. 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 overfrom ;ed gas lng bizarrely, don't want to be overfrom the gas lng bizarrely, don't want to be overfrom the us. gas lng bizarrely, don't want to be overfrom the us. they gas lng bizarrely, don't want to be overfrom the us. they wantng bizarrely, don't want to be overfrom 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 to christopher hope had to say to christopher hope earlier today on this of earlier today on this issue of hs2 . hs2. >> you might get a legal case because there's no consultation where all options would definitely would 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 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 public plus it's the public sector. plus it's whatever happened to the days when, palmerston put it when, as lord palmerston put it , a british in whatever , a british subject in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and strong arm of england and the strong arm of england will protect him against injustice and wrong. today marks

the 1,000th day of the imprisonment of british citizen jemmy lai in hong kong as he faces spending the rest of his life endurance while for the crime of being in favour of democracy. see, i spoke to his son earlier who is asking why the british government isn't defending its citizens . state of defending its citizens. state of the nation starts now . the nation starts now. i'll be joined by an illustrious panel this evening. alleged former tory mp and criminal barrister gerry hayes, and the author and broadcaster michael crick. as always, i want to hear from you. it's a crucial part of the programme. um, email me mail mog gbnews.com. now it's time for the news of the day with polly middlehurst . polly middlehurst. >> jacob thank you. good evening. well, the top story is that the home secretary has said today migrants arriving in small boats have put an immeasurable

pressure on the uk's asylum system and the british taxpayer delivering a speech in washington in the united states, suella braverman also argued that being discriminated against for being gay or a woman wasn't enough to qualify for asylum. >> um, where individuals are being persecuted. it is right that we offer sanctuary , but we that we 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 alone is sufficient to qualify for protection . protection. >> labour reacted with the shadow home secretary, yvette cooper , saying the government cooper, saying the government had failed to set out any new plans to tackle the small boats crisis 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 in the asylum system. sir ed davey says his party would make nhs and cancer treatments a top priority if his party were in power . the liberal democrat power. the liberal democrat leader told his party's conference in bournemouth today that the liberal democrats will rescue the nhs with more gp's, more carers and greater investor 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 . the current government. >> i still think we could be doing so much better on cancer for far too many people are still waiting far too long for a diagnosis or to start treatment after being diagnosed used and i'm afraid to say they've been let down and forgotten by this

conservative government . conservative government. >> the mayor of greater manchester has said he will take legal action against the government if the northern leg of hs2 is scrapped. andy burnham says labour will build hs2 if it wins the election because a failure to do so would be massively implicating 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 and water companies will have to return £114 million to customers after falling short of set standards . the regulator, ofwat standards. 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 is the company that must pay back the most £101 million. southern water is next. they've got to pay back £43 million as ulez 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. channelin news. this is britain's news. channel in 1951, following the second world war, britain became a signatory of the refugee convention, which set out the rights of those seeking asylum and the responsibilities of the signatories granting asylum. >> specifically stipulated >> it's specifically stipulated that it applied to those being persecuted for reasons of race, religion or nationality , religion or nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. quote as a result of events occurring before the 1st of january 1951. in other words , it was particularly in response to the holocaust and the other horrors the world witnessed in the 1940s during the second world war. however in 1967, this stipulation was removed, which meant that it appued removed, which meant that it applied to all contexts. was no longer confined to the events of

the 1940s. but as the world has increasingly globalised , as the increasingly globalised, as the home secretary pointed out today , this revised 1967 definition, now applies to hundreds of millions of people , and the millions of people, and the agreement doesn't account for the fact that migrant smuggling has become a business of organised crime on a global scale. there is widespread belief that the main problem with our asylum system is the lack of safe and legal routes and if any, we had this infrastructure in place , we infrastructure in place, we would solve the channel boats crisis and more broadly, the refugee crisis is unfortunately under the definition we are held to by the convention when we could potentially expect to accept hundreds of millions of people. now, of course, the majority of people that fit this definition wouldn't necessarily apply definition wouldn't necessarily apply asylum in the uk. but apply for asylum in the uk. but there's no denying that if we provided avenues across the world for these applicants, we would see huge numbers trying to come here and to problems that flow from this to very practical problems . one, the domestic problems. one, the domestic infrastructure , housing, infrastructure, housing, hospitals and schools would

crumple under the sheer weight of numbers. and two, the existing population wouldn't accept it. it would eject any government that tried to do this . and the numbers are truly vast . if we had such routes and estimated 40 million people are in modern slavery, 89 million people are displaced 27 million people are displaced 27 million people are displaced 27 million people are considered refugees by the un . and in addition, the by the un. and in addition, the centre for policy studies estimates that when you add all of this up, those who fit the claim to the refugee convention definition, it would be about 780 million people who could have a case for asylum in the uk and this is patently absurd and there's something fundamentally dishonest about being a signatory to an agreement that if it actually applied, you would not be able to deliver on. and there are 146 signatories to this convention on, but not one of them, including our own country, the united kingdom can possibly be serious about its full implicate actions. the definition is so broad that it

appues definition is so broad that it applies to hundreds of millions of people , but none of the of people, but none of the signatories could accept that such numbers should xl bully. we want our politicians and our treaties, to be honest and practical. well, the only way we can do that is by rewriting the convention and the home secretary has done well to point out its current absurdity as always, i want to hear from you. don't forget to let me know your thoughts. and you know the email by now. mail morgue at gbnews.com this evening. i'm delighted by oliver delighted to be joined by oliver westmoreland , a senior westmoreland, a senior immigration lawyer at gsn immigration . oliver, thank you immigration. oliver, thank you for coming in. don't you think that if you have an agreement that if you have an agreement thatis that if you have an agreement that is binding in international law, it ought at least to be practical? >> well , jacob, i'm a lawyer. >> well, jacob, i'm a lawyer. i see things in a legal way. if you agree to an agreement, you agree? i think that that the narrative behind what you say is that the agreement doesn't

