nation starts now. i'll also be joined by my most pugnacious panel this evening. former editor of the sun, kelvin mackenzie , and the historian and mackenzie, and the historian and broadcaster tessa dunlop. as always , as you know, i want to always, as you know, i want to hear from you. it's a crucial part of the programme. email me mailmogg@gbnews.com. but now it's your favourite part of the day. the news with polly middlehurst. >> so kind jacob. good evening to you. well, the top story from the gb newsroom tonight is passage of the government's flagship rwanda bill is now delayed until after easter, when mps will have vote on it once mps will have to vote on it once again after several votes against it by the house of lords today , our political editor, today, our political editor, christopher hope, the latest christopher hope, has the latest for trouble here in parliament, where peers have again frustrated attempts by rishi sunak to pass into law his

rwanda plan. >> it was first announced two years ago by boris johnson, but still, those flights have not taken off in the uk, carrying illegally arrived migrants to rwanda. here in the house of lords tonight, peers have voted to say that migrants can only be sent to rwanda when all the measures in rwanda treaty have been satisfied, and that could take a while. another amendment passed by the by the peers here, says the bill must have due regard international law. regard for international law. and the ping pong process and so the ping pong process continues . but the government is continues. but the government is very will ensure it very clear it will ensure it will try and force this measure through ensure will try and force this measure throrflights ensure will try and force this measure throrflights can ensure will try and force this measure throrflights can take ensure will try and force this measure throrflights can take off.|sure will try and force this measure throrflights can take off. it|re that flights can take off. it rolls on now, probably till after easter , when we expect after easter, when we expect another battle between the commons and the lords. >> christopher hope, now an illegal migrant, is in hospital tonight after being stabbed on board a small boat attempting to cross the english channel. today, uk authorities , including today, uk authorities, including border force officials and two lifeboats, attended the scene, which happened just before lunchtime today. officers are now trying to establish exactly

what happened. the victim , we what happened. the victim, we understand, has non—life threatening injuries. the dinghy was one of eight small boats that reached uk shores on the busiest day of channel crossings so far this year, with a record 450 migrants arriving today alone. that takes the total number of migrants coming into the uk illegally this year to nearly 4000. and as you've been hearing, uk inflation has fallen to the lowest level for almost two and a half years. official figures show. uk inflation for february came in at 3.4. that's down from 4. it's a bigger fall than economists forecast. inflation is now closer to the bank of england's 2% target, and comes ahead of the latest interest rate decision due tomorrow . the government's aim tomorrow. the government's aim tomorrow. the government's aim to create a smoke free generation came one step closer today as the tobacco and vapes bill was debated in the house of commons. under the new bill, anyone turning 15 this year or younger will never legally be

sold. cigarettes 1 younger will never legally be sold. cigarettes1 in younger will never legally be sold. cigarettes 1 in 5 children has tried vaping despite it being illegal for under 18, while the number of children using vapes has tripled in the last three years. if the bill passes , ministers say smoking passes, ministers say smoking rates among those aged 14 to 30 could be near to zero by 2040. that's your latest news. for the latest stories, do sign up to gb news alerts, scan that qr code on your screen right now, or go to gb news .com/ alerts . to gb news .com/ alerts. >> the house of lords has been voting against the government today in the ping pong of the rwanda bill. peers versus the people is never successful for the peers . in 1909, lloyd george the peers. in 1909, lloyd george attacked the dukes when he said that a fully equipped duke cost as much to keep up as to dreadnoughts and dukes are just as great a terror , and they last as great a terror, and they last longer. now we can attack the puffed up panjandrums of the quangocracy who sneer at the

british people and support the people traffickers by their actions and their votes. the lords, by insisting on their amendments, which have been decisively rejected by the house of commons, challenged democracy and caused delay. the rwanda plan's debut flight was meant to take off nearly two years ago in june 2022, but has been obstructed by the band penzance. those who think they know better than the democratic will of an elected government . the original elected government. the original source of the delay was the european court of human rights, which issued a section 39 order. supposedly, some judge dug out of a bar to scribble his signature, and that order effectively blocked deportations. then the uk supreme court found that rwanda isn't a safe country, making the rwanda plan unlawful, although bizarrely, it used research from the united nations, which itself has sent refugees to rwanda in the past. and it's interesting and noticeable that baroness hale of richmond, the former president of the supreme court, who regularly enjoyed ruling

against the government in the role of supreme role as president of supreme court, is now showing her true political colours by voting against the rwanda plan. today. she was voting against the government again and helping to obstruct democracy . there is obstruct democracy. there is a recurring theme here. all sources of resistance to the rwanda plan are unelected. this policy has become a microcosm of a much broader problem of the erosion of democracy. most important of the lords amendments is to say that there is a higher authority than parliament. yet our constitution is based on the idea of the sovereignty of the british people, exercised through the king in parliament. the unelected officials in the lords prefer decisions to be made by their unelected chums in the echr, not all of whom are judges. in a sense that the british understand, rather than trusting to the british people , trusting to the british people, democracy must assert itself. i would like the chief whip to change commons business so that we send these proposals back to the house of lords tomorrow, and

that we sit, if necessary, through easter until the house of lords backs down. might teach the bishops a lesson if they have to come and vote against the government on good friday, it be suitably penitential it would be suitably penitential for as ever. let me know for them as ever. let me know your thoughts. mailmogg@gbnews.com comm. i'm very pleased to be joined now by a friend of the program, fadi farhat, senior legal consultant specialising in immigration and human rights parties. always thank you for coming in. most welcome it is to my mind the constitutional issue where the lords wishes to see parliamentary sovereignty overruled, which is the basis of our constitution. they want a higher authority to determine whether parliament can do things . yes, but i would also say that when we talk about parliamentary sovereignty, it's parliament is sovereignty, it's parliament is sovereign as a whole. and the house of lords are part of the houses of parliament. it is the second chamber. so it is parliament as a whole that is sovereign. the entire pizza is

sovereign, not just one half of the pizza. and we have a convention for this because the lords will usually back down. and i'm preaching to the choir here because i know you're an expert on the constitution, but it's the salisbury convention where if a policy is in the manifesto of the winning party or the governing party, the house of lords will give away what it gives the what makes the door open here for the lords is that the rwanda policy wasn't. in the 2019 manifesto, and so they are conducting themselves , they are conducting themselves, as one would expect in terms of their view as to scrutinising this legislation. >> and that's a very interesting point. and the salisbury convention is highly relevant to manifesto commitments, though strictly it only goes as far as the second reading. it doesn't go the second reading. it doesn't 9° 9° the second reading. it doesn't go go beyond. what i think is interesting here is that that convention is a late 1940s convention, and that more recently, the house of lords has tended to allow the commons to get its way after a go or so.

