gb news and a very good evening. >> and yes, it's 7:00 and it's farage on gb news. but once again, i've been allowed back because nigel is still fishing and we have got a huge show ahead. and we have got a huge show ahead . we've got a look at the ahead. we've got a look at the reaction to the home secretary's speech in washington in which she. right. was she wrong? and as part of that speech, the second thing is, should you be granted being gay , granted asylum for being gay, for a woman? also we've for being a woman? also we've got to look at an extraordinary report about whether or not solar and wind could power the whole of the uk by 2050. seriously what happens when the wind doesn't blow? but first, the news with polly middlehurst i >> richard, thank you . good >> richard, thank you. good evening. the home secretary says migrant s arriving in small boats has put an unsustainable pressure on the uk's asylum system and the british taxpayer . delivering a speech in washington , suella braverman

washington, suella braverman also argued that being discriminated against for being gay or a woman was not enough to qualify for asylum , where qualify for asylum, where individuals are being persecuted. >> it is right that we offer sanctuary , but we will not be sanctuary, but we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if, in effect simply being gay or a woman or fearful of discrimination in your country, of origin is sufficient to qualify for protection . qualify for protection. >> labour was quick to react . >> labour was quick to react. the shadow home secretary, yvette cooper , accusing the yvette cooper, accusing the government of failing to set out any new plans to tackle the small boats crisis and saying they're looking for a scapegoat to try and target lesbian and gay people from countries like uganda where they face serious persecution when they also only make up around 2% of asylum applications in the uk is just trying to distract people from her own failure where she should instead be getting a grip rather than ramping up the rhetoric and focusing on her failure to

tackle the criminal gangs or to sort out the chaos in the asylum system . sir ed davey says his system. sir ed davey says his party would make nhs and cancer treatment a top priority if his party was in power. the liberal democrat leader told his party's conference in bournemouth they would rescue the nhs with more gps, more carers and greater investment in technology . he investment in technology. he says he'll ensure cancer patients will start treatment within two months of an urgent referral and that they'd been let down under the current government. also in the news today, the mayor of greater manchester has said he'd take legal action against the government if the northern section of hs2 is scrapped. andy burnham says labour will build hsz if it burnham says labour will build hs2 if it wins the election because a failure to do so would have massive implications for the north. the prime minister is reported to be alarmed by the runaway cost of the high speed rail link believed to exceed £100 billion of taxpayers . money

£100 billion of taxpayers. money water companies will have to return £114 million to customers after falling short of set standards . as the regulator, standards. as the regulator, ofwat says most companies are failing to meet key targets on reducing pollution leakages and supply interruptions, while customer satisfaction continues to fall. thames water has to return the most money they're going to have to pay back £101 million. southern water is next. they must pay back £43 million. that's the news. this is gb news across the uk on tv, in your car, on digital radio and now on your smart speaker by saying play gb news. this is britain's news . channel news. channel >> thank you, polly, and welcome to farage on gb news. well, this has been a significant day. the home secretary , suella home secretary, suella braverman, has given a major speech earlier today in

washington when she's really set out what she believes are necessary, essential changes required to the 1951 refugee convention on that, 146 countries have signed up to. this is not to be ignored. let's just hear from suella with a clip now before i give you my take on what she said. well human suffering . human suffering. >> so why has the international community so far collectively failed to explore any serious reform of the global asylum framework ? i think there are two framework? i think there are two main reasons. as the first is simply that it's very hard to renegotiate these instruments . renegotiate these instruments. if you think getting 27 eu member states to agree is difficult , try getting agreement difficult, try getting agreement at the united nations. the second is much more cynical . all second is much more cynical. all the fear of being branded a racist or illiberal any attempt

to reform the refugee convention will see you smeared as anti refugee . similar epithets are refugee. similar epithets are hurled at anyone who suggests reform of the echr or its court in strasbourg . i reject the in strasbourg. i reject the nofion in strasbourg. i reject the notion that a country cannot be expected to respect human rights if it is not signed up to an international human rights organisation . even as if the uk organisation. even as if the uk doesn't have a proud history of human rights dating back to magna carta and the echr is all thatis magna carta and the echr is all that is holding us back from becoming russia, america , becoming russia, america, canada, new zealand and japan seem to manage just fine. none of this is particularly novel, nor should it be particularly controversial as home secretary theresa may called for britain to leave the echr and it was conservative party policy under michael howard to leave the refugee convention . refugee convention. >> well , this was a remarkable

>> well, this was a remarkable speech. it really was. no one could have imagined anybody, any home secretary could have made that speech, frankly, just a couple of years ago. warm words indeed. but is it enough? i have to tell you, this is my take. tice's take. it's not enough. it's nothing like enough . it's it's nothing like enough. it's a lot more is needed urgently. rapidly. why because there are millions and millions of economic migrants from across the world who are now targeting the world who are now targeting the european union and the united kingdom in a major way. and they are economic migrants . and they are economic migrants. and they are economic migrants. and i have to be honest with you , this represents a clear and present danger to our very way of life. you might say that's harsh , but everything is at harsh, but everything is at stake. our culture, our security, our prosperity . see, security, our prosperity. see, now i want to make it clear that we need a radical signify ficant

amendment to the un 51 convention. it's been around for 70 years. for heaven's sake. it's not unreasonable to say that it might need the odd tweak, the odd amendment. otherwise it's starting to look a little bit out of date. but what i think we need actually is a shock and awe approach. we've got to wake up the metropolitan elite who are complacent and think everything is fine . it's think everything is fine. it's not it's far from fine . here's not it's far from fine. here's my suggestion . maybe we should my suggestion. maybe we should actually show some real leadership . i think we should leadership. i think we should say right. we've got six months. all of us. we've got to look at it. we've got to amend it. we've got to change it or frankly, we're out because i hear from lots and lots of british people up and down the country and people are fuming. people feel they've been completely and utterly let down by politicians as year after year , election as year after year, election after election , no one voted for

