Oral evidence: Asylum accommodation, HC 769Tuesday 26 January 2016

Oral evidence, 26 January 2016.

Witnesses

Peter Neden, Regional President UK and Ireland, G4S, John Whitwam, Managing Director, Immigration and Borders, G4S, and Stuart Monk, Owner and Managing Director, Jomast, gave evidence.

Chair

Can I call the Committee to order? This is part of the Committee’s remit in looking at the work of the Home Office, in particular on this occasion the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers. Mr Neden, Mr Whitwam, Mr Monk, thank you very much for coming in at such short notice. We really do appreciate it. Could I start with you, Mr Neden, on an issue that has arisen today? The chief executive of your Medway training centre has just resigned. Is that right?

Peter Neden

Yes, that is correct.

Chair

Why has he resigned? Is this as a result of the allegations made in respect to the alleged abuse at the training centre?

Peter Neden

It is a direct result of the footage that we saw in “Panorama”, where we saw behaviour that was entirely unacceptable, and that is why we have taken the strong action that we have. Five members of staff have been dismissed, four more have been suspended, and our centre director has now also resigned. We are of course co-operating with the police and the local authority in the investigations, and we welcome the announcement this morning by the Secretary of State about creating an independent improvement group at Medway.

Chair

You must have been shocked when you saw those allegations because you sit at the top of a very large organisation, you have employees, and this must have come as a shock to you. Was that the first time you knew that this was happening at the centre?

Peter Neden

I was shocked and appalled by the allegations, and more so when we saw the footage on “Panorama”. Behaviour of that sort has absolutely no place in our business.

Chair

Of course, and this Committee has said that on a number of occasions when indeed we have mentioned this to G4S and other providers. We are glad that action is being taken. Mr Monk, the issue of the red doors has arisen as a result of an article by Andrew Norfolk in The Times. If it is true that your company, Jomast, has painted the doors of asylum seekers in red, then that of course would be despicable, would it not?

Stuart Monk

Those doors were painted red probably 20 years ago, or we probably owned those properties over 20 years, and before the advent of asylum accommodation, in actual fact. There was a practice for us to paint the properties those colours in those days, and when we began to transfer the use of those properties by private tenants we did not change the colours.

Chair

It goes further than that, does it not? What the article reveals is that this was a deliberate act by your company. I did not asked you, “When were they painted?” If they indeed were painted on the doors of those who are asylum seekers, this would point to perhaps a darker age in history when we would somehow identify the doors of certain types of people with a certain colour. That is the point I was making. If indeed that was the case, that would be unacceptable, would it not?

Stuart Monk

It would be unacceptable if that were the case.

Chair

You are telling this Committee that there was no deliberate decision to paint those properties in red—

Stuart Monk

Exactly.

Chair

—contrary to what we have seen in the newspapers, and contrary to what the Minister told the House in the Commons last week?

Stuart Monk

Exactly.

Chair

The Minister is wrong?

Stuart Monk

Yes, he is.

Chair

He is, and you have told him that?

Stuart Monk

I have not told him anything. I have not spoken to him. I have not been asked the question by him. I have not talked to him.

Chair

The Immigration Minister came before the House of Commons, expressing concern about this. You have not bothered to contact the Home Office to say, “Actually, all our properties have the doors painted red”.

Stuart Monk

The Home Office has been inspecting these properties for 20 years. It has been well aware they have been painted red.

Chair

It knew that the doors of asylum seekers were being painted red?

Stuart Monk

It has been inspecting the properties. Yes, that will be the case. Yes.

Chair

The Home Office was aware of this?

Stuart Monk

Yes.

Chair

What you are saying is, because they were aware of it, if they were concerned, they should have said to you, as the owner of the company, “This is not on. You should not have doors painted red, identifying asylum seekers, because this would be despicable to do so”?

Stuart Monk

Exactly.

Chair

But they never said this to you?

Stuart Monk

That is right.

Chair

Nobody said it to you?

Stuart Monk

No. Nobody said it to us.

Chair

It is very odd, because this morning I spoke to Ahmad Zubair, one of your former tenants, who was an asylum seeker, and he told me that he had gone to your staff and told them specifically over the years—this was two years ago—that he was suffering from abuse because the door of his house was red, and the doors of other asylum seekers were also red. He then went with a pot of paint and he painted his door white because he was fed up of having people abusing him because they identified the property as being the property of an asylum seeker. Your officers then went around and repainted the front door red. That is not acceptable behaviour, is it?

Stuart Monk

We were not aware of any reported incident giving rise to any issues regarding that red door. There was no reported incident. There has not been a reported incident regarding a red door issue received by my company or by G4S in all of the time that we have been providing this service. There has not been one single reported incident.

