ITV viewers were left well and truly divided on Wednesday morning after Labour’s Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, appeared on the show to discuss the government’s next steps following a High Court ruling on an asylum hotel in Epping.
A High Court judge has ordered the removal of asylum seekers from a hotel in Epping within 24 days following legal action by the local council.
Mr Justice Eyre granted Epping Forest District Council a temporary injunction against the Bell Hotel on Tuesday, requiring all residents to vacate by September 12.
The decision comes after weeks of demonstrations outside the Essex hotel, prompting the council to argue that owners, Somani Hotels Limited, had breached planning regulations by using the premises for asylum accommodation rather than as a conventional hotel.
**ARE YOU READING THIS ON OUR APP? DOWNLOAD NOW FOR THE BEST GB NEWS EXPERIENCE**
The government’s attempt to intervene in the proceedings was rejected by the judge earlier on Tuesday. Somani Hotels has announced its intention to appeal the decision.
Keen to learn how the government would respond, Garraway grilled Jarvis on what the plan is now, although the pair ended up cutting over each other throughout as the ITV host grew tired of his responses.
“What is going to happen to those asylum seekers?” Garraway began, referring to those currently staying at The Bell Hotel. “Where are you going to put them? Because you’ve got three weeks to sort it.”
Jarvis replied: “Good morning, yes. So we’re looking very carefully at the legal judgment from yesterday.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
BBC Newsnight ‘bias’ fury as guest fumes Epping hotel ruling a ‘FAILURE’ in ‘unchallenged’ rant: ‘BBC needs to be held to account!’Thomas Skinner flooded with praise for Narinder Kaur gesture amid ongoing feud over Strictly roleITV GMB fans outraged as guest pleads ‘get a new flag’ after slamming ‘white supremacist’ St George’s cross: ‘Obviously HATES our country!’
“We are identifying contingency options for how those people can be relocated to other appropriate accommodation.
“But we’ve never believed that hotels are an appropriate accommodation arrangement for asylum seekers.
“And that’s why we’ve made the commitment that we’re going to phase out the use of hotels in general for asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament -“
Eager for Jarvis to elaborate, Garraway quizzed: “What would those contingency plans be? Because already Broxbourne Council in a neighbouring town has said they’re going to try and stop them from being moved to there.
“And we know that at least 10 councils are going to appeal. So what sort of contingency plans are you looking for in the first instance?”
Jarvis answered: “Well, the legal judgment was only handed down yesterday afternoon. So we’re looking carefully at the situation -“
He was promptly cut off by Garraway. “Give us an idea of the range of options that you’re looking at,” she interjected. “You’re basically going to have to move them to another hotel somewhere else, or do you have other options?”
Jarvis repeated: “We’re considering a range of different contingency options. I think it is worth understanding the specific context -“
Garraway cut in as she continued to push for answers: “Sorry, have you not been briefed on what the options are? Sorry, I don’t want to be tricking you, but you’re saying a range of options. But could you tell us some of them? Could you share that with us?”
Jarvis stood firm: “I’m explaining to you that a few hours ago, yesterday afternoon, a legal judgment was handed down. And as you would expect, we’re doing due diligence, looking carefully at the judgment.
“And we will put in place an appropriate arrangement to accommodate those individuals currently in Epping -“
The GMB host’s dissatisfaction became clear once more as she interrupted: “No, I understood that. I promise you, I just don’t understand what those options are.
“I mean, either you don’t want to say, and I wonder why you don’t want to say, or you don’t know.”
“Well, I don’t want to get into the details of it because I think it would be entirely unhelpful to speculate about it,” Jarvis explained.
“Why? Why would it be unhelpful?” Garraway grilled, prompting Jarvis to reply: “Because there will need to be a process in place to work closely with local stakeholders, whether that’s a local authority or other -“
Another interruption from Garraway occurred: “So is your concern that it would be unhelpful because other councils will go ‘not here, no’? And you haven’t had a chance to talk to them yet?”
“My concern is that the legal judgment was handed down just a few hours ago. And you would expect us as a responsible government to look carefully at that,” Jarvis repeated.
But Garraway remained stern in her line of questioning. “Of course, and I understand that it was only yesterday. However, it’s been coming for a while, hasn’t it?” she replied.
“The protests have been there for weeks, have been there all summer. So, you know, did you just assume that it wouldn’t go that way? Did you just make that decision? You must have had before.”
Jarvis sniggered as he answered: “I don’t make assumptions. It’s worth understanding the context of this particular hotel, which has been open for a number of years. So there have been protests and concerns about it for some time.
“It was open five years ago, then reopened again in 2022. And there was a discussion about a legal challenge at that particular point.
“I know that you will understand that the basis of the legal challenge is related to a planning matter. So there are some very specific circumstances in Epping, which have led to the district council to make this legal challenge, which is entirely their right.
“What the public would expect us to do is to look closely and carefully at a judgment, which was only handed down just a few hours ago, and then work with others to put an arrangement in place that is reasonable and appropriate.”
Garraway eventually moved on, although it’s safe to say the opening salvo between the two caused quite the discussion among viewers at home.
Flocking to social media, many criticised Garraway for her persistent interruptions when Jarvis attempted to provide answers. However, she also received her fair share of support for not allowing Jarvis to fill time and asking him to elaborate.
Backing the presenter, one X user applauded: “This is one of the biggest car crash interviews going… Not usually a fan of Kate’s interviews but she is destroying him #GMB #GoodMorningBritain,” followed by a series of laughing emojis.
A second echoed: “Blimey, well done Kate Garraway for holding the floundering Jarvis to account. What will happen is that Labour-run councils will capitulate to accommodate more migrants and Tory/Reform councils will act to close their migrant hotels.”
“Kate battered Dan Jarvis in that interview #GMB,” a third said while a fourth explained: “I never watch @GMB and remember why this morning! (came on as I turned tv on) Politicians think they’re clever giving answers that don’t answer the question! Kate was good at trying! Why bother have him on? Doesn’t give me the positive start to the day I need!”
However, her critics were similarly vocal. “I like Kate Garraway, but this was a car crash interview,” one hit out.
“It was so annoying not being able to hear his reply. I get they want specific answers in a short space of time, but he was constantly interrupted & unnecessarily so, it didn’t work. Has the boss told them to be more edgy?”
A second concurred: “She was awful. Every time @DanJarvisMBE attempted to answer a question, Garraway interrupted him.”
“It would have been nice to actually have heard him speak instead of being constantly interrupted. Ms Garraway certainly loves the sound of her own voice,” a third criticised while a fourth fumed: “Kate Garraway @GMB is so annoying & a terrible interviewer. Might be an idea to let ministers answer a question before asking another, just awful #GMB.” (sic)