necessarily work. and you imply that we could rewrite the agreement. we can't. that we could rewrite the agreement. we can't . we're one, agreement. we can't. we're one, as you said. i think accurately, one of 146 countries that signed the agreement . the home the agreement. the home secretary can make representations that the agreement doesn't work. it's not practical. but we can't rewrite rewrite the agreement . we can rewrite the agreement. we can make representations as to why it's no longer practical. but as a lawyer , if the agreement is a lawyer, if the agreement is there, it's there . and the home there, it's there. and the home office has to operate the agreement as it stands. >> as it stands. >> as it stands. >> okay. excepting that, let's just hear moment what the just hear for a moment what the home had to say and home secretary had to say and then come back that point. yes >> when the refugee convention was conferred was signed, it conferred protection on some 2 million people in europe . according to people in europe. according to analysis by nick timothy and carl williams. for the centre for policy studies. it now confers the notional right to move to another country upon at least 780 million people. it is therefore incumbent upon

politician jones and thought leaders to ask whether the refugee convention and the way it has come to be interpreted through our courts is fit for our modern age or in need of reform . reform. >> well, the point you make a very fair point, that we'd have to get 146, 145 other countries to get 146, 145 other countries to agree to change it. but normally agreements have a means of pulling out. is there any means of resigning from the convention? >> very easily. jacob the refugee convention was not embedded in british law in any really strong way. the european convention on human rights was it was embedded by the human rights act 1998, the refugee convention was not embedded in that strong way. it was embedded here and there in some rules and some rules tweaked. it could be easily tweaked, tweaked out because we have a dualist system that we have international agreements, but they don't have domestic effect until they're passed by parliament. >> correct. >> correct. >> we can sign international

agreements. they're not binding on us until our parliament has agreed them . agreed to them. >> and is quite important >> and this is quite important because ministers can use the royal prerogative sign royal prerogative to sign agreements but agreements. yes, but they obviously can't change domestic law. correct. so are you basically saying that not that you disagree, that it ought to be changed, but that if we change we ought to do it in change it, we ought to do it in a legal and proper process? >> you're absolutely right. i don't lawyer, i try and be don't as a lawyer, i try and be a technocrat. i try not to have an opinion. i know a lot of lawyers do. and they become very famous try and famous lefty lawyers. i try and be a technocrat. i try not to have opinions, but we have to follow law as it is. but follow the law as it is. but i can tell you, if it was politically acceptable, we could withdraw from refugee withdraw from the refugee convention very easily. >> that's really quite >> so that's really quite important. and what mechanism would we use? who would we? we'd have to tell the other signatories or we'd just have to pass some legislation. pass some domestic legislation. >> particularly >> i don't think particularly i have anyone really that have to tell anyone really that probably want to know, but probably they want to know, but we can tweak few immigration probably they want to know, but we caand eak few immigration probably they want to know, but we caand things. aw immigration probably they want to know, but we ca and things. aw icould'ation rules and things. we could easily escape from the refugee convention if it politically convention if it was politically acceptable, a political

issue. >> well, let's stick to the legal issue, because this is really interesting because often when talk about when people talk about international law, they think that like the tablets that it's like the tablets received by moses, that it's unalterable , set in stone. unalterable, set in stone. governments can't do anything about it. but you're saying actually the government, if it has political will, can do has the political will, can do something about this in a very simple process. >> you know as well as i do, jake, if you sit in parliament and, know parliament and, you know parliament makes laws, legislation and, you know parliament makes l.there legislation and, you know parliament makes l.there is legislation and, you know parliament makes l.there is no legislation and, you know parliament makes l.there is no doubt legislation and, you know parliament makes l.there is no doubt thatjislation and, you know parliament makes l.there is no doubt that primary , there is no doubt that primary legislation the strongest legislation is the strongest form legislation form of legislation in this country. can pass any country. parliament can pass any law this would be a law it wants. this would be a very easy law , easy for very easy law, easy for parliament to pass a law that we are no longer bound by the refugee convention. this can be doneif refugee convention. this can be done if the political will exists, which might not, but it could. exists, which might not, but it couand then we would. this would >> and then we would. this would still be compatible with our international still be compatible with our internaticwe really have >> well, we don't really have them because we don't that's that's really interesting that's the really interesting point that most people that's the really interesting point know. most people don't know. >> i think assume that the >> i think they assume that the 1951 gives us 1951 convention gives us international obligations. 1951 convention gives us interbutonal obligations. 1951 convention gives us interbut you're obligations. 1951 convention gives us interbut you're saying.igations. 1951 convention gives us interbut you're saying they )ns. yes, but you're saying they don't unless we wish to.

>> a lot of people , your >> a lot of people, your greengrocer, the person you meet in the pub will think that it doesn't work like that. international is only what doesn't work like that. inis'national is only what doesn't work like that. inis . ational is only what doesn't work like that. inis . we nal is only what doesn't work like that. inis . we are is only what doesn't work like that. inis . we are not is only what doesn't work like that. inis . we are not signed what doesn't work like that. inis . we are not signed upiat doesn't work like that. inis . we are not signed up to it is. we are not signed up to treaties we've signed really , if treaties we've signed really, if we wanted to escape from it , we we wanted to escape from it, we could escape from it very easily. there is no legal comeback, not in international law national law anywhere law or national law or anywhere , and this fundamental. , and this is fundamental. >> so when the government says we can't do this because of international law, not international law, it's not actually . they just need to actually true. they just need to do they can get on and do do it. they can get on and do it. put an act before it. they could put an act before parliament bill, before parliament. absolutely parliament bill, before par|backnt. absolutely parliament bill, before par|back after)solutely parliament bill, before par|back after the jtely parliament bill, before par|back after the party get back after the party conferences, european convention on rights. on human rights. >> different. that's >> this is different. that's been in british law by been enshrined in british law by the human act. we can the human rights act. we can make act parliament. make a new act of parliament. i'm saying we should. i'm not saying we should. we can make of to parliament make a new act of to parliament replace and rescind the human rights it. we rights act and that's it. we escaped successfully, and that is with that is more difficult because convention because the refugee convention has a strange history. it was only incorporated in a funny way over several years and you have to go into case law to discover

