Home Affairs Committee
Carers or Captors?
Report to the Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry on asylum
“The ache for home lives in all of us, the safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.”
Maya Angelou
Women Asylum Seekers
Executive Summary
1. This submission examines the Asylum through a gendered lens, with a focus on housing as a human right. Through our interactions with the women tenants of G4S we propose policy recommendations with regards to both housing and the contracts and subcontractors in charge of this.
2. We conclude that the current asylum system fails women as a particularly vulnerable group, and must be overhauled in its entirety in order for gender mainstreaming to take place. We assert that housing contracts should only be given to housing associations, rather than corporations, and suggest the Housing First model as an alternative to the current system. We urge an immediate review of the current contractors, in order to assess their capabilities in fulfilling their current mandate, and to ensure that the vulnerable are not being ignored. We also point out that accountability mechanisms and transparency processes are vital to ensuring a fairer, more inclusive new system. We call for trauma sensitivity training for the officials which interact with this group of vulnerable people.
Who We Are
3. Kazuri is a social enterprise which believes that housing is a basic human right. It places vulnerable women leaving domestic violence, fleeing asylum, prison, on license in the community or at risk of/or already facing homelessness, into sustainable homes in the private rented sector. We empower women by providing them with a bespoke package of support called a “route map” which is co-designed with a peer advocate, trained in tenancy support and coaching monthly tenancy health checks, an introduction to partnerships with ethical providers in the private and voluntary sectors for counseling, training, employment, restorative justice and other issues.
4. Kazuri works with women who have suffered trauma and violence, sometimes at the hands of a partner, often at the hands of the state. Most of the time, they are terrorised and harmed by both and in the language of restorative justice, nation becomes perpetrator. Physical safety is paramount for these women to start to rebuild shattered lives. Emotional safety is sought from the community around them and particularly from the people tasked to facilitate their transition into the UK. We cannot overstate the importance of gendered, trauma informed training for those working with these women to understand the signs and symptoms of trauma and the proper supervision of these support workers in order to counteract secondary trauma or compassion fatigue.
5. Kazuri asked independent experts to input on this document as front line practitioners to share their insight, knowledge and experience for the benefit of the Home Affairs Committee.
Our Focus: Vulnerable Groups, Specifically Women
6. Under the current system, Fiona Bawdon writes: “Some 87% of the women in its [Asylum Aid’s] study were initially refused—mainly because the agency didn’t believe them—only for 42% of these refusals to be overturned later by a judge. The comparable figure for successful appeals for all asylum seekers (male and female) is 28%, which suggests that UKBA finds it particularly difficult to make sound decisions about women.” This confirms Judith Herman’s assertion that it is harder for society to take the side of the victim, who asks us to consider horrors such as rape, torture and mutilation, on a wholesale, sometimes national scale. It’s easier to look away and to deny.
7. These statistics affirm that women are often disbelieved and refused asylum status without proper deliberation. Many women are hesitant to speak out initially about their reasons for seeking asylum, which are often personal, traumatic and distressing to relive. Without a safe and compassionate place from which to speak and be heard, they are expected to relive the trauma of their experiences and then suffer the indignity of not being believed. The horrors inflicted upon them have been, for the most part, by men. Even more disturbing is that many of the men now tasked with their safety are wearing the same uniforms as the people profiting from war, destruction and chaos in the countries they are fleeing. The knowledge that the same corporation, previously in charge of detention and imprisonment, is now in charge of welfare can only re-traumatise already vulnerable women.
8. The UK Border Agency states in its own gender guidelines for caseworkers: “There may be a number of reasons why an applicant may be reluctant to disclose information, for example feelings of guilt, shame, and concerns about family honour, or fear of traffickers or having been conditioned or threatened by them.”
