Letter from Rupert Soames about the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, published in the Herald newspaper

The following letter from Rupert Soames OBE, Chief Executive, Serco Group plc was published in the Herald newspaper in Glasgow on 5 December 2019:  

Dear Sir,

I must take issue with Margaret Taylor’s article of 3rd December “Serco’s a corporate but it still has social responsibilities”, which describes our position with respect to the provision of free accommodation to failed asylum seekers as “legally on solid ground”, but “morally bankrupt”.  Tough words to throw at people who might care about their morals, so I feel entitled to be equally blunt in return.

Ms Taylor accuses us of being solely motivated by the pursuit of profit, which is odd, because she acknowledges that we have been providing cost free housing and services to hundreds of failed asylum seekers, many of them for years after Government support has ceased. Whilst I acknowledge that a few generous souls have taken people into their own homes, no institutions – no charity, no branch of local government, has stepped in and offered to take over the responsibility of providing these people with housing.  Much hand-wringing, much moralising, much “we wish we could help”, but no action.

For how long, in Ms Taylor’s view, should we be expected to continue to provide housing when no one else will? For three years? Ten years? For the rest of their lives? At what stage are we entitled to say “enough is enough”, without being, in her words, “morally bankrupt”? There are many thousands of Glaswegians, many in great need, who would love to have someone provide them with free housing, and pay for their rates, and repairs and electricity and heating for the rest of their lives - are Serco expected to care for them all as well?

When done with opining about people’s moral compass and humanity, Ms Taylor might like to consider the core policy issue at hand: how should a country manage people who, after all appeals and due process, are found not to have valid claims for asylum, and therefore have no legal right to remain in the country or access public services? This is a fiendishly difficult issue faced by Governments around the world, and only Government can decide what the policy should be.  If Ms Taylor has some easy answers, she should shout them from the rooftops.

At the moment, her answer seems to be: expect Serco to look after people for free ad infinitum, and if Serco should dare to suggest that this is not reasonable, stand proudly on the sidelines, accuse them of moral bankruptcy and lecture them about their social responsibilities. 

Finally, I want to pay tribute to the care and compassion my Serco colleagues show when helping to look after people who are often desperate and vulnerable.  Ms Taylor will not be able to conceive how we came to this position: it was because we wanted to give people more time to make arrangements for their future, and to give continued shelter for a few weeks to a few tens of people after they received negative decisions.  The weeks became years, and the tens became hundreds, and now we are the devils of the piece because we cannot go on like this.  As is sometimes said, no good deed ever goes unpunished.