Chair

Former councillor Suzanne Fletcher approached you, approached Parliament, approached representatives of G4S—and I will put it to them—and she, a local councillor, said that this was the case this morning on BBC Radio Middlesbrough. The former Member of Parliament for Redcar, a member of the Public Accounts Committee, two years ago said that he was concerned that asylum seekers were subjected to abuse because the doors of their properties were painted red. It appears that everyone knew about this, Mr Monk—the Home Office; Mr Zubair and other people living in those homes; Suzanne Fletcher, a local councillor; and the local MP for Redcar—but you and your company knew absolutely nothing about this.

Stuart Monk

We had no reported incidents from any asylum seekers.

Chair

You have no emails that have been sent to you, expressing concern that the homes of asylum seekers have been painted red?

Stuart Monk

Not from any asylum seeker, no.

Chair

Have you had it from G4S?

Stuart Monk

No.

Chair

From nobody?

Stuart Monk

Nobody.

Chair

The first you heard of it and saw of it is when you opened The Times last Tuesday?

Stuart Monk

The reporter had spoken to me and I was not in a position to make any comment.

Chair

Why?

Stuart Monk

Because I am not allowed to make any comment under the contractor provisions.

Chair

You have now decided to repaint these doors?

Stuart Monk

Yes.

Chair

Why, if you have done nothing wrong?

Stuart Monk

Because what was not an incident or what was not an apparent issue became an apparent issue. The Home Office has been around and inspected all of the properties again just to see that they are all compliant properties, and they have instructed us that we repaint them a different colour.

Chair

Mr Monk, as the owner of this company, you are in receipt of many millions of pounds from the taxpayer, indirectly from G4S. Should you not have taken it upon yourself, knowing that this is a contract that you value, to make sure that you act in a humane way, and, being notified of this, you should have acted immediately to try to see what was going on? You are telling us, very Pontius Pilate-like, that you had nothing to do with this and you did not know about it.

Stuart Monk

We have had no reported incidents from any asylum seekers regarding doors at all.

Chair

Ever?

Stuart Monk

Ever.

Chair

You have looked at all your files?

Stuart Monk

That is correct.

Chair

Do you know that if witnesses give evidence to Committees and it subsequently turns out that they have misled the Committee, it is a very, very serious matter?

Stuart Monk

Indeed I do. What I am saying is I am not aware of any reported issues from asylum seekers regarding the issue of red doors.

Chair

How many properties do you have for asylum seekers in Middlesbrough?

Stuart Monk

Of the order of—

John Whitwam

298.

Stuart Monk

300, I was going to say.

Chair

Sorry, Mr Whitwam, we will come to you. I think the witnesses should be allowed to answer their own questions. We will come to G4S. How many properties?

Stuart Monk

Over 300, I would say.

Chair

Those are for asylum seekers?

Stuart Monk

Yes.

Chair

How many of those properties have red doors?

Stuart Monk

G4S have done a physical count and it is about 59% of the houses, I do believe. That is the position that they are—

Chair

That is 59% of the 300?

Stuart Monk

Of the houses. That figure includes apartments, which will not have red doors. What I am saying is, of the dwelling houses, I think that there are just a little bit over 200 houses.

Chair

You have 200 dwelling houses? We will adjourn the Committee and come back because I cannot hear you over the bell. We will adjourn the Committee shortly. Sitting suspended. On resuming—

Chair

Mr Monk, you were just telling us how many dwelling houses you had that were available for asylum seekers. You said the number 200, is that right?

Stuart Monk

I think 200, yes.

Chair

200? How many of those have red doors?

Stuart Monk

It is 59%. G4S have done a calculation. They have been around and inspected and calculated it.

Chair

Of the dwelling houses? 200?

Stuart Monk

That is what they tell me, yes.

Chair

Let us turn to you, Mr Whitwam. You had your hand up; I assume you were not trying to leave the room?

John Whitwam

I am sorry.

Chair

These are very serious matters, because I am sure you would accept—and certainly from the statements we have seen from the company—that if doors were painted a certain colour, in this case red, to identify asylum seekers, this would be a despicable and horrifying thing to do?

John Whitwam

I agree with you completely.

Chair

Do you want to, on behalf of G4S, dissociate yourself from any assumption that this is in fact what happened?

John Whitwam

I would, and I would like to add some detail, if I may?

Chair

Please.

