· G4S war zuletzt auch schon als Dienstleister für das Burgtheater Auslöser heftiger Debatten.·
Aufregung um das Anhaltezentrum Vordernberg (Steiermark), das die nächsten 15 Jahre vom Privatunternehmen G4S geführt werden soll. Damit werden Asylsuchende erstmals von externen Dienstleistern betreut.
„Mitte September wurde vom Innenministerium ein 15 Jahre gültiger Outsourcing-Vertrag mit dem global agierenden privaten Sicherheitsunternehmen G4S (Group 4 Securicor) abgeschlossen. Das Unternehmen wird laut eigenen Aussagen etwa 100 Angestellte im Schubhaftzentrum Vordernberg beschäftigen die in den Bereichen Sicherheit, Reinigung, Medizinische Versorgung und weiteren Infrastrukturabteilungen tätig sein werden. In der Praxis bedeutet dies, dass das Unternehmen das Zentrum leiten wird.
Dies ist das erste Mal, dass der Österreichische Staat Gefängnisinfrastruktur auf diese Weise und in diesem Maßstab auslagert. Dass dieser Schritt mit der neuen Anlage in Vordernberg gesetzt wird, könnte ein Zeichen dafür sein, dass Österreich auch in Zukunft vermehrt versuchen wird Teile der Abschiebemaschinerie an private Unternehmen auszulagern.
In England betreibt G4S bereits seit mehreren Jahren Abschiebegefängnisse („Immigration Removal Centres“). Einen traurigen Tiefpunkt dieser Tätigkeit bildete die Ermordung von Jimmy Mubenga, der 2010 während seiner Abschiebung von drei G4S Angestellten so lange mit atembehindernden Maßnahmen maltretiert worden war, bis er erstickte.“(Stanislaus B. Ruch., 16.10.2013)
Format am 17.10.2013: „Die Services von Sicherheitsdienstleister G4S sind im Sommer in England in den Medien diskutiert worden: Bei der Deportation von Jimmy Mubenga im Oktober 2010 von England nach Angola ist dieser während der Bewachung durch drei G4S-Mitarbeiter an Bord des Flugzeuges gestorben. Laut einem Bericht des Guardian gibt es harsche Kritik an der Vorgehensweise der Behörden und der Privatdienstleister. G4S hatte nach diesem Todesfall den Auftrag verloren. (…) Das Unternehmen G4S ist erst vor wenigen Tagen in anderer Funktion ins Rampenlicht der österreichischen Öffentlichkeit getreten: Bei einer Veranstaltung im Burgtheater hatte ein dort beschäftigter Billeteur auf die Tatsache hingewiesen, dass das Personal der Bühne an eben diese Firma ausgelagert sei(…) Auch im Zusammenhang mit Ernst Strasser war G4S (vormals Group4) vor einigen Jahren in den Medien gewesen: Der ehemalige Innenminister war 2011 als Aufsichtsrat des Unternehmens im Zuge der Korruptionsvorwürfe gegen ihn zurückgetreten.“ (http://www.format.at/articles/1342/930/368017/privater-sicherheitsdienst-g4s-schubhaft-zentrum)
Aus der Rede des Billeteurs am Wiener Burgtheater: „Ich träume von einem Burgtheater, dass sich gegen das Unternehmen G4S positioniert. Ich träume von einem Theater, das sich gegen die Politik stellt, welche Outsourcing, Privatisierung und damit wachsende Ungerechtigkeit in unserer Gesellschaft fördert.
Ich träume von einem Theater, das sich gegen die Abschiebung von Menschen wendet, die in anderen Teilen der Welt unterbezahlt und in Elend die Produkte unseres Wohlstands herstellen.“ ( http://www.nachtkritik.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8629:von-welchem-theater-traeumen-wir-die-protestrede-des-billeteurs-zum-jubilaeumskongress-125-jahre-wiener-burgtheater-an-der-ringstrasse&catid=53:portraet-a-profil&Itemid=83 )
Weitere Links: http://no-racism.net/article/4552/
http://www.g4s.co.at/de-AT/Vordernberg/
———————————————
2013/10/17 Horde Rosa Elefant_innen <horde_rosa_elefanten@riseup.net>
Some info on G4S:
Check out http://notog4s.blogspot.co.uk/
and there’s also a mailing list about G4S which you can join: https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/stop-g4s (but be aware, there are a lot of antisemites on this list…)
—————————————————————————————————————————
„G4S lost its contract to deport refused migrants from the UK in September 2011 after 773 complaints of abuse and the death of Jimmy Mubenga, an asylum seeker in its care.“
http://resistprivatisingstopserco.wordpress.com/who-are-serco-g4s-clearel/
More info on Jimmy Mubenga: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/09/jimmy-mubenga-unlawfully-killed-inquest-jury
„Testimony seen by the Observer and now with police, „Tanja“, a 23-year-old Roma woman released from Yarl’s Wood last March, describes having had sexual contact with three male guards. Tanja – not her real name – said attempts were made to deport her within days of her informing Yarl’s Wood’s management of the incidents. She also claims one security guard had inappropriate relations with at least four women.“
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/14/detainees-yarls-wood-sexual-abuse
(Yarl’s Wood is run by Serco, which is another private security company that cooperates with G4S at deportations)
—————————————————————————————————————————
Prison inspector publishes deportation 'concerns' ahead of Pakistan flight
tonight
The Chief Inspector of Prisons published today a report raising “a number
of concerns about the overseas escorts” employed by the Home Office for
deportation flights. The stark warning comes as 30 detainees at Yarl's
Wood are on hunger-strike in protest at a mass deportation to Pakistan
this evening. Supporters from the 'Movement for Justice' (MFJ) are
gathering outside the Home Office this afternoon, arguing that “five of
the eight women facing deportation to Pakistan tonight have experienced or
witnessed sexual harassment from male officers in Yarl's Wood. The attempt
to deport the witnesses is part of the Home Office's desperate attempts to
cover up the scandal”.