how it's incorporated. >> well , oliver, i how it's incorporated. >> well, oliver, i think that's absolutely brilliant and clear. i do my legal understanding standing of what we can actually do.thank standing of what we can actually do. thank you so much. was the most helpful lawyer we've ever had my program in had on my program in immigration. >> through . >> we cut through. >> we cut through. >> you. i hope you'll >> thank you. i hope you'll come on be so clear. thank on again to be so clear. thank you. anyway don't let you. anyway don't forget to let me know you think. mel. me know what you think. mel. margaret gbnews.com. after the margaret gb news.com. after the break, asking panel, break, i'll be asking my panel, how the end of how are we facing the end of merritt? merritt theocracy? plus, british government plus, can the british government no trusted to protect no longer be trusted to protect its .

radio. >> welcome back . i'm still jacob >> welcome back. i'm still jacob rees—mogg, and this is state of the nation. you've been getting in touch with your thoughts, jill. great speech from suella, but it won't stop the boats. matt it's important keep our matt it's important we keep our borders for those need. borders open for those in need. change the ni the un convention would be barbaric . ellie we're a would be barbaric. ellie we're a compassionate country and we need to remain so. yes, but we can't take 780 million people. we have to be realistic. chris custodiet ipsos custody, as you know this off by heart by now, who will watch the watchmen? who guards the guards themselves? the question asked by the roman poet juvenal in the first century. but suspect he may century. but i suspect he may never have expected to be quoted in the context of the death of meritocracy , because he wouldn't meritocracy, because he wouldn't have heard of the word meritocracy. financial meritocracy. the financial conduct the conduct authority, one of the most of the financial most powerful of the financial regulators in this country, disgraced last week when disgraced itself last week when

it report which it released a report which suggested politician was had suggested no politician was had been d'abancourt quote , been d'abancourt quote, primarily for his or her political views. but the report bizarrely didn't look at nigel farage's case, the highest profile. one of all. well perhaps one of the most stark revelations of the whole de—banking affair is that it showed how ridiculous corporate wokery is not west whilst it indulged in the sinister rhetoric of diversity and inclusion , proved that it had no inclusion, proved that it had no regard for diversity, diversity and was quite keen on exclusion in scenarios such as this one looks to the regulator for help, specifically the fca. that's its job. but lo and behold, it came to pass that the fca, along with the pra has proved have proved themselves to be as much part of themselves to be as much part of the problem as the natwest yesterday it issued new diversity and inclusion targets for banks and insurers on the type of people it ought to employ as well as developing a diversity and inclusion strategy and to collect, to report and to disclose data against the regulator's targets . this is the

regulator's targets. this is the death of meritocracy . to get on death of meritocracy. to get on in the city, you will now have to be a quota filler and firms will face extra costly bureaucracy and additional committees and form filling to show that they're politically correct rather than financially competent . well, i'm now joined competent. well, i'm now joined by narinder kaur, who is something of a fan of diversity in the workplace . narinder why in the workplace. narinder why do you think all this workplace wokery is such a good idea ? wokery is such a good idea? >> because i think every reporter has shown that diversity works. it's productive for any company and it's vital for any company and it's vital for any company and it's vital for a community or any organisation to reflect their customer base. and why do you think it's not important? jacob actually should be the question. well the issue here is that diversity and inclusion got nigel farage de—banking didn't it? >> it was exclusion because they didn't like his political opinions . opinions. >> we don't know if that's the case.i >> we don't know if that's the case. i think that sometimes is meritocracy . word is often used meritocracy. word is often used as a smokescreen in progressing diversity in a workplace. would you agree with that ? because i

you agree with that? because i feel that this y can meritocracy and diversity not go hand in hand?ifs and diversity not go hand in hand? it's almost as if you get diversity. therefore you're somehow getting less of a better person . and i think that's person. and i think that's wrong. if you have a meritocracy, you will get diversity automatic . diversity automatic. >> you don't need to have a diversity and inclusion strategy, a true meritocracy does not need a diversity and inclusion strategy by definition. but unfortunately, that doesn't always exist in the workplace. >> and nikhil rathi , the ceo of >> and nikhil rathi, the ceo of the fca, has said in this proposal that actually data suggests that it's not working. what they're doing at the moment, it's not working . they moment, it's not working. they are not retaining the best talent , they are not getting the talent, they are not getting the best talent and diversity is absolutely vital for their for their profits. actually for the bank to do better. remember, jacob, this isn't about them just being nice people , people. just being nice people, people. at the end of the day, this is a business and they want to make more money. >> that's right. the banks want to for money the to make more for money the national wants to make

national sector, wants to make more money, and therefore it wants employ the best people. wants to employ the best people. it of it doesn't need another layer of bureaucracy by the bureaucracy forced on it by the fca, which is useless anyway to make the best people. make it employ the best people. they're very driven in the financial sector to make money. yes but they do need this extra layer. >> actually, because this proposal and everything that goes with it, because it's shown that what they're doing so far isn't working their customer base. everything is about customer base shows you customer base shows that you have to reflect what's going on in organisation listen in your organisation, listen to what's outside why what's going on outside and why would a board of say, would you have a board of say, ten white men ten middle class white men coming the same decision coming to the same decision again? and again and again when actually diversity proves that when you have, you know, women there, people of colour there and disabled people there actually they come to better decisions for the community as a whole and for their for their customer base . you can't just customer base. you can't just have ten. >> surely the evidence is that you do best if you pick the best people. >> well, and that if you are completely blind to these characteristics and that setting targets by the fca is an