after election, no one voted for mass immigration, where the lawful or unlawful. in fact, in recent elections, people have voted for exactly the opposite . voted for exactly the opposite. but but this is where we're at now. mass immigration and the home secretary recognises it. that's a significant moment. but what will others in her own party think of this? let me tell you, if we fail to deal with this , if we fail to recognise this, if we fail to recognise that a 70 year old convention is no longer suitable for the present day, for what's really going on, for the millions and millions of economic migrants who want to come to europe, who want to come to the united kingdom, then the impact will be profound . and frankly , it could profound. and frankly, it could be scary . who knows what the be scary. who knows what the consequences may be, where things may go . now, look, you things may go. now, look, you people will say the critics, they'll say, i'm being alarmist , but no, i'm not. i'm just

telling it as it is. i'm telling the truth and i'm being a looking forward realist . what looking forward realist. what does this look like in 1224, 36 months time? if this continues as it is now ? now, i think we as it is now? now, i think we should lead the way. i think we need to step up in a sort of churchillian style approach to leadership. and i remind everybody , australia was right . everybody, australia was right. they pushed back the boats and we can pick up and take back the boats safely to france and then eu leaders need to follow our strong leadership in the mediterranean pick up and take back then and only then, when we've shown that leadership we can work with the whole of the united nations to do what's necessary to reduce the strife in the warring struggling nafions in the warring struggling nations , which we know is so nations, which we know is so prevalent everywhere. but i'm telling you here and now, i'm not being alarmist, but i'm being a realist. if this fails ,

being a realist. if this fails, everything's at risk. this being a realist. if this fails, everything's at risk . this is everything's at risk. this is existential . that's the end of existential. that's the end of my take. so i'm asking you, what do you think? should we leave the 1951 refugee convention that's 70 years old or just leave it there in aspic as it perfect email me farage at gb news dot com or tweet hashtag farage on gb news. and we will get to your comments later. well, joining me in the studio, i'm delighted to say, is ivan sampson, immigration lawyer, well known to this show and this channel. ivan, great to have you with us. so significant speech by the home secretary. interesting. she went to washington to make it as opposed to the uk . she's right, to here in the uk. she's right, isn't she? the situation is completely unsustainable . completely unsustainable. >> i agree that the refugee convention needs amending , but i convention needs amending, but i don't agree that the principle core reasons for claiming asylum need amending those are fundamental principles agreed upon by most of the world where

people are being persecuted because of their nationality, their race, their gender, their or their sexual orientation, or their political opinion. now people only claim asylum when they're being persecuted by their own government. >> come on, we know that. come on. we know that the majority we see now are economic migrants. we understand that everybody wants a better life. we understand of british understand millions of british citizens want a better life. that's the reality, isn't it ? that's the reality, isn't it? >> if there's an economic migrant coming to this country, it's the job of the government to make sure that we identify them and we remove them. you mentioned australia idea that was really successful. do you know how it worked? how did they manage to push back? >> pushed because they >> they pushed back because they made it clear. they pushed back the had an the boats and they had an arrangement an offshore arrangement with an offshore processing it worked. processing centre and it worked. and of sudden the boats and all of a sudden the boats stopped ten years later the stopped and ten years later the boats not coming back. boats are not coming back. >> me correct you. the what >> let me correct you. the what they did was had agreements with countries back countries to send people back to. we don't have those

agreements. see, once you come over here and you claim asylum and let's just say you're refused, you're an economic migrant, the government migrant, what is the government doing? nothing. have we prosecuted one single person who's who's a trafficker? no. have we sent one person back to rwanda? we haven't. let's be very clear. >> hang on. the un 51 convention does not say we have to have returns agreements. we're entitled to do that. we're entitled to do that. we're entitled to do that. we're entitled to reject these applications. if they're not lawful. and what troubles many people in this country is compared to ten years ago, the home office, which i think is completely purpose , completely unfit for purpose, it's now accepting three times as many applications, even though they're far too slow as you and i can probably agree as it did ten years ago, they've become bunch of softies. become a bunch of softies. >> let me tell you why >> look, let me tell you why i think we should amend it. there's evidential on an there's evidential burden on an applicant is very under the applicant is very low under the convention when don't have convention when you don't have need have any evidence at need to have any evidence at all. you don't even need evidence of who you and evidence of who you are. and i think that's it's failing. think that's where it's failing. we know who these people we need to know who these people are evidence that

are and we need evidence that they claiming that it's they are claiming that it's a genuine asylum claim. a lot of people asylum pretending genuine asylum claim. a lot of pe be e asylum pretending genuine asylum claim. a lot of pe be from asylum pretending genuine asylum claim. a lot of pe be from anotherm pretending genuine asylum claim. a lot of pe be from another country1ding to be from another country successfully, i may add. and there's a lot of bogus applications that have been pushed through where the home office properly office has failed to properly identify where a person actually comes from . comes from. >> for example, if you've got there's significant now there's a significant number now coming india, from turkey, coming from india, from turkey, from other countries that are not war torn countries that we know and understand. why aren't those people immediately returned? >> well , that's a good question. >> well, that's a good question. the answer is not to come out the convention. the answer is to have policy . the convention. the answer is to have policy. his the convention. the answer is to have policy . his agreements the convention. the answer is to have policy. his agreements and process is to return these people . you don't punish genuine people. you don't punish genuine asylum seekers. correct? because of this, genuine is not at war, is it? >> come on, ivan. be honest. >> so i'm with you on this. >> so i'm with you on this. >> they should be immediately. i mean, india is a it's a member of the commonwealth for heaven's sake. >> correct. >> correct. >> so the question is, what is the government doing? why is the government returning people the government doing? why is the gove|whence returning people the government doing? why is the gove|whence they turning people the government doing? why is the gove|whence they came?i people