and lord anderson of ipswich, when he was voting against the government on the first go round, was saying that he thought the lords should back down on the second go. yes. and where i think the lords is pushing the conventions at the edges, is there were such big majorities in the house of commons. is very clearly the commons. it is very clearly the will of the commons to proceed with accept first with this. i accept the first vote was enough. i didn't vote was fair enough. i didn't want but it was fair enough want it, but it was fair enough to ask the commons to think again . the commons thought again. the commons has thought again. the commons has thought again. to be the again. oughtn't this to be the point which the is point at which the lords is backing of backing down, yes. in terms of stretching the or pushing the parameters of the convention? yes. i think we've got there and i think eventually it will pass. but thus far they are simply putting in certain well, they're doing their job in terms of the scrutiny, whether we dislike the bafis scrutiny, whether we dislike the basis for their scrutiny is a different issue. but for me , different issue. but for me, this is part of our constitutional makeup and it is worth reminding that parliament is sovereign as a whole. >> and that's absolutely true.

and the concept is the king in parliament. and, that includes the executive within parliament, which obviously shows we don't have a separation of powers, unlike other other countries , in unlike other other countries, in terms of the international law , terms of the international law, do you think, as other countries have discussed, doing this , it have discussed, doing this, it is an allowable thing to do in principle before we get on to the question of whether you think rwanda is safe , that just think rwanda is safe, that just depends on how you approach international law and our international law and our international obligations. >> the issue here is that the government or parliament is putting forward legislation which makes a factual determination in relation to rwanda. parliament is free to do that. rwanda. parliament is free to do that . but the problem with that. but the problem with factual determinations is that they're susceptible to change. and what the lords want to do is to ensure that should there be a change on the ground that that would not be, that that the framework would not go through. i mean, it's a bit like i think, if parliament were to pass the

weather act 2024 and section one says every day is a sunny day , says every day is a sunny day, that's fair enough. but there's a difference between sovereignty and truth. not every day will be and truth. not every day will be a sunny day. and so if the factual situation changes, that's where the lords are putting in certain safeguards and where i think, well, where i support the government is not in saying absolutely that a country is safe , but in doing this, is safe, but in doing this, because it ought to be a ministerial decision rather than a judicial decision, because whether something is safe is actually not a matter of fact. >> it's a matter of judgement. do you think, considering all the facts, that it is safe or not safe? yes. and you can put points in one direction and in another direction? yes. and it's the question of who decides and where. i disagreed with the supreme court they ruled supreme court is that they ruled that judgement was better that their judgement was better than . and that, i than a minister's. and that, i think, confuses the role of the judiciary with that of the executive. >> yes. and the added complication. there is, of

course, there were question marks as to the evidence used and, and the source of the evidence and how outdated it was or how up to date it was. and that's where we have this very sort of complicated tension between between judiciary and ministerial judgements and that when you get that tension, it is only and to your point, fair enough. >> point parliament as a whole. yes. that can determine it because, if the judges and the executive disagree, then parliament is above both of them and can command both of them. yes. and that's constitution early. correct. so yes, if you were yourself a peer, what would you be doing at this stage? would you have voted against today , or would you think that today, or would you think that it's the third time that the lords should give in? >> depends on your >> i think that depends on your personal opinion on the subject matter, you were matter, because if you were against legislation by by against the legislation by by dint of your personal opinion, then feel that it would be then i feel that it would be open to push the parameters of the salisbury convention and, and you know , send it back and make, you know, send it back to the lords to have a rethink.

but i do think that eventually the lords will have to cave in on it , the only issue is timing on it, the only issue is timing and how that falls into place with government expectations. and of course, we're in a general election year. and so it's all sort of, forms to be a nice little storm, as it were. >> well, that's why i was saying in the monologue that i think the chief whip should call us back and say, look, you've got to sit and get this through. but having three week recess in having a three week recess in the middle of this is the middle of all this is extremely unhelpful for the government. most government. and i think most conservative quite conservative mps would be quite happy to vote on it on monday, tuesday, wednesday next week tuesday, wednesday of next week if necessary. yes >> course, that be >> and of course, that would be a decision whip. and of a decision for the whip. and of course, that's one that perhaps is needed if the government course, that's one that perhaps is nee toj if the government course, that's one that perhaps is nee to reassertjovernment course, that's one that perhaps is nee to reassert itsernment course, that's one that perhaps is nee to reassert its its nent course, that's one that perhaps is nee to reassert its its sense wants to reassert its its sense of over matter , of control over the matter, especially with local elections around the corner, which i know are different. but all are slightly different. but all will part of that balance. will form part of that balance. >> question out >> widening the question out a bit the house of lords, do bit on the house of lords, do you think it's working well as a constitutional the constitutional settlement at the moment? seem moment? because there does seem to increased habit of the

to be an increased habit of the lords voting against the commons, not on an structure of law, but on the policy of law? and i wonder whether that is really its role or whether it's been since the change that came about, really, in the blair years, it's become a more political body , there's political body, there's potential merit in that, in that line of thinking. but that wouldn't undo the salisbury convention. so had this underlying policy in the underlying policy been in the manifesto , then the lords manifesto, then the lords wouldn't have had their way there. so one could say that perhaps the government is not including in its manifesto including it in its manifesto earlier, the cart earlier, is putting the cart before in trying to before the horse in trying to put through something that wasn't underpinned by a manifesto commitment. >> excellent. well, i'm glad that you have made the case for manifestos actually saying something and useful something important and useful rather being spin rather than just being spin documents, which they sometimes become, much . become, thank you very much. fardy coming as inflation fardy coming up, as inflation reaches a two and a half year low, all eyes are on the

