RAPAR was out yesterday marching with #SaveUKJustice, opposing the latest and biggest attack on legal aid. This is the kind of thing we meant when we said, at the formation of the coalition government, that 'big society means big cuts' (click link). Also see here for a page on Garden Court North chambers' website about #SaveUKJustice, explaining the proposed changes to legal aid.
0 Comments
See here for RAPAR's 'Stop Serco' page, and here for the website 'Resist Privatising, Stop Serco'
From the Guardian >>> Serco: the company that is running Britain From prisons to rail franchises and even London's Boris bikes, Serco is a giant global corporation that has hoovered up outsourced government contracts. Now the NHS is firmly in its sights. But it stands accused of mismanagement, lying and even charging for non-existent work. John Harris - The Guardian, Monday 29 July 2013 19.03 BST In May this year, a huge company listed on the London Stock Exchange found itself in the midst of controversy about a prison it runs for the government – Thameside, a newly built jail next to Belmarsh, in south-east London. A report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate found that 60% of its inmates were locked up all day, and there were only "vague plans to restore the prison to normality". The prison campaign group the Howard League for Penal Reform talked about conditions that were "truly alarming". Two months later, the same company was the subject of a high- profile report published by the House Of Commons public accounts committee,prompted by the work of Guardian journalist Felicity Lawrence. This time, attention was focused on how it was managing out-of-hours GP services in Cornwall, and massive failings that had first surfaced two years before. Again, the verdict was damning: data had been falsified, national standards had not been met, there was a culture of "lying and cheating", and the service offered to the public was simply "not good enough". Three weeks ago, there came grimmer news. Thanks to its contracts for tagging offenders, the company was now the focus of panic at the Ministry of Justice, where it had been discovered that it was one of two contractors that had somehow overcharged the government for its services, possibly by as much as £50m; there were suggestions that one in six of the tags that the state had paid for did not actually exist. How this happened is still unclear, but justice secretary Chris Grayling has said the allegations represent something "wholly indefensible and unacceptable". The firm that links these three stories together is Serco. Its range of activities, here and abroad, is truly mind-boggling, taking in no end of things that were once done by the state, but are now outsourced to private companies. Amazingly, its contracts with government are subject to what's known as "commercial confidentiality" and as a private firm it's not open to Freedom of Information requests, so looking into the details of what it does is fraught with difficulty. But the basic facts are plain enough. As well as five British prisons and the tags attached to over 8,000 English and Welsh offenders, Sercosees to two immigration removal centres, at Colnbrook near Heathrow, and Yarl's Wood in Bedfordshire. You'll also see its logo on the Docklands Light Railway and Woolwich ferry, and is a partner in both Liverpool's Merseyrail network, and the Northern Rail franchise, which sees to trains that run in a huge area between the North Midlands and English-Scottish border. Serco runs school inspections in parts of England, speed cameras all over the UK, and the National Nuclear Laboratory, based at the Sellafield site in Cumbria. It also holds the contracts for the management of the UK's ballistic missile early warning system on the Yorkshire moors, the running of the Manchester Aquatics Centre, and London's "Boris bikes". As evidenced by the story of how it handled out-of-hours care in Cornwall, it is also an increasingly big player in a health service that is being privatised at speed, in the face of surprisingly little public opposition: among its array of NHS contracts is a new role seeing to "community health services" in Suffolk, which involves 1,030 employees. The company is also set to bid for an even bigger healthcare contract in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough: the NHS's single-biggest privatisation – or, if you prefer, "outsourcing" – to date, which could be worth over £1bn. But even this is only a fraction of the story. Among their scores of roles across the planet, Serco is responsible for air traffic control in the United Arab Emirates, parking-meter services in Chicago, driving tests in Ontario, and an immigration detention centre on Christmas Island, run on behalf of those well-known friends of overseas visitors the Australian government. In the US, the company has just been awarded a controversial $1.25bn contract by that country's Department of Health. All told, its operations suggest some real-life version of the fantastical mega-corporations that have long been invented by fiction writers; a more benign version of theTyrell Corporation from Blade Runner, say, or one of those creations from James Bond movies whose name always seems to end with the word "industries". The strangest thing, though, is the gap between Serco's size and how little the public knows about it. Not for nothing does so much coverage of its work include the sentence "the biggest company you've never heard of". I first heard Serco's name about eight years ago, when I was just starting to understand the amazing growth of what are now called "public service companies". Once I started looking, their logos were everywhere, suggesting a shadow state that has since grown ever-bigger. Their names seemed anonymously stylised, in keeping with the sense that they seemed both omnipresent, and barely known: Interserve, Sodexo, Capita, the Compass Group. Serco is among the biggest of them all. At the last count, its annual pre-tax profits were up 27%, at £302m. In 2012 alone, its British workforce grew by 10,000, to 53,000 people (tellingly, as many as 90% of them are said to be former civil servant employees). In terms of employees, that makes it more than twice as large as the BBC, and around 20% bigger than Philip Green's Arcadia group. A very significant player, in other words, and one that has come a long way since its foundation 1929, when it was a branch of the American RCA corporation called RCA Services Ltd, involved in the then booming UK cinema industry. It was renamed Serco in 1987, after a management buy-out, and floated on the stock exchange the following year. In the 25 subsequent years, during which the UK has grown ever-fouder of outsourcing and privatisation, Serco has grown at an amazing rate. The current chief executive of the global Serco Group is 49-year-old Chris Hyman, born in Durban, South Africa. His annual remuneration is around £700,000, plus bonuses; in 2011, the value of his total package rose 18%, to £1.86m (the company's finance director had to slum it at £948,295). In 2010, Hyman was given a CBE for services to business and charity; he is also an enthusiastic fan of motor racing and an evangelical Christian. Four years ago, he was asked about his company's very low profile, andhe said this: "We had a dilemma – what do we do with the Serco name. We are proud of it. We thought we needed billboards at airports and places like that, to be seen with Tiger Woods on. But we worked out very quickly that is not what we are meant to do. We are meant to be known by the 5,000 not the five billion. The people who serve the people need to choose who supplies the service. We are delighted when the public knows who we are, but really, we need to be known by the people who make decisions." When Serco made its bid to run NHS community-health services in Suffolk – district nursing, physiotherapy, OT, end-of-life palliative care, wheelchair services – it reckoned it could do it for £140m over three years – £16m less than the existing NHS "provider" had managed, which would eventually allow for their standard profit margin of around 6% a year. When it started to become clear that Serco was the frontrunner, there was some opposition, but perhaps not nearly enough. "Suffolk isn't the most politically active part of the country," says one local insider. "And the staff were very lackadaisical. It was: 'NHS Suffolk wouldn't made a bad decision.' So it was hard to get a campaign going." Serco was officially awarded the contract in October 2012, which meant that hundreds of staff would leave the NHS, and become company employees. Within weeks, the company proposed a huge reorganisation, which involved getting rid of one in six jobs. This has since come down to one in seven, two thirds of which will apparently go via natural wastage. In terms of their pay and conditions, the hundreds of people who have been transferred from the NHS to Serco are protected by provisions laid down by the last government, but it is already becoming clear that many new staff are on inferior contracts: as one local source puts it, "they've got less annual leave, less sick pay … it's significantly worse." Meanwhile, other people are reportedly quitting their jobs, and the service given to patients is said to be getting worse. "In my team alone, we're 50% down on staffing hours compared with last year," says one former NHS worker, who provides home-care to patients who are largely elderly. Thanks to poor morale, she says that the team in which she works has lost around a third of its staff, and she is also having to see to administrative tasks that were previously carried out by someone else: in addition, she claims, support for a new IT regime is "farcical". "We've still got the same number of patients," she says, "so the workload has massively increased." As a result, she and her colleagues are having to cut people out of their previous entitlement to treatment at home. "That completely goes against our ethics," she says, "but that's what we're having to do." The NHS is a relatively new area of controversy for Serco, but concerns about their practices run across many other areas. Right now, the controversy over alleged overcharging, focused on both Serco and its fellow tagging- contractor G4S, seems to have only just begun. When thenews was made public, 8% was wiped off Serco's share price. The Cabinet Office has announced a review "into government-held G4S and Serco contracts to ensure that contracts are well-managed and in good order", which will report in the autumn. Work for the British government accounts for 40% of Serco's revenues; to quote from the Daily Telegraph. "Without Serco, Britain would struggle to go to war". That gives you some idea of how deeply its work penetrates the state, and how unthinkable any kind of corporate crisis would be. Margaret Hodge, the former