John Whitwam

This was raised by Suzanne Fletcher in 2012. G4S looked into it, found there was no policy, then looked into our service centre. You may or may not know that there is a service centre that is run 24/7, and we take about 2,500 calls every month from the 17,000 asylum seekers that we accommodate on behalf of the Home Office. We saw that there had been no suggestion from any of those asylum seekers of the linkage between intimidation—certainly intimidation has existed—but not linked to either red doors or any other element of identification. In 2014 it was raised again with my predecessor in similar surroundings to these and again it was looked into. So, it was looked into at the suggestion of Suzanne Fletcher. Twice we have looked to see whether or not there is any indication that a service user—an asylum seeker—has raised this as an issue, and we found that they have not, and we receive an awful lot of calls about it. We have also gone back and looked at our own managers. I have 130 people in the North East, Yorkshire and Humberside. There are nearly 50 of my team there. There is no evidence. Nonetheless, this was raised by The Times that then caused us to go up and count every single house. There are 298, so just shy of 300.

Chair

All owned by Jomast?

John Whitwam

I do not know whether they are owned by, but certainly controlled by.

Chair

Controlled?

John Whitwam

We subcontract in Middlesbrough, so of the 298 houses, last week when the story broke we went up and we counted every one. Through the letterbox we put a letter reminding the asylum seekers, “If you fear intimidation or have anything that is going wrong for you, then ring the number,” which is our contact centre, and we counted every door that was red and every door that was not. 175 doors out of 298 were red and, as Mr Monk said, that is about 58%, 59%.

Chair

Mr Monk says the Minister is wrong to be concerned. Do you agree with him?

John Whitwam

This is a live issue. I think it is wrong—

Chair

But do you agree with Mr Monk that the Minister is wrong in what he said to Parliament last Tuesday? One would imagine that the Home Office would look into this very carefully before they sent a Minister to the Dispatch Box to make a statement.

John Whitwam

There may be too many negatives in that for me to understand your question. What I am clear about is the—

Chair

All right, let me say this: do you think the Minister was right in what he said?

John Whitwam

The Minister was right to point out that, had this been a policy issue—

Chair

No, he regarded it as being a policy issue because somebody gave an assurance that these front doors were going to be painted a different colour.

John Whitwam

Yes.

Chair

I find it very odd, if you think there is nothing wrong with it, that there is no policy to have painted the doors red, that you now initiate a procedure to paint them different colours. Why would you do that if you think you have done nothing wrong?

John Whitwam

I understand, absolutely.

Chair

It sounds very much as if you felt that you did do something wrong and therefore let us put this matter beyond discussion and paint the doors different colours.

John Whitwam

I understand the question. That is not the case. We have yet to find any linkage between the colour of door, or any other identifying feature of any of the properties, and the intimidation. We have taken some soundings on this. We have also spoken to the senior police officer in Cleveland who confirms that, to his knowledge, there has been no linkage between antisocial behaviour and red doors. Nonetheless, we have undertaken as a precaution to paint the doors so there is no predominating colour, and that started yesterday.

Chair

How long will that take?

John Whitwam

I do not know. With your permission, I would ask Mr Monk, who is carrying out the painting.

Chair

Yes, of course. Mr Monk, who is carrying out the painting? Are you doing this yourself, or—

Stuart Monk

Yes, yes.

Chair

You are? You are personally going around and repainting the doors?

Stuart Monk

My company.

Chair

Your company is?

Stuart Monk

Yes.

Chair

When will it be finished, because it sounds, if it is such an easy thing to do, presumably you would do this very quickly and put all this beyond doubt?

Stuart Monk

A couple of weeks. Of the order of a couple of weeks.

Chair

A couple of weeks? Because we were told months, when the Minister appeared before the House. So it is two weeks?

Stuart Monk

We decided that we should accelerate that.

Chair

Mr Whitwam, you have not sent any emails, or the company has not received any emails, about the concerns about these doors a few years ago. Mr Swales, the Member of Parliament for Redcar, was on the radio this morning indicating that he had raised this before with yourselves.

John Whitwam

I have no record of that.

Chair

You have no email trail—

John Whitwam

I have spoken to everybody: my predecessors and people who have been at every single one of the strategic migration partnerships for the North East, of which there was one today. There is neither record of it nor recollection from the people who were there present.

Chair

Is the COMPASS contract really important to G4S?

John Whitwam

It is fundamentally important to us.

Chair

How much is it worth?

John Whitwam

In terms of revenue it is worth £60 million a year, on average. It depends entirely on how many asylum seekers come in. But you will also be aware that the full story is that this is a loss-making contract for G4S.

Chair

You have said that to the Committee before when we have asked you how much does it cost to put an asylum seeker up in one of the accommodations with yourselves. You have said you are making a loss on this. You are making no profit on this at all?

