As researchers and university teachers in the fields of housing and immigration in the Yorkshire region we oppose the plans of the Coalition government, through the UK Border Agency (UKBA), to award national contracts of around £135 million for managing asylum seeker social housing to the three multinational security companies who manage most immigration detention centres, and forcible deportations in the UK; G4S, Serco, and Reliance.

In Yorkshire the preferred bidder is G4S and the UKBA is at present checking ‘due diligence’ matters before contracts are signed at the end of February. G4S is not of course a social landlord.

G4S are perhaps known to many people in Yorkshire as the firm who read gas and electricity meters, empty cash machines, and through their ‘events arm’ in Sheffield police local sporting and other events.

In fact they are the world’s largest private security firm – they have been responsible for ’security’ at Doncaster airport but also responsible for ’security’ at Baghdad airport, and for guarding diplomats at Kabul airport and throughout Afghanistan. They have been awarded a contract worth £100 million for the London Olympics running security inside the Olympic park providing 10,000 guards to patrol venues. G4S have a close link to police and prisons. In 2011 they managed 675 court and police station cells, four detention centres for asylum seekers and since the summer of 2011 they manage the brand new Cedars ‘family friendly’ detention centre which is called a ‘pre-departure accommodation centre’ in Pease Pottage where families are forcibly held for up to a week prior to enforced removal by the UKBA.

UKBA maintain that the new asylum social housing contracts are being awarded to partners with a proven track record. In the case of G4S they lost the contract to supply escorts in forcible deportations after the death of an Angolan deportee – three G4S guards face criminal charges and the company may yet face corporate manslaughter charges. In 2010 there were a record 773 complaints lodged against G4S by detainees including 48 claims of assault. Three complaints of assault and two of racism were upheld. G4S were allowed to investigate themselves under UKBA ’scrutiny’.

G4S remarkably claim that they will ‘improve cohesion’ by managing the contracts. Asylum seeker tenants already feel intimidated and threatened by the prospect of prison guard companies being installed as their managing landlords. Asylum seekers in social housing are fleeing from persecution and violence and are only allowed tenancies if they are in the process of applying for or appealing cases for sanctuary. They are not ‘criminals’ who deserve prison guards as their landlords but families and individuals claiming their rights under international treaties signed by the UK on our behalf.

The new contracts will mean the privatisation of the whole of social housing available to asylum seekers. Local authorities in Yorkshire still have a large role in delivering contracts and asylum seekers throughout the region prefer their experience with councils and housing associations compared to the performance of private landlord companies already providing some housing. If the councils lose the contracts it will mean hundreds of families dispersed to private landlords often miles away from childrens’ schools or family doctors.

G4S the proposed private managing landlord in Yorkshire are a mega international corporation – the second largest private employer in the world and the largest employer quoted on the British Stock Exchange. They already (2011) have British government contracts worth around £600 million. G4S chief executive Nick Buckles, according to the Annual Report, gets an annual salary and shares worth £2.4 million and a possible annual bonus of £1.2 million. His pension pot is at present worth £7 million. We believe few people in Yorkshire if they were told would believe their taxpayers money should be awarded to such a company to manage asylum seeker housing.

* John Grayson – Independent Researcher, AdEd Knowledge Company and Sheffield Hallam University

* Dr Quintin Bradley – Associate Senior Lecturer, Housing Studies, School of the Built Environment & Engineering Leeds Metropolitan University

* Julia Brooke – PhD student, Human and Health Sciences, The University of Huddersfield

* Dr Rionach Casey – Senior Lecturer in Housing Studies, Sheffield Hallam University

* Dr Cristina Cerulli – Lecturer School of Architecture, University of Sheffield

* Charlie Cooper – Senior Lecturer, Hull University

* Professor Gary Craig – Professor of Community Development and Social Justice, Centre for Social Justice and Community Action, University of Durham

* Rachael Dobson – Lecturer in Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds

* Dr Max Farrar – Emeritus Professor, Leeds Metropolitan University

* Jenny Fortune – Senior Lecturer Architecture and Planning, Sheffield Hallam University

