‘Chilling effect’ if Jenrick statement used in airfield asylum case, court told

Two councils and a resident are seeking a legal challenge against the Home Office’s plans to house asylum seekers on airfields.

The hearing is being held at the High Court in London (Anthony Devlin/PA) (PA Archive)

The Commons Speaker’s lawyers have warned about a potential “chilling effect” if a council seeking a legal challenge against the Home Office’s plans to house asylum seekers on airfields can use a Government minister’s parliamentary statement in its case.

At a hearing on Wednesday, West Lindsey District Council, Braintree District Council and a Wethersfield resident in Essex asked a judge to give them the go-ahead to have a full hearing in their claim against the department to stop plans to house asylum seekers on airfields in the two areas.

However, the High Court in London was told concerns have been raised by lawyers for Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, claiming West Lindsey District Council has made inferences from a “disputed” statement by immigration minister Robert Jenrick about the planned use of RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire as part of its claim.

In March, Mr Jenrick announced that Ministry of Defence-owned sites – including Wethersfield Airfield – would be used to house asylum seekers.

In written arguments for Wednesday’s hearing, lawyers for West Lindsey District Council said the justification given by the Home Office for the plans in the legal claim “is at odds” with reasons given publicly.

The High Court previously heard the planning law which would allow the airfields to be used covers the change of use of some Government land to prevent or mitigate an emergency which “threatens serious damage to human welfare”.

Richard Wald KC, for West Lindsey District Council, said in written submissions that the “major theme” of Mr Jenrick’s statement “was that the use of sites such as RAF Scampton was designed to enable the relocation of asylum seekers currently accommodated in hotels… and deter asylum seekers from crossing the Channel in small boats”.

Mr Wald continued: “It is striking that in none of these public pronouncements has the Government sought to justify its use of RAF Scampton by any concern, let alone demonstrable problem, about an inability to discharge its statutory obligations towards asylum seekers without such a use.”

He added: “The reliance which the Home Office now seeks to place on the existence of an ‘emergency’ therefore deserves to be treated with great scepticism.”

In a letter on behalf of Sir Lindsay sent earlier this month, the Speaker’s lawyers said there was a dispute over what inferences could be drawn from what was not said in Mr Jenrick’s statement and that the use would put other parties in the case “in an invidious position”.

The lawyers continued: “They cannot seek to explain differences between the disputed statement and statements made outside Parliament without risking straying into ‘impeaching and questioning’ of a statement made in Parliament.”

They later said: “The potential chilling effect on ministers’ willingness to explain their actions to the House of Commons, whether or not there is a duty to give reasons in any given case, is obvious.”

Lawyers for Sir Lindsay, who “naturally takes no position on the substantive issues in this case”, also said that not only would ministers have to ensure their statements were true, but they would have to make sure they “contained all reasons on which they might subsequently wish to rely in any litigation”.

This could result in “reduced willingness to come to either House of Parliament to make such statements at all” from ministers if Mr Jenrick’s statement could be used, they concluded.

During the hearing in London, the High Court was told that the first group of asylum seekers had been moved on to Wethersfield Airfield.

Alex Goodman KC, for resident Gabriel Clarke-Holland – who lives approximately 80ft from a gate on to the airfield – said members of the right-wing group Britain First were protesting near his home on Wednesday morning.

Lawyers for Braintree District Council also told the court that the Home Office failed to take several issues into account, including access to healthcare at Wethersfield Airfield and “serious issues” with the “ageing” wastewater provision on site.

However, Home Office lawyers have said the three linked claims should not be allowed to have a full hearing.

Paul Brown KC, for the department, said in written submissions: “There is significant overlap in the grounds in all three claims and the misapprehensions which underpin them.

“None of the three claims raises any genuinely arguable point.”

The barrister said that the Home Office was either not required to take factors into account, or did take the issue into account while deciding on the Wethersfield site.

Mr Brown later said that the use of the “emergency” planning powers is justified, adding in his submissions: “Given the number of asylum seekers concerned, and the vulnerability of that cohort, the scale of damage is potentially significant, i.e. the situation ‘threatens serious damage’ to human welfare.”

The hearing before Mrs Justice Thornton is expected to conclude on Thursday.