'Barnardo’s! Please quit the child detention business'

Back in March, almost a year after the government had promised to end what Nick Clegg called the “shameful practice” of locking up asylum seeking families in conditions known to harm their mental health, Barnardo’s stunned children’s advocates by revealing that it had agreed to work with the UK Border Agency and security giant G4S at the new immigration detention centre for families with children at Pease Pottage near Gatwick that’s opening later this Summer.

Frances Webber, vice chair of the Institute of Race Relations, accused Barnardo’s — Britain’s biggest children’s charity — of providing “a cloak of legitimacy to the continued detention of children”. Former children’s commissioner for England and internationally renowned paediatrican Sir Al Aynsley-Green wrote in OurKingdom that this “worrying development” sparked the question: “are the big children’s organisations effective advocates for children, or are they friends of government?”

Stung by such criticism Barnardo’s chief executive Anne Marie Carrie last month made comments widely reported as a tough-talking “ultimatum” to UKBA, saying the charity would pull out of the working partnership if children and families were not treated properly. But can we trust Barnardo’s to stand up to the government?

We, being students and members of SOAS Detainee Support who visit immigration detainees and offer them support, have campaigned hard against child detention. In May last year we picketed G4S’s annual meeting, argued with the company’s chief executive Nick Buckles (who, by the way, is paid almost £5000 every day), and landed a picture in the Daily Telegraph’s city pages. In June last year, we ran the Release Carnival, bringing together campaigners and child refugees to march on Downing Street.

When this past March Barnardo’s threw in its lot with Nick Buckles and the UK Border Agency we felt utterly dismayed, let down, betrayed. When we visited Barnardo’s HQ at Barkingside in Essex to express our disappointment. We were sent away and told to study Barnardo’s website so we’d understand what they were doing. We read. It still looked wrong. We made a second visit, intending to distribute a leaflet outlining our objections to staff as they left work. Barnardo’s diverted workers to a rear exit.

Lately we’ve scrutinised Barnardo’s “ultimatum”. Here’s what we make of it.

Barnardo's says:

Barnardo’s seeks to support the most vulnerable children. The families and children held in this accommodation are at their most vulnerable and desperately need our support.  Barnardo’s will always help the most vulnerable children in the UK and will work to ensure that asylum seekers are treated humanely throughout their time in the UK.

We say:

In May 2010 the coalition government pledged to end the detention of children for immigration purposes – finally recognising the lasting psychological harm it caused. Former Barnardo’s chief exec, Martin Narey, slammed the imprisonment of asylum-seeking families as “unnecessary” and “shameful”.  But another ConDem u-turn has meant child detention continues, simply rebranded as “family-friendly pre-departure accommodation”.
As many as 4,445 children could be jailed each year at de facto prisons run by G4S (who may face corporate manslaughter charges over the death of Jimmy Mubenga on a deportation flight). Barnardo’s involvement has already given this sham a fig leaf of legitimacy with councillors who granted planning permission at Pease Pottage reassured by Barnardo’s involvement.  Rather than offering a new face to the same agenda of abuse and degradation in immigration detention Barnardo’s should urge the government to keep its pledge and end child detention.

Barnardo's says:

Under new immigration processes families will be given every opportunity and help to leave voluntarily. If they choose not to then an independent return panel, which includes child psychologists and medical experts, will oversee the most appropriate method of return and any specific safeguards which need to be in place.

We say:

The ‘independent’ return panel is to provide advice or offer amendments to UKBA on the method of removing the family from the UK. They do not decide the method of removal.  UKBA does not have to accept the Panel’s advised amendments. Disagreements will be referred to the immigration minister who will decide how to proceed.  Information given to the Panel is kept secret from the family who are unable to contest it even if the information given to the panel is wrong, out of date or fresh evidence has become available. The advice the Panel gives the UKBA is kept secret.  There is no built-in external scrutiny and the panel cannot be considered independent due to many members being UKBA and governmental staff.

Barnardo's says (about the Government’s new immigration processes and UKBA’s pre-departure accommodation):

All this adds up to a system which has ambitions to be fundamentally different — which seeks to safeguard children and treat families and children with compassion.
That is why one of my first decisions as chief executive was to agree that Barnardo’s provides the welfare and social work services within the accommodation.

 We say:

But how can Barnardo’s talk of ‘a system which has ambitions to be fundamentally different — which seeks to safeguard children and treat families and children with compassion’ when the UK has lately lost its two largest providers of legal aid representation to migrants and asylum seekers and more reputable voices tell us tens of thousands of the most vulnerable in our society are at the mercy of the UK Border Agency's arbitrary and often unlawful actions?

Barnardo's says:

As a last resort, a short stay should include expert family support to ensure humane treatment.  Barnardo’s accepts that, as a last resort and after consideration by an independent panel, children and families may need to be kept in secure pre-departure accommodation for a very short period of time.  Barnardo’s wants to ensure that these families are treated humanely with respect and dignity, and are given the correct support through access to welfare and social work services ahead of their departure.  It is critical that families and children have someone to turn to during this extremely stressful and difficult time.                      

We say:

It is critical that, after an analysis of all the medical evidence, families and children are not detained at all. Barnardo’s saying they are making the situation better by being there is like someone agreeing to be a hangman because they can make the death less painful than another. The families detained will be those who — except in ‘exceptional circumstances’ — have not complied with any of the other attempts at removal. This might very well be because they are terrified to go back, and being locked up will be extremely frightening and traumatic. The presence of Barnardo’s will not ease this fear as long as they are still locked up and facing deportation.

Barnardo's says:

We see an important part of our role as shedding light on the whole immigration process to ensure it supports those children within it. We are absolutely clear that if policy and practice fall short of safeguarding the welfare, dignity and respect of families, then Barnardo's will raise concerns, will speak out and ultimately, if we have to, we will withdraw our services.

We say:

The “red-lines” set down by Barnardo's are no use at all. The research (and common-sense!) shows that even one week in detention is long enough for a child to be severely affected.  As a children's charity Barnardo's should not help the UKBA detain and deport people, it should speak out against child detention FULL STOP.

We’re visiting Barnardo’s again today to ask them to stop spinning and start listening to and defending vulnerable children such as this child detainee quoted in the Medical Justice report State Sponsored Cruelty: “I am so scared of the Home Office. It is hard times for me and my mum. She would rather kill herself than go back."

[Repost]

Demo Against New Family Detention Centre In Sussex, 30/07/11

Croydon NoBorders is calling for a demo in Haywards Heath from 1pm on Saturday 30th July to protest against a new detention centre for children and families which is due to open in late summer at nearby Pease Pottage.

Haywards Heath is the home of Mid Sussex Council which granted planning permission for the former Crawley Forest School to be converted into a migrant prison.

The migrant prison, known euphemistically as a "pre-departure accommodation centre", will be run by the infamous security firm G4S, who are facing charges for corporate manslaughter following the death of deportee Jimmy Mubenga on a BA flight in November. The prison will "normally" hold families for up to 72 hours but they could be held for up to a week in "exceptional circumstances".

"Play facilities" at the prison will be run by children's charity Barnado's. Campaigners have started a campaign against Barnado's for their involvement, disrupting a fundraising event and picketing Barnado's shops and head office.

