Government(?) employing asylum seekers.

[Haliotis]

Just been listening to a discussion on TalkTV, regarding asylum seekers being employed in the Care Industry.  My question is, which part of the Care Industry?  Are they carrying out “hands on” work, dealing with vulnerable people?  Given the often quoted comments that we do not know where many of these asylum seekers have come from, or their  behavioural background, IF they are in contact with vulnerable people, isn’t this practice a recipe for potential abuse?

[Crickleymal]

Given the amount of legislation in this area eg. CRB checks and enhanced disclosure, I would have thought it unlikely in the extreme that an asylum seeker would be employed in the care industry and certainly not before their identity and records had been ascertained by the immigration service. No employer worth their salt would risk it.

[Drew Peacock]

Happening here in sweden aswell. 

[FROSTYBALLS]

Wouldn't be Central Government who employs these.

Most Local Authorities use a mixture of directly employed labour and contractors to deliver a lot of care services. NHS Trusts do the same.

There is a temporary Home Office system (Health and Care visa and Shortage Occupation List) where asylum seekers who have been waiting more than a year for a decision on an asylum claim, can apply for permission to work in certain care roles. Again though, the employing bodies would be Local Authorities, NHS, contractors, etc.

[Moleman]

51 minutes ago, Crickleymal said:

Given the amount of legislation in this area eg. CRB checks and enhanced disclosure, I would have thought it unlikely in the extreme that an asylum seeker would be employed in the care industry and certainly not before their identity and records had been ascertained by the immigration service. No employer worth their salt would risk it.

Not the case. As they have no records in this country they would come back clear. So easier to employ. You could not make this up. This is what happens when you pay such poor money to care staff. 🤬

[Bper]

The Government handed a contract worth more than £200 million to a charity that has railed against its flagship Rwanda scheme.                                  

Migrant Help, which supports asylum seekers and refugees, has described the plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda to have their applications processed as “cruel and immoral”.

How does this work when the Government is funding a charity to oppose it's Rwanda deal.

The position for asylum claims is if the person has no money which is probably 99% of claims  then they will receive legal aid. So we are funding not only legal aid but a charity who is in opposition to the Government removing ineligible asylum claims.

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

6 minutes ago, Bper said:

The Government handed a contract worth more than £200 million to a charity that has railed against its flagship Rwanda scheme.  

Depends what the contract was for. 

Most Central Government (ie. not Local Authority) contracts are awarded through a competitive tendering process, so if the charity offered the best value in terms of service, cost, etc, etc, their stance against a specific scheme (e.g. Rwanda) wouldn't necessarily affect the contract award.

[Haliotis]

Hope me and mine never need to go into care.  Things we have heard about bad treatment in care homes, and now this added to the pot.  

[Bper]

2 hours ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Depends what the contract was for. 

Most Central Government (ie. not Local Authority) contracts are awarded through a competitive tendering process, so if the charity offered the best value in terms of service, cost, etc, etc, their stance against a specific scheme (e.g. Rwanda) wouldn't necessarily affect the contract award.

The charity’s main service is a 24/7 helpline giving migrants advice on  how to claim asylum as well as getting accommodation and finding welfare or legal services. It is not there to bite the hand that's feeds it.

However this is just one of many charities that are being funded by the Government but are in direct opposition to asylum seekers being returned despite their core activities.

When you start looking into Government funded charities you see how our money is given away despite the wealth fund charities have. The one below is an example of this.

The Government is funding a pro-migration advocacy group that believes UK borders are “systemically racist”, .

Charity Commission accounts show that the Paul Hamlyn Foundation (PHF), a Left-wing charity, received £1.36 million in government grants since 2020.

In that time, the foundation has given grant money to campaign groups such as Hope Not Hate, which has claimed that “government rhetoric around immigration is moving more and more in line with the extreme anti-migrant views of the far Right”. 

Other groups that received the money include Stop Funding Hate, which led an unsuccessful advertiser boycott campaign against GB News in 2021, and Detention Action, which is currently pursuing a court case against the Government’s Rwanda deportation plan.

