Fic rEcommEndationS - Eurobank EFG

PRIVATE SECURITY
INDUSTRY
WHitE BooK BaLancE ScorE card
cUrrEnt SitUation
Recommendations:
Continue preparing the draft of the legal framework for the introduction
of the Law on Private Security, where the Ministry of Interior should play
an active role, as the responsible entity; the mixed working group should
include other associations that can contribute to the adoption of a
Law which will be fully harmonized with European models of legislation,
adjusted to local specific features
National standards are not to be imposed on security companies who
do not recognize their validity; the market and enterprises must not be
misled that those standards are mandatory, especially when it comes to
tender procedures where the emphasis should be on bidders proving
the legality of their business.
Licensing of the companies should be handled by the Government (Ministry
of Interior) or a government agency and not by any other organization/association
since it would lead to monopolization of this sector
and conflict of Interests.
The Government should encourage close cooperation between security
sector stakeholders (both Public and Private sectors), while consulting
large private security investors who can present their experiences and
best practices from other EU countries where they operate, in order to
create a stimulating environment for further investments.
Serbia’s private security sector employs over 30,000 people
and has over 150 active security companies, but even today
Serbia is the only country in the region and in Europe without
a specific law on private security for decades.
The lack of legislation in the private security sector is causing
serious problems in the functioning of this market, making
it an active source of corruption. The Government is not licensing
security companies – without security industry criteria
in place, anyone can set up and run a security company;
also, there is no licensing of security officers – no official
pre-employment screening and vetting; most of the companies
have no insurance coverage for professional liability; no
mandatory training and education programmes, etc.
Government is one of the biggest users of private security
services; yet, it holds a contradictory position with regard
to public procurement of security services for the purposes
of state authorities or public enterprises. Namely, the Gov-
Introduced
in the WB:
Significant
progress
Certain
progress
2009 √
No
progress
2010 √
2009 √
2009 √
ernment is highly interested in having enterprises and citizens
duly pay taxes and social contributions and its policy
thereon is rigorous. However, when it comes to the abovementioned
public procurement of security services, the
most common criterion is the lowest bid, and in most cases
the procuring entity (the Government or a public enterprise)
does not pay attention to whether the selected bidder has
paid all due taxes and contributions, whether its employees
are paid regularly and what their labour status is, etc.
In this manner, accepting “the most advantageous” bid
based on the lowest price actually has negative consequences
because the net effects are less favourable for the
Government (the alleged savings gained by selecting ”the
most advantageous” bidder are lower than the amount of
revenues that the Government could collect if it were to
regularly collect all taxes to which the bidder is subject under
the law).
This issue deserves heightened attention by the state authorities
themselves, but also by the Association of Private
140 top �