CoESS Private security in Europe today: the challenges ahead

1
CoESSPrivate security in Europe today the
challenges ahead

• Hilde DE CLERCK
• General Secretary CoESS

2
CoESS in Europe

• Members 23 EU (exc. Malta Lithuania) Norway,
  CH, Turkey, Rom., Bulgaria.

3
CoESS today some figures

• CoESS is a confederation members are national
  federations of private security companies
• Members in 28 European countries (larger than the
  European Union)
• Active members (full voting rights higher
  financial contribution) and associated members
• 2 Corresponding members (ESTA and EASA)
• Some 28.0000 companies
• Representing approximately 1.100.000 employees
• Recognised by the European Commission as a
  representative employers organisation
• Secretariat Brussels
• www.coess.org

4
NAFTSO and CoESS

• First contacts May 2003
• Membership within CoESS CoESS Board decision of
  13 April 2005 (representative)
• Status associated membership
• NAFTSO very active member observer to Board
  meetings, Madrid Conference 2004, CoESS General
  Meetings in 2004 and 2005, Warsaw seminar in
  April 2005, .
• Participation in CoESS WCs

5
Private Security Industry in Bulgaria

• Big market
• Huge number of guards
• Other associations
• ???
• CONCLUSION MORE DATA NEEDED!!!

6
CoESS structures (1)EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
7
CoESS structures (2)WORKING COMMITTEES (8)

• Guarding
• Airport Security
• Maritime Security
• Cash-in-Transit
• Electronic Surveillance
• Vocational Training
• Social Issues (including EU Social Dialogue)
• Enlargement (new EU Member States)

8
CoESS structures (3)BOARD OF DIRECTORS

• Presidents of 8 Working Committees
• President of CoESS
• 1st and 2nd Vice Presidents of CoESS
• Treasurer
• General Secretary

9
CoESS main activities

• Survey of the sector (Panorama 25 EU MS)
• Study on the job profiles
• Manual on Basic Training
• Manual on Selecting Best Value (tendering for
  private security contracts)
• Training manuals for specific profiles
• Legislative and comparative studies (general and
  CIT)
• Project on work organisation
• Study and manual on health and safety
• Code of Conduct
• Projects with new (1st May 2004) EU Member
  States
• Four European Conferences (1996, 1999, 2001,
  2004)
• Annual report, newsletter, website
• Intensive lobbying on Third Party Liability
• Intensive lobbying on the draft EU Directive on
  Services
• Etc.. www.coess.org

10
Europe Private security services definition

• No general definition (too much national variety)
• But important elements
• Guarding of GOODS, PEOPLE, EVENTS
• Provision of services on a contractual basis
• Delivered by private companies
• Mainly provided at domestic level (sometimes
  cross-border)
• Complementary to and subordinated to public
  security
• In most European countries regulated by national
  law/regulations
• NOT private military companies
• NOT private provision of military services of
  all kind

11
Europe Private security is evolving

• Growing demand for private security
• Generated by
• Economic restructuring
• Political restructuring
• Social restructuring
• Change of the value system
• Growing aggression
• Growing offer of private security through a
  shared responsibility system
• Share of the State is shrinking
• Citizens and industry growing personal provision
• Growing delegation to private industry
  (flexibility, costs)
• Thus new responsibilities for private industry
• Growing specialisation
• Higher flexibility
• Higher quality requirements
• Correct social conditions

12
Europe main present challenges for the private
security industry hence CoESS priorities

• 1. Smooth integration of new EU Member States
  and of candidate Member States
• 2.The ongoing increasing privatisation or
  public-private partnerships (PPP)
• 3.The need for an upward harmonisation/standardisa
  tion and the threat by the EU draft Directive on
  services

13
1. The EU enlargement 2004 and future (1)

• Common problems in concerned countries
• No or very short history of private security
  industry
• Overcrowded market (too many companies, too many
  guards)
• Massive entrance by Western companies
• Highly fragmented private security market
• Often rivalry / split professional associations
• Underdeveloped social dialogue
• Very low wages
• Heavy competition
• Unfair competition
• Black economy
• Cross-border service conflicts due to different
  wage costs

14
1. The EU enlargement 2004 and future (2)

• BUT positive elements
• Room to develop good and progressive legislations
• Room for development towards higher quality and
  professionalism
• Room to develop and strengthen unified
  professional representation
• Room to develop efficient social dialogue
• Growing markets in growing economies
• Growing contribution to more security in society
• Current changes in these fields are impressive,
  massive and encouraging!!!