John Whitwam

Correct.

Chair

Why are you doing it then?

John Whitwam

We have an obligation. We have a contract with the Home Office. My job is to make sure we deliver against that contract.

Chair

I want to bring Mr Burrowes in next on the email issue. I am just looking at your report, the strategic report of Care and Justice Services. You are the head of Care and Justice Services?

John Whitwam

I am not, no. I am head of the COMPASS project, the COMPASS contract, which is part of Immigration and Borders. A different part of the business.

Chair

Then Mr Neden could answer this question. In your strategic report for the year ended 31 December 2014, it said this, “In 2012 the company entered a contract, the COMPASS contract, with the Ministry of Justice for the provision of accommodation to asylum seekers, from 2012 to 2017, with a potential extension of further years at the customer’s request.” Is that correct?

Peter Neden

It is the Home Office.

Chair

But it is not the Ministry of Justice, is it?

Peter Neden

It is the Home Office.

Chair

Why would you say, on a contract as important as this, that you had entered into a contract with the Ministry of Justice, when of course COMPASS is a Home Office contract?

Peter Neden

I can only apologise for that error. I was not aware of that.

Chair

It is not to me. Thank you for the apology; we always like apologies at this Committee. But presumably it is for your shareholders and for anyone else who is dealing with your company. That is a fundamental error, is it not?

Peter Neden

It is a mistake, yes. The contract is with the Home Office.

Chair

How will you correct it?

Peter Neden

We will correct it in the next Annual Report.

Chair

In respect of fines due on the Ministry of Justice contract for electronic tagging, how much was your fine?

Peter Neden

From memory, we paid back £105.8 million.

Chair

Back to the Ministry of Justice?

Peter Neden

Back to the Ministry of Justice.

Chair

Has it all been paid?

Peter Neden

Yes, it has.

Chair

Is it not embarrassing to you, as the president of this company, covering Europe and the United Kingdom, that G4S is constantly in the news for all these matters, first of all in Medway, then in respect of the electronic tagging issue, now in respect of the red doors? Is that not an embarrassment? Do you not feel the company is perhaps going in the wrong direction?

Peter Neden

Clearly, some of those events are very disappointing, but I do not think that describes the full record of our business. I lead a business in the UK and Ireland that employs 40,000 people. We serve thousands of customers, and as I walk around and visit the prisons where we are helping offenders turn their lives around or visit Wimbledon where we are keeping visitors safe, or indeed visit the schools and hospitals where we are cleaning wards after Ebola victims have been treated, I see a group of people that are really passionate about what they do and work very, very hard. I am very, very proud of the work that we do. If you would like to visit any of our facilities, or indeed the COMPASS programme, we would be very happy to have you, or any member of the Committee.

Chair

We had a similar statement from Mr Buckles when he last came before the Committee. I think you also have a company song, and maybe even a flag of your own.

Peter Neden

I am not aware of a flag and I am not aware of a company song.

Chair

Please tell Mr Hartley, who signed off this statement on 9 April 2015, that there is a difference between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.

Peter Neden

I will have that corrected.

Mr Burrowes

An asylum seeker who contributed to the North East Regional Refugee Forum and DASUK made the comment, that was agreed by all those asylum seekers who form that group, that “All we ask for is to be treated with dignity and respect.” Is that what you ask for as far as all those who work for you in relation to those houses? Can I ask all of you that, and also is that what you think is the case in relation to the COMPASS document?

Peter Neden

The COMPASS programme is—

Mr Burrowes

Do you agree with the same mission statement, effectively, as the asylum seeker who spoke on behalf of all his group, “All we ask for is to be treated with dignity and respect?”

Peter Neden

Of course I think that people should be treated with dignity and respect.

John Whitwam

I not only think people should be treated with dignity and respect, but they should also be given adequate accommodation.

Stuart Monk

Absolutely.

Mr Burrowes

If we go to this email exchange, who was the security company’s social cohesion manager in 2012?

Peter Neden

I am not aware of who the social cohesion manager was at that date.

Mr Burrowes

Do you know?

John Whitwam

It is before my time, but I can tell you who is now.

Mr Burrowes

It is 2012, because this is the email that The Times has seen, that told Teeside asylum campaigners that he had asked the audit assurance team at G4S to look into the issue of the red doors. Have you seen that email trail?

John Whitwam

I have not seen the email trail but I do know this was raised by Suzanne Fletcher twice, as I said, in 2012 and 2014.

Mr Burrowes

There are emails with your staff in relation to the red doors?

