Instead, it would have killed the government’s legislation, the aim of which is to reform things like the children’s care system and raise educational standards in schools.
Tonight’s vote was largely symbolic – aimed at putting pressure on Labour following days of headlines after comments by Elon Muskbrought grooming gangs back into the spotlight.
The world’s richest man has hit out at Sir Keir Starmer and safeguarding minister Jess Phillips, after she rejected a new national inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham, saying this should be done at a local level instead.
The Tories also previously said an Oldham inquiry should be done locally and in 2015 commissioned a seven-year national inquiry into child sex abuse, led by Professor Alexis Jay, which looked at grooming gangs.
However, they didn’t implement any of its recommendations while in office – and Sir Keir has vowed to do so instead of launching a fresh investigation into the subject.
The division list showed no Labour MPs voted in favour of the Conservative amendment.
Those who backed the proposal include all of Reform’s five MPs and 101 Tory MPs – though some senior figures, including former prime minister Rishi Sunak and former home secretaries James Cleverly and Suella Braverman, were recorded as not voting.
The Liberal Democrats abstained.
Speaking to Sophy Ridge on the Politics Hub before the vote, education minister Stephen Morgan condemned “political game playing”.
“What we’re seeing from the Conservatives is a wrecking amendment which would basically allow this bill not to go any further,” he said.
“That’s political game playing and not what I think victims want. Victims want to see meaningful change.”
As well as the Jay review, a number of local inquiries were also carried out, including in Telford and Rotherham.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Referring to her time in government as children’s and equalities minister, the prime minister said: “I can’t recall her once raising this issue in the House, once calling for a national inquiry.”
He also said having spoken to victims of grooming gangs this morning, “they were clear they want action now, not the delay of a further inquiry”.
Ms Badenoch has argued that the public will start to “worry about a cover-up” if the prime minister resists calls for a national inquiry, and said no one has yet “joined up the dots” on grooming.
Girls as young as 11 were groomed and raped across a number of towns in England – including Oldham, Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford – over a decade ago in a national scandal that was exposed in 2013.
“It’s an interesting moment,” was how one government source described the High Court ruling that will force an Essex hotel to be emptied of asylum seekers within weeks.
That may prove to be the understatement of the summer.
For clues as to why, just take a glance at what the Home Office’s own lawyer told the court on Tuesday.
Granting the injunction “runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests”, the barrister said – pointing out that similar legal claims by other councils would “aggravate pressures on the asylum estate”.
Right on cue and just hours after the ruling came in, Broxbourne Council – over the border in Hertfordshire – posted online that it was urgently seeking legal advice with a view to taking similar court action.
The risks here are clear.
Image: Police officers ahead of a demonstration outside The Bell Hotel. Pic: PA
Recent figures show just over 30,000 asylum seekers being housed in hotels across the country.
If they start to empty out following a string of court claims, the Home Office will struggle to find alternative options.
After all, they are only in hotels because of a lack of other types of accommodation.
There are several caveats though.
This is just an interim injunction that will be heard in full in the autumn.
So the court could swing back in favour of the hotel chain – and by extension the Home Office.
Image: Protesters in Epping on 8 August. Pic: Reuters
We have been here before
Remember, this isn’t the first legal claim of this kind.
Other councils have tried to leverage the power of the courts to shut down asylum hotels, with varying degrees of success.
In 2022, Ipswich Borough Council failed to get an extension to an interim injunction to prevent migrants being sent to a Novotel in the town.
As in Epping, lawyers argued there had been a change in use under planning rules.
Image: The hotel has been the scene of regular protests. Pic: PA
But the judge eventually decided that the legal duty the Home Office has to provide accommodation for asylum seekers was more important.
So there may not be a direct read across from this case to other councils.
Home Office officials are emphasising this injunction was won on the grounds of planning laws rather than national issues such as public order, and as such, each case will be different.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
But government sources also smell dirty tricks from Epping Council and are suggesting that the Tory-led local authority made the legal claim for political reasons.
Pointing to the presence of several prominent Tory MPs in the Essex area – as well as the threat posed by Reform in the county – the question being posed is why this legal challenge was not brought when asylum seekers first started being sent to the hotel in 2020 during the Conservatives‘ time in government.
Epping Council would no doubt reject that and say recent disorder prompted them to act.
But that won’t stop the Tories and Reform of seizing on this as evidence of a failing approach from Labour.
So there are political risks for the government, yes, but it’s the practicalities that could flow from this ruling that pose the bigger danger.
Federal Reserve vice chair for supervision, Michelle Bowman, says the central bank should roll back its restrictions that ban staff from buying crypto.
Paul Atkins spoke at Wyoming Blockchain Symposium on the SEC’s Project Crypto, its relationship with the Trump administration, and its plans on handling digital asset regulations.