1 / 25

CIVILIAN SECRETARIAT FOR POLICE

PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON PRIVATE SECURITY 6 TH NOVEMBER 2012. CIVILIAN SECRETARIAT FOR POLICE. INTRODUCTION.

ciel
Download Presentation

CIVILIAN SECRETARIAT FOR POLICE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON PRIVATE SECURITY 6TH NOVEMBER 2012 CIVILIAN SECRETARIAT FOR POLICE

  2. INTRODUCTION • According to the annual report (2010/11) of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) there were 9 364 private security businesses registered as security service providers (which is an increase of over 500 companies compared to the number of companies registered for the previous financial year). • The number of private security guards registered was 2, 054 947. It is also estimated that of the guards registered only 427 174 are active within the industry (The number of public police officers employed in the South African Police Service during this same period was 153 000) • The growth of the private security industry is not unique to South Africa and internationally the private security industry has grown significantly over the last two decades.

  3. INTRODUCTION • The growth of the South African private security industry has out stripped other countries and as a percentage of our GDP South Africa, has the largest private security industry in the World. • According to the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) it is estimated that between 15 000 and 20 000 new members join the private security industry each month. • However not all companies and private security guards register with PSIRA as required by law. Many companies and security guards attempt to operate under the radar and unlawfully.

  4. INTRODUCTION • Historically the private security industry was broken down into specific areas or categories of security services (such as guarding, armed response, private investigations etc). However over the last decade the industry has diversified and many companies are now providing a wide range of services cutting across the different categories. The result of this diversification has also been that the lines between private security, private intelligence and private military have become vague and blurred. • The South African private security industry is increasing performing functions which used to be the sole preserve of the police. This has, and will continue to have a serious influence on the functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole.

  5. INTRODUCTION • While it is true that private security does and can fill certain vacuums, private security can never replace the public police. They have very different objectives: • Public police aims to protect the public while private security has a profit motive and has as its main objective the protection of its client’s interests. The interests of private clients and those of the state and public are not always the same.   • The police have special powers that are exercised in the context of public accountability. Private security companies have no special powers beyond those of citizens or those delegated to them by owner of private or “public-private” property. Private security guards do not have the same legal powers as police officers. Security guards, however, do exercise discretion over criminal matters that occur on the property of their clients. 

  6. INDUSTRY INTERNATIONALLY • Private security is profit driven which often favor the wealthy. Those who can afford it employ private security companies, and those who cannot, rely solely on public policing. • Private security shifts the responsibility for social control and order away from the state. • Over the last decade police have come under intense scrutiny by the state and the public. This has not been the case with the private security industry whose accountability is market driven. • Because the private security industry is less constrained by statutory limitations, it is more likely to infringe the rights of the people it polices than the public police.

  7. CRIMINALITY • Criminal elements have been able to infiltrate the private security industry and then use their involvement in security companies to both hide and conduct criminal activities. The South African Police have on numerous occasions raised problems regarding the involvement of security service providers in criminal acts which include; • Using their position as security service providers to supply criminals with intelligence or information that can be used in criminal acts. • The involvement of security service providers in the actual perpetration of criminal acts.

  8. CRIMINALITY • The involvement of security service providers in using or hiring out weapons, to which they have access, for criminal purposes. • The involvement of security service providers in criminal actions which benefit the people who contract their services. • The involvement of security service providers in criminal acts aimed at undermining a competing company with the view of acquiring a tender or contract. • The supplying of fraudulent training or registration certificates to people wishing to illegally enter the private security trade. • The involvement of security service providers in carrying out hits or assassinations on behalf of other people, such as taxi bosses.

