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.
The Governmentās decision to move evacuated Afghan families hundreds of miles across England to new temporary accommodation caused āconsiderable 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 āunlawfulā, 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 Secretaryās lawyers dispute the linked claims, saying individual situations were looked at but the Cabinet minister was not under an āenforceable 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 āupheavalā when they were offered the move up north last September after their hotel ended its contract with the Government, the court was told.
Mr Westgate said the families had a āvulnerability to a succession of temporary movesā, with the transfer coming when some children were at a ācritical stageā in their education.
The barrister said the familiesā situation āapplies 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 Governmentās Operation Warm Welcome aimed to āensure 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 ābridging 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 militaryās Operation Pitting, had āestablished themselves in the areaā and children were making āgood progressā in schools and had made friends.
Mr Westgate said: āThe 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.
āWhilst 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 ābalanced the childrenās 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 āpractical 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 āmisconceivedā.
She said the interests of school-aged children had āat 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 āmigration pressuresā exacerbated by migrants arriving to the UK via small boats across the Channel.
The barrister said that as a result it was āinevitableā the families would be offered accommodation outside the capital, with the concern it was āunrealisticā for Afghans to find permanent rented homes there.
She said providing temporary accommodation was an āoperational measureā and the Home Secretary was ānot under any enforceable duty to provide accommodation to the (families)ā.
āThere 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 Secretaryās decisions were āall 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.