In May 2010, the coalition government agreed to completely end the detention of children for immigration control purposes. However, now they want to open a new detention centre exactly for this purpose. Barnardo's support will not make a bad situation better for the detainees - it has helped create this bad situation in the first place, because Barnardo's cuddly image was used as propaganda by the Border Agency to get planning permission to build the jail. Whatever excuses Barnardo's give, they know they are making a mistake. As the recession causes financial difficulties for Charities, some abandon their principles and turn to the State for any contracts they can get their hands on.

At a time of savage public spending cuts, it is disgusting how the State finds no shortage of money to expand the military-prison-border complex. It starts a new imperial war "to protect civilians in Libya" - but without shame builds borders to prevent terrified civilians from fleeing war-zones and seeking sanctuary inside Fortress Europe. How soon before the State enforces mass deportations to Libya, in the same way it deports Iraqi and Afghan refugees?

The survival of the State is dependent on how long it can fool its citizens into blaming immigrants for unemployment, hunger and homelessness. This distracts us from recognising that Capitalism is a bankrupt economic system which can only create jobs for bomb makers, prison guards and deportation escorts. The assault against migrants is the sharp end of the knife that is being used to cut back support for vulnerable and poor people, young and old alike.

Another world is possible if people with and without papers struggle together to resist their mutual exploitation by the State and Capitalism.
Croydon NoBorders is part of a transnational network of groups and individuals campaigning for an end to immigration controls and for a world without borders, states and capitalism.

Please join us on Saturday 30th July with banners, placards and instrument to call for an end to detention and deportation. Gather at Muster Green park in Haywards Heath at 1pm.

Barnardo’s: We Believe In (Locking Up) Children

Britain's largest children charity has become the latest target for anti-detention and anti-deportation campaigners, who argue that Barnardo's involvement in a new 'pre-departure accommodation' facility is legitimising what is, in effect, the government's continued use of detention for children. Following a number of protests, another demonstration has been called by No Borders in Haywards Heath in West Sussex on 30th July (see below for details).

In May 2010, the new coalition government 'committed' to ending child detention for immigration purposes as part of a "new, compassionate approach to family removals." However, while families with children under threat of deportation will no longer be held in normal immigration detention centres, they will instead be placed in new secure facilities, euphemistically named 'open accommodation' or 'pre-departure accommodation'.

One of these new 'family detention centres', as campaigners prefer to call them, will be opened in late summer in Pease Pottage, near Crawley in West Sussex. The converted school, with a 2.5m perimeter fence, will be run on behalf of the UK Border Agency (UKBA) by the notorious security giant G4S, while welfare and social care services will be provided by the children's charity Barnardo’s. (For more on this and other planned family detention centres, see this Corporate Watch article.)

Helping make detention 'acceptable'

In a statement announcing its decision to provide welfare services at the new centre in March, Barnardo's said it “accepts that, as a last resort and after consideration by an independent panel, children and families may need to be kept in secure pre-departure accommodation for a very short period of time,” justifying its involvement with the skewed logic that families and children held at the centre will be “at their most vulnerable and [will] desperately need our support.”

The charity's newly appointed chief executive Anne Marie Carrie added that, “All this adds up to a system which has ambitions to be fundamentally different - which seeks to safeguard children and treat families and children with compassion.” This presumably explains why agreeing to Barnardo's involvement in the project was apparently one of Ms Carrie's first decisions as chief executive. It is also a similar line to that used by the government to justify its new detention plans (see here, for example). Ms Carrie's previous working experience has been in local and national government posts (see here). Speaking at an event in London earlier this month she said, “Barnardo’s decision to provide welfare and social care services to asylum seeking families at the new pre-departure accommodation goes back to our core purpose: supporting the most vulnerable children in the UK.” Setting out the charity’s “principles guiding its provision” at the centre, she added that she was “absolutely clear that if policy and practice fall short of safeguarding the welfare, dignity and respect of families, then Barnardo’s will raise concerns, will speak out and ultimately, if we have to, we will withdraw our services.”

She then went on to outline the charity's “red lines” for involvement in the centre, in what appears to be an attempt to reassure an increasing number of critics. These include withdrawing services if, after a year, more than 10 percent of the families deported are returned through the pre-departure accommodation; if any family has stayed at the centre more than once or for longer than the one week maximum; if Tinsley House detention centre is used as an overflow for families when the Pease Pottage centre is full; or if the level of force used with a family on route to or from the centre is disproportionate to the family's circumstances and if any concerns Barnardo's may have about this, or about the centre's staff's behaviour towards families and children, go unaddressed.

But campaigners say these 'red lines' are not satisfactory. They point out that the government isn't planning to deport more than 10 percent of families through this new centre in any case, so they feel that is simply pulling the wool over their eyes. And if Tinsley House isn't used as an overflow centre they ask, does this mean it is okay to use police stations or short-terms holding facilities, or would Barnardo's prefer their colleagues in the UKBA to simply deport people straight away after snatching them from their homes? Further doubts are raised about what exactly 'proportionate' force is? Was the force used by G4S against Jimmy Mubenga whilst forcibly deporting him, which led to his death proportionate? In the words of one campaigner, all Barnado's is doing is “making this horrible place slightly more acceptable."

Yet, Barnado's is already increasing its capacity so it is ready for its new responsibilities. According to job adverts seen by Corporate Watch, the charity has recruited two project workers and two social workers to work at the centre, on salaries ranging from £22,000 to £29,000 per annum, plus a project administrator on a salary ranging from £17,000 to £19,000. Their roles will include counselling, organising one-to-one and group sessions, providing practical assistance, such as contacting distressed relatives. To show just how compassionate the new approach is, they will also organise play activities for the children.

Protests continue

In response, the campaign against Barnardo's is growing. Over the last three months, campaigners have leafleted staff at Barnardo's headquarters in Barkingside, Essex, and customers at Barnardo's shops, informing them about the organisation's involvement with the detention and deportation machine and urging the customers to boycott the shops until the charity withdraws from the project. Barnardo's also has shops in Chingford, South Woodford, Wanstead, Golders Green, North Finchley, Whetstone, Chiswick, East Sheen, Brixton and Eltham (see here).

On 6th April, activists from groups including No Borders London, All African Women's Group and SOAS Detainee Support walked into the Museum of Childhood in east London during a Barnardo's fundraiser to ask the charity and its guests “how charitable is it to collude with the UKBA in locking up children?” (You can find a video of the protest here).

As a next step, the newly formed No Borders Croydon has called for a demonstration in Haywards Heath on 30th July to protest against the new family detention centre in nearby Pease Pottage. Haywards Heath is the home of Mid Sussex Council, which granted planning permission for the former Crawley Forest School to be converted into a 'secure pre-departure accommodation'

[Repost]

Asylum Groups Warn Jewish Community Over London Citizens

Campaigners working to end the detention of the children of asylum seekers have warned the Jewish community against collaborating with Citizens UK, the controversial "community organisers" currently running a campaign to win over synagogues and Jewish organisations.

End Child Detention Now has told the Jewish Chronicle that Citizens UK hijacked the campaign to end child detention, and then began working as agents of the UK Border Agency, which is responsible for the removal of families whose asylum claim has failed.