  9. UN COMMISSION ON CRIME PREVENTION & RESOLUTION 21/2 The UN Resolution 21/1 of April 2009: • Emphasizingthat States have primary responsibility for public order, safety and security, bearing in mind that the work of civilian private security services may be highly sensitive and may require specific supervision and oversight by Governments,   • Emphasizingthat providers of civilian private security services are present in some States and that their services, while primarily preventive in nature, may complement those provided by the criminal justice system and, in some countries, are often supportive of public safety, • Mindfulof the fact that civilian private security services may create challenges for the criminal justice system in some countries, • Taking note of that the civilian private security services: their oversight and their role in and contribution to crime prevention and community safety,  • Noting also the importance of effective oversight of civilian private security services by competent State authorities to ensure that they are not compromised or misused by criminal elements, including organized criminal groups, • Takes note of the draft preliminary recommendations of the Expert Group on Civilian Private Security Services entitled “Abu Dhabi draft preliminary recommendations • Requeststhe United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to prepare a report that summarizes and provides a synthesis of the responses of Member States, 11/06/2012

  10. PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE CPCJ ABU DHABI REPORT • The United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice met in Abu Dhabi in May 2010 and made a series of recommendation regarding Civilian Oversight and monitoring of the Private Security Industry: • States may consider defining civilian private security services. While there is currently no commonly accepted definition of civilian private security services, the following criteria are considered indicative of such services: • Civilian private security services provide security-related services with the overall objective of protecting or securing people, goods, sites, locations, events, processes and information from predominantly crime-related risks. Services with expressly or implicitly offensive mandates are not included in the category of civilian private security services; • Civilian private security services are legal entities or individuals supplying services for payment; • Civilian private security services are private entities or individuals, not public entities. • Services provided by civilian private security services may be preventive, may support public law enforcement agencies and, where permitted, may be complementary to public law enforcement agencies.

  11. PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE CPCJ ABU DHABI REPORT • It should be noted that private security companies providing protection services on commercial ships may meet the above-mentioned criteria of civilian private security services, provided their primary function is protective, not offensive. • States may consider reviewing, evaluating and revising existing regulation on civilian private security services and, where no regulation exists, enacting specific comprehensive legislation for the regulation of civilian private security services that: • Defines civilian private security services; • Defines the activities and responsibilities of civilian private security services and efficiently provides for the control of installations, arms, ammunition and related equipment and to ensure that this information is made available to the competent authorities; • Defines any associated powers of providers and personnel of civilian private security services; • Defines activities that providers and personnel of civilian private security services are prohibited from undertaking, • Ensures that effective regulating mechanisms or bodies are established to oversee the conduct of civilian private security services within national borders, including the oversight of certification and training; • Includes the regular review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the regulations and the introduction of reforms to address any weaknesses; • Includes a code of conduct for personnel of civilian private security services.

  12. PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE CPCJ ABU DHABI REPORT • States may also consider establishing standards of operations for civilian private security service providers that: • Set the minimum standards of eligibility for those who provide civilian private security services, • Set the minimum standards for all spheres of operations and administration of civilian private security service providers; • Ensure compliance among civilian private security service providers with all national laws and regulations, • Provide for appropriate licensing regulations for civilian private security services • States may further consider ensuring appropriate working conditions conducive to maximizing the effectiveness of personnel of civilian private security services that should include, ensuring civilian private security services provide employees with a working and training environment; • Ensure Appropriate Anti Corruption mechanisms cover Civilian private Security • Ensure that appropriate regulations exist in States where law enforcement personnel are permitted to work as personnel for civilian private security services when off duty. • Without prejudice to the normal criminal justice system procedures, States may consider subjecting civilian private security services and their personnel to procedures relating to the receipt and investigation of complaints against them • States may also consider developing standards on the provision of civilian private security services and encouraging the development of codes of conduct by private industry.

  13. PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE CPCJ ABU DHABI REPORT • States may consider the following principles as underpinning the contribution of civilian private security services to crime prevention and community safety: • All levels of government should play a lead role in the development of crime prevention programmes and in enhancing community safety; • Civilian private security services should have an important complementary role in crime prevention and community safety; • Civilian private security services should be subject to Government regulation and programmes that improve standards to enhance the contribution of such services to crime prevention and community safety • Cooperation should recognize the central role of Governments in the regulation of civilian private security services and be in line with the Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime and other United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice • In general, civilian private security services have a duty to convey information to law enforcement authorities • States may determine how best to share information, including rules concerning the ethical and lawful use of information in any code of conduct for civilian private security service operators.

