Asylum Seekers – I know? Let’s blame G4S!

In typical fashion our Council blames others for it’s own mistakes?

G4S seems to be the victim this time. Funny how everyone was content with all this, when everyone was making money or benefiting in other ways from hosting asylum seekers in large numbers?

Now that the consequences are becoming ever more apparent, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council seeks to blame someone else! G4S is a convenient target on this occasion?

The Advertiser duly obliges:

Tizer G4S criticised for Rotherham asylum numbers part 2014-01-15

.

15 thoughts on “Asylum Seekers – I know? Let’s blame G4S!

  1. As I understand it RMBC has the authority to stop G4S bussing in immigrants. RMBC has a duty of care and that includes making sure schools and GP’s surgeries are not overwhelmed and there are sufficient homes for immigrants.
    It is no good Our Glorious Leader blaming the contractor, it is his and the council’s responsibility to maintain a check on the number of immigrants who arrive and where they will be housed. It is called responsibility. Nor is it difficult to liaise with G4S and find out when and where the next busload(s) is due. If everyone abdicated responsibilities for their actions we’d be in an even bigger mess.

    Like

  2. RMBC had no authority to stop G4S housing Asylum Seekers in Rotherham.
    RMBC had a valid complaint over the actions of G4S, and the National Audit Office supported them.

    RMBC come out the bad guys most of the time, but not this time!

    Like

    • Councils currently have powers to impose local residency tests for social housing.
      The Secretary of State has prescribed that certain persons from abroad who are not subject to immigration control are also ineligible for housing assistance by virtue of sections 160ZA(5) and 185(3) of the 1996 Act (as amended). Regulations 4 and 6 of
      The Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1294)6 “the eligibility Regulations” determine which persons from abroad who are not subject to immigration control are nonetheless ineligible for housing assistance in respect of applications made on or after 1 June 2006.

      Like

    • You must be referring to this comment, Posted by: G4S Press Office at 15:18 on 15 January 2014

      “During the transition to the new contracts in 2012 there was an increase in the numbers of asylum seekers housed in Rotherham however at no time were figures in excess of guidelines. We have worked with the Home Office and Local Authority to resolve the issue and have agreed a plan of action which will lead to numbers returning to normal levels within a few months. G4S Spokesperson” Nicola Savage

      So there we have it, everything will be back to ‘normal levels’ soon.
      What would ‘normal levels’ be, I wonder?

      Like

      • Ms Savage is Head of Media G4S plc. – a very senior PR-bunny.
        The Home Office policy since 2007 has been for a ratio of 1 Asylum seeker per every 300 normal residents. Presumably that is also the basis of the 2012 Home Office Compass contract with G4S .
        G4S had no experience of placing asylum seekers when they got the contract, but their bid was the lowest.
        … and Rotherham has relatively low property rental costs, so go figure…

        Like

  3. LOL Council and Tizer they complained over 6-months ago on this and still did nowt. i bet there’s been many expenses claims made in that 6 months. story on insidehousing back in july 2013 h–p://www.insidehousing.co.uk/care/rotherham-lodges-complaint-against-g4s/6527625.article

    Like

  4. as said before , why is m kimber so uptight about 450 asylum seekers ??? 3,700 roma /slovak in rotherham at the last count , yes we know nothing can be done about it , and the bad landords love it .

    Like

    • RMBC made representations to the Home Office because under the guidelines an excess of Asylum seekers were being housed in Rotherham by G4S. It was nad is a valid complaint.
      The number of Roma/Slovak in Rotherham is a completely separate issue.
      The only thing these issues have in common is what you describe as “bad landlords”, and from what I understand RMBC is belatedly beginning to tackle that problem.

      Like

      • rmbc should have placed a landlord scheme in place when eastwood had 21 million spent some years back … bit late now as most good residents have left and the slovak / roma have taken over . just for the record , eastwood had a/s years ago with very little problems form them .

        Like

  5. R/R You’re right about the ratio. The following are Freedom of information request answers from the council.: Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Request for Information – 990

    Thank you for your request for information received on 13 January 2014, please find detailed below the response from Rotherham MBC.

    Request

    Could you please tell me how many asylum seekers has Rotherham received since being designated a dispersal town.

    Response – We do not hold this information and you should contact the Home Office who are the body responsible for dispersing asylum seekers across the country.

    What is the ratio per population for asylum seekers that is recommended by the Home Office

    Response – 1:300 across Yorkshire and Humber.

    How much has Rotherham exceeded this figure?

    Response – This ratio was exceeded once in 2007 by seven.

    Is this figure still being exceeded

    Response – No, not since 2007.

    What sum does Rotherham receive per asylum seeker and does this include translation costs

    Response – The council receives no funding for asylum seekers. There is a contract to house and support asylum seekers which the Home Office has awarded to G4S. You should contact the Home Office for the financial terms of the contract.

    Like

    • Hi Mal,
      Yes, it is a messy business, and it is all between the Home Office and G4S – RMBC have no say in it. RMBC has to go through the Home Office if they want to complain to/ communicate with G4S.
      … and the Home Office meet with MigrationYorkshire not with the Council Officers as far as I can see. (I have nothing against MigrationYorkshire – they are really helpful people!)

      ” You should contact the Home Office for the financial terms of the contract.” ha ha! When you ask the Home Office about the contract they say it is Commercially Confidential!
      _____________________________
      I’m not sure that I agree with the response to the following:
      “What is the ratio per population for asylum seekers that is recommended by the Home Office
      Response – 1:300 across Yorkshire and Humber.
      How much has Rotherham exceeded this figure?
      Response – This ratio was exceeded once in 2007 by seven.
      Is this figure still being exceeded
      Response – No, not since 2007.”
      _______________________________
      But I’ve got to admit, that whilst I am a fairly numerate bloke I’m still not sure I understand what that 1:300 ratio means. Me dumb?
      (I’ve sent my own FoI responses to Rothpol, along with some of my comments, but asked him not to publish until I am ready for it.)
      ____________________________
      You got those figures in Jan this year?
      (I’m still trying to get to the bottom of it all – but it’s not easy; give me time, OK?)

      Like

  6. “not sure I understand what that 1:300 ratio means”.

    It means 1 A/S per 300 residents.
    According to this: http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/92587/rotherham-s-population-hits-a-new-high.aspx in September 2012 there were 257,600 residents recorded living in the Borough.
    Simple maths shows us, based on the above figure Rotherham should have no more than 858 Asylum Seekers arriving for the year 2012-2013.
    If we believe RMBC figures this number has not been exceeded.

    Like

    • … yes, that makes sense, but that would allow G4S to bring 858 A/S here on day1 and only move them 12 months later; whilst the complaint is that the numbers “increased from 334 in August 2012 to 450 in March 2013”, and it makes far more sense to restrict the numbers who are here at any one time – as well as being easier to monitor.

      Like

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.