A senior civil servant at the Home Office confirmed last week that the former prison premises of Northeye on the outskirts of Bexhill are no longer being considered as prospective accommodation for asylum seekers. 

The site was purchased by the UK government in September 2023 at a price of £15.3m despite known risks of asbestos contamination (see Home Office Slated Over Northeye Purchase in HIP 265). The original purpose, as stated by the then Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick, was to provide basic accommodation for up to 1,200 adult male would-be immigrants on a voluntary basis. Later, following the enactment of the Illegal Migration Act, plans emerged to use the premises for detention of men deemed to have arrived illegally – in particular, those crossing the Channel on small boats. 

Humanitarian campaigners such as Bexhill Stand Up to Racism and local pressure group No to Northeye pointed out multiple flaws in these schemes, and the change of government in July this year put them on hold.  Now the Home Office is reported to be considering instead the purchase of hundreds of smaller properties to substitute for current placements in hotel accommodation and has decided that the Northeye site “is no longer needed”. 

Sir Matthew Rycroft, the department’s permanent secretary, told a public accounts committee: “We will be working with our colleagues to see if it would be suitable for any other part of government and, if not, then we will be selling it.”

Last year, then Bexhill and Battle MP, Huw Merriman, a junior Minister in Rishi Sunak’s government, refused to condemn the Home Office plans. However, his successor, Dr Kieran Mullan, has lost no time in approving their reversal. He issued a statement: “I want to thank campaigners and cross-party councillors across all layers of local government for fighting against this plan…I’ve done all I can to support them. I am especially pleased for the residents of the Northeye Estate for whom the uncertainty and worry is over.”

Uncertainty will, however, continue. The site is zoned in the Rother Local Plan for potential housing development, but the National Audit Office investigation into the purchase revealed that repairs to buildings at the site, including contamination clean-up, were estimated to cost more than £20m. Who is going to meet that cost, and when?

HUGH SULLIVAN

On 25 March the Westminster government announced that Hastings borough and Rother district will receive targeted cash grants totalling £20 million each from its Levelling Up Partnerships (LUP) programme. They are two out of just 20 areas in England and four places in Scotland that qualify for a share in the £480 million initiative aimed at benefiting those “that are most in need of levelling up”.

Levelling Up Minister Jacob Young described the LUPs as “fantastic news for the people of Hastings and Rother – and another important step in our work to accelerate regeneration and transform lives in this special part of the country”. 

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) had, he said, “worked closely with the local councils to identify their priority projects… making sure residents and families reap the rewards of new and improved health services, refurbished community hubs and revamped high streets”.

Funds are to be invested in projects identified as follows:

• over £13 million to provide more affordable housing in Hastings
• £9 million to develop a brand-new King Offa Leisure Centre in Bexhill alongside the building of over 50 new homes
• £5 million to build a new Barnhorn Green Health in Bexhill
• £3.4 million to transform the Hollington Youth Hub, offering a wide range of health and wellbeing services in partnership with the local NHS
• £2.5 million to complete the Queensway Gateway Road
• 2.1 million to improve existing voluntary and community facilities in Rother, including over £1 million to build a new Bexhill Community Hub
• £1.7 million to support the tourist economy in Rother
• £1 million for projects to improve skills across both Hastings and Rother so residents are equipped to gain well-paid jobs
• £818,000 for the development of the Project Art Works’ premises in Hastings, ensuring greater arts access for people with disabilities
• £650,000 to improve energy efficiency and long-term sustainability of Rye leisure facilities
• £260,000 to support high street improvements in Hastings, Bexhill, Rye and Battle
• £100,000 for improvements to the existing Ore Health Centre

It’s the item of £2.5m for completion of the Queensway Gateway link road which catches the eye. This road was originally supposed to have been completed by 2016. For several years officers of East Sussex County Council (ESCC) and the directors of its project partner Sea Change Sussex have wrangled over a shortfall of funding to complete it, each side holding the other responsible, while the original funders SELEP (the South East Local Partnership) made it clear that no further cash would be offered from that quarter.

However, in March 2023, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt announced in a budget speech that the government was “minded” to withdraw its support from all LEPs and transfer their responsibilities to local authorities from April 2024, in line with a policy of “empowering democratically elected local leaders at every opportunity”. That would not in itself have assisted ESCC to plug the funding gap. But, as HIP has been predicting for over six months, once SELEP was abolished, the council was able to apply direct to DLUHC for fresh funds – and that’s exactly what has occurred. Sums of £1.25 million have been sliced off each of the awards of £20m to Hastings and Rother to make the aggregate of £2.5m which ESCC officers hope will be sufficient to complete the remaining roadway and junction with the A21.

CHEERLEADING MPs

Respective local Conservative MPs, Sally-Ann Hart for Hastings & Rye and Huw Merriman for Bexhill and Battle, have not just led the cheerleading but have also claimed the credit. Mrs Hart issued a statement: “A few months ago, I started my campaign to Complete The Link after years of neglect from those in charge of the project. This final stretch of the Link Road, the ‘road to nowhere’, was blocking the area’s economic growth, so, alongside our neighbouring MP, Huw Merriman, I am delighted to say we have successfully secured the funding to finally complete this project and level up Hastings.”

Hastings Borough Council leader Julia Hilton has made no comment on the diversion of cash to the road completion, but confined her expression of pleasure to the funding of other projects, in particular the cash for housing.

