Every month, ‘In Conversation With…’ will feature leading lights in the sector, PSSA members, and others who will be able to give insight into the current state of the physical security sector, and factors currently affecting it.
This month we speak to…
Paul Jeffrey
Paul’s experience of road blockers and HVM started back in the 1980’s at a company called Godwin Warren, before he joined Avon Barrier Corp for an illustrious career that continued up to 2018, when he retired and became the Chairman of the PSSA.
Q: Could you begin by telling us about your professional background and experience in perimeter security and hostile vehicle mitigation (HVM)?
PJ: My first experience in vehicle barriers was 43 years ago in 1981 at a company called Godwin Warren working with the service team. GW were one of the pioneers of parking systems as well as road blockers, although in those days these were used as anti-vandal barriers rather than for HVM.
After college, I spent around 5 years in accountancy and ended up as head of finance for a PLC owned national cash and carry chain where I learned a significant amount about business development and growth before joining Avon Barrier in its early start up stage.
Avon Barrier developed quickly and moved from its original parking roots to high security, where we were the first UK company to crash test road blockers and a variety of other HVM products, and fast became one of the UK’s leading HVM specialists.
It was clear early on that the world market for HVM was the place to be, and Avon focused on exports with an average of around 80% export business in its later years.
When HMG requested that the HVM manufacturers create a trade association (PSSA), Avon Barrier were a founder member, and I became a Director of the Association at inception and have remained a Director ever since.
When I retired from the company in 2018, I became Chairman of PSSA and have worked to develop the association to become an international association improving quality levels in a very critical industry.
Q: In your experience, how has perimeter security and HVM evolved in recent years, particularly in response to emerging threats?
PJ: The original HVM product ranges were quite industrial and created to be functional and secure blocking systems. More lately, the HVM need has spread to the more public domain and the products have changed to encompass a more aesthetically acceptable look.
In addition, the increased threat against vehicles being used as weapons has introduced a new dynamic to the industry with many more fast deployment temporary barrier systems being created.
Q: What do you consider to be the most significant threats that perimeter security and HVM solutions need to address today?
PJ: One of the greatest threats to the industry at present is the seemingly uncontrolled “security consulting” industry – where advice on TVAs and VDAs are being given by consultants that have little experience in HVM and how it works. This creates a risk to those being protected, as well as to the Manufacturers/ Installers of the equipment, as the incorrect deployment of equipment of products. This threat is being enhanced by the new Protect Duty law where many consultants new to HVM are seeing a business opportunity rather than an ethical risk need.
Other areas of threat include the use of Apps to remotely control high security equipment developed without suitable security platforms, and also the threat posed by drones.
Q: How has technology enhanced the effectiveness of perimeter security and HVM systems, and what cutting-edge innovations do you see making a difference soon?
PJ: We are seeing more and more combinations of different security levels (eg. HVM/ VADS/ Forced Entry / Ballistic/ Blast protection) in products and this is improving the overall security levels of products being deployed.
More diverse testing of products testing of individual products (especially the temporary deployment equipment) to ensure that a product can remain undefeated by any foreseeable attack as well as consideration of new/ better materials to avoid the barriers becoming part of the problem in an attack (eg fragmentation of products in an explosion/ impact).
Q: Do you feel there is sufficient clarity on testing standards for HVM equipment, such as those detailed by the National Protective Security Authority (NPSA), including the Vehicle Attack Delay Standard (VADS), ISO 22343-1, and international standards such as Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) testing?
PJ: Difficult to say! VADS is UK-only at present and makes a lot of sense for some types of equipment. DIN seems to be primarily focused on Germany/ Europe, whereas ISO is an international standard. The main issue is that VADS and the equivalent element of DIN need to be better understood and probably extended before we have the best solution.
Generally, I am not in favour of multiple standards for the same testing as it just confuses the world. I have argued this for many years, and this shows through with some test agencies not understanding the scope or requirements of the basic impact test standards – leading to manufactures claims that are not possible.
Q: If there are gaps in clarity or inconsistencies in the existing standards, what would you suggest as potential solutions to improve the effectiveness and transparency of HVM testing standards?
PJ: In my view, crash standards (both ISO and ASTM) have been developed over many years and are very clear and transparent. Delay testing and other product attack testing standards are less clear and less comprehensive than they should be.
Q: What are some of the key challenges that organisations will face when implementing effective perimeter security and HVM measures, if required to do so by Martyn’s Law?
PJ: I am unconvinced about the negative thoughts circulating about Martyn’s Law – specifically cost to businesses and the difficulties that are expected.
Having seen the government figures on the expected cost to businesses, if true it would make the UK market size many multiples of what it already is, and that includes most major areas covered under the law that have already been protected for many years.
Risk Assessments and training are where we are weakest, and these are mainly aimed at the lower categories of business, which I do not think is a major burden.
Q: How do you balance the need for robust security measures with the practicalities of maintaining open access and usability for legitimate users, such as in public spaces or corporate environments?
PJ: Fixed measures for stand-off are often just bollard arrays which do not restrict open access in a significant way. The main constraint on this type of protection is the aesthetic side, as nobody wants to see fields of bollards everywhere. The other side of this coin is that the more aesthetic equipment tends to be planters / seating etc. which breaks up the bollard lines, but by its very nature interferes more with access.
The temporary solutions are more of an issue as they need to be substantial enough to resist vehicle attack but still allowing sufficient permeability. A simple solution would be to move the protected boundary further out to allow more pedestrian access points to speed up flow – but this would have its own consequences in terms of cost and vehicle accessibility.
It may be that in the future, temporary HVM can be socketed in key access areas so that the HVM products used could be narrower and more effective than mobile solutions, giving better permeability and protection. This would obviously need a high degree of advance thinking which is not something that we seem to be very good at!
Q: Can you share any real-world examples or case studies where your perimeter security/ HVM solutions have been successfully deployed to mitigate against hostile vehicle attacks?
PJ: Thousands! Including road blockers stopping armoured vehicles in Iraq! However, one of my often quoted anecdotes is where we installed a road blocker and a bollard line on a famous racecourse to protect access to the road beneath the Royal Box. When asked what protection was being provided for the exit, the site security manager said that it was not needed, as it was the exit and had a no entry sign on the road.
This has always highlighted the fact that even competent security managers do not always see the bigger picture, and that those of us that have worked in HVM for a long time have become experts even without realising it.
Q: Looking ahead, what trends do you foresee in the perimeter security and HVM space, and what recommendations would you offer to organisations seeking to enhance their defences against vehicle-borne threats?
PJ: Of concern is the future trend of HVM businesses which seems to be changing, away from smaller businesses to larger conglomerates, and I worry that this will drive out ethics and professionalism in favour of increased profits.
The trend that I have advocated for many years now is “planning in advance”, building design can (and should) consider HVM and security in general at the outset so that the need for additional equipment is limited to essentials only. This is not only simple to do, but will be significantly less costly than retro-fitting products to provide protection.
If you’d like to feature ‘In Conversation with…’ you can email marketing@pssasecurity.org