appalling approach. it's a reverse discrimination . reverse discrimination. >> no, i completely disagree with that, jacob. and i think you're being blind to the truth of the matter here, that actually these people don't always level playing always get that level playing field. get our foot in field. we don't get our foot in the you know, my son wants the door. you know, my son wants to go into banking. i know just by the very nature of his name on a cv, he won't get to the top of that and he's had of that pile. and he's had disadvantages that other disadvantages in that that other people include people haven't. and i include working males as working class white males as well. don't get the well. they don't get the advantages life . and it's not advantages in life. and it's not advantages in life. and it's not a level playing field. jacob you must that . thank you must understand that. thank you for time. for your time. >> given you the last word >> i've given you the last word on this occasion, but next time you into studio, you come into the studio, i might have last word for might have the last word for myself. i'm now joined by my brilliant panel barrister and former hayes, and former tory mp jerry hayes, and author broadcaster arguer with ms michael craig. ms dewberry michael craig. >> oh yes, that was quite exciting. >> i hope you'll be a bit better behaved today, but i hope you'll behaved today, but i hope you'll be better. well, i'll tell you my best, but you're always courteous and well, let's not

probably shouldn't well informed , but isn't the fca and the pra getting this wrong that the financial services sector is the sector that is most driven by pure merit? because it's what makes it the most money? >> well, i came into this studio thinking this was bonkers , but thinking this was bonkers, but i've just listened to narinder and actually i'm reminded of the appalling things that have gone on in the past and the appalling ways in which people from certain had certain backgrounds have had a wonderful risen up the system in life and other people from other backgrounds haven't. and like her, i agree that that the one of the reasons why we need diversity in all our institutions is to get the best out of people and if you say i mean, for instance, when i joined itn as a trainee 43 years ago and i only learnt this in edward stirton's book, the other day, they had a policy at itn of excluding anybody from the traineeship who hadn't gone to oxford or cambridge . so i was oxford or cambridge. so i was the beneficiary of an appalling discrimination against people from other universities. and i'm

sure the same has happened with with women , with people from with women, with people from ethnic minority backgrounds as people who are gay and that shouldn't happen. now, in this particular case, i don't think it should be the fca that's doing it. they should concentrate on pursuing crooked bankers, which they're not very good at. and no wonder private eye calls them the financial up authority or the fundamentally complicit authority . get on with complicit authority. get on with what you're meant to be doing rather trying to expand what you're meant to be doing ratheempire.rying to expand what you're meant to be doing ratheempire. but] to expand what you're meant to be doing ratheempire. but ito expand what you're meant to be doing ratheempire. but it iszxpand what you're meant to be doing ratheempire. but it is an and your empire. but it is an important issue. and narendra is made of very powerful made a lot of very powerful points . points. >> jerry, i don't think she >> but jerry, i don't think she has actually, with the greatest respect . respect. >> oh, no, don't give me that phrase. you don't have to give me respect. >> wrong, and >> completely wrong, crick. and the people get muddled the reason is people get muddled with and equality of with equality and equality of opportunity . we can't make opportunity. we can't make everyone equal. yes life isn't allowing a level playing field for anybody , but give people the for anybody, but give people the opportunity community to do well and pick the best people. but this is this is discrimination .

this is this is discrimination. young white boys. well in school, they're falling behind. >> that's what worries me. it becomes a means of discriminating. yes. it also becomes a means of trying to pretend that other failings in the state, in the system haven't happened.so the state, in the system haven't happened. so we're not educating people as well as we should know. there are problems with our state education system. now, if make it up by saying if you make it up by saying banks must have quotas, but that's answer. the that's not the answer. the answer improve the answer is to improve the education system, isn't it? well i think whatever do, it i think whatever you do, it should you shouldn't just be should be you shouldn't just be picking sector the picking on one sector for the city and saying and city of london and saying and using their regulator to impose rules that you're not imposing on the rest of society. >> but i do think that if the state has to think carefully about this and certainly encourage good practises, that encourage good practises, that encourage diversity and also you've got to be careful what you've got to be careful what you mean by diversity. for instance, in the past we used the term bame and without can't use it now without , without, use it now without, without, without. and what has happened is a lot of asians have done

really well, but a lot of black people haven't. and so you've got to put more thought into it. but think the intentions are but i think the intentions are good, it's not the fca good, but it's not the fca that should it. should be doing it. >> look what's happened in >> but look what's happened in american universities where they actively discriminated against people from jewish jewish background, which is so disgraceful because they have had what they call positive discrimination but positive discrimination but positive discrimination is still discrimination is still discrimination . discrimination. >> but there are things you can do, like when you're if you're the board of a bank or the nominations committee of the board of a bank. and you think, right, well, we've got ten men on shouldn't we be on our board. shouldn't we be putting little bit more effort putting a little bit more effort into encouraging some to into encouraging some women to apply? they apply? i'm not saying they necessarily have five apply? i'm not saying they necessa and have five apply? i'm not saying they necessa and five have five apply? i'm not saying they necessa and five men, ve five apply? i'm not saying they necessa and five men, butive apply? i'm not saying they necessaand five men, but you put women and five men, but you put more effort into encouraging people to apply that your board is and will help is lacking and they will help that board understand things that board understand things that men won't understand that ten men won't understand and that white men that i think is perfectly fair point that you want to encourage people from different backgrounds to apply , different backgrounds to apply, but then you want to appoint the best person who has applied on

