Internet to relay intruder alarm signals from remote sites to Secom’s Alarm Receiving Centre. IP signalling has significant benefits over traditional fixed lines.

Alan Blake, Head of Secom’s National Accounts Division, says cost-cutting is a vital strategy for companies determined to survive the recession. At the same time, they face a growing threat of burglary as unemployment rises and individuals become desperate. “Against this scenario, companies need to tighten security wherever possible – and the latest advances in IP signalling enable us to provide extremely cost effective solutions to give managers peace of mind,” he says.

Working with leading technology suppliers, Secom has introduced an attractive package that reduces the overall cost of a professionally monitored intruder alarm system. The package ensures compliance with EN 50131 – the European standard for intruder alarm systems – and Grade 4 insurance approval.

Secom is currently offering new customers a free interface (subject to terms) to link existing alarm systems to the Internet through each company’s network. Alan Blake says: “The key advantage of IP signalling is that it does away with the need for a dedicated fixed line. We calculated that for a chain of 600 outlets switching to IP signalling, the savings on line rental alone over five years would be about £450,000. Similarly, a chain of 100 outlets would save £75,000. This could be achieved with no capital outlay for the customer.”

With the ability to transmit signals faster than fixed lines, IP signalling interfaces also incorporate mobile phone technology to provide backup if the customer’s network fails.

Alan Blake says: “This is a significant improvement over traditional systems, providing security cover. If Ethernet lines are cut – either accidentally or deliberately – the intruder alarm signal can still get through to the Secom Alarm Receiving Centre where our experienced operators will respond appropriately. The latest interface systems also have multi-band SIM cards, which enable installation engineers to select the strongest mobile signal in any location. And they have advanced software that give companies the tools for better management of traffic on their networks. ”

He says the industry as a whole is moving significantly away from traditional intruder alarm signalling, with major growth in IP signalling on the back of Internet growth. “It has come at the right time to take some of the sting out of the recession.”