The “routine” housing of unaccompanied child asylum seekers in hotels by the Home Office is unlawful, the High Court has ruled.
The charity, Every Child Protected Against Trafficking (ECPAT), brought legal action against the Home Office over the practice of housing unaccompanied youngsters in Home Office hotels – claiming the arrangements are “not fit for purpose”.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Chamberlain said the use of hotels for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children has become unlawful.
He told the court the power to place children in hotels “may be used on very short periods in true emergency situations”.
The judge added: “It cannot be used systematically or routinely in circumstances where it is intended, or functions in practice, as a substitute for local authority care.”
He said the use of hotels cannot be seen as an “emergency” measure given the length of their use.
“From December 2021 at the latest, the practice of accommodating children in hotels, outside local authority care, was both systematic and routine and had become an established part of the procedure for dealing with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children,” the judge said.
More on Home Office
Related Topics:
“From that point on, the home secretary’s provision of hotel accommodation for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children exceeded the proper limits of her powers and was unlawful.
“There is a range of options open to the home secretary to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are accommodated and looked after as envisaged by parliament. It is for her to decide how to do so.”
Kent County Council acting unlawfully in failing to accommodate children
ECPAT’s bid was heard in London alongside similar claims brought by Brighton and Hove City Council and Kent County Council against the department.
The Home Office and Department for Education had opposed the legal challenges and said the hotel use was lawful but was “deployed effectively as a ‘safety net’ and as a matter of necessity”.
As well as finding the Home Office’s use of hotels to house child asylum seekers unlawful, the judge said Kent County Council is acting unlawfully in failing to accommodate and look after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
He said: “In ceasing to accept responsibility for some newly arriving unaccompanied asylum seeking children, while continuing to accept other children into its care, Kent County Council chose to treat some unaccompanied asylum seeking children differently from and less favourably than other children, because of their status as asylum seekers.”
The court heard at the time of the hearing in the claims earlier this month, 154 children remained missing from the hotels, including a 12-year-old.
The judge said: “Neither Kent County Council nor the home secretary knows where these children are, or whether they are safe or well. There is evidence that some have been persuaded to join gangs seeking to exploit them for criminal purposes.
“These children have been lost and endangered here, in the United Kingdom. They are not children in care who have run away. They are children who, because of how they came to be here, never entered the care system in the first place and so were never ‘looked after’.”
The judge added: “Ensuring the safety and welfare of children with no adult to look after them is among the most fundamental duties of any civilised state.”
Patricia Durr, chief executive of ECPAT, said following the ruling: “It remains a child protection scandal that so many of the most vulnerable children remain missing at risk of significant harm as a consequence of these unlawful actions by the Secretary of State and Kent County Council.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The High Court has upheld that local authorities have a statutory duty to care for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We have always maintained that the best place for unaccompanied children to be accommodated is within a local authority.
“However, due to the unsustainable rise in illegal Channel crossings, the government has had no option but to accommodate young people in hotels on a temporary basis while placements with local authorities are urgently found.”
Reform UK is a party that’s vying for attention and is not ashamed of how it gets it.
With political support from Elon Musk this week amplifying Reform UK talking points on his platform X, the party has been able to make a splash in the new year ahead of the government.
Already this month the party has had two conferences in two days, and with only a handful of MPs there is opportunity for all of them to speak. With one notable exception – James McMurdock MP.
Despite being the MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock, he isn’t on the schedule for the East of England conference, with Sky News initially told he wasn’t planning on attending.
When it emerged last July that he had been jailed for attacking someone, he downplayed the incident as a “teenage indiscretion”.
When spotted strolling around the conference on Saturday, Sky News asked Mr McMurdock whether he regretted that term.
The MP would not apologise for the phrase and said he hadn’t lied or ever changed his story.
“I would like to do my best to do as little harm to everyone else and at the same time accept that I was a bad person for a moment back then,” he said.
“I’m doing my best to manage the fact that something really regrettable did happen.”
The MP also wouldn’t say whether the party knew about his conviction prior to becoming a candidate, but leader Nigel Farage has previously said he “wasn’t vetted”.
Mr McMurdock still has not been suspended for the conflicting accounts of what happened and the party hasn’t commented on whether he would pass their new vetting system which they say is now in place for new council candidates.
While speaking to Sky News, Mr McMurdock said he would support that motion, though no Reform MP voted for it in an early day motion when it was laid in parliament.
