More England councils plan to challenge asylum hotels after Essex ruling
The Conservative-run Broxbourne council in Hertfordshire said it was taking legal advice 'as a matter of urgency' on whether it could follow the example of neighbouring Epping Forest district council, which successfully applied for an injunction to stop asylum seekers being accommodated at the Bell hotel in the town.
Corina Gander, the leader of Broxbourne council, said a hotel in the town of Cheshunt put 'an enormous strain on local services'.
'We are going to be looking at the ruling of Epping yesterday and we will be expecting to go down the same path as Epping,' the Conservative councillor told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Gander said her council had previously tried to get legal advice to block the hotel, but had not been successful. 'What Epping have done is they have really set a precedent for local councils,' she added.
Ministers are braced for such legal challenges, as the government is working on contingency plans to house asylum seekers.
The security minister, Dan Jarvis, told Times Radio: 'We're looking at a range of different contingency options following from a legal ruling that took place yesterday, and we'll look closely at what we're able to do.'
Asked whether other migrant hotels had the proper planning permission, Jarvis said: 'Well, we'll see over the next few days and weeks. Other local authorities will be considering whether they wish to act in the same way that Epping (Forest) district council have.
'I think the important point to make is that nobody really thinks that hotels are a sustainable location to accommodate asylum seekers. That's precisely why the government has made a commitment that, by the end of this parliament, we would have phased out the use of them.'
The ruling has been seized on by Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, who said the party's 12 councils would also consider such challenges. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Farage said those authorities would do 'everything in their power' to replicate Epping's approach, describing the case as a template for resistance to the Home Office's use of hotels.
Jarvis, a home office minister, said he believed 'the very worst politicians' tried to drive people apart, when asked on Sky News about Farage's opinion piece in the Telegraph on Wednesday about hotels housing asylum seekers.
He told the broadcaster: 'I haven't read Mr Farage's op-ed, but I've always thought that the best politicians try and bring people together, and the very worst politicians try and drive them apart.
The decision followed weeks of far-right protests in Epping, including clashes outside the Bell hotel, where an asylum seeker has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. The judge gave the Home Office until 12 September to stop housing asylum seekers at the site.
The Home Office had argued that granting an injunction risked setting a precedent and warned it could hinder its legal duty to provide accommodation. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, used the case to call for tougher measures to halt Channel crossings. Writing in the Daily Express he said 'every illegal arrival must be removed, every loophole must be closed' to prevent other towns being put in a similar position.
Not all Conservative councils are rushing to the courts, however. The leader of South Norfolk council, Daniel Elmer, said his authority would instead use planning rules to ensure hotels in this area housed families rather than single men. 'If we can punish people who put up sheds in their gardens without permission, then we can take action against hotels being converted into hostels,' he said.
According to recent Home Office figures, there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier.
The Guardian reported on Tuesday that insiders at the Home Office had admitted the department had been left 'reeling' by the ruling. The department is obliged to house asylum seekers until their cases are assessed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
TUC in call for gender equality over pensions
Retired women effectively go more than four months every year without getting a pension because of a gender gap, according to research. The TUC estimated women were losing the equivalent of £7,600 a year on average. The union organisation said compared to men, retired women effectively stop receiving pension income from today. The income gap between men and women in retirement is now 36.5%, according to research from the Prospect union. The Government has revived the Pension Commission, which will bring together unions, employer and independent experts to look into the causes of the gap. TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said: 'Everyone deserves dignity and security in retirement, but too many retired women have been left without enough to get by. 'We must make sure that these inequalities are addressed for future generations. 'That's why reviving the Pensions Commission – bringing together unions, employers and independent experts – is a vital step forward. 'We now have a chance to make sure everyone, including women, receive the decent retirement income that all workers need.' A Government spokesperson said: 'We're determined to close the gender pensions gap, and the new state pension has already reduced historic inequalities faced by women and low earners. 'Alongside this, the Pensions Commission will tackle barriers to close the gender pensions gap in private pensions to ensure women have the dignity and security they deserve in retirement.'
