Response to NotoG4SNottm's An Unholy Alliance
Published:
July 23, 2012 12:28
by Notog4s Nottingham |
Neighbourhoods:
As posted NNRF Mailout 22/07/12
- A Response to Notog4sNottm’s ‘Unholy Alliance’ Claim From Patsy Brand, Chair of Trustees, Nottingham & Notts Refugee Forum In common with all concerned with the welfare of asylum seekers, everyone at NNRF was appalled to learn earlier this year that despite their terrible record of maltreating detainees and deportees, G4S were the Government’s favoured bidders for the asylum accommodation contract. We supported national protests and lobbied through our supportive local Labour MPs. However once the contract was signed, we made the reluctant decision that in order to protect the interests of asylum seekers in the City who were about to be transferred to new landlords, it was regretfully necessary for the Forum to talk to G4S. The same approach has been taken by Citizens for Sanctuary. Meetings and negotiations between, NNRF, CfS, City Council and G4S have resulted in improvements to their procurement policy, fewer asylum seekers being forced to move accommodation and NNRF being provided with advance information so that we can assist those anxious about the changes. G4S management and staff will receive awareness raising training provided by NNRF & CfS with the involvement of asylum seekers and refugees. They are co-operating on drawing up protocols for the delivery of the contract and we will make sure they adhere to them. Of course we realise that this is not ideal – but we have to accept that however much we may abhor the wholesale outsourcing by this government of public services to multinational hydra – and in spite of the current G4S debacle – the harsh reality is that this contract is not going to be cancelled in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, those of us in the front-line must concentrate our energies on reducing the fall-out for asylum seekers in Nottingham.
Stuart Brown - in a personal capacity.
Dear Notog4sNottm
Although I fully support the attempt to stop G4S from taking over the world and will happily support a campaign to try and get the contract withdrawn from G4S re- the asylum seeker housing contract, your report does raise some interesting questions - and some serious concerns!
The main question being: Is it the campaign’s position that all organisations should boycott working with both the UKBA and G4S? Which is what you seem to be suggesting in the para below although you don’t specifically say it.
Nottingham Citizens for Sanctuary are already forming a close working relationship with UKBA/G4S. This is a very detrimental position to take as it dilutes dissent, and getting onboard with UKBA/G4S neither provides extra resources or safeguards for asylum seekers.
Surely this is an untenable position to have, given that the only people who will suffer from this are asylum seekers being dispersed into G4S’s managed housing? The Refugee Forum and other organisations in the sector have a duty to support asylum seekers and without developing a working relationship with the main housing provider (and indeed UKBA), will not be able to fulfill their obligations. To have failed to have done so would have left newly dispersed asylum seekers to the mercies of G4S – a company responsible for the deaths and suffering of so many. Is this the line of other Notog4s campaigns around the country? If you’re not saying that then what exactly are you saying?
Your assertion that developing a relationship with them “neither provides extra resources or safeguards” is also spurious. What evidence is this based on? If there is some let’s have it. It may well be (probably will be) that, at some point down the line, evidence will emerge that this is true but surely it’s a little a bit too early for such categorical assertions?
Your contention that developing a relationship with UKBA / G4S “dilutes dissent” I also find difficult to understand. There’s plenty of dissent around just no campaign to harness it!
One of the many positive aspects with the way the Commission went about their task was that the dialogue with UKBA and G4S was all done up front and in the public spotlight, which makes it a little more difficult for both of them to renege on their commitments. Or at least not in the immediate future, which is actually the most crucial stage of the transition process. At least pressure has been put on G4S in relation to the geographical areas and the quality of the housing they intend buying in. As tactics go it’s not a bad one but equally it was the only option they had in the short term. Without a doubt, minor quibbles aside, the whole campaign was well thought through, well executed, and managed to mobilise a lot of people and organisations – and for that they should be applauded.
I also don’t think anyone is under any illusions that G4S will suddenly start behaving like model housing providers, and everyone I know is extremely sceptical about everything they say. We all know they’re motivated purely by profit. We all know they aren’t going to suddenly change their corporate spots and become a cuddly company that cares for anyone, let alone asylum seekers! And most of us recognise that as soon as their operation really kicks in, we’re going to have exactly the same battles with them (if not much harder) as we had with the previous contract holders. After all, G4S are doing the job cut price and something’s got to give somewhere! Which is why their ‘behaviour’ will be monitored and if they fail to live up to what they say they will do, then we will have some concrete evidence to start campaigning around.
The reality is that getting rid of G4S from this contract is / will be a long term campaign (the contract lasts 3 years!) and will only really gain traction when they (and other big multinationals) start to take over more and more public services that will directly affect the ‘general public’. Which, as we’re hearing every day on the news, is slowly beginning to happen. Even more reason to have an effective campaign up and running!
