Training is absolutely vital for a close protection operative such that they can function and perform effectively in the working environment. To this end, I fully welcome the core concepts and values of both the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and the SIA. However, various aspects relating to the close protection training standards are either seriously flawed or omitted in their entirety.
Another key area was that of the licensing process for those who had previous training and experience within specialist Government units such as the Royal Military Police Close Protection Unit, the Special Air Service Regiment and those police units serving under ‘Protection Command’ (such as the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Group). Arguably setting the highest standards in the world, members serving in such units are enforced to sit written and practical examinations and assessment of their knowledge, at their own personal expense, by those far less experienced in order to acquire a licence such that they might be legally employed in a commercial environment within the UK.
Frankly, I am bewildered as to the decision-making process employed when this was ‘written in’ to the law.
Let me illustrate the situation from a civilian policing perspective. It’s a fact that the Metropolitan Police commissioner holds the national responsibility for the personal protection (within the UK) of members of the Royal Family and Her Majesty’s Government, in addition to visiting heads of state and specified Government representatives. This duty is discharged through the Royalty Protection Department and Specialist Protection (formerly Special Branch).
The (Cabinet Office) Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) – with its Home Office Terrorism and Protection Unit lead – determines who is protected and then agrees appropriate security measures.
There is no little confidence in those who perform this specialist role. The specialist training given to officers selected for these duties is over and above their powers as constables, and their experience in street duties (and, frequently, other specialisms). They seek support from – and lead – operations with police services throughout the UK, enjoy intelligence flows with diverse agencies and diplomatic representatives (plus appropriate organisations whenever they are overseas).
It’s fair to opine, then, that the levels of professionalism and tactical applications of protection skills within the disciplined and ‘not-for-profit’ police environment are of the highest order. It was little surprise that a police representative on behalf of the Police Standards and Skills Organisation was invited to the consultation foray when National Occupational Standards and training elements were to be determined by the Regulator.
It’s important to note that this ‘representative’ had no remit to represent the views of the commissioner or the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), but sought to ‘assist’ the process – as opposed to steering it – and to respond to any areas in which police specialist training or standards may be surpassed by the commercial (ie SIA) proposals.
Leaving specialist firearms, First Aid, driving and knowledge of criminal law and procedure aside – not to mention operational experience in the face of the national and international media – there was, of course, no compromise.
Anecdotal evidence supports the military conclusions: the police are trained to operate at a level far in excess of the SIA standards. Yet an experienced officer, who has been charged with the personal protection of the Prime Minister in the UK and overseas, is security cleared in compliance with Government vetting standards and who is an accredited police trainer is not qualified to apply for the SIA licence without first submitting himself (for payment) to an examination that probes only the surface of his professional knowledge at the very best.
Police priorities don’t include securing academic or vocational qualifications for their staff even though they may train and operate at a level above SIA regulation. Enquiries of ACPO to determine a future strategy have proved fruitless.
It’s not surprising we can only surmise that commercial powers have conspired with others to regulate in a manner aimed at swelling the coffers by maximising the throughput of experienced former police and military personnel on courses and in examinations so that they can ‘learn the language’ of the ‘outside’ world.
Richard Hewetson MSyI
Private Security Manager