ostriches at the bank of england, whose heads seem to remain firmly in the sand. plus, i'll discussing privacy i'll be discussing privacy in pubuc i'll be discussing privacy in public especially the public life, especially with the royal family

well, the male dogs don't think much of their lordships. we were discussing rwanda, and steve says we need to leave the echr. we can then make our own decisions without interference. alan, can the 50 interference. alan, can the 50 in the lords who voted against the government's rwanda bill be named and have the party they represent so the represent published so that the people is not on the people know who is not on the country's but political side? yes, indeed. up on the yes, indeed. look it up on the house of lords website. you can find the full list of who voted against the government. phil, the house of lords no longer has any credibility with ordinary citizens. they are out of touch with and the with reality. and adam, the so—called lords, oppose the will of the nation's people. they are a common nuisance, anti—democratic and should be

fined obstruction of fined for obstruction of justice. adam. excellent. yes you're clear and forthright like so many of the male dogs are. keep on sending them in. the inflation figures came in this morning and the consumer price index has fallen to a two and a half year low at 3.4. but the ostriches at the bank of england have kept their heads firmly in the sand. which means it's time for this. >> oh, ostrich , consider how the >> oh, ostrich, consider how the world we know is trembling on the brink. have you heard the news? may i hear your views? will you tell me what you think ? will you tell me what you think? the ostrich lifted his head from the sand . about an inch or so the sand. about an inch or so you will please excuse, but disturbing news i have no wish to know . to know. >> well, you have to decide which one you think. is mr bailey. the governor of the bank of england. but joking aside, the bank of england continues to be slowest in the class when it comes to monetary policy. it was too increase in too slow to increase rates in the post era, and now it's

the post covid era, and now it's being much too slow to cut rates as inflation falls this as inflation falls and this means higher borrowing for means higher borrowing costs for businesses. government businesses. the government mortgage holders, those who keep things for things more expensive for everyone . so what will it take everyone. so what will it take for the bank to learn? i'm joined now by my panel, former editor sun kelvin mackenzie and the and broadcaster the historian and broadcaster tessa kelvin , the bank tessa dunlop, kelvin, the bank of england with political independence free to do what it likes, seems to get everything wrong . wrong. >> well, i think one of the issues is has come in from america tonight in which the fed have basically said that they intend to cut by three quarters of a percent this year, and that they believe that the situation in america is such that it will be sooner rather than later. now we normally end up doing what america does, but about about a month, two months, three months, four months afterwards, we're in a cautious situation. i think the time for caution must come to an end. now. i'm. i am rishi,

i'm saying to myself the best news that i can put out. i should put out early and i can't understand why bailey, who normally follows the political will of the moment to be truthful. but about six weeks later, doesn't grab hold of it and simply say, look , the signs and simply say, look, the signs are all there. the rate that this is going will be 2% will be 2% by may, right ? at which point 2% by may, right? at which point the extra quarter percent will be necessary. not not be nice to have. be necessary. not not be nice to have . we need to give some good have. we need to give some good news to our people. our people have been through our nation has been through a shocking, shocking time . shocking time. >> and this used to be the thing the bank of england misses. that inflation is a lagging indicator and have to move and therefore you have to move before you've got the figure rather afterwards. once rather than afterwards. once you're doing it afterwards, you're doing it afterwards, you're too late . you're too late. >> but we've not hit the optimal 2. inflation is still above 3% and food inflation is 5.

>> and while i understand that when kelvin is talking about the people looking after the people, you're referring to those with mortgages, because they're the ones who are hit. i totally understand included those understand i'm included in those renters landlord renters through landlord mortgages. also renters through landlord mhuge ges. also renters through landlord mhuge number also renters through landlord mhuge number of also renters through landlord mhuge number of people also renters through landlord mhuge number of people who3 a huge number of people who might not have a propensity to vote conservative, who be vote conservative, who would be extraordinarily badly hit if food inflation ticks up again, why would we want to jump ahead of america in the central bank? by of america in the central bank? by the way, in europe, it's not projected to reduce inflation rates until the summer, they rates until the summer, and they have lower to reduce interest have a lower to reduce interest rates until the summer. and they have lower inflation rate. have a lower inflation rate. theirs well below 3. in theirs as well below the 3. in fact, they're doing far better than in europe. i wonder why than us in europe. i wonder why that is. >> the. well, because the european been shot >> the. well, because the eu pieces been shot >> the. well, because the eu pieces for been shot >> the. well, because the eu pieces for years been shot >> the. well, because the eu pieces for years because 1 shot >> the. well, because the eu pieces for years because the ot to pieces for years because the euro doesn't work. >> that's why there's actually more growth the eurozone than more growth in the eurozone than there currently is in the british there currently is in the bmnm there currently is in the britnot in germany or france, not >> not in germany or france, not in germany. >> economy, actually, no. i'm sorry. their economy sorry. in france, their economy is a slightly faster is growing at a slightly faster rate than ours. they're both sluggish. since voted >> i agree, since we voted to leave union, we've leave the european union, we've outgrown and europe

outgrown both france and europe and we're doing and germany. so we're doing pretty well on that. this pretty well on that. but this come to the bank of come back to the bank of england, it seems to me they were to increase rates. england, it seems to me they wer not to increase rates. england, it seems to me they wernot just» increase rates. england, it seems to me they wer not just they're ;e rates. england, it seems to me they wer not just they're slowes. it's not just they're slow to cut them many people were cut them that many people were saying should have put them saying they should have put them up earlier, of up earlier, including, of course, haldane, very course, andy haldane, the very distinguished former chief. so what proposing? what are you proposing? >> to claw back >> do you want to claw back control of the of england? control of the bank of england? do resent independence do you resent the independence they you they have, even though you strongly believe in sovereignty and having control? what sovereignty ? what sovereignty? sovereignty? what sovereignty? the its own the bank having its own sovereignty you like that? >> deathly good. does putting another financial civil servant into effectively have an important hand on the lever of our country? i don't believe look , i've worked i've worked in look, i've worked i've worked in america and they have a similar system really there. i mean, the fed is an enormously strong person, in fact, stronger actually, than the prime minister, that the president that can't be said over here. basically, you get a failure , basically, you get a failure, the financial conduct authority failure in bailey , and you step failure in bailey, and you step in as a policeman into the bank of england. he will do whatever

