The Chair invited Members who
had requested to speak under 20.1. Councillors Yates, Albon and
Rawf made comments as follows:
- Members thanked
Thanet District Council (TDC) officers who had gone to the Manston
Processing Centre and intervened regarding the infectious diseases
issue at the centre;
- Members acknowledged
the work done by officers to try and keep residents
safe;
- One member indicated
that they wanted to promote the Kent Refugee Action Network and
Refugees at Home as great organisations that provided support for
refugees and asylum seekers in Kent;
- The Panel was asked
to note the conditions that the migrants were living at the Centre
and the fact that staff were also working under those poor standard
conditions;
- The Panel was asked
to recognise that those conditions were a disgrace;
- The staff who worked
at the Centre did an exceptional job;
- The centre was
supposed to be used by about a total of 1,000 migrants and
they would be moved on within 24 hours;
- However in practice
this was not the case as the individuals stayed longer than the 24
hours and there were about 4,000 individuals at one
point;
- The issue of
immigration was a national issue. However the council should make
representations to the government through the local MPs urging the
government to provide safe routes for refugees to come into the
country and stop human traffickers from taking advantage of the
refugee situation.
The Chair requested for the
details of the Kent Refugee Action Network and Refugees at Home to
be shared with all Members.
Councillor Ash Ashbee gave an
update as follows:
- In December 2021, the
council was first informed that the processing centre for asylum
seekers was going to be set up by the Home Office, at the Ministry
of Defence site at Manston;
- The understanding was
to provide a temporary staging point for asylum seekers, prior to
getting more permanent placings elsewhere and that no individual
would stay at this centre for more than 24 hours;
- The Leader of Council
attended a meeting with the Permanent Secretary on 13 December
2021, where the plan to set up Manston as the processing centre was
confirmed;
- The Leader then
convened an urgent informal cabinet meeting to discuss the
council’s position on this matter;
- After this cabinet
meeting the leader wrote to the then Home Secretary, Priti
Patel MP on 15 December 2021 to express the council’s
grave concerns about the suitability of Manston site and the
prospects of expanding beyond its scope;
- No reply was received
to that letter from the Home Secretary;
- Recent reports
suggested that the Home Secretary had been advised by civil
servants since last December of the legal difficulties in failing
to find alternative accommodation to Manston;
- Manston site was
being managed entirely by the Home Office or its
agents;
- The council had no
role in the management of the Manston site and was therefore not
always kept informed of the number of individuals at the site or
how long it would continue to be a processing centre;
- The council got to
the site only when the UK Health Safety Agency (UK HSA) asked the
Council’s Environmental Department to conduct an inspection
of the site, which was then conducted on 9 September
2022;
- In early November
reports emerged in the media indicating that the site was working
beyond its planned capacity;
- It was reported about
4,000 individuals were living at the site when the planned capacity
was 1,600;
- As a result of those
reports Clearsprings, a Home Office agent were funded to look for
accommodation in Kent and elsewhere in order to move the asylum
seekers from Manston as rapidly as was possible;
- TDC and other
councils were not given any prior notice about this operation by
the home Office not were they given any notice of any hotels or
premises that were being leased for this purpose in their
respective local areas;
- The Leader and other
Kent Leaders signed a letter that was sent to the Home Secretary
citing the detrimental effect that these arrangements were having
on the county and district services;
- The local MPs also
made clear their objections to the use of local accommodation for
this purpose without prior notice;
- It was believed that
as a result of these objections local accommodation was stood down
by Clearsprings; notably accommodation at the old Christ Church
University Campus in Broadstairs;
- In the week beginning
14 November 2022, the Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick took part
in a Webinar with Kent Leaders and CExs and he acknowledged that
the situation had not been well handled;
- The Minister stressed
that the Home Office was seeking to rapidly reduce the numbers at
Manston to avoid the overcrowding and indicated that moving forward
councils would be given 24 hours’ notice before any
placements were done in their respective local areas;
- TDC had thus far not
received any notifications;
- It was reported in
the news as at 22 November, that the Manton site was currently
empty pending any new arrivals of asylum seekers.
Members made comments and asked
questions as follows:
- The report that the
Manston site is currently empty is noted, but would the centre be
used in the future?
- One of the issues
that seemed to go wrong was the communication between TDC and the
government. What can be done to make the communication better when
this site is used again or any other local areas are used by the
Home Office?
- Twenty four hour
notice was not a long time. What could TDC do if the 24 hour notice
was not given to the council?
- When TDC’s
environmental department carried out its inspection of Manston
site, were there any issues that arose from that inspection,
particularly with the rising numbers of individuals living at the
site and the reports of infectious diseases?
- There were inadequate
infectious disease prevention measures at the site;
- Would these measures
be improved for the future in order to prevent any infectious
disease outbreaks, which would affect individuals living and staff
working at the centre and likely to affect local
residents?
- Was there any known
information regarding the health status of the man who died at the
Manston site before he arrived?
- It was disappointing
to hear that the Manston had not been stood down completely because
it did not seem the right place to use to manage
migration;
- Was the dispersal
programme meant to take place within Kent or further
afield?
- There was some scare
mongering and racism on the social media platforms especially in
relation to housing. The council had a public equality duty in the
discharge of functions to eliminate discrimination, harassment,
bullying and other conduct prohibited by the Equality
Act;
- It was also the duty
of the council to provide equal opportunities for those individuals
who shared protected characteristic and those who do not and foster
good relations between those who a protected characteristic and
those who do not;
- The management of the
immigration at the national level was causing the delays that led
to Manston Processing Centre being overcrowded;
- To what extent were
the two local MPs assisting the Leader of Council with the robust
push regarding handling of incoming refugees through the
district?
