ITV GMB viewers explode as Balls left gobsmacked by Labour minister's 'appalling' Epping migrant sex attacker remark

The Ethiopian national was being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping after arriving in a small boat across the Channel in June. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood admitted to "sharing the public's anger" about him being mistakenly freed.

Now, with Mr Kebatu back in Ethiopia, questions are being asked of the Home Office, and GMB host Mr Balls was on hand to put the spotlight on Home Office Minister Alex Norris for answers.

"Clear up, Minister, exactly what’s happened in this case," Mr Balls began. "We’ve been discussing it on the programme this morning. The Home Secretary refers to him being deported. You just said he was removed. The police indicated at the weekend that he had volunteered to want to return to Ethiopia.

"In the case of him being deported forcibly, that’s one thing, but if there is a facilitated removal, it is normal in those cases for the person to receive a cash payment on their departure, say £2,000 or £3,000.

"Can you just tell us, was any money paid to Kebatu for him to be returned to Ethiopia?"

Mr Norris replied: "On the point of deportation and removal, I think in substance it’s the same point. He had maintained through the court hearing that he wanted to go and he was removed.

"I can’t tell you on the cash piece. I know that early in the process, he had asked for that and was denied. It’s not a scheme that is automatic.

"We do it sometimes to make a removal easier because it saves the taxpayer money, but I can’t tell you in this case whether there was a removal."

Gobsmacked by Mr Norris's response, Mr Balls pressed: "Are you an immigration minister on a massively sensitive case where the Home Secretary has been very, very clear that he has been deported and you’re telling me you’ve come on our programme and you can’t tell our viewers whether Kebatu received thousands of pounds from the UK taxpayer to return to Ethiopia?

"Are you really telling me that you don’t know the answer to that question?" he repeated.

Mr Norris floundered: "Well, as you would know, Ed, the ministers are not involved in the operational movements that happened overnight. You know, many thousands of pounds, I can’t accept that characterisation. That’s not what routinely happens.

"You know, this is a removal that the public expected. It’s a removal we committed to, and it’s a removal we’re glad that’s taken place."

But Mr Balls did not abandon his line of questioning: "But if he was deported, forcibly, there wouldn’t be money. You said removed, and you don’t know whether or not he received money. Don’t you think we deserve to know the answer to that question?

"And if you don’t know now, don’t you think you should find out in the next couple of hours whether he’s received the cash payment? It’s just a fact. We want to know."

Mr Norris answered: "Well, there was always public scrutiny on these. We remove 35,000 people every year, as you’d expect, Ed. We don’t provide individual operational details of every one of those removals.

"But that is a significant uplift in removals from this country. People want to see violent criminals taken off the street. They want to see people who’ve committed crimes in this country or people who have no right to be here. They want to see them removed.

"And as I say, we don’t routinely offer a running commentary on that. But this individual’s been removed and that’s the right ending to what’s been a very sad story."

As if Mr Norris's response to Mr Kebatu's case wasn't enough to rile up Mr Balls and ITV viewers, the Home Office Minister's subsequent answers also left plenty to be desired.

Mr Balls turned his attention to the plans to house illegal migrants in military barracks. "The Select Committee on Monday said housing asylum seekers in barracks or large sites was more expensive," he asked.

"Yesterday we spoke to the Defence Minister, Luke Pollard, who said that indeed housing people on bases may be a different cost to hotels, but then went on to say that that was okay from an MOD perspective because it was the Home Office budget.

"Is the Home Office deciding that spending more money housing asylum seekers in military bases is good value for money because people think housing in hotels is unpopular? Will they be more expensive?"

Mr Norris replied: "Well, firstly, the nightly rate is about the same between a military site and a hotel. The point here, though, Ed, is that we’re reducing the bill. We’ve already reduced it by a billion pounds, but we’re going to reduce the bill by reducing the number of people who need to be housed here by being very clear that they will not be living in a hotel.

"They will not be working illegally. So that’s the way to get the cost out of the system. This is a good—" Mr Norris continued before Mr Balls cut in: "But you say it was more expensive, then?"

Mr Norris replied: "Well, as I said, our modelling—they, of course, are based on what the previous government tried to do. Our modelling is currently bringing it in at broadly similar. The costings will be available to the Select Committee and to Parliament when we initiate these sorts of schemes.

"But the reality is, if you want to take money out of this, and I know all Good Morning Britain viewers want to, as we do too, you’ve got to reduce the numbers. And moving to this type of site is a really important way of doing that."

Mr Balls's co-host Charlotte Hawkins stepped in: "That isn't the only part of the problem, though — we are hearing reports at the moment, it’s just these two sites that are being looked at, which would be around 900 men who would be housed there.

"But the bigger issue is that, from June, 32,000 are being housed in hotels. So there’s an awful lot of people that you’ve still got to house. Where will they go?"

"Well, this is a first step in this regard. As I say, you want to reduce that supported population by breaking that reason to come to this country, that real attraction to come to this country," Mr Norris replied, but Ms Hawkins wasn't satisfied.

She hit back: "The 32,000 that are in hotels at the moment, or around that number — where will they be going if only 900 are initially going to be put into two army facilities?"

Mr Norris then insisted the government "intended to do more" before pointing the blame elsewhere. "Part of the reason we have these hotels — let’s not forget this — is because the previous government paused making any application decisions," he said.

"So we’ve been increasing that significantly. That’s why we’ve been able to remove so many people who don’t have a valid claim. Those who do have a valid asylum claim can then get on with their lives, and that’s what they do. So we’re reducing the population that way."

Ms Hawkins pushed further: "Do you not have a plan for them? Are those 32,000 going to go into army facilities? Are they going to go in houses of multiple occupancy? Where will they go?"

Mr Norris once again attempted to explain: "Well, you know the top line of the plan, Charlotte, which is that every single hotel will be closing in this parliament. That’s a commitment made by the Prime Minister. That’s a commitment I’m making again today."

"Hang on," Mr Balls interjected. "The Prime Minister said yesterday it was in a year. Are you now resigning from that? Is it at the end of the parliament, or is it in a year’s time?"

Once again, Mr Norris floundered: "Our public commitment from the manifesto is by the end of this parliament. The Prime Minister will speak for himself about when his government will deliver on our—"

"I think he speaks for the government, Minister, rather than just for himself. And as I understand it, he said within a year. Are you not delivering what he wants?" Mr Balls interrupted once more.

Mr Norris fired back: "My commitment is we’re going to deliver what is in our manifesto, and our commitment to those communities with hotels open is that they won’t be open for a day longer than they need to be.

"And, you know, that’s why we’re looking at the military sites. That’s why we’re changing that model."

The clash between the GMB hosts and Labour minister sparked quite the reaction among those watching at home, many of whom took to X to express their thoughts.

Despite previous ties to Labour, Mr Balls came under particular praise from many. "At least ex Labour minister Ed is asking this numpty some hard-hitting questions #GMB," one X user praised.

A second echoed: "Fair play Ed. Simple question, have we given Kebatu money to leave the country? @ukhomeoffice @ShabanaMahmood #GMB THE PUBLIC DESERVES TO KNOW."

Elsewhere, a third similarly shared: "Ed gets rightly criticised for questioning of Labour ministers, but today he absolutely nailed it... he showed how slight of wording from government changes things. He showed the minister up by asking an important question was this man paid on his 'removal' which went unanswered."

'Is the Home Office deciding that spending more money housing asylum seekers in military bases is good value for money?'

Home Office Minister Alex Norris sets out the government's plan to reduce the numbers. pic.twitter.com/M5eT3CGP0F

— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) October 29, 2025

"Wow such a weak Labour MP that even Ed can make him look dumb #GMB," a fourth weighed in before a fifth hit out: "I don’t think I’ve seen a more out of depth Govt minister. #GMB."

And a sixth concurred: "Labour lies and spin...absolutely appalling.. the first thing this MP should be doing is apologising for the balls up to the nation and to the victims.... this MP is spouting numbers... but ultimately ridiculous and pathetic... #GMB."

However, some felt Mr Balls still didn't go far enough, with some even regurgitating claims of bias that often emerge during his interviews with government ministers.

One X user argued: "Ed Balls' ridiculous attempts at being journalistic with his equally as ridiculous, vociferous interruptions. Desperate to show he's not biased. #gmb."

"It seems odd that Ed Balls is asking questions about immigration when he probably knows all the answers #GMB," a second claimed before a third asked: "Does anyone seriously believe that Balls would be this robust with his questioning, were his wife still the Home Secretary?" (sic)