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the attempt to stop G4S from taking over the world and will happily support a campaign to try and get the contract withdrawn from G4S re- the asylum seeker housing contract, your report does raise some interesting questions - and some serious concerns!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

E: stuartb10@ntlworld.com