The Herald Scotland
35 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Smacking ban urged amid growing belief child physical punishment ‘unacceptable'
But it is not completely outlawed in England and Northern Ireland. Ten-year-old Sara Sharif's murder previously prompted renewed calls for a smacking ban (Surrey Police/PA) According to the Children Act 2004, it is unlawful to hit your child, except where it is 'reasonable punishment', and this is judged on a case-by-case basis. New polling for the NSPCC, carried out by YouGov, suggests around eight in 10 people (82%) aged between 18 and 24 believe it is unacceptable for a parent to use force, however slight, against a child. This is an increase from 64% of young adults who thought it was unacceptable when polled in 2023. Among parents specifically, the figures have remained high in recent years, with the latest polling showing 81% felt this way, up slightly from 80% last year and from 76% in 2022. YouGov surveyed 3,800 adults across England in July, of which 749 were parents with a child under 18 and 198 were aged 18 to 24 years old. Of all adults surveyed, 71% said they believe physical punishment against a child is unacceptable, up from 67% in 2023. Earlier this year leading health experts came together to urge parliamentarians to give children the 'fundamental right to safety and protection' by backing a smacking ban. The children's doctors and psychiatrists said decades of research showed the 'detrimental effects of physical punishment'. On the latest figures, NSPCC chief executive Chris Sherwood said: 'Parents and young people are telling us loud and clear that they don't want physical punishment to be a part of anyone's childhood. 'Parents know their children and what works best for them. It is therefore crucial their experiences and opinions are not ignored or undermined, but act as a wake-up call. 'As parliamentarians continue to debate the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we urge them to change the law to better reflect public attitudes to violence against children and ensure no childhood has to be tainted by physical punishment again.' In June, as part of debate on the Bill, Conservative peer Lord Jackson of Peterborough warned that introducing a smacking ban in England would be 'disproportionate and heavy-handed'. He argued 'reasonable chastisement' was harmless and calls to abolish it as a defence for punishing a child risked 'criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children's services departments'. But, in the wake of the murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif in Woking in 2023, the UK's four children's commissioners jointly called for a wholesale smacking ban, describing the current situation where there is a legal defence in some nations as 'outdated and morally repugnant'. Sara's father – jailed for life in December 2024 alongside her stepmother for the little girl's murder – had claimed in a call to police after fleeing England that he 'did legally punish' his daughter and that he 'beat her up too much'. The children's commissioners insisted 'loving, well-meaning' parents have no need to be concerned about a change in the law. Lynn Perry, chief executive of Barnardo's, said: 'Violence against children is unacceptable – and yet children continue to have less legal protection against physical assault than adults. That cannot be right. This new data shows that most parents agree. 'Physical punishment like smacking is harmful to a child's health and development, and there's strong evidence that it influences their attitudes toward violence. At Barnardo's, we see first-hand how vital it is for children to feel safe and nurtured by those around them and to develop positive, healthy relationships. 'We have long campaigned for a change in the law to give children equal protection from assault and continue to call for action. It's time for all children to be legally protected from all physical punishment everywhere in the UK.' Commenting on the poll, Professor Andrew Rowland, officer for child protection at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: 'This latest research makes it clear that physical punishment has no place in modern parenting. 'Health professionals stand firmly with parents and young people in recognising that physical punishment is not only outdated and unjust, but also harmful to children's health and wellbeing. 'We urge the Government to listen to parents, young people, health professionals and the wider public and to finally remove the outdated and unfair 'reasonable punishment' defence.' A Department for Education spokesperson said: 'The landmark Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, a key part of our plan for change, represents the most transformative piece of child protection legislation in a generation, including wholesale reform of the children's social care system and better information sharing between education, health, and social workers to stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks. 'While we are looking closely at the legal changes made in Wales and Scotland in relation to smacking, we have no plans to legislate at this stage.'
