During our existence NASDU has insisted – as part of the criteria for certification and approval – that a security dog handler must have been screened and vetted in accordance with BS 7858. Also, in order to obtain certification and approval from us, handlers must have passed Basic Job Training in accordance with BS 7499.
NASDU's constitution provides clear, unambiguous Codes of Practice that must be adhered to in order for a given individual to remain a valid member. From instructors through to large companies, we make certain that standards are monitored and rigorously upheld. This serves to ensure that end users receive the correct level of service.
The statement suggesting that: "Traditionally, the National Security Inspectorate (NSI) has not – and indeed will not – inspect the standards of security dog companies and handlers" is not accurate. The NSI has had an affiliation with NASDU since our inception some eight years ago. This partnership has led to the appointment of the NSI as our independent inspectorate body, and they inspect companies that wish to become an approved NASDU member. Indeed, the NSI has in place a published script with UCAS confirming this position.
This process of inspection ensures that all approved NASDU companies meet national criteria, and confirms that they have the necessary sector skills required to operate within a professional security environment. It has also led to the creation of an Approved Contractors scheme which is recognised as the industry standard.
Ian also suggests that: "Within its resources, the NTIPDU has the ability to provide a pool of trained dogs..." This could potentially cause problems for the handler, and affect the long-term performance and welfare of the dog. NASDU would expect any professional dog handler and their dog to have compatibility as a base framework for their success.
Ultimately, it's important that the handler and dog have had a suitable time in which to bond. That will ensure the handler understands both his or her limitations with the dog and the dog's capabilities. No two dogs are the same. Come to mention it, no two handlers are the same either! Short cuts in the process could lead to unsatisfactory performance, and thus adversely affect the end user and the reputation of professional dog users.
In the past we have seen security dogs and their handlers trained in one specific way. NASDU uses various training methods for both handlers and dogs. We have always used the most professional and competent instructors within the industry. Such a level of expertise ensures that handler and dog receive the very best training and guidance there is. There are many ways in which a dog and handler can be trained, and NASDU has shown its commitment to development in this field.
Ian also mentions the recent meetings held between the BIPDT, ourselves, the police and private sector K9 companies "highlighting the overriding need for an organisation which caters for the security dog handler, and harbours the ability to monitor the progress of both dog and handler". Ian feels this to be a key issue which "certain organisations in attendance believed to be impossible".
NASDU has always tracked, monitored and developed any dog and handler that has been 'trained through' by one of its instructors, even requiring a notification of death for any registered security dog. To ensure that this Best Practice is workable, we insist that all dogs are tattooed or – preferably – 'micro-chipped'.
There is also talk of the NTIPDU course being "designed to enable the trainee to be working as a dog handler within the shortest possible time frame". We're concerned about what is meant by this statement.
We present these concerns to you in the hope that the correct message – and, more importantly, the true facts – may be delivered to SMT's readership.
Ian Green responds to Nigel Edwards and Dr John Berry of NASDU:
SIRS – Thank you for taking the TIME to forward copies of your individual Letters to the Editor regarding my article in the June 2003 edition of SMT.Before responding to your concerns, I must first point out that my fellow directors and I will not be drawn into a slanging match. There has been too much of that in the past. Pettiness and bickering do not belong in a professional industry. In promoting professionalism, we must learn to put personalities to one side.
In Dr John Berry’s letter (which is not reproduced in this month’s SMT), he states: “The National Federation for Professional Dog Users (NFPDU) or the National Training Inspectorate for Professional Dog Users (I believe the same driving forces)”...
John is quite correct in this assertion. The NFPDU – with the emphasis on ‘Forum’ – was established to bring the outstanding works of as many organisations and individuals together to create a National Standard. It must be said that this task has been achieved with the joint accreditation of both NASDU and the British Institute of Professional Dog Trainers (BIPDT).
Referring to Nigel’s letter (reproduced here), he cites my own comment in the original article that: “It was clear, then, that there were no formal guidelines for a security dog company or individual to follow”. As he’s more than aware, Nigel’s retort that he knows “this comment to be wrong” is totally incorrect. Although NASDU and the BIPDT have developed standards for training, these standards are NOT recognised as a National Curriculum. Thus making our own statement one of fact.
What of my comment that: “The National Security Inspectorate (NSI) has not, and indeed will not inspect the standards of security dogs, companies and handlers”? Having conducted some research, we were informed by the NSI that they have an agreement with NASDU to provide inspection to NASDU’s Codes of Practice on NASDU’s behalf. This is NOT an NSI registration. The NSI purely facilitates the inspection.
As Nigel is all-too-well aware, the take-up on this has been very poor, with only two NASDU-registered firms on the NSI’s books at present.
In my article, I also said: “Within its resources, the NTIPDU has the ability to provide a pool of trained dogs...” The conditions for the ‘hire’ of a ‘pool’ dog have not been made public. Naturally, the NTIPDU is also concerned about the welfare of security dogs. To this end, we have enlisted the assistance of a DEFRA official, who has described our intentions as “commendable”.
To be frank, I don’t feel that my comment concerning the fact that certain organisations believe the formation of a body catering for the security dog handler “to be impossible” quoted NASDU as harbouring such an opinion.
These are the facts of the matter, and I feel that there’s no alternative but to find them indisputable.
Referring again to the letter from Dr John Berry, I must first congratulate NASDU for being the founders of such ideas as mandatory screening. However, if this is the case I find it incomprehensible that such practices have not been kept up-to-date.
John states in his letter that he’d like to know the intentions of the NTIPDU with regard to profiteering. The NTIPDU is a limited profit-making concern that will not see a return on the investments made by the directors for many years to come. I’m sure John is aware that accounts for limited companies may be inspected through Companies House.
It’s our belief that, for a training organisation to exist and grow, there needs to be full-time employees with dedication, not deviation. Competition is good for growth, constant improvement and standards evaluation.
John also says that: “Plagiarism is a good thing”. I have to agree with him there. If it weren’t for plagiarism, or copying, improvements couldn’t be made. However, plagiarism in the true sense of the word doesn’t exist in this instance. We have reviewed an enormous amount of information from around the world, and duly devised a course with its own identity and characteristics.
There is also a comment from John in which he suggests the most important factor about inspection is credibility. We must agree. As I have already stated in this reply to Nigel’s Letter to the Editor, the NSI only inspects NASDU companies to NASDU standards. It’s possible for a training organisation to both train and inspect, with the added credibility of external assessment.
John comments in his letter that my original article is strongly in favour of NASDU, yet appears to be somewhat dismayed by the very existence of the NTIPDU. Surely he should be honoured that another organisation would wish to emulate NASDU’s achievements.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be the case here.
Source
SMT
Postscript
Nigel Edwards, Vice Chairman, NASDU