the prime minister wants, to be honest. >> so to answer your question, i think the theory of bank of england independence is a reasonable one. the practice of it that it fails when things it is that it fails when things are it's fine when are difficult. it's fine when things are easy and you're just cutting rates. but they have absolutely both in the absolutely failed both in the mid 20 teens and then pre and post covid to get the inflation the interest rate right. >> well that almost mirroring their government then in terms of the handling of covid. aren't they locked down too late. and then put i mean it almost. if you're criticising them for reacting slowly little reacting too slowly too little too but i'm afraid say too late. but i'm afraid to say that the alternative is that if the alternative is government having their hands on those financial levers, i would leave it. >> thank you very much for the bank of england who are accountable to the voters, because then if we get things wrong, the people decide wrong, the people can decide kemi business kemi badenoch, the business secretary, today used the findings independent findings of an independent report diversity report on diversity and inclusion practice in the workplace state they had workplace to state that they had backfired were backfired or were counterproductive. fortunately she has the power to change this. the legatum institute,

which is part one of the owners of gb news, one of our investors, has just issued an excellent report that points out that the public sector equality duty can be removed for any individual public body by statutory instrument, that is to say, ministerial fiat with a single parliamentary vote. cammy the scourge of wokery, has it under her personal control to depher fang, the equality act. so let's hope she uses it in the next parliament. repeals the whole foolish act. well, my panelis whole foolish act. well, my panel is still with me and tessa. you've actually used the equality act? >> i have actually, no, because in its current form, in 2010, when got amalgamation of when you got the amalgamation of race, disability and sex into the same act . but yes, race, disability and sex into the same act. but yes, i race, disability and sex into the same act . but yes, i have the same act. but yes, i have used discriminatory act, the same act. but yes, i have used discriminatory act , to used discriminatory act, to fight a case against the bbc. i had a protected characteristic , had a protected characteristic, i was pregnant, i was on a rolling contract and they sacked me two weeks after i gave birth. so i sued them and i was able to afford to do that because my

home insurance, i was covered for discrimination cases , for discrimination cases, interestingly. but i was infuriated because for many years they'd openly told me as a presenter, we're not going to use you because you're neither a failed soap star and nor are you a minority ethnic, for example. and i understood that there has to be slippage. i live in a hugely diverse city, over 40% diverse. i'm bright white from scotland, not representing london in any way. i was on a london in any way. i was on a london station, so i understood that. but god, i was angry when finally i had my protected characteristic and i was sacked. >> anyway, kelvin , the >> anyway, kelvin, the everyone's in favour of protecting people from outright discrimination. >> it's just the equality act. the public sector equality duty leads to all these lunatic, equality officers and courses and so on. that just waste taxpayers money in her, in her in, in with badenoch quoting the report basically pointed out that there had been no examples that there had been no examples that they could find where there had been any breakthrough because of these kinds of these

kinds of acts and what we seem to have now, i don't know if you go to any hospital, i suspect that the diversity aspect, means that the diversity aspect, means that if you're if you're white, that if you're if you're white, thatis that if you're if you're white, that is probably going to be your greatest strength. >> now to try and get a job anywhere . i mean, it is a very anywhere. i mean, it is a very odd thing that what's happened with the diversity is it's gone the other way that it is the white minorities, for instance, in a place like london. i suppose if you go to a hospital in london, where what percentage would you likely to find of white medical staff, do you think, tessa. >> right. but that's because we have to recruit of our have to recruit many of our medical staff from overseas because don't train because we don't train sufficient numbers , irrespective sufficient numbers, irrespective of gender of their ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation . this is sexual orientation. this is true. if we could the reverse true. >> in fact , that actually what's >> in fact, that actually what's happened with diversity is that actually everybody hires from their own right . their own right. >> is that is that's a really bad example to take a medical hospital where predominantly

we're recruiting from outside our country, stealing from others. i would like to i would like to others, actually, if we're giving opportunities to people who haven't got opportunities their own land. opportunities in their own land. >> let's that right. okay. >> could we just focus the ftse 100 companies? okay, guess what percentage of chairs percentage of female chairs there ftse 100 companies? 2022? >> yes. not many. how many? >> yes. not many. how many? >> 6.7. guess what percentage of ceos are women by the way ? 100 ceos are women by the way? 100 companies. guess guess. >> could i just ask 5% what percentage actually applied and didn't and didn't meet the criteria to do a massively important job? >> why could it be that somebody is simply not good enough? it's not because of their sex or their race. they just turn out to be not good enough. >> what's so interesting is that where the woman was a ceo, there were decision were more collaborative decision making processes and results tended to better. now let's tended to be better. now let's just about diversity on just talk about diversity on screen. gb news of course, a bastion, i think you'll agree, of inclusivity , they employ you, of inclusivity, they employ you, don't they?