“We are really pleased that Hastings has been given this funding to help us address the housing crisis we have in our town,” she said.

“The funding means we are able to expand our housing acquisition programme and also make sure that a site earmarked for affordable housing can be built to our very high energy efficient specification and under our control. Funding for other partner projects across the town, including skills, health, culture and better youth provision, is also very welcome.”

Rother District Council leader, Cllr Doug Oliver said:

“Every single person should have the same opportunities in life, regardless of where they live, but we know that in Rother there are barriers that limit possibilities for some people.

“This latest funding, as part of the Government’s Levelling Up Partnerships programme, is an amazing investment for our district, and will enable us and our partners to make a real difference to people’s lives and futures. We face challenges in Rother unique to us and it’s important that the solutions come from local people and organisations that have the best understanding of the situation.”

SEA CHANGE RESPONSE

Notwithstanding the funding announcement, the timetable for completion of the road link remains uncertain. A spokesperson for Sea Change said last week that, while they welcomed the news, they “have some concerns” that the £2.5m falls short of the £3m which they recently advised ESCC may be needed to complete the scheme.

“We remain keen to help finish the road if the county council would like us to do so and believe this urgently needs to be done for the benefit of the community. The ball is in the county council’s court and we’re waiting to hear from them about next steps and timescales.”

As anticipated in HIP 232 (Changing of the Guard?), the Home Office are now proposing to use the former prison site at Northeye, Bexhill for detention of people arriving illegally in the UK under the recently enacted Illegal Migration Act. 

That’s at least according to Government Minister and MP for Battle and Bexhill, Huw Merriman, who issued a statement last Thursday that “following discussions I have held with my colleagues across Government over the last few months, it is now proposed that the centre, if it proceeds, will only hold those who have arrived illegally in the UK and are awaiting removal from the country. This means the centre will be a close, detained and secure site and that those staying will not be expected to remain longer than 45 days.”

It is not clear what this stated maximum period could be based upon. Mr Merriman must be well aware that the Home Office’s record of arranging deportations over recent years has never remotely matched its rhetoric, and labelling migrants as “illegal” will hardly change that. Moreover, the MP acknowledges that the existing buildings at Northeye “will require total demolition and rebuild” before they can be reused as intended.

In this, Mr Merriman sees an opportunity for local enterprise. “I will work with our local business community and JobCentrePlus to ensure local businesses and residents benefit from this work,” he said. He promised to host a meeting in Bexhill “in the coming weeks…in order to explain what this means for the town”.

He also added that he would in due course “represent residents of the centre to ensure welfare and care requirements are met”.

SUTR OPPOSITION

However, the Home Office policy change which Mr Merriman reported as positive has outraged local pro-refugee campaigners. Daniel Rushby, of Bexhill Stand Up To Racism (SUTR), said: “This is terrible news. Northeye will become a centre for the mass deportation of asylum seekers and migrants. Since the initial announcement in April we have been campaigning in defence of refugees, and we know that the people of Bexhill are compassionate and caring. People seeking asylum are not criminals and should be welcomed into our community, just like Ukrainian refugees. The government should demolish Northeye and build affordable houses, not a prison camp, bringing jobs to Bexhill without relying on cruelty to refugees. SUTR opposes the Northeye detention centre, and we will organise to prevent deportations to Rwanda or anywhere else.”

Simon Hester, chair of Hastings and District Trades Union Council, said: “Tory politicians are desperately trying to save their careers by scapegoating refugees and stirring up racism. The cost-of-living crisis faced by millions of workers is not caused by people seeking asylum but by the government’s own policies. The NHS and schools are collapsing because of years of cuts and privatisation. Migrant workers have been central to all that is best in Britain. Gary Lineker was right. The creation of a new detention camp at Northeye has echoes of the 1930s. The trade union movement in Rother and Hastings will stand with refugees and migrants and oppose Tory racism.”

The quite separate ‘No to Northeye’ campaign group are also unimpressed, albeit for rather different reasons. Their co-founder, Bexhill town councillor Nigel Jacklin, said on Monday: “When I last checked, the Home Office fact sheet had not been updated and said people would be free to come and go; this was what the Home Office said in Scampton [another site previously proposed for mass accommodation of asylum seekers] when we were there last Thursday.

“Whilst this use is less bad than the original proposals (to use the site as an open accommodation centre) we will continue to oppose it.

“LACK OF TRUST”

“Having visited and spoken to fellow campaign groups in Wethersfield and Scampton, it is clear that local people lack confidence in the Home Office’s ability to plan anything, communicate with people or take local residents’ concerns into account. The use of emergency legislation to ride roughshod over local planning and consultation procedures is wrong, and is of deep concern to fellow local councillors in the Independent Network to which I belong.”

Mr Jacklin said that his group do welcome “any measures that will stop illegal arrivals” and that “bringing arrivals by boat to an end is what virtually everyone wants”, so as to eliminate the need for large-scale accommodation centres. But he was on that day handing in to Rother District Council the group’s petition (with over 1,500 signatories from Rother and 500 others from Hastings, St Leonards and Eastbourne) asking them to “oppose asylum seeker centre proposals”. 

“We collected the last 200 signatures yesterday,” he said. “Opposition remained strong, as did a lack of trust in the various authorities.”

When Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick told Parliament on 29 March this year that the Home Office was intending to use an unidentified location in East Sussex for the housing of asylum seekers, he emphasised the need to find cheaper accommodation for them, not to detain them. 

As soon as the former Northeye prison premises on the edge of Bexhill were confirmed as the site in question, his government colleague, Battle and Bexhill MP Huw Merriman, issued a statement. He assured his local constituents that their safety was his main concern, given that the future residents of the site would not be locked in or subject to curfew. He had been told that nearly 70% could expect to succeed in due course with their asylum claims, and drew from this the comforting idea that they would be highly motivated “[not] to break the law”.

But the enactment of the Illegal Migration Act at the end of last month seems to turn this perspective on its head. Section 1(a) of the Act “places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of certain persons who enter or arrive in the United Kingdom in breach of immigration control as soon as is reasonably practicable after their entry or arrival”. Section 1(c) provides for “the detention of persons who are subject to removal under this Act”.

If Home Secretary Suella Braverman really wants to make the Act effective, she surely has to start detaining the people concerned – and where is she going to do that?

Daniel Rushby of SUTR naturally condemns the whole direction of the policy. “When government ministers talk about ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘invasions’ and migrants bringing ‘criminal behaviour’,” he says, “they are deliberately stoking up racism against people seeking asylum. If the government were serious about stopping the small boats crossing the Channel, they could create safe routes for refugees to claim asylum. It is a political decision not to allow refugees from Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran or Sudan the same opportunity to claim asylum as they afford to refugees from the war in Ukraine. Ukrainians, quite rightly, have been welcomed, allowed to work and to contribute to our community. We believe this welcome should apply to all refugees, whatever their skin colour.”

Detention of asylum–seeking refugees should not, from Rushby’s political perspective, be in the Government’s contemplation. On the other hand, he admits he would not be surprised if Northeye were turned back into a detention site for this purpose. “I think the Home Office have been considering this all along,” he says.

For Nigel Jacklin and his NTN Group, who have generally welcomed the passing of the Act, it’s more of a dilemma. “The main concern identified by the Town Council at the April open meeting with residents was safety and security based on 1,200 men being able to roam freely,” says Jacklin. “The majority of residents don’t want it (the camp) or them (people who have arrived illegally). Opposition to illegal arrivals is widespread across the UK. 

“No doubt most local residents would welcome the removal of people who have arrived illegally.  Using the site as a detention centre is clearly a different proposal.”

He says that reports from when the site was used as a prison, initially for 250 inmates and then for 450, suggested it was well run and community relationships were good. But if detention of 1,200 “illegal arrivals” were to be considered, “residents would want to be consulted”. 

A meeting of Bexhill-on-Sea Town Council resolved last Wednesday to oppose the use of the former prison site at Northeye to house asylum seekers. The full Town Council resolution, on a motion brought by Independent councillor Claire Baldry, was “to oppose the use of the Northeye ex-military training site to house 1200 male asylum seekers”. 

Three days later, around 150 local residents gathered at the Wheatsheaf pub in Little Common under the slogan “No to Northeye” and marched through Collington to Bexhill Town Hall with banners demanding the removal of “illegal migrants” – but also of the Tory government which was failing to control migration.

It was, according to organiser of the march, another Independent town councillor Nigel Jacklin, the sixth “peaceful gathering” in Bexhill since the announcement of the government’s proposal by Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick, and the third organised by No To Northeye – there had been one outside the De La Warr Pavilion for a recent BBC Question Time recording; this was the second of two Saturday protest marches.  

About 150 people of all ages, but mainly over 50s, marched from the Wheatsheaf, accompanied by whistles, chants and horns of passing cars which were taken as appreciative. Another 50 or so joined the group at the Town Hall.

There will be another protest march on Saturday July 1.

Lack of consultation.

Mr Jacklin says he regards the Northeye proposal as a “complete failure of the democratic process”.  Specifically, he and members of the No To Northeye campaign group argue that the fact that the Home Office are proposing to use the site for the purpose of housing asylum seekers without local consultation or due process is wrong.

He told Saturday’s gathering: “We hold the government to blame. They are using emergency legislation  – but there shouldn’t be an emergency.

“We are not anti-immigrant. We are against uncontrolled migration. Neither Northeye nor anywhere else should be used in the way they propose. If the government and the Home Office were to do their jobs and stop people trafficking across the channel and process asylum claims in good time, there would be no need for large scale accommodation centres here or anywhere else.”

Many marchers complained at the failure nationally to control overall numbers of migrants coming in, but also at the choice of site for those arrived. “Maybe if they accommodated families at Northeye it wouldn’t be so scary,” one said. “But to put 1,200 unattached males, mostly 18 to 30, on a site half a mile from the centre of Little Common, which has a population of around 4,600, is asking for trouble. There’s already a lack of policing here, a lack of GP and other facilities: that’s bad enough. We should be looking after our own first.”

Huw Merriman MP

General discontent was expressed at the lack of support given to the objectors by local MP for Bexhill and Battle, Huw Merriman. Mr Jacklin later released a copy of a letter he had sent to the MP: “I am writing to express my strong objection to the plans to use the Northeye site as an asylum seeker accommodation centre. You have failed to represent your constituents on this matter and, with this in mind, I will not vote for you at the next election, nor will I vote for anyone who supports the use of the site for this purpose.”

