slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Private security from a European perspective: Current situation and possible future trends PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Private security from a European perspective: Current situation and possible future trends

Private security from a European perspective: Current situation and possible future trends

143 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Private security from a European perspective: Current situation and possible future trends

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Private security from a European perspective: Current situation and possible future trends Eduardo Cobas Urcelay Chairman Social Dialogue Committee CoESS Warsaw, 27 February 2009. Conference Warsaw

  2. 11 September 2001 + Madrid + London: a decisive moment for our world a decisive moment for our industry Conference Warsaw

  3. Some examples • This model of Federal control plus flexibility mirrors the well regarded airline security systems in place in many European countries, which involve public/private partnerships. Many adopted this model of strong government oversight over high-quality private security companies after finding other models of airline security to be less effective Letter to Speaker of the U.S. House. USA Air security legal framework. October 2.001. President Georges Bush. • Europe's strengths are in its guard training and industry coordination. Security officer reform is a continual process in Europe, and nations are working together to determine and unify high standards for the private security industry across the European Union Report by Public Advocate for the City of New York. Betsy Gotbaum. February 2005. Undertrained, underpaid, and unprepared: security officers report deficient safety standards in Manhattan office buildings Conference Warsaw

  4. The European model of private security • It is the task of the government to analyse existing and future risks and to determine the level of security and protection necessary to face them • It is also the responsibility of the government to establish the correct legal framework within which both public and private organisms can operate • It is the responsibility of the governments to define the role and functions the private security companies can play – they grant the permits • Private security companies carry out the services, implement the regulatory framework • Companies perform the services with the necessary professionalism and quality • The government control the security companies, the services they provide and the security agents who carry out these tasks in an efficient and non-discriminatory way Conference Warsaw

  5. A European vision of PRIVATE-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP is therefore necessary • Security cannot be regarded as a product to the regulated by the market • Security also cannot be regarded as the monopoly of the government Cooperation is inevitable Conference Warsaw

  6. It is no longer realistic to think of policing in terms of public police forces alone. There is now an urgent need to open up this debate to embrace a holistic understanding of policing. The contemporary challenge is to harness the diverse efforts of plural policing providers and auspices in the furtherance of public safety, without allowing the vagaries of unequal access and differentiated provision in a weekly regulated market to segregate populations further along lines demarcated by their capacity to purchase additional security or retreat from the public sphere. Plural Policing. The Mixed Economy of Visible Security Patrols. The Nuffield Foundation. University of Leeds. 2004. Conference Warsaw

  7. The European institutions and private security Commission 1995 2000 2005 Court of Court of Justice Justice 2002 Council 20032004 Commission Council Parliament Conference Warsaw

  8. European Commission: • Treaties of the European Union Member States: fundamental freedoms First generation: • C-114/97: Commission – Spain • C-355/98: Commission – Belgium • C-283/99: Commission – Italy Second generation: • C-171/02: Commission – Portugal • C-189/03: Commission – the Netherlands • C-514/03: Commission – Spain • C-465/05: Commission – Italy Conference Warsaw

  9. the activity of security undertakings and security staff is to carry out surveillance and protection tasks on the basis of relations governed by private law…However, the exercise of that activity does not mean that security undertakings and security staff are vested with powers of constraint. Merely making a contribution to the maintenance of public security, which any individual may be called upon to do, does not constitute exercise of official authority (C-114/97) It cannot be denied that, the possession of such a (identity) card may be an appropriate measure for the purpose of strengthening the general public's confidence in the staff of private security firms. …such a requirement is a restriction which goes beyond what is necessary to attain the stated purpose, in so far as it does not take account of the controls or verifications already carried out in the Member State of origin which certify that competence and professional integrity. (C-189/03) Conference Warsaw

  10. The Council´s role Proposal Kingdom of Spain Decision Council Third Pillar Recommendation Council Third Pillar Cooperation between national authorities Responsible of the private security sector Conference Warsaw

  11. Project SPOT I. Brussels University 2004 Conference Warsaw

  12. The role of social dialogue in this process • General documents: formal issues • General documents: basic principles • Regulatory issues • Training • Organisation of work • Market conditions • Health and safety • Enlargement Conference Warsaw

  13. But then… • Suddenly, a lot of different EU Commission departments WITHOUT a COHERENT and COORDINATED approach have a look at our sector • CoESS reaction to this process Conference Warsaw

  14. Who makes what? • DG Employment: Social dialogue • DG Internal Market: proposal Services Directive • DG Justice and Home Affairs: Critical infrastructures protection • Dg Transport and Energy: Aviation, Maritime, Security in the Supply Chain • DG Enlargement • DG ECOFIN: Cash in transit Conference Warsaw

  15. Directive on Services • CoESS has always been supportive of the internal market for services • Common declaration with trade unions on harmonisation of the industry • The draft services directive was a danger for the industry: specificities of the industry were not duly considered, European model of private security Conference Warsaw

  16. Directive on Services • Current situation: • Article 2: private security excluded from scope • Article 40. Additional harmonisation: • The Commission shall assess, by one year after the date of transposition of this Directive at the latest, the possibility of presenting proposals for harmonisation instruments on the following subjects: • D) security services and transport of cash and valuables Conference Warsaw

  17. An eventual harmonisation process? • Licenses for companies • Licenses for workers • Control by public authorities • Training • Operational issues • ????? Conference Warsaw

  18. The critical infrastructures protection • An opportunity for the industry: • We protect CI --- we need a clear voice • Suitable standards • Allocation of risk • A possible quality mark – similar to the CEN process in the field of air security ? • Market opportunity • Increased legitimacy for the industry ?? Conference Warsaw

  19. Possible harmonisation of cross-border CIT • Proposal for European Regulation • CIT cross-border licence • CIT security staff • Vehicle equipment • Advance Notification to national police forces • Mutual information • Modalities of transport (IBNS /armouring…) possible joint action with trade unions Conference Warsaw