It's been the focus of local
frustration.
>> But there were more journalists than
protesters in Eping this evening as an
attempt to block asylum seekers from
staying in a local hotel was overturned.
Judges at the Court of Appeal have
criticized and reversed a high court
ruling made only last week, saying they
were worried about more unrest if the
138 men staying at the Bell Hotel were
forced out next month.
>> At its worst, if even unlawful protests
are to be treated as relevant, there is
a risk of encouraging further
lawlessness.
The Bell Hotel has housed asylum seekers
on and off since 2020 with the latest
group living there since this April. On
the 7th of July, an asylum seeker
allegedly committed a sexual assault in
Eping on a teenager, an offense he
denies. His trial is ongoing. This
triggered multiple protests in the town
in the weeks since, both for and against
the housing of asylum seekers. Last
week, Eping Forest District Council went
to court and won an interim injunction
that said no asylum seekers could be
housed at the hotel because its owners,
Sani Hotels Limited, had not got the
correct planning permission.
After today's successful appeal by the
Home Office, a reminder from a counselor
outside court, this is not the end of
this story. Where we had clarity and
resolution, we now have doubt and
confusion.
However, this is not the end of the
matter. While the Court of Appeal has
lifted the temporary injunction, the
case for the final junction is still to
be heard.
Our battle on behalf of our residents
will continue. Thank you very much,
>> Council. The court said that this
injunction encouraged this order.
>> In the short term, this was a win for
the Home Office today. The court
acknowledged that ministers have a legal
duty to keep asylum seekers off the
streets. If the injunction had been
upheld, other councils would have felt
much more confident about bringing
forward similar legal action. But this
is a victory unlikely to come without
political cost.
>> They're using the courts against the
British people. They even brazenly
argued in court that the rights of
illegal immigrants were more important
than the rights of local people in Epic.
Facing claims local people are being
left out of the loop, the government
insisted it was listening to concerns.
>> We will get out of hotels which aren't a
sustainable solution by the end of this
parliament. This judgment assists us in
doing that in a planned and orderly
fashion.
>> This unassuming building became a symbol
of the political tension that surrounds
immigration this summer as this quiet
Essex town found itself forced
reluctantly onto the front line of
debate.
Well, there is some relief in this
result for the government tonight, but
really this simply buys more time. The
questions are going to keep coming. This
is likely to be the toxic issue when MPs
have to return to Westminster from
recess next week. How do ministers
balance concerns from some of their
voters and constituencies like Eping,
who raise fears about safety, who feel
their voices aren't being heard without
further antagonizing their supporters on
the left who believe the UK should be
doing more to help asylum seekers. Now,
Labour's opponents realize this. They
have been quick to capitalize on this
story this afternoon. Nami Beneduk was
actually urging conservative councils to
continue to bring legal cases against
asylum hotels anyway, saying this ruling
was a setback and not the end. There's
also been some international input on
Eping this afternoon. Elon Musk posting
that the government is committing
treason against the people. And the
spotlight is going to return to this
story once again in October. That's
because that will be a full high court
ruling to decide whether there should be
a permanent injunction for the Bell
Hotel
>> Katherine Samson there at the home
office. Well, our reporter Amelia Jen is
outside another hotel on the outskirts
of London which has also been the target
of protests. Amelia.
>> Well, I'm outside a hotel in Chzon
that's been scene of protests every
Friday night now for around a month.
It's around 20 minutes away from uh the
Bell Hotel and a lot of the people who'd
organized those protests, who'd been
along to those protesters started coming
here because they saw it as the next
target. They thought that the Bell Hotel
being forced uh to move asylum seekers
out could be a blueprint for what could
happen here and the council Brocks uh
has already launched a legal case. I
understand that they're not going to
change their minds after today's ruling
either. And that's exactly what the Home
Office had feared in all of this, that
there would be a wave of legal cases
from councils across the country and
that that would hamper its ability uh to
fulfill its legal duty of housing asylum
seekers. Uh and today they will uh be
free to make that case again in court.
That's the next stage of the legal
battle. And it's a debate that is very
much live here tonight. Uh police have
separated protesters and
counterprotesters. Uh people on this
side have been shouting send them back.
on the other side. Uh, refugees are
welcome here.
