Listen: Labour minister's car crash asylum hotel interview
Quizzed on Radio 4's Today programme by Emma Barnett about where migrants would be housed, if not hotels, Jarvis seemed rather confused himself.
EB: You still have asylum seekers here looking at the numbers, looking at the difficulty of, as the Prime Minister repeatedly says, smashing the gangs. But what is it going to be? Is it going to be secure detention camps, or is it going to be putting asylum seekers into flats and accommodation?
DJ: Well, fundamentally you have to address the problem at source. So you have to stop people coming here.
EB: No, no, I accept that. But I'm also, as you are, I'm sure, a realist. And these people are here, there are thousands of them and they are still coming. We know what those numbers are. So what are you going for? If you get rid of hotels, are you going for camps or are you going for flats?
DJ: Well, the fundamental point is about speeding up the process of making decisions about people's asylum status. The problem that we've inherited is that the previous government basically stopped making decisions about asylum. The whole focus was on a hugely expensive Rwanda scheme, and that meant that there wasn't appropriate levels of resource going into the asylum processes. So we've shifted the resource that was being wasted on the Rwanda scheme, invested in it, in ensuring that we are now able to take asylum decisions in a much more timely and effective manner.
It's still not quite answering the question. Barnett tried again:
EB: What are we doing in the meantime? There's some time between now and 2029, which is the goal that you've set yourselves as a government.
DJ: This government and the Home Office are absolutely committed to ensuring that we phase out the use of hotels.
EB: For the use of what instead?
DJ: Other, more appropriate accommodation.
EB: What is that, though? Other, more appropriate accommodation? To quote you to yourself. What is it?
DJ: The reality is that there's likely to be a range of different arrangements in different parts of the country.
EB: What does that mean, though? There's only a few types of accommodation… Could you at least answer, just so specifically, if it's not hotels, as security minister? What is it?
DJ: It won't be hotels because of the commitment that we've made, and therefore it will have to be a range of other more appropriate accommodation.
Talk about clueless, eh? Listen to the clip here:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Solving the asylum question is suddenly even more urgent
What next? As ministers digest the High Court ruling on the use of a hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers, they have very limited options in front of them, none of them good ones. The High Court should not be attacked for making a ruling that takes no account of politics or even practicalities, for that is not its job. It has, though, made a bad situation very much worse. It is hardly helpful to anyone, in such circumstances, for Nigel Farage to exploit a delicate and sometimes combustible situation by calling for more peaceful protests. From bitter experience, we know how such demonstrations can degenerate into minor disorder, or worse. In fact, given the force of the High Court judgment, there is even less need for such protests now. Instead, Mr Farage and his deputy, Richard Tice, as usual, are playing on the fears of people and behaving in a way that is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. Mr Farage's interventions in the riots last year only added to the campaign of disinformation underway, and most recently was made to apologise for claiming that the Essex police had 'bussed in' counter-demonstrators in Epping. The Conservatives, mesmerised by the rise of Reform UK, are in a constant losing battle to out-Farage Farage, and they should know better than to propagate myths about asylum seekers living in 'offensively luxurious' conditions, which was today's unhelpful sideswipe from former Tory MP Damian Green. The shadow home secretary Chris Philp and the shadow communities secretary James Cleverly should bear their share of the blame for the mess the asylum system is in, and offer some constructive alternatives and call for calm. They will not recover as a serious alternative party of government until they too come up with a plan for the asylum system. The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, often talks of such a thing, but it is yet to be seen. Meanwhile, her undeclared rival, Robert Jenrick, appears to be constantly dialling up tensions. The position is serious. Were the Bell Hotel the only place to be affected by the ruling, then it would not be such a challenge to relocate its 140 residents by the date set by the court of 12 September. However, the judgment also sets a clear precedent, albeit largely based in planning law, for the end of the use of hotels to provide emergency