>> do, but they perhaps >> they do, but they perhaps they don't. i don't care, but we know don't because you're a know you don't because you're a white man. you're sitting in the main seat. >> have people on who are >> we have people on who are interesting. don't what interesting. i don't care what their, characteristic is. i care that a program that that we have a program that people to watch. people want to watch. and i think that means that we will have people from huge range of have people from a huge range of backgrounds what backgrounds because that's what people in seeing. people are interested in seeing. but tokenistic . and but it's not tokenistic. and that on here because that you're on here because you're interesting you're you're interesting and you're feisty disagree with us, feisty and you disagree with us, not because we need a lady on. and that seems me and that seems to me to be really for woman to lady. >> by the way, just a lady. i've never been big on that. just just a lady is polite. just a little is polite. it little annotation is polite. it may in circles. i want may be in your circles. i want to to on screen to go to on screen representation because it's interesting not interesting on screen, not including news, but including gb news, but approximately there's about 20% representation of different ethnicities , i.e. non—caucasian, ethnicities, i.e. non—caucasian, which is larger than the number of minority ethnic population in britain, although they might not have the leading roles. interestingly, but behind the screens we do much, much less

well. so it is what i call, you know, out there parading for the public. but actually, no, it's not, it's the public. >> it's the public that actually see. but those trends, because they're good and they're capable not because they're tokenistic and that's so important. >> but so you're saying that only good at being people from different ethnicities are only good at being actors and presenters . they're not good at presenters. they're not good at being chairpeople managers being chairpeople ceos, managers when when they're stars. >> you know, if you're a massive rap star or something like that, the percentage there would be the percentage there would be the other way around. fantastic. people love on stage . massive talent. >> okay, so black people can only be black, but you're talking about is because you haven't got a show. talking about is because you havyou got a show. talking about is because you havyou believe 10w. talking about is because you havyou believe that there is >> you believe that there is some kind of dispute. >> yes, you do want to show you spend half your life when we're in the green room, i'm writing. you're not allowed a show. you're not being allowed a show. no. on, tell the truth. no. no. come on, tell the truth. no. that's absolute rubbish. >> always says, >> because kelvin always says, i can't you have. you can't believe you have. you don't your own show. and don't have your own show. and i say, they wouldn't have me

having own show because i having my own show because i don't represent right don't represent the right leaning station. leaning agenda of the station. i understand leaning agenda of the station. i underst about my career right talking about my career right now. we're about you. now. we're talking about you. >> talking about just now, actually. >> yeah, that briefly >> yeah, that was briefly because it fell into the line of fire regarding the equality act. but just want to focus on the but i just want to focus on the idea in journalism is particularly press, particularly bad for it. press, journalism, old school, fleet street something like street stuff. something like 2% of are minority of journalists are from minority ethnic which ethnic backgrounds, which explains useless, explains some of the useless, clumsy language. meghan clumsy language. when meghan first scene, do first arrived on the scene, do you she had dna you remember she had exotic dna and this nonsense would and this nonsense that would have written if you'd have never been written if you'd had diverse officers? had properly diverse officers? >> second, meghan. as >> hold on a second, meghan. as far i know, was at the far as i know, was at the beginning the most loved of new, new entrants to the royal family i've if you look at i've ever seen. if you look at prince edward's missus, all she got was a bucket load for being a out dj on on capital a clapped out dj on on capital radio. today and today she's radio. and today and today she's a star. and meghan, right, has now disappeared off the planet. >> well thank you, thank you to my panel who may continue this argument the green room , rent argument in the green room, rent controls have been debunked for the after the the umpteenth time after the snp's war on landlords has

failed. so when will we learn that the free market actually works? and don't forget, we'll be discussing the royal right to privacy

well. welcome back. we were talking about ostriches and the bank of england, as well as the equality act. and colin says jacob rees—mogg, please understand the british understand that the british taxpayers not support the taxpayers do not support the rwanda because it has rwanda debacle because it has bankrupted our country. not bankrupted our country. i'm not sure that, jeremy . i think sure about that, jeremy. i think your remarks about the bank of england an insult to england are an insult to ostriches , and derek quite ostriches, and derek is quite obvious most people that the obvious to most people that the problem start top. so by problem start at the top. so by appointing andrew bailey a serial failure to run the bank, catastrophic was always catastrophic failure was always the outcome. so thank you for that.in the outcome. so thank you for that. in a cost of living crisis, the siren voices tent politicians towards the socialist policy of price controls and the rental market is no exception. one part of the country that tried rent controls

is the socialist run scotland. former first minister nicola sturgeon implemented rent caps and eviction bans when she was in charge , but new data have in charge, but new data have revealed scottish tenants have faced the highest annual rent growth of the entire united kingdom and these data have coincided with a new report from the national residential landlords association, which has claimed war on claimed the tories war on landlords could cost the economy billions of and put tens billions of pounds and put tens of out of work. the of thousands out of work. the truth is that landlords interests are the same as renters. if we make it easier to let property will make rental costs lower, i'm not surprised the snp doesn't understand this simple tenet of free market. simple tenet of the free market. the conservative party really ought to. i'm joined now by contributing editor to novara media and renter michael walker. michael, as always, thank you for coming in. pleasure. isn't this one of the areas where we know the free market works? because if we look at the history of the last 100 years, we brought in rent controls . the we brought in rent controls. the private rental sector almost

disappeared. we removed them , disappeared. we removed them, the private rental sector blossomed and gave people more choice, greater ease to move around the country, move to where the jobs are. and actually it brings rents down because you have more competition. >> well, rents didn't come down. >> well, rents didn't come down. >> so the private rental market sort of, as you say, sort of exploded in the 1980s. they brought in shorthold tenancies or shorthold assured tenancies, whereby you rent out quite whereby you can rent out quite easily you can kick out your easily and you can kick out your tenant quite easily. now before that, both in the private that, rents both in the private sector and the public sector sector and in the public sector took up about 10% of people's incomes, as mortgage incomes, as did mortgage payments end of the payments by the end of the 19805. payments by the end of the 1980s. you're talking 30% of people's rents did people's incomes. so rents did go people's incomes. so rents did 9° up people's incomes. so rents did go up in that period. it wasn't cheapen >> well, there was much greater supply and it was actually possible to rent in the private sector , and that mortgage rates sector, and that mortgage rates went because property prices went up because property prices rose, but proportional to property prices. private accommodation became cheaper and more available. >> have you ever rented in the private sector? >> yes i have. >> did you? i suppose maybe you're a different position,