John Whitwam

You have asked me if I have seen the email. The answer is no. I am aware that Suzanne Fletcher raised it and we looked into it on two occasions, in 2012 and 2014—on both occasions finding that there was no policy, only recently having counted every single house to find there is a little over half of the houses that are red.

Mr Burrowes

The comment that was made to The Times was that, “We reviewed the issue at the time and it was not considered significant enough among asylum seekers to warrant repainting the doors.” That is accurate?

John Whitwam

I do not dispute it, but I cannot say because I do not have that in front of me.

Mr Burrowes

That is apparently what was said just a few days ago, by G4S. Do you agree with that comment? “We reviewed the issue at the time—”

John Whitwam

I do agree with those comments, but those are not my words.

Mr Burrowes

No, but you agree that on behalf of G4S, “It was not considered significant enough among asylum seekers to warrant repainting the doors?”

John Whitwam

I would not use those words. What I would say is, on the two occasions it was looked into—

Mr Burrowes

I am just asking whether you agree with that comment.

John Whitwam

I would not use those words.

Mr Burrowes

This was a spokesman on behalf of G4S. Peter Neden, do you agree with that?

Peter Neden

If we knew then what we know now—

Mr Burrowes

I am just asking about the comment a few days ago that was on behalf of G4S, whether it was accurate, that you had reviewed the issue at the time and it was not considered significant among asylum seekers to warrant repainting the doors.

Peter Neden

If I may? At the time we looked at it, we found that we had no complaints from asylum seekers—

Mr Burrowes

It seems to be that the basis of not doing anything about it was the lack of complaints from the asylum seekers?

Peter Neden

Lack of complaints from the asylum seekers, confirmation from the police that they did not feel there was a safety issue, inspection by the Home Office and the local authority that the properties we were providing were suitable, and on the basis of that we concluded that we did not need to repaint the doors. We have now decided, as a precautionary—

Mr Burrowes

So there is a big hoo-ha in the press—

Peter Neden

We have now decided, as a precautionary measure, just to be absolutely certain, that we will get on and repaint the doors.

Mr Burrowes

The spokesman for G4S said, “With the information now available, we can see that our earlier decision was ill-judged.” In what way was it ill-judged, the decision back in 2012? That is what G4S says.

John Whitwam

If I can answer for me? The reason I did not agree with that statement is because this is not a question of significance. One person who feels that their door—

Chair

Sorry, order, Mr Whitwam. The point that Mr Burrowes is making is that this is a statement on behalf of a company of which you are sitting in front of the Committee for. Mr Neden asked for you to be brought here. If you do not agree with statements put out by your own company then you should say so. Was this a statement put out by G4S or not? Mr Neden?

Peter Neden

I do not know the exact words. I—

Chair

He has just read it to you three times.

Peter Neden

I do not have the exact words that we sent out as our—

Chair

He will read it to you again.

Peter Neden

I do not have the exact words—

Mr Burrowes

I have the words right here—“We reviewed the issue at the time and it was not considered significant enough among asylum seekers to warrant repainting the doors. While there was never any policy to discriminate among asylum seekers, with the information now available, we can see that earlier decision was ill-judged and we have committed to repaint the doors within a matter of weeks.” That was a statement on behalf of G4S. I did not see a subsequent note in The Times that it was incorrect or in error. That was a statement from G4S.

Chair

The point that Mr Burrowes is making is that it is different to the evidence you have just given us or what Mr Whitwam has just given us, which is that, “We have not done anything wrong. The Minister was told certain things and he came before the House. We have never had any complaints, but we are going to repaint the doors”. What Mr Burrowes has just said, having read out the email—I am just trying to spell it out so there are not too many negatives for you, Mr Whitwam—

John Whitwam

Thank you.

Chair

—is that you have said it was not significant and the decision made previously was ill-judged. Do you accept that the decision made previously was ill-judged? That is all Mr Burrowes wants to know.

Peter Neden

As I say, if we had known then what we know now, that people were concerned about their safety, we would have got on and—

Chair

You stand by the statement of your company, that it was an ill-judged decision not to do anything?

Peter Neden

I am saying if we had known then what we know now, we would have got on and repainted the doors.

Mr Burrowes

The issue is based on knowing about those complaints? The question I put to you goes back to the statement made at the beginning—is it an issue about the numbers of complaints or is it an issue about the principle that this asylum seeker said that, “All we ask for is to be treated with dignity and respect”? Isn’t it plain for anyone to see that painting those doors red—I appreciate it is a historical issue, but the fact that it was attributed to those asylum seekers that they had red doors—it should not need to take a complaint, for an asylum seeker to go through a process of complaint, for a responsible company to realise that you are not treating people with dignity and respect. Is it not a lack of judgment?

