Madrid, 18/03/2013 (Agence Europe) - The private security sector is constantly growing. Its economic weight in Europe increased by 14% between 2005 and 2010. Although the economic crisis has produced market contraction and sometimes unfair competition, the scope of action enjoyed by private companies continues to increase and sometimes compete in areas formerly the preserve of public sector forces of law and order. Transporting prisoners, security at airport and so-called critical infrastructure and armed private security guards on merchant ships are all areas where these private security companies are operating. At a national level within the EU, the sector is regulated in a way that is far from a homogenous. This situation could be about to change, however, if the European Commission proposes a system for common standards albeit limited, initially, to just a few niche sectors.
Many services in the security arena, previously provided by the state, are now operated by private companies. This is not a recent development but it has really taken off over the last four or five years, following a common pattern in all the different countries. In this context, should we therefore be talking about the privatisation of security? No, according to the Spanish minister for home affairs, Jorge Fernandez Diaz, speaking at the fourth European summit on private security services, organised in Madrid on Thursday 14 and Friday 15 March by the European association representing the sector, CoESS, and its Spanish equivalent, Aproser. This was also repeated by the others speaking at the conference who preferred to use the term “complementarity”. Clearly, the role of public forces is gradually becoming more restricted but this is in order to allow them to focus more on their “key functions”, while tightening public budgets, explained the Spanish minister.
A few figures were presented during the summit in a report and a white paper (The socio-economic added value of private security services in Europe). The former was drafted by GFK Consulting and the latter by Professor Marc Cools, a criminologist at the Université Libre in Brussels. These documents provide a glimpse of the increasing scale of this industry. There are currently more than 2.1 million employees working in 34 European countries, working for around 52,300 companies. Total turnover recently is €35 billion, 0.23% of European GDP. With annual growth of 14% since 2005, it no longer comes as a surprise that there are more security guards per capita (1/290) than police officers (1/356).
The debate has now been opened to establish what exactly are the “key functions” of the police and judicial system, with the corollary objective of determining what are the more “representative” functions that could be transferred to the private security companies. The latter have already shifted from an exclusively security model, such as providing security guards, to more integrated and more complex services (the integration of new technologies, risk analysis and management), explained Willem van de Ven, from the British G4S group.
This involves developing more specialised services, involving, for example, increasing critical infrastructure protection, namely that involving the energy sector, the petrochemical industries and telecommunications networks and road transport. Within the EU, it is the member states that identify these on a confidential basis.
The “critical” nature of this infrastructure, however, could at the same time be transnational. This is why a directive from the Council of the EU (2008/114/EC) is calling on member states to create a “critical European infrastructure” register for the energy and transport sectors. “This didn't work very well,” admitted Olivier Luyckx, however, from the Commission's DG Justice and Home Affairs. 14 sites were identified by member states, 11 of them by Slovakia. Following this failure, the Commission will be proposing a political document “in the next few weeks” which will be reviewing the EU approach, he affirmed, moving from a sectoral view to one which attempts to identify critical networks and platforms at a European level.
Mr Carmichael and Marc Pissens, the president of the CoESS, said that the Commission should go further by setting out criteria for identifying critical infrastructure and informing private security companies of the minimum requirements needed for making them secure. This is a possibility that Luyckx did not rule out. He also referred to the possibility of there being a European initiative to introduce standards in the recruitment, screening and personnel training processes of those working with a view to making such sites and networks secure.
This example reveals that the current problems being experienced by these companies is the total lack of harmonised rules. Van de Ven deplored the fact that they did not know how to take things to a European level. There are also political restrictions. The public authorities are not exactly keen on allowing foreign companies to take charge of ensuring the security of their critical infrastructure, such as nuclear plants, Professor Cools told EUROPE. He also stressed that, although the Commission had just proposed standards for making these infrastructure sites secure, as well as common standards for employing armed private security guards on merchant ships (see EUROPE 10772), this would also open a breach for regulation ofthe whole private security sector. This is what market operators are very keen to see resolved because it would create an opportunity for them to extend their activities. (JK/transl.fl)