"Citizens UK, the self-styled home of community organising in Britain, has, bizarrely, claimed credit for single-handedly ending child detention, while collaborating with the UKBA, specifically helping to ensure that asylum seekers go quietly," said End Child Detention Now spokesman Dr Simon Parker.

Citizens UK, which grew out of London Citizens, enjoys the patronage of Ed Miliband's guru Lord Glasman, Philip Blond, an adviser to David Cameron, and former Labour Cabinet minister James Purnell.

"They are well known in the sector as a UKBA fifth column and they don't care where they recruit their stage army from," said one campaigner contacted by the JC.

Several activists said they were too scared to speak out because of the influence of London Citizens/Citizens UK.

A letter from the UK Border Agency, leaked to the JC, shows that Citizens UK is working closely with the government on a pilot scheme to provide Home Office-sanctioned "community sponsors" to work with families seeking asylum.

According to the letter from UKBA strategic director David Wood, Citizens UK is developing a pilot for the "community sponsors" who have a "pre-existing relationship of trust with an asylum seeker". These individuals would give "ongoing, pastoral support to the individual/family going through the asylum process which is of benefit to both the applicant and UKBA".

The issue has become an increasing public relations problem since Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg made a pledge, immediately after last year's election, to end child detention.

Critics say that working directly with government to facilitate asylum removals goes against the philosophy of community organising, which is supposed to be independent of government.

Two weeks ago the JC revealed that London Citizens deputy chair Junaid Ahmed had celebrated the Hamas leadership as resistance heroes.

In a video entitled Gaza: The Martyrs Meadow, Mr Ahmed paid tribute to Sheikh Yassin, the founder of Hamas, and present leader Khaled Meshaal.

London Citizens issued a statement saying the video did not constitute support for terrorism. Mr Ahmed remains in post as a trustee and deputy chair of London Citizens as a representative of East London Mosque. The community leader is also closely associated with the Islamist organisation, Islamic Forum Europe.

The issue of London Citizens, which brings together grassroots groups and religious organisations, has proved deeply divisive within the Jewish community.

In particular, attempts to affiliate New North London Synagogue to London Citizens hit the buffers when concerns were raised about the organisation's campaigning tactics, especially on the issue of child detention.

Members of the synagogue complained that London Citizens had hijacked the campaign and claimed "victory" when Mr Clegg announced after the election last year that the policy would be scrapped. In fact, child detention has continued, although the government now plans to set up family-friendly "pre-departure accommodation" in a village near Gatwick Airport.

After the vote went against them at the synagogue's council in March, the pro-London Citizens faction in NNLS set up a break-away organisation, the Citizens Group, to affiliate to the community organisers. London Citizens has confirmed that the splinter group is a member. Individuals cannot join the organisation, but groups pay up to £2,000 for the privilege.

One member of NNLS, who has opposed the move to join London Citizens, told the JC: "If the whole £2,000 has been paid, then effectively the whole synagogue has joined, despite the verbal acrobatics to make it sound as if we haven't". The Citizens Group were founder members of North London Citizens when it launched at the end of March and a statement issued at the time said: "It was a hugely inspiring event and set the scene for a new beginning for working with our neighbours on issues of common concern." NNLS Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg also spoke at the event, despite the vote going against membership.

Other organisations which have joined London Citizens include the New London and Finchley Reform Synagogues, the North London Progressive Jewish Community, Masorti youth movement Noam and its organisation for young adults, Marom.

[Repost]

Demo At Barnado's Head Office

On June 6th 2011, activists visited Barnado's HQ in Barkingside Essex to protest against their involvement with the UK Border Agency. Campaigners gave out leaflets informing Barnado's staff of the work that Barnados will be doing at the  soon-to-be-opened "pre-departure accommodation facility" near Gatwick and urging them to express their concerns about this to Barnado's management.

On June 6th 2011, activists visited Barnado's HQ in Barkingside Essex to protest against their involvement with the UK Border Agency. Campaigners gave out leaflets informing Barnado's staff of the work that Barnados will be doing at the  soon-to-be-opened "pre-departure accommodation facility" near Gatwick and urging them to express their concerns about this to Barnado's management.

Barnardo's is the UK's largest children's charity. The protesters wanted to raise awareness among Barnardo's' customers about the charity's controversial new involvement with the UK Border Agency (UKBA). Barnardo's has accepted a government contract to run a creche at the soon-to-be-opened "pre-departure accommodation facility" near Gatwick. This is essentially a prison where asylum-seeking families with children will be detained pending a deportation attempt by the UKBA. The security at the prison will be done by G4 Securicor - the notorious firm involved in the deadly deportation of Jimmy Mubenga in October 2010.

The government are claiming to have ended child detention, and introduced a new “compassionate approach to family removals”. Barnardos' support for this process adds a veneer of respectability to the government's deception. Indeed, at the planning application meeting for the new prison, councilors said any concerns they had about the welfare of the children were reassured by Barnardos' involvement.

The protest was greeted by Barnado's' Press Team who attempted to explain away Barnado's' involvement in this new facility, claiming that they were trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

Protests against Barnado's will continue...

[Repost]

Barnado's Telethon 26/04/11

Phone the UK's latest prison profiteers! Ring them on Tuesday 26th April to protest against their involvement in detention and deportation!

In March 2011 Barnado's announced that they will run the play facilities at the UKBA's new "pre-departure accommodation centre" in Pease Pottage, near Gatwick. We call on Barnado's to stop cashing in on others' misery and have chosen Tuesday 26th April as the day to contact them. Below are the contact numbers for all the regional offices:

London & South East  -  020 8551 0011
South West  -  0117 937 5500
Yorkshire  -  0113 393 3200
Midlands  -  0121 550 5271
North West  -  0151 488 1100
Scotland  -  0131 334 9893
Wales  -  0292 049 3387
North East  -  0191 240 4800
Northern Ireland  -  0289 067 2366

For more info about the pre-departure accommodation see:
http://nobordersbrighton.blogspot.com/search?q=pre-departure+accommodation

Oranges & Sunshine: Children's Charity Barnardo's Must Learn From Past Mistakes

by Clare Sambrook, co-ordinator of End Child Detention Now.

This isn’t the best of times for Barnardo’s, Britain’s biggest children’s charity. Already under fire for lending its name to the government’s rebranding of child immigration detention, Barnardo’s has a shaming presence in the deeply upsetting film, Oranges and Sunshine, released today.

The film concerns the hard-to-believe scandal of 130,000 children effectively exported from Britain to supply free labour and “white stock” to the Commonwealth. The practice began in earnest in the late 1800s, a collaboration by government, churches and charities including Dr Barnardo’s. In the years after World War II, some 4,500 children in care were despatched, the last landing in Australia as recently as 1970.

Oranges and Sunshine opens in 1986 when real-life Nottingham social worker Margaret Humphreys hears something unbelievable from a client whose brother Jack, lost since childhood when they were taken into care, has got in touch. Now middle-aged, Jack writes from Australia, saying he was sent there as a little boy “in a big ship full of kids”.

“Why have I never heard about it?” asks Humphreys, played with skilful ordinariness by Emily Watson. “Why has no-one ever heard about it?”

