The announcement by the Government in relation to mandatory training for physical intervention should be greeted with caution.
On the surface this is a fantastic step forward for the industry, but if the current situation is allowed to continue it may actually increase the danger to the public.
At present, the requirement to undergo physical intervention training has only applied to those completing training in the door supervision sector since June 2010. Those authorised to deliver physical intervention training to door supervisors have to be trained by one of the 25 different physical intervention systems providers recognised by the Security Industry Authority.
These different systems are submitted to the Regulator by the various awarding organisations.
What this means is that a venue could have in its employ door supervisors who have received no physical intervention training at all (prior to June 2010) and staff trained since that date who could be working with any one of 25 different systems.
Consequently, it’s possible for those involved in an incident to be – quite literally – pulling in different directions. Therefore, in terms of risk the potential for a catastrophic outcome increases exponentially for all involved.
Need for a universal physical intervention programme
It’s for this reason we need a universal physical intervention programme which is taught to door supervisors and all other security operatives working in customer-facing roles. We need a system as universal as the phonetic alphabet. If everyone is speaking the same language then the risks to the public will be significantly reduced.
The business case for adopting this strategy is overwhelming.
First and foremost, the employer knows employees have all been trained in the same techniques and terminology. This means they have no associated costs regarding retraining or increased insurance premiums.
Additionally, they are able to offer their clients a consistency of approach with the staff they supply. The client will be reassured by the knowledge they are able to demonstrate a duty of common care to all who work at (and visit) their sites. This is particularly relevant to the licensed sector following last year’s Court of Appeal ruling on the Comojo case.
Fortunately, the administrative side is already universal in terms of the learning outcomes agreed by the awarding organisations. They will still have to certificate the physical intervention qualification. The trainers will still have to deliver the physical intervention element through their awarding organisation.
The only thing which will be changed will be the terminology and the techniques. Making this change should present no problems for anyone trained to deliver this award. The system provider companies would still be able to maintain their competitive advantage through their respective Level 3 Train The Trainer courses.
Total commitment to the public
Taking this action would go a long way towards restoring the public’s confidence in the security sector. More than that, it would be a practical demonstration of that sector’s total commitment to the public it both serves and protects.
I would urge interested parties to get in touch with the Government, the Security Industry Authority, their local MP, local authority and all relevant contacts so that we all play our part in making the UK a safer place for its citizens and visitors.
Further, National Doorwatch is willing to co-host any meeting designed to make this happen.
Ian Fox is chairman of the National Doorwatch Steering Group
