Campaigners make their voices heard at Leeds University's privatisation conference

Campaigners assembled outside Leeds University's Liberty Building (c) PressGang

Early this morning, Yorkshire NotoG4S campaigners assembled outside Leeds University's Liberty building just to make sure that the attendees of the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies' conference on Private Sector Involvement in Criminal Justice were getting both sides of the story.

Representatives from SERCO's 'Secure Accommodation and Security Services' and G4S' 'Justice Services' were due to speak at the conference, alongside academics and researchers from across the country.

Campaigners from Leeds Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, UCU, Unison and the Socialist Workers Party joined asylum-rights activists outside the conference venue, distributing leaflets that detailed G4S and SERCO's unsavoury history. Many conference attendees even expressed explicit support for our campaign against the continual outsourcing of the state. A member of G4S staff even stopped for a brief chat.

In conversation with one of our campaigners, this member of G4S staff stated that the company had completely pulled out of all operations in the West Bank and, after being pressed by the campaigner on their wider involvement in assisting the Israeli army and police, stated that they were currently reviewing their contracts with Israeli prisons and detention centres. We are awaiting confirmation of these statements.

Campaigners also questioned a passing policeman about his views on the prospective privatisation of the police force. They believed that an attempt to contract out policing services to private companies within a massive force - such as the West Yorkshire Police - would end in complete disaster.

Whilst we did not plan to enter the conference - through choice or the ridiculously high (£70) ticket price - two NotoG4S supporters, who happened to be University of Leeds Law students, were supposedly able to attend. As Law students, they were technically allowed to attend the event for free. Yet, as they took their seats in the conference hall, two members of University security staff informed them that they were no longer welcome in the conference as they had been seen participating in the picket outside. They were then swiftly escorted out of the building.

We were unable to find out who authorised the removal of these two Law students from the conference, but they intend to contact the Law School in order to complain about their treatment and challenge the decision.

Silencing those who disagree with the modus operandi is hardly the sign of a fair and comprehensive debate about the encroaching powers of these multi-national security companies. We will continue to raise awareness about the growing powers of G4S and SERCO over our public services, and campaign to keep private contractors out.

The state is not for sale. 

G4S News Update // 18 - 24th June

G4S News Update // 18th - 24th June 

Yorkshire Campaigners Claim Small Victory Over World's Biggest Security Company, Open Democracy, 20th June 2012: Campaigners across Yorkshire have forced G4S to sever their relationship with slum landlords, United Property Management. G4S quietly removed all reference to the company from their website. (See original posting on G4S blog for further information.) 

G4S Boss Predicts Mass Privatisation of UK Police Forces, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Info4Security (amongst others), 21st June 2012: The Guardian's interview with G4S boss David Taylor-Smith was picked up by much of the mainstream press and online commenters. Claiming that the general public 'don't really care' about police privatisation, Taylor-Smith reiterated G4S' interest in furthering contracts within Policing services. 

How G4S is Securing Your World, The Guardian, 21st June 2012: Matthew Taylor's feature comprehensively details G4S' rocketing growth over the past few years. 

G4S Security Staff Accused of Faking Sniffer Dog Searches at Olympic Site, The Sun, 22nd June 2012: Two members of G4S staff have been suspended after an internal review of G4S' security provision at the Olympic Site revealed that staff had been faking the searches of traffic entering the Olympic Park for 3 years. 

G4S Online Systems Hit by Hacktivist, Information Age, 23rd June 2012: An online hacker published a list of G4S personnel and their contact details online, as part of a protest against G4S' violations of human rights. G4S claimed that their security had not been breached. 

Coalition to end 'cosy' government supply contracts, The Telegraph, The Independent, 24th June 2012: Twenty-two private companies - including G4S - that hold the most contracts with the UK government have been called to a meeting at the Cabinet Office to be warned that the government will be "tough" and demand the "best value for money" from their private contractors. A government spokesperson stated that “suppliers with poor performance may therefore find it more difficult to secure new work for the Government.” Yet G4S' 'poor performance' hasn't seemed to have affected their capacity for renewed and further government contracts…

Hold G4S to account at Leeds University

This Wednesday (27th June), the managing director of G4S' Justice Services will be speaking at a conference at Leeds University (full timetable here) about the privatisation of justice and policing services. A representative from SERCO will also be at the event. We think it's time to ask some awkward questions...

We're planning to assemble outside the Liberty Building (University of Leeds Law School - see map) at 8.30am on Wednesday morning, just to make sure that the less favourable facts about G4S and SERCO are made known.

For a bit of contextualisation, see this recent Guardian article about G4S' chief predicting mass-privatisation of the police force within 5 years. Also, see Corporate Watch's brilliant annual report on G4S, and a pretty accurate Alternative Shareholders Report circulated by campaigners at G4S' recent AGM. We've also drafted a flyer for distribution outside the conference venue (any extra copies would be much appreciated!) Please circulate far and wide...