However, as Minister for Rail and HS2 since October last year, Mr Merriman presumably feels constrained not to oppose Home Office policies. In a statement issued on his own website, the MP insists that the decision to select this site was made by the Home Office. “I was only told about the decision three days before the proposal was announced on 29 March. It has been suggested that I recommended this site to the Home Office. I most certainly did not. Last year, following queries by constituents, I asked the then immigration minister if the site was being considered. I was told it was not. I gave my views on the site, and the proximity to the town, at that time.

“Following the announcement of the proposal, at my request, the Home Office committed to working closely with me and the wider community. Since then, I have had meetings and regular discussions with the minister, convened and chaired a meeting between the Home Office officials leading on the proposals and the leaders of our statutory local service providers, and met, and continue to have discussions with, local residents about the challenges of the proposal.”

The Home Office, for its part, has issued responses to written questions raised by Mr Merriman. 

In answer to a question on the number of people to be housed at Northeye, the response is that: “If a decision is made to progress using the site for non-detained asylum accommodation, we will undertake works at the site and only after the site is legally compliant and ready for use would we start to accommodate asylum seekers. We would increase capacity in phases over several months to reach an operating capacity of c.1,200 people, regularly reviewing the numbers and use of the site.”

As to interaction with the local community, there is this response: “By designing the site to be as self-sufficient as possible, we would minimise the impact on local communities and services. Proposals include providing onsite recreational and cultural activities to occupy residents. As proposals develop, we continue to work closely with local political leaders and their officials and other local partners to manage any impact on the local area.” 

Mr Merriman has held the Parliamentary seat for the Conservative party since 2015. At the 2019 election his majority over his nearest challenger (Christine Bayliss of Labour) was over 26,000.  

A Different perspective

The Refugee Buddy Project (RBP: see the supplement in this issue of HIP) states its principal aim as the provision of “a positive experience of welcome for people seeking refuge in Hastings and the surrounding areas”. Its CEO, Rossana Leal, has written to Huw Merriman MP protesting at the Northeye proposal. 

“People seeking refuge deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and to be housed in community accommodation where they can live alongside their neighbours. Isolating and segregating people in this type of camp amounts to the internment of large numbers of innocent people. The UK is better than this. Bexhill is better than this. 

“We are asking you, as the local MP for this area, to call on the Home Office to:

Immediately scrap its plans for accommodation centres in Northeye and across of the UK.

Redouble its efforts to increase the availability of safe asylum accommodation in flats and houses within local communities.

Work collaboratively with communities and local authorities and provide adequate funding to enable them to welcome people seeking safety.”

Despite shared antipathy to the government’s proposal, there has not been any known discussion between representatives of the RBP and of the No to Northeye group. The former are unlikely to be willing to share a political platform with people carrying banners demanding the deportation of illegal migrants.

HUGH SULLIVAN 

Huw Merriman, MP for Battle and Bexhill, has found himself caught between the demands of the national government, of which he is Rail Minister, and grievances felt and expressed by many of his local constituents over the choice of the former prison premises of Northeye as a site to house future asylum seekers en masse.

Originally an RAF mobile radio base turned radar station, Northeye was used as a Category C prison for 23 years between 1969 and 1992, then over a further 20+year period by the United Arab Emirates government for private military and technical training. Vacant for the last seven years or more, but still surrounded by a high wire fence, it’s perhaps unsurprising that it has attracted the attention of the Home Office as a potential site to accommodate another collection of unattached adult males.

However, the announcement that up to 1,200 asylum seekers are intended to be housed there by the end of this year has been greeted with dismay and in some cases anger by residents of the housing estates on the perimeter, on Wartling Drive, Pleyden Rise and Ticehurst Avenue.

Challenging the numbers

Asked for their views, some openly express opinions that asylum seekers pose a threat to their local community by who they are and where they come from. But most keep their criticisms to the unsuitability of the site to house any class of people in such numbers.

One resident pointed out that housing 1,200 would treble or quadruple previous numbers. “The prison had a maximum of 450 inmates. That was too many to control and they burnt it down. After that the prison population was reduced to 250. The UAE had around 300 students, max. There’s no way that the site can accommodate 1,200. There’s a shared sewage system across the estate. It won’t be able to cope. Has the Home Office asked Southern Water about that?”

He also claimed that there’s a large quantity of asbestos buried on the site. “It’s contaminated land – that’s why the Home Office has bought it so cheap. It’s full of toxic, hazardous waste. What are they going to do about that?”

Posters in some windows proclaim: “Residents say NO to Northeye”, along with support for named candidates in the upcoming district council elections who have presumably endorsed this message, among them independents Nigel Jacklin and Connor Winter.

However, another resident observed – “It’s very convenient to have an election right now. Some councillors are stepping down, others coming in – no-one is taking any responsibility. Everyone here is very unhappy about the proposed use. You won’t find anyone who isn’t. But who’ll do anything about it? The council have done nothing.”

Safety and security

Mr Merriman issued a statement on 11 April in which he maintained that his main concern was that local residents should feel safe, given  that the asylum seekers housed at Northeye would not be locked in or subject to curfew. “I was told that the residents would likely comprise those from Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Eritrea,” he said. “To my concerns about security, I was told that it was expected around 50% of the residents would never leave the camp. It is not in their interests to break the law because it would negatively impact their asylum application. Nearly 70% are expected to have a successful application. The camp would have sport, recreational and religious amenities to occupy the residents and deter leaving the camp.

