Eviction cost already skyrocketing as groups announce human rights shield.
Dale Farm, Europe's largest Traveller community, and one featured in the TV series ‘My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding’, faces imminent eviction. Traveller representatives have been told that 28 days notice of eviction will be served on them on 14 March. Dale Farm is a former scrapyard in Basildon, and is owned by the Travellers. It consists of 100 family plots, half of which are set to be demolished.
In response, human rights groups have announced that they will be setting up a full-scale human rights monitoring camp at Dale Farm, before the eviction notice expires on 9 April. Hundreds of activists have pledged to form a human shield around the site to prevent bulldozers from demolishing homes.
Costs for the planned eviction are already skyrocketing. Basildon District Council has set aside 8 million pounds for the eviction itself and estimates that another 10 million pounds will be required. Their application to have the Home Office foot the bill has just been turned down. Taxpayers have already contributed £2.5 million to the Council’s legal and other related costs.
Ironically, the eviction costs are being blamed as one of the reasons why Basildon Council is controversially selling off playing fields in the green belt, and allowing developers to build on them to increase their value. The Council also looks set to announce a bank loan to cover the eviction bill at a special council meeting on March 14th. The skyrocketing costs are coming at a time when as many as 100 Basildon Council jobs are likely to be axed to help the borough cope with budget cuts which will leave it £2.3million short. Basildon is also cutting £505,000 to disabled services.
"Dale Farm residents are willing to move, at no cost to Basildon, but need the Council to identify suitable land," said Richard Sheridan, chair of the Gypsy Council. However this seems increasingly unlikely, as Council leader Tony Ball has promised to resign if the Traveller's are not evicted before the 5 May council elections. There is an obligation under international law for government to find suitable alternative accommodation for those being forcibly evicted.
"When we can find £18 million to evict families from their own land but can't find the funds to keep nurseries, libraries and youth centres open, something has gone terribly wrong," said Natalie Fox from Dale Farm Solidarity. The group is organising human rights monitors to stay at Dale Farm should their be an eviction. She called the eviction "ethnic cleansing", noting that 90% of traveller planning applications are initially rejected compared to 20% overall.
The eviction comes at a time of increased repression of Romani and Traveller communities in France and Italy. The eviction, which is expected to last up to three weeks will drive many Travellers back onto the road and their children will be forced to leave school.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights stated that ‘the practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross violation of human rights’. They went on to say that ‘to be persistently threatened or actually victimized by the act of forced eviction from one’s home or land is surely one of the most supreme injustices any individual, family, household or community can face’.
Contacts:
On behalf of
Dale Farm Solidarity: Yoshka Pundrik (07583761462)
Dale Farm Housing Association: Grattan Puxton (07888699256)
On behalf of Dale Farm:
Mr Richard Sheridan, chair of The Gypsy Council (07747417711)
Mary Ann McCarthy (07961854023)
http://dalefarm.wordpress.com
Notes for Editors
[1] Although being a runaway hit, My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding has been criticised by some in the Traveller community for it's biased portrayal of their lives:
http://www.travellerstimes.org.uk/blog.aspx?n=c6e13428-2329-462b-a0f8-f6ccab22ced7&h=False&c=f1b1c82c-0f3c-4edf-98cd-502ea80ed8fa
[2] 90% of Traveller planning applications are initially rejected compared to 20% overall -- Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) (2006). Common Ground: Equality, good race relations and sites for Gypsies and Irish Travellers: Report of a CRE inquiry in England and Wales. London: CRE.
[3] In order to cover the cost of the eviction, Basildon council is selling off playing fields to cover the cost:
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/county_news/8461127.__10m_policing_bill_to_evict_travellers_from_Dale_Farm/
Axing 100 staff:
http://www.halsteadgazette.co.uk/archive/2010/12/16/Basildon+News+%28basildon_news%29/8739399.Basildon_Council_to_shed_100_staff_and_cut_services/
and cutting disabled services:
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/8792420.Basildon_Council_cuts_target_disabled_services/
[4] For a list of some of the expenditures, see:
http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/1288
[5] UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights General Comment No. 7 on forced evictions, see:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/959f71e476284596802564c3005d8d50?Opendocument
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
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."
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."
Friday, 25 February 2011
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
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]
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.
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.