‘A stain on our collective moral conscience’

The PHF was established in 1987 to support “general charitable purposes”, including literacy programmes in Mexico and performances at the Royal Opera House.

Lord Hamlyn of Edgeworth, its eponymous founder, made his fortune as a book publisher and, upon his death in 2001, donated much of his wealth to the foundation.

The endowment fund created by this gift remains the main source of funding for projects that the foundation supports, and in 2022 had a total worth of almost £900 million.

The PHF also receives support from government grants, which it uses as part of its Act for Change fund.

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

23 minutes ago, Bper said:

The charity’s main service is a 24/7 helpline giving migrants advice on  how to claim asylum as well as getting accommodation and finding welfare or legal services. It is not there to bite the hand that's feeds it.

However, if the tendering process identified this charity as the best choice for the contract, based on what was included within the tender, then that's why the contract was awarded. We don't know how long the tendering process was (which could be months), number of other bidders, and which other bodies also tendered. 

The tendering process will have been a finite process, and legally bound by what information could be considered as part of the process. Whether or not the charity's views on Rwanda came to light during or after the tendering process is legally neither here nor there, and their views on Rwanda may not have had a bearing on the delivery of this contract.

[Rhymes with Paris]

4 hours ago, Haliotis said:

Just been listening to a discussion on TalkTV, regarding asylum seekers being employed in the Care Industry.  My question is, which part of the Care Industry?  Are they carrying out “hands on” work, dealing with vulnerable people?  Given the often quoted comments that we do not know where many of these asylum seekers have come from, or their  behavioural background, IF they are in contact with vulnerable people, isn’t this practice a recipe for potential abuse?

It is worrying when you get to the point of maybe needing "care".

The real sharp end of it is actual experience on the recieving end, rather than endless "assessments"by young fit people who don't make any attempt to understand anything.

Terrified of it myself,due to experiences in hospital and home,a young nurse(female)caused me to fall during my stay in March last year, equally another young night nurse (male) was very kind and considerate.

But if you have no advocate for you then you have to be lucky enough to have a few marbles left.

As regards asylum seekers being employed as carers if it comes to pass, some are going to be caring compassionate people, some are going to be nasty characters who are cruel to old people, same as in NHS hospitals right now.

The only person when I was waiting in A&E for 36 hours in March to be admitted, to bring water and and paper towels, was a fellow patient who spoke no English, but he understood compassion and kindness.

 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

However, if the tendering process identified this charity as the best choice for the contract, based on what was included within the tender, then that's why the contract was awarded. We don't know how long the tendering process was (which could be months), number of other bidders, and which other bodies also tendered. 

The tendering process will have been a finite process, and legally bound by what information could be considered as part of the process. Whether or not the charity's views on Rwanda came to light during or after the tendering process is legally neither here nor there, and their views on Rwanda may not have had a bearing on the delivery of this contract.

Yes of course we do not know the terms of the contract but in

September 2019, the Home Office gave the charity a 10-year contract worth £235 million to provide refugees with advice on asylum claims and how to complete applications.

After the contract was awarded, the charity saw its income quadruple from £11 million to £45.7 million in the year to March 2023 as asylum applications grew.

Between 2022 and 2023, more than 65 per cent (£30 million) of this annual income came from the Home Office contract, up from £24 million the year before.

In November 2023, Caroline O’Connor, the CEO of Migrant Help, said the charity “appreciated” the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Rwanda plan because it “would have directly affected a significant proportion of our clients”.

So it's pretty clear that continuing asylum claims is directly in the financial interest of this and other charities,so it's obvious they are going to do everything to ensure that this revenue stream is only enhanced and not affected by Government policy and will use whatever influence their position allows to ensure it only goes one way.

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

But at the end of the day, it's no different to any other contractor, whether a charity or other body, who see that changes in policy may affect existing contracts they hold, and their potential effect on earnings.

[Bper]

Sir John Hayes MP, a former minister and the chairman of the Conservatives’ Common Sense Group, said the charity should not receive taxpayer money.

“I will be writing to the Home Secretary asking for the funding to stop while an investigation into this takes place,” he said.