We need to make sure these multi-national security companies know that even though governments may not scrutinise their conduct, we will hold them to account for their actions. We do not want profiteering security contractors housing asylum seekers in the UK. We do not want private security guards masquerading as police officers. The state is not for sale. 

G4S: the public face of private police

Companies like G4S are often described as the invisible authorities behind hundreds of our so called social services. The fact that a care home is run by A4E, a detention centre is managed by Serco or that your local police authority is a 'joint-venuture' with multi-national corporation G4S, is not advertised as such; it's only there when you go looking.

At least that's how it's been for years. Yet in the words of Claire Sambrook, writing brilliantly for Open Democracy, now 'Corporate Power stamps its brand on British Policing'; Lincolnshire police uniforms now find their epaulettes branded by the brazen red, white and black of the G4S logo. According to a BBC report, the uniforms are to be worn by 200 staff, including front counter staff at police stations. We're seeing a "strategic partnership" with G4S firmly in control.

On the first of April 2012, 540 civilian Lincolnshire police workers turned into employees of G4S, the largest security company in the UK. Alongside managing frontline counter service, G4S employees will run the crime management bureau, the central ticket office and collisions unit, the criminal justice unit, the resource management unit and firearms licensing. This is hardy the back-room presence that the government claimed private contractors would have within the police. Put succinctly by Sambrook:

As for the corporate statement, "There are no plans to introduce the dual logo elsewhere," it is a warning. It does not come from the government, or from a Minister speaking to Parliament. The sentence carries a huge, silent word at the end: "yet". 

Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation, immdiately after acknowledging that changing the uniforms will have an adverse effect on the visual presence of warranted officers, made the following statement:

"G4S aren't doing anything wrong. They are doing what any private company would want to do, which is make profit and expand their organisation." 

I'm not sure whether I could ever agree with that.

Guardian covers asylum housing "super contracts"

Thanks to James Legge, national media have finally covered the shocking accommodation 'super-contracts' awarded to our favourites: G4S, Serco and Clearel (Reliance Ltd and Clearsprings Ltd).

Have a look at his brilliant Guardian article here.

And so it begins...

As Serco are set for their November takeover of asylum seekers' social housing in Scotland, it has already been reported that 100 asylum seekers living in Glasgow have been told to leave their homes by previous contract holder, Y People.

Y People, formally known as YMCA Glasgow, was previously responsible for housing dispersed asylum seekers to Glasgow who are awaiting decision from the UKBA. Losing the huge housing contract to Serco in March, Y People has been forced to serve certain residents with eviction notices as many of their rental contracts are set to run out in May. 

This is a process we can expect to see replicated across the country. As the multinational corporations move in, thousands of asylum seekers will only been seen as a form of collateral damage rather than at the centre of service provision. Previous contract holders, still managing certain contracts whilst handing others over to Serco, G4S or Reliance Security, will be left in a complex state of limbo. In the words of Joe Connelly, Y People's Chief Executive, "We [Y People] have a contract extension until November, but we don't know what that means."As support networks are dismantled to pave the way for the full privatisation of asylum seekers' social housing, it would be naive to think that there will be no tangible victim. In the words of Michael Collins, of the Anti-Deportation Campaign, things are simple: "These people will become homeless and destitute."  

Whilst the contracts have been awarded to G4S, Serco and Reliance, no safety nor dignity has been secured for the thousands of asylum seekers that are forced into precarious lives in the UK. As the notorious A4E are the preferred bidders for the Equality and Human Rights Commission's helpline, multinational security companies scrap over new policing contracts and VirginCare start to provide community health services in Surrey, the rights of vulnerable individuals are becoming increasingly tertiary to government ideology and economic jargon. Placing critical service provision at the whims of the commercial marketplace once again reaffirms the government's zeal for profit over people; the yields of privatisation over public service. 

G4S awarded £203 million pound contract

Today, the inevitable did happen. G4S, Serco and Reliance Security were all awarded their proposed contracts for asylum seekers' social housing across the country. G4S' final contract for Midlands and the East of England, North West, and Yorkshire and Humberside, amounts to a shocking £203 million.

These five-year contracts will put three multi-national security companies in charge of providing accommodation for asylum seekers who are awaiting decisions from the UKBA. Regardless of obvious arguments about the problems of privatisation (arguable relevant to many other issues in contemporary Britain such as the NHS and our motorway network), this outsourcing of critical housing provision crucially ignores the charges and criticisms made against G4S over the past months.