The Effectiveness of uhe Uk Border Agency Screening Process, including the Method of Determining Eligibility for the ‘Detained Fast Track’ Procedure
9. It becomes clear that there is an institutional bias, which takes gendered human rights abuses less seriously than other abuses, within a system which purports to work for the welfare of a group of vulnerable people. Women are often disadvantaged from the initial application, and have further been marginalised through the UKBA’s ‘Detained Fast Track’ procedure. Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2010 published a report entitled, “Fast-Tracked Unfairness: Detention and Denial of Women Asylum Seekers in the UK,” which examines how this procedure unfairly disadvantages women. It states:
10. “Once routed into the fast track, women with complex cases have far too little time to prepare their case, obtain medical or other expert opinions, and establish the credibility of their claims. This is especially true in cases involving rape or abuse, where women may only be able to come forward with relevant information late in the process, or not at all, because they may be traumatized by their experience, frightened by the procedure, or simply embarrassed to tell an official.”
11. Failing to take into account the trauma of gender violence and the psychological difficulties in openly discussing these would mean a failure in understanding the tenets upon which the asylum seeker’s case rests. Coming to a decision quickly is of course vital to an efficient system, but this should not be at the detriment of the very people it is meant to protect.
12. As part of the UK government’s End Violence against Women and Girls: Action Plan 2013, one of the provisions is to: ‘Work to ensure that the asylum system is as gender-sensitive as possible’ (pt. 45). The plan states: “We want to make the asylum system as gender-sensitive as possible so that women and girls who have been persecuted through violence and/or discrimination can have every opportunity to make their case and to have their asylum application considered as fairly as possible. This work will be taken forward in consultation with key corporate partners as well as voluntary organisations. It also involves the UK Border Agency’s determination services, detention services and support services.”
13. Whilst this is undoubtedly a positive step in recognising inherent problems within the current asylum system, it remains fruitless until real changes are seen filtering down from the policy level to the grassroots, and are helping better lives. It will be important to set up accountability measures to monitor and critique how these practices are implemented.
Legitimacy of Calling for a Gendered Approach
14. The call for a gendered approach in delivering housing and pastoral services to women asylum seekers is amply evidenced above. Indeed, empirically, there is no question that women asylum seekers are in far more vulnerable positions than men. The question of gender bias must be tackled on the basis of evidence firmly rooted in law.
15. There are two sources of legitimacy in calling for a gendered approach.
16. The first is the contract itself. In particular Schedule 2:
1.2.1. Service Users: Background Information
1.2.1.1. The Provider shall understand the background and needs of the Service User and understand that some Service Users will have particular characteristics and special needs that require the provision of particular accommodation or accommodation in a specific locality, and/or the provision of transport that is suitable for their needs.
1.2.1.2. In particular, the Provider acknowledges and agrees that Service Users will:
- — Be individuals who appear to be, or are likely to become, destitute
- — Need to be managed with sensitivity. They may have suffered trauma, be suspicious or frightened of authority figures and/or be afraid of other Service Users and strangers
- — Be from many countries and speak various languages (of which English may not necessarily be one)
- — Be individuals, couples or family units. The size of the family units may range from single parent families to larger extended families
- — Be Complex Bail Cases defined here on in as a Service User who is typically a Foreign National Prisoner released on Criminal Bail
1.2.1.3. The Provider further acknowledges and agrees that some Service Users will have particular characteristics including:
- — Physical disabilities
- — Medical conditions
- — Age related characteristics
- — Vulnerability
1.2.1.4. The Authority will notify the Provider when a Service User has been evaluated and assessed as having one of the above characteristics.
1.2.1.5. The Provider must treat all Service Users in a polite and courteous manner recognising their rights as individuals and respecting the confidential nature of personal data in their possession.
1.2.1.6. The Provider agrees and acknowledges that the safety and security of the Service Users in the Provider’s care is of absolute importance and must not be jeopardised. The Provider shall be responsible for the general welfare of Service Users in its care. The Provider must provide decent conditions, to the extent that this is within its power, for Service Users and meet their needs, including in respect of health care.
1.2.1.7. Proper care should be taken to protect Service Users from curiosity, insult and physical harm during transport.
This clearly identifies that the user group is a particularly vulnerable group. The terms of the contract as highlighted above allow for an inference to be drawn that women asylum seekers are likely to be even more vulnerable than their male counterparts because of what we know of the additional trauma suffered by women in war torn countries.