their merit rather than to meet a quota that you've been told to meet regulator. meet by your regulator. >> course. >> of course. >> of course. >> i mean, have been i don't >> i mean, have you been i don't know mps have do know whether mps have to do this. maybe ministers had to. have one these? have you been on one of these? di diversity courses? >> a course, the house >> i went on a course, the house of commons, which said not to throw your stapler at your parliamentary assistant. well, that's well, i've that's a good idea. well, i've never been tempted to throw in staple diets, but that's don't let's don't be throwing it at the chief whip. >> yeah but no, i went to one of these because all barristers have to do it. and this, this, this woman said, oh yeah, this woman look , we all know woman said, look, we all know that boris johnson's government are fascists, don't we are all fascists, don't we? we all that. i thought, all know that. and i thought, whoa, just a moment. no, no, no. this is not what it's all about. microaggression means that we have tipped the other way . we have tipped the other way. we don't want to go back to the 70s . we don't want to go back to the 80s. you just look at the 80s. and you just look at the 80s. and you just look at the sort of the casual racialism that was there . we don't want that was there. we don't want that. >> but you see, that's where i

challenge what michael narinder kaur saying, i think kaur was saying, because i think society fundamentally kaur was saying, because i think society i'dundamentally kaur was saying, because i think society i'duncastonished if changed. i'd be astonished if there employer in the there were an employer in the land didn't want to employ land who didn't want to employ the best particularly in the best people, particularly in financial services and i absolutely accept that might not have true. certainly have been true. almost certainly wasn't 1970. but 1980 or wasn't true in 1970. but 1980 or in 1980. but it now is. and therefore the fca and the pra, they're just a bit out of date. i agree with that, boss. >> and they will find that many of the best people are , if not of the best people are, if not a majority, the best people are women and many of them certainly many of the best people are from ethnic backgrounds, although there will be variations there. and something has to be done about. you have to think about how are you going to deal with that. and so in way, they are that. and so in a way, they are they are a bit behind the times. and of course a of this has and of course a lot of this has got work its way through got to work its way through because it's only perhaps people in in 20s and in their 20 and in their 20s and 30s there's been more 30s where there's been more fairness know, they're fairness and you know, they're no, yet of no, they're not yet chairman of the bank as it were. >> but you devalue the currency, you undermine because you

you undermine women because you say she's only there because she's you undermine she's a woman. you undermine black. i agree because black. i agree with that because he's because he's only there because the other think you've got other thing i think you've got to is what you do to bear in mind is what you do about women taking time to off for maternity reasons. about women taking time to off for okay.nity reasons. >> okay. >> okay. >> we may have to discuss that on occasion there. the on another occasion there. the one me is one thing that does strike me is it's the best people don't it's clear the best people don't go into financial regulators because you make more go into financial regulators becausyif you make more go into financial regulators becausyif do you make more go into financial regulators becausyif do the make more go into financial regulators becausyif do the real> first showers ease overnight with clear skies. for many of us, a fine start to wednesday, but then storm agnes turns up with the potential for disruptive wind and rain. still

some rain going across much of scotland and northern ireland as well as northern england through the evening. but eventually the showers become confined to central and the far northwest of scotland and most places will be clear. then overnight, some high cloud drifting in by the end of the night, turning things milder in the south, but rather fresh start to day in scotland, start to the day in scotland, northern ireland and northern england. light winds at first as well, but storm agnes is moving in quickly by this stage, bringing damaging winds much bringing damaging winds to much of ireland spreading of ireland before spreading those very disruptive winds into irish sea coastal areas. by the afternoon . so after the early afternoon. so after the early sunshine , it turns increasingly sunshine, it turns increasingly windy through the morning. those winds then peaking in the afternoon and evening. the risk in northern and western parts of the uk of 50 to 60 mile per hour wind gusts and around exposed irish sea coasts 75 mile per irish sea coasts of 75 mile per hour wind gusts. so dangerous coastal disrupt coastal conditions disrupt transport and some heavy rain as well could cause impacts for central and southern scotland .

central and southern scotland. much of that clears through dunng much of that clears through during thursday day, but it stays windy in the north with the further risk of coastal gales, bright skies further south and lighter winds, some showers still going on friday. a fine start to the weekend, though, with high pressure building for a time. >> looks like things are heating up. boxt boilers are proud sponsors of weather on gb news

radio. >> welcome back. our main jacob rees—mogg , and you've been rees—mogg, and you've been getting in touch with your mail mogs. stephen, what about a general referendum on the migrant crisis? i'm not sure what the question would be, and i think we know what people think. just need to it think. we just need to put it into practise robert wonderful to hear a tory minister stand up for uk and its for for the uk and its people for a change. i think suella will want a lot of friends from her speech. mal why can't the rules

be changed to immigrants having to be able to demonstrate who they are to be considered for asylum ? and lucy diversity is asylum? and lucy diversity is a is important. well said narinder kaur diversity is very much the way forward and we should be proud of this. so michael, lucy and orinda are as one now this sceptred isle may not have entirely shaken off its moniker the sick man of europe. the number of absences taken by british workers because of sickness is the highest it's been for a decade. a study conducted by the chartered institute for professional development analysed sickness, absence and the state of employee wellbeing across 918 organisations. on average , organisations. on average, employers have taken 7.86 sick days in the past year, an increase from the previous pre—pandemic pandemic 5.8 days. it's even higher in the public sector . but i it's even higher in the public sector. but i had a brilliant taxi driver today called david who said to me, there aren't many sick cab drivers . well, of