The Inspection took place during the summer at Brook House, an Immigration
Removal Centre (IRC) outside Gatwick Airport run by G4S. The overseas
escorts are provided by Tascor, another private security company who will
be taking the Pakistani women from Yarl's Wood to an undisclosed airport
tonight. In a statement that appears to corroborate the MFJ's concerns,
the prison inspector said “If allegations of assault were made by a
detainee during removal, which were supported by medical evidence, the
Home Office did not delay removal pending a police investigation”. The
inspection team “also saw physical and verbal intimidation of a detainee”,
describing how “an escort, taller and bigger than him, came close to him
and said that if he had to be placed in handcuffs he would need to explain
to the receiving authorities why he did not want to return to their
country, implying that he would experience rough treatment”.
The Inspector also said “the practice of taking detainees to the airport
as standbys continued and it remained inhumane and unacceptable”, a
reference to the practice of 'reserves' which the Home Affairs Select
Committee has called to be stopped.
—————————————————————————————————————————
Report on an Unannounced Inspection of Brook House IRC
Inspection 28 May – 7 June 2013 by HMCIP, report compiled July 2013,
published 01/10/13
Brook House operated by G4S, holds up to 448 adult male detainees who
are subject to immigration control. There had been considerable
changes to the population since its last inspection in 2011. The
throughput of detainees had increased significantly with the average
length of stay down to about a month. There were also far fewer
ex-prisoners who now comprised only a minority within the population.
Brook House remained a safe place, but this assessment was finely
balanced. The increased throughput of detainees was arguably Brook
House’s greatest challenge.
Inspectors were concerned to find that:
– long waits for legal advice and an overwhelmed on-site Home Office
contact management team meant detainees were unable to get
information or help with their cases;
– detainees were too often subject to needless night-time transfers,
and arrangements to receive new detainees were slow and poor;
– there was considerable frustration among detainees which was
reflected in high levels of self-harm;
[There were 52 Suicide attempts, January through June 2013 and 251
detainees put on Self-Harm at risk in the same period, these figures
were the highest for the detentions estate and the worst ever
recorded.]
– although detainees could be out of their rooms for extended
periods, they were locked up too early at night;
– preparation for removal or release was still not good enough and
although the centre had an excellent welfare officer, reliance on one
individual was too great;
– there was a failure to assess the needs of individuals on arrival
and a lack of a systematic preparation before someone was discharged;
and
– some behaviour by escort contractors who removed individuals on
charter flights was heavy-handed and disproportionate.
– unacceptable practice of using ’standbys‘ for charter removals continued
– There were also far fewer ex-prisoners. They now comprised only a
small minority within the population, as most former prisoner
detainees were held inappropriately in prisons.
– Inspectors made 103 recommendations
Main recommendation To the Home Office
5.1 All casework should be progressed promptly. The Home Office
should more actively engage with detainees held for long periods and
take proactive action where detainees cannot be removed because of
their failure to comply with re-documentation, either prosecuting
them or releasing them if there is no realistic prospect of removal.
(S35)
Main recommendation To the Home Office and centre manager
5.2 A sufficient and widely advertised welfare and resettlement
service should be delivered seven days a week, providing systematic
assessment and support for detainees. (S36)
Main recommendation To the Home Office and escort contractor
5.3 Overseas escorts in the discharge area should remain polite,
professional and respectful to detainees at all times. They should
not crowd or otherwise intimidate detainees, and physical compulsion
should not be used in secure areas unless justified by an individual
assessment of risk. (S37)
Introduction from the report
Brook House is an immigration removal centre located near Gatwick
airport and operated by G4S. Holding only adult male detainees, it
has just under 450 available places. At this unannounced inspection
we found that there had been considerable changes to the population
since we last visited. The throughput of detainees had increased
significantly with the average length of stay down to about a month.