from whence they came? >> because they're trapped by lawyers good self and lawyers like your good self and many others who are making vast sums taxpayers expense? >> well, i don't have any >> ivan well, i don't have any clients on legal aid, but anyway, you get the point. >> yeah, the point is the government is failing. >> bad people >> the optics are bad people coming across the channel are boarders at the moment are subject to the weather. i mean, that's not sustainable. >> i agree entirely. we've got the first rule of government is to provide security and safety for british citizens, including where necessary. >> you defend our borders. our borders are completely open . and borders are completely open. and we've got to say enough's enough . australia said is enough is enough. and they stopped it. they led the way and i think we should do exactly the same. we can safely up and take can safely pick up and take back. goes on. back. otherwise this goes on. >> why don't we stop them coming in the first place? genuine in the first place? dis genuine ones. don't we offshore ones. why don't we have offshore processing the only processing centres? the only people can stop the small people that can stop the small boats french. what does boats are the french. what does the want? the eu want? >> that's not true. i mean >> well, that's not true. i mean the belgians, for example, they've stopped boats

they've stopped some boats leaving their shores. they've, they've essentially they've stopped taken back stopped them and taken them back to belgium. >> correct. french not >> correct. why the french not doing and i've got my view doing this? and i've got my view on this. the eu wants some form of free movement back. they want some form of free movement back . and then that will then they will then order the french to stop the boats and the french will do it. and i'll tell you what free movement they want back. >> why did belgium do it? belgium is a member of the eu. they've done it because they knew it was the right thing. we've sent hundreds of millions of pounds to france and actually what doing sending of pounds to france and actually whatmore. doing sending of pounds to france and actually whatmore. mainly sending of pounds to france and actually whatmore. mainly economicg ever more. mainly economic migrants to the united kingdom. the british had the british people have had enough. worries the british people have had enotwhat worries worries the british people have had enotwhat worries me worries the british people have had enotwhat worries me isworries the british people have had enotwhat worries me is what�*s the british people have had enotwhat worries me is what this me, what worries me is what this looks like in 12 or 24 months. if nothing is done. and that's why think the home secretary why i think the home secretary is highlight the need is right to highlight the need to things, because the to change things, because at the moment thing is being moment the whole thing is being by let's just say you're by the let's just say you're right, of the right, let's come out of the convention today. >> asylum seekers >> no more asylum seekers allowed, no application means that the boats. that will not stop the boats. this the problem. not.

this is the problem. it's not. what is it's how what we do with them is it's how we stop them coming in the first place. that is a problem. we need an offshore processing centre. i've just helped a ceo of a national airline with his four families, £30,000 in home office fees. it took two months. should we allow free movement for ceo of airlines? absolutely. should we allow free movement for surgeons ? absolutely. from for surgeons? absolutely. from the eu? absolute >> but that's a different point. the point here is that we've got millions of economic migrants who are looking to move to europe and many of those will want to move to the united kingdom. and if we don't start addressing this now, now i'm being a bit tough on this. i'm saying got to use shock saying you've got to use shock and awe. you've got to say one of the most respected nations in the world going say either the world is going to say either we out or we're out. we sort this out or we're out. >> i'm an economic migrant >> if i'm an economic migrant and i want to come to the uk and i come here, i know i'm not going be removed. they know going to be removed. they know that. >> and m- that. >> and the incompetence >> and that's the incompetence of office. of the home office. >> so the solution to stop

people coming is to remove them back where they came from. >> absolutely right. they absolutely genuine applicants, as margaret thatcher said in the 19805, if as margaret thatcher said in the 1980s, if you have people who are not accepted through the asylum system and you cannot deport them to where they came from, then the whole international law and order system breaks down. >> and that's actually what suella braverman we agree to as excellent to agree on, she said. >> if you're gay, that shouldn't give you right to claim give you a right to claim asylum. >> look, many countries be in gay you're be gay means you're going to be killed. now if someone rocks killed. and now if someone rocks up on our with that up on our shore with that hanging over the head, are we going to refuse them? >> and that's really good >> and that's a really good point. after the break, point. so after the break, actually, we're going to actually, ivan, we're going to be peter tatchell be talking to peter tatchell about this, who was obviously a very, very strong campaigner for lgbt get his lgbt rights. so we'll get his take on it because the home secretary specifically referred to the lgbt community. so, ivan, thank you so much for coming in. really, do appreciate that. so, yes, coming up after the break, don't anywhere. peter don't go anywhere. peter

tatchell, what he tatchell, let's hear what he thought speech

>> you're listening to news radio . welcome radio. welcome back to farage on gb news. >> so that was my big question for you . should we leave the 70 for you. should we leave the 70 year old 1951 refuge convention open? and plenty of thoughts and views on that. stuart stewart says as if britain wishes to tackle illegal migration, then there's no other option but to withdraw from the 51 convention set our own legal definition of what's a refugee and others will follow suit. stuart that's what i mean about leadership. let's see what someone else says. it's not possible to leave the 51 convention. you'll never get full agreement of all the other signatories for us to control our borders. we must unilaterally leave the convention and the echr, which both empower illegal migration. if not, the uk, will be like lampedusa . i mean, lots of,

lampedusa. i mean, lots of, i think, unity there, mark says. why don't we start by a veto on the echr and the un charter? then we can do as we, like many other countries, use their veto . so let's get on with it . i . so let's get on with it. i mean, significant thoughts there . this was a major, major speech by the home secretary. as i said earlier , hard to imagine a home earlier, hard to imagine a home secretary making that sort of speech two, three, four years ago. really is . let's just play ago. really is. let's just play ago. really is. let's just play a quick clip before i go to my next guest, peter tatchell in the studio. quick clip of actually what suella braverman said . said. >> let me be clear. said. >> let me be clear . there are >> let me be clear. there are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay or to be a woman , where gay or to be a woman, where individuals are being persecuted. it is right that we offer sanctuary , but we will not offer sanctuary, but we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect simply being gay or a woman or fearful of discrimination in your country of origin is sufficient to