Which brings me onto my second question. Notog4sNottm: What Campaign?
To my knowledge there has never been a public meeting or any attempt, other than the circulated petition, to garner active support from as many people and organisations as possible. Disappointingly the petition has only 141 signatures (no criticism attached here – I for one should have pushed it a lot more), of which at least a third are people associated with NNRF and other homeless / refugee organisations in Nottingham. However, the Report Launch was a perfect opportunity to publicise, in the flyer you were handing round, the next (first?!) campaign meeting to encourage people to get involved. Although ideally this should have been done many, many months ago, it was still, in my opinion, a wasted opportunity.
Campaigns normally involve regular meetings to agree an overall strategy and plan tactics. As already mentioned, with the lack of support for asylum seekers and refugees generally, this was always going to be a long and hard campaign even before the contracts were awarded let alone once they had been. But there was / is plenty that could still be done: ensuring that there is a regular supply of ‘bad’ news stories in the local press and media; getting support from as broad a range of organisations as possible; linking up with other anti-privatisation campaigns through the wider labour and trades union movement - Notts SOS and the Trades Council; organising regular public meetings, direct action and protests. Apart from a twitter account, I still don’t understand how people can actually get involved in your campaign as there are no email / contact details!
Unless you get more people actively involved in the Notog4sNottm’s campaign then you will be seen by many as simply sniping from the sidelines, representing no-one and getting nowhere. Criticising organisations that are trying to make the best of a bad lot and whose sole interests are to ensure that asylum seekers under G4S’s ‘care’ are treated well, is not, in my opinion, a substitute for a well supported and democratically run campaign.
Obviously, if all this is being done already and I’ve missed the action, then I apologise. If so please let me know when the next meeting is and I’ll gladly advertise it on all the email lists I administrate. However, at the very least, I do feel you need to supply an email / contact so that people who wish to respond to your criticism can do so.
Yours comradely
Stuart Brown
Contact email: stopg4s@hotmail.co.uk
Comments
SYMAAG Emergency Bulletin
Published: July 31, 2012 23:01
by
SYMAAG
An emergency bulletin from SYMAAG notog4s
July 26th 2012
As most of you will know we in the notog4s campaign have tended to assume that the UKBA /G4S undertakings and official statements have meant that evictions and movements of single people and families would, for the majority, mean movements, at worst, within the broad region of Yorkshire and the Humber.
The latest official UKBA Transition bulletin makes it abundantly clear that the claims we made early on in the campaign that in South and West Yorkshire in particular there simply was not a market in ‘decent’ PRS (Public Rented Sector) housing for G4S to exploit was absolutely correct.
One family of two adults and a one year old were moved on Tuesday 24th July 100 miles from Sheffield to Stockton on Tees.The UKBA Transition Bulletin openly threatens more families with such a move.
This case is even more significant because it was from an existing private landlord property,although the new G4S contractor in Sheffield, Target Housing claim to have accommodation available for families – so why have the family been sent 100 miles away from contacts and support?
In Barnsley asylum seeker families have been warned by the outgoing asylum team of moves possibly to Hull and Newcastle. One family interviewed this week ,of grandparents, parents and school age children, were given this warning and told they would probably have to move their household possessions in two bags each.
Live Management, the G4S contractor in Barnsley is, we understand, considering acquiring unsuitable properties which they propose to use on a ‘temporay’ basis until they can find contract compliant ones.
The dreaded Angel Lodge in Wakefield, purchased from Angel Housing, has emerged as the new Yorkshire IA centre from September. SYMAAG executive members have horrific memories of actually staying in this dreadful accommodation, opposite Wakefield high security prison.We are campaigning against this decision.
This chaos in UKBA and G4S also indicates that our campaigning (removing UPM and now nobilising against Target) has deepened the crisis for the UKBA and G4S. The ‘soft’ approach of Andrew Gray has now been replaced by the asylum market business approach of Jules Bickers already deeply unpopular with voluntary sector asylum organisations in the regions he has worked in.
THIS IS YET ANOTHER INDICATION THAT WE WERE RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT G4S HAD NO EXPERIENCE OF ASYLUM HOUSING AND THAT THEIR FAILURES UNDER THE CONTRACT WOULD CONSTANTLY PUNISH ASYLUM SEEKER SINGLE PEOPLE AND FAMILIES WHO ARE SIMPLY HOUSED AWAITING THE OUTCOME OF ASYLUM CLAIMS.