Clauses 3.2 (c), (d) and (e) also indicate that there is an expectation on the service provider that it will be entirely au fait with what is expected of it and its agents in relation to the user group:
3.2. In providing the Services the Provider shall:
[…]
(c) exercise the level of professional skill, care, planning, pro-activity, supervision, control and diligence which may be expected of a professional organisation experienced in providing services of the type and complexity required by the Authority under this Contract;
(d) ensure that the Services are provided by appropriately experienced, qualified and trained personnel with all due skill, care and diligence;
(e) comply with all applicable statutes, enactments, orders, regulations or similar instruments as enacted from time to time including without limitation the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and all other UK legislation relating to immigration and asylum in force from time to time and any regulations issued under such Acts;
Clause 33 of the contract also provides for the service provider to abide by anti-discrimination laws:
33. No Discrimination
33.1. The Provider shall not throughout the duration of this Contract unlawfully discriminate within the meaning and scope of any law, enactment, order, or regulation relating to discrimination (together “Discrimination Legislation”) (whether in race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation or otherwise) including without limitation the Equality Act 2010.
33.2. The Provider shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the observance of Clause 33.1 by all officers, employees, agents, consultants and sub-contractors of the Provider.
33.3. The Provider shall comply with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 as if it were listed as a public authority under Schedule 19 of that Act
33.4. The Provider shall put in place and maintain adequate practices and procedures throughout the duration of this Contract to ensure and to monitor compliance with Clauses 33.1 to 33.4 (inclusive). Each quarter the Provider shall submit to the Authority Contract Manager evidence of such compliance including without limitation information by reference to the racial groups to which they belong and information relating to the numbers of its employees who receive training, benefit or suffer detriment as a result of performance assessment procedures, are involved in grievance procedures, are the subject of disciplinary procedures or cease employment and such information as the Authority may reasonably require in relation to policy and service provision so as to enable the Authority to comply with its duties under the Race Relations Act 1976 (Statutory Duties) Order 2001.
33.5. The Provider shall put in place and maintain adequate practices and procedures throughout the duration of this Contract to ensure and to monitor compliance with any other duties introduced under Discrimination Legislation. The Provider agrees to promote (and shall encourage its officers, employees, agents, consultants and sub-contractors to promote) the principle of equal treatment at all times and shall co-operate fully with the Authority to exchange experiences and good practices.
17. Although it can be argued that these clauses merely reiterate the legal position, we are of a different view. G4S have signed up to the contract and, in doing so, have expressly accepted their obligations under the contract. These obligations are not implied by operation of law alone. They are expressed and G4S agreed to them with their eyes wide open.
18. The second source of legitimacy is, of course, statutory law underpinned by the principle of legality. This requires that every legal provision, be it primary or secondary, is interpreted in accordance with fundamental principles such as human rights. In other words, even if the contract did not provide expressly for G4S to observe equality provisions, these would be implied as a result of both the principle of legality and the operation of law within public law principles.
The Contract
19. It may be observed that clauses 3.2(c) and 3.2(d) of the contract require a number of skills and capabilities ‘which may be expected of a professional organisation experienced in providing services of the type and complexity required by the Authority under this contract’ as well as assurance that ‘the Services are provided by appropriately experienced, qualified and trained personnel with all due skill, care and diligence.’
20. We are not aware of G4S having such experience. G4S is primarily an enforcement and policing agency. It is not known for its sensitivity to vulnerable people. It may be that G4S put a convincing case to the Authority to get the contract. If so, they clearly lied. It may be that the Authority went for the cheapest tender and expected G4S to bring themselves up to speed after the event. Either way, we have detected no compliance with that aspect of the contract.
21. Indeed, it would seem that under the terms of the contract, the service providers need to be much more versed in trauma-informed approaches. There needs to be a minimum requirement of trauma-informed counselling to ensure the emotional safety of traumatised women is the driver behind every interaction. In Judith Herman’s trauma recovery process, she recognises that women who end up suffering from post traumatic stress disorder may have suffered lifelong exclusion, abuse and violence. Through the process of recovery, trust is rebuilt, but first that horror must be articulated, and this can only be done in a safe, therapeutic environment, not one where your captors and carers are one and the same.