Spectator
37 minutes ago
- Spectator
When national flags are a warning sign
I don't quite see the point of flying Union flags in Tower Hamlets, or complaining about it when the council takes them down. This squalid little fiefdom run by the deeply corrupt Lutfur Rahman is not part of the UK: it is a suburb of Sylhet, with all that such a location might entail. This would include the mayor himself, who once rigged the votes and used imams to intimidate voters. Of course it is true that London is headed the same way as Tower Hamlets and will get there depressingly soon, an upheaval aided by the self-flagellating liberals who still choose to live in the capital and whose yearning for self-annihilation is close to absolute. The temptation is to write off our first city, and maybe others, too, come to that. Tower Hamlets is certainly by no conceivable stretch of the imagination particularly 'British'. It is, rather, a fly-blown satrapy where many of the locals at best are ignorant of our culture and at worst despise and loathe it. A significant minority of the population can barely speak English (6 per cent) and half of the population are foreign born. Now, if you believe in multiculturalism you will have no problem with that, I suppose – and would probably advance the argument that people from the same ethnic groups tend to band together, although that understanding of human nature would not, of course, extend to white British people. When they express a preference for living among their 'own kind', they are told that they are racist scumbags and had better get with the project, sharpish. I wonder if it has occurred to any members of our government to ask why this whole Operation Raise the Colours business has taken off and why quite so many people seem to be taking part in it. My suspicion is that while Sir Keir Starmer feigns an affection for the flag of our country and will even wave one about when the England team are playing football, especially if it is the chicks, he almost certainly thinks that people with too fond an affection for the Union Jack and the cross of St George are right-wing racists and entirely deplorable. Filed away in the back of his mind is the notion that it's probably just those football hoolies again, the ones who rioted last summer. What he is missing, then, is the importance of the current protests – the weight of numbers behind them, the fact that it is not just yer usual suspects, the depth of anger it conceals and the problems which thus lie in store in the future. The UK is quite quickly tipping towards serious civil disorder: in many parts of the country, whitey has had more than enough. A clever government would work out why this might be and do something about it. Unfortunately, we do not have one. Brits have never hitherto been disposed towards waving the flag about. It has always been my contention that any country where there are too many national flags on view is feeling very insecure about itself and is headed for trouble. This is broadly the position of the UK right now, perhaps for the first time. And it is not terribly difficult to see how we have been brought to this point. Yes, much of it is down to the sheer weight of numbers of immigrants coming into the country. But it is not just the weight of numbers. It is also partly the manner in which many of these incomers have behaved which grates a little. The way in which towns and cities have been overwhelmed, changing entirely the nature of once familiar neighbourhoods. The stoic refusal of many to embrace the culture of the country in which they have made their homes and in many cases the espousal of aggressive and hostile views rooted in an implacable creed which always takes precedence. But even this is not the main reason the tension has been simmering both last year and this. More than anything it is a blind fury at the way in which our elected representatives have allowed this to happen – and even welcomed it. And more even than this, the way in which the British seem at every turn to be having their noses rubbed in it. The Australian sociologist Karen Stenner, in her book The Authoritarian Dynamic, analysed what it was that made people cease displaying a peaceable nature when faced with large-scale immigration and become inflamed and angry (authoritarian, in her words). She found it was precisely this – when they have their noses rubbed in it. When they perceive that everything is tilted against them. When the entire established order insists that 'diversity' is bloody marvellous and we can't have enough of it and that Britain's history is steeped in wickedness. That nothing whatsoever beneficial came of colonialism. That black people and other minorities should be hugely over-represented in our films, dramas and adverts on the television and that the rest of us should suck it up without question. That white people are inherently, unavoidably racist and that we should be at the back of the queue for any job we might fancy. That if we start to question a possible connection between the religion of Islam and a certain predilection towards deranged homicidal violence we will be guilty of Islamophobia and prosecuted. That if we tweet our anger we will be prosecuted. You can get away with this stuff for just so long – and then even the mildest-mannered will start waving a flag saying, in effect: we're still here, just.