Labour minister who now chairs the public accounts committee, clearly thinks that all these stories point to huge issues. She talks about "the inability of government to contract-out in a way that protects the taxpayer's interest." The Cornwall out-of-hours story, she tells me, was reducible to "an absurd situation where you had a company seemingly lying about what it was doing, but there was nothing in the contract that could allow you to terminate it – indeed, they still appeared to be eligible for their bonus payments. It's quite extraordinary." There are even bigger issues at stake, though. "There's also the inability of the public sector to monitor effectively," she says. "The Cornwall story came to light because of a Guardian journalist and a whole load of whistleblowers. Which is nuts: a crazy way for the public sector holding to account the private sector when it's delivering public services." Even her committee, she says, cannot break through a great wall of commercial confidentiality, and look at what the companies delivering pubic services are up to – not just in terms of their bids for public services and contracts with government, but such vital matters as their costs, and the profits they make from particular jobs. Does she feel any guilt about the fact that companies such as Serco made their decisive breakthrough into public services when Labour was in power? There's a murmur of agreement. "I think we were as bad at managing this diversity of providers," she says. "But one of the things that gets me with this government is that they should have learned from our mistakes. What is becoming really clear to me … is that the Sercos, the A4s, the G4Ss, the Capitas – they're good at winning contracts, but too often, they're bad at running services." And what of the incredible range of what Serco actually does, from school inspections to Boris bikes? "Interestingly, we are looking at this. The National Audit Office is doing work around the development of quasi-monopoly private providers, which is the world we're moving into. We don't really understand the size of their empires. We've got to start getting hold of this. It's a new phenomenon." Once I'd spoken to Hodge, I got hold of one of Serco's "media relations team", and arranged to send him a few questions. On the subject of the out-of-hours GP fiasco in Cornwall, he quoted a response from the doctor in charge of their set-up. "It's really important that the local people in Cornwall do not lose confidence in this essential urgent care service," he said. "It is a valued part of the local NHS and we are proud of our professional team who provide it." A wider statement said the company had taken "swift and decisive action to put the situation right and apologised to the people of Cornwall", and made "a goodwill gesture to repay the bonus made [sic] to us in 2012, which we were under no obligation to do." All told, I was assured, their service "delivers a high standard against the national quality requirements". On the allegations about what has happened since Serco took over community healthcare in Suffolk, and the claim that any new starters aside from clinical staff are on inferior terms and conditions, the same spokesperson said that such employees are "offered contracts in line with Serco standard terms and conditions which are market comparable". He denied that anyone had been cut out of treatment at home, said that the company had "recently realigned our clinical teams across Suffolk according to the needs of the areas in which they deliver care" and claimed that new IT systems are being implemented "slowly and carefully". The controversy surrounding Thameside prison, they said, had been followed by "a series of initiatives" including a "gangs strategy", and measures to help prisoners with mental-health issues. Some people were now allowed to be outside their cells "during the core part of the day", and in August, Serco anticipated that this would be extended. As for the ongoing story about overcharging for their tagging contract with the Ministry of Justice, Serco said this: "We are working with our customer, the Ministry of Justice [on] this matter so there is very little we can add at this stage." I was also directed to a statement from Chris Hyman, which said the company "will not tolerate poor practice and behaviour and wherever it is found we will put it right", and reminded that justice secretary Chris Grayling has said he so far has "no information to confirm dishonesty had taken place" on the part of either Serco or G4S. There was one last question, concerning the amazing spread of what Serco sees to, from parking meters, through nuclear early warning systems, to an expanding share of the NHS. Is there any limit to the fields they work in? "We operate in a range of markets and geographies," went its answer, "which means we are well placed to bring a wide range of experiences and knowledge to help customers with the challenges that they face." That'll be a no, then. RAPAR Newsletter: July issue out now - Jimmy Mubenga, Legal Aid, the racist Migrant Levy, and more7/17/2013 >>> Click here for the newsletter <<<
Details here:
http://www.redeye.org.uk/programme/pod-collective-working-refugees "This event is aimed at all photographers, artists, refugees and asylum seekers; it will also be of particular interest to anyone working with vulnerable groups, anyone interested in forming a new collaboration or accessing public funding, those wanting to work with mixed media, or anyone wanting to hear the stories of some of Manchester’s refugees and asylum seekers." 18 July 2013, 18:30 - 21:00 The International Anthony Burgess Foundation, Engine House, Chorlton Mill, 3 Cambridge Street, Manchester, M1 5BY, United Kingdom from BBC News | See RAPAR's Stop Serco page and the new Resist Privatising, Stop Serco website
--- G4S probe after tag firms' multi-million overcharging confirmed The justice secretary has asked the Serious Fraud Office to consider investigating G4S over overcharging for tagging criminals in England and Wales. Chris Grayling told MPs overcharging by G4S and rival Serco amounted to tens of millions of pounds. He said some charges were for tagging people who were in jail or abroad, and a few who had died. Serco agreed to a "forensic audit" by accountants PwC of what happened but G4S declined to take part, he added. The firms have said they will repay any amount which is found to be due. G4S has said it has "co-operated fully with the PwC audit" and is conducting its own inquiry but is not aware of any indications of dishonesty or misconduct. Shares in the companies fell as Mr Grayling said there would also be a wider review of all contracts held by the two companies across government. Last month, figures showed government spending on contracts with G4S had risen by more than £65m in 2012 to £394m. In a Commons statement, Mr Grayling said he had also launched a disciplinary investigation into the way the contracts had been managed inside the Ministry of Justice after uncovering evidence that officials knew in 2008 there were problems with how both companies were billing for tagging. "The House will share my astonishment that two of the government's biggest suppliers would seek to charge in this way," said Mr Grayling. 2004 contractsElectronic tagging of criminals is a key part of the government's strategy to monitor offenders in the community. The contracts are awarded to private companies who then place the electronic ankle bracelet on the offender or suspect and ensure that their movements comply with their bail or licence conditions. Mr Grayling said that current contracts had been awarded in November 2004 and were due to expire shortly. He said that an audit had revealed a "significant anomaly in the billing practices" of both companies. Mr Grayling said: "It included charges for people who were back in prison and had had their tags removed, people who had left the country, and those who had never been tagged in the first place but who had instead been returned to court. "There are a small number of cases where charging continued for a period when the subject was known to have died. "In some instances, charging continued for a period of many months and indeed years after active monitoring had ceased." 'Open and transparent'Mr Grayling said officials estimated that the total over-billing was in the "low tens of millions" but it was not clear whether the problems dated back to an earlier 1999 contract. He said that Serco had agreed to open its books to auditors PriceWaterhouseCoopers who would conduct a forensic audit of what happened, including looking at executives' emails. Mr Grayling said: "We put the same proposal for a further detailed forensic audit to take place to G4S. They have rejected that proposal. "Given the nature of the findings of the audit work that has taken place so far, and the very clear legal advice that I have received, I am today asking the Serious Fraud Office to consider whether an investigation is appropriate into what happened in G4S, and to confirm to me whether any of the actions of anyone in that company represent more than a contractual breach." Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said the government should ask the police and the Serious Fraud Office to investigate both G4S and Serco. "Both these companies are recipients of hundreds of millions of pounds of contracts from across government and local authorities and it is important that an immediate and independent audit takes place to make sure there are no wider irregularities involving taxpayers' money by them or the other big players," he said. He also said plans to privatise probation contracts now needed to be evaluated through pilot schemes. The BBC understands that G4S rejected the proposal of a forensic audit because it maintained that its own internal review had found no dishonesty. In a statement, the company said: "We can confirm that we are working with the Ministry of Justice on their review of the electronic monitoring contracts. "We believe that we are delivering our electronic monitoring service in a completely open and transparent way." It added: "G4S believes that any evidence or indication of dishonesty should be referred to the relevant authorities including, if appropriate, the SFO." G4S chief executive Ashley Almanz said: "We take very seriously the concerns expressed by the Ministry of Justice. We are determined to deal with these issues in a prompt and appropriate manner." Serco's chief executive Christopher Hyman said: "We are deeply concerned if we fall short of the standards expected of all of us. "We are therefore taking this extremely seriously and will continue to work closely with our customer to resolve their concerns in this matter. We will not tolerate poor practice and behaviour and wherever it is found we will put it right." G4S faced controversy last year after it failed to provide all of its 10,400 contracted employees to the London Olympics. Ian Lawrence, general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said Serco and G4S should not be allowed to bid for any of the contracts under proposals to privatise the probation service Andrew Neilson, director of campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said Mr Grayling "should rethink his plans to introduce yet more private sector involvement in the criminal justice system". From the Guardian | Click here for the Northern Police Monitoring Campaign, supported by RAPAR