“I recognise the frustration a lack of detailed information causes. Whilst I understand the concerns, I would appeal for calm.”

His own aim, he declared, was to “argue the case for the resources and controls which will mitigate the impact”. He was meeting that day with local residents and then with local clergy to discuss community impacts. “This is the start of many meetings with the Home Office, community stakeholders and leaders over the coming weeks. Some will have empathy for those who have travelled from afar. Others will be less welcoming. My job is to represent every person in the constituency, and I hope to do so in this challenging environment,” he concluded.

One resident, speaking subsequently, was unimpressed. “The Home Office has already made it clear that they want to do everything on the cheap – so much for ‘levelling up’. We knew something would happen with the site, but this is worse than anything we imagined.”

HUGH SULLIVAN

The former Category C prison of Northeye, on the western fringe of Bexhill, was one of three sites publicly identified last week by the Home Office for the future mass accommodation of asylum seekers who cross the Channel on small boats. 

There were more than 45,000 such arrivals in 2022, a number which has risen exponentially over each the past four years despite a succession of government measures on both sides of the Channel intended to stem the flow. The cost of providing residential hotel accommodation for these arrivals has soared, and capacity is increasingly stretched. Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick told Parliament on 29 March that the Government had, effectively, a dual purpose in finding alternative solutions – reducing costs, but also “deterring” people from making the passage. 

“This Government remains committed to meeting our legal obligations to those who would otherwise be destitute, but we are not prepared to go further,” he declared. “Accommodation for migrants should meet their essential living needs and nothing more, because we cannot risk becoming a magnet for the millions of people who are displaced and seeking better economic prospects…

“We have to suffuse our entire system with deterrence, and this must include how we house illegal migrants… So today the Government are announcing the first tranche of sites we will set up to provide basic accommodation at scale.”

Adult males only

It is understood that up to 1,200 adult males will be accommodated at Northeye. Females and minors under 18 – who have together constituted less than 20% of the small boat passengers since 2018 – will be placed elsewhere.

Responses to the plan to reopen the site for asylum seekers has been mixed.

Local MP for Battle and Bexhill, Huw Merriman, himself a junior government minister, was making further enquiries earlier this week on how they would impact on local services.

In a joint statement from Rother District Council and East Sussex County Council, a spokesperson said people in the community were likely to have “many questions” about the plans and the councils would work together “to understand and assess in more detail the impact this would have on local communities”.

Campaign groups critical

However, Mary Atkinson, of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, reacted with scorn and anger: “It beggars belief that the government is seriously considering housing people, many who have escaped awful conditions in their own countries, in a former prison.

“Robert Jenrick says that accommodation for migrants should meet their essential living needs and nothing more, but re-traumatising people who may have faced unlawful imprisonment, oppression and torture by the state by placing them in similar facilities is utterly inhumane.” 

Alex Kempton, Director of Operations and Campaigns at the Refugee Buddy Project for Hastings, Rother and Wealden, struck a similar note:

“We are very disappointed by the Government announcement that it plans to use the Northeye site in Bexhill to house up to 1,200 people seeking refuge. We have been campaigning for months about the poor treatment of people kept in detention hotels both in Hastings and across the country, and this plan to use poor quality mass accommodation sites will only exacerbate the issue. People seeking refuge deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and to be housed in community accommodation where they can live alongside their neighbours. Isolating and segregating people in this type of camp is horrific, and we will campaign with our partners and volunteers in Bexhill to stop this camp from opening.”

Home Office dilemma

There’s a basic dilemma for Mr Jenrick and the Home Office in meeting these objections. On the one hand, he maintains that the facilities being offered meet the requisite minimum standards. 

“The sites will house asylum seekers in former barracks and modular accommodation in an orderly manner with healthcare provision in place, catering facilities on site and 24/7 security”, he told Parliament.

“Not only are these sites more affordable for taxpayers than hotels, but they are more manageable and orderly for communities and offer significant employment opportunities in the broader area.

“We will work closely with local authorities and key partners to manage the impacts of using these sites, including liaising with local police to make sure appropriate arrangements are in place.

“This approach also brings the UK in line with European partners, including Germany and Greece, who also successfully use military sites.”

Less deterrence, more detention?

On the other hand, for people desperate enough to make the dangerous Channel crossing after spending a winter or longer in a makeshift shelter in the Pas du Calais, reliance on a concept of “deterrence” seems at best unrealistic, and arguably disingenuous.

The more pressing question is what happens if, or when, the government’s Illegal Migration Bill, currently working through Parliament, is enacted and put into effect. The express aim of this legislation is to remove the right of anyone entering the country “irregularly”, including those making the passage by small boat, to make an asylum claim here, and to give the Home Secretary power to detain and then deport those that have thus barred themselves.

Detention is one thing; deportation another – there is no current prospect of finding a country, apart from Albania, willing to accept any significant number of such deportees from the UK (even the legally controversial scheme of transportation to Rwanda has never been envisaged as a large-scale system – it’s really another of the Home Office’s “deterrence” notions, with no evidence of effect on significant numbers). So it’s likely that tens of thousands of people will continue to arrive in the country by small boat, be detained and be declared inadmissible for asylum in the UK, but with little prospect of removal from the country.