22. In Trauma and Recovery, Herman presents a model which describes the healing process of people who struggle with a combination of problems related to unwanted, abusive, or traumatic experiences in their past. In order to overcome the harmful manifestations of these, personal safety, genuine self-care and healthy emotion-regulation capacities are key to healing from traumatic experiences. Once these have become standard operating procedures, real progress and many new choices become possible.
23. No process of the UKBA or its subcontracted companies takes into account the different reasons that women seek asylum, their histories or the need for safety and foremost, the requirement that these women are not further traumatised by agencies paid for services by the British Government.
24. While the contract is a matter for the parties (ie G4S and the Authority), its performance is a matter of public interest because public money is being spent in the performance of the contract. To be perfectly clear, £374,000,000 of public money has been awarded to G4S in order to perform the contract over 60 months. Further, G4S are also performing a public function, as agents of a public authority. In that sense, they are liable to challenges under normal public law principles. A challenge can be made by a service user or any member of the public.
25. We are concerned that there is no accountability and that G4S are simply not performing under the terms of the contract and/or their legal duties.
26. We seek an urgent review of the stated policy of the Government and the establishment of an independent body to hold the Government and particularly the Home Office accountable for delivering this policy in all areas where vulnerable women are forced to become their service users.
Other Evidential Matters
Housing conditions under G4S
27. Housing conditions for asylum seekers have been found to be deplorable, particularly, under private contractor, G4S, which won £374 million (over 50%) of the £620 million contract to house asylum seekers for 5 years, known as COMPASS (the acronym for the Home Office’s Commercial and Operational Managers Procuring Asylum Support Services). Recent media reports have found that the housing was unfit for human habitation and nowhere near the required standards.
28. As a security, enforcement and detention company, G4S’s capacity to handle housing for a vulnerable group is questionable. G4S have no previous experience of delivering pastoral care or social housing prior to bidding for this contract. One subcontractor, Mantel, has already resigned, and others have been removed as a result of pressure by local groups. G4S is under a weekly reporting requirement to monitor its contact with families seeking asylum, as the corporation seems unable to fulfil the COMPASS contract. Furthermore, its decision to subcontract out to companies who have been glaringly unable to handle the project brings into question the UKBA’s decision to hand over the contract to G4S. Stephen Small, Managing Director of G4S, admitted in a leaked email in February 2013: “It has become increasingly evident over the past few months that a number of our accommodation partners are finding it difficult to manage aspects of this contract, for example their ability to address the high number of property defects.” His awareness of this however has not prevented them from continuing to attempt to fulfil the contract, despite a clear inability to do so, at the detriment only of the people who live there. G4S is not a social housing association, it does not have the infrastructure to carry out emergency call-outs, cyclical repairs or maintenance and the modus operandi of the company appears to be ignoring housing problems and tellingly the people they are housing that nothing is a priority.
29. There were problems prior to the contract start date with an extremely slow transfer of properties and families due to G4S “just in time” policy of training and deployment, which ensured failure in its delivery of the Olympic contract, and is recurring in the delivery of the COMPASS contact. G4S has a culture of blame shifting and machismo, far removed from the traditional contractors who have historically delivered the housing and support for vulnerable people. In one area only 1 in 240 families were moved by the time the contract was handed over to G4S.
30. A, an asylum seeker living in Coventry, wrote to Kazuri in March 2013, describing the appalling conditions in which she and her family have been living:
31. “We are living in a property in Coventry being run by G4S, we are family of 4....we have been only given two wardrobes...we asked for more 5 months ago, and whenever we contact our casworker...he has many excuses... We had so far got rid of 20 mices in our house....my 2 young children are so scared....we asked him for treatment of mice...he came 1 day and gave us 1 gluetrap... We have so far spent more thn 20 pounds on this issue...bt still everyday we find more. Our toilet light is broken for last 1 week.. he cant come, as he says its not an emergency....”
32. Her situation is familiar to many other women. Following her contact with Kazuri, 39 other women have contacted Kazuri with cases of inhabitable housing. Their complaints have been documented on the appendix attached and vary from paint peeling to sexual harassment.