  14. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON OWNERSHIP • Prior to 1998, there was very little foreign ownership of private security companies who were operating in the South African market. However since 1998 this situation has changed dramatically and during 2000 alone foreign companies had invested more than R1.7 billion buying private security companies in South Africa. • There is no accurate database on foreign ownership of private security companies in South Africa. • Foreign involvement in the private security industry in South Africa is not limited to foreign ownership and in addition to companies being owned by foreigners legislation does not completely outlaw foreigners from registering as guards within the industry.

  15. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON OWNERSHIP • Africa and other developing countries have become major targets of foreign owned security companies. This is because wages are relatively low and profits are much higher than can be accrued in Europe and North America. • In addition, this expansion assists some of these developed countries foreign policy agenda, not only because these countries can contract out certain of their obligations, but also because the presence of such security companies can further their influence and agendas.

  16. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON OWNERSHIP • A desk top review of legislation and prescripts pertaining to foreign involvement in the private security industry in a number of different countries was undertaken. This review looked at legislation and prescripts of fourteen countries (14) countries: • France: French legislation on private security companies makes a clear distinction between domestic private security companies operating within France and French companies operating outside France. With regard to companies allowed to provide private security services within France, legislation passed in 2003 (Loi no 2003-239 du 18 mars 2003 pour la securite interieure) stipulates that only companies and persons who hold French or European member State nationality may provide domestic security services.In contrast, the French legal system allows French security companies to operate internationally and such operations are actively promoted as part of French foreign policy agendas. • Lithuania:Domestic provision of private security is governed by the Law on the Security of Persons and Property of 2004. This law regulates the operation of foreign security companies in Lithuania. The law provides that the Minister of Interior can issue a license to foreign owned security companies to operate in Lithuania for a three year period. However, this provision is only open to contractors who have a valid license to operate a security company that is issued by a member country of the European Union. 11/06/2012

  17. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON OWNERSHIP • Spain:Spanish domestic private security service providers are regulated by the Law on Private Security 23/1992 and are required to be registered with the Ministry of Interior. The law initially provided a license being issued to a non Spanish national. However by decree (Royal Decree Law 2/1999) the law was expanded to allow for companies and directors who are residents of member States of the European Union to also operate security companies in Spain. • Portugal : There is no specific legislation governing private security companies and legislation is contained in other aspects of domestic laws. However, to operate as a security service provider, one must have a license or permit issued by the Minister of Interior. To qualify for such a license one must be a resident of an EU member State • Italy: Private security companies are regulated under Article 134 LPS and where a license may only be issued to an Italian person, individual or company and if that person loses citizenship, the license is immediately revoked. • Belgium: A professional license is required to operate a private security company. The license is valid for 5 years. The license is issued by the Minister of Interior. All staff and managers of private security companies must be a national of one of the EU member States. • Norway: To operate a private security company, a license must be issued by the Police Authority of that district (under the Private Security Guards Act). One of the requirements for licensing is that the person or company directors are citizens of a European Economic Area.

  18. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON OWNERSHIP • Britain: The British private security companies domestically are regulated by the Private Security Industry Act of 2001. The Act does not make specific reference as to who may operate a private security company in the United Kingdom. However the legislation provides, under section 7 of the Act, for the Secretary of State to provide criteria for the conditions of registration of companies. These criteria can be changed and altered at any point by the Secretary of State. Such criteria is not readily available through desk top research. However, based on discussions with Home Office officials during the State Visit to the UK in 2010, UK officials stated that the United Kingdom does approve of persons outside the EU operating as security service providers within its borders. It is not clear, however, what the situation is regarding UK allies eg the United States companies operating in the United Kingdom. It also needs to be noted that the United Kingdom (together with the United States) are one of the biggest role players internationally with regard to private security operators operating in other countries. There is a strong lobby from the United Kingdom not to outlaw foreign ownership of private security companies in other countries. • USA: In the United States of America, attempts to establish far reaching national legislation have been blocked on a number of occasions by strong lobby groups (comprising of security companies). Legislation is therefore left to different federal states to implement. Most states prohibit the registration of security companies and operators that are not US citizens (eg Virginia and New England).