qualify for protection . qualify for protection. >> well, there we are. another significant part of the home secretary's speech today, delighted to be joined in the studio by peter tatchell. human rights and lgbt campaigner. peter, you will have heard that speech. peter, you will have heard that speech . some bits of it you speech. some bits of it you might agree with and some bits of it you might have some very strong views on. >> well, suella braverman has been disingenuous because no one can get asylum in this country simply because they're gay or even simply because they've experienced discrimination . ian, experienced discrimination. ian, it has to be a much higher threshold of persecution and they have to produce evidence . they have to produce evidence. they can't just claim it. they have to produce evidence. so no one gets asylum simply on their say so. and do you think the home office is actually , in home office is actually, in a sense acting in that way, as you've just described , or you've just described, or actually are some just use the discrimination terminology and essentially looking to be granted asylum on that basis. >> so do you think maybe the

home office, her own department is at fault here, peter? >> well, my experience is that the home office barristers are very, very tough. the casework is are very, very tough. they demand very rigorous, high standards of evidence and proof . and i can tell you, i've dealt with many lgbt plus refugees and women and political refugees . women and political refugees. they produced the evidence and be knocked back because it hasn't been good enough and they've had to go and find more evidence, a proper official evidence, a proper official evidence to show their claim of persecution . so the home office persecution. so the home office is not being weak or soft at all. there are too many hurdles and a lot of people get refused . a lot of people get refused even though they are genuine because they simply haven't got the and of course, what we do >> and of course, what we do know that the whole process. know is that the whole process. yes. suitable applicant yes. whether suitable applicant or way , way, way or not, just takes way, way, way too taking too long. instead of taking weeks, used to do, 15 weeks, which it used to do, 15 or 20 years ago, it's now taking years and years to the to the sufferance of everybody and the cost of the british taxpayer and the suicide of a young

the recent suicide of a young lesbian woman from oman who've been left waiting by the home office for over a year, effectively locked up in a hotel i >> -- >> she got so depressed, so hopeless , she took her own life. hopeless, she took her own life. just last week . and that's the just last week. and that's the kind of plight that many refugee face. and we don't hear enough about so right, about. so you're right, speedier, fast to processing. >> but the principle of her speech that actually this is a 70 year old convention that was basically it was drawn up by europeans, including britain, including britain and in a sense, it's good to lead the way. but it was very completely different time. it was for post—war europe. it wasn't envisaged for the situation. we now currently find ourselves in. so do you think she's right to actually highlight it and say it needs amending ? needs amending? >> i don't think the principle needs amending , you know, fear needs amending, you know, fear or experience of well—founded and evidence based persecution should be the litmus test. it is the litmus test and should remain so . the litmus test and should remain so. no, but i do think that absolutely we do have to

insist that everyone seeking asylum , um, has to produce asylum, um, has to produce evidence proper evidence, proper evidence, and it has to be figour evidence, and it has to be rigour examined by the home office and only when proven to be true and accurate, only then do people get asylum and that's basically the system as it operates. now >> so. well, yes, but the reality is that 10 or 12 years ago we were i think, were recognising and accepting about 25% of asylum applications . that 25% of asylum applications. that figure now is in the mid 70s, creeping up nearly i think to 80. so there's been a trebling of the number. i think we can all accept that it hasn't actually been a trebling of the quality of applicants fearing and fleeing genuine war zones and fleeing genuine war zones and persecution. i think most people accept that there's a huge increase in economic migrants who are then being accepted. >> well, none of the refugees that i'm dealing with are economic migrants. they have produced really strong evidence of persecution , prison records, of persecution, prison records, of persecution, prison records, of being jailed, medical records

of being jailed, medical records of being jailed, medical records of being tortured. so i think the economic migrant issue is a separate one. but even on that issue, how would the national health service survive if we didn't have economic migrants there are so many doctors and i'iui'ses. >> nurses. >> that's called come on, that's called lawful immigration. >> and we've welcomed we've been we've welcomed health care workers over the world, workers from all over the world, and i support that. but i'd like to train our own. and the other thing is obviously, you know, regrettably, within coming regrettably, within those coming across we know across the channel, we know that there those looking there are those who are looking to operate gangs or join the to operate in gangs orjoin the drug gangs, the laundering drug gangs, the money laundering gangs, prostitution, gangs, tragically prostitution, all of this stuff. >> got no brief for any of >> i've got no brief for any of that. but think we to that. but i think we have to make clear distinction. there make a clear distinction. there are suffer are people who do suffer a genuine persecution and they need sanctuary. but i think really at the end of the day, we need to get to the root cause. why are these people fleeing? it's war, poverty or persecution? let's address as a as a global community, let's address those issues . because if address those issues. because if we can resolve those conflicts, that persecution , that poverty,

that persecution, that poverty, we will have less refugee as it it'll be it'll be cost effective in the long term. >> in the long term, yes. but the reality is we're dealing with a short term and the huge increase in numbers just in the next 12 to 36 months. and i think that's what people are most worried about and that's why fear that if we don't deal why i fear that if we don't deal with this rapidly, then the consequences for europe the consequences for europe and the united really united kingdom become really serious and exactly opposite serious and exactly the opposite of people want. of what our people want. >> like to see an >> i would like to see an emergency international conference of all the nations of the get together to the world to get together to collectively solutions to collectively fund solutions to the reasons why people flee , why the reasons why people flee, why they're refugees, because most people do not want to leave their homes and families. most people want to stay in their home countries and if we can facilitate that, there will be less refugees. >> i like the word emergency. that implies urgency, peter. and i've said i've said we need to say we need to show that leadership we need to say leadership and we need to say six months or we're out. that's what i call leadership. you probably with probably wouldn't agree with that. you so that. but peter, thank you so much in. really

much for coming in. really appreciate thoughts appreciate your thoughts there we those thoughts we are. those are the thoughts of tatchell coming up of peter tatchell coming up after break, we are going to after the break, we are going to be talking about wind and solar. can you believe there's can you believe this? there's a new out which says that new report out which says that by 2050, we could be completely reliant on wind energy. i'm just asking the question , what asking the question, what happens when the wind doesn't blow? it's