- It was harrowing to
see human beings travelling in such conditions to cross the
channel. There was a need to look at why the centre was established
at Manston. According to the government’s own statistics 80%
of those who claim asylum were successful;
- It was interesting to
note that there were a number of systems for processing refugees
coming into the country. The Ukrainian and Hong Kong refugees were
settled; their children were going to school and they were also
allowed to work here too, whilst other refugees were treated under
a separate system. It was interesting to note certain people were
dealt with much less of an impact on local communities. This was
some kind of apartheid system;
- The council should
petition the government to provide a safe route for the 81% of the
refugees as described in government statistics who had a legal
right to be in the UK. This was so that government could focus on
eliminating the loopholes for the 19% who had no right to be in
this country and the traffickers;
- Did Clearsprings
still have an association with the Christ Church University
Campus?
- Did the Ministry of
Defence have the correct planning permission for the current use of
the Manston site to house asylum seekers there?
- There had been some
concern in the local area for the migrants due to misinformation
which had created some bad feeling. Could the council issue a
statement updating the public on what had happened and the
council’s concern for the effect on housing?
- The government should
work with the French government to set up a processing centre in
France. They should also allow migrants who had been processed to
work. There were a number of job vacancies and the government was
considering changing the immigration rules to allow for the
recruitment of more people from outside the country and yet there
were people who had come into the country and were desperate to
work.
- This was because many
of them go through a number of years before their asylum claims
were fully processed and in the meanwhile suffered from physical
and mental ill health, partly because they were not allowed to work
and having to be housed in a hotel at someone’s expense. The
whole system needed reviewing;
- Members paid tribute
to Sir Roger Gale MP and Sir Roger’s Office who had been
superb in dealing with the Manston issue. His had kept the council
informed and his office had been taking a variety of donations for
people in need not necessarily only for the people at the Manston
Centre;
- Members urged the two
local MPs to continue to put pressure on the government to work
with Local Authorities.
Councillor Ashbee, Penny Button
Director of Safer Neighbourhoods and Colin Carmichael, CEx
responded as follows:
- The council did not
have any information about the health status of the man who had
died at the Manston Centre;
- The reopening of the
processing centre had not been confirmed nor whether it would be
stood down or not. At the moment it had not been stood
down;
- There were some
adjustments that were being made to the site. The MP that covers
Manston, Sir Roger Gale was in regular contact with the Home Office
Secretary;
- This was an appalling
situation and the Council had taken a robust stance on the matter.
The Home Office Secretary had listened to comments from the
councils so far. He had also given a pledge that no new sites would
be ulitised without giving councils at least 24 hours’ notice
before moving in;
- It was worth noting
that the old Christ Church University Campus in Broadstairs was
selected by a contractor employed by the Home Office to find
sites. That was part of what the government called the dispersal
programme which had nothing to do with the Manston Processing
Centre. TDC had no knowledge of this placement;
- The council after
some discussions with the Housing team had already objected to the
campus being used for the dispersal programme as this would have
had an adverse effect on the council’s ability to find
affordable accommodation for the local area’s housing
emergency situations. This then prompted the Kent Leaders’
letter of objection to the Secretary;
- The inspection was a
food and hygiene inspection which looked at the source of food.
Environmental Services worked with the UK HAS on this inspection.
The government agency then passed on all the results to the
operators of the site including the Home Office advising them on
what they needed to do to ensure that the infectious disease
controls were robust enough to stop the spread of any
infections;
- The 24 hours notice
did not give the council the ability to refuse the use of local
sites, except to point out, like with the use of the old Christ
Church University Campus that this was in breach of planning
policy. In this case the council would take enforcement action
where there is a breach;
- There were a number
of refugee programmes in the country. There were the Afghan
Refugees, Syrian Refugees, Ukrainian Refugees and the broader
migration programme and each of them was being organised in a
different way. This was confusing for councils and the
public;
- It was the
organisation of the Manston Centre which appeared to be the
problem. It was a combination of that the lack of resources of
accommodation for people to move into;
- The council’s
understanding was that for the moment the Manston would continue to
be used as a processing centre for new arrivals of asylum
seekers;
- The council’s
understanding was that dispersal would be in other parts around the
country, not just within Kent. For now the placements were taking
place outside Kent;
- The council had taken
a robust stance on this matter for the good of the district and it
was not a partisan stance;
- When the Leader first
took the matter up with Sir Roger Gale, the MP took the issue up in
the Commons the next day;
- MP Craig Mackinlay
made some robust comments as well against the use of the old Christ
Church University Campus in Broadstairs and it helped the campus
being dropped off the list for the dispersal programme;
- Both MPs have been
very supportive of the council’s position on this
matter;
- The council was in
contact with the current owners of the old Christ Church University
Campus. The council was not clear as yet on the exact status of the
agreement Clearsprings had for the university campus. It was the
council’s understanding that Clearsprings had no more
intention of using the campus again;
- The council was not
aware of any planning process that was followed regarding setting
up of the processing centre at Manston. The advice council had
which would be investigated further was that the Home Office would
be able to use the site until next year, when they would need to
obtain some kind of planning approval for their current use.
However this approval did not necessarily need to come through TDC
as it could be determined at the county of national
level;
- The Leader was happy
to work with the Council’s Communications team
and produce an outline of what had happened regarding
this subject matter and share with the public.
The Chair thanked the Leader
for the update and the Panel noted the report.
The meeting was adjourned at
20.08hrs