The answer, Humphreys finds, is that governments, churches and charities lied about it. The film focuses on child migrants sent to Australia. Oranges and Sunshine — Jim Loach’s debut feature — takes its name from false promises made to children by adults entrusted with their care.

Child migrants were told their parents were dead. Parents who had left children in institutions’ care with every intention of getting them back were told they had been adopted by loving families close to home.

In fact they had been sent thousands of miles away to wretched lives and sometimes criminal abuse in the care of ill-run institutions and child-raping Christian Brothers.

The film reveals how Margaret Humphreys and her husband Mervyn discovered and exposed all this, founding the Child Migrants Trust to help migrants trace their birth certificates, their parents, and their past.

The loss and pain might have been less had governments, churches and charities seen for themselves the errors of past practice and worked urgently to inform and reunite the damaged families. In one of the film’s heartbreaking moments, Humphreys tells Jack — the lost-and-found-again brother in Australia, played by Hugo Weaving — that she has found his mother. Then she pauses.

“We’re too late, she’s dead, isn’t she?” he says. “When did she die?”

“Last year,” says Humphreys.

A 105 minute docudrama written by Rona Munro (of Loach-senior’s Ladybird, Ladybird), the film stays close to Humphreys’s quest, eliciting the children’s stories gently, gathering darkness as it goes. Resisting flashbacks, Lynch lets the childhood horrors play out in the audience’s mind, where they stay. This quiet film provokes a deep and lasting anger.

Barnardo’s — only briefly mentioned: a name check, a scribble in a notebook, a cog in the machine — has tended to bury the past, but the past haunts the latest chapter of Barnardo’s story.

In February 2010, a full twenty-four years after Humphreys first heard of the “big ship full of kids”, Prime Minister Gordon Brown at last apologised to child migrants — paying tribute to Margaret Humphreys and the Child Migrants Trust.

Barnardo’s then chief executive Martin Narey welcomed Brown’s apology, expressed sympathy with the migrants, but resisted apologising for Barnardo’s part. Instead, Narey said: “This policy was well intentioned and many who advocated it before and after the Second World War sincerely believed migration would offer impoverished children the chance of a radically better life.”

He added: “I hope that today’s events give every one of us an opportunity to reflect on past failures and learn from past mistakes.”

This expression of regret, that it seemed right at the time, did not accept responsibility, own up to or challenge what Barnardo’s officials had done. Their sincerity did not help the children, who might have been better served by alertness and scepticism in the adults charged with their care.

New times, new scandals. Has Barnardo’s learned from past mistakes?

Ten months ago the UK’s new coalition government promised to end the “moral outrage” of immigration child detention, which, it is now widely accepted, causes children lasting psychological harm. But instead of ending detention, the government commissioned a review of the “alternatives” led by the Border Agency’s own director of criminality and detention Dave Wood, a man whose false undermining of the medical evidence of harm is a matter of parliamentary record.

In December the “alternatives” were unveiled: detention, rebranded. According to calculations by Professor Heaven Crawley at the Centre for Migration Policy Research the government’s new “family-friendly pre-departure accommodation” could hold 4,445 children every year.

Last week the Border Agency won planning permission for a “family-friendly” facility in the Sussex village of Pease Pottage, complete with 2.5-metre perimeter fences, electronic gates, “control and restraint” — and Barnardo’s charity workers to “help families prepare for their return”.

Objectors who attended the Council planning meeting (noting councillors’ concerns that a “majestic beech tree” should be protected from the children) claimed Barnardo’s involvement “almost single-handedly swung the application in UKBA’s favour”.

The Border Agency is cock-a-hoop, trumpeting public approval from “highly respected” Barnardo's. The charity’s new chief executive Anne Marie Carrie admits: “There will be some who say, ‘Why would Barnardo's be involved with this?’”

Indeed there are. Former Children’s Commissioner Sir Al Aynsley-Green is among those asking what on earth Barnardo’s is playing at.

That others, who privately confess dismay, fear to speak out, is one measure of Barnardo’s clout.

Yesterday, in response to emailed questions, the charity said:

“Barnardo’s will be providing welfare and social care within the new pre-departure accommodation being established for asylum-seeking families in Crawley. The decision to do so was made by the Chief Executive with the support of Barnardo’s Council and goes right back to our core purpose: Barnardo’s seeks to support the most vulnerable children in the UK. We have agreed to play a role because we believe it is critical that families and children are treated with dignity and respect and able to access high quality support services during this time.”

Among the questions Barnardo’s declined to answer: “What potential problems and conflicts might arise from lending the Barnardo’s name to the UK Border Agency?”

And: “Why did Barnardo’s not seize the opportunity of government’s wish for third-party endorsement to push the government to honour its pledge to end child detention?”

In other words, isn’t Barnardo’s helping to create the situation that makes children vulnerable? Won’t it be party to their distress?

Gordon Brown apologised to the child migrants last year on behalf of Britain. Barnardo’s didn’t apologise, but it did pledge to “take the opportunity to reflect on past failures and learn from past mistakes.” Perhaps they should reflect more deeply, in particular on whether Barnardo’s role should be to keep a proper distance from the government and its agencies. Instead of deploying its reputation to legitimise and endorse the new detention regime by contracting to serve it, Britain’s most powerful children’s charity could be leading the fight against child detention.

[Repost]

Pre-Departure Accommodation Planning Application Approved

*** PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE DISSEMINATION***

PEASE POTTAGE PRE-DEPARTURE ACCOMMODATION APPROVED DESPITE OBJECTIONS [24/03/11]

Despite noisy protests outside, Mid Sussex Council District Planning Committee today gave a green light to the continued detention of children and families when they approved by 14 votes to 1 the UK Border Agency's application [1] to turn Crawley Forest School in Pease Pottage into a Pre-Departure Accommodation centre.

Opponents of child detention, including SOAS Detainee Support, Brighton No Borders and No Borders London, branded the decision "disgraceful" and vowed to continue the fight against the centre and the companies involved in designing and running it.

From the start of the Planning Committee meeting it was apparent that the majority of councillors were much more concerned about the colour of the internal fences and whether a "majestic beech tree" would be "protected from the children climbing on it " than the exact nature of the regime operating the facility, the level of security and how little it differed from current forms of family detention. [2]

Ian Bros, one of the formal objectors at the planning meeting, says that the involvement of children's charity Barnado's in the centre, which has much been trumpeted by the government, almost single-handedly swung the application in the UKBA's favour. Whilst Barnado's will run play facilities at the centre, the facility itself will be run by global security giant G4S, who are threatened with corporate manslaughter charges for the death of a detainee in their care last year [3]. G4S did not get a single mention in the meeting, Ian noted, and the councillors present "seemingly believed that Barnado's will take charge of the whole centre".

Ends.