Peter Neden

The facts are that there are 175 doors that are painted red.

Mr Burrowes

We have heard the facts. I am asking you whether your judgment should not just be based on the numbers that complain but that, as you said yourself, you value and you take seriously the issue of dignity and respect? That is the issue of judgment that was failing there.

Chair

Is it a yes or a no? Then we can move on.

Peter Neden

If we had known then what we know now, we would have got on and repainted the doors. But we did not know that then.

Mr Burrowes

Just taking this a bit wider, we have seen evidence from Suzanne Fletcher, as we mentioned before, drawing on this partnership group that is there. She provides evidence—and I just wanted to put this to you, whether this also is consistent with treating people with dignity and respect—of pregnant women who have been dispersed in the late stages of pregnancy, who have not had the relevant information about the availability of medical services, and moves for women with complications in pregnancy asked for by the medical profession have been ignored by the housing provider. Do you think that is treating those women with dignity and respect?

John Whitwam

It is certainly not, but I do not think that ever happens.

Mr Burrowes

You do not think it ever happens?

John Whitwam

On a number of occasions, people will have a medical request to be moved. Sometimes the asylum seekers accept that and sometimes they do not. In all cases where there is a question of judgment about the welfare of the service user, we revert to the Home Office and ask them, “Is it appropriate to move someone?”

Mr Burrowes

We are talking about women here. The service users are women, late stages of pregnancy—

John Whitwam

Yes, it is not always appropriate to move somebody in the late stages of pregnancy. I would only do so on two counts: first, because there was medical evidence that this was appropriate and, secondly, with the approval of the Home Office.

Mr Burrowes

You dispute they have ever been ignored?

John Whitwam

I dispute that they have ever been ignored.

Mr Burrowes

One final question. It has also been suggested to the Committee that there have been very inappropriate comments and gestures made to residents by employees having no regard to cultural sensitivities, and that people from different backgrounds with no common language have been expected to share rooms in shared houses, and cooking equipment is being shared with no understanding of religious practices and cultural practices. Is any of that true?

John Whitwam

I do not think it is. As for the cooking, every individual who moves into our accommodation is given their own cooking utensils, so there is no possibility of anyone sharing, except if they lose their cooking utensils. If they do they can call our service centre and we will issue them with new ones.

Mr Burrowes

Equipment. Cooking equipment.

John Whitwam

Cooking equipment, sorry.

Mr Winnick

Mr Monk, you gave the impression that you could not see any particular problem. Would it be right to say that you think this has been blown out of all proportion?

Stuart Monk

I do think a lot has been made of it, because we have not had any reported incidents at all. That is the position. We have had an exemplary record in terms of the provision of the services from the start of our contract.

Mr Winnick

Do you think that the Members of Parliament who have expressed concern, including the Minister, were clearly wrong in saying what was said in the House of Commons last week, of the practice of asylum seekers being put in houses where the doors are painted red? There is no reason to be concerned about that?

Stuart Monk

There are not more than a handful of houses in any one street. The police community officer who has been there for 13 years did not know asylum seekers were housed behind red doors. I think that some of the things that we have seen on the television need to be properly investigated. I am not challenging whether they are correct, but we have certain information that might mean that some of those reports are not correct. All we are saying is that wherever we have not received any reported incident—we have been involved in providing this accommodation with these properties with those front doors for nearly 20 years—there has not been a reported incident about this matter.

Mr Winnick

I put it to you, Mr Monk, that when the inquiries were made by The Times in two of the poorest areas of Middlesbrough, there were 155 houses owned by you with red front doors. When the reporter visited 66 of them, 62 were home to asylum seekers. Do you think that is just coincidence?

Stuart Monk

It is good accommodation that we are providing. The people in this community would challenge the fact. It is a criticism of people in this community, in my view, because they do not think that there has been any behaviour against—

Mr Winnick

But surely common sense dictates—

Stuart Monk

This community welcomes and feels that asylum seekers strengthen their community.

Mr Winnick

I am just wondering if you, yourself, instead of being one of the very prosperous people in the area—I think The Sunday Times has you with an estimated wealth of £175 million, Mr Monk—were in a position of being an asylum seeker and you were given a temporary place to live and the door was painted a certain colour that identified you as an asylum seeker, I wonder if you would take the same rather, if I may say so, complacent attitude that you are taking before this Committee?

Stuart Monk

Absolutely not.

Chair

I am sorry, we did not hear that.

Stuart Monk

Absolutely not.

