Allira
^Serco makes^
Making means profits, not what a firm is paid.
You're right Allira. Apparently, the Serco contracts are for ten years and worth £4 billion, but I have no idea how much of that is profit.
The problem with outsourcing is that it's introducing a profit-making organisation into the system. I think the jury is out about whether these companies are more cost-effective than using public servants. They certainly pay their staff less than public service does, although their supporters will say they're "leaner".
To me, the issue is that they're not part of any democratic process. The Home Office says it has a problem; 90,000 asylum seekers and it doesn't know what to do with them. It offloads the problem to Serco (and others) and gives them a free rein to solve the problem. Serco looks for the cheapest option (as it should), but it doesn't take stake-holders, such as local residents, into account. Somebody sits in an office and thinks "Oh, we have 100 homeless asylum seekers" and somebody else says they know of a run-down hotel, where the owner would be delighted to accept a guaranteed lump sum. Hey, bingo! Nobody actually thinks about whether it would be a good idea to plonk 100 single men in the middle of nowhere with no infrastructure or extra resources. Nobody speaks to the residents and makes some guarantees about the behaviour of the asylum seekers.
I would imagine what happened in Tintagel is that some Clearsprings Ready Homes (who have the contract for the Cornwall area - not Serco) were told they have to find accommodation for X number of asylum seekers. They got some underling to ring round the hotels on the list to sound them out. This person needed to sell the idea, so mentioned that there would be a guaranteed income for twelve months. Some hoteliers are struggling at the moment, so they'd jump at the chance. Why wouldn't they? It would mean they wouldn't have to upgrade their facilities if they were run-down and there would be easy money. Easy win!
The Camelot Hotel in Tintagel only has 3.5 stars, so doesn't count as a luxury hotel. It has mixed reviews on Trip Advisor, so the employee might have thought the owner would be interested in the scheme. In any case, there was no pressure for him to accept any contract. Given Mr Mappin's ideological beliefs, accepting asylum seekers would have been a very bad business decision. It would probably have killed the whole business.