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

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails Sign up to our free breaking news emails Sign up to our free breaking news emails SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. 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. 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”.