There were also far fewer ex-prisoners. They now comprised only a
small minority within the population, as most former prisoner
detainees were held inappropriately in prisons.
Brook House remained a safe place but our assessment was finely
balanced. The increased throughput of detainees was arguably the
institution’s greatest challenge. Detainees were too often subject to
needless night-time transfers, and arrangements to receive and induct
new detainees were slow and poor. Many indicators were encouraging,
not least our survey finding that suggested most detainees felt safe.
Levels of violence were low, use of force was managed well and the
use of separation had reduced significantly. However, there was
considerable frustration among detainees, which was reflected in high
levels of self-harm. A significant impediment to the well-being of
detainees was their inability to get information on or help with
their immigration cases. This was a result of long waits for legal
advice and an overwhelmed on-site Home Office contact management team.
The imposing prison-like structure and character of the centre was a
new experience for the 95% of detainees who were not former
prisoners, but Brook House remained a respectful institution overall.
Relationships between staff and detainees were generally good and,
despite some gaps, equality and diversity were reasonably well
promoted. The centre was clean, although many rooms needed
redecoration. Complaints were normally dealt with appropriately,
although replies took too long and some detainees had been asked
inappropriately to withdraw complaints. Food was the source of much
complaint. The provision of health care was good.
In our survey, about half of detainees said they had enough to do in
the centre, more than at the last inspection. About a third of
detainees‘ accessed work or education, with paid work places
increasing by about a third since we last inspected. However, not all
detainees could apply for work and some restrictions were
inappropriate. Although detainees could be out of their rooms for
extended periods, they were locked up too early at night, and it was
not clear why they had to be locked up at all.
Preparation for removal or release was still not good enough. The
centre had an excellent welfare officer but reliance on this one
individual was too great. The failure to assess the needs of
individuals properly on arrival was replicated by a lack of a
systematic preparation pre-discharge. There was some useful input
from the Gatwick Detainee Welfare Group, and visits arrangements and
access to telephones was reasonably good, but there were some
needless obstructions to useful legal websites, information from home
countries and social media that could have eased frustrations. We
were particularly concerned to observe heavy-handed and
disproportionate behaviour by escort contractors charged with
removing individuals on charter flights.
Brook House held too many detainees who were not sufficiently well
informed by the Home Office, and who were experiencing considerable
frustration and confusion as a result. However, overall this is a
reasonable report, and the improvements we observed at our last
inspection had been sustained and in some cases built upon.
Nick Hardwick July 2013
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
—————————————————————————————————————————
Report on an Unannounced Inspection of HMP Oakwood
Inspection by HMCIP, 10-21 June 2013, report compiled July 2013, published
08/10/13
HMP Oakwood urgently needed to improve and there were real risks if matters
were allowed to drift, said Nick Hardwick, Chief Inspector of Prisons,
publishing the report of an unannounced inspection of the training prison
near Wolverhampton. Oakwood is a new training prison that opened in April
2012 under the management of G4S. It can hold more than 1,600 prisoners.
This report records the prison's first independent inspection and it is a
concerning report. The prison had many advantages in terms of its design and
facilities but there was a palpable level of frustration among prisoners at
their inability to get even basic issues addressed. The inexperience of
staff was everywhere evident and systems to support routine services were
creaky, if they existed at all. The quality of the environment and
accommodation mitigated against some of the frustrations and without this
risks could have been much greater. Against all four healthy prison tests:
safety, respect, activity and resettlement, the outcomes inspectors observed
were either insufficient or poor.
Inspectors were concerned to find that:
- too many prisoners felt unsafe and indicators of levels of violence were
high,
- inspectors had no confidence in the quality of recorded data or the
structures and arrangements to reduce violence;
- induction arrangements were weak;
- the first night centre was diverted by its need to provide an additional
sanctuary for vulnerable prisoners;
- levels of self-harm were high and processes to support those in crisis
were not good enough;
- there was clear evidence of illicit drug and alcohol use as well as the
improper diversion of prescribed medication;
- prisoners were unable to access basic facilities, such as cleaning
materials and kit;
- staff-prisoner relationships were not respectful and prisoners had little
confidence in staff to act consistently or to get things done;
- many staff were passive and compliant, almost to the point of collusion,
- there was clear evidence of staff failing to tackle delinquency or
abusive behaviour;
- the promotion of diversity was poor and the care needs of some prisoners
with disabilities were not met;
- the provision of health care was very poor and as a consequence,
- health provider has received a regulatory enforcement notice from the
Care Quality Commission;
- well over a third of prisoners were locked up during the working day and
only just over half were in activity at any one time;
- leadership in learning and skills was poor, there were not enough
activity places and those that were available were not fully used;
- the delivery of resettlement and offender management was uncoordinated
with very poor offender management work; and
- prison urgently needed to decide how it was going to address the
offending behaviour risks of its near 300 sex offenders.