many sick cab drivers. well, of course there aren't because they're self employed. they can't afford days off. however this is not the only problem plaguing the british workforce. it is a lethal cocktail of sick leave absence coupled with some 5.4 million people currently on out of work benefits this year. but fear not. one local council might have found a solution in court. the time of work down to a four day week at the expense of the british taxpayer. oh, and then fiddle the figures to support a study saying that it's all wonderfully well . all worked wonderfully well. well, or perhaps not. still with me to discuss this is my panel. you know who they are? it's jerry hayes and michael crick. jerry hayes and michael crick. jerry you're a barrister yourself , jerry you're a barrister yourself, employed. do you take a lot of sick days off? well i'll ask you a question. >> 47 years i've been doing this job. how many days sick do you think i've taken off? >> probably very close to zero. >> probably very close to zero. >> 2 to 2 because i couldn't >> to 2 to 2 because i couldn't speak. i had an abscess in my mouth because, as you know, i couldn't sickie . the couldn't pull a sickie. the trouble and i'm not against trouble is, and i'm not against the public sector, obviously, a

lot people say they have lot of people say they have a right many days off right to take so many days off per year because they're sick and problem. i mean, it's and it's a problem. i mean, it's and it's a problem. i mean, it's a better problem we a far better problem that we have than unemployment that we had the in the 1980s. i had in in the in the 1980s. i think the government's doing their address this at their best to address this at their best to address this at the they're trying to the moment. they're trying to get people back on covid actually a of a problem, actually is a bit of a problem, but there's been something on long covid papers long covid in the papers today suggests that there isn't as much covid as people thought. much on covid as people thought. well, then the day before there was. don't know. was. we just we just don't know. >> michael, do you an >> michael, do you take an entitled of days off entitled number of sick days off every year? >> well, self—employed as >> well, i'm self—employed as well but when i was well these days, but when i was employed have had employed, i, i must have had about six days off in 40 years. yeah, but apart from, i'm afraid, which ruined it. i was off for three months with a bad back on, you know, lying on the floor. and i couldn't do my normal well, actually, even then, i did sort of research on then, i did sort of research on the phone lying on the floor. but i mean, obviously, i mean, i'm, you know, i've been of good health, so far in life. touch wood and but my body is a temple

of god . thank you . crikey all of god. thank you. crikey all very well to live that one down. am i? but let me answer. try and answer the question. i mean, clearly there is a lot more stress about people. there is a lot of mental, a lot of mental health problems right now. adults and children . and so adults and children. and so i think a lot of the problems are there. i mean, you mentioned the cab drivers, also a part of this study. and by the way, these figures are only the worst in ten years. in other words, we had situation had this situation that's absolute true. ten years ago and they and then they got they improved and then they got worse again. and of worse again. so but and one of the that the study the other things that the study is that people are more likely to take time off sick in big organisations, than organisations, ones than in small ones i suppose because they feel well, big they feel well, the big organisation cope . but organisation can can cope. but of course the more people take time they're time off falsely because they're sick, the more pressure they're putting on the people who are still there and the more that they may be inclined to do the same or the may the more they may get stressful. so it's very complicated i do complicated situation. but i do

think an element of think there is an element of skiving to be honest. but i also think got to be a bit more think we've got to be a bit more sympathetic the sympathetic to some of the greater problems people greater problems that people have. >> always the tough thing >> it's always the tough thing that there clearly that because there is clearly some element skiving, some element of skiving, therefore people who are genuinely less genuinely unwell get less sympathy than they deserve when they . absolutely they are unwell. absolutely right. think the right. and why do you think the pubuc right. and why do you think the public higher still ? public sector is higher still? is it the sense of entitlement? because it's not their money. it's not their it's as it's not their money. it's as simple as that. >> well, may be. >> well, they may be. >> well, they may be. >> may be. i mean, a lot of >> they may be. i mean, a lot of parts of the public sector. well, the health service, the pressures now pressures are enormous. now they're large they're understaffed in large parts service. parts of the health service. they get enough doctors, they can't get enough doctors, enough know, and enough nurses, you know, and we're especially so during covid. and it's not surprising that many of them are sick and they end up leaving money. >> but there are lots of money. >> but there are lots of money. >> i know it's public money and we've of private sector areas are very, very stressful. >> so it's not only in the pubuc >> so it's not only in the public sector. >> i know and there are lots of there are lots of public sector jobs that aren't stressful and, you know, it's varied. yes.

>> is stressful. there >> my job is stressful. there are barristers. there's only 2200 barristers left 2200 criminal barristers left now , and the stress is enormous. now, and the stress is enormous. i've doing this long i've been doing this a long time, never been so time, but i've never been so stressed. i've never been so stressed. i've never been so stressed . you know, michael, stressed. you know, michael, i said, you give that said, you don't give that impression on. impression when you come on. >> you're good at >> you're very good at disguising it. >> well, i'm very we're all very good disguising things. >> well, i'm very we're all very goobut disguising things. >> well, i'm very we're all very goo but also uising things. >> well, i'm very we're all very goo but also you're things. >> well, i'm very we're all very goo but also you're thi a|s. >> well, i'm very we're all very goo but also you're thi a time >> well, i'm very we're all very goobut also you're thi a time in >> but also you're at a time in life, see where you've got life, you see where you've got fewer worries than you would have you were in your have had when you were in your 20s, 40s. really. 20s, 30s and 40s. really. i think so, yeah. think you think so, yeah. i think you because you you don't need because you don't you don't need to work probably you more to work probably you can more pick and choose. you can try pick and choose. you can you try and days off and do you think days off relates to how much people enjoy their work. >> i mean i've always enjoyed the always enjoyed. the work i've always enjoyed. therefore doing it. >> yeah. yeah. and there's a lot of in this world do of people in this world who do awful jobs, it's very awful jobs, which it's very difficult conceive how difficult to conceive of how you would enjoy know, and would enjoy and, you know, and i'm if i did some, some of i'm sure if i did some, some of these awful jobs, i would be taking off or at least taking days off sick or at least i'd be much more inclined to be genuinely feeling to do so. >> there is also the feeling >> but there is also the feeling of you're allowed