>> you're listening to gb news radio . radio. >> welcome back to farage on gb news. well this is a subject that's pretty dear to my heart, actually. there's a new report out today, i think , which says out today, i think, which says that solar and wind energy by 2050, which of course is the date of the net zero that the prime minister talked about last week, that solar and wind energy could actually provide all i repeat, all of our electricity needs just in in 30, 27 years time. indeed. so let'sjust

time. indeed. so let's just explore that in a bit more detail with one of the authors of this report out from oxford university, dr. brian o'callaghan is a lead researcher and project manager at at the smith school of enterprise and the environment, as i say at the university of oxford. thank you so much forjoining me. so what does this report really say compared to where we are today? and then let's dig into the practicalities of it . absolutely practicalities of it. absolutely >> hi, richard and hi, audience. it's great to be with you tonight. so the report says we can practically power the uk with 100, 100% with renewables . with 100, 100% with renewables. and so this becomes a question of ambition. we look to what is technically possible , what is technically possible, what is practical, and then to the question of economics , that's question of economics, that's what we did . what we did. >> okay, so you're saying it's technically possible to get to 100% of our electricity needs is by 2050, but in reality , 80 we

by 2050, but in reality, 80 we know that we've got the most expensive electricity. i think in the g20 , we know that we've in the g20, we know that we've got the highest percentage of renewables of major developed nafions. renewables of major developed nations . and those two things nations. and those two things i think are directly linked. and we know that well, there's an issue when the wind doesn't blow. brian right. >> so i'm not sure it's correct to link costs of energy in the uk to a high renewable energy load. all the data we've seen suggests otherwise, but i know that's not the key question here. your question on the practicalities of storage are really important. you're right, the technical part, that's one question. that's kind of the easy one, right? i mean, in fact, we find that you could 100% power the uk purely with wind turbines beyond 25 nautical miles out to sea , i.e. wind miles out to sea, i.e. wind turbines that no one would ever see. you could do it technically

100% with just that wind . then 100% with just that wind. then there's the question of what about when the wind doesn't blow ? this is what we call the intermittency question. and in that case, we need to be looking at storage solutions . at storage solutions. fortunately, we've seen the cost of storage plummet 79% over the last 12 years or so. i think . last 12 years or so. i think. and all forecasts are for that plummet to continue . so no one plummet to continue. so no one is saying, let's take out all of the coal and gas that we have right now and tomorrow be 100, that's fine . that's fine. >> but the quantity, the quantity of space in order to provide for the batteries that you're talking about is thousands of acres . and you've thousands of acres. and you've got to include the cost of that battery technology, which is massive. and i've got to come back to you on this. there is a direct link between the increase in renewables from about from very, very little low single figures to where we are now in our sort of 25, 30% of our electricity and the dramatic increase in electricity prices increase in electricity prices in the united kingdom .

in the united kingdom. >> i think richard , at least >> i think richard, at least from my perspective and that of many in the audience, i'm guessing the increase in energy costs over the last few years have been driven by the war in ukraine more than anything, as the cost of gas that's been a year and a half before that, we had very high electricity prices. >> you're talking here under this solution, about 73% would be provided by offshore wind. i've got to ask you , brian, two i've got to ask you, brian, two weeks ago , offshore wind weeks ago, offshore wind auctions by the government to the to the wind farm developers and promoters and investors, they put out, i think it was five wind farm opportunities is not a single bid. brian not a single bid at and there has to be a reason for that. and the reason is the costs have gone up. it's no longer financially viable for them . viable for them. >> oh, that's interesting. i have a different perspective and isuppose have a different perspective and i suppose you asked two questions. there to the first on

the overall cost of wind. i mean, we've seen and the space that wind might provide, it might take upwind plus batteries. you spoke to both on the cost side , we've seen the cost side, we've seen average fuel costs for gas fired stations so high in the uk that instead of paying just for the gas to fire those stations, you could pay for new wind . the could pay for new wind. the entire asset on its own. so the cost piece i'm not sure is so much of an issue right now, but i'm sure that it's not, you space which let me do both and then you can respond to both maybe on the space piece. what we've seen in wind though, are big numbers. you're right, thousands of but in thousands of acres, but in total, 0.07% of land space would be taken up by the wind that we propose in the report. 0.07. and quarries and mines in the uk take up 0.9. that's more than ten times as much from quarries and mines . so i'm not quite sure and mines. so i'm not quite sure on those two pieces. i'm happy

to get the other one too, but i'm just coming back to the market realities. >> everybody hears that this is the great opportunity. so you would have thought there would be and farm be investors and wind farm developers falling them over over themselves to bid to get more opportunities, not a single bid. i'll tell you what i think, brian. i think that they were embarrassed by the increasing costs, the huge price that would now be required to be guaranteed to those wind farm developers , to those wind farm developers, and rather than because they couldn't bid at the price the government said, which was about, think £44 per megawatt about, i think £44 per megawatt houn about, i think £44 per megawatt hour, rather than say what price they really needed . and i think they really needed. and i think they really needed. and i think they together and they actually got together and said better to say nothing said it's better to say nothing , you to going get , but how are you to going get to 100% in 27 years if you've got nobody wants to do it now ? got nobody wants to do it now? >> yeah, that's an interesting thought. i haven't heard that from developers i've spoken with richard. what i've heard is the opportunities in other markets are stronger when the uk government puts a price cap