15
1. The EU enlargement 2004 and future (3)

• How can CoESS contribute?
• Encourage good national legal framework for
  private security
• Provide examples, good practices, expertise and
  input
• Help members to evolve towards strong unified
  federations which are consulted and heard by the
  authorities
• Continuously awareness raising with EU decision
  makers
• Prepare European-wide minimum common standards
• BUT
• The real work most be done by you (CoESS is a
  back-up)!
• Detailed knowledge, experience and views
• Direct contacts with decision makers, clients,
  trade unions

16
2. Public-private partnership (PPP) (1)

• External factors
• Increased demand for security (justified or not?)
• Squeeze on public sector funds
• Overloaded public sector
• Society structures lesser automatic social
  control
• September 11th, 2001
• Growing number of private players willing to
  invest in security
• State is no longer considered as security
  provider evolves towards a security guarantor
• Internal factors (private security industry)
• Increasing professionalism and quality
• More flexibility, speed of implementation,
  quicker responses to threats
• More cost-efficient
• More accountable and transparent

17
2. Public-private partnership (PPP) (2)

• CAN PPP WORK?
• CoESS believes it can work
• Sector is ready
• Sector can deliver quality
• Cost effective
• BUT only if operated along a specific
• MODEL

18
2. Public-private partnership (PPP) (3)

• Sole responsibility of the State to assess risks
  to security in society
• Sole responsibility of the State to define the
  answers to these risks
• Sole responsibility of the State to create a
  legal framework for these answers
• Sole responsibility of the State to define the
  players within that framework

19
2. Public-private partnership (PPP) (4)

• Once legal framework is established, State
  defines role of private security industry
• Only then can private security companies come in
  and provide services with respect of the rules
  and with high level of quality
• State must permanently control the private sector
  and take necessary corrective measures, including
  efficient sanctions
• Very important good legislation and regulation
  (see later)

20
3. Upward harmonisation / standardisation (1)

• CoESS Each national legislation must, as a
  minimum, regulate following matters
• Screening and licensing of companies
• Screening and authorisation to work for guards
• Extensive professional training requirements
• Career opportunities
• Minimum operational requirements
• Permanent supervision of activities by competent
  authorities

21
3. Upward harmonisation / standardisation (2)

• Overall conclusions of 2004 Panoramic overview
  EU 25
• Private security is a steadily growing market
• Most EU Member States have a specific regulation
  or in the process of establishing one
• BUT Considerable differences exist with respect
  to, a.o.
• Entrance requirements
• Training
• Use of fire arms
• Operational modalities
• Social conditions
• RISKS
• Private security sector in Europe with two
  speeds
• General devaluation of high standards in some EU
  Member States

22
3. Upward harmonisation / standardisation (3)

• DRAFT EU DIRECTIVE ON SERVICES IN THE INTERNAL
  MARKET
• General objectives
• To liberalise the internal services market
• To fully allow freedom to provide services within
  EU 25
• To cut administrative duplications
• To provide more transparency for companies,
  workers and consumers
• Scope
• Most services provided to consumers and
  businesses
• Except services provided directly by public
  authorities for no remuneration in fulfilment of
  their social, cultural educational or legal
  obligations
• Services covered explicitly private security
  services
• CIT services excluded from the scope of the
  country of origin principle until 2010 or until
  specific harmonisation instrument is adopted

23
3. Upward harmonisation / standardisation (4)

• Possible impact of the directive on private
  security sector two examples
• 1. WEAPONS
• In Denmark, Ireland and the UK, security officers
  are not authorised to carry a weapon
• In other countries, such as France, only fund and
  security transporters may carry weapons
• In Estonia, only shotguns and automatic weapons
  are not allowed
• In Lithuania, it is not permitted to shoot either
  women or the handicapped unless they have a
  weapon
• If the services directive would apply, some
  foreign guard would be allowed to carry weapons
  in countries where this is not allowed for
  national guards and vice versa. This would create
  a confusing, if not potentially dangerous
  situation.