 Hitherto, the majority of these small boat passengers have eventually succeeded with asylum claims, giving them the right to work and to integrate into the social and economic life of the country. What’s the end game now? 

The Hastings and St Leonards branch of Extinction Rebellion (XRHSL) has been out in force on the streets of Hastings to press anew its demand for Hastings Borough Council (HBC) to take positive action in respect of climate change. After putting up a number of eye-catching posters accusing HBC of having “sat on their hands” since declaring a climate emergency three years ago, XRHSL have focused in recent days on the formulation and debate of the Council’s budget for 2022/23 (see the front page of this issue).

They complain that, while the draft budget report lists “minimising environmental and climate harm in all that we do” as one of a number of the Council’s strategic priorities, there is no mention of initiatives to actively address decarbonisation. 

In a dramatically staged demonstration outside the former Debenhams store in Robertson Street last Saturday they invited supporters to bring old chairs and then made a high pile of them to signify the emptiness of the Council’s rhetoric. On Monday they assembled again outside Muriel Matters House where the cabinet were due to debate and approve the budget. 

Cllr Maya Evans, who is HBC cabinet lead for Environment & Climate Change, earlier posted a vigorous riposte on Facebook arguing that XRHSL are picking the wrong target. She contends that HBC has neither the funds nor the policy remit to address major climate issues such as transport, and that XR should be focussing their attention
on East Sussex County Council and on local Conservative MPs.

Cllr Evans and the XRHSL group express their respective views head to head below.
 

Focus on the real targets

Says Cllr Maya Evans

On posters around the town, Hastings Borough Council is accused by Extinction Rebellion of not doing nearly enough on the climate crisis. But the group has picked the wrong target, and this is why.

The latest Climate Emergency UK report reveals that 84 UK councils have NO climate change action plan or strategy. I assume this means 84 councils have no dedicated council officers focused on climate change either. I’m proud to say HBC has both.

• Since declaring a Climate Emergency in 2019 we have appointed two new dedicated council officials, a sustainability officer and renewable energy officer.

• The ‘solar for business’ project is up and running; the local plan to be reviewed. This will enable more areas in the town to be fitted with renewable energy.

• The council also took up the Government’s Green Homes Grant, to make older homes more energy efficient. But the funding is meagre – it’s enough for only around 300 homes.

• The council’s next step is to borrow BIG on renewable energy with £5m being earmarked for capital projects. The upcoming budget is now out for consultation. We hope residents will comment and tell us how they want this £5m spent.

A full list of progress can be found on the HBC website, while a climate change update (to be published next month) will see the private sector spotlighted: focus will be put on partners such as Southern Water, Stagecoach, Biffa, Optivo and all the other big private companies in town like General Dynamics, Tesco etc.

Housing Crisis 

But funding is a serious issue. The council has a budget of around £14m per year, £4m of that is going on housing. Hastings has a housing crisis, with nearly 400 people in temporary accommodation, while wealthy Londoners buy up properties as second homes or for Airbnbs, and developers sit on brownfield sites. That’s why Cllr Andrew Batsford has launched a campaign to enable local authorities to compulsorily purchase these precious potential sites. This £4m on housing we could be spending on tackling climate change.

A brief fact check: Tory-controlled East Sussex Council (ESCC) takes 72% of your council tax, Hastings Borough Council just 13%. That, and what it legally can and can’t do, limits its room to manoeuvre.

ESCC’s main responsibilities are transport, highways (roads  and pavements), adult social care, children’s services, libraries and youth work, while HBC has the powers over things like housing, waste, planning, parks, culture, regeneration and leisure. Transport is an excellent campaign target – it’s responsible for 29% of the town’s carbon emissions and therefore crucial in our target to go carbon neutral. But, annoyingly, it comes under the remit of ESCC. The lead member for transport and the environment is Cllr Claire Dowling. It’s definitely worth checking out her track record on climate change. 

We’ve heard that the Government’s ‘Bus Back Better’ project is being slashed. What was previously earmarked £3bn to improve buses has now been reduced to £1.4bn for the whole country. The Government narrative has changed from “What you will get funded” to “If you get funded”. In short, this means, we won’t be getting any electric buses.

Lobby your MPs

A good XR campaign is to NOW lobby MPs. A relevant campaign target should be local MP for Bexhill and Battle, Huw Merriman, who chairs the Transport Select Committee. You might also ask our Conservative MP Sally Ann Hart where she stands on this. And please note, tackling climate change is not yet a statutory requirement for councils. It receives no additional funding to do this. A helpful campaign would be to lobby Mrs Hart about this too.

HBC is a socialist green council that believes climate change is the biggest threat facing the human species, while at the same time trying to tackle poverty. In many ways the two things are linked. But for the last two years, councils have faced the more immediate existential crisis of Covid-19: lots of business grants to process and emergency measures to implement. And austerity for councils still continues: this year HBC faces a £2m deficit. Other councils, like our neighbours Eastbourne, are even more on the brink. Some, like Nottingham, are facing bankruptcy. ‘Levelling up’ is Government whitewash, it won’t come anywhere close to getting the country back to 2010 pre-austerity levels.

Over the last 12 years this country has gone backward; it’s the first time since the Napoleonic wars that life expectancy has declined.