of entitlement. you're allowed a certain of days sick certain number of days off sick when it's not your money. well it's your that's the it's not your money, that's the thing. and you think your job is secure. and this be why the secure. and this may be why the private lower levels, private sector has lower levels, because private because people know in a private company that they do company that if they don't do the and company doesn't the work and the company doesn't do the job not be do its sales, the job may not be there. you've got to be careful, though. >> you don't want to encourage people come they are people to come in when they are sick and particularly if they've got diseases and got contagious diseases and actually infecting the rest of the workforce. the real dilemma is colds. you know, if you've got really bad cold, you go got a really bad cold, you go into everybody else into work, infect everybody else into work, infect everybody else in they feel in the office, they all feel rotten. productivity reduced. rotten. productivity is reduced. i always used to go to i mean, i always used to go to work when i had cold, work when i had a cold, but i always felt bit bad about it always felt a bit bad about it in cold, of course. >> yeah. my children, that's right. >> and you take two aspirin and carry on regardless, don't you. sure. >> yeah. but if you're, if you're going to make everybody else office, if you're else in the office, if you're working and they working closely with and they all having a cold and as all end up having a cold and as all end up having a cold and as a work as a result, they don't work as well, it would have been a result, they don't work as well, if it would have been a result, they don't work as well, if you it would have been a result, they don't work as well, if you had)uld have been a result, they don't work as well, if you had takenave been a result, they don't work as well, if you had taken the been a result, they don't work as well, if you had taken the day| off. >> final word on four day week and then fiddling the figures. this is just a joke, isn't it?

>> it was stupid. it was >> it was just stupid. it was liberalsay more. come on. do >> i'd say no more. come on. do you to defend liberal you want to defend the liberal democrats? you're here for balance. >> not particularly. i mean, jolly have week jolly will have a four day week in very it needs in the weather is very it needs to thought through more to be thought through a lot more carefully how we get a four to be thought through a lot more careweek. iow we get a four to be thought through a lot more careweek. all we get a four to be thought through a lot more careweek. all right.t a four to be thought through a lot more careweek. all right. we'll four to be thought through a lot more careweek. all right. we'll have day week. all right. we'll have a six week. a six day week. >> thank you much to my >> thank you very much to my panel >> thank you very much to my panel. today the panel. coming up today is the 1,000th imprisonment of 1,000th day of imprisonment of a british citizen in a chinese communist prison. and the british hasn't even british government hasn't even bothered call his

>> you're listening to gb news radio . radio. >> lord palmerston famously said , and as the roman in days of old held himself free from indignity when he could say civis romanus sum. so also a british subject in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of england will protect him against injustice

and wrong . jemmy lai is a hong and wrong. jemmy lai is a hong kong businessman and british citizen currently imprisoned in hong kong. facing life in prison for breaking hong kong's controversial national security law . though born controversial national security law. though born in mainland china , lai escaped to hong kong china, lai escaped to hong kong at the age of 12 as a stowaway on a boat in 1959. when hong kong was still a british colony , he began working as a child labourer in a fabric factory . it labourer in a fabric factory. it wasn't long before he had set up his own garment empire with 2400 shops across 30 countries. but in 1989, when the infamous scenes of the tiananmen square massacres made headlines across the world, lai pivoted to the world of media and politics, setting up his own newspaper, apple daily , and becoming apple daily, and becoming a staunch advocate of democracy in hong kong and a fierce critic of the chinese communist party's regime . in june 2020, the

regime. in june 2020, the controversial hong kong national security law was passed , security law was passed, criminalising any act of secession, subversion or collusion with foreign or external forces. lai attended pro—democracy protests and called the law a death knell for hong kong. but he was later arrested in august of that year for alleged collusion with foreign forces. and he has remained imprisoned, facing multiple criminal proceedings since december 2020. jemmy lai, his son sebastian, who is also a british citizen, has criticised the government for not explicitly calling for his father's release as today marks the 1,000th day of mr lai's imprisonment. i met sebastian to discuss , as he sees it, the discuss, as he sees it, the british government's abandonment of his father , who . sebastian. of his father, who. sebastian. tell me what happened to your father. how did he come to be in this position ? and what do you

this position? and what do you think the british government ought to do about it ? ought to do about it? >> so when he arrived in hong kong, it was the first time he was counted as a person by any government . and he went from government. and he went from working in a sweatshop to eventually having his own factory and then starting a company called giordano , which company called giordano, which did a clothing and all of that was going very well for him. and then the really pivotal point in his life where he went from being a businessman to a actavis for democracy and freedom was the tiananmen square massacre . the tiananmen square massacre. where in the tiananmen square massacre happened? dad was and many people in hong kong were completely. i mean, heartbroken is to light, to lights of a word absolutely shattered because they realise that as china was liberalising economically, they weren't going to liberalise socially. so my father decided

at that it's all well and good being a businessman , but he was being a businessman, but he was going to use his skills and his ability of entrepreneurship to further a greater cause. and he decided to go into media because he believed that information is choice and choice is ultimately freedom. in 1995, he wrote an article criticising li peng , the article criticising li peng, the butcher of beijing. the passing awarded the crackdowns, the murder of all the students. he criticised and using very strongly worded and i'm not going to repeat this on the show. >> he used a wonderful insult. what was the insult? >> it was. it was a son of a turtle egg with a zero iq. right. and then he added that in the 5000 year of history of chinese people is saddens him that someone like li peng would have existed. so as you expect,

