Stay up to date with notifications from TheĀ Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Education of Afghan refugee children disrupted by hotel moves, High Court told

Three families have brought a legal challenge against the Home Secretary after being forced to move out of London.

Tom Pilgrim
Tuesday 17 January 2023 11:30 EST
Thousands of Afghan nationals were evacuated by the British military amid the Talibanā€™s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, the High Court was told (LPhot Ben Shread/MoD/Crown Copyright/PA)
Thousands of Afghan nationals were evacuated by the British military amid the Talibanā€™s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, the High Court was told (LPhot Ben Shread/MoD/Crown Copyright/PA) (PA Media)

The Governmentā€™s decision to move evacuated Afghan families hundreds of miles across England to new temporary accommodation caused ā€œconsiderable disruptionā€ to the education of children facing exams, the High Court has been told.

Three refugee families are bringing a legal challenge against the Home Secretary, alleging she failed to fulfil a commitment to help them rebuild their lives in the UK after the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan in the summer of 2021.

They claim an offer to transfer them from a London hotel ā€“ in an area where children were studying and others had jobs ā€“ to further temporary accommodation in northern England was ā€œunlawfulā€, the court was told.

Lawyers for the families say several children still do not have school places months after the move, while one woman is at risk of losing her job in the capital.

They accuse the Home Secretary, a role currently occupied by Suella Braverman, of failing to take into account the personal circumstances of the Afghan nationals when considering where they could be housed.

The Home Secretaryā€™s lawyers dispute the linked claims, saying individual situations were looked at but the Cabinet minister was not under an ā€œenforceable dutyā€ to provide accommodation to the families.

Martin Westgate KC, for the families, told a High Court hearing in London on Tuesday they were brought to the UK via resettlement schemes and settled in London over the course of a year.

They experienced ā€œupheavalā€ when they were offered the move up north last September after their hotel ended its contract with the Government, the court was told.

Whilst they remain in temporary accommodation, they are vulnerable to further moves - potentially to an indefinite string of temporary placements ā€“ so making it impossible for them to settle or to progress with their education and social development at any location

Martin Westgate KC, families' counsel

Mr Westgate said the families had a ā€œvulnerability to a succession of temporary movesā€, with the transfer coming when some children were at a ā€œcritical stageā€ in their education.

The barrister said the familiesā€™ situation ā€œapplies to many others who are in bridging accommodationā€ and while he did not have current figures, last August some 9,667 people under the resettlement schemes were still living in hotels.

In written arguments, Mr Westgate said the UK Governmentā€™s Operation Warm Welcome aimed to ā€œensure Afghans arriving in the UK receive the vital support they need to rebuild their lives, find work, pursue education and integrate into their local communitiesā€.

This involved arranging temporary ā€œbridging accommodationā€ in hotels until families could secure permanent housing ā€“ likely in the private-rented sector ā€“ with the support of public funding, Mr Westgate said.

While in London, he said, the families, among the 15,000 Afghans evacuated to the UK during the British militaryā€™s Operation Pitting, had ā€œestablished themselves in the areaā€ and children were making ā€œgood progressā€ in schools and had made friends.

Mr Westgate said: ā€œThe families have been constrained to give up jobs, school places, support networks and other important ties only to be moved to further temporary accommodation, which may itself be brought to an end at any time. Children were taken out of school with no other placement arranged for them.

ā€œWhilst they remain in temporary accommodation, they are vulnerable to further moves ā€“ potentially to an indefinite string of temporary placements ā€“ so making it impossible for them to settle or to progress with their education and social development at any location.ā€

He said there is no evidence the Home Secretary ā€œbalanced the childrenā€™s best interestsā€, no indication there was an inquiry into the availability of new school places and no consideration that several children faced exams this year.

He said while the families had not been forced to live anywhere, the ā€œpractical realityā€ is they had no option but to move.

Cathryn McGahey KC, representing the Government, said in written arguments that the bid to have the accommodation offers quashed and the families rehoused in or near where they previously lived was ā€œmisconceivedā€.

She said the interests of school-aged children had ā€œat all times been centralā€ to decision-making and individual circumstances were considered.

Ms McGahey said the availability of local education was taken into account when commissioning bridging accommodation.

She said a decision last summer to end the temporary housing of evacuated Afghans in London hotels was made due to cost and local ā€œmigration pressuresā€ exacerbated by migrants arriving to the UK via small boats across the Channel.

The barrister said that as a result it was ā€œinevitableā€ the families would be offered accommodation outside the capital, with the concern it was ā€œunrealisticā€ for Afghans to find permanent rented homes there.

She said providing temporary accommodation was an ā€œoperational measureā€ and the Home Secretary was ā€œnot under any enforceable duty to provide accommodation to the (families)ā€.

ā€œThere was no published policy through which the Secretary of State purported to commit herself to providing bridging accommodation to these individuals,ā€ she added.

Ms McGahey told the court the Home Secretaryā€™s decisions were ā€œall fully within the lawful exercise of her discretionā€.

A claim brought by a fourth family has been withdrawn after private rented accommodation was found, the court was told.

The hearing before Mr Justice Henshaw concluded on Tuesday, with a judgment due at a later date.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in