Transcripts For GBN Jacob 20240703

The programme. Um, email me mail mog gbnews. Com. Now its 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 uks 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 wasnt 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 partys conference in bournemouth today that the liberal democrats will rescue the nhs with more gps, more carers and Greater Investor in technology. He says hell ensure Cancer Patients will start treatment within two months of an urgent referral and that theyd 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 im afraid to say theyve 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. Theyve 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 britains news. Channelin news. This is britains 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 its 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 doesnt 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 wouldnt necessarily apply asylum in the uk. But apply for asylum in the uk. But theres 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 wouldnt 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 theres 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. Dont forget to let me know your thoughts. And you know the email by now. Mail morgue at gbnews. Com this evening. Im 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. Dont 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, im a lawyer. Well, jacob, im 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 doesnt necessarily work. And you imply that we could rewrite the agreement. We cant. That we could rewrite the agreement. We cant. Were one, agreement. We cant. Were 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 doesnt work. Its not practical. But we cant rewrite rewrite the agreement. We can rewrite the agreement. We can make representations as to why its no longer practical. But as a lawyer , if the agreement is a lawyer, if the agreement is there, its there. And the home there, its there. And the home office has to operate the agreement as it stands. As it stands. As it stands. Okay. Excepting that, lets 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 wed 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 dont have domestic effect until theyre passed by parliament. Correct. Correct. We can sign international agreements. Theyre 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 cant 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 . Youre absolutely right. I dont lawyer, i try and be dont 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. Thats really quite so thats really quite important. And what mechanism would we use . Who would we . Wed have to tell the other signatories or wed just have to pass some legislation. Pass some domestic legislation. Particularly i dont 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 icouldation rules and things. We could easily escape from the Refugee Convention if it politically convention if it was politically acceptable, a political issue. Well, lets 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 its like the tablets received by moses, that its unalterable , set in stone. Unalterable, set in stone. Governments cant do anything about it. But youre 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 dont really have them because we dont thats thats really interesting thats the really interesting point that most people thats the really interesting point know. Most people dont 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 youre obligations. 1951 convention gives us interbut youre saying. Igations. 1951 convention gives us interbut youre saying they ns. Yes, but youre saying they dont 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 doesnt work like that. International is only what doesnt work like that. Inisnational is only what doesnt work like that. Inis. Ational is only what doesnt work like that. Inis. We nal is only what doesnt work like that. Inis. We are is only what doesnt work like that. Inis. We are not is only what doesnt work like that. Inis. We are not signed what doesnt work like that. Inis. We are not signed upiat doesnt work like that. Inis. We are not signed up to it is. We are not signed up to treaties weve signed really , if treaties weve 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 cant do this because of International Law, not International Law, its 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. Thats this is different. Thats 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. Im saying we should. Im 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 thats 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 its incorporated. Well , oliver, i how its incorporated. Well, oliver, i think thats 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 weve ever had my program in had on my program in immigration. Through. We cut through. We cut through. You. I hope youll thank you. I hope youll come on be so clear. Thank on again to be so clear. Thank you. Anyway dont let you. Anyway dont 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, ill 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. Im still jacob welcome back. Im still Jacob Rees Mogg, and this is state of the nation. Youve been getting in touch with your thoughts, jill. Great speech from suella, but it wont stop the boats. Matt its important keep our matt its important we keep our borders for those need. Borders open for those in need. Change the ni the Un Convention would be barbaric. Ellie were a would be barbaric. Ellie were a compassionate country and we need to remain so. Yes, but we cant 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 wouldnt meritocracy, because he wouldnt 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 dabancourt quote , been dabancourt quote, primarily for his or her political views. But the report bizarrely didnt look at Nigel Farages 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. Thats 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 regulators targets. This is the regulators 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 theyre politically correct rather than financially competent. Well, im now joined competent. Well, im 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. Its productive for any company and its vital for any company and its vital for any company and its vital for a community or any organisation to reflect their Customer Base. And why do you think its not important . Jacob actually should be the question. Well the issue here is that diversity and inclusion got nigel farage de banking didnt it . It was exclusion because they didnt like his political opinions. Opinions. We dont know if thats the case. I we dont know if thats 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 . Its almost as if you get diversity. Therefore youre somehow getting less of a better person. And i think thats person. And i think thats wrong. If you have a meritocracy, you will get diversity automatic. Diversity automatic. You dont need to have a diversity and inclusion strategy, a true meritocracy does not need a diversity and inclusion strategy by definition. But unfortunately, that doesnt 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 its not working. What theyre doing at the moment, its not working. They moment, its 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 