Man dies after being tasered by police Man named locally as Jordan Begley said to have suffered 'medical episode' after incident in Manchester Helen Pidd, Sarah Dawood, Vikram Dodd and Eric Allison guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 July 2013 13.45 BST A man who died after being tasered by police in Manchester has been named locally as 23-year-old factory worker Jordan Begley. He is said to have suffered a "medical episode" and died after police fired at him with the stun gun. Officers responded to reports of a disturbance at about 8.15pm on Wednesday in Gorton, east Manchester, and used the Taser while detaining the man. The police force referred the case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Begley was described by his boss as "a very good lad" who had been saving up to move out of his mother's house. Paul Sivori, of Sivori's ice cream factory, said Begley had been working full-time at the plant for at least three years, both in the depot, which supplies a fleet of ice cream vans, and in the factory shop. "I only saw him last night when he finished his shift at about 7pm," Sivori said. "He'd been under a bit of pressure because it's been a very busy time for us with the hot weather. He was at that age where he wanted to get his own place, to move out of his mum's house, so I [lent] him £100 towards that just yesterday – it was an advance on his wages, which he usually gets on Fridays." Sivori said his uncle Peter had witnessed the start of the incident that led to Begley's death. He was apparently passing Begley's street when he saw the young man surrounded by police. He asked what was going on and was told to go away. On Thursday a police cordon blocked off part of the road and a forensic tent had been set up. The shutters were down at Dot's Cafe, where Begley's mother works, with a handwritten sign saying: "Cafe closed due to bereavement". One woman who claimed to know Begley's mother said the dead man had a heart complaint and was often ill. She suggested that if he had a criminal record police should have known about his heart problems and should not have used a Taser on him. Neighbour Kirstie Porter, 21, said she saw Begley being brought out of the house and put in the ambulance where paramedics performed CPR. "Everybody was out in the street, all the neighbours. There was police everywhere, loads of vans turned up. The ambulance was there for about five or 10 minutes and then it drove off." Lee Wilkie, 25, who lives nearby on Mount Road, told the Manchester Evening News: "He was a good lad, a quiet lad, and he was very well-liked. People around here are just in total shock and really angry as well, why did they have to Taser him?" It is unclear what led to Begley being shot with the stun gun. Greater Manchester police said: "Police received a 999 call reporting a disturbance on Beard Road in Gorton where there was a man with a knife. Officers were dispatched immediately and arrived in eight minutes. On arrival a Taser was discharged to detain a 23-year-old man. "At this time it is unclear what happened, but at some point afterwards the man suffered a medical episode. Paramedics performed first aid on the man at the scene before he was taken to hospital where he sadly died." Police use of Tasers has been controversial. In October last year a blind man, Colin Farmer, 63, was shot with a 50,000-volt Taser in Chorley, Lancashire, when his white stick was mistaken for a Samurai sword. Last month prosecutors confirmed that the IPCC had passed them a file for consideration, meaning officers could face criminal charges over the incident. In April the IPCC launched another investigation after a Taser was fired at a man in Plymouth who had doused himself in petrol, and who later died from serious burn injuries. The IPCC said it would examine the "officer's rationale for discharging a Taser on a person known to be doused in flammable liquid" and "whether the discharge of the Taser caused the fuel to ignite". In London police chiefs want Tasers to be more widely available to officers, arguing that they protect officers and are a better alternative to deploying firearms officers. This year an inquiry by the London assembly heard that the Metropolitan police planned to increase the number of officers issued with Tasers by more than 50%, from 800 to almost 1,300, bringing the Met into line with other forces that have significantly increased Taser deployment. Freedom of information requests reveal that the weapons were discharged 1,371 times in the year ending March 2011, a 66% rise on the previous year. But government figures (pdf) released on Thursday showed a decrease in the number of police operations in which firearms were authorised: 12,550 in England in 2011-12, compared with a peak of 18,891 in 2005-06. For background details see the Linfoots' campaign page