He added that it was “hard to see how the Government can continue to fund them whilst they are campaigning against the end the Government seeks to bring about”.

[FROSTYBALLS]

But unless the charity are in breach of their contract terms and conditions, legally it would be difficult to cancel their contract, and if the contract were cancelled for other reasons, the contractor would almost certainly have legal redress against the contract awarding body.

Also how much clout does an ex-minister have?

[Haliotis]

Personally, I have absolutely no sympathy for these asylum seekers/illegal immigrants.  They come here with only one purpose, and that is to satisfy their own ends.  They care not about the inappropriate strains they place on our services and infrastructure, nor do they care about any suffering that might cause for the indigenous population.

We are a small country, whose economic balance can easily be disrupted by any sudden and excessive increase in population.  I am angered by those who set out to prevent them from being swiftly ejected, and I often wonder if they care what damage is being done to our country.

My feelings are nothing to do with race - I simply care about the economic stability of the UK, and those of us who are here legally and having to carry the growing financial burden.

Why bother about the myth(?) of global warming, when our country is gradually being decimated anyhow?  Also, the recent media hype about the “Doomsday Clock” and WW3 in the next 12-20 years can hardly fill young people with hope.  Where in Hell are we all heading?

[Hybrid21]

I'm with you Albert 👍 a sorry situation for a once Great Britain  😟

[Haliotis]

Well, Iain, that’s two for starters - only another sixty-odd million to convert now!🙂

[Big_D]

Well said Albert. 

Why do these asylum seekers/illegal immigrants cross five other countries to get into the UK? If they are truly in such a dire predicament, surely they would apply for asylum at the first safe country they enter.

[Haliotis]

12 hours ago, Big_D said:

Well said Albert. 

Why do these asylum seekers/illegal immigrants cross five other countries to get into the UK? If they are truly in such a dire predicament, surely they would apply for asylum at the first safe country they enter.

Hi Bob.  Firstly, these people are in no way in dire predicaments, they are economic migrants.  Secondly, they head for the UK simply because our limp-waisted government, our piously religious groups, our stupid legal system, and our government’s willingness to keep them in luxury and hand out taxpayers cash for pocket money, attracts them like flies to a cowpat.  Why would they head for anywhere else???

[Crickleymal]

But more asylum seekers settle in other countries than the UK. We take relatively few compared with Germany, France and so on and actually pay less in terms of handouts than do many other European nations. The main reasons they come here is down to language, whether they've got relatives here and whether they've worked for Britain in places like Afghanistan. And what's more, most, and by this I mean the overwhelming majority, that are allowed to stay go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Now I completely accept that there are problems with things like the care industry and the wages paid in that industry. But we have an aging population so we do need more workers to provide taxes to pay for that population.

[Haliotis]

The UK is a small country, and already populated at a level that is presenting problems.  The numbers now arriving regularly are a threat to our economy and infrastructure.  Our need for workers would be less severe if the great many of the work-shy got off their backsides and earned their living.

[Hybrid21]

Hi Albert, a big problem re the work-shy is the benefit system in this country which provides no incentive to go out and get a job to provide for yourself and your family.

Knowing how to work the benefit system it is a far more beneficial alternative to legitimate employment unfortunately.  

[Haliotis]

On occasion I have come across one or two of these benefit chasers. Almost without exception, they despise those of us who appear to live in luxury - little realising (or refusing to appreciate) that we who not only work hard for that “luxury” also have to contribute in our taxes towards the upkeep of those loafers.

[Cyker]

The problem is the change to how people progress through education - I think mainly the changes made during the Blair era, where they encouraged EVERYONE to go through 6th form, college and university.

It would have been a great idea if we were still in the EU - More people elevate to higher-end jobs and the more menial stuff gets filled in by EU migrants.

We've kinda shot that in the foot though - Now there is a shortage of tradesman and labourers these days because everyone's gone into higher education - Nobody with a degree is going to want to go pick lettuces and neither should they.

IMHO we need to get more people into things like apprenticeships - electricians, plumbers, farming etc. Core stuff.

On top of that, students are basically just a revenue stream now; The institutions get the money, the students get the debt.