Historically, security dogs and their handlers active in counter-terrorist roles within the UK have been trained, licensed and deployed solely by the Armed Forces and the police service, using tried-and-tested methods for route clearance and searches prior to events.
Routine searches of key iconic targets form part of the daily tasks facing police forces across the country. Effective use will be made of dogs’ availability to respond to suspect items or incidents and search those premises where explosive materials are thought to be hidden.
Recent events and intelligence gains have dictated the level of security alert remains high on home shores. Inevitably, this state of affairs impacts on resources. Jonathan Evans – the head of MI5 – and Lord West (the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Security and Counter-Terrorism), have both confirmed that the threat of international terrorism is rated as “severe”, and is expected to continue at this level for many months.
This means the security management teams in situ at iconic venues and those locations previously considered ‘soft targets’ must respond, ensuring that protection measures in place are robust, fit for purpose and designed to safeguard the assets and people on site.
Limiting disruption to business
The measures adopted need to withstand the inevitable post-incident scrutiny by enquiry committee members, specialist risk assessors and insurance loss adjusters, particularly when you consider the background to the introduction of the Corporate Homicide and Corporate Manslaughter Act (enforced as of April this year). It’s crucial to ensure that increased security measures limit disruption to business, leisure pursuits and those going about their daily routine.
Adoption of a multi-level ‘intelligent security’ approach to counter-terrorism – with methods that are trusted as being effective and suitably high profile – needs to be quickly accepted as routine. In a subliminal way, this subsequently promotes peoples’ heightened awareness and level of vigilance. Terrorism is like any other crime in that, if the correct precautions are taken, we can avoid becoming the victim.
Police forces have their work cut out. With a severe shortage of explosives dogs due to increased global demand, and some dog sections reducing in size, providing essential counter-terrorism cover with explosive search dogs is becoming increasingly difficult across the country. Doubtless there’s a need to enhance search dog capability running up to the 2012 Olympics. During that event, resources will be stretched to the limit coping with the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, the Notting Hill Carnival, Ramadan and Divali, all of which fall around the same period.
Operational effectiveness is vital
Defensive search duties carried out by Government agencies are achievable until either the threat level climbs or an incident occurs, at which point the teams need to be redeployed to key targets or used in support of anti-terrorist operations, potentially exposing the former locations to an increase in risk. The need for provision of defensive search services is self-apparent, and absolutely must be maintained at a safe and operationally effective level.
Currently, there is no form of official licensing for the private operators working in the explosive search dog sector. This is a sector largely reliant on the integrity of the owners and personnel of companies offering the service. There have been reports where those offering search services to key iconic targets are operating with inexperienced, unqualified handlers and not carrying out regular documented continuation training on ‘live’ substances. In extreme cases it has been reported that drug dogs have been deployed as explosive search dogs, which is not only an inexcusable scenario but also one fraught with extremely high risk.
Given the sensitivities – not to mention the safety issues – relating to explosive search on the front line, the role of the private sector is now far more prevalent. Therefore, it needs to ‘up the ante’ and improve both its operational efficiency and profile as a professional service provider.
Those operators who are in the ‘long game’ need to be properly funded, fully insured, professional and invest in the future by taking up the challenge and demonstrating that they’re working towards gaining professional status. Substantial investment needs to be made in the full implementation of structured, well thought-out operational procedures. Formal Terms of Reference must be supported by robust protocols dovetailing with existing structures provided by the security services, and operated by those responsible for protecting the national infrastructure.
Continuation training by qualified personnel
Operators must commit to the recruitment of qualified personnel and appropriately experienced management with an understanding of operational requirements, crucial to the delivery of an effective complementary service to those provided by Government agencies. Routine, fully-documented continuation training should be undertaken and delivered by qualified personnel, and operators should undertake to contract for refresher courses for both handlers and dogs with Home Office-registered and approved training establishments.
Ultimately, operators will need to be subjected to drills and quality-assured audits, as accreditations are simply not enough to prove due diligence.
These are the elements needed to move towards a situation wherein we have normal licensing carried out by Home Office dog inspectors: currently the exclusive domain of Government agencies. A licensing system will dispense with the element of doubt and provide evidence of competency to clients and Government agencies interfacing with private sector operators, while excluding the ‘pretenders’ and ‘wannabes’ who drift unaccounted for into this important role of protecting life and property.
The clock is ticking
Put simply, I believe the clock is ticking for ‘one man and his dog’ sub-contractor operators and security companies who purport to provide “specialist services”. Those services are often delivered by unqualified or inexperienced personnel who’ve received instruction from trainers perhaps not as up-to-date as they might be.
Clients currently using – or considering the use of – search dog deployments as a high profile, effective method of countering risk from terrorist attack should proceed with caution, do their homework and satisfy themselves that the operator providing the service ticks all the right boxes. This will ensure that operators working in this area are able to satisfy rigorous questioning concerning their capabilities, track record, qualifications and ability to perform this testing and potentially dangerous work.
Professional handlers and search advisors will state: “In credo canes fortes”. That translates to: “In dogs we trust”. Can this be said by the client companies of their search dog service provider?
John Franklin-Webb MICM MCIPR is responsible for group business development at ICTS (International Consultants on Targeted Security), working in the fields of aviation, maritime and road transport, education and commerce.
This is an edited version of an article originally published in Intersec (Volume 18 Issue 1). Reproduction here is with the kind permission of publisher Defence International Group/Surrey House Corporate Communication