--- After a four year battle with Chorley Council, Romany Gypsies Mike and Pattie Linfoot have succeeded in keeping their family home. An amended planning application to use their small piece of land in Chorley as a Gypsy site was given two years’ temporary planning permission at the Planning Meeting at Chorley Town Hall on 9th July. Delighted supporters commented, “it’s a wonderful result, they are such a lovely family,”… “I can’t believe we don’t have to go home and plan for the next battle” … “now the children are safe at school and the family can at last get on with their lives”. As friends and supporters gathered to celebrate, Pattie Linfoot said “It’s fantastic news! We’ve had so many messages of support. I’d like to thank everyone for their help. We couldn’t have done it without them. Now we can relax and enjoy family time.” RAPAR’s Sandy Broadhurst said: “This is certainly a great result for the Linfoot family and a tribute to they and all their supporters – but it also has implications for all Travellers. Chorley Council failed to include provision for Travellers in their Town Plan and failed to make adequate assessments of Gypsy and Traveller need in their area. This is not acceptable. All Gypsies and Travellers have the right to appropriate housing and the opportunity to pursue their culture. Let’s hope that the Linfoots’ victory is the start of proper provision for Travellers throughout Lancashire and Greater Manchester.” After an 8 week inquest and 4 days of deliberation, the jury at the inquest into the death of Jimmy Mubenga (read the full background report here) has returned a verdict of unlawful killing. The jury of seven men and 3 women recorded a majority verdict of nine to one that the restraint of Mr Mubenga by G4S guards was “a significant, that is more than minimal, cause of death.”
Jimmy Mubenga was on BA flight 77 to Angola in October 2010. He was chaperoned by three G4S guards and was overheard by other passengers crying out “They’re going to kill me” and alerting his captors to the fact he couldn’t breathe. In their verdict, the jury found that the guards were aware of the fact that they would have been causing Mr Mubenga harm by restraining him in the way that they were and that they were knowingly using disproportionate force that directly impeded Mr Mubenga’s breathing contributing to his death on the runway. Adrienne Makenda Kambana, Jimmy Mubenga’s wife, said her late husband had been treated “worse than an animal”, while the counsel for Mubenga’s family suggested that the G4S guards had been trying to teach Mubenga a lesson by acting in the way that they did. The three guards – Stuart Tribelnig, Terry Hughes and Colin Kaler – were arrested for their actions but were subsequently released after the Crown Prosecution Service decided against pressing charges. The CPS have now said they will reconsider this decision in light of the verdict delivered by the inquest. The inquest heard that two of the three guards were found to have a string of racist jokes on their phones while one man, Terry Hughes, was found to have what the coroner had described as “very racially offensive material” stored on his mobile. The Guardian is also reporting that there are still systemic problems with the way in which security companies carry out their contracts with the Home Office for the deportation of asylum seekers. G4S no longer run the contract that lead to their contact with Jimmy Mubenga, but guards for Tascor, the current contractor, have raised concerns that there is still an inadequate level of training for new recruits. One anonymous source even reported that a number of detainees had been assaulted by guards on a recent charter flight to Lagos. The failings of private security companies have been manifold and have in the past prompted four whistleblowers to give written evidence to parliament about the manner in which restraining techniques used by G4S play “Russian roulette with detainees’ lives”. This case is a tragic reminder of the way in which the United Kingdom allows people in their care to be treated and is, RAPAR fears, simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the mistreatment at the heart of the UK asylum system. All Information contained in this article is sourced from two guardian articles that can be read here and here. Any inaccuracies are as a result of these reports. Celebrate Legal Aid on its 64th Birthday - come along and help protect it!
March And Rally! Tuesday 30th July at 5:00 pm. Assemble at Manchester Crown Court, Crown Square, Manchester, M3 3FL. Fight against Government cuts to free advice that will mean:
Legal aid is our last defence - it's time to celebrate it by coming together to protect it! Speakers include: John Nicholson, Mark George QC and a statement from Michael Mansfield QC Over a 100,000 people have signed the E-Petition against cuts to Legal Aid, if you haven't already signed, you can join them by signing here!! Events for a Shared Day of Action on Destitution were organised in cities throughout the UK at the end of June. In Manchester, there was a “community picnic and peaceful procession” - the event was publicised as being in support of asylum seekers and against destitution and focused on the slogan “Asylum Seekers Are Human Too”. This slogan reflects the looseness of the debate which has been allowed to develop around destitution and is one of the reasons why RAPAR did not take part in the day of “action”.