below the point that other countries are offering. why do it here? right. so i think this then speaks to the auction design itself and what government is willing to put forward. this is a game of global incentives , right? let's global incentives, right? let's look to the us and the incentives that they're pumping into renewable energy because incentives that they're pumping into see wable energy because incentives that they're pumping into see wablyas nergy because incentives that they're pumping into see wablyas an gy because incentives that they're pumping into see wablyas an economice they see that as an economic power house for their future. if we're competing with that, we're not competing with that, why would developers come here? >> i'll tell you >> well, i'll tell you why, because as understand it, wind because as i understand it, wind farm are failing the farm auctions are failing in the us i think the reality us as well. i think the reality is i think the prices have gone up. farm manufacturers, up. the wind farm manufacturers, the turbines, can't the wind turbines, they can't make work . and i think there make it work. and i think there is a massive cost issue that people talking about, is a massive cost issue that people it's talking about, is a massive cost issue that people it's the lking about, is a massive cost issue that people it's the pylon|bout, is a massive cost issue that people it's the pylon to ut, whether it's the pylon to transmit the electricity or indeed the batteries. but brian, thank so for coming on. thank you so much for coming on. it's report that it's a fascinating report that you've technically , it's you've done technically, it's possible economically , i don't possible economically, i don't think it's possible. and i'm seriously worried about the consequences. feels to me consequences. it feels to me renewables backup must be renewables plus backup must be more expensive than just backup . what the farage goodness me. i

don't think nigel would be very happy with this either. either beat the old british telecom. unbelievable they want to cut not just a few hundred jobs. 1100 jobs from rural areas in the interests of diversity and inclusion. yes, they want more jobs in city locations as rather than actually having the existing jobs. so they want to scrap the existing jobs in rural locations to bring people back into the into the cities . into the into the cities. indeed, their own chief executive , one, alison kirby. executive, one, alison kirby. she's incentivised with over £200,000. bonus payments tied to diversity and inclusion targets. i don't think that's very fair. what do you think ? anyway, what do you think? anyway, coming up, we've got another report, another analysis of data, serious eu hypocrisy. don't go anywhere . it's farage don't go anywhere. it's farage on .

gb news. welcome back to farage on gb news. well, i suspect you're not going to be very happy with this news, folks. unbelievably it turns out that the eu , when turns out that the eu, when we've got all these sanctions being imposed on russia, the eu has done a 35% increase piece in the purchases of liquefied natural gas from russia. despite all of these sanctions being in place. that 35% increase just in the last two years. i'm delighted to be joined in the studio by sir john delighted to be joined in the studio by sirjohn redwood , mp. studio by sirjohn redwood, mp. john, you for joining studio by sirjohn redwood, mp. john, you forjoining me. john, thank you for joining me. this is an extraordinary report which is by brexit facts for eu.org, a think tank that looks at all of this stuff. data produced by the european union just yesterday showing a 35% increase in lng purchases in two years. i thought we were trying to reduce our purchases from russia to reduce the probability that we might be funding their hideous war in ukraine.

>> well, of course we should be doing that. and i think it's quite a shock facts for eu quite a shock and facts for eu once again have done very good once again have done a very good job highlighting this and i'm glad you've you've picked up glad you've you've picked it up because i thought we western because i thought we had western solidarity on this issue. i thought and thought germans, france and particularly belgium and spain, which been some of which i think have been some of the importers according the bigger importers according to the figures show, and live the and we're saying that the brand. and we're saying that we must get russia out of our supply chain, particularly for oil that is oil and gas, because that is definitely paying for the definitely what's paying for the extra they're buying in extra weapons they're buying in from world. from around the world. >> they've become so >> and they've become so vulnerable buying gas from vulnerable to buying gas from from course, it's from russia. of course, it's fair say actually fair to say that actually imports of piped gas has reduced. but this is a vast, vast increase. it seems to me that they're good at talking the talk, but actually are the nafions talk, but actually are the nations walking the walk ? nations walking the walk? >> well, that's the difficulty. and who knows how these cargoes moved because obviously these are liquid cargoes ships. are liquid cargoes in ships. they're not, you say, very they're not, as you say, very clearly running pipe from clearly running down a pipe from russia to europe. and i'm glad that has largely been choked off. these sanctions have to off. but these sanctions have to be applied properly and it is

undermining the forces in ukraine and is probably leading to more deaths if there's a bigger supply of weapons, suppose. >> i suppose those eu nations, they will say, well, if we completely stopped, then there'll be a huge price spike in gas prices, which would then lead to more inflation, more pain and suffering for our own citizens . citizens. >> and therefore we've basically got no choice . that's what i got no choice. that's what i suspect these nations would say. >> well, who knows? they haven't actually responded this actually responded to this and they haven't either or they haven't either confirmed or denied story . they haven't either confirmed or denied story. but what they haven't either confirmed or denied story . but what do denied the story. but what we do know there's a lot and know is there's a lot of oil and gas amongst safe western nations, which we could tap into more. the americans have exported a lot in lng form to try and get europe through a very difficult winter. norway has been extremely helpful. i want the united kingdom to do more. we've got plenty of oil and gas out there. i wonder if let's drill and get it out. let's go drill and get it out. >> i agree on that. >> you and i agree on that. >> you and i agree on that. >> i if some of these eu >> i wonder if some of these eu nafions >> i wonder if some of these eu nations actually, almost bizarrely, don't want to be overexposed gas lng bizarrely, don't want to be oveifrom ;ed gas lng bizarrely, don't want to be oveifrom the gas lng

bizarrely, don't want to be oveifrom the us. gas lng bizarrely, don't want to be oveifrom the us. they gas lng bizarrely, don't want to be oveifrom the us. they wantng bizarrely, don't want to be oveifrom the us. they want to gas from the us. they want to have increased diversity. is that possible? >> to ask them. >> well, you need to ask them. >> well, you need to ask them. >> mean, i that isn't >> i mean, i hope that isn't their their rationale. i would imagine just were imagine that they just were desperate have enough gas to desperate to have enough gas to get them through the winter. but they did do good in they they did do a good job in filling stockpiles. they they did do a good job in fillin have stockpiles. they they did do a good job in fillin have rather> it's quite extraordinary. >> it's quite extraordinary. >> well, it is a remarkable report that eu purchases of lng 35% up. other big news at the moment, waiting to hear the speculation about hs2, is it starting ? is it stopping? what's starting? is it stopping? what's going to happen ? what's your going to happen? what's your view on this? i mean, is the prime minister really going to actually take away possibly the