you're in a different position, because i suppose the thing that stood people stood out to me there is people don't rent in don't normally want to rent in the sector, right. most the private sector, right. most people in the rental people are in the private rental sector because can't have sector because they can't have an if you ask me, an alternative. if you ask me, i would prefer to either own a home or rent with council home or rent with the council where pay a lower rent, where i can pay a lower rent, which you is more secure which you know is more secure for private rental sector is for the private rental sector is there, really for people there, i think really for people who don't have an alternative now , is that right? now, is that right? >> because lots of people do move jobs around the country. and one of the great things about a flexible rental market is it makes it much easier that you think, will, i enjoy working in manchester if i've been used to living london, you rent a to living in london, you rent a property you may property if it works, you may then it doesn't work, then buy. if it doesn't work, you back london and lots you come back to london and lots of people. also early of people. also for early employment, think been employment, they think i've been at university z in let's at university z in x, let's try london. if it doesn't work, london. and if it doesn't work, andindeedifs london. and if it doesn't work, and indeed it's hard to afford when you first come to london, i'll move somewhere else. and that's the flexibility that's part of the flexibility of the property market, which is a well you a good thing. well i mean, you could flexibility in could also have flexibility in council right? council homes, right? >> so in short

>> if they weren't so in short supply. obviously at the moment if a council home, if you get a council home, you're likely to leave you're not likely to leave because there'll waiting because there'll be a waiting list, which is thousands of people long, you won't get people long, so you won't get another if another one. but i mean, if you're about you're talking about flexibility. it used flexibility. so i think it used to the case that private to be the case that private rental was sort of a bit of a waiting room before you became a homeowner. so you'd do it when you were a student. you'd do it when in your first sort when you're in your first sort of phases employment, and of phases of employment, and then on the then you'd be able to get on the housing the situation at housing ladder. the situation at the is that you're stuck the moment is that you're stuck in the private rental sector. you like myself, i'm in my you know, like myself, i'm in my mid i live other mid 30s. i live two with other 9”)!5 mid 30s. i live two with other guys 30s. now that guys in their 30s. now that would been very unusual 20 would have been very unusual 20 years and that's the norm. >> yeah, i do agree with that. but the problem that has been created is by not building enough houses, not by the rental sector. what worries with sector. and what worries me with what sector. and what worries me with th’ rental reform act and sector. and what worries me with wherental reform act and so on. the rental reform act and so on. and in and what's been tried in scotland is that instead of tackling difficult problem tackling the difficult problem of reform, which is of planning reform, which is desperately build desperately needed to build more properties, for properties, more homes for people, they something that people, they gave something that seems won't actually seems easier and won't actually make difference. make any difference. >> i'm pretty much >> so actually, i'm pretty much on same page you i

on the same page as you there. i mean, the is the mean, i think the issue is the number homes and their number of homes and their distribution. the really distribution. so the really difficult thing you could do, say, in london reduce say, in london to reduce rents is of older is you've got lots of older couples have left couples whose kids have left their are now living their home, who are now living in very large houses that have got bedrooms. now, got four empty bedrooms. now, the thing the very difficult thing politically to would to politically to do would be to tax on the value of tax people based on the value of their property, and people might downsize. very easy downsize. now, the very easy thing to as you say, is sort thing to do, as you say, is sort of tinker around the with of tinker around the edges with these rules. now, a middle ground, you don't ground, i think. so you don't you know, really annoy these, these older couples and you don't tinker around the don't just tinker around the edgesis don't just tinker around the edges is one some planning reform would wouldn't reform i think would wouldn't be bad. two would also fund bad. two i would also fund councils shed loads of councils with shed loads of money of council money to build a lot of council homes. period homes. there was a period post—war were building post—war where we were building hundreds of thousands council hundreds of thousands of council homes that's when we had homes a year. that's when we had massive supply. that's when rents were low. >> well, the labour sean >> well, the labour mp sean mcdonough did a calculation that there think, million there are, i think, a million homes could build on homes that you could build on brownfield near stations brownfield sites near stations in london that are technically in london that are technically in the green belt and therefore they're preserved. this would make phenomenal difference. they're preserved. this would makit's phenomenal difference. they're preserved. this would makit's really,nenal difference. they're preserved. this would makit's really, it nal difference. they're preserved. this would makit's really, it seemsference.

they're preserved. this would makit's really, it seems toznce. they're preserved. this would makit's really, it seems to me. and it's really, it seems to me that it's a supply and demand argument. if you increase the supply demand remaining supply with demand remaining static, come static, but high prices come down both for buying and for rental and that we've got a very distorted market because we don't build enough, and that if we attack the private rental sector, we distort it even more and actually make it harder for people because they won't be able to rent homes because they'll be taken off the rental market. >> so, i mean, i think rent control has a role, i think, in providing people with stability. >> now, if you have got, you know, there are lots of people now, and this is unusual sort of historically, you've got lots of people who are raising kids in a private rental home, not not historically everywhere, but that's not really what the shorthold assured tenancy was designed for. and so if you're raising a raising kids, you've got a school nearby. want to school nearby. you don't want to have leave the catchment have to leave the catchment area, then it's very important for you've got some for you that you've got some stability now, if you stability there. now, if you don't know whether your landlord is to increase rent 20% don't know whether your landlord is on to increase rent 20% don't know whether your landlord is on year, crease rent 20% don't know whether your landlord is on year, youse rent 20% don't know whether your landlord is on year, you can'tt 20% don't know whether your landlord is on year, you can't have20% don't know whether your landlord is on year, you can't have any year on year, you can't have any stability raise that family. stability to raise that family.