- Inspectors made 99 recommendations
On 10/17/2013 01:01, petja dimitrova wrote:
wie auf diese G4S firma die letzte ateg aufmerksam geworden ist, ist durch eine aktion in burgtheater in der einen billetteur interveniert hat, zur arbeitsbedingungen der hilfs personal von burgtheater, die alle an diese firma ausgelagert sind..
und keine ahnung wer diese Recherchegruppe Vordernberg sind...
das zirkuliert in fb grad.. lg.p
------- Österreich "beginnt" mit Privatisierung von Schubhaft"--------------
Verfasst von: Recherchegruppe Vordernberg
Das Österreichische Innenministerium hat einen 15-Jahresvertrag mit dem Unternehmen G4S zur Auslagerung von Sicherheits- und anderem Personal im neuen Schubhaftzentrum Vordernberg abgeschlossen. Es ist das erste Mal, dass der Staat diese Infrastruktur in solch einem Ausmaß auslagert.
Seit nun schon mehreren Jahren befindet sich das neue Schubhaftzentrum Vordernberg in Planung. Seit 2011 wird aktiv gebaut, die Fertigstellung ist für Ende dieses Jahres geplant. Nach einer 2-3 monatigen "Probezeit" in der die Angestellten eingeschult und der Betrieb getestet werden, soll die Anlage im Frühling 2014 in Betrieb gehen. Ausgelegt ist das Gebäude für ca. 200 Gefangene in mehreren voneinander getrennten halboffenen Abteilungen. Eine Neuerung wird mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit das Vorhandensein von Büros der jeweiligen Asylbehörden direkt vor Ort sein. Dadurch soll eine schnellere Abwicklung der Verfahren entstehen. Schnellere Verfahren werden von den Betroffenen langwieriger Asylprozesse schon lange gefordert, jedoch ist davon auszugehen, dass es in diesem Fall hauptsächlich darum geht, Menschen so schnell wie möglich abschieben zu können.
Vor Ort und in den Medien wurde das Zentrum häufig als Familienanstalt bezeichnet, tatsächlich ist der Großteil der vorhanden Zellen aber für einzelne Männer vorgesehen, die Frauen-, Familien- und Jugendlichenabteilungen nehmen etwa 25% des Raums in Anspruch. Im Architekturwettbewerb wurde mehrfach auf den "offenen" Charakter des Gebäudes hingewiesen, es wird als Vorzeigeprojekt für künftige InnerEUropäische Schubknäste gehandelt, während an den EU Außengrenzen und in Nordafrika die Grenze weiter militarisiert wird. Doch auch in Vordernberg handelt es sich dabei nicht um viel mehr als um die Rhetorik der Migrationsverwalter. Die Anlage steht viele Kilometer von der nächsten größeren Stadt (Leoben) entfernt, was die individuelle Unterstützung durch Besuche und unabhängige Rechtsberatung erschweren wird. Weiters ist in der Anstalt zwar ein offener Vollzug geplant, jedoch ist dieser durch die Grenzm
auern des Gefängnisses und die ständig drohende Abschiebung gekennzeichnet. Das "Privileg" dieses Knasts soll zudem nicht jeder*m x-beliebigen Migrant*in zuteil werden sondern nur jenen, die keinen aktiven Widerstand leisten, sei es durch Hungerstreik, Selbstverletzung, Widerstand bei der Festnahme oder ähnliches. Es kann noch keine Aussage darüber getroffen werden, wie mit dem Vollzug in dieser Anlage, deren Abteilungen auch je eine Einzelzelle zur "allfälligen Disziplinierung" besitzen werden, wirklich umgegangen werden wird,
Mitte September wurde, möglicherweise als Wegweiser für die zukünftige Organisation von Abschiebungen, ein Großteil der Infrastruktur im neuen Gebäude dem Unternehmen G4S überantwortet. Im Gegensatz zur Auslagerung einzelner Tätigkeitsbereiche (meist: Küche, Gebäudetechnik und Reinigung) stellt diese Umfassende Ausweitung der Auslagerung auf Sicherheitspersonal, Medizinischer und Psychologischer Betreuung (!) sowie auf die angestellten Sozialarbeiter einen neuen Schritt in Richtung Privatisierung des Abschiebesystems dar. Für G4S ist diese Arbeit nichts neues: In England betreibt das Unternehmen bereits seit mehreren Jahren Abschiebeknäste aus denen ständig neue Meldungen über die Misshandlung von Inhaftierten aber auch über deren Widerstand gegen das unerträgliche Schubhaft- und Asylsystem nach außen dringen.
_______________________________________________