Tuesday 2 June 2009

Britain's Guantanamo Bay

The 20 or so detentions centres in the UK are eyesores and a burden on the taxpayer. For some reason, the Labour government has farmed these out to foreign companies to run. British workers grind away for their paycheques, portions of which they hand to the government, which in turn hands the dosh to foreign companies. Little wonder, when a British defence company can be sold to a foreign bidder to the exclusion of British bidders. Quinetic was a sweet little deal between two men named Blair and Bush, both of whom can be said to have gained. The latter's company, Carlyle, paid £40 million for a 31% stake in this firm. Not long afterwards, their stake was worth £335 million. So it is not hard to see what Bush gained, but one can only guess what Blair got out of the deal. He certainly lives well, what with his £3.6 million house in Connaught Square, gaurded 24/7 at further cost to the taxpayer.
Other companies to be treated to lucrative contracts include Serco, Kalyx and GEO. All three run asylum detention centres. Presently, GEO is set to take over the Harmondsworth facility near Hearthrow. The transfer takes effect on the 29th of this month. GEO is looking to house 620 inmates, at the cost to the taxpayer of £90,000 per head. That translates to £55.8 million a year, of which, at a profit rate of 20%, the US investors will take £11.16 million. What with 20 of these facilities, we are looking at a lot of money going out of the country, in a time of deep economic crisis.
But there is another twist to this tale: GEO is the company that runs the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Bringing it here is an insult. Years ago, on a post at Harry's Place, it was called "Britain's equivalent of Guantanamo Bay." What is Jacqui Smith thinking, bringing over this firm? Why does she not think about the British economy first?
Such questions will have to be rhetorical, they only serve to illustrate a point in the whole issue. What we need is not large ugly detention centres, run for a profit for the sake of foreign companies, but a sensible policy instituted for the sake of all parties involved - which includes asylum seekers and the British taxpayer, but does not include GEO and other entities that have sullied their hands with involvement in Guantanamo Bay. Recently a group called Strangers into Citizens proposed an amnesty that received support from Boris Johnson. It straddles both sides of the political spectrum because is makes sense. In blunt financial terms, it is estimated to be worth £4.7 billion to the UK; and of course, in much greater terms, it is an absolute necessity. Opponents, not surprisingly, included Phil Woolas, who was in turn opposed by Jon Cruddas of his own party. The fact that Spain has had an amnesty going for the last two years and has found it successful, in fact, Spain claims that illegal entry is on the decline since the amnesty went into effect.
So what then, would we do with the Harmondsworth facility if we were not housing asylum seekers in a state of forced idleness? Given its proximity to Heathrow airport, which is expected to experience an increase in visitors with the additional runway, might we not turn it into a £100 a night hotel and bring revenue into Britain?
That is not, however, going to be done if we do not take the initiative and let these high paid employees, to wit, Woolas and Smith, know that they are supposed to do their job. They had to do when Joanna Lumley and her brigade made an issue of the Ghurka visas, even though that issue, though a very good one, was not a matter of life-or-death, nor a matter of economic importance. The amnesty is both, and ought to be implemented immediately. We do not need any more Guantanamo Bays or the companies that run such centres.

No comments:

Post a Comment