housing. It does so with near-immediate effect. That means some 32,000 individuals will need to be rehoused, at absurdly short notice. Already, local authorities controlled by Reform UK and the Conservatives are expected to bring their own cases, which, as the Home Office lawyers warned the High Court, will make the dilemma of finding shelter for them even more acute. In practice, too, it will encourage many more local protests and increase the pressure on police forces to maintain order. One other immediate effect will be to increase the pressure in areas where Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green councils may still try to stick to a 'refugees welcome' policy. This only creates a sense of unfairness that the task of finding shelter for the immigrants is not being properly shared across the country. And, in any case, all, including the refugees and other migrants affected, agree that using hotels is a far from ideal solution in any case. Contrary to some of the anti-refugee propaganda, these hotels, whatever their nominal star ratings, are unsuitable for long-term residence, and are not the lap of luxury. Concierge is not available. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, they are given shelter and a minimal allowance to stave off destitution, some medical attention and, courtesy of some councils, access to some recreational activities. They are not cosseted in the way some seem to imagine. There is talk of the migrants being placed in flats, which would be relatively expensive, student accommodation, and houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). These create their own problems, particularly because the tendency will be for the irregular immigrants to be moved in disproportionate numbers to parts of the country where rentals are relatively low. The effect there will be to push rents up for the locals, and create more friction in host communities. It may also prompt more action by some local councils to frustrate the strategy, such as using their powers to block the conversion of houses across large areas into HMOs under Article 4 of the town and country planning acts. Even where HMO accommodation is found for families or smaller groups of asylum seekers, they will be more vulnerable to any aggressive demonstrations organised by neighbours alarmed by extremist misinformation about them. Such incidents will be much harder for the police to control. It may be that some form of emergency legislation will be required to delay the implementation of such High Court orders, although that in itself may not be constitutional. The only course then open to government is to redouble its efforts to process the backlog bequeathed to them by the previous administration, speeding up the grant of leave to remain for genuine refugees, or issuing deportation orders in expedited fashion for rejected claimants. It will take too long to build vast detention centres, while the old army barracks that have been commandeered in the past have been found to be completely unsuitable. The High Court has listened to the representatives of the people of Epping Forest and made its decision, and it is right that the judges should do so. Citizens have a right to have their cases heard impartially and have their grievances aired. The courts will no doubt soon be issuing many similar orders. Yet there are other people with a stake in these cases. Perhaps the most lamentable aspect of this latest episode in the migration crisis is that the voices of the immigrants themselves have been so rarely heard, and their plight disregarded. They have their human rights, too, enforceable by law – though many would cheerfully seek to deny them that. Indeed, the tendency in the media has been to demonise these fellow human beings as malevolent monsters determined to wreak crime and havoc in whatever neighbourhood they find themselves bussed to. Whether refugee or economic migrant, they are entitled to be treated properly in a civilised society, and not portrayed, as cynical politicians pretend, as an 'invasion' of 'fighting-age' men. They are not an alien army, but individuals who want a better life. Many would have preferred to stay put, were it not for war, persecution, famine and poverty. In a land such as Britain, with severe labour shortages, they have much to contribute, as have previous waves of immigrants. They could help to fix the 'Broken Britain' we hear so much about, and do the jobs that need doing. Yet they are all too often regarded as terrorists, rapists and murderers. The police at the hotel demos fare hardly any better, berated as 'paedo-defenders' and verbally and physically abused for doing their duty and preserving the King's Peace. The wider challenge for ministers now is to persuade the public that they are doing all they can to restore order to the asylum system – and to rebuild confidence in it. That task just got a lot more urgent.
