G4S responds to MPs' questions - but is it satisfactory?
[26 November 2014] - On 27 October 2014, members of the UK Parliament wrote to the CEO of G4S (the Company), Mr. Ashley Almanza, requesting full disclosure of the underlying documents used to prepare a summary of an independent review (Review) published on the Company’s web site. The Review dealt with, inter alia, the Company’s contract with the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) and found that there were no moral or legal issues of concern arising out of this commercial relationship.
Whilst acknowledging that the Company is under no legal obligation to publish the full Review, MPs noted that full disclosure would be consistent with the Company’s stated aim of “transparency and accessibility” (UK MPs write to the CEO of G4S requesting full disclosure). Factors that suggest the Review published on the Company’s web site maybe incomplete, include the following:
- The Review is described by its authors as a “summary”;
- The Company’s website states that the authors of the Review “agreed to publish the key findings in the interests of transparency and accessibility”, suggesting that non-key findings were also made; and
- Although one of the authors of the Review was specifically briefed on the question of the unlawful detention of Palestinians in IPS facilities located inside Israel in violation of Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (the Convention), this issue was omitted from the published Review.
On 30 October 2014, the Company responded to the MPs letter through its Group Communications Director, Ms. Debbie Walker. In its response, the Company states that:
“The documents published on our web site are the full and unedited findings from the [R]eview. Those findings reflect the conclusions and the opinions of the authors after they conducted a very thorough review of G4S operations in the region. Other information that the authors either had access to or may have produced in the course of their work contains personal, commercially or legally confidential information and the authors have confirmed that respecting the confidentiality of that information has not in any way impaired their work or their findings.”
The response from the Company sheds no additional light on why the published Review is described as a “summary” by the authors or why the Review fails to address the serious allegation relating to unlawful detention in breach of the Convention in circumstances where this specific issue was the subject of a briefing. Rather than promoting “the interests of transparency and accessibility”, the Company’s response raises more questions than it answers.
Links
- Further examination of G4S under OECD guidelines (4 June 2014)
- Two academics absolve G4S of moral and legal responsibility (6 June 2014)
- G4S announcement to continue involvement with unlawful detention for three years may amount to aggravating circumstance (9 June 2014)