* Dr David Haigh – Senior Lecturer Planning, Housing and Human Geography, Faculty of Arts, Environment and Technology, Leeds Metropolitan University

* Professor Malcolm Harrison – Emeritus Professor Housing and Social Policy, University of Leeds

* Dr Stuart Hodkinson – School of Geography, University of Leeds

* Professor Caroline Hunter – York Law School, University of York

* Professor Adele Jones – Professor of Childhood Studies, University of Huddersfield

* Martin Jones – Lecturer in International Human Rights Law, Centre for Applied Human Rights and the York Law School, University of York

* Dr Florian Kossak – Lecturer,School of Architecture, University of Sheffield

* Dr Hannah Lewis – Research Fellow, School of Geography, University of Leeds

* Dr Simon Parker – Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of York, Coordinator End Child Detention Now

* Professor Doina Petrescu – Head of Graduate programme, School of Architecture, University of Sheffield

* Jane Petrie – Lecturer in Housing Law, Sheffield Hallam University

* Dr Kesia Reeve – Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University

* Professor Flora Samuel – Head of School of Architecture, University of Sheffield

* Dr Tatjana Schneider – Senior Lecturer School of Architecture, University of Sheffield

* Ala Sirriyeh – Lecturer in Sociology, School of Social and International Studies, University of Bradford

* Kate Smith – PhD student, Human and Health Sciences, The University of Huddersfield

* Professor Fionn Stevenson – School of Architecture, University of Sheffield

* Dr Louise Waite – Senior Lecturer in Human Geography School of Geography, University of Leeds

London No Borders, Goldsmiths students and other groups are organising a convergence in London between 13 and 18 February.

The Convergence will draw together a plethora of experiences relating to restrictions on free movement and will provide a space for people to share skills and create strategies for further action.

The Convergence has been set up to combat the ever more extreme measures fortifying European borders in the wake of the global economic crisis. Speaking against the inherent racism of border controls, the groups aim to challenge the hierarchy of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ migrants created by points based systems of managed migration.

The event will provide fertile ground for activists to read and challenge the signs of growing injustices in the border system: increasingly inhumane detention and deportation; fatally militaristic interception of migrant boats; systems of surveillance; and the existence of ‘gentleman’s agreements’ between neighbouring countries to police each other’s borders. According to No Borders those on the wrong side of the border are, in many cases, criminalised and prevented from fleeing the injustices wrought by the free flow of capital.

Rich Edwards, of London No Borders ( http://london.noborders.org.uk/) told IRR News: ‘The Convergence will bring together people from across Europe who are united in their resistance to immigration controls. We hope that the Convergence will strengthen networks of resistance and lead to some concrete proposals for joint and autonomous actions in the months and years to come.’

Through seminars and workshops, the No Borders Convergence will provide a vital platform for thought, discussion and strategic action. Days 1-3 of the Convergence will take place in Goldsmiths College in New Cross, days 4-6 will be days of action across London, concluding with the No Borders Carnival starting at midday on Saturday 18 February at St Paul’s.

—-
FOOTNOTE

If you need accomodation please email: noborderslondon@riseup.net (mailto:noborderslondon@riseup.net).

The latest Country Guidance case on Zimbabwe finds, in essence, that despite vociferous and violent pronouncements about homosexuality at the highest level in that country, Zimbabwe is a safe haven for lesbians and gays. The case is LZ (homosexuals) Zimbabwe CG [2011] UKUT 00487 (IAC) and it was reported on 26 January 2012.

In some ways the case appears at first blush to represent simple common sense: each case must be argued on its own facts. However, the effect of a Country Guidance case is more pernicious than may first appear. It introduces a starting presumption as to the outcome of the case which must be rebutted by the party whose case is negatively affected by the case in question. Practice Direction 12 for the tribunal states that Country Guidance cases are authoritative and that it will likely be an error of law not to follow a Country Guidance case.

The case highlights long held concerns about the entire principle of having Country Guidance cases. Compare the following two sentences from paragraphs 17 and 24:

“Before us, the appellant did not rely only on general risk to homosexuals, or to female homosexuals.”

and

“[The appellant's lawyer] invited us to allow the appeal primarily because all homosexuals, male and female, are at risk of persecution throughout Zimbabwe.”