Notes for editors:
[1] See: http://pa.midsussex.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=LG3751KT04L00

[2] The UKBA has portrayed the Pre-Departure Accommodation Centre as a new form of Planning Use and, as such, should be considered a Sui Generis Use, whereas objectors point out that the facility more closely resembles a Category D Open Prison-style facility. See: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/changeofuse/

[3] See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/16/mubenga-g4s-face-charges-death















[Alec Smart]

More On Barnardo's And The Continued Detention Of Children

A repost of a National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns news item:

Children’s charity Barnardo’s have been contracted by the Home Office as a service provider at the new families detention centre at Pease Pottage, Sussex. The secure “pre-departure accommodation” is widely seen as detention re-packaged, and Barnardo’s role in the centre – which could see over 6,000 children a year detained – is controversial.

Chief Executive Anne-Marie Carrie, refused to condemn the practice of child detention on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, arguing that Barnardo’s are best placed to help in the running of the new centre, described by the Immigration Minister as having “an entirely different look and feel to an immigration removal centre”.

However, Heaven Crawley, professor of international migration at Swansea University, said on the Today programme the that new process is “really something of a repackaging”. Writing for the Migrants’ Rights Network blog today, Professor Crawley claims that to repackage detention as ‘pre-departure accommodation’ is disingenuous. “Families with children will be taken to the facility against their will. Once there, families will not be allowed to come and go freely. The unit is intended to be secure, which in this case means a 2.5m palisade fence with electronic gates surrounding the site, and 24-hour staffing designed to provide ‘an appropriate level of security to protect the occupants of the site and deter them leaving the site’.” She also calls on the government to come clean – if it can’t end child detention then it should say so. In fact, earlier this week in Parliament, the Immigration Minister did let slip that detention of children at Tinsley House immigration Removal Centre would indeed continue for “high risk families”.

Without doubt, the routine use of force and detention of children and families over the years has been shameful. As reported in the Free Movement legal blog, a High Court judgement in January revealed just how disgraceful practice has been. The case of R (on the application of Suppiah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department demonstrated that, despite overwhelming evidence that detention is harmful to children, UKBA officials ignored even their own guidelines on detaining only as a last resort. Alternatives were not pursued, UKBA claims of offering assisted voluntary removal prior to detention were untrue, and excessively long periods of detention were being used needlessly.

Sadly, no officials have been or will be brought to book for the false imprisonment of children and families under the previous Labour government. It is all water under the bridge since the coalition announced plans to reform the detention system for families.

It is yet to be seen whether the involvement of one of the country’s leading children’s’ charities will significantly improve the lot of detained children, or merely serve to help the coalition government with it’s public relations exercise.

The fact remains that children are still to be detained, and force is still to be used against families to remove them from the UK. The asylum system still operates a culture of disbelief, resulting in a high percentage of refugees being sent back to persecution.

And a question remains unanswered: just what do have we to fear from these families that we must hunt them down, lock them up and forcibly deport them? Families who have fled persecution, war or poverty, and come to the UK to make a better life for themselves and their children, should be allowed to live in safety for as long as they want to. Many would return to their home countries when it is safe, others would settle and their children grow to become part of our ever-changing society.

But as for detention, we can leave the final words to the previous Chief Executive of Barnado’s, Martin Narey, speaking in December 2010 in support of the government’s claim to have abolished detention of children:

“Incarcerating [children] simply because they have parents who wish to live here was unnecessary, expensive and more to the point, just plain wrong.” former Barnados Chief Executive, Martin Narey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Barnardo's won't lessen trauma of child detention - Guardian Comment Is Free article.

'Accommodation centre' rebrand fury - Morning Star.

No Borders oppose new deportation centre - Institute of Race Relations.

Promises, Promises - End Child Detention Now.

Barnado's Legitimise The Continued Detention Of Children

PRESS RELEASE ***FOR IMMEDIATE DISSEMINATION***

The children's charity Barnardo's is legitimising the continued use of detention for children by agreeing to provide welfare services at a "pre-departure accommodation" centre the government plans to open in Pease Pottage near Crawley in Sussex.

The Home Office and UK Border Agency claim that this facility will be 'open non-detention accommodation' [1] and, as such, they are seeking to persuade the Mid Sussex District Planning Committee that their Change of Use planning application is a sui generis use [2], falling outside of other current planning guideline Classes.

However, careful consideration of the limited publicly available information [3] on how the facility will operate shows that it will in fact closely resemble current Immigration Removal Centres and Short Term Holding Facilities in many facets:
· children and families will be arrested and administratively detained under the provisions of the 1971 Immigration Act when being move to and from this 'Pre-Departure Accommodation'; [3a]
· they will be subject to the Control and Restraint techniques used across the detention estate; and [3a]
· the detained children will only be allowed out of the facility under strictly controlled circumstances. [3b]
Clearly this amounts to the continued use of "the detention of children for immigration purposes".

According to the BBC [4] which has seen an advanced copy of a speech from Barnado's chief executive Anne Marie Carrie, the charity will seek to justify its participation in this controversial project. Ian Bros of No Borders Brighton, who is formally objecting to the planning application, states Barnado's: "may seek to rationalise its proposed work at the facility as helping to hold the Home Office to its commitment to run a more humane removal system, but it cannot escape from the fact that this is a detention centre in all but name. In fact Anne Marie Carrie has given the lie to the government's position that this is not a detention centre by calling it 'secure pre-departure accommodation' in her proposed speech. This is clearly a Class C2A [Secure Residential Accommodation] use, just as all Immigration Removal Centres are classed and as such the Mid Sussex Council should reject this planning application as incorrectly filed."

Ian concludes: "It is bad enough that the Home Office are trying to rush this whole project through the planning process, ignoring EU competitive tendering process, and restricting public access to the planning application itself under catch-all security considerations, but to rope a respected charity in as its PR-patsy must really win some prize in the annals of government spin."

London NoBorders, http://london.noborders.org.uk
No Borders Brighton, http://nobordersbrighton.blogspot.com


Notes to Editors:

[1] See CgMs Consulting letter to Pease Pottage residents on behalf of the Home Office: http://tinyurl.com/crawleyforest
[2] See the planning application: http://pa.midsussex.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=LG3751KT04L00
and http://www.planning-applications.co.uk/uco1.htm
[3] See:
[a] the current UK Border Agency's Enforcement Instructions and Guidance Chapter 45 Family Cases: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/enforcement/oemsectione/chapter45?view=Binary
[b] and the Planning Statement: http://62.189.207.187/pap_msdclive/framepage.asp?dc2=&appnumber=11/00330/COU
[4] See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12690444

Barnardo's To 'Front' New Detention Centre

In a surprising PR coup, the Home Office have managed to persuade Barnardo's, the children's charity, to run the welfare side of the new children and families detention-lite centre near Crawley. This facility, as we have steadfastly been arguing, singularly fails to meet the Coalition's promise to end the detention of children for immigration purposes, as the charity's chief executive Anne Marie Carrie concedes when (in the text of a speech today released to the BBC) she describes this pre-departure accommodation as "secure". It doesn't matter what the sign on the facility's fence says, whether it describes it as 'Open Accommodation - As Approved By Barnardo's', it the people held there are detained under the powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971 and are not free to leave the facility at any time, taking their children with them, then it is no better than the Families Unit at Yarl's Wood, no matter how many toys Barnardo's supply the place with.

