There is a great disparity in the regulation of private security companies (PSCs) in Europe. This paper, published by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, analyses existing PSC regulation by member states of the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CoE) and recommends improvements to the current legal framework. Although PSCs contribute needed security services, the lack of minimum industry standards poses risks to the protection of human rights.
PSCs are defined as commercial entities that provide security services for governmental and private clients. They protect ports, airports, military and nuclear facilities, shopping and business centres, guard transport of valuables and provide private detective and intelligence services. PSCs increasingly provide security in areas previously considered the domain of public police. This study focuses on PSCs based and operating in CoE member states that provide non-public police functions.
Regulatory legislation is necessary to make PSCs accountable to government and the public, control abusive and corrupt conduct of some PSCs and improve the professionalism of the private security industry.
No harmonisation of PSC legislation has yet taken place at the European level. However, the European Commission has questioned PSC practices; the European Court of Justice has a standing on private security industry matters. CoE conventions discuss issues relevant to PSCs, including human rights and freedoms, firearms possession, search and seizure, crime prevention and public employee codes of conduct.
PSC regulation at the national level varies greatly on the following issues:
- EU states address the conflict of interest issue of PSC links with public police in different ways. Some ban current police from PSC employment; others require retired police to wait a number of years before being hired by PSCs.
- States oversee and hold PSCs accountable through law enforcement agencies, national ministries or regulatory commissions. Oversight can consist of “paper” control, formal PSC reports and/or inspection visits. Different sanctions are applied. South-eastern Europe (SEE) states lack coherent regulatory frameworks.
- While licensing systems are in place, licensing loopholes exist in SEE states. Hiring and training criteria are not standardised.
- Some states prohibit PSC use of firearms; others permit it. Depending on the country’s regulatory framework, PSCs have varying powers to conduct search and seizure of individuals and property.
- At the European level, a general industry self-regulation code of conduct has been created. At the national level, PSC self-regulation may take place at the individual or agency level. A minority of PSCs have a code of conduct.
Europe should establish a binding PSC legal/regulatory framework that includes clear standards and a national regulator. Other recommendations include:
- harmonise PSC regulation in terms of human rights protection and industry professionalism;
- include basic hiring requirements of minimum age, criminal record checks and professional and personal references. Standardise pre-assignment training, certification requirements and in-service training;
- delineate PSC use of search and seizure, necessary force and firearms;
- seek consensus on which public police functions should be contracted out to PSCs;
- address the accountability of transnational PSCs; and
- encourage PSC self-regulation and advocate that PSCs with a minimum number of employees should be required to adopt a code of conduct.