Edinburgh Reporter
26 minutes ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Former council leader Cammy Day represents Edinburgh at international event
Sending former council leader Cammy Day to represent Edinburgh to an international delegation earlier this month 'made perfect sense, ' according to the city's leader. Along with fellow Labour councillor James Dalgleish and other city figures, Cllr Day met with 26 visiting councillors from Kaohsiung, Taiwan in Edinburgh. The news came at the city's Policy and Sustainability Committee on Tuesday, where council leader Jane Meagher said she put his name forward due to her being unable to attend. Cllr Day resigned his role as council leader in December last year over allegations he had sent sexual messages to Ukrainian refugees living in the Capital. He was also suspended by the Labour Party, but recently was readmitted to the party and their council group after he was cleared of any criminal behaviour by police in May. SNP councillor Kate Campbell raised questions over why Cllr Day was in attendance, given the 'widespread acknowledgement' that he had carried out inappropriate behaviour. Councillor Meagher said: 'I wasn't available for this, and it seemed to me to be a matter of common sense to include Councillor Day given his historical involvement and knowledge of our friendship agreement with [Kaohsiung]. 'For that reason, it made perfect sense for him to be there, to help smooth the path between Cllr Dalgleish and the delegation, which I gather was extremely powerful and helpful. 'It made perfect sense not to exclude somebody who had done a considerable amount of work in developing this friendship agreement with Taiwan.' Cllr Campbell had also asked about two Edinburgh University representatives in the delegation who had been unable to attend at the last minute due to ill health. She said that she did not doubt that they were unwell, but asked whether a policy of notifying city partners of what councillors may be present at an event would be wise. Council officer Chris Adams, who covers international relationships, said that the two representatives had been unwell, but that he did not have any more information about them. Cllr Meagher added: 'As far as Edinburgh University attendance is concerned, I don't think we can draw any conclusions around their motives for not being able to attend. 'If we think about global politics, it might be that you draw conclusions related to that, rather than to any individuals who might be present.' A large portion of Edinburgh University's student body is from China, which does not recognise Taiwan as an independent country. Mr Adams said Cllr Dalgleish was in attendance at the meeting in his civic duty as a Bailie, a representative of the Lord Provost. And standing in for the Lord Provost, who was unable to attend, was another Bailie, James Douglas. He said the university attendees had been set to discuss the research connections between Edinburgh University and universities in Asia. He also said James McVeigh from Festivals Edinburgh was also in attendance, and that much of the conversation in the meeting was around how Edinburgh handles the festivals. Cllr Meagher said she understood that the discussions were 'extremely powerful and helpful'. Edinburgh has a range of sister city and friendship agreements with cities around the globe, including Krakow, Dunedin, Kyiv and San Diego. By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The Epping ruling deepens Labour's immigration nightmare
Photo byThere is one clear political winner from the Epping asylum hotel ruling: Nigel Farage. True, the technical victor, as so often in English life, may be the Town and Country Planning Order (the owners of the Bell Hotel failed to apply for new planning permission). But that's not something Farage felt obliged to mention, hailing 'a great victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping'. That's a message that will resonate with an electorate increasingly wondering whether to gamble on the Reform leader (Farage's party has led every opinion poll since May). It was the Bell Hotel that became an emblem of a dysfunctional model after one migrant living there was charged with sexual assault (a second asylum seeker was arrested last week). Confronted by the case between Epping council and the hotel's owners, Home Office lawyers sought to intervene, warning that any injunction could 'substantially interfere' with the department's statutory duty to house asylum seekers and risked 'acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. But the judge, who acknowledged that recent arrests 'form a basis for the local concern', ruled that Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel, 'sidestepped the public scrutiny and explanation which would otherwise have taken place if an application for planning permission or for a certificate of lawful use had been made'. The Home Office is barred from appealing and now has less than a month to find alternative accommodation for the hotel's residents. But this practical challenge could be far outweighed by the potential unravelling of the asylum hotel model. Farage has vowed that the 12 councils controlled by Reform will explore similar legal action to Epping, and shadow home secretary Chris Philp has said he would welcome other local authorities doing the same (Labour accuses the Tories of 'rank hypocrisy', noting that Philp was the first immigration minister to move asylum seekers into the Bell Hotel and that Robert Jenrick was the second). Labour knows just how politically toxic the asylum hotel policy – emblematic of the UK's profligate outsourced state – is. Aides speak with authentic outrage of the 'absolute wreck' of a system they inherited as the Conservatives' doomed Rwanda deportation scheme saw processing ground to a halt. The number of asylum seekers accommodated has fallen from a peak of 56,042 in 400 hotels in September 2023 to 32,345 in 210 hotels (with costs falling from £3bn to £2.1bn), and the government intends to end their use entirely by the time of the next election in 2029. But even before yesterday's ruling, some in Labour were warning that far faster action was required. Last month, one influential MP told me that the government should 'requisition Duchy of Lancaster land and build temporary Nightingale accommodation' (along the lines of the hospitals constructed during the Covid-19 pandemic). That same MP now blames a 'vacuum of leadership' for leaving the courts to rule on what voters see as a 'moral and political matter'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe For Labour, the painful irony of the ruling is that it comes just as the government is trying to tell a better story on immigration. Last month, ministers agreed a 'one in, one out' asylum deal with France that they hope will deter Channel crossings and only today announced a new agreement with Iraq to return illegal migrants. Instead, Labour is left to rue the slow breakdown of a system that it did not design but must now own. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Zarah Sultana reveals a fault line in Your Party] Related