UKBA Announce Start Of New Families Removals Process

The Border Agency has announce the start of their "radical new process for managing the return of families found to have no right to be in the UK." According to their press release, the 'options' available under this scheme "will include a form of limited notice removal, the use of open accommodation, and - as a last resort where families resolutely fail to comply, family friendly, pre-departure accommodation", the latter being the type of facility the Home Office is currently trying to open in Pease Pottage.

The latter is part of the third and final option available for the removal of the families of refused asylum seekers - an Ensured Return, where the new constituted Family Returns Panel "advise the UK Border Agency on return plans to ensure the welfare of the child is taken properly into account" according to this latest piece of government spin on its policy. This Panel will apparently "provide expert advice to the UK Border Agency on the best method of ensuring the return of individual families, taking into account the specific welfare needs of children."

And just how 'radical' and family-centric is this new policy and how far does it really go in "taking into account the specific welfare needs of children"? Well, according to Immigration Minister Damian Green, "(a)t every stage of the process, we expect families to leave voluntarily" and that the government "will be trying to ensure that families can remain in the community prior to their departure home." Yet if these families fail to agree with any of the voluntary options offered during 'family conferences', it appears almost inevitably that they will end up being detained in a dawn raid on their home by UKBA officials and they will be removed to one of these 'pre-departure accommodation' facilities, in much the same way as they have been taken to other existing Immigration Removal Centres up til now.

Not that this is expressly laid out in the 'Open Accommodation' policy document ['Open Accommodation: Accommodating Families Outside Of Detention'] [1], which appears to essays a never-ending circus of 'non-cooperating' families who fail to take up the Agency's 'offer' at any point ending up facing yet another return to the Family Returns Panel. Thus, a family that has failed to take up a first stage Assisted Voluntary Returns package, will either be given 2 weeks notice to leave the country ('Required Return') or go straight to 'Open Accommodation' [not passing go and not collecting their plane tickets and a helpful escort to the airport] if they are considered unlikely to cooperate i.e. are 'flight risks': "We consider that moving such families out of their existing accommodation and away from community links and ties they have built up will signal to them that they have reached the end of the road and enable them to understand that their removal will happen." This means offering them transport to the 'open accommodation' and, if refused, the Borders Agency ending all form of support including accommodation and vouchers, effectively making them homeless and with no access any other form of transportation, [2] plus a referral back to the Board.

Accepting the move to the 'pre-departure accommodation' is the next stage which the government hope will inevitably end in the family 'voluntarily' removing themselves (something they have obviously failed to do at either of the two previous stages of the process) within 3-28 days. If they have not left the country within 72 hours, it's back to the Panel again. "[T]he overall length of stay at the accommodation will be capped at 28 days" and after that families will apparently be moved back to "section 95/section 4 accommodation" i.e. stage one of the process. "However, there may be circumstances where the family seek to prevent their removal and the resulting delay pushes their case over the 28 days which we consider it reasonable for them to be in open accommodation for. This may be beyond our control." This interestingly contradicts the CgMs letter to Pease Pottage residents about the first such 'pre-departure accommodation' facility which states that "(i)n exceptional cases they might be held for up to one week but linked to a specific date when they will leave the UK." [3]

And just how much compulsion is involved in all this? Well the government has carefully chosen its language and has given a number of mixed messages, such as: "there will be some circumstances where families will be REQUIRED to move to temporary NON-DETAINED accommodation facilities prior to removal" [our emphasis] and claimed that "(o)pen accommodation is a non-detained residence where families will be FREE TO COME AND GO AS THEY PLEASE". [4] Yet careful reading of all the documents and of the plans for the Pease Pottage facility clearly show that compulsion is de facto a central factor in this scheme and that this form of accommodation is far from being 'open' in any meaningful use of the word.

That Sarah Teather, the Minister of State for Children and Families, has the gall to claim that this policy "shows real progress on our commitment to reform the returns process for families", "putting compassion and children's welfare at the heart of these new arrangements", only shows how much the Coalition has swallowed their own propaganda hock, line and sinker.


[1] Chapter45 of the latest version of the UK Border Agency Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, the manual for UKBA immigration operations, has been updated to include the new Family Cases strategy and that continues to expressly states that: "All family members, including children, SHOULD BE ARRESTED AS A WHOLE UNIT and the arrest should be made as soon as practicable, TO ENSURE THAT THE FAMILY IS LEGALLY IN IMMIGRATION CUSTODY FOR CONVEYANCE TO THE PORT OF DEPARTURE OR TO PRE-DEPARTURE ACCOMMODATION. It will normally be that arrests in such circumstances will be under administrative powers contained in paragraph 17 of schedule 2 of the 1971 Act and not under criminal powers." [Section 45.10 Control and Restraint] [our emphasis]
[2] "It may be the case that some families will argue that termination of their existing accommodation support will leave them destitute. However, we are not proposing denying access to support. Accommodation support remains available – but only within an open accommodation facility."
[3] However, the 'Open Accommodation' document only refers to the Thornton Heath pilot scheme, which differs in significant areas such as security and accessibility from the planned Pease Pottage facility.
[4]NB: The CgMs letter to Pease Pottage residents on behalf of the Arora/Home Office consortium planning the first 'pre-departure accommodation' only make reference to children being "permitted to leave the facility for short periods" and that "(s)taffing levels, their expertise and the environment of the accommodation [providing] the appropriate security for the facility."

Help Stop This Coaltion Fudge On Child Detention

The Liberal Democrats went into the last election with a manifesto promise to end the detention of children for immigration purposes, something labelled by their party leader as "state-sponsored cruelty". This commitment was enshrined in the Coalition agreement. Initially the Coalition fudged the issue, ending the holding of children at Dungavel IRC in Scotland in May 2010 but continuing to use Yarl's Wood and Tinsley House at Gatwick Airport pending the outcome of a 'review'. Basically they dragged their heels and those of us opposed to the detention of children had to up the pressure on the government.

As a consequence Nick Clegg was forced in December last year to announce the end of the holding of children in immigration detention and the closure of the families unit at Yarl's Wood by 11 May this year. Instead they would be held for a maximum of 72 hours in something called "pre-departure accommodation" or "open accommodation"[Update: UKBA have removed this document but it is available here]. A planning application for the first of these facilities at Pease Pottage near Crawley, designed to hold up to 8 families of up to 6 members at any one time, is currently being rushed through the planning stage to meet this deadline.

Having examined the plans in details, a number of No Borders groups have come to the clear conclusion that this new form of Home Office operation does not in any way constitute a practical solution to the government's promise to end "the detention of children for immigration purposes" and that the Home Office are taking ever precaution to see that this proposed facility is sped through the planning process with the minimum of fuss and opposition.

Firstly, the project has been subject to none of the EU Procurement procedures necessary, with no restricted pre-qualification questionnaires issued or open tendering documents released. When officials were questioned as to why at a recent UKBA stakeholders meeting they claimed there was not enough time to do so. This clearly breached EU Procurement Directives.

Secondly, given that prevailing narrative surround this new type of immigration facility is that it is merely a form of temporary accommodation [see below] and not a new form of detention centre, it is rather strange that the Home Office has invoked paragraphs 24 & 25 of the Memorandum to DCLG Circular 02/2006 Crown Application of the Planning Act (concerning the possibility that an important infrastructure development that may be under terrorist or other threat if planning details were widely available) in order to restrict public access to parts of the planning application itself. Whilst we understand that the invoking of this provision is the norm for many government projects, it still appears a bit 'excessive'.