33. Understandably, both mice and a broken toilet light would be traumatising for young children, who have already gone through severe difficulties. We published a letter to the leader of the council (Appendix 3) and complained to the Home Office. Furthermore, as soon as Kazuri contacted Coventry Council, the matter was resolved within hours of publication, despite G4S’s employee’s previous assertion that it was not a priority case. It is discouraging to see that outside intervention is needed for asylum seekers basic human needs to be met. Small social enterprises cannot possibly police the criminal actions of multinational companies. We will make recommendations about how all contractors can manage their housing portfolio in the last section of this report.
34. The already customary nature of cases like this makes it clear that G4S has not been fulfilling its mandate: “To ensure that at the commencement, and throughout the period, of your stay the place of stay is structurally sound, and is reasonably fit for human habitation” (a contract between Cascade Homes, a subcontractor for G4S, and a tenant). An investigation by The Independent newspaper revealed the case of “Angela”, who was dumped in a property in Leeds by the firm Cascade, which was deemed by the council to be unfit for human habitation. The contract also claims that “it is expected that essential safety repairs will be carried out within 2 hours and other matters concerning other facilities and comforts with seven working days.” Considering A’s and Angela’s cases were safety concerns, particularly in terms of the detrimental nature such unsanitary conditions could have on their health, it is clear that nothing was done in a timely fashion, or in accordance with the contract.
35. It is evident that it is these situations that Chris Bryant, shadow Minister for Immigration, was referring to during the February Parliamentary debate when he spoke of:
“The hideous conditions in which many people live. We need to do far more in this country to crack down on unscrupulous and poor landlords, who put people into housing that, frankly, is not fit for living. It has been a disgrace that successive Governments have not concentrated enough on that.”
36. Despite this awareness, G4S continues to handle the contract, even when its inability and lack of expertise in this area come to light.
‘Policing’ under G4S: Intimidation, harassment and trauma
37. As a detention and security agency, G4S is ill-equipped to handle the welfare needs of a vulnerable group. The South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group (SYMAAG) strongly asserts: “We maintain our view that G4S are prison guards not landlords. Their record is one of abuse towards asylum seekers in this country and elsewhere.” Several cases have been brought to Kazuri, which contain allegations of terrorising, intimidating and inflicting more trauma on already vulnerable women. These are annexed as a table at the end of this the document.
38. A, above, also spoke of intimidation by a G4S employee in an email to Kazuri, dated Mar 15 2013: “I would like to mention one thing here, during his visit yesterday, he asked me if we had contacted anyone regarding this and so on. And then he spoke to someone on the phone and told him abt this. I hope that doesnt put us in any trouble or something.”
39. The fear that a valid complaint about housing conditions would “put [them] in trouble” is telling of past experiences of, at the very least, intimidation by officials, who are in a clear position of power, against very vulnerable women. She said further: “As far as i now, dere are many other people like us who have issues with housing, but deir caseworkers ignore their requestes as they did to us.” Clearly, then, the problem is widespread and recognised by the community. Yet, the unwillingness to do something about this is disappointing at best, and downright shameful and dangerous at worst.
40. The opaque complaints service under the UKBA only adds to G4S’s ability to intimidate and harass the asylum seekers who are in their care. Under the current system, complaints have to be “from ‘service users’ citing their NASS numbers their Home Office identification, full names date of birth and address. Voluntary organisations have to have proof of asylum seekers nominating them to ‘complain’ and give all the details above. Then the Home Office and UKBA refuse to answer ‘complaints’ from third parties on individual cases. At present advocates and voluntary organisations working with asylum seekers can only use national ‘complaints’ routes through the UKBA website which you are warned could take up to three months to respond to. This is almost four times the period in which FOI (Freedom of Information) requests have to be answered.”
41. This ineffective and slow system is both unaccommodating and distressing for asylum seekers, particularly women, who may not know where to turn for support, do not have the required information. The months taken for complaints to be heard and effectively dealt with could make all the difference to an already traumatised woman’s quality of life. However, the lack of will or interest in helping the people whose care they are mandated to manage is worrisome. It is clear that this bureaucratic process is only another form of intimidation, designed to deter asylum seekers from making complaints. Furthermore, any association with G4S is stigmatising for the women it houses, because it creates an association with a company which is best known for managing offenders in the community, prison escort vans and running prisons.