That people seeking asylum are human is a fact – not something it is necessary to assert. Should we oppose destitution merely in relation to people seeking asylum or because destitution itself is wrong? To focus on people seeking asylum in the debate around destitution is to reinforce the government's policy of isolating them from the rest of the community. The declaration that “Asylum Seekers Are Human Too” is a weak and shallow response to the government's vicious anti immigration agenda. If we are really serious about taking action against destitution, it's time to tighten up the arguments and widen the dialogue. RAPAR was one of the first organisations in the UK to analyse the Home Office's policy of dispersal, the way it cuts people off from their friends and supporters, and how the policy leads to eviction into destitution and even deeper isolation. We believe that the government's recent attacks on all people existing on low incomes makes it even more important to embrace a wider approach to the fight against destitution. The bedroom tax and changes in the benefits system mean that increasing numbers of people will be evicted into destitution – people seeking asylum need to be an integral part of the resistance to it. The government is building on the policy of evicting asylum seekers into destitution to force other sections of the population out of their homes and onto the streets. Organisations which work with people seeking asylum should not seek to fortify government policies which separate them from the rest of the community. We should instead work with others to fight destitution itself – to do any less, is to collaborate with a government which seeks to divide and enfeeble us. Let's take some real shared action by linking up with other people in our community who are at risk of eviction and fighting destitution together. THE MIGRANT LEVY IS A RACIST LEVY – AND ONE MORE STEP ON THE ROAD TO PRIVATISATION OF THE NHS7/8/2013 On July 3rd, a consultation was launched about government plans for the introduction of a “migrant levy”, a proposal which will limit access to healthcare provided by the NHS.
The consultation closes at 5pm on August 28th and we believe that everyone who cares about the health service should make their views known. This cynical move by the government, justified by Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt as a means of cutting back on so-called “health tourism”, is actually another attack on migrants – and one more step towards the privatisation of the NHS. With their plans for the “migrant levy”, the coalition government is adding to the noxious anti immigration rhetoric which is being fuelled by some sections of the media and increasingly exploited by far right groups like the BNP and the English Defence League. Administration for the surveillance of people affected by this new levy has not been properly thought through or costed and it is likely to be run by NHS staff who are already under pressure. There is a very real danger that monitoring of who is liable for the levy will lead to discrimination against people who do not speak English or appear to be foreign, with inadvertently racist decisions being taken by health and administration workers. The “migrant levy” will cover those people from outside the European Community who do not have indefinite leave to remain in the UK. The levy will be at least £200 a year and, in many cases, will cost more. Jeremy Hunt has said the NHS could be losing £200 million a year as a result of “health tourism” yet, in his New Statesman article “How Much Does 'Health Tourism' Actually Cost The NHS?”, George Eaton points out that the government has provided no evidence for this figure. Eaton estimates that the figure is actually around £12 million – or 0.01 per cent of the NHS budget. Compare this figure with the £16.3 billion (1 per cent of GDP) which the OECD estimates migrants contribute to the economy each year. Compare the figures also with the scandalous £50 billion the NHS was left owing to Private Finance Initiative schemes which cost £11 billion to build. Universal primary health care for people living in the UK is essential, both for individuals themselves and for public health reasons. If people cannot afford to pay the levy and delay going to a GP it could exacerbate epidemics such as flu and measles, to say nothing of the danger it poses to an individual's health. The government is saying that emergency health care will be available for people who are seriously ill or whose lives are at risk but the number of people who will need emergency care is likely to rocket if these new proposals become law. People who could have been treated by a GP may get so ill that they have to receive emergency treatment, so leading to more expense for the NHS not less. The NHS is paid for through taxes, including VAT. Everyone in the country contributes towards health care. Jeremy Hunt's contention that it is a “national”, not “international”, health service is therefore disingenuous and pernicious. The government's “health tourism” narrative is both anti immigrant rhetoric and a cover for the creeping privatisation of the health service. The major unions have called a demonstration in support of the NHS at the Tory Party conference in Manchester this September and we hope that it will be backed by unions, community groups, other organisations and individuals. We need to ensure that it is the biggest demonstration Manchester has seen so the government is left in no doubt about our support for the National Health Service and our determination to resist government plans for privatisation. But the consultation on the “migrant levy” ends before that, on August 28th, and we urge as many people as possible to take part. To respond to the consultation, please see here. |
|