Chair

Absolutely not?

Mr Winnick

You are not being complacent about the matter?

Stuart Monk

Absolutely not.

Mr Winnick

But the doors are being repainted by your company?

Stuart Monk

They are being repainted by our company.

Mr Winnick

That must surely mean that, since you otherwise would not have done so, it is because of what appeared in The Times newspaper, the row in the House of Commons, and the public concern in many quarters about what is happening. Otherwise, you would not be doing this, would you?

Stuart Monk

It has been made a really big issue and we obviously have to respond to that. But what we are saying is before last week it was not an issue. It has become an issue and we have responded to it as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr Winnick

It has just become an issue because of MPs and so on, I see. How much of this business is part of the overall company that you run? In other words, if I put it more clearly, this company that you own—of which you are sole owner, as I understand it—how much of that business arises from accommodation for asylum seekers that G4S have asked you to provide?

Stuart Monk

Well, 25%, 30% of my overall business activities.

Mr Winnick

Arises from this? It is quite a profitable thing for you, isn’t it? It has helped to build up, should we say, your very considerable fortune?

Stuart Monk

I do not think the business that we are operating at the moment is very profitable in terms of the provision of asylum accommodation.

Mr Winnick

But you have done very well out of this contract?

Chair

Thank you, Mr Monk.

Mr Winnick

Hang on, just a reply. You have done very well—

Stuart Monk

I have not done very well out of this contract.

Mr Winnick

But you said, of this particular contract, about 25, 30% of your entire business arises from providing accommodation for asylum seekers. If you can just say yes or no?

Stuart Monk

It is not as simple as that. It is not a simple yes or no answer I am afraid.

Mr Winnick

Well, you did give the answer just a moment ago.

Stuart Monk

Okay. Are you talking about revenue or are we talking about profitability? The answer, what I am saying, is this particular contract is not very profitable at all.

Chair

Thank you. I think we must end it there. In his evidence Mr Whitwam referred to emails: had you been informed by G4S of any of the concerns that had been expressed to them?

Stuart Monk

I have not.

Chair

So those emails read out by Mr Burrowes had never reached your—

Stuart Monk

Had never found their way to me.

Chair

You have never heard of Suzanne Fletcher before.

Stuart Monk

I have heard of Suzanne Fletcher before, yes.

Chair

She has never contacted you before?

Stuart Monk

She may well have contacted us. She has contacted us about lots of things.

Chair

But not about this?

Stuart Monk

Not about red doors as far as my records are concerned.

Chair

Not about red doors. Is your front door red, Mr Monk?

Stuart Monk

No, it isn’t red.

Mr Umunna

Following on from Mr Winnick and just so I understand the business model that you use in this part of your business, you buy up cheap homes in some of the most deprived communities and you are making money out of housing some of the most vulnerable and poor people in some of the most deprived and poor places in our country. That is correct, isn’t it, Mr Monk?

Stuart Monk

That is not an accurate description, no.

Mr Umunna

How is it not accurate?

Stuart Monk

We provide probably the best standard of asylum accommodation in the country by some considerable margin. We have provided an exemplary service throughout the contract. We have not breached one KPI. We have a track record second to none in this business and I have emails to prove it from the Home Office.

Mr Umunna

Mr Monk, that was not really the question.

Stuart Monk

Well, that is the answer.

Mr Umunna

What I was saying is that you buy up comparatively cheap real estate. That is correct, is it not, relative to the average house price in the United Kingdom? [Interruption.]

Chair

Mr Monk, just wait for Mr Umunna to finish, then please feel free.

Mr Umunna

That is correct, is it not?

Stuart Monk

It depends. We will buy accommodation or property in appropriate locations. This is a sophisticated business. It is a complex business. It has to be handled professionally.

Mr Umunna

Mr Monk, I asked you—

Stuart Monk

What I am saying is we buy properties in appropriate locations and we spend an enormous—

Mr Umunna

—you buy—

Chair

Mr Umunna, sorry. Order.

Stuart Monk

I can’t answer the question.

Chair

No. Please answer the question. Finish your answer.

Stuart Monk

But can I answer it?

Chair

Of course. Yes, please.

Stuart Monk

What I am saying is, we buy a property in appropriate locations and it is a sophisticated business. We know exactly how to spend the money wisely to create the type of products that are suitable for housing asylum seekers and we have—[Interruption.]

Chair

Mr Umunna, please let him finish. Have you finished?

Mr Umunna

It would be good if I got an answer, Chair.

Chair

Mr Umunna, it is not a first if a witness does not give us the answers that we want. Have you finished, Mr Monk?