so i think need some form so i think you do need some form of rent control. but it's not going to work unless you also have massive attempt have a massive attempt to increase supply, because otherwise, are otherwise, as you said, you are going those unintended consequences. >> as you see, i think that there's a view of landlords that they want to do bad things when most them don't. not most of them don't. that's not to some bad to say there aren't some bad landlords. course there landlords. of course there are. there bad social there are some bad social landlords, let alone private ones, but that most landlords want a regular want the stability of a regular income. don't want void income. they don't want void penodsin income. they don't want void periods in their property and so with a long standing tenant, they're willing to accept a slightly lower rent than they could get if they chucked them out and start it again, because it's in their long time interest. i mean, but prices do go prices go up in go up. prices go up in everything. not in in rentals. >> i mean, so potentially some landlords will i mean, from my own experience we had two years ago, they increased rent by ago, they increased our rent by 15% summer. the following 15% one summer. the following year increased it by 15. year they increased it by 15. now second time they now the second time they increased 15. we said , increased it by 15. we said, okay, we have a two year okay, but can we have a two year contract? they no. and the contract? they said no. and the reason said no because

reason they said no is because they want opportunity in 12 they want the opportunity in 12 months to raise it again. months time to raise it again. so i think there is this idea that the contract between renter and one of consent, and landlord is one of consent, where come together where both parties come together equally decide what's equally and they decide what's mutually . but really, mutually beneficial. but really, you've one that has you've got one side that has a hell a lot of power, which is hell of a lot of power, which is the people who own the properties. remember, they've the people who own the prop�*they've emember, they've the people who own the prop�*they've ememb got hey've the people who own the prop�*they've ememb got the ve also they've always got the opportunity to sell this, this property. you've got property. and then you've got one that doesn't. i'd also one side that doesn't. i'd also say because i know there's a report that the landlord lobby are overdrive at the are going into overdrive at the moment, they're the moment, and they're saying the private sector adds £4.5 private rental sector adds £4.5 billion now, billion to the economy. now, i don't how that works. don't understand how that works. if houses . if landlords built houses. absolutely. if what absolutely. yes. but if what you've is buy a house that you've done is buy a house that already exists and then get someone else to pay a third of their income, or 40% of their income to pay for your mortgage, so that you can sort of have a bit more money in your retirement. that's not adding anything the economy, that's anything to the economy, that's just transferring money from people working it people who are working from it to who owns a have to to someone who owns a have to deconstruct their calculation in future. >> as a landlord, i wish i had the power that you think i've

got, never mind. you got, but never mind. thank you very much, michael, that was less the less pugnacious, but the pugnacious is back waiting pugnacious panel is back waiting in the wings to royal in the wings to discuss royal privacy rather than the royal privy

we've been discussing rent controls , but male dogs are controls, but male dogs are welcome on the whole program. and adam says the bank of england is not independent. it depends on the government bailing it out to pay for its many errors. well, there's truth in jeff. jacob surely the in that, jeff. jacob surely the problem housing supply lies problem with housing supply lies with architecture. modern architecture which with architecture. modern arwhy cture which with architecture. modern arwhy there which with architecture. modern arwhy there is which with architecture. modern arwhy there is so which with architecture. modern arwhy there is so muchwhich is why there is so much resistance to new builds. jeff, you absolutely spot on and i you are absolutely spot on and i think the king would agree with you, alexander, landlord are always keen to screen as much as they can out of renters. surely this ought to be regulated. and elizabeth, if the princess of wales, who is not a royal princess by birth, wants complete discretion on her operation, is her to

operation, it is for her to decide. so elizabeth has pre—empted our next discussion, because moment you've because it's the moment you've all been waiting for. the royal privacy discussion. really privacy discussion. i really want to discuss this evening is the extent to which royal the extent to which the royal family expect any degree of family can expect any degree of privacy. the princess privacy. while the princess of wales been absent , ought wales has been absent, we ought to fact she will to trust the fact that she will be to her duties soon. the be back to her duties soon. the king, in spite of his recent cancer diagnosis , has been cancer diagnosis, has been publicly the publicly present with the explicit his explicit recognition that his dufies explicit recognition that his duties have been cut back and has told us what is going on with health. so the question with his health. so the question is how much privacy can the royals reasonably expect? and certainly no one would expect that their medical records should be spied on in the hospital they've gone into. that seems clearly to be going beyond the but i'm joined now by the pale. but i'm joined now by my former editor of my panel, former editor of the sun , kelvin mackenzie, the sun, kelvin mackenzie, and the historian tessa historian broadcaster tessa dunlop. wanted dunlop. kelvin, i really wanted to with you because to discuss this with you because in your heyday as editor of the sun, there was hardly a story that you wouldn't print, and you were getting incredible royal stories and privacy didn't seem

to arise at all. do you think that was fair , or in hindsight, that was fair, or in hindsight, do you think that there ought to have been some control? >> well, one of the bizarre aspects of it that all those stories which were denied, at the time by the palace. oh, she didn't fall. diane didn't fall down the stairs. this didn't happen. she didn't have this lover. she didn't have that lover. she didn't have that lover. in the end of the day, she ends up writing a book and admits to the whole lot was totally true . so the question totally true. so the question really boils down to is, what rights do the does the reader of a basically a state funded organisation an the, the, the funder of a state funded organisation like the royal family have? and what rights do the other side have? and it's in that balance now what's happened if we then look forward, what, 30 odd years, more than 30 years to today, something else has happened.the to today, something else has happened. the newspapers and its onune happened. the newspapers and its online sites, its online sites, which really matter right . have

which really matter right. have been massively cautious about kate. massively cautious . right. kate. massively cautious. right. correctly so on the other side and where the power lies and where the wild west is, is , is where the wild west is, is, is the in the social media has been absolutely terrible mad at, but it is them that have set the agenda which is then folded back. and this is where the royals no longer are in control or they don't have, comms advisers around them to say what is the right thing to do. and they end up with this bizarre situation where they get seen for two minutes at a at a farm shop. and actually, even then, that triggers even more that triggers off even more people to say, hey, there's a body double and be that william had been had hired an actor to look like him. it is a bizarre world we're in, but we are dominated by the online world. >> and hasn't the king got it right ? i mean, i don't actually right? i mean, i don't actually look at the online stuff, but you don't hear reports of there being lots of online rumours