>> Amelia Jen there. Well, I'm joined here
in the studio by now by the Conservative
council Paul Mason who's in charge of
planning on Broxbourne Council where
that hotel is located. And the Labour
peer Lord Dubs, he fled to the UK from
the Nazis as a child and campaigns on
refugee issues. Gentlemen, thank you
both for coming in. Um, Paul Mason,
first of all, Vic, this is just a
victory for common sense. You can't make
noises outside of these hotels or worse
kick police vans and hope to change the
law, can you?
>> There's no evidence um in the protest
that you've just shown in in in my
buroughbornne and the chasant.
>> You know what I'm talking about.
>> Yes. But we've had no trouble there.
We've had peaceful protests. There has
been a police presence, but I I
certainly can't criticize.
>> But I'm obviously talking about Eping.
As you as you know, there was a minor
amount of trouble and suddenly the law
appears. they appear to get what they
want. That can't be right. And the
appeal judges have said so today.
>> I think today's um decision outcome at
the appeal court was an outrage. I think
the government are in disarray over
their asylum policy. They had a man
manifesto pledge to close hotels by the
end of this parliament and we now find
them they now find themselves um take
fighting in the courts to keep hotels
open. They don't have a plan. Earlier in
the green room, we saw an Angela Eagle
um government minister. She was talking
about their plan. They don't have a
plan. When when the government came in,
they ditched the Rwanda plan. We had a
plan. The Conservatives had a plan in
Rwanda. This government has ditched it
and and they don't know now what
>> the government's saying almost half of
the hotels have already closed. The rest
are going in this parliament. That's a
plan.
>> 111,000 people have come in in the last
12 months, more than ever. Okay, Lord
Dubs, Paul raises a number of of points
which have something to them. To be put
it mildly, the government looks in
disarray. Who is making policy here? Is
it protesters on the streets? Be they
peaceful as as Paul Mason says they are
in his patch, some others are not. Or is
it the government or is it the courts?
It's a mess.
>> Well, it's a bit of a mess. But don't
forget what the government inherited was
was more people in hotels than now. Uh
we had a lot of people coming over on
boats. the traffickers are appalling
people and and we inherited a very
difficult situation. I don't speak for
the government, although I'm a supporter
of the government, but I don't think
it's quite the mess quite the mess Paul
says it is. Uh I think the government
has said quite rightly they're going to
clear the hotels by certain dates.
They're going to do that and I don't
think today's court decision makes any
difference fundamentally to that
principle. What about the slightly
distasteful a lot of people will think
the judge's observation that frankly the
views of local people your constituents
Paul Mason are significant the judges
said but not that significant they don't
matter as much as the greater issues
like incentivizing violent protest and
so forth and the knock-on effects of
where we're going to move these people
to that that's troubling isn't it? Well,
look, first of all, the right to protest
peacefully is fundamental to the way we
go about things. Point number one. And
and then I think where it escalates into
violence, and we've got to deal with it
very very forcefully. But you can't
change policy on the basis of
demonstrations, I think the government
is right to do what it wants to do in
terms of playing people from the hotels.
But the government is also right to
listen to local people. I certainly
believe what we have to listen to local
people. Their views matter. But we don't
succumb to the pressures just because
there are some protests.
>> Okay. In that respect point, did the
judges get it right? These three judges
who said in effect, yes, local opinion
matters, but it's not that significant
in the greater role of things which you
were saying.
>> No, I don't think the judges did get it
right because I think they're going um
they're assisting the government in
going head-to-head with the British
people. Clearly, there is a majority of
the British people that feel outrage
what's going on with our immigration
policy.
As I've just said a few moments ago,
111,000 people more than ever are
crossing the channel in boats and our
government is incapable of protecting
our borders and stopping these people
from coming and they have no plan
whatsoever. And they
>> I don't want to get into things on on
the high seas, but here and now with
these people, what we all agreed on is
they are here and they are now and
they've got to go somewhere. You think
they shouldn't be in hotels in
Broxbourne, Chess, wherever else? Where
should they be?
>> Well, they're they're already not in
hotels and what you said earlier was
misleading. Um where you said the
numbers in hotels have gone down,
they've actually been redistributed.
>> No. So the number of hotels
>> Yeah. But but it's misleading in the
sense that people need to know that
they've been redistributed in private
accommodation and HMOs.
>> But where should they go?
>> Well, that's the job. That isn't that
isn't an argument. That's not an
argument or a question to be answered by
a local politician um from it's an
>> I'm inviting you to do so now. No, no,
no. Come on. Where do you think these
people should go?