best bit of a of a train set that, frankly, i never wanted? >> well, we'll have to wait and see. i mean, he's is obviously considering it very carefully. he's a man who does his research and wants all the data and wants to the different sides of to hear the different sides of the argument. but i hope he finds a way control the finds a way to control the unstoppable of this unstoppable costs of this runaway set. i always runaway train set. and i always thought i voted against the thing in the beginning because i didn't think the original business to much. business case added up to much. now three times the cost. now it's three times the cost. the business case has been completely shot to pieces. as then. better then. i thought it'd be better to the north rather to start it in the north rather than the south. absolutely. i mean, certainly think we mean, i certainly don't think we can spend a lot of can afford to spend a lot of money getting from old oak common to euston when we just spent a fortune the elizabeth spent a fortune on the elizabeth line, works well i >> -- >> let's hear what andy burnham had say christopher hope had to say to christopher hope earlier today on this issue of hs2 . hs2. >> you might get a legal case because there's no consultation where all options would definitely be on the table. >> you know, we we're we're getting stronger in terms of the voice of the north. we don't

seek fights with whitehall, but we how answer them back we know how to answer them back now. we're going to now. and we're not just going to get just not going lie get we're just not going to lie down the way down and accept the way whitehall always the whitehall has always treated the nonh whitehall has always treated the north of england. we are fighting back. we're getting organised. we're to organised. we're not going to take things lying down. so they'll be hearing from us. >> almost though inference >> it almost as though inference there burnham, the there from andy burnham, the mayor manchester, mayor of greater manchester, of course, that he might even actually to suing the actually resort to suing the government. but but the idea that go from a suburb that that you go from a suburb that most people haven't heard of , of most people haven't heard of, of london southern suburb of london to a southern suburb of birmingham no one's heard birmingham that no one's heard of. stop. mean, it of. and then stop. i mean, it would take longer. would actually take longer. rather going from euston to rather than going from euston to central birmingham and avoid the mist . the really important bit mist. the really important bit from birmingham to manchester. andy burnham to talk about well that would be project failed and the option that other people favour is massive overruns of cost and big delays. >> we're not talking about a train set that's going to work this decade. so the people in the north who are suffering from poor services moment, poor services at the moment, this is their answer. i this is not their answer. i think spending a bit less money on digital signalling greatly

increases your capacity and improves reliability of the improves the reliability of the train and you could do train services. and you could do that the north and that throughout the north and give that capacity. give them that extra capacity. much sooner and at a better price. >> you businessman john i'm a businessman. there's an expression the first loss is the best loss. and don't pour good money after frankly given money after bad. frankly given where it's at now, i would scrap the lot. i would fill it in and i would use at least 50% of the saving in the north—east west hs three, hs four in the north. surely that would that would be the right thing to do. that's proper. levelling up in the north, isn't it? >> i want to spend more in the north and effectively and i think modern technology is a great also need to great help. you also need to rerun the business cases rerun all the business cases because the original because of course the original business case assumed five day a week. commuters who were going to be fleeced very high to be fleeced with very high pnces to be fleeced with very high prices season tickets. prices for their season tickets. that's so old fashioned. now it's not going to happen. the railway is going to be used differently and people want discount prices. it makes the business case really expensive . business case really expensive. a new railway sets even more

difficult justify. a new railway sets even more diffwould justify. a new railway sets even more diffwould you tify. a new railway sets even more diffwould you scrap the whole thing? >> no, i wouldn't scrap the bit we're building. i mean, you've got contractual commitments. i would build because would finish the build because you've contractual you've got contractual commitments. something to commitments. i have something to show and then spend the show for it and then spend the balance of the money of the original budget so you wouldn't go on on having faster links go on on having the faster links because of better signalling and route improvements. you might need some small bits of track for bypass track to get your fast trains past your slow trains, kind thing. trains, that kind of thing. sensible that sensible improvements that are cost effective give the cost effective to give the northerners better service northerners a better service soon. not sometime never and not bankrupting the company in the country in the process. >> 30s you're still not very happy with the bank of england, john before i hand over john before i before i hand over to stop selling to jay, they should stop selling all at massive losses. >> they bought them badly. they paid much for for paid far too much for them. for once, i want them to be a bit more european. the european central bank made same central bank made the same mistake many mistake of buying too many bonds that were too expensive. they're saying let them mature and roll off minimise losses. the off to minimise the losses. the bank is maximising bank of england is maximising the the taxpayer and

the losses and the taxpayer and the losses and the taxpayer and the treasury the bill the treasury has sent the bill and don't think we should have and i don't think we should have to absolutely right. and i don't think we should have to and absolutely right. and i don't think we should have to and weibsolutely right. and i don't think we should have to and we shouldn't right. and i don't think we should have to and we shouldn't be ht. and i don't think we should have to and we shouldn't be paying >> and we shouldn't be paying the on the money the interest on the on the money printing. john redwood, thank you much. indeed that. you so much. indeed for that. goodness to be goodness me, i seem to be actually by by a pair actually surrounded by by a pair of knights from john of knights because from john redwood side, sir jacob redwood on one side, sir jacob on the other. jacob, a very good evening you. evening. so evening to you. good evening. so we've been reviewing sorts we've been reviewing all sorts of things , an idea that we could of things, an idea that we could have 100% electricity by wind energy is that a good idea when the wind doesn't blow? what's on your show, jacob? well, that's just not true. >> you have 100% of energy >> you can't have 100% of energy from wind energy. exactly >> let's that one. that >> so let's leave that one. that was university of oxford. >> the great. it's a great place you should ask the fellow of all souls. >> he knows more about it. but we're going to be starting off with migration and suella braverman the truth that braverman telling the truth that there agreement that there is this agreement that actually, if it were properly followed the followed by countries around the world, apparently world, would mean apparently nearly people would nearly 800 million people would have right refugee have the right to refugee status, just not status, which is just not essence. and we're also going to talk about i've got a very

