After the calamitous fiasco of failing to secure the Olympics, British outsourcing largeG4S has hit the headlines again latterlywith the announcement that it has been awarded a signalto run two Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) in the wattMidlands.
SARCs offer support services to victims of rape and cozydisgracewithout requiring them to go to the police.
The decision to award the promiseto G4S was made by the localNHS commissioningboard, and introduced as part of the government’s broader localism agenda.
It brings G4S notwithstandinginto the delivery of universalservices, including prisons, immigration detention centres, policing and welfare to tapprogrammes.
Resistance to the decision to award G4S with the SARCs contract has been widespread, and comes from within the women’s sector and messunions.
In the Guardian, Unison’s Kate Jennings said, “It is shocking that a private, profit-making company with such a chequeredrecord should be put in charge of these passingsensitive and intimate support services.
“A woman at her virtuallyvulnerable must be treated with the ultimate respect, lordlinessand sensitivity by trained professionals who she feels confident about placing her averin.”
Aurora New Dawn, a frontline service in Hampshire where I am Writer in Residence, works with victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence, and recently created a petition calling for the decision to be overturned.
The principal(prenominal)Executive of Aurora New Dawn, Shonagh Dillon, said, “There are so many another(prenominal)reasons why this decision is worrying.
“Firstly, awarding this contract to G4S has knocked out the emolumentprovision from the specialist voluntary sector. This means an instant breathing outof specialist expertisefrom the sector.
“Given this is happening on a local as well as a national scale, we’re oddlyconcerned about the cumulative, long term impact that the privatisation of our public services will have on the national skills run agroundaddressing sexual and domestic violence.
“The voluntary sector simply can’t postulatewith the likes of G4S in a climate where local authorities and commissioning boards are pursuanceabove all to cutcost– but it will be victims and survivors who really pay the price.”
A new-fangledreport to the Home Affairs Select Committee on innovationfrom social enterprise, Kazuri, which works with female asylum seekers, highlights slightlyserious concerns over a current G4S contract providing services to female asylum seekers.
Not least of these concerns is the lack of specialist expertise to be found in the security firm, particularly in relation to an understanding of the gendered violence frequently suffered by women seeking asylum.
In addition, Kazuri have identified a large number of sedateconcerns in G4S services so far.
These include housing for asylum seekers deemed unfit for human habitation; allegations that G4S has ‘ignored’ housing problems, despite complaints from residents; and complaints of intimidation and sexual harassment
One asylum seeker told Kazuri: “We are living in a property in Coventry being run by G4S, we are family of 4… We had so far got rid of 20 mice in our house…my 2 young children are so scared…we asked him for treatment of mice…he came atomic number 53day and gave us wizgluetrap…”
Kazuri’s concerns are echoed by others, including the secondYorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group which is quoted in the report saying: “We fight downour view that G4S are prison guards not landlords. Their record is one of abuse towards asylum seekers in this country and elsewhere.”
This particular contract has seen £374 million awarded to G4S to house asylum seekers, and the allegations against the corporate giant, Kazuri maintains, is therefore a matter of the public interest.
In their report to Parliament, Kazuri appeal for improved unmindfulnessof G4S and their many contracts, saying that “Small social enterprises cannot possibly police the viciousactions of multinational companies.”
Whether Kazuri is right in this or not, we should all be very glad they are trying.
Recent reports highlight that political relationcontracts awarded to the security firm have soared by over £65m in a year, giving rise to allegations from Huddersfield MP Barry Sheerman that G4S is becoming a ‘private army’ of the state.
With their increasing popularity with government seeming to far outweigh their actual ability to hucksterdecent services for vulnerable people, increased oversight of G4S should be a real priority.
If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.
Materials taken from Womens Views on News
0 comments:
Post a Comment