We in Hastings Labour Group believe the people of Hastings want to hear hope, and about practical ways that we in our small seaside town can do our bit to make positive steps to tackle climate change. Well done, XR, for your recent campaign efforts, but I urge you to take Greta’s advice in her COP26 address and focus on the real targets. When Greta said “blah, blah, blah” she was talking about powerful world leaders with trillions at their disposal, not a humble second-tier council which is potentially facing bankruptcy because of its commitment to house the homeless. So stay hopeful, XR, focus on the real targets. And never stop believing that another world is possible.

Put the Climate at the Heart of the Budget

Say Extinction Rebellion Hastings and St Leonards

XR is a distinct campaigning voice. Many of us within XR are active in other community groups and give our energy to other causes too. But, as XR, we call for an end to ‘business as usual’. So we advocate for our representatives to rise above the usual excuse-making and empty target setting; to tell the truth and act now. Our approach may be imperfect, but – over the past three years – it has been part of a shift in the public perception of this existential crisis. And the failure of COP26 demonstrated the absolute need for our continuing action.

Recent campaigns by XRHSL have called on HBC to step up to their ambitious target of net zero carbon by 2030. In part this is to demand action, but it is also to demand the truth, because it’s time to get real.

CREDIT: Cathy Teesdale

Good intentions and aspirational pledges won’t solve the climate crisis. Policy setting and objectives need to be supported by real-world interventions; it is not what is said, but what is done that matters, and where the money is spent. It is now three years since our council passed a motion to declare a Climate Emergency. Does it feel like they are acting like it’s an emergency?

That HBC has acknowledged the Climate Crisis is, undoubtedly, a step in the right direction. Their ambitious target of 2030 is impressive only if they are putting in place the measures to meet it. Financial constraints are real, but they cannot be the reason to fail. We need to find ways to take control of our behaviours, incrementally decreasing carbon outputs, creating better habitats, generating cleaner energy, improving transport options. The more we do, the greater the impact and the wider the benefits.

HBC’s current Draft Budget Report lists minimising environmental and climate harm in all that we do as one of their strategic priorities, but does not highlight concrete initiatives to actively address decarbonisation in time for 2030.

We recognise that there are many seats of power and influence which we must challenge, including East Sussex County Council which holds responsibility and finance for many key aspects of how our town runs. However, the complete distinction between ESCC and HBC’s responsibilities, whilst meaningful in abstract, is not practical on the ground. These two councils must find ways to work together on this crisis. Even where HBC does not have direct responsibility for transport, for example, the integrated vision for decarbonising our town’s infrastructure and behaviours around travel must be part of their remit. This means working with ESCC as well as implementing and communicating a local vision involving residents.

CREDIT: Cathy Teesdale

XRHSL recently asked members of the public in the town centre for their view on HBC’s initiatives on tackling the climate crisis, and not one of the respondents felt that enough was being done. Our community recognises that ‘business as usual’ in local government is not enough: we need courage, conviction and creativity to do what is required. To tackle the climate crisis effectively HBC must communicate with residents, meet with the numerous community groups that are hungry for action. In real life. With honesty.

In 2018 XR launched, saying: “We refuse to bequeath a dying planet to future generations.” Three years on, as the science continues to evidence the peril and increasing urgency of the situation across the globe, we stand by this commitment. We look to our elected representatives for leadership and we campaign to give them a mandate to put the climate justice and all our futures first.

• Visit xrhsl.org to join our local group, or extinctionrebellion.uk for more information. 

Some details of the share that East Sussex NHS Trust (ESHT) is to receive of the government’s pledge to spend £3.7 billion on 40 new hospitals and upgrades around England over the next ten years were released last Friday by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock. No precise figures have been set out, but the cash grant is promised to cover an expansion and redevelopment of the Conquest Hospital, a brand new hospital in Eastbourne and development of the Bexhill hospital.

Local MP for Hastings and Rye, Sally-Ann Hart, claimed last weekend on her Conservative party website that she has been personally instrumental in securing “hundreds of millions of pounds in vital funding” for the Conquest in accordance with the party’s election manifesto commitment, though she also gives credit to other politicians, NHS managers and campaign groups.

“From our NHS Trust staff, to local authorities, local campaign groups and my fellow MPs – Huw Merriman, Caroline Ansell, Nus Ghani and Maria Caulfield – we all pulled together to ensure we got the funding our area needs to improve and enhance our local health services”, she has written.

“All told, this is a massive programme of improvement for our area. Local residents and staff can now look forwards to a bright future of high quality health care in state of the art hospitals. This is a fantastic result and one I hope the whole town will get behind.”

Joe Chadwick-Bell, newly appointed ESHT Chief Executive, released a separate statement: “We are delighted to be part of the second phase of the Government’s Healthcare Infrastructure Project which will see a significant investment in Bexhill, Eastbourne and Conquest hospitals over the next ten years. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the environment in which we provide care at ESHT. It will mean a complete redesign of our aging hospitals, taking advantage of new technologies and improvements in healthcare to ensure that we can meet the future needs of our communities. 

“We have already received some funding to develop our plans and start some initial ‘enabling’ work. Our plans are in the early stages, and we are looking forward to developing them further in partnership with local people, our patients and members of staff.”

