Multi Agency Forum 14.06.2023
Home Office Comms Group Meeting @ 11.00, 14 June 2023
1. The Home Office (HO) advised that a Community Impact Assessment had been written but it was an internal HO document and therefore, not available to be shared outside of the organisation. West Lindsey District Council (WLDC) asked why this was the case; however, the HO reiterated that it was an internal document. WLDC advised that the HO should recognise and respond to the potential risks associated with the HO plan and this should be shared with, at least the key stakeholders. The HO will check if it is possible to share and advise WLDC accordingly.
2. The HO advised Scampton Parish Council (SPC) that they had taken away a number of questions raised by SPC at previous meetings and that these are being worked on by senior civil servants and the HO response should be signed off by the end of the week (16/06/23).
3. SPC advised that a Dynamic Risk Assessment must be drawn up and published. The HO advised that risks had been identified throughout all of the Multi Agency Forum Groups and compiled on a central Risk Register but, again, this was a not a document that could be shared outside of the HO.
4. WLDC requested that clear information needed to be sent out to the residents and wider community and that the HO should stop stating that it is waiting for the legal dispute to be over before this could take place. The HO advised that the HO media lead was invited to the meeting but was unavailable today although she will be at future meetings.
5. Following a detailed review by WLDC, the HO stated that they were working on an updated Comms Plan, and that it will be shared once it had been cleared.
6. The HO informed the meeting that they had been contacted by Sir Edward Leigh’s office, requesting that he be part of any public meetings. The HO advised that it was not a large-scale pubic meeting but with smaller groups of people: councillors, local businesses, GP’s etc. The HO is trying to get some more precise dates and venues for this meeting.
7. The HO advised the meeting that they are considering producing a newsletter for the local community.
8. The HO reported that there had been 2 meetings held solely for RAF personnel. It was noted that at these meeting that the RAF were concerned about the risks to their personnel. It was questioned why, if the RAF had concerns for their personnel, why was there not the same concern for service personnel and the numerous veterans in private accommodation who are equally at risk. Equally, if there were any safety concerns at all, then they should apply to all of the residents at RAF Scampton.
9. SPC stated that any HO community meeting must include all of the local villages. Scampton has no support facilities, and the residents are reliant on the local villages for shops, doctors, dentists etc. Therefore, these villages must be included in the meeting, along with representatives from Education, Police and the NHS and not just the immediate residents.
10. LCC asked the question as to the timescales for when the comms plan would be released. The HO would not commit to any timeframes.
11. LCC advised that the local school had already lost 4 pupils due to concerned parents and that there are residents who are taking respite away from Scampton due to mental health issues brought on by HO proposals. The SPC also advised the meeting that the school is already at a low capacity and a further reduction of pupils might result in its closure. SPC had also been made aware that the Vicar in the village is being inundated with concerns from the residents.
12. WLDC questioned why, an online statement from the HO, agreed at the first meeting, which would be updated, had still not materialised.
13. It was noted that the HO factsheet is not updated regularly enough, and it is also does not contain enough detail.
14. LCC requested a generic email address for the HO and they agreed to look into this.
15. WLDC spoke about the recent incidents in Nottingham and how, an already extremely concerned community, now have heightened fears. The HO said that they understood why the residents would feel concerned but offered no further comment.
16. LCC stated that they had been approached by volunteer groups who would like to offer their help and asked where these requests should be directed to. The HO will discuss the possibility of holding a separate meetings with all of these groups. WLDC asked to be made aware of any groups/volunteers offering their services.
17. SPC reiterated the need for a Dynamic Risk Assessment to be published by the HO due to the incidents in France, Nottingham & Skegness involving immigrants.
18. The HO advised the meeting that the factsheet should be updated within the week and that a link to the updated sheet would be sent to all meeting participants once it was completed and that he hoped the comms plan would have been released before the next meeting.
19. SPC requested that misplaced wording such as ‘Perceived Risks’ and ‘Residents Mindset’ should not be used in any communication with the residents.
20. SPC asked when the minutes form the first meeting would be released as nothing had been received. The HO advised that minutes were not taken at the meetings, only actions. The HO also stated that minutes are not taken at any of the MAF meetings and the recordings of the meetings are not shareable as they are only used to collate the actions and questions. WLDC and SPC requested that all actions taken from all meetings are to be emailed to all participants as soon as possible following these meetings.