Unsurprisingly, the awarding of this contract comes prior to a potential court case against G4S. The investigation into the death of Jimmy Mubenga, an Angolan asylum seekers who died whilst being deported by G4S guards, has been ongoing for 17 years. Recently, a senior judge declared that the decision on whether the G4S guards will be charged is imminent. This incident, alongside a huge portfolio of complaints of racial and physical abuse, led to G4S' deportation contract with the government being terminated in September 2011. It seems that the government - and G4S - will not allow this horrific record to interfere with 'business' once again.

Faced with another frightening demonstration of profit being put before people, big business are once again set to turn the asylum system into a profitable market. The logic is inevitable: profits will soar as equality plummets. As capitalism seeps into some of the most critical support sectors, we're set to see a system where service users are exploited for the financial benefit of multi-national corporations.

It's not difficult to see the changes. I challenge every reader of this blog to note every time they spot the G4S logo on a daily basis. Cash collection, property management, detention centres, event security, prisons, police services, and now housing; their web is ever-expanding.

As the NHS bill passes through parliament, David Cameron introduces ideas to privatise the roads and the publication of the budget looms on the horizon, the fabric of England's public services is set to change dramatically. Unfortunately, damage control is not enough.

Whilst campaigning groups are reeling against defeat, it is important that pressure on the government and private companies does not stop. G4S may have been awarded the contract, but the final decision on the Jimmy Mubenga case is still to be revealed. Just because the government have decided that G4S are the right "provider" for asylum seekers' social housing, this does not mean that we should follow suit.

Dehumanising, not dignified: SERCO's training manuals for detention centre guards

Today, Australian investigative journalists released Serco's 400-page induction training documents for their employees working in Australia's detention centres. Dated in 2009/10, this training manual takes on a strictly prison style technique in its explicit instructions on how to control detainees.

SERCO, the multinational security company contracted to run Australia's detention centres, have a $1 billion contract with the Gillard Government, running 9 different asylum outputs. They also already run two detention centres in the UK, Yarl's Wood and Colnbrook. And to no surprise, they are the preferred bidders - alongside G4S and Reliance Security - for the new asylum housing contracts across the UK. The North West and Northern Ireland can look forward to SERCO providing accommodation for asylum seekers in the imminent further.

The release of SERCO's 2009/10 training manual, allegedly after refusing to release similar documents on multiple occasions, reinforces existing concerns about the capacity for private security companies to provide dignified and respectful services for asylum seekers in detention, deportation or temporary accommodation. Much of the document focuses on key "control and restraint" techniques, recommending using a tactic of "pain" to defend, subdue and control asylum seekers. In a frighteningly dehumanising sentence, employees are advised to "subdue the subject using reasonable force so that he/she is no longer in the assailant category [...] If justified, necessary force is to be used to bring the subject to cooperative subject status whereupon they respond favourably to verbalisation."

Continuing to describe countless different 'defence' techniques, their "control and restraint" tactics sound more like excessive force. Employees are taught to use pressure points, batons and physical restraint to cause "high level of pain and mental stunning" in order to coerce the detainee into submission. Void of any compassionate or reconciliatory language, SERCO's training manual hardly brings "service to life."

Aside from dubious restraint techniques, SERCO's training guide reinforces many other unsavoury tactics. Elsewhere in the document, SERCO describe their use of a "Detention Discipline" interview as something that "appears to be very similar to the one that many parents adopt in responding to the actions of a son or a daughter who appears to have behaved unacceptably." According to SERCO, asylum seekers are to be reprimanded like unruly children. SERCO released a statement this afternoon, declaring that "We are committed to treating the people in our care with dignity and respect, and to keeping all those we are responsible for from coming to any sort of harm." Can they honestly claim that treating asylum seekers as children and submitting them to high levels of pain as a coercion technique provides dignity, respect and care for detainees in their centres?

Furthermore, SERCO advise that the use of force should only be undertaken by male guards. Whilst male employees are told to be "tough, strong, in the lead, in control and not back down and give as good as you get, show no weakness, win if you can, never mind the cost", female guards are told to be "gentle, follow, be compassionate, put others before herself, to share, not to argue and not to get angry." This level of gender stereotyping and categorisation is frightening.

Chris Bowen, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in Australia, released a statement this afternoon, claiming that this SERCO manual is outdated and no longer in use. Reiterating comments made by SERCO's spokesperson, Chris Bowen trundled out the familiar phrases of "defensive actions", "last resort" and "dignity and respect." Regardless of whether the training manual has been superseded by a new edition, these guidelines were in place in 2010, only two years ago. Even last year, a freedom of information request revealed that the government's official contract with SERCO allowed for guards to be hired with no experience, or only with nightclub bouncer training. This training document is hardly a single blip in SERCO's record.

This is another failure of government "outsourcing." It is time to tackle the government-endorsed "asylum market" and remind the authorities of the human lives they are putting at risk in favour of "cost-effective solutions." Private companies, focusing on profit rather than people, are hardly the perfect candidates to provide care, dignity and safety for those seeking sanctuary across the globe.