Those SMT readers in the security dog industry will know all about the years of time and effort that myself and the NASDU Committee have put into bringing the issues surrounding trained dog trainers, handlers and dogs to the forefront of the private security sector and the wider industry at large.
To this end, we have worked unstintingly with security industry bodies including the Security Industry Training Organisation, the International Professional Security Association, the Joint Security Industry Council, the National Security Inspectorate (NSI), The Security Watchdog, the Open College Network, City & Guilds and, of course, the British Institute of Professional Dog Trainers (BIPDT).
They say that plagiarism is a good thing because of the time it saves, and so it would seem in this case. "All trainees must have passed security screening to and beyond BS 7858" states Mr Green. Very good, but NASDU introduced that as far back as 1999.
Trainees, we are told, must also "have received basic security officer training to BS 7499". They should. NASDU introduced this in the year 2000.
In addition, Mr Green states that companies "must have public liability insurance". Every company must, but again this has been a requirement for NASDU companies since 1995.
Company inspections are also mentioned in the Briefing Paper. Guess what? NASDU companies are required to be inspected to a Code of Practice. A Code, incidentally, that has been accepted by the NSI and inaccurately stated in the article because the NSI is the inspectorate body for NASDU.
Taking this particular issue a stage further, when it comes to the inspection of companies and the obvious cost factors involved with that, the credibility of any inspection assumes paramount importance. If the National Training Inspectorate for Professional Dog Users (NTIPDU) is ever selected by the Security Industry Authority (SIA) to inspect guard dog companies on its behalf, it will quickly have to produce the credible format that's outlined above. It actually took NASDU eight years to do so but, as I said, plagiarism is a useful tool.
NASDU concluded that it's not feasible to be an association that offers training and concurrent assistance to its membership while inspecting them at the same time. Inspection needs to be independent if it's to be credible.
I'd also like to highlight the intensive work that both NASDU and the BIPDT have completed together over the past 12 months or more. Between us, it was clear that our aims and aspirations were similar if not the same. New qualifications and a new Code of Practice have now been produced.
It's fabulous that there are new kids on the block. It's also great that they feel they can raise the standard of the security dog industry. However, please be aware that NASDU is registered as a non-profit making organisation. I'd very much like to know the intentions of the NTIPDU in this respect.
At the very first pre-NASDU meeting, someone asked me directly: "What's in it for you?" I constantly remind the questioner of his question to this day. He knows it's not prestige, money or anything like that. It's the pure passion of wanting to see this sector of the industry have a chance to prove itself in a professional way. Unfortunately, there are no short cuts to achieving this. Like many other jobs, this is a vocation and one which has to be worked at to bring success and competence.
To the security dog sector, I just want to say – as indeed I have done on many occasions in the past – that this is your business. You must take responsibility. Don't wait until legislation is forced upon you or, worse still, dogs are banned from the industry. I have sometimes been accused of being a little over-zealous, but to grab the attentions of this sector is no easy task. Shouting by voice or in print is sometimes necessary. I put it down to the passion.
To the NTIPDU, I want to say this. Considering one of the directors of this organisation stated to me on several occasions that an organisation like NASDU would never be needed or accepted, I find it incredible that the June edition Briefing Paper is so strongly in favour of NASDU and all that it has done while claiming the NTIPDU's own ideas to be new revelations. NASDU has only one director. No salaries. No shareholdings.
We do need to pull together, and that is why NASDU attended the cited National Forum of Professional Dog Users (NFPDU) meeting. However, we heard nothing that hadn't already been tackled. Only an organisation that wanted information from ourselves and others present such that they could, dare I say, save themselves some of the time and effort already put in by others elsewhere.
To suggest that the police are supportive must be substantiated. True, there was a police dog handler present at the meeting, but he was there independently and not representing his particular force.
The NFPDU or NTIPDU – I believe the same driving forces – should recognise the good work that has been done by others, work with those who have completed some of the tasks at hand and let's all move forward together.
In signing off, I'd like to say a big Thank You to everyone who has supported me as NASDU chairman over the past eight years. We have come a very long way during this time, and I very much hope that the new chairman will take the Association forward to serve the Security Industry Authority in the best possible manner.
Dr John Berry, Chairman, NASDU
Source
SMT
Postscript
Thank you for adding to the debate on security dog training, John, and for writing in to Security Management Today. Please accept this month's £25 drinks voucher as a reward for your efforts. It will be intriguing to find out how private sector dog training develops under the watchful eye of the Security Industry Authority. One thing's for sure, though – it's good to know that there are so many practitioners out there committed to 'getting it right'.
