Home Affairs Committee
I was taken aback to hear the answers of the representative of G4S at the evidence giving session on June 25th. I am writing in the hope of a number of the statements made being challenged further, and the contrast between the replies of G4S and Serco being taken into account in recommendations that the committee might be making.
I have not yet seen the transcript of the session, just the recording on the website, so I may have more comment to make after reading it, but for now:
1. G4S said that their person in Audit and Compliance dealt with complaints. However well documented complaints and requests put to them by myself on behalf of resident asylum seekers in the Stockton hostel for women in October 2012 were not dealt with, nor were one’s submitted in February. There had previously been very good relationships with the person in this post, but when I asked about progress on them, I was given a very firm reply that all problems had to be taken up with the sub contractor housing provider, and she refused to take them any further. It has been documented in my previous evidence to the committee the difficulty of having any constructive discussion at all with Jomast.
2. When questioned by members of the committee, G4S maintained that all residents had copies of their information pack, and it was available in various languages. Whilst I do have a copy of the pack, given to me by the former social cohesion manager some time ago, I have yet to find an asylum seeker who actually has the pack. All say they have not had it, and I have been there whilst they have been through all the papers they have. Also the packs do not have the phone number for the complaints service that is the cheaper for people to use; does not say that they can ask for an interpreter when they ring; does not say they need to have their NASS number handy when the call is made. Nor does it have the up to date information collated by local voluntary organisations on “drop ins”, and sent to G4S for inclusion in information packs.
3. When asked about the practice of walking in on clients, it was interesting to see the difference in approach between Serco and G4S about inspections, Serco giving proper notice to do so. I also hope that the committee recognise that “we knocked and they might not have heard” is wide open to interpretation. The Compass contract does specifically say that 5 working days must be given before a visit.281
4. Monitoring. When asked about how satisfied they were that was should be provided for, actually was, I noted that whilst Serco said that they had liaison and stakeholder panels, G4S did not. This is interesting as the housing provider here (Jomast) refuses to allow either asylum seekers, or any advocate they have, into the Multi Agency Forum they run. Although the Social Cohesion Manager and the Housing Manager of G4S had been very supportive of their involvement, last year, there has been no support whatsoever from G4S in re-establishing their presence. Jomast have both the secretariat and chairmanship of the Multi Agency Panel, so have complete control.
I hope that the Home Affairs Select Committee can take this response into account in their further deliberations.
Suzanne Fletcher MBE
June 2013
Representing local asylum seekers through local organisations Thrive, DASUK, and appointed to represent the Housing and Neighbourhood Partnership on the Multi Agency Forum (but not allowed to do so my Jomast)
4.2.2 h. At reasonable prior notice make such records available to the Authority for inspection and quality audit purposes;
i. Provide 5 Working Days notice to the Service User that maintenance work is planned for the accommodation;
j. Provide 5 Working Days notice to the Service User that the accommodation is to be inspected or Health and Safety Assessment is to be conducted;
k. Brief the Service Users occupying accommodation on when pre-planned maintenance work is to be undertaken and on what the work entails and any collateral action the Service Users need to take. These briefings are to be conducted in a language understood by the Service Users and to be accompanied by a written instruction to the Service Users in a language and form understood by the relevant Service User.