important interview with sebastian lee, the son of jemmy lai. jim eli a british lai. jim eli is a british citizen held the chinese. citizen held by the chinese. he's for he's been in prison for a thousand days for standing up for the rights of hong kong. and he's british citizen . he he's only a british citizen. he has chinese citizenship . we has no chinese citizenship. we agreed with china that hong kong should be free for 50 years. the chinese are breaking the agreement. and what's the foreign office about foreign office doing about jemmy lee's sentence? foreign office doing about jemmy lee the sentence? foreign office doing about jemmy lee the square ntence? foreign office doing about jemmy lee the square root :e? foreign office doing about jemmy lee the square root of�* foreign office doing about jemmy lee the square root of not a lot. >> the square root of not a lot. >> the square root of not a lot. >> that is a shocking story that will be fascinating. i look forward going to forward with that. going back to the secretary's speech, the home secretary's speech, i mean, that three years mean, the idea that three years ago, any home secretary would have made that speech is extraordinary. shows the extraordinary. it shows the situation it's got. situation how bad it's got. my concern, about, concern, which i talked about, is what looks like in 24, is what this looks like in 24, 36 months. think we've got to 36 months. i think we've got to show leadership. show some real leadership. jacob. we've to say jacob. i think we've got to say either gets amended rapidly either this gets amended rapidly or because otherwise or we're out because otherwise it'll on for years and it'll drift on for years and years and the migrant problem will continue in the short term. >> but isn't refreshing >> but isn't it refreshing a politician to agreement politician pointing to agreement and just and saying, look, this just doesn't sense. it's all doesn't make sense. it's all very nice, warm words, but nobody in their right mind

thinks it could possibly be implemented . the same was true implemented. the same was true last week with the green changes, the government is finally recognising reality and saying there are things they may be nice to do, but they're not practical. and this i think, is really and it's a really important and it's a change the political weather. change in the political weather. >> it's really >> i think it's really important. the idea that you've >> i think it's really impatant. the idea that you've >> i think it's really impa 70 t. the idea that you've >> i think it's really impa 70 yeare idea that you've >> i think it's really impa 70 year old ea that you've >> i think it's really impa 70 year old agreement�*ve >> i think it's really impa 70 year old agreement that got a 70 year old agreement that is for purpose. it is still fit for purpose. it patently isn't. patently patently isn't. it patently needs tweaking . changing the needs tweaking. changing the whole situation has changed. it was originally by was originally set up by european for europeans and now we've got millions of economic migrants wanting to come into the into europe. >> that's absolutely right. and it isn't practical that the it just isn't practical that the numbers would overwhelm the whole of the uk . whole of the uk. >> unbelievable. have a great show, jacob. that'll be fascinating. that interview there. thank you very much to all my guests. it's been a great show. we've been talking about so important things. so many important things. jacob rees—mogg, jacob rees—mogg, rees—mogg, sir jacob rees—mogg, i should say, will coming up i should say, will be coming up next. back with you tomorrow next. i'm back with you tomorrow night farage on gb news. night here on farage on gb news. it's weather, the it's the weather, the temperatures rising, boxt solar,

proud sponsors of weather on . gb news. >> hello there and greg dewhurst. and welcome to your latest gb news weather forecast . we have storm agnes on the way , bringing some very strong winds, some disruptive weather, heavy rain in places too. so we can see that on the bigger picture, this deep area of low pressure will push across the uk as we head through wednesday. large coastal waves , some strong large coastal waves, some strong winds, particularly across the north and the west of the uk. heavy rain to this evening, fairly quiet out there. some clear spells remaining, showers gradually clearing as we head overnight. the cloud thickening from the southwest as that storm approaches but places dry approaches. but most places dry under the clearer skies. northern ireland scotland northern ireland and scotland dipping into figures. but dipping into single figures. but for , 12 to 14 celsius to for most, 12 to 14 celsius to take us into wednesday morning. so a dry start , but it won't so a dry start, but it won't take long before the cloud thickens. the wind picks up and the starts to move into the rain starts to move into western areas. this pushing north eastwards the day. north eastwards through the day. best sunshine holding

best of the sunshine holding on across also across north scotland and also south—east england. but we could see gusts of 70, possibly 80 miles an hour towards the north see gusts of 70, possibly 80 milethei hour towards the north see gusts of 70, possibly 80 milethe west, towards the north see gusts of 70, possibly 80 milethe west, combined1e north see gusts of 70, possibly 80 milethe west, combined with rth and the west, combined with heavy rain, will lead to some disruption. metal risk warnings in feeling here, in force. cool feeling day here, but sunshine, but in any sunshine, temperatures lifting around temperatures lifting to around 22 thursday . that 22 celsius into thursday. that storm system moves out the way andifs storm system moves out the way and it's a mixture of sunny spells and showers across the north and west. some heavy north and the west. some heavy bursts possible elsewhere, generally cloudy, some generally quite cloudy, some sunny in between . and sunny spells in between. and then later on, rain arriving from the west as we end the week and go into the weekend, it looks like further showers are possible, perhaps drier we possible, perhaps drier as we head to saturday. >> the temperatures rising , boxt >> the temperatures rising, boxt solar proud sponsors of weather on .

gb news. >> hello. good evening. it's me, jacob rees—mogg on state of the

nafion jacob rees—mogg on state of the nation tonight meet the home secretary has railed against the refugee convention, which defies us an estimated 780 million people potentially as refugees across the world. there is something fundamentally dishonest about this agreement. and if we are serious about solving the migrant crisis, it isfime solving the migrant crisis, it is time that it was rewritten . is time that it was rewritten. quiz custodiet ipsos custodes. or who will guard the guards themselves while the fca was supposedly busy looking into political de—banking and pretending not to find any evidence of such, it was issuing diversity and insurance and inclusion targets to banks and insurers. but wasn't diversity and inclusion the guise used by natwest for de—banking nigel farage of all the disastrous legacies of the pandemic and lockdown, perhaps the worst is the effect on britain's labour market. nearly 5.5 million working age britons are on out of work benefits and new figures have revealed were at the highest level of sick days in a decade, with employees taking an average days off average of nearly eight days off average of nearly eight days off a and it's even in a year. and it's even worse in the