24
3. Upward harmonisation / standardisation (5)

• Possible impact of the directive on private
  security sector two examples
• 2. TRAINING
• Dutch companies comply by far with the toughest
  training standards in the EU
• In Austria, security officers must pass an
  integrity exam administered by the police
• In Belgium security officers will soon need at
  least 130h of basic training, and substantial
  supplementary training for specialisation
• Hungary requires 320 hours to qualify as a
  security officers
• Other countries, like Cyprus, just require a
  secondary school diploma to become a security
  officer
• In Italy, one can simply start working in private
  security without any special qualifications
• If the services directive would apply, an Italian
  security officer, without having received any
  training at all, could start providing security
  services in Belgium, where the requirements are
  far more stringent

25
3. Upward harmonisation / standardisation (6)

• Position of CoESS
• GENERAL
• CoESS remains supportive of a real internal
  market in services that operates smoothly on a
  level playing field
• The Services Directive is a very complex and
  sensitive matter
• Most sensitive matter the freedom to provide
  services cross border without establishment on
  the basis of the country of origin principle
  (COO)
• Present lack of convergence within the enlargened
  EU of private security legislations/regulations
  will lead to unfair competition if operators
  established in a MS with low standards are
  allowed to provide services in another MS on a
  frequent, regular, durable or even permanent basis

26
3. Upward harmonisation / standardisation (7)

• Position of CoESS
• SPECIFIC
• Entire private security industry, and not only
  CIT, must benefit from a specific approach taking
  into account specificities of our sector.
• Derogation already granted to CIT must be
  extended to the entire security industry
• Consequently, the harmonisation instrument
  foreseen must not be limited to CIT, but apply to
  the whole of the industry
• As the conditions which led to the temporary
  derogation of CIT from the COO will still prevail
  in 2010, this time limit must be deleted

27
3. Upward harmonisation / standardisation (8)

• Position of CoESS WHY?
• 1. The role and the importance of strong national
  regulations
• To protect citizens against abuse
• To safeguard the society as a whole
• To avoid private militias
• To allow public-private partnerships
  (privatisation trend in the EU)
• To guarantee minimum level of quality and
  professionalism
• To guarantee the stabilisation of the market by
  preventing cowboy companies to enter into or to
  remain on the market
• To improve the image of the sector
• To enhance the profession.
• These must not be weakened by a services
  directive or by specific (vertical) harmonisation
  instruments.

28
3. Upward harmonisation / standardisation (9)

• Position of CoESS WHY?
• 2. The diversity of national situations which
  reflect the domestic context (political climate,
  history, culture, social tradition, national
  public security considerations,).
• 3. The still too low level of certain national
  legislations/regulations (the level of effective
  security) is positively correlated to the level
  of regulation)

29
3. Upward harmonisation / standardisation (10)

• What is the future solution to combine in Europe
  a strong and efficient internal market with a
  professional, high quality, private security
  industry?
• Firstly minimum regulations in ALL EU Member
  States (and ideally also in other EU countries)
• Secondly upward harmonization based on common
  minimum compulsory regulation

30
Some conclusions..

• There is a future for our sector, ALL over Europe
• But now is the time not to miss the boat now is
  the time to work on a qualitative, well
  regulated, highly estimated and clean industry
• Long term investment is difficult but absolutely
  necessary
• CoESS deals pro-actively with the long-term
• by
• constantly trying to improve the short-term

31
Thank you for your attention

• CoESS
• Koningin Fabiolalaan 25
• 1780 Belgium
• Tel [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• E-mail apeg-bvbo_at_i-b-s.be
• www.coess.org