The Appellant’s primary case was said to be about the individualised risk to her alone, based on the unique facts of her own case. That might be described as the traditional approach to arguing a legal case – many might be surprised to learn there is any other approach, in fact. However, the appellant’s representative argued and presented considerable evidence that an entire class of persons, lesbians and gays in Zimbabwe, were refugees. Only one of that class of persons was represented before the tribunal but the lawyer took it on himself to argue the case for everyone, no doubt encouraged by directions from the tribunal to do so.

I can myself fairly easily think of arguments concerning the evidence put forward by the Home Office in this case but I have no idea if these arguments were put to the tribunal. Why was the evidence of Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) considered to be relevant and given any weight, for example? In what way were they qualified to give evidence about the treatment of lesbians or others and why would they not suffer from the same deep rooted homophobia as the rest of Zimbabwean society?

The determination is open to legal criticism (where is the evidence to support the findings, apart from anything else?) and an appeal might normally be expected. But here too arises another problem with Country Guidance cases: the particular appellant actually succeeded and will be recognised as a refugee. She therefore cannot appeal, and the negative generalised conclusions that had nothing to do with her case will now stand for several years creating a presumption in other cases.

This type of Country Guidance case is anathema to the common law system of precedent and offends against the general prohibition on judgments in rem. The tribunal should not be reporting such cases.

It is unfair to be excessively critical of the lawyer or lawyers in this case because plenty of others do the same. Being involved in a Country Guidance case raises one’s profile and it is exciting, opening up all sorts of legal interest and enabling generous Legal Services Commission funding for expert evidence and other preparatory work. However, these Country Guidance cases where the arguments and evidence is extraneous to the clients best case are very different to traditional  test cases where one is forced to argue a novel point of law because the client’s case depends on it or with the limited number of Country Guidance cases where, like those on Somalia, the client’s best case is actually the generalised risk.

I was once memorably (to me!) and I thought rather unfairly described as ‘wholly disingenuous’ in a reported determination when I resisted the tribunal’s attempts to force me to make generalised arguments beyond the scope of the particular facts of my client’s case. It continues to surprise and depress me that others don’t do the same.

Read more

Source: Guardian

Venue: Galpharm Stadium, Huddersfield

Guest Speakers Include: Phil Bird (Barking & Dagenham College), Mike Harrison (Bromley College) & Caroleen La Pierre (Kirklees College).

* Phil and Mike are ESOL tutors with a keen interest in technology and differentiation. They are currently working on the British Council Nexus project and undertaking the DELTA programme. Caroleen is a Literacy and ESOL specialist.

There will be an exhibition of publishers, examination boards, and books for purchase.

http://www.natecla.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_3325.doc

The concession that allowed Tier 1 and 2 applicants to make an in-country immigration application before sitting the language test is being withdrawn. This was introduced so that applicants already in the UK were not caught out by the change to the rules, but is being withdrawn because the requirement is now more common knowledge and tests are easier to arrange now that supply from test providers has caught up with demand.

Applicants for extensions under Tiers 1 and 2 should therefore now make sure they arrange their tests well in advance of the need to extend their visas. Some will no doubt end up being caught out by this change as they will not be keeping an eye on every change to the Immigration Rules and policy guidance – of which there are very, very many, with some major ones to come later this week apparently. An out of time application can always be made under the Points Based System, although it does mean sacrificing the now largely pointless right of appeal and a short period of overstay, which can be problematic later.

A number of technical changes are also being made to reflect changes to the way that various approved test providers label and conduct their tests.

Read more

Source: Independent

As peers prepare for the key debate on the household benefit cap the policy is still begging as many questions as answers.

Ministers appear to have won the battle for public opinion over the principle of having a cap with 76 per cent of voters backing the idea in an opinion poll over the weekend.