Then we come to the Change of Use application itself. The current facility is a residential school for children with behavioural and learning difficulties. Under the planning regulations this is classified as Class C2 [Residential institutions - Residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres]. The Home Office is arguing that the "pre-departure accommodation" falls into this category, rather than the normal Class C2A [Secure Residential Institution - Use for a provision of secure residential accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as a military barracks] classification used for all other immigration detention facilities.

This is patently absurd. All the adults accommodated in this facility, with its 2.5m high security fences, CCTV and electronically-operated gates, will be held under a secure status; they will no doubt arrive (after being detained in dawn raids) handcuffed to a Reliance Secure Task Management security guard (the firm taking over immigration removal escort contracts from G4S at the beginning of May); they will not be allowed to leave the facility and they will leave handcuffed to a Reliance security guard; plus the children will only be allowed to leave the facility "subject to a risk assessment and suitable adult supervision" (effectively another security guard employed by the firm running the facility on UKBA's behalf, even if not in uniform at the time. All these detainees will continue to be held under the provisions of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, exactly the same provisions used to hold them prior to 'ending' of "the detention of children for immigration purposes" and there appear to be no new legislative provisions planned to make statutory provision for this new for of facility in Law.

Additionally, it could in fact be argued (as the Home Office will no doubt chose to when challenged on the substance of this area of objection) that this 'open' "pre-departure accommodation" is a wholly new Class of use and falls outside the current scheme of classification. Again, this is patently absurd for the same reasons.

When the Home Office and UK Border Agency (UKBA) unveiled this "new, compassionate [sic] approach to family removals", the deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg claimed that it marked "an enormous culture shift within our immigration system." It clearly is not. The Home Office continues to insist that "open accommodation is not detention", yet these children, all of whom the government readily admits "have committed no crime", will still be locked up for 'immigration purposes", depriving them of their liberty. It therefore follows that these new provisions completely fail to live up to Nick Clegg's promise and the Coalition Agreement's pledge to end "the detention of children for immigration purposes".

You can stick a label saying 'Open' on a closed and locked door, but it does not change the fact that it is still locked.

We urge all concerned members of the public to email either the Council's District Planning Committee which will examine the application or all the 54 Mid Sussex District Councillors listed below with the attached letter to show your complete opposition to this attempt by the Coalition to backtrack from their promise to end the detention of ALL children with this glorified PR exercise. Together we can hold the Coalition to their promise and force them to end the detention of children once and for all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letter Of Complaint:

I wish to express in the strongest possible terms my objections to the planned "pre-departure accommodation" facility in Pease Pottage. Not only does the proposed facility completely fail to fulfil the Coalition's pledge to end "the detention of children for immigration purposes", the whole planning application and the process so far followed by the Home Office is fatally flawed.

Firstly, in seeking to expedite the project in order to meet the Coalition's self-imposed deadline of 11 May 2001 for the ending of the detention of children in immigration facilities, it has been subject to none of the EU Procurement procedures necessary, with no restricted pre-qualification questionnaires issued or open tendering documents released. When officials were questioned as to why at a recent UKBA stakeholders meeting they claimed there was not enough time to do so. This clearly breached EU Procurement Directives.

Secondly, the planning application for a Change of Use itself is flawed. The current occupant of the site is residential school for children with behavioural and learning difficulties. Under the planning regulations this is classified as Class C2 [Residential institutions - Residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres]. The Home Office is arguing that "pre-departure accommodation" falls into this category, rather than the normal Class C2A [C2A Secure Residential Institution - Use for a provision of secure residential accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as a military barracks] classification applied to all other immigration detention facilities.

Yet, all adults accommodated in this facility, with its 2.5m high security fences, CCTV and electronically-operated gates, will be held under a secure status; they will arrive and leave in secure transport and they will not be allowed to leave the facility whilst there. Additionally, their children will only be allowed to leave the facility subject to a risk assessment and under suitable adult supervision. All will continue to be held under the provisions of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, exactly the same provisions currently used to hold families and children for immigration purposes, exactly the same form of 'administrative detention' as was introduced in the Immigration Act 1971.

This clearly falls into Class C2A and as such the application should be rejected. Additionally, the provision of "pre-departure accommodation" in no way fulfils the Coalition's pledge to end "the detention of children for immigration purposes" and the very fact that a residential school for children with behavioural and learning difficulties, a much needed community resource, is being closed in order to accommodate this new species of detention centre only adds insult to injury, both to the current child residents and to the potential future residents, none of whom have committed any crime yet will be deprived of their liberty here in Pease Pottage.

I therefore urge you to do all you can to voice opposition to this plan.

Yours

[your name and address]


Downloadable versions with email addresses: notepad version / word doc / open office doc / pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mid Sussex District Planning Committee

[Copy and paste into the To: pane]
andrew.macnaughton@midsussex.gov.uk; bernard.gillbard@midsussex.gov.uk; stephen.barnett@midsussex.gov.uk; andrew.barrett-miles@midsussex.gov.uk; richard.bates@midsussex.gov.uk; liz.bennett@midsussex.gov.uk; sophia.harrison@midsussex.gov.uk; sue.hatton@midsussex.gov.uk; janice.henwood@midsussex.gov.uk; chris.hersey@midsussex.gov.uk; anne.jones@midsussex.gov.uk; jane.keel@midsussex.gov.uk; susanna.kemp@midsussex.gov.uk; edward.king@midsussex.gov.uk; graham.knight@midsussex.gov.uk; edward.matthews@midsussex.gov.uk; julian.thorpe@midsussex.gov.uk; mike.watts@midsussex.gov.uk

All 54 Mid Sussex District Councillors:

[Copy and paste into the To: pane]
andrew.macnaughton@midsussex.gov.uk; gary.marsh@midsussex.gov.uk; stephen.barnett@midsussex.gov.uk; susan.seward@midsussex.gov.uk; jacqui.landriani@midsussex.gov.uk; andrew.barrett-miles@midsussex.gov.uk; mandy.thomas-atkin@midsussex.gov.uk; eileen.balsdon@midsussex.gov.uk; julian.thorpe@midsussex.gov.uk; heather.ross@midsussex.gov.uk; mike.livesey@midsussex.gov.uk; sophia.harrison@midsussex.gov.uk; dorothy.hatswell@midsussex.gov.uk; ian.pearce@midsussex.gov.uk; mike.watts@midsussex.gov.uk; robert.salisbury@midsussex.gov.uk; edward.king@midsussex.gov.uk; liz.bennett@midsussex.gov.uk; peter.reed@midsussex.gov.uk; bernard.gillbard@midsussex.gov.uk; andrew.brock@midsussex.gov.uk; chris.jerrey@midsussex.gov.uk; ian.dixon@midsussex.gov.uk; jean.glynn@midsussex.gov.uk; heidi.brunsdon@midsussex.gov.uk; james.joyce-nelson@midsussex.gov.uk; edward.matthews@midsussex.gov.uk; peter.martin@midsussex.gov.uk; sue.hatton@midsussex.gov.uk; gordon.marples@midsussex.gov.uk; richard.bates@midsussex.gov.uk; brian.hall@midsussex.gov.uk; irene.balls@midsussex.gov.uk; garry.wall@midsussex.gov.uk; john.demierre@midsussex.gov.uk; sue.ng@midsussex.gov.uk; jonathan.ash-edwards@midsussex.gov.uk; john.belsey@midsussex.gov.uk; jane.keel@midsussex.gov.uk; chris.hersey@midsussex.gov.uk; simon.mcmenemy@midsussex.gov.uk; anna.defilippo@midsussex.gov.uk; susanna.kemp@midsussex.gov.uk; jack.callaghan@midsussex.gov.uk; margaret.hersey@midsussex.gov.uk; andrew.lea@midsussex.gov.uk; christopher.snowling@midsussex.gov.uk

Do We Look Worried?

