The Home Office cautioned top judges that shutting down an asylum hotel in Epping could lead to widespread protests nationwide. Government lawyers urged the removal of a temporary injunction mandating the evacuation of migrants from the Bell Hotel. A High Court ruling had previously limited the stay of asylum seekers at the hotel to September 12.
Keir Starmer has pledged to close all asylum hotels by 2029, but the Home Office emphasized the need for a carefully managed process. The department’s representative, Edward Brown KC, emphasized the challenge of relocating asylum seekers if one site is closed without identifying alternative capacity.
Following the recent court decision, numerous local authorities have signaled potential legal challenges against asylum hotels within their jurisdictions. The Mirror examines why the Home Office advocates against an abrupt closure of asylum hotels.
The government argued that closing the Epping hotel could spark further protests nationwide. The Home Office acknowledged the complexities of housing over 130 asylum seekers if the hotel were to shut down abruptly due to existing pressures on the system and ongoing migrant crossings. Labour aims to eventually close the Epping hotel but stresses the importance of a managed closure process.
Health Minister Stephen Kinnock expressed concerns that immediate closure could leave asylum seekers destitute on the streets. The Home Office emphasized its obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights to prevent inhumane treatment, indicating that this duty overrides local planning considerations.
A decision to close the Epping hotel might trigger similar legal actions elsewhere, leading to a crisis in accommodating asylum seekers. The Home Office warned that granting an interim injunction could encourage other authorities to seek urgent closures, creating disorderly outcomes.
The Home Office defended against calls to close the hotel based on alleged criminal activities by some asylum seekers, stating that investigations were ongoing and criminal proceedings were in place. The department disputed Epping council’s motivations for the closure bid, highlighting that it was more about protests than planning issues.
In court, criticisms were directed at Epping Forest District Council for not addressing planning concerns at the hotel despite knowing of potential breaches. The Home Office accused the council of focusing more on protests rather than genuine planning issues.
Overall, the Home Office stressed the need for a systematic approach to managing asylum hotels to avoid disruptions and ensure the welfare of asylum seekers.
