As part of Brighton and London No Borders' campaign against the latest attempt to build a detention centre in the Crawley area, we are asking anyone concerned with the ongoing detention of children to join an email campaign against the proposed 'pre-departure accommodation' planned for Pease Pottage in Sussex.
If we can persuade the Mid Sussex District Council District Planning Committee that this Home Office proposed operation can in anyway be considered to be a secure facility, reneging on the Coalition's promise to end the "detention of children for immigration purposes", we can stop this glorified PR exercise and force the government to truly end this barbaric practice.
Please encourage the wide distribution of this statement, draft email and lists of the planning committee members and all 54 Mid Sussex District Councillors. And get emailing people! The more they all hear about this the better. If a mass email campaign help work in thwarting the forestry sell-off, then it can certainly help end the locking up of children for the mere convenience of the Home Office and UK Border Agency.
NB The current date for the planning meeting to consider the application is 17 March, so please hurry!
Statement:
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". 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]
Mid Sussex District Planning Committee
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