Monday, 21 February 2011
Celebrate International Women's Day At Yarl's Wood
Come and celebrate International Women's Day by showing solidarity with the migrant women imprisoned at Yarl's Wood!
Saturday, 5th March 2011, 1pm
Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre, Twinwoods Road, Clapham, Bedfordshire, MK41 6HL
Directions: UKBA website
Please organise your own transport.
The coalition government has skilfully employed he "end" to child detention to avoid talking about the brutal and inhumane detention regime of detention in general. Yet, over the years, countless reports and accounts have documented the plight of women locked up at Yarl's Wood: indefinite detention without charge or judicial oversight, overcrowded cells, mistreatment and abuse by private security guards, lack of privacy, restrictions on visits and phone calls, inadequate medical provision and the lack of facilities to address healthcare issues. And it's getting worse.
In her 2009 inspection report on Yarl's Wood, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers reported that “the focus on improving the environment and activities for children appeared to have led to a lack of attention to the needs of the majority population of women. Provision of activities for them was among the poorest seen in any removal centre. It had been inadequate at the last inspection, and had declined even further. The absence of activity added to the depression and anxiety of women, many of whom were spending lengthy periods at Yarl’s Wood. The average length of stay had increased by 50% since the last inspection, and one in ten women had been detained for more than six months.”
End the detention of migrant women!
Close Yarl's Wood now!
Saturday, 5th March 2011, 1pm
Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre, Twinwoods Road, Clapham, Bedfordshire, MK41 6HL
Directions: UKBA website
Please organise your own transport.
The coalition government has skilfully employed he "end" to child detention to avoid talking about the brutal and inhumane detention regime of detention in general. Yet, over the years, countless reports and accounts have documented the plight of women locked up at Yarl's Wood: indefinite detention without charge or judicial oversight, overcrowded cells, mistreatment and abuse by private security guards, lack of privacy, restrictions on visits and phone calls, inadequate medical provision and the lack of facilities to address healthcare issues. And it's getting worse.
In her 2009 inspection report on Yarl's Wood, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers reported that “the focus on improving the environment and activities for children appeared to have led to a lack of attention to the needs of the majority population of women. Provision of activities for them was among the poorest seen in any removal centre. It had been inadequate at the last inspection, and had declined even further. The absence of activity added to the depression and anxiety of women, many of whom were spending lengthy periods at Yarl’s Wood. The average length of stay had increased by 50% since the last inspection, and one in ten women had been detained for more than six months.”
End the detention of migrant women!
Close Yarl's Wood now!
Italy Feeling The Refugee Pressure
Over the past couple of weeks one of the most amusing sights has been renown Northern League xenophobe Roberto Maroni virtually frothing at the mouth over the sudden appearance of boat loads of migrants in Lampedusa. So comfortable had he and his cronies become since they struck their 'push-back' deal with their best friend Muammar Gaddafi that they thought that this modern form of gunboat deplomacy had solved all their problems.
That is until the edifice of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's Tunisian regime fell, feeing desperate political and economic refugees to try the perilous crossing to promised lands of Fortress Europe. First stop Lampedusa, a small island closer to Tunisia itself than anywhere else but currently Italian territory after a long and torturous history where it has been traded between the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Spanish until it was finally purchased by the Italians (in the guise of the Kingdom of Naples) in C17th, going on to become a penal colony.
Latterly it served as a useful offshore detention centre for the Berlusconi regime until the Gaddafi deal was struck in 2009. Not that Libya was the only source of migrants that ended up on Lampedusa as there has always been a steady trickle of Tunisian refugees arriving on the island, many of whom were involved in the riot and mass breakout from the internment camp there in January 2009. Admittedly, Maroni's rhetoric about a "biblical exodus that has never been seen before" coupled with demands that Italy be allowed to send its own troops to Tunisia to prevent more migrants trying to make the crossing has prompted the interim government to deploy its military in the coastal belt and agree to its own 'push-back' deal with Italy.
Now with the situation in neighbouring Libya poses another potential headache for the Italian government. With the widespread street fighting and massive repression of the population, the claims that foreign mercenaries (sub-Saharan Africans) are being used by the Gaddafi regime as part of that repression, in turn adding to the threats posed to an already vulnerable and marginalised migrant population trying to use the country as a stepping stone to Europe, all this will inevitably lead to a significant increase to the numbers of people trying to cross the Mediterranean.