isnt 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. Thats 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 doesnt need another layer of bureaucracy by the bureaucracy forced on it by the fca, which is useless anyway to make best people. Make it employ the best people. Theyre in theyre 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 its shown that what theyre doing so far isnt working their Customer Base. Everything is about Customer Base shows you Customer Base shows that you have to reflect whats going on in organisation listen in your organisation, listen to whats outside why whats 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 cant just Customer Base. You cant 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. Its a reverse discrimination. Reverse discrimination. No, i completely disagree with that, jacob. And i think youre being blind to the truth of the matter here, that actually these people dont always level playing always get that level Playing Field. Get our foot in field. We dont 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 wont get to the top of that and hes had of that pile. And hes had disadvantages that other disadvantages in that that other people include people havent. And i include working males as working class white males as well. Dont get the well. They dont get the advantages life. And its not advantages in life. And its not advantages in life. And its 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 ive 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. Im 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 youll be a bit better behaved today, but i hope youll behaved today, but i hope youll be better. Well, ill tell you my best, but youre always courteous and well, lets not probably shouldnt well informed , but isnt the fca and the pra getting this wrong that the Financial Services sector is the sector that is most driven by pure merit . Because its what makes it the most money . Well, i came into this studio thinking this was bonkers , but thinking this was bonkers, but ive just listened to narinder and actually im 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 havent. 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 stirtons book, the other day, they had a policy at itn of excluding anybody from the traineeship who hadnt 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 im 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 shouldnt happen. Now, in this particular case, i dont think it should be the fca thats doing it. They should concentrate on pursuing crooked bankers, which theyre 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 youre meant to be doing rather trying to expand what youre meant to be doing ratheempire. Rying to expand what youre meant to be doing ratheempire. But] to expand what youre meant to be doing ratheempire. But ito expand what youre meant to be doing ratheempire. But it iszxpand what youre 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. T n w w w i dont think she but jerry, i dont think she has actually, with the greatest respect. Respect. Oh, no, dont give me that phrase. You dont have to give me respect. Crick. 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 cant make opportunity. We cant make everyone equal. Yes life isnt 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, theyre falling behind. Thats 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 havent happened. So the state, in the system havent happened. So were 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 thats answer. The thats not the answer. The answer improve the answer is to improve the education system, isnt it . Well i think whatever do, it i think whatever you do, it should you shouldnt just be should be you shouldnt 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 youre 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 youve got to be careful what youve got to be careful what you mean by diversity. For instance, in the past we used the term bame and without cant 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 havent. And so youve got to put more thought into it. But think the intentions are but i think the intentions are good, its not the fca good, but its not the fca that should it. Should be doing it. Look whats happened in but look whats 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 youre if youre the board of a bank or the Nominations Committee of the board of a bank. And you think, right, well, weve got ten men on shouldnt we be on our board. Shouldnt 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 . Im not saying they necessarily have five apply . Im not saying they necessa and have five apply . Im not saying they necessa and five have five apply . Im not saying they necessa and five men, ve five apply . Im not saying they necessa and five men, butive apply . Im 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 wont understand that ten men wont 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 youve been told to meet regulator. Meet by your regulator. Course. Of course. Of course. I mean, have been i dont i mean, have you been i dont 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, thats well, ive thats a good idea. Well, ive never been tempted to throw in staple diets, but thats dont lets dont 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 Johnsons government are fascists, dont we are all fascists, dont we . We all that. I thought, all know that. And i thought, whoa, just a moment. No, no, no. This is not what its all about. Microaggression means that we have tipped the other way. We have tipped the other way. We dont want to go back to the 70s. We dont 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 dont want that was there. We dont want that. But you see, thats 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 idundamentally kaur was saying, because i think society iduncastonished if changed. Id be astonished if there employer in the there were an employer in the land didnt want to employ land who didnt 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 wasnt 1970. But 1980 or wasnt true in 1970. But 1980 or in 1980. But it now is. And therefore the fca and the pra, theyre 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 its only perhaps people in in 20s and in their 20 and in their 20s and 30s theres been more 30s where theres been more fairness know, theyre fairness and you know, theyre no, yet of no, theyre not yet chairman of the bank as it were. But you devalue the currency, you undermine because you you undermine women because you say shes only there because shes you undermine shes a woman. You undermine black. I agree because black. I agree with that because hes because hes only there because the other think youve got other thing i think youve 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 its the best people dont its clear the best people dont 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 youve been rees mogg, and youve been getting in touch with your mail mogs. Stephen, what about a general referendum on the migrant crisis . Im 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 cant 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 its 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. Its even higher in the Public Sector. But i its even higher in the Public Sector. But i had a brilliant taxi driver today called david who said to me, there arent many sick cab drivers. Well, of many sick cab drivers. Well, of course there arent because theyre self employed. They cant 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 its 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 . Its jerry hayes and michael crick. Jerry hayes and michael crick. Jerry youre a barrister yourself , jerry youre a barrister yourself, employed. Do you take a lot of sick days off . Well ill ask you a question. 