𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Yvette Cooper denied there is a “hierarchy of rights” as she faced fury over the Home Office fighting to keep a migrant hotel open.

Government lawyers had claimed the rights of asylum seekers were more important than the concerns of local community in Epping, Essex. But the Home Secretary told MPs on Monday that “characterisation” was “wrong” – as she defended Labour’s handling of the crisis.

Officials had also told the High Court anger from “local residents” over migrant hotels must be “viewed in the context of demands on the accommodation estate”.

But Epping MP Dr Neil Hudson warned Home Secretary Ms Cooper of a “tinderbox situation”, adding “our community is in distress”.

Dr Hudson, in an emotional plea, told MPs: “We have the Bell Hotel with alleged sexual and physical assaults, and now twice-weekly major protests, some of which became violent and [led to] injuries to police officers.

“Appallingly last week the Government successfully appealed against the injunction on the hotel, prioritising the rights of illegal migrants over the rights and indeed safety of the people of Epping.

“Our community is in distress.

“The situation is untenable.

“This week, the schools are back. The hotel is in the wrong place, right near a school and many concerned parents have contacted me.

“When will the Home Secretary and the Government listen to us, address this issue and do the right and safe thing and close the Bell Hotel immediately?”

Ms Cooper responded: “I agree that all asylum hotels need to be closed as swiftly as possible, including the Bell Hotel.

“It needs to be done in an orderly and sustainable manner, so that they are closed for good.

“And he is not right in the characterisation of the Government’s case, because what we are clear about is that all asylum hotels must be closed, we need to make sure it is done in an ordered way that simply doesn’t make the problem worse in other neighbouring areas or simply cause the kind of disordered chaos that led to the opening of so many hotels in the first place.

“We also need to strengthen the security and cooperation with police and we want to strengthen the law on asylum seekers who commit offences that can be banned from the system.”

Former Tory minister Esther McVey added: “Does the Home Secretary believe the rights of the people coming over the Channel in dinghies should take precedence over the rights of local residents, in places like Epping?

“As her lawyers argued for in court and as the education secretary said in an interview at the weekend.”

Ms Cooper hit back: “No, that is wrong and that is wrong about the Government’s position.

“The Government has made clear that all asylum hotels need to close and they need to do so in an orderly manner that does not end up increasing the problems in other areas. We need to close hotels for the whole country.

“This is not about a hierarchy of rights.”

The Home Secretary told MPs the Home Office must slash the asylum appeals backlog to end the hotel crisis.

She said: “The biggest obstacle to reducing the size of the asylum system and to ending hotel use.

“Tens of thousands of people in asylum accommodation are currently waiting for appeals and under the current system that figure is to grow.

“With an average wait time of 54 weeks.

“We have already funded thousands of additional sitting days this year.”

Some 51,000 appeals are waiting to be heard.

A new independent body will be created to speed up asylum appeals, Ms Cooper said.

She added: “We will introduce a new independent body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals – fully independent of Government, staffed by professionally trained adjudicators with safeguards to ensure high standards, but able to surge capacity as needed, to accelerate and prioritise cases, alongside new procedures to tackle repeat applications and unnecessary delays.

“We’re also increasing detention and returns capacity, including a thousand-bed expansion at Campsfield and Haslar, with the first tranche of additional beds coming online within months to support many thousands more enforced removals each year.”

The Court of Appeal quashed the injunction following an appeal by the Home Office and hotel owners Somani – meaning the migrants can stay where they are.

It also gave permission for the Home Office to appeal against Mr Justice Eyre’s ruling not to let it intervene in the case as their involvement was “not necessary”.

Reversing the injunction, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said: “We conclude that the judge made a number of errors in principle, which undermine this decision.

“The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.”

He added that such an injunction “may incentivise” other councils to take similar steps as Epping Forest District Council.

Becca Jones, director of asylum support in the Home Office, warned the closure of the Bell Hotel would be “significant”.

She said: “The availability of the hotel is also important in enabling the Secretary of State to meet her duty to accommodate future asylum seekers going forward, in circumstances where the pressure on available properties is significant and increasing.

“The Home Office understands that local residents have concerns about the use of the hotel, which have been heard.

“However, those concerns must be viewed in the context of demands on the accommodation estate.”

She concluded: “Granting the interim injunction sought risks setting a precedent which would have a serious impact on the Secretary of State’s ability to house vulnerable people, both by encouraging other local authorities to seek such interim injunctions pending the outcome of substantive planning law complaints and those who seek to target asylum accommodation in acts of public disorder.”

Home Office lawyers also argued that the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

The department said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

“The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

“Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

“However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that housing asylum seekers was “in the national interest”.

Robin Green, representing the local authority, said that “circumstances on the ground changed” as protests began to take place.

“What was tolerable perhaps in May, was intolerable by July,” he added.

Addressing the judges, Mr Brown, representing the Home Secretary, said: “We say that the inference of court order drawn in these circumstances is that there was not in fact a significant planning concern…But [it] was broadly speaking triggered by protests and the arrests in the individual cases.”

But Mr Brown went on to describe the case as a “particularly unique set of circumstances”, adding: “this strongly indicates that this was not in fact a longstanding concern of planning irregularities brought on by the local authority as evidenced by the fact that they did nothing for four or five years.”

He added that claims put forward by the council were related to fear within the community of asylum seekers.

“That fear arises from a very small number of incidents, which are acknowledged to be serious, as opposed to any rational view that the individuals accommodated in general terms have a greater propensity to criminal activity,” he added.

“That was not a conclusion that can or should have been reached at all and we say was not one Epping that was in a position to advance.”

Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, in written submissions on Thursday, said that Mr Justice Eyre “overlooked” the “hardship” that would be caused to asylum seekers if they were required to move.

He said that the “extremely high-profile nature of the issue” created a “risk of a precedent being set”.