MPs and peers could be forced to submit to criminal record checks under proposals submitted by a new Labour MP.
In a letter seen by Sky News, Jo White urged the leader of the Commons to examine whether a new committee set up to modernise parliament should force all new members to have checks due to their access to young and vulnerable people.
She suggests in-depth background checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service – commonly known as DBS checks – as the initial stages of introducing MPs to parliament.
Candidates are currently banned from running to be an MP if they have been jailed for more than a year in the UK.
However, there is no requirement for DBS checks, something most other jobs require when applying for positions working with vulnerable people.
Ms White previously submitted an early-day motion on this issue, with cross-party signatures including 13 other Labour MPs supporting her motion.
In her letter to the committee, the Bassetlaw MP writes: “It is a privilege that, as parliamentarians, we can work with local schools, care homes and hospitals, but we must be proactive in preserving this trust.
More from Politics
“Implementing a mandatory check would protect both the people we visit and ourselves. It would be key to maintaining public trust and high workplace standards across the estate and in our constituencies.”
DBS checks are standard practices for GPs, nurses, teachers and other professions. They let potential employers know if a candidate has a criminal record or is banned from working with children or vulnerable adults.
Many local authorities already run DBS checks on elected officials but it’s not standard practice in parliament.
Prospective MPs can stand for election despite having a criminal record or appearing on the child-barred list or adult-barred list unless they have served a prison term over 12 months.
In fact, they do not need to disclose any criminal behaviour to the public prior to becoming a candidate.
The main vetting process before entering the House of Commons is done through political parties, who set their own rules for carrying out any such checks.
None of the Reform UK MPs have signed the early-day motion and leader Nigel Farage said last election there was “no vetting” of candidates.
The creation of a modernisation committee was a Labour manifesto promise and now sits as a cross-party group tasked with reforming House of Commons procedures and improving standards.
The committee said it would not be commenting on submissions until it’s had time to fully consider all options, but is due to publish an initial report early this year.
Nigel Farage has said Tommy Robinson “won’t be” joining Reform UK after Elon Musk showed support for the jailed far-right activist on social media.
The billionaire owner of X, who has spoken positively about Reform UK and is reportedly considering making a donation to the party, has been critical of the government’s handling of child sexual exploitation across a number of towns and cities more than a decade ago.
Mr Musk endorsed the far-right activist and claimed Robinson was “telling the truth” about grooming gangs, writing on X: “Free Tommy Robinson”.
Speaking to broadcasters ahead of the start of Reform UK’s East Midlands Conference tonight, party leader Mr Farage did not directly address Mr Musk’s comments, but said: “He has a whole range of opinions, some of which I agree with very strongly, and others of which I’m more reticent about.”
He went on to say that having Mr Musk’s support is “very helpful to our cause”, describing him as “an absolute hero figure, particularly to young people in this country”.
He continued: “Everyone says, well, what about his comments on Tommy Robinson? Look, my position is perfectly clear on that. I never wanted Tommy Robinson to join UKIP, I don’t want him to join Reform UK, and he won’t be.”
Later on GB News, Mr Farage added that Mr Musk “sees Robinson as one of these people that fought against the grooming gangs”.
“But of course the truth is Tommy Robinson’s in prison not for that, but for contempt of court,” he said.
Mr Farage added: “We’re a political party aiming to win the next general election. He’s not what we need.”
How did Elon Musk become involved?
The online campaign from Mr Musk began after it emerged that Home Office minister Jess Phillips had denied requests from Oldham Council to lead a public inquiry into child sexual exploitation in the borough, as the Conservatives had done in 2022.
In a letter to the authority in Greater Manchester, Ms Phillips said she believes it is “for Oldham Council alone to decide to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the government to intervene”.
An Oldham Council spokesman previously said: “Survivors sit at the heart of our work to end child sexual exploitation. Whatever happens in terms of future inquiries, we have promised them that their wishes will be paramount, and we will not renege on that pledge.”
Mr Musk posted on X multiple times about the scandal, and claimed Sir Keir Starmer had failed to bring “rape gangs” to justice when he led the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In 2013, Sir Keir introduced new guidelines for how child sexual abuse victims should be treated and how a case should be built and presented in court.
The SpaceX and Tesla boss also endorsed posts about Robinson.