lipeng have existed. so as you expect, li peng did not take that well . li peng did not take that well. his shops were closed in beijing and he was pressured to sell all giordano, the company that he had founded . so my dad knew that had founded. so my dad knew that he had a choice. he could either try to you know, he could either apologise and make a whole show out of it or or he could sell giordano , make sure that he giordano, make sure that he wasn't compromised . because the wasn't compromised. because the thing is, if he knew that if he had business interests in china, they could always compromise it . and so he decided to sell it. and go full in the in the media. >> when your father set up apple daily in 1995, hong kong was still a british colony. and freedom of the press was guaranteed under the joint declaration, which was the method by hong kong was method by which hong kong was handed china. it was handed back to china. it was agreed that hong kong's way of life and forms of government would be maintained for 50

years. that would get you to 2047, and the chinese have arbitrarily broken those guarantees, haven't they ? guarantees, haven't they? >> that's what makes the current situation in so outrageous. this is a financial centre that does not respect contracts . i think not respect contracts. i think it really shows how hong kong and china to views this country if they're willing to step all over the agreement that that they have made, they've called this agreement a historical document . now, any contract, the document. now, any contract, the moment you sign it becomes a historical document. so i think it's worth reading sitting our relationship with hong kong. i mean, now that now that this this this state has broken agreement with us, what are the consequences ? consequences? >> and your father is in trouble really, for calling li peng a turtle's egg. and for going on a march in favour of democracy ,

march in favour of democracy, which was guaranteed under the joint declaration in its eyes, it's quite scary because under the national security law , which the national security law, which is incredibly opaque, he could face life imprisonment. >> but my dad's age, even if it's ten years, it could very well mean that i could never see my father again . my father again. >> what do you think the british government should do? >> they should raise my father's case citizen at the case of british citizen at the highest level with china and with kong . they should call with hong kong. they should call for his immediate release . and for his immediate release. and and . and they should incentivise and. and they should incentivise the behaviour that they want to see. do they do they want a state, hong kong , that just very state, hong kong, that just very cavalierly break agreements with with with the united kingdom or do they want to stand up for someone like my father who was willing to give up everything , willing to give up everything, everything in order to protect

the freedoms that we all hold in this country ? this country? >> well, sebastian , thank you >> well, sebastian, thank you very much. >> it must be so difficult for you and your father has shown amazing courage in standing up for what he and many fellow britons feel is right. thank you .thank britons feel is right. thank you . thank you, sir. >> well , thank you very much to >> well, thank you very much to sebastian for joining >> well, thank you very much to sebastian forjoining me. sebastian for joining me. >> and i really hope that the british government will show a palmerston spirit in standing up for the rights of british citizens. that's all from me. up next, it's the great professor daniel wootton. dan, what's on the evening? the menu this evening? >> what a powerful >> yeah, what a powerful interview. it so interview. jacob and it is so shocking, isn't it, that we don't what's going on don't talk about what's going on in hong kong enough. >> well done for doing >> so well done for doing so. we have a big show. megyn kelly, laurence fox, tom bell and mark williams—thomas on the murder of jill dando . who does he think jill dando. who does he think did it ? did it? >> well, that'll be exceptionally interesting . and exceptionally interesting. and it's the most extraordinary story about the murder of jill

dando. story about the murder of jill dando . and i hope that the new dando. and i hope that the new program gets to the bottom of it. that's all coming up after the weather. i'll be back tomorrow at 8:00. i'm jacob rees—mogg. this has been save the nation and as you know, even with a hurricane coming in, i'm sure somerset lovely weather. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers, proud sponsors of weather on . gb news. weather on. gb news. >> hi there. it's aidan mcgivern here from the met office. with the gb news forecast showers ease overnight with clear skies for many of us. a fine start to wednesday, but then storm agnes turns up with the potential for disruptive wind and rain. still some rain going across much of scotland and northern ireland as well as northern england through the evening. but eventually the showers become confined to central and the far northwest of scotland. most places will be clear. then overnight, some high cloud drifting in by the end of the night, turning things milder in the south, but rather fresh. start to the day in scotland,

northern ireland and northern england. light winds at first as well. storm agnes is moving well. but storm agnes is moving in quickly by this stage , in quickly by this stage, bringing damaging winds to much of before spreading of ireland before spreading those disruptive winds into those very disruptive winds into irish sea coastal areas by the afternoon. so after the early sunshine, it turns increasingly windy through the morning and those winds then peaking in the afternoon and evening. the risk in northern and western parts of the uk of 50 to 60 mile per hour wind gusts and around exposed irish sea coasts of 75 mile per hour wind gusts. so dangerous coastal conditions disruption to transport some heavy rain as transport and some heavy rain as well could cause impacts for central and southern scotland . central and southern scotland. much of that clears through dunng much of that clears through during thursday day, but it stays windy in the north with the of coastal the further risk of coastal gales. bright skies further south and lighter winds. some showers still going on friday. a fine start to the weekend, though, with high pressure building for a time. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers proud sponsors of

weather on

gb news with gb news. >> the top story tonight , the >> the top story tonight, the home secretary says migrants arriving in small boats has put an unsustainable pressure on the uk's asylum system . and the uk's asylum system. and the british taxpayer . delivering british taxpayer. delivering a speech in washington this afternoon, suella braverman also argued that being discriminated

against for being gay or being a woman was not enough to qualify for asylum. where individuals are being persecuted . are being persecuted. >> and 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 in well , qualify for protection in well, labour hit back the shadow home secretary , yvette cooper, secretary, yvette cooper, accusing the government of failing to set out any new plans to tackle the small boats crisis to tackle the small boats crisis to try and target hit lesbian and gay people from countries like uganda, where they face serious persecution even 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