MOREOVER OUR FEARS ABOUT THE CONTRACT FUNDAMENTALLY CHALLENGING THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS OF FAMILIES, CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS SEEM ALSO TO BE PROVING UNFORTUNATELY TO BE CORRECT
WE HAVE TO CHALLENGE THE UKBA NOW TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT WITH UKBA AND EXTEND THE TARGET CONTRACTS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND TRANSFER HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS IN YORKSHIRE.
CHAOS ON THE OLYMPICS CONTRACT NOW CHAOS ON THE ASYLUM HOUSING CONTRACT
G4S ARE DEMONSTRATING EXACTLY THE SAME FAILINGS EXPOSED IN THE OLYMPICS CONTRACTS, AS ONE M.P. PUT IT
‘THEIR ASPIRATIONS RUN FAR AHEAD OF THEIR ABILITIES’
THEIR CHAOTIC AND INCOMPETENT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES ARE EVEN MORE EXPOSED IN THE ASYLUM HOUSING FIELD – AFTER ALL IN THE OLYMPICS CONTRACT THEY WERE IN THEIR KEY BUSINESS OF EVENTS SECURITY.
THEIR INCOMPETENCE IN A FIELD THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT - HOUSING – IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS – HERE THEY ARE EMBARKING ON A CONTRACT WHICH THEY KNOW WILL THREATEN THE RIGHTS AND WELL BEING OF UP TO A THOUSAND VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS IN YORKSHIRE, WHOM WE SHOULD BE WELCOMING TO OUR REGION, NOT PUNISHING AND THREATENING THEM, USING TAX PAYERS MONEY – OUR MONEY.
John Grayson
SYMAAG notog4s
Latest articles feed
Thanks for responses Patsy and Stuart
NotoG4SNottm response to questions/concerns raised by Stuart Brown
Thank you for your responses to the Unholy Alliance account. We welcome further discussion and debate and hope to see you at the NoToG4SNottm Meeting 8th August 7-9pm @ The Sumac Centre, 245 Gladstone Street, Forest Fields, NG7 6HX.
Our interest, like yours, is in working with Asylum Seekers and Refugees, ensuring that their Human Rights are respected and that the need to gain protection in the UK is maintained. In light of this there were a few points you raised that require a specific reply which follow below.
We have also attached a very recent Emergency Bulletin document highlighting developments in our neighboring G4S COMPASS Project Area Yorkshire and Humberside region. Please take the time to read this bulletin.
Question 1
Is it the campaign’s position that all organizations should boycott working with both G4S and UKBA?
Answer
No.
The NotoG4SNottm campaign adopts the position of the national NotoG4S campaign. We acknowledge that some refugee community organisations (RCO’s) will need to be in dialogue with G4S and their sub contractors. These groups can play an important role of supporting asylum seekers through their transition of housing and feeding information into the wider campaign. These RCO's should be robustly monitoring and challenging the delivery of the G4S contract, this is happening in other regions. We recognize the difficulty of this task, to date; the full G4S delivery contract isn't in the public domain.
This role of challenging and monitoring is valuable and with other strategies and critical approaches. The NoToG4S campaigns primary function is to Challenge, Disrupt and Stop the G4S contract. This is also the position of NotoG4S Campaigns operating in other regions.
The assertion that developing a relationship with G4S neither provides extra resources or safeguards. Is based on the fact that the contract was awarded to the cheapest bidders. This assertion is also validated by the lack of concessions or recognition Citizens for Sanctuary received from UKBA/G4S on the night of the 3rd July.
The attached Emergency Bulletin clearly indicates that this assertion is correct.
NotoG4SNottm accepts the fact that there has been no public meeting so far. As with many new groups we ourselves are still coming to terms with the enormity of this contract and its implications. We welcome your offer to promote the above meeting date through all your relevant mailing lists.
On a final note the NoToG4SNottm petition received 141 signatures online, a further 353 wet signatures were collected through the offline petition. When it became apparent that G4S had definitely been awarded the contract we stopped collecting signatures and put energy into these activities
• Lobbying MP’s.
• Wrote a briefing for Lilian Greenwood's recent meeting with UKBA/G4S
• Following up issues raised in letter to Nottingham's Local Child Safe Guarding Board in March
• Attended the regional NoToG4S meetings
• Provided updates through NNRF Mail out as well as other social media
Our email address is included on our flyers and all postings on Indymedia. We can and do reply to emails sent.
Finally, please read the attached Emergency Bulletin(posted in next comments box) from John Grayson SYMAAG 26/07/12. We hope to see you at The Sumac Centre Weds 8th August at 7pm.
NotoG4SNottm
stopg4s@hotmail.co.uk