  19. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON OWNERSHIP • Brazil: Private security companies in Brazil are governed by Law 7, 102. Article 16. This legislation sets out the criteria for providing private security services. One aspect of this criteria is that the private security operators must be Brazilian nationals. • Russia: Russian private security is regulated by Federal Law No 2487-1 of 1992, which was subsequently amended in 2010. Under this law, all private security operators must possess valid licenses. One of the criteria for possession of such a license is that the person be a citizen of Russia. • China: In January 2010, the Ministry of State Security passed a new law allowing Chinese companies to offer private security services (previously such operations were banned). However the industry remains firmly off limits to foreign firms. • Pakistan: Recent moves by Pakistan to outlaw foreign influence involvement and ownership of (and in) the local private security industry has resulted in serious pressure being exerted on the Pakistan Government to reconsider its position. • Canada : The regulation of private security companies is handled at a federal level, with different states developing their own legislation. Ten provinces, and one of the three territories, have their own legislation and regulations governing the industry. These laws and regulations set the framework and conditions governing the provision of services in the field of investigation, guarding, protection of persons, property or premises, transport of valuable goods, security consulting, electronic security systems, and locksmith work.

  20. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON OWNERSHIP • These provincial (and territorial) regimes establish licensing regimes for individuals and business entities providing those services. • Alberta: Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, R.S.A. 2000, British-Columbia: Security Services Act, SBC 2007. • Manitoba: Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, C.C.S.M., • New-Brunswick: Private Investigators and Security Services Act, R.S.N.B. 197. • Newfoundland and Labrador: Private Investigation and Security Services Act, R.S.N.L. 1990 • Nova-Scotia: Private Investigators and Private Guards Act, R.S.N.S. 1989. • Ontario: Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005, S.O. 2005. • Prince Edward Island: Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988 • Québec: Private Security Act, R.S.Q., c. S-3.5, An Act respecting detective or security agencies, R.S.Q. • Saskatchewan: Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, 1997, S.S. 1997. In most states, one of the requirements for operating as a private security officer has been that a person needed to be a Canadian citizen. However, in 2010 some states in Canada (in particular British Columbia) initiated amendments which allows for “normal” residents of Canada to become guards. This allows foreigners with work visa permits to enter the industry

  21. CRIME PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP The UN recognises four key aspects regarding Private Security and Crime Prevention: • The State Authorities have the primary responsibility for public order, safety and security • Civilian Private Security may create challenges for the CJS in some countries • The PS industry can contribute to crime prevention and community safety • Oversight of the PS Industry is crucial • Information can be shared but this must be defined • There is a need for more research on this area

  22. CRIME PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP • Some people have argued that private security and the police are “two sides of the same coin” and that private security has an important role to play in filling vacuums that may exist in policing: • While it is true that private security does and can fill certain vacuums, private security can never replace the public police. They have very different objectives: • Public police aims to protect the public while private security has a profit motive and has as its main objective the protection of its client’s interests. • The interests of private clients and those of the state and public are not always the same. • There are different accountabilities. Private security businesses are accountable to the market and their clients. The police are accountable to local, provincial and national government and therefore, the electorate and the public at large.

  23. CRIME PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP • Crime Prevention Partnerships need to acknowledge both what the UN is saying as well as the different motives for policing between Public and Private Security. • Although, the issue of partnerships between private security and public policing agencies has been debated since the late 1980s there is no clear blue print that exists internationally. (hence the UN call for more detailed research in this area). • In South Africa the NCPS called for the need for partnerships in crime prevention and specific reference was made to private security. • There have been sporadic partnerships since the 1990s between police and PS but little documentation and review of these partnerships and their benefits

  24. CRIME PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP • In 2009/10 and 2011 specific partnerships were established in the Honeydew area and in some parts of the Eastern Cape. However despite these partnerships being in existence for some time there is no definitive report that has been agreed to by both SAPS and the PS operators on exactly what the results and benefits of these projects were: • Clearly there is a need for more detailed research on this area but this must be guided by certain key principals: • Guidelines need to be developed • Partnerships should be driven and determined by the police • Partnerships must benefit the entire community and be inclusive • Guidelines need to be developed for sharing of information (good example CIT Forum) • Partnerships should not extend powers of PS • Partnerships must be properly documented reviewed and accessed

  25. THANK YOU ENKOSI DANKIE

More Related