However, the battle will be over the details. Labour has said it will not vote against the cap itself but will try to amend the Bill so that extra costs do not fall on council tax payers. Several Lib Dem peers including former party leader Lord Ashdown have said they cannot support the cap as proposed. And Lord Best will be prominent among crossbenchers pressing for changes.

Extra fuel for the fire came in a revised impact assessment published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) this morning. This admitted that 75,000 families will be affected – 25,000 more than in the first version published last year. They will lose an average of £83 a week each – £10 less than before. And the government will save more than previously estimated (£330m in 2014/15 rather than £275m).

Read more

Source: Inside Housing

This is the sort of story that the tabloids would love if it was about a sturdy British fight against a barmy EU directive or health and safety regulation. But because it’s about an outspoken Muslim academic’s fight against the homegrown petty bureaucracy of the UK Border Agency (UKBA), it’s unlikely to get any headlines in the Daily Mail, the Express or the Telegraph. Dr Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is a respected academic and prolific freelance writer whose topics include drone attacks, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the construction of fear in the war on terror. After finishing a doctorate at Strathclyde University and lecturing part-time in media studies, he was offered a post as a lecturer at De Montfort University in Leicester, on a salary of £35,000. Applying under the points-based system for a work visa to enable him to take up the post, he obtained all the requisite points for qualifications and English language proficiency.

But, the immigration rules require applicants to show that they will be self-sufficient and not use British benefits. Fair enough. But the way they must prove their self-sufficiency is to provide bank statements showing that in the three months before the application, their bank balance never slipped below £800. And Dr Idrees’s bank balance, which stood at £1500 when he applied, had been below the magic £800 mark for some time during the previous three months because of late payments for journalistic work. So although there is no doubt about his ability to support himself – he is better off now than he was as a student, and he has never needed to claim benefits – the UKBA refused the visa.

In a campaign supported by Scotland Against Criminalising Communities (SACC) (http://www.sacc.org.uk/), more than fifty academics wrote to Scottish first minister Alex Salmond and to home secretary Theresa May to protest the red tape and urge them to allow Dr Idrees to pursue his academic career in the UK. Many attended his appeal on 23 January in Glasgow, where the Tribunal allowed the appeal immediately. But the UKBA indicated that it might appeal the Tribunal’s decision, on the ground that the evidence he submitted did not meet the mandatory requirements of the rule. Its officials appear incapable of realising the injustice caused by so rigid an application of the self-sufficiency requirement.

According to the Scotsman, which covered the story, two firms of lawyers he consulted for advice told him not to waste his money on legal fees as he was bound to lose the appeal.[1] Dr Idrees’ case is by no means unique. Refusal of a visa on this ground is common, particularly for those applying from abroad. One applicant was refused after his account fell below £800 by just £1. Those refused visas abroad don’t even get a right of appeal. Some see the rigid rule as a devious way of cutting migrant numbers, a rash pledge made in the early days of the coalition government and proving more difficult than anticipated.

—-
FOOTNOTE

[1] ‘Lecturer faced deportation for having less than £800′ (http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/lecturer_faced_deportation_for_having_less_than_800_1_2073391), Scotsman, 24 January 2012. Some of Dr Muhammad Idrees Ahmad’s work can be seen: here ( http://fanonite.org/articles/)

Asylum Aid has published a report: ‘”I feel like as a woman I’m not welcome”: A gender analysis of UK asylum law, policy and practice’.
Download the report at:
http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/data/files/ifeelasawoman_reportv2.pdf (pdf file, 2.8mb)
Or download the executive summary at:
http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/data/files/ifeelasawoman_exec_sum_web.pdf (pdf file, 1.3mb)

Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association (JENGbA) has published issue 12 of its newsletter.
View and download at:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bxj7944-uHp6NjYwMDcwYmQtNGNjMC00YzJhLWFiNTUtM2ZmZWUwNTJhMjZj (pdf file, 928kb)

The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has published a report: ‘Rules governing enforced removals from the UK’.
Download the report at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/563/563.pdf (pdf file, 1.1mb)

The Home Office has published statistics on: ‘Children entering detention held solely under Immigration Act powers December 2011′.
Download the statistics at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/child-detention-dec2011?view=Standard&pubID=976700