Essex leader defends controversial Operation Vanguard pilot

Councillor Peter Harris (Reform) has published an open letter responding to concerns raised by Braintree Council leader Councillor Tom Cunningham (Conservative) over the three-month pilot.

Operation Vanguard launched on September 14 and involves private security patrols in Braintree, Chelmsford and Colchester following concerns about people travelling from the Wethersfield asylum accommodation centre into town and city centres.

In his response, Mr Harris said the patrols are intended to reassure residents and businesses and insisted the scheme would focus on behaviour rather than nationality or immigration status.

The letter follows an earlier open letter from Mr Cunningham, who questioned the evidence behind the scheme, raised concerns about community division, and called for greater consultation with local authorities and partners.

Responding to those criticisms, Mr Harris wrote: “I make no apology for introducing Operation Vanguard. My first responsibility as Leader of Essex County Council is to the safety and wellbeing of Essex residents.”

He added that many residents had expressed concerns about people being accommodated at Wethersfield and transported into Essex communities.

The county council leader also said he was concerned by what he described as the adequacy of induction arrangements for asylum seekers arriving at the site and argued public concerns should not be dismissed.

Mr Harris said: “Operation Vanguard is a three-month pilot. It is designed to provide an immediate, visible and preventative security presence while reassuring residents.”

He added personnel would not have police powers, would not replace Essex Police and would report suspicious or criminal behaviour to officers when required.

The leader also rejected suggestions Essex County Council should have sought permission from Braintree Council before introducing the scheme.

He wrote: “Cooperation cannot mean that Essex County Council must seek permission before acting, nor will I allow political discomfort or accusations of division to prevent proportionate measures intended to protect and reassure the public.”

Mr Harris also said he would work with the Home Office during the trial period to reduce the need for people living at Wethersfield to travel into Essex towns and cities and to identify any additional safeguards.

The letter concludes: “My position is straightforward. I would rather be criticised for taking reasonable preventative action than be forced to explain, after a serious incident, why we ignored the warnings and did nothing.”

The letter in full

Dear Tom,

Re: Operation Vanguard

Thank you for your open letter. I will respond plainly.

I make no apology for introducing Operation Vanguard. My first responsibility as Leader of Essex County Council is to the safety and wellbeing of Essex residents, particularly women and children, many of whom have expressed genuine and deeply held concerns. It is already proving popular with residents I have spoken to this week in Braintree, Colchester and Chelmsford. There is little doubt about the popularity of Operation Vanguard. Public reactions to the announcement on social media and subsequent posts was 80 to 86% positive. With this level of public support, it does suggest you may not be fully in touch with the mood of Essex residents.

As we know, hundreds of single adult men are being accommodated at Wethersfield and transported regularly into Braintree, Chelmsford and Colchester. Many come from cultures very different from ours, including societies where the rights, freedoms and treatment of women and girls differ markedly from the standards rightly expected in Britain.

That does not mean every man at Wethersfield presents a threat, nor does Operation Vanguard treat them as criminals. It does mean that the concerns of our residents cannot simply be dismissed.

My concerns were reinforced by what I discovered during my visit to Wethersfield. I was particularly alarmed by the apparent inadequacy of the two-day induction programme.

I suggest that you examine the Government's recently published document, Understanding Behaviours and Expectations in the UK: A Guide for Asylum Seekers, which includes advice provided as part of the induction programme.

In particular, I suggest you review its sections on sex and consent, the treatment of children and acceptable behaviour in public. You should then consider for yourself why the Government believes it necessary to explain these fundamental laws and standards of behaviour to people arriving in this country.

Crimes involving asylum seekers have already occurred in Essex and elsewhere in the country. One serious assault is one too many. As I stated, I am not prepared to sit on my hands, hide behind statistics and wait for another woman or child to become a victim before taking reasonable preventative action.

Operation Vanguard is a three-month pilot. It is designed to provide an immediate, visible and preventative security presence while reassuring residents. Its personnel will not have police powers, will not replace Essex Police and will not target people merely because of their nationality or immigration status. They will observe, deter, assist members of the public and report suspicious, threatening or criminal behaviour to the police.

The operation will be focused on behaviour, irrespective of who is responsible. There will be no double standards.

Its effectiveness will be assessed through reported incidents, referrals to Essex Police, public feedback, engagement with businesses, visible patrol activity and residents' perceptions of safety.

When I briefed you on Operation Vanguard, you were at pains to stress that you had been dealing with issues associated with Wethersfield for three years.

This may be the case, but that does not give you a veto over action taken by Essex County Council to discharge its own responsibilities. Nor does length of involvement mean that the existing response is beyond question, or that nothing more should be done.

You say Braintree is safe. I sincerely want it to remain so. Preventative action is intended to preserve safety, not undermine it. Public confidence is not strengthened by inaction, when the numbers of men resident at the base are set to double.

In my view, the arrival of large numbers of unidentified or insufficiently vetted men, followed by their movement into Essex communities, represents a clear and present safeguarding concern. The responsibility for creating that concern rests with successive governments and the Home Office, not with the residents who voice it and not with those of us prepared to respond.

During this three month trial, I will work directly with the Home Office to reduce the need for Wethersfield migrant men to be transported into our towns and cities and to establish what further safeguards can be introduced.

I welcome constructive cooperation with Braintree District Council, Essex Police and our other partners. However, cooperation cannot mean that Essex County Council must seek permission before acting, nor will I allow political discomfort or accusations of division to prevent proportionate measures intended to protect and reassure the public.

My position is straightforward. I would rather be criticised for taking reasonable preventative action than be forced to explain, after a serious incident, why we ignored the warnings and did nothing.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Peter Harris

Leader of Essex County Council

Mr Cunningham's original letter raised concerns about the evidence supporting Operation Vanguard, the involvement of a private security firm, potential impacts on community cohesion and a lack of consultation with local authorities and partners before the pilot was announced.

He also noted that Essex Police had indicated officers would not conduct joint patrols with the contractor and argued Braintree town centre remained a safe place to live, work and visit.