It will be interesting to see if the push-back deal will hold and whether the Italian-funded patrol boats will prevent a new wave of migrants to Europe, many of whom will inevitably arrive on Lampedusa, adding further fuel to Maroni's spat with the rest of the EU and sending his blood pressure even higher.
STOP PRESS:
According to Reuters the Libyan authorities are threatening to suspend cooperation with the EU over migration issues unless European governments stop giving vocal support to pro-democracy protesters in its country.
EU concerned about situation in Libya and "the violence and death of civilians" but are in fact more worried about Libya's threat to end co-operation in the fight against irregular migration, not to mention Italian Foreign Minister Frattini's Islamophobic fears over the "really serious threat" posed by "the self-proclamation of the so-called Islamic Emirate of Benghazi."
That is until the edifice of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's Tunisian regime fell, feeing desperate political and economic refugees to try the perilous crossing to promised lands of Fortress Europe. First stop Lampedusa, a small island closer to Tunisia itself than anywhere else but currently Italian territory after a long and torturous history where it has been traded between the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Spanish until it was finally purchased by the Italians (in the guise of the Kingdom of Naples) in C17th, going on to become a penal colony.
Latterly it served as a useful offshore detention centre for the Berlusconi regime until the Gaddafi deal was struck in 2009. Not that Libya was the only source of migrants that ended up on Lampedusa as there has always been a steady trickle of Tunisian refugees arriving on the island, many of whom were involved in the riot and mass breakout from the internment camp there in January 2009. Admittedly, Maroni's rhetoric about a "biblical exodus that has never been seen before" coupled with demands that Italy be allowed to send its own troops to Tunisia to prevent more migrants trying to make the crossing has prompted the interim government to deploy its military in the coastal belt and agree to its own 'push-back' deal with Italy.
Now with the situation in neighbouring Libya poses another potential headache for the Italian government. With the widespread street fighting and massive repression of the population, the claims that foreign mercenaries (sub-Saharan Africans) are being used by the Gaddafi regime as part of that repression, in turn adding to the threats posed to an already vulnerable and marginalised migrant population trying to use the country as a stepping stone to Europe, all this will inevitably lead to a significant increase to the numbers of people trying to cross the Mediterranean.
It will be interesting to see if the push-back deal will hold and whether the Italian-funded patrol boats will prevent a new wave of migrants to Europe, many of whom will inevitably arrive on Lampedusa, adding further fuel to Maroni's spat with the rest of the EU and sending his blood pressure even higher.
STOP PRESS:
According to Reuters the Libyan authorities are threatening to suspend cooperation with the EU over migration issues unless European governments stop giving vocal support to pro-democracy protesters in its country.
EU concerned about situation in Libya and "the violence and death of civilians" but are in fact more worried about Libya's threat to end co-operation in the fight against irregular migration, not to mention Italian Foreign Minister Frattini's Islamophobic fears over the "really serious threat" posed by "the self-proclamation of the so-called Islamic Emirate of Benghazi."
Monday, 14 February 2011
New Business Opportunities: Deportation Hostels
"In May 2010, the new coalition government committed to ending child detention for immigration purposes. The 'commitment' had to wait another few months to materialise (only last week reports revealed that a 11-year-old girl had been detained at Tinsley House detention centre, near Gatwick, over Christmas). Meanwhile, the UK Border Agency has been experimenting with a new deportation process for families, spun as "a new, compassionate approach to family removals." Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg went as far as claiming that this marked "an enormous culture shift within our immigration system." But while many serious concerns regarding the rights and welfare of migrant families remain, the new system appears to have created a new market for detention and deportation profiteers."
Given the interest raised by the current planning application by the Home Office to build yet another detention facility in our back yard (except the government PR machine calls it "Open Accommodation"), we recommend anyone interested in the Crawley forest School issue and the Coalition's 'commitment' to 'ending the detention of children' read this Corporatewatch article: New Business Opportunities: Deportation Hostels.
Given the interest raised by the current planning application by the Home Office to build yet another detention facility in our back yard (except the government PR machine calls it "Open Accommodation"), we recommend anyone interested in the Crawley forest School issue and the Coalition's 'commitment' to 'ending the detention of children' read this Corporatewatch article: New Business Opportunities: Deportation Hostels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)