47 years ive been doing this job. How many days sick do you think ive taken off . Probably very close to zero. Probably very close to zero. 2 to 2 because i couldnt to 2 to 2 because i couldnt speak. I had an abscess in my mouth because, as you know, i couldnt sickie. The couldnt pull a sickie. The trouble and im not against trouble is, and im 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 theyre sick and problem. I mean, its and its a problem. I mean, its and its a problem. I mean, its 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 governments doing their address this at their best to address this at their best to address this at the theyre trying to the moment. Theyre trying to get people back on covid actually a of a problem, actually is a bit of a problem, but theres been something on long covid papers long covid in the papers today suggests that there isnt as much covid as people thought. Much on covid as people thought. Well, then the day before there was. Dont know. Was. We just we just dont 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, im 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, im afraid, which ruined it. I was off for three months with a bad back on, you know, lying on the floor. And i couldnt 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, im, you know, ive 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 thats 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 theyre time off falsely because theyre sick, the more pressure theyre 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 its 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 weve 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 its 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 its not their money. Its not their its as its not their money. Its 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 theyre large theyre understaffed in large parts service. Parts of the health service. They get enough doctors, they cant get enough doctors, enough know, and enough nurses, you know, and were especially so during covid. And its 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 its public money and weve of private sector areas are very, very stressful. So its not only in the pubuc so its not only in the Public Sector. I know and there are lots of there are lots of Public Sector jobs that arent stressful and, you know, its varied. Yes. Is stressful. There my job is stressful. There are barristers. Theres only 2200 barristers left 2200 criminal barristers left now , and the stress is enormous. Now, and the stress is enormous. Ive doing this long ive been doing this a long time, never been so time, but ive never been so stressed. Ive never been so stressed. Ive never been so stressed. You know, michael, stressed. You know, michael, i said, you give that said, you dont give that impression on. Impression when you come on. Youre good at youre very good at disguising it. Well, im very were all very good disguising things. Well, im very were all very goobut disguising things. Well, im very were all very goo but also uising things. Well, im very were all very goo but also youre things. Well, im very were all very goo but also youre thi a|s. Well, im very were all very goo but also youre thi a time well, im very were all very goobut also youre thi a time in but also youre at a time in life, see where youve got life, you see where youve 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 dont need because you dont you dont 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 ive always enjoyed the always enjoyed. The work ive always enjoyed. Therefore doing it. Yeah. Yeah. And theres a lot of in this world do of people in this world who do awful jobs, its very awful jobs, which its very difficult conceive how difficult to conceive of how you would enjoy know, and would enjoy and, you know, and im if i did some, some of im 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 id be much more inclined to be genuinely feeling to do so. There is also the feeling but there is also the feeling of youre allowed of entitlement. Youre allowed a certain of days sick certain number of days off sick when its not your money. Well its your thats the its not your money, thats 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 dont do the and company doesnt the work and the company doesnt do the job not be do its sales, the job may not be there. Youve got to be careful, though. You dont want to encourage people come they are people to come in when they are sick and particularly if theyve got diseases and got contagious diseases and actually infecting the rest of the workforce. The real dilemma is colds. You know, if youve 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, thats right. And you take two aspirin and carry on regardless, dont you. Sure. Yeah. But if youre, if youre going to make everybody else office, if youre else in the office, if youre 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 dont work as well, it would have been a result, they dont work as well, if it would have been a result, they dont work as well, if you it would have been a result, they dont work as well, if you had uld have been a result, they dont work as well, if you had takenave been a result, they dont work as well, if you had taken the been a result, they dont 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, isnt it . It was stupid. It was it was just stupid. It was liberalsay more. Come on. Do id say no more. Come on. Do you to defend liberal you want to defend the liberal democrats . Youre 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. Well four to be thought through a lot more careweek. All right. Well have day week. All right. Well 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 hasnt even British Government hasnt even bothered call his youre 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 kongs 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 wasnt 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 partys 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 fathers release as today marks the 1,000th day of mr lais imprisonment. I met sebastian to discuss , as he sees it, the discuss, as he sees it, the British Governments 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 werent going to liberalise socially. So my father decided at that its 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 im 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 wasnt compromised. Because the wasnt 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 kongs 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, havent they . Guarantees, havent they . Thats 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 theyre willing to step all over the agreement that that they have made, theyve 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