Well, good to see you this evening. So,
you're going to continue pursuing legal
action, are you? Despite that ruling
yesterday?
>> Yes. Um, we we we we're pursuing uh
legal action through the uh planning
enforcement route. Um, so we've uh we're
going for a uh currently issued a notice
uh planning contravention notice which
has been issued on the owners of the
hotel as well as the home office.
Why not wait until October, just a few
weeks time, when that full hearing is
going to take place?
>> Because we've got to act quickly because
we've got massive pressures on our
public services, um, such as doctor
surgeries, medical facilities, schools,
also housing pressures. We, you know,
we're currently living through a housing
crisis. We can't turn a blind eye to
this. We've got to listen to the
residents of Broxbourne. Um, and having
said that, we're pursuing one course of
action. Um but when the uh there's
further legal hearings in October that
could open up uh certainly another
channel for us which we could consider
at the time. So we can't wait for this
any longer.
>> The hotel that um you're talking about
has housed asylum seekers for a long
time. Why are you only taking action
now?
>> Well, it's it's housed it for about 3
years. Uh the reason we're taking sort
of action now. We did look at action in
the early days. Um and there were there
were several cases around the country.
uh a couple of them were unsuccessful.
Um and at the time we didn't ha we
didn't see what the pressures were on
our uh our housing stock, our services.
And as time's gone on, those pressures
have built up and it's now time to act.
>> So if the asylum seekers did leave,
where would they go?
>> Well, that's you know that that's a
decision for the Home Office to take.
That's not a decision for this council.
Um the only time this council has to
consider that and it's one of the
pressures when they when their
application for asylum has been assessed
uh they're sent to us and we have a
statuto obligation to look at housing
them in terms of where they could go
now. That's something for the home
office to consider. Where I would say
they can go now is is detention centers.
The home office needs to look at
building uh or opening detention centers
to hold them in secure places. We don't
know who these people are. We don't know
who who are walking around the streets
of Broxbourne. We have to protect the
public.
>> Yeah, they were used before, weren't
they? Unsuccessfully. Those mod sites
deemed unsuitable in Cambridge, Kent,
elsewhere. Other ideas like the bby
Stockholm didn't work. These people have
got to be looked after while their
claims are going through. They've got to
be housed somewhere. But it's a case of
not in my backyard, is this?
>> No, not at all. Um, yeah. As far as
we're concerned, there are too many
strains and pressures on our public
services. We've got to protect the
people that are already here. Um, if
other areas, there's plenty of other
areas. Um, there's lots of Labor
councils that I'm sure would be willing
to take them. Their government want to
take more of them. They don't seem to
have any any plans. It was your ideas.
First started using it was the
Conservative government that first
started using asylum hotels.
Well, our government was faced with an
ever growing asylum uh problem with with
with thousands of people crossing the
channel every day. Um and our government
took action. Ita came up with the Rwanda
scheme. This government has ditched that
scheme.
Sorry, sorry to interrupt. Sorry to
interrupt. We we are short of time. I
was just going to say Rwanda didn't work
though. 290 million pounds it cost and
no one was deported.
But it stemmed the flow of the boats
crossing the channel. And that's the
most important thing. When this
government ditched it, this government
came in office over 14 months ago. They
were they ditched the Rwanda uh scheme.
They said they were going to stop the
boat. They've done nothing of the sort.
And I want to know why you're
interviewing me tonight. And I'd like to
know where the home secretary is, Avette
Cooper. She should be on your show
taking difficult questions because she's
got the job of solving this problem.
former Labour cabinet members.
>> Yeah, sorry. She's also said that she
wants these hotels closed. Exactly the
same as you, but it needs to happen in a
in an orderly manner so that chaos
doesn't ensue.
Feeble words from the home secretary,
I'm afraid, Jonathan. Feeble words. She
needs strong action to stop the boats in
the first place. And one of the problems
we're suffering here, the whole asylum
process is is I mean the way things are
dealt with, there is no proper system
with asylum. uh because we we end up in
a situation when their when their
applications been assessed and they and
they're turned down to to be able to
stay in the UK. The doors are open of
the hotel, they're sent out, there's no
deportations. We have got a shambolic um
asylum system and it needs fixing. At
the moment, it's broken and we need to
fix it uh in this country and it's the
job of this government who are elected
for 14 months ago. The Conservatives
paid the price at the last election.
It's Labour's turn. Let's see what
they're doing. And they're not doing
much at the moment.
>> Come up with a number of ideas.
>> Yeah. Archbishop of York has said to Sky
News today, mass deportation won't solve
the problem of illegal migration. Any
thoughts for the Archbishop?
>> Well, I've always said the clergy
shouldn't interfere in politics. I mean,
Margaret Thatcher was a big believer of
that. I mean, I'm going to church in
about half an hour. Um, and I know at
the demonstrations uh last night in in
in Broxbourne, I had my uh my local uh
parish priest. Uh, but I personally
think uh the uh clergy shouldn't
interfere in politics.
>> Okay. Uh, Councelor Paul Mason, thank
you for your time.
Thank you.