Last October, Transport for the South East (TfSE), a forum combining leading local government councillors across southern counties from Hampshire to Kent, with senior representatives of Network Rail and Highways England, unveiled a draft document for consultation –‘Strategy for the South-East’. Its aim: to plan transport in the region for the next 30 years. Its stated vision: that “by 2050, the South East of England will be a leading global region for net-zero carbon, sustainable economic growth where integrated transport, digital and energy networks have delivered a stepchange in connectivity and environmental quality”.

In his preface to the document, Chair Keith Glazier – see adjacent columns – claimed that, since its formation in 2017, TfSE “has emerged as a powerful and effective partnership for our region… 

“We have successfully influenced how, where and when government money is spent on our major roads, railways and other transport infrastructure.”

Cllr Glazier went on to identify “the big issues” for the future as improving air quality; investing in better public transport; supporting the switch to green vehicles; encouraging active travel [buzz-phrase for walking and cycling]; and more sustainable employment and housing growth.

But the indications in the early months of this year are that TfSE in general, and Cllr Glazier in particular, are embarking on their 30-year plan with the major emphasis on economic benefits of conventional road building rather than recognising any environmental or social limitations or the government’s climate change policies and zero net CO2 emissions target.

Dualling the A21

On 10th February, he convened a meeting in the Palace of Westminster of the A21 Reference Group (also including local MPs Sally-Ann Hart and Huw Merriman plus Hastings Borough councillor Andy Batsford and Rother District councillor Kathryn Field). The announced object of the meeting was to “step up the campaign” to see the A21 road “dualled all the way to the south coast”.

When on the following day (11th February) Boris Johnson announced a £5bn national investment in bus and cycle transport to accompany the decision to proceed with the HS2 rail project, the reaction of Cllr Glazier was to issue a statement reminding central government that the South East “is our country’s main international gateway for people and goods”. He cited three major international airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Southampton), seven major ports (Dover, London, Medway, Newhaven, Shoreham, Portsmouth and Southampton) and the HS1 rail service, as well as a network of motorways and trunk roads.

Catering for future growth

Last week Cllr Glazier developed his theme further, issuing a trumpet call to the Chancellor of the Exchequer ahead of his budget. The South-East region was, the TfSE Chair declared, a “powerful motor for national prosperity, adding more than £200 billion to the UK economy – more than any region outside the capital.” But its transport network is “operating beyond capacity and can’t sustain ongoing growth. Roads are congested and rail travel is often unreliable. Urgent investment is needed to meet existing demands and cater for future growth and to help unlock new housing, attract inward investment and support deprived communities.”

Improving air quality? Public transport? Active travel? Not mentioned in Cllr Glazier’s rhetoric, apart from an unfocussed reference to reducing carbon emissions – nor figuring, it would seem, in his recent track record.

Over the past five years, public funding for transport initiatives of any size in East Sussex, Kent and Essex has been channelled through SELEP (the South East Local Enterprise Partnership). Having been armed with a Local Growth Fund investment from central government of £1.2 bn (£200m a year from 2015 to 2021), it acts as an effective clearing-house for schemes put forward on behalf of competing local authorities across the region. Cllr Glazier, as the representative of East Sussex County Council on SELEP’s strategic board, has been in a good position to influence what it bids for. 

In our last issue (HIP 146) we reported on the diversion of £5m public funding originally proposed for cycling and walking schemes in East Sussex (£3m in Hastings and Bexhill) to cover overspends on roadbuilding. That diversion was proposed by East Sussex County Council and must have been effectively signed off by Cllr Glazier. As per our report, the Council’s Chair David Elkin was served last month with a petition from local cycling groups asking for a reinstatement of this amount. No response has yet been forthcoming.

Read more about Keith Glazier

Little Gate Farm has already clocked up five years’ experience in improving the lives of learning disabled, autistic, and vulnerable children and adults in East Sussex, supporting over 40 people with autism and learning disabilities into paid work over that time.

But a National lottery grant in April this year has enabled Little Gate Farm to set up its new Supported Apprentice Scheme. The target is to create apprenticeships for 50 young people over the next five years by working with local employers, continuing its work to improve job prospects for young adults who may feel limited in career choices. 

“This scheme means we can find real jobs for our young people aged 16-25 with local employers,” explained Little Gate Farm CEO and founder, Claire Cordell. “We are really excited about the opportunities this will bring to local businesses and the enrichment it will bring to the apprentices involved.”

Hastings Borough Council is one of the first large businesses in Hastings to back the scheme and will be supporting an apprentice post and a trainee post in 2019. 

Cllr Peter Chowney, leader at Hastings Borough Council said
that the Supported Apprenticeship Scheme “Fits perfectly with Hastings Borough Council’s ethos of supporting the local area and giving our young people real opportunities to experience the world of work”. 

Both the employer and apprentice will be fully supported by a job coach and training provider throughout the apprenticeship and traineeship.

Huw Merriman, MP for Bexhill and Battle, who has been working with Little Gate Farm since 2015, said: “They are an inspirational local organisation which is fully committed to providing work skills and fulfilling career opportunities for people with learning disabilities and autism. 

“I am fully supportive of this inclusive scheme and I would encourage local employers to get involved in the scheme to discover how these enthusiastic and hard-working apprentices can be a real asset to their organisation.”

Little Gate Farm had a stand at the recent Hastings Jobs and Apprenticeships Fair held by Amber Rudd at East Sussex College Hastings Campus.