 |
| Protests outside the UK Border Agency HQ in Sheffield after G4S won contracts to house asylum seekers. Photograph: South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group |
Since the Chileans arrived in the
seventies, the Kenyans in the eighties and the Kosovans in the nineties,
Sheffield has developed a long tradition of offering sanctuary to those seeking
asylum from war and persecution in their own countries.
The Sheffield council has played a large
role in offering accommodation and support to these new arrivals. They have
established an asylum team to deal with accommodation and a drop-in centre to
offer advice. They have also set up a multi-agency forum representing the
various organisations and charities that support asylum seekers and refugees in
the city.
In 2007, with the support of the council,
Sheffield became the UK’s first ‘City of Sanctuary’ for
asylum-seekers and refugees. City of Sanctuary is a movement to build a culture
of welcome and hospitality for refugees and asylum-seekers. There are now more
than fifty City of Sanctuary groups all over the country.
Change
for the worse
However, many asylum seekers and voluntary
sector organisations in Sheffield are worried that this is all about to change.
From May 2012 the private security firm G4S will take over the housing contract
from Sheffield City Council. In a bid to cut costs the UK Border Agency (UKBA)
will give £203m to G4S to house asylum seekers across Britain.
Myra Davies, founder of Asylum Seeker Support Initiative
(ASSIST) said, “ASSIST and the Sheffield council have built up organically as a
network in which people co-operate for the well being of asylum seekers. What
we fear with G4S coming in is that all the mutual respect and understanding we
have built up is going to be wiped out.”
Under its new procurement arm, COMPASS,
the UKBA have reduced the number of prime suppliers of asylum services from ten
to three. G4S and the two other multinational security companies SERCO and
Reliance already provide immigration, detention and removal services to UKBA.
These three companies have now won a total
of £620m worth of contracts to provide housing for 18,108 people in asylum
accommodation. The Home Office claims this will save £150m over the seven years
of the contract.
Accused
of brutality
This cost cutting venture has been met with
widespread opposition from unions, charities and organisations working with
asylum seekers and refugees. Campaigners highlight the unsavoury track record
of G4S who have been criticised over their treatment of asylum seekers.
On 6th October 2010, Jose
Guttierezz, a Columbian deportee was badly
injured and had to receive hospital treatment after being forced on to an
aircraft by G4S. In that same month Jimmy Mubenga, an Angolan asylum seeker, died
as a result of his forced deportation by G4S prison guards. Three guards are
facing criminal charges and G4S lost
their contract to escort deportees after the killing of Mubenga.
Campaign organisations like South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action
Group (SYMAAG) fear that asylum seekers will be subject to further abuse
and negligence and that the UKBA is deliberately intimidating asylum seekers by
threatening to install prison guard companies as their managing landlords.
Stuart Crosswaite from SYMAAG said, “I
don’t think we should be cooperating with these people, I think we should be
putting all our resources into monitoring exactly what they are doing and
challenging them about the rights of the children they are going to be moving
and the housing that will be sub-standard.”
Myra Davies believes that G4S have a
profile that is totally terrifying to asylum seekers. “G4S will not have the
same sort of brief that the council has had for the well being of people, they
have a brief for the profit margins of their company, for making asylum seekers
accept poor accommodation because it will be cheaper. They have also got
responsibility for removing asylum seekers, so overall G4S is not someone who
will want to listen to humanitarian concerns.”
Lowering
of standards
But Stephen Small, the Managing Director of
UK Immigration
and Borders at G4S, said: “We take the welfare of all people who receive our
services extremely seriously. We will use
housing assessment specialists to drive up the standard of housing provided and
employ dedicated social cohesion experts to work with local authorities,
migrant support groups, and health and education bodies.”
However, Jim Steinke, chief executive of
the Northern Refugee Centre, believes
that housing standards will lower once G4S are in control. He is concerned that
the loss of local authority influence will destroy the strong relationships
that have been built up between the councils, asylum seekers and voluntary
sector organisations.
“The level of service has been better in
Yorkshire than in other regions and this is why the campaign against G4S has
been so acute; the campaign is not only against G4S but also the potential
lowering of standards,” said Jim Steinke.
Councils
are cornered
Stuart Crosswaite from SYMAAG said,
“Sheffield council has a tradition of being humanitarian and we’ve got a pretty
good relationship with them. We have spoken to them about G4S and in the end
they gave in and agreed that it would be really bad if housing was privatised.
The problem is that they said they have to work with these people, so they have
to keep a good relationship with them.
“I suspect there will be a lot of
unofficial support from the council and a lot of official silence. I hope there
will be official support as well because if you allow housing standards to
lower for one group it pulls down the level for everyone else. We want to
appeal to them on humanitarian grounds to get involved.”
Sheffield Councilor Mick
Rooney, responsible for asylum, immigration and migration said, “As a
Cabinet Member I will enter into a working relationship with G4S without
prejudice. I cannot and will not allow their past record to colour my
relationship.”
However, when asked about how this will
affect asylum seekers he said, “I believe the COMPASS procurement process
showed that this was a cost cutting exercise. Will it benefit asylum seekers
and refugees? That remains to be seen.”