Stuart Monk

I am trying to get the point about—

Chair

Please finish and then Mr Umunna will ask you a question.

Stuart Monk

We spend money, invest money, very wisely and we create really good accommodation for asylum seekers. The Home Office are fully aware of that. The standard of accommodation that we provide is second to none. It is by a significant margin better than anything else in the country.

Mr Umunna

Mr Monk, did you deny that you are buying property at significantly below the average price of a UK property? Do you deny that?

Stuart Monk

Well, property values in the north-east are significantly less than in other parts of the country.

Mr Umunna

So you do not deny that?

Stuart Monk

Well, it’s—

Mr Umunna

Let me move on to the second part of what I have said, which is that you are buying these properties in some of the most deprived parts of this country. Middlesbrough has a degree of deprivation in parts of that community and you have properties located in those deprived communities. Do you deny that?

Stuart Monk

We have owned properties in Middlesbrough for 30 to 40 years but in the last two to three years, shall we say for the duration of this contract, 90% of our investment has been in Newcastle and Gateshead and that is not in the poorest localities; that is in the most appropriate locations in Newcastle and Gateshead in which to house asylum seekers.

Mr Umunna

It seems to me that what you have here is a business model, perfectly lawful, and you have said it is not terribly profitable but clearly is profitable, and on the face of it, to most people who read about what has been happening in this story it looks like you profit from deprivation and people’s need for refuge, which to many people seems unseemly and unsavoury.

Chair

Mr Monk, would you answer that?

Stuart Monk

That is absolutely not the case. We provide an exemplary service. The accommodation that is required to house asylum seekers is not available in the marketplace. To procure it you have to know what to do; you have to know where to acquire the property.

Chair

Your final question, Mr Umunna.

Mr Chuka Umunna

G4S, there is clearly an issue with the numbers that are being housed in Middlesbrough. What I want to know from either of you is why you have a situation where the numbers housed in Middlesbrough are above the 1 in 200 threshold. Why are so many people being housed in this particular community? This is an issue that has been raised by the local MP, Andy McDonald, who is in this room. We do not seem to have an answer to this question.

John Whitwam

I can answer that question. The only way for G4S or the other two providers to get any kind of dispersed accommodation is to go to a local authority and ask them for permission to acquire property to use as an asylum seeker house. The next stage is to find landlords prepared to either buy or rent that property. Having done so, we then have to go back to the local authority and ask them to come and inspect the property to confirm it meets the regulations of the Housing Act 2004 and the additional aspects of the COMPASS contract. Only when those three things have happened can that property be used. Subsequent to that, individuals can be moved into that property and that property is inspected every month by the provider. In Middlesbrough it is Jomast—everywhere else let’s say it is G4S—and by the local authority and by the Home Office. I know for example that the Home Office happened to be in Middlesbrough in November because members of my team went round with members of Jomast and got a clean bill of health.

Mr Umunna

So who is responsible for going above the 1 in 200 threshold in Middlesbrough? Are you accusing the local authority of being responsible for that? Or are you accusing the Home Office of being responsible for that? Or is there responsibility on both their parts?

John Whitwam

I am making no accusations. I am merely stating one fact if I may, which is that every property that any provider has, they have only with the permission of the local authority. You asked a question specifically about Middlesbrough. In November, Middlesbrough did ask the Home Office and G4S to come before them. They presented their requirement for the numbers to be reduced and since that meeting on 20 November by mutual consent we have been reducing those numbers.

Mr Umunna

I still do not have an answer to the question.

Chair

Mr Monk wants to come in here.

Stuart Monk

We have an email from the Home Office. Middlesbrough Council used to be part of the North East Consortium of Local Authorities. When Middlesbrough Council was a member of that consortium the cluster limit was increased to 890. I have an email here that confirmed we should operate on the basis of that cluster limit. That was provided at the beginning of the contract.

Chair

That is very helpful. Unfortunately the Committee does not have that email.

Stuart Monk

I can pass that to you.

Chair

We cannot read it now. What would be very helpful is you have said in answer to Mr Umunna that you have numerous emails from the Home Office praising the work that you are doing and the good standards that you have reached. We would like you to send that to this Committee because the Committee may well decide on a wider inquiry to look at this issue based on what we have heard today.

James Berry

Mr Monk, I could understand your evidence if you were saying, “I own lots of property. That is my business. I choose to paint all the doors red. It is my property; I can do what I like, and some of them, but not all of them, happen to house asylum seekers”. But looking at the evidence we have it seems it is not the case that every single one of your doors is painted red. That is correct, is it not?

Stuart Monk

That’s right. Not all.