42. Intimidation and harassment of women, who are already in a disadvantaged position, is indicative of the cowardly behaviour of this powerful corporation, which is unwilling to take responsibility for its own actions. We assert that it is necessary for asylum seeker housing to be provided only by housing providers, who have the experience and ability to supply good quality housing, which is fit for human habitation, and which has inbuilt accountability measures to ensure that human rights standards are met.
Council Complicity
43. Following Kazuri’s high level complaint to Coventry Council, it appears there is a level of collision between council officials who claimed previously that there had been no official complaints to the local authority. When pressed, the officer June Morley admitted there had been one. Kazuri was asked to pass over all details to the local authority however we declined as we believe it would jeopardise the safety of the complainants. Leeds Council forced Serco who were granted the contract in that area to undertake a full review of all the properties intended for use by asylum seekers and demanded that they be brought up to a decent standard before anyone was housed. We recommend every local authority to do the same and to charge the costs to G4S before a single family is housed in another G4S subcontracted property.
Recommendations:
The report calls for the following:
Housing:
1. The COMPASS contract should be rescinded and given to housing associations, registered social landlords and companies with a defined social mission, not ones whose legal obligation to their shareholders is only to maximise profit.
2. A spending review of the resources being poured into the private rented sector, rogue landlords and private for profit companies whose only commitment is to the shareholder and maximising profit. The value of the COMPASS contract is almost £650m and this could be better used to build considerable amounts of specific housing stock so that local authorities could build new homes for displaced people.
3. We recommend that all housing contractors and those who subcontract their services are brought into a framework agreement with the local authority, where they operate within a landlord’s licensing scheme with the sanction of the HCA, in order to ensure that all the properties which they provide for asylum seekers meet the decent homes plus standard.
4. Deployment of the Housing First model allows those considered most fragile and hardest to house to build a solid base from which they can rebuild their lives and access services as needed.
5. A for-profit market must be discouraged, in order to preclude profit-driven companies from entering the market which is too unregulated and rife for exploitation.
6. Decent homes must be provided, and priority given to already vulnerable peoples.
7. Housing and maintenance training must be conducted, noting reasonable timescales for addressing problems. If these are not met, sanctions or fines should be applied.
8. Regular tenancy health checks.
9. Welfare and wellbeing of tenants and workers must be at the forefront of all policy and procedure with regular supervision and signposting of counselling services if needed.
10. Signposting to gainful occupation for women awaiting decisions on their asylum status, such as parenting classes, English classes, food and hygiene certificates and volunteering so they may effectively begin the integration process into the community and are not left bored, lonely and in limbo. This would be a good way to start to build social bonds.
Policy:
11. An independent, oversight mechanism should be set up and accountability measures created.
12. Performance should be measured against tenant surveys and satisfaction.
13. All staff in contact with traumatised groups must receive full trauma-informed and gendered training as well as supervision at least once a month and more frequently if required.
14. Local Authorities to monitor national contracts and have specific powers to force action or accountability.
15. Sensitive cases involving sexual violence to be heard by a women-only tribunal.
16. A clear, transparent complaints system must be put in place in accordance with the oversight body, in order to ensure an easy and accessible complaints redress process.
17. Housing, welfare and care must meet human rights standards.
18. 2010 gender guidelines should be implemented fully.
19. Only female agents, where possible, should communicate with women and children who have undergone trauma.
20. Systems of support must be put in place for these groups, with better access to healthcare, food and services, which are otherwise denied to them.
21. There should be clear signposting to other services so asylum seekers are on recovery pathways and not left to stagnate.
22. Real implementation of Violence against Women and Girls Action Plan recommendations.
23. Every tenant should be told of her rights and responsibilities under the housing agreement with G4s or the subcontracted agency, so she understands and processes and knows what to do to complain or when things go wrong.
Should G4S remain as executors of the contract then:
24. G4S must subscribe to HCA rules and regulations to provide housing to vulnerable people.
25. G4S should be banned from further procurement processes until assurances are in place re training and staffing levels which meet national minimum requirements that would be expected from their public sector counterparts.
26. G4S should compensate for items lost or stolen by G4S staff, and for the trauma of constant and seemingly unnecessary moving.
Flo Krause, Farah Damji and Nanki Chawla
Kazuri
May 2013