Migrant workers: Mr Hampshire has made the case for an independent inquiry

Suppose you believe that the house next to yours - perhaps a B&B - is overcrowded and possibly a fire hazard. There's also been noise from the house and some refuse has been dumped outside. So you complain to Penwith District Council. A few days later you are awakened at dawn by a commotion next door and you see council and fire-brigade officers ejecting the holidaymakers with their suitcases onto the street.

Incredible? Yes, until, that is, you replace 'holidaymakers' with 'migrant workers'.

Two days ago, Penwith's Head of housing, health and community safety, Allan Hampshire, in a letter to the Cornishman, replied to The St Ivean's criticism of Operation Westport which in late January/February evicted some Polish migrant workers from premises in Penzance:

1) The letter does not now offer a defence of the appropriateness of the dawn raid to establish the number of tenants.

2) The letter's account of the advice offered to the street homeless migrants is at variance with that given by Katrina Islam, Penwith's housing advice co-ordinator; and what does 'to initiate the accommodation issues' mean in any language?

3) We are told that the property 'was clearly overcrowded under the statutory Housing Health and Safety Rating System' (HHSRS). There is a formal scoring system within HHSRS to calculate hazards. Was this a high-scoring Category 1? Where is the evidence that the Council gave proper consideration - as it should do under HHSRS - to how easy it would be to re-house the displaced occupants?

4) What were the 'substantial failures' under the Housing in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Management Regulations? What were the 'other issues found within the premises'? Why is 'noise and refuse' now being mentioned?

5) We are told that the 'action was proportional to the risk to life' but we are not given the detail of the risk. Presumably we are not just talking about the absence of smoke alarms. Note, also, the absence here or elsewhere in Mr Hampshire's letter of any suggestion that the risk to life was imminent or immediate - the only conditions that could possibly justify peremptory eviction.

6) Why are no clear answers given to questions about Notices and enquiries prior to the raid?

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, The St Ivean has asked the Council for more information about the evictions.

Allan Hampshire tells us that MIGWAG (the Migrant Worker Action Group) first became aware of the property. One of MIGWAG's objectives is the improvement of accommodation for migrant workers. An Audit Commission report cites a case study in Kerrier where an early morning inspection led to improvements being made to the accommodation.

Mr Hampshire is of course right when he says that to place vulnerable migrant workers into unsafe accommodation is wrong. It is equally wrong to eject those same vulnerable workers onto the streets of Penzance on a winter morning. And that is fact not emotion.

We do not expect responsible public officials to use the methods associated with exploitative gangmasters and landlords - the methods Mr Hampshire calls 'robust action'.

The central point is a simple one. Whatever the conditions at a property where there are vulnerable tenants, you do not behave in the way Mr Hampshire and his team behaved.

Allan Hampshire's letter is evasive, sometimes obscure, selective in the questions it chooses to answer and disingenuous. It undermines any confidence the public might still have in the Council's ability to objectively address the real issues. It conclusively makes the case for the need for an independent inquiry.