>> The government came in on a manifesto
that they were going to clear
>> I'm not asking the government. I'm
asking you where Paul Mason do you think
these
>> I don't think it's the job of of
Broxbourne Council to make that
decision.
>> Well, you don't know.
>> I think what we don't have an idea.
>> Well, yes, I do have an idea. Is it we
should have stuck with the Rwanda policy
because more people have come in have
crossed the channel since we've they
ditched the Rwanda policy.
>> That's a straight answer to your
question. You say Rwanda's the answer.
What do you where should these people go
because they're clearly going out of out
of hotels even the Labor government.
>> Well, first of all, the Rwanda policy
would never have worked. It was wrong in
principle. It was wrong in practice. And
I don't agree with your figure of
111,000.
>> But but where should they go? That's the
question I'm asking. Not hotels. Where?
>> Right. We have to have a quicker process
for deciding whether people have a
legitimate claim under the Geneva
Convention to become asylum seekers, to
become refugees. That has to be
determined much quicker. The government
is speeding up that process. Once the
process is determined, then the people
who qualify as refugees for having been
victims of torture, war, and so on, they
are the ones we then have to move on to
ordinary housing and be allowed to work.
For the rest, if they don't qualify,
they should be sent back. Okay, now
let's widen this out. The European
Convention on Human Rights.
There are signs that things are
beginning to shift and what we thought
was maybe on the rims of discussion is
now very much on the agenda. Paul Mason,
should we abandon that convention which
we played a big part the UK in setting
up?
I think we should, if that means that we
take control of our borders and we have
an immigration policy that the British
people can back, I think that then we
need to leave the European Court of
Human Rights. And I will add um we've
got two e uh ex- Labour cabinet members,
David Blanket, Jack Straw from the Blair
era who are advocating that we that we
uh reform the European Court of Human
Rights. And I think I give advice to K
star here. Sack Aette Cooper as home
secretary. She's not doing anything.
She's not said anything on on the matter
and she's against the British people.
>> Okay. But you clearly think we should
leave the convention.
>> Yep. And I'll add I just like to add
that Australia, Canada, and New Zealand
are not in the European Court of Human
Rights. Would we question the human
rights of those Commonwealth countries?
>> Well, they're not. I put that to you.
>> Okay. But Lord Dubs,
>> well first of all the European
Convention on Human Rights started by
Churchill. Churchill played a leading
part because he said the sort of country
we are needs to protect human rights.
That has been the British tradition and
we're just going to turn our back on
that. We're not going to turn our back
on what Winston Churchill did did those
years ago.
>> Have moved us on. Well, we yes, the
world has moved on, but but the basic
principles of protecting vulnerable
people are still there and as a country,
we should uphold that rather than
saying, "Oh, we don't like it now. Never
mind about Winston Churchill. Never mind
about our British traditions." I fly the
British flag with pride. I think this is
a wonderful country and our contribution
to human rights has been first class.
>> Is it is it the case though that if we
do that or Mason what you want to do, we
are throwing out one huge baby with the
bath water? a lot of rights are going to
go.
>> Well, I believe we are upholding human
rights. Uh the problem we've got, we've
got uh the our immigration policy is
being abused. We're not in control of
it. We don't have a consistent policy
and Lord Dubs mentioned Winston
Churchill, but we can't have policies
going back to the 30s, 40s and apply
them in the 21st century. We need modern
policies for the modern age.
>> All right. Look, let me say this. What
difference would it make in terms of
what you're trying to achieve if we left
the European Convention on Human Rights?
It would make no appreciable difference
at all to dealing with controlling our
borders. It wouldn't do it. How how
would it make any difference? The the
the British government, the sovereign in
this country, could could basically make
legislation that wouldn't be challenged
in the courts where they could decide
where people are going to go.
>> Yeah. Give me one example. Give me an
example of what would happen if you had
your way. just demonstrate.
>> Well, we would have been able to send
people for processing in Rwanda.
>> Well, the Rwanda decision was reversed
by the British Parliament by you know it
it didn't work that way.
>> No, it it the Labor government when they
came in, Labour came in saying they were
going to tackle it. They didn't want to
adopt the Rwanda scheme. They ditched it
and they've shot themselves in the in
the foot now because they have no idea.
They're in disarray. The Home Office is
not fit for purpose. Okay, we're kind of
be ending where we started. Gentlemen,
both thanks very much for coming in.