It appears that the Arora Group/Home Office/UKBA/CgMs Consulting axis is indeed extremely worried that their little plan to convert an insignificant little school in the small sleepy Sussex village of Pease Pottage, where the only excitement is the busy A23 running through it and its more famous Service Station, is about to go pear-shaped. So worried are they that they operated a full court press last night at a meeting of the lowly Slaugham Parish Council and planning meeting, no doubt surprised that their little back door deal, turning a residential school for children with behavioural and learning difficulties into something euphemistically called Pre-Departure Accommodation (i.e. the latest form of immigration detention centre for families and children) [Update: UKBA have removed this document but it is available here], has become so public and that the 13 or so nearby residencies have had the audacity to question their plans.

So, instead of the usual discussions about house extensions, tree cutting and the siting of litter bins, the heavy squad (including Surinder Arora himself and his trusty sidekick Tim Jurdon, both of Mercure Hotel fame) arrived armed with a full set of plans, the very same ones that they are studiously denying the rest of us, the general public, access to under the catch-all of a government infrastructure security directive. In fact, when challenged on this very issue, as to why what they maintain is merely a form of temporary hostel for people waiting to leave the country is being given this degree of security to prevent details of it falling into the hands of terrorists, they had absolutely no answer. Strange that.

Other issues that they failed to adequately address included the key stumbling block as to whether the new facility can genuinely be classified Class C2 under the planning regulations, given that some if not all of those arriving at the centre will be held under what amounts to secure conditions [see: ]. Then there is the time-line for the submission of this project, which appears to be being sped through the planning process with undue haste. Leaving aside the issue of why the Home Office has signally failed to open the process up to any form of public tendering as required under EC legislation, the is the problem of exactly when this course of action was initiated; when the Mid Sussex District Council were first approached about the plans and why the retrospective planning application for the current perimeter fence that the current occupiers of the site Crawley Forest School put up illegally went in only a couple of days before the formal application for the Change of Use.

And the outcome of this attempted damage limitation exercise on behalf of the Arora/Home Office team was that the Parish Council came down firmly against the planning application, submitting 8 formal objections to the proposal. Round one to the objectors.

Dodgy Dealing Over Pease Pottage?

Pease pottage hot, pease pottage cold,
Pease pottage in the pot, nine days old;
Some like it hot, some like it cold,
Some like it in the pot, nine days old.
[Old English nursery rhyme and children's singing game.]


It is beginning to look more and more as if our initial opinion about the Crawley Forest School plan, namely that the agreement between detention business wannabes Arora Hotels Ltd. and the Home Office to convert the school into a Pre-Departure Accommodation facility' i.e. a 'fluffy' detention centre to appease woolly Lib Dem members of the Condemnation, is in fact a dodgy behind-closed-doors stitch-up between the two organisations.

At a regular UK Border Agency 'stakeholder' meeting last week, when the plans were revealed to those attending [1], it became clear that there would be no open public procurement tendering process for the facility as is required under EU and UK legislation. In response to a question from one of those attending as to why the Agency was ignoring the law the response was "because there is not time"!

This of course signals a potential spanner that might just fall into the Arora/UKBA works, leaving them open to a legal challenge on the issue and it certainly warrants a parliamentary question being asked by some interested MP about the Home Office's apparently mendacious behaviour.


[1] Though interestingly not in the latest [January 2011] issue of the Border Agency News.

New Crawley Immigration Detention Facility

It looks like those nice people at Arora Hotels, not having learnt their lesson from the Mercure Hotel farce, still have the hots for getting in to the business of locking children up. Yes, they are in the process of submitting plans to turn Crawley Forest School, a residential school for children with behavioural & learning difficulties, into one of the new so-called 'Pre-Departure Accommodation facilities' that have been cobbled together as a sop to their Lib Dem Coalition partners as part of the lie of ending "child detention for immigration purposes".

Having put forward a speculative planning application in 2009 to turn what was a less than profitable Crawley hotel (the Mercure) into a much more lucrative secure detention centre (i.e. prison, or even more accurately, internment camp) to hold refugee children and families, despite the Home Office and UK Borders Agency not being in the loop, it seems that their efforts have put them on the map for future Home Office plans. So, as the Home Office rushes to find premises for these detention centre-lite facilities and save face on Nick Clegg's behalf, Arora appear to have seen yet another opportunity to join the big table of Prison Industrial Complex companies by fobbing off another of their failed enterprises, namely the Crawley Forest School [1], onto the Borders Agency and finally make a killing in the detention centre game.

At least Arora are claiming that the Crawley Forest School is a failed enterprise as there are currently only 8 residential pupils despite the school being opened to house 35 residential pupils (and 35 day pupils) [see the circular]. The school itself apparently disputes this assertion, claiming that it was only ever equipped to accommodate 12-18 pupils. Clearly someone is being more than economic with the truth. The school (which, up until being contacted by local objectors, was total unaware of the plans for the detention facility) has also been given a rather precipitous deadline of 1 April this year to pack its bags and leave, in order to all time to convert the buildings into this 'Pre-Departure Accommodation facility' by the Coalition's self-imposed deadline of 11 May. [2]

Another 'less than correct statement' apparently contained in the circular is that "[t]he children will be relocated to alternative school accommodation for the start of the Summer term". According to the school again the residential pupils are in fact merely being returned to the care of their local councils and families rather than being found alternative accommodation by The Crossroads Childrens Education Services Ltd., as the circular clearly implies. It seems that you can't trust anyone when a quick buck is to be made from imprisoning children, especially where the Arora Group and its minions are concerned.

No Borders Brighton says: No To 'Pre-Departure Accommodation' facilities and No To Child Detention in any form. Not in Pease Pottage or in Anyone's Back Yard!


[1] Run by The Crossroads Group [registered company name: The Crossroads Childrens Education Services Ltd. and not to be confused with the US hedge fund!], a wholly owned subsidiary of the Arora Group, it occupies the old BAA training centre in Pease Pottage at the southern end of the M23.
[2] The date they promised to end the detention of children by - yet how this can be equated with the ending of the detention of children completely escapes the author. Admittedly some children will be "permitted to leave the facility for short period such as to visit the shops or cinema, subject to a risk assessment and suitable adult supervision to ensure their safe-guarding and welfare are protected", but their parent's will still be held 'hostage' as guarantee against their safe return.