about the king because because we're not very interested in him, but we are interested in the king. and he said what was wrong with him straight away. he's pictured the state he's been pictured in the state bentley very clearly. it's very obviously him. nobody can 75 and he's 75. >> such a big story. but that's what's interesting is i think there's a few things been thrown into light relief in the case of these two illnesses. and one is that the only star power the royal family have, and they need star power because they're based now. they forewent their political power for popularity is lies with kate, and she is the most important player in the royal family. bizarrely, although the king is head of state in the most important ceremonial and constitution role, i think the issue here two things one, kelvin pointing out that the predominantly conservative press have not been the ones to cross the line. it's been driven by social media, but that's because the conservative press depend on the royal family and they need to therefore fall

on the side of kate and look after her because she's clearly vulnerable at the moment, the wild west, you're under line wild west, you're under the line , aren't necessarily royalist, by the there's one other by the way, there's one other point in addition to that is this that were the online regulated news provider airs, you know, whether it's the sun or the times or or the daily mail to cross that line, there would be another penalty be paid one from the reader. >> but actually, more importantly , strangely from the importantly, strangely from the advertiser. the advertiser would not agree to the excesses of the 80s, but does that mean we've got into a position, as we were in over the abdication, that there are some people who know all sorts of things, but it also allows all sorts of nonsense to be spewed out, and that the there's a vacuum mainstream media letting us down and we media is letting us down and we need so, so in the mainstream media, they do know what is wrong with kate, right ? at the wrong with kate, right? at the kind of senior level they will all tell you if they were at a

dinner party or whatever, and you might even tell them, right, this is what's wrong with kate. and people who know are really upset when they hear this kind of discussion. so there is the us and them about it, and you yourself and many people probably connected with gb news and beyond in the media are constantly getting, getting, whatsapp saying, what's up with that? i mean, my, my brother in new zealand suddenly, suddenly says da de da de da. and so you are correct. >> you are correct. >> the frailty of the royal family is that kate is sublime , family is that kate is sublime, really good at turning up. and as hilary mantel said, she's precision made. she is the kind of, you know, the framework, the glamorous framework of monarchy, monarchy . where her weakness monarchy. where her weakness lies is her ability to go off script, to talk candidly to the camera, to just do an instagram post, holding her phone like that in a way that meghan could. meghan, do you remember she was on south african tour? she on the south african tour? she said one's asked me how i'm said no one's asked me how i'm feeling. you asking me feeling. thank you for asking me and afraid that was awful.

and i'm afraid that was awful. >> but you mistake, you're old school. see, old school. you see, your old school. you see, your old school. princess of school. i think the princess of wales much rubbish. wales is so much rubbish. >> wales is like the >> princess wales is like the late queen kate and she's bright as nine. >> yeah, yeah, we're not >> yeah, yeah, but we're not living late queen. living the late queen. >> not living in that era >> we're not living in that era anymore, jacob. are, but anymore, jacob. you are, but we're not. >> god bless princess of >> god bless the princess of wales, you panel. wales, thank you to my panel. that's up next, it's that's all from me up next, it's patrick christys. patrick on patrick christys. patrick was on your bill of fare this evening. >> are we importing violent foreign across the foreign thugs across the channel? i'm also to be channel? i'm also going to be exposing reality of muslim exposing the reality of muslim prison and we'll be prison gangs. and we'll be talking miliband . is he talking about ed miliband. is he actually a dangerous eco fanatic that's make us all that's going to make us all poorer? and diversity and poorer? and has diversity and inclusion made britain better or worse? >> that'll be very >> oh, that'll be very interesting . ed miliband is interesting. ed miliband is personally very charming, but he is dangerous eco fanatic , so is a dangerous eco fanatic, so you to watch him like a you need to watch him like a hawk. but to meet and talk to. he's really very nice chap, though he probably won't thank me for saying so. your program, as always, be absolutely fascinating. i will be back tomorrow i'm jacob tomorrow at 8:00. i'm jacob rees—mogg. has been state tomorrow at 8:00. i'm jacob rethe mogg. has been state tomorrow at 8:00. i'm jacob rethe nation has been state tomorrow at 8:00. i'm jacob rethe nation and has been state tomorrow at 8:00. i'm jacob rethe nation and you been state tomorrow at 8:00. i'm jacob rethe nation and you are1 state of the nation and you are waiting with your breath bated

for news of the weather in for the news of the weather in somerset. let tell you somerset. let me tell you exclusively channel. it exclusively on this channel. it will fabulous. will be fabulous. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on .

gb news. looks like things are heating up . boxt boilers. sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> you're with gb news. and the top story. tonight at 11:00, an illegal migrant is in hospital tonight after being stabbed on board a small boat attempting to cross the english channel. uk border force and two lifeboats attended the incident just before lunchtime today. officers are still trying to work out what happened . the victim has what happened. the victim has non—life threatening injuries and is still in hospital. the dinghy was one of eight small boats that reached uk shores on the busiest day of channel crossing so far this year, with a record 450 migrants arriving today. this takes the number of migrants coming to the uk illegally this year to nearly 4000. meanwhile, passage of the government's flagship rwanda bill is now delayed until after easter , when mps will have to easter, when mps will have to face it again in the house of commons after several votes against it by the house of lords. today, our political ednon lords. today, our political editor, chris hope, has more in

the house of lords tonight. >> peers have voted to say that migrants can only be sent to rwanda when all the measures in rwanda when all the measures in rwanda treaty have been satisfied, and could satisfied, and that could take a while. another amendment passed by the by the peers here says the bill must have due regard for law. and so for international law. and so the pong process continues . the ping pong process continues. but the government is very clear it ensure it will try and it will ensure it will try and force this measure through parliament ensure that parliament to ensure that flights can take off. it rolls on probably till after on now, probably till after easter, when we expect another battle between the commons and the . the lords. >> chris hope, let's bring you up date with events in wales up to date with events in wales today. vaughan gething been today. vaughan gething has been sworn in as first minister this evening. new welsh labour evening. the new welsh labour leader succeeds mark drakeford, who resigned after who resigned yesterday after holding the position since 2018. mr gething was elected as welsh government leader by members of the senate earlier on. today he's expected to form a cabinet in the next few days and earlier on he told them he wants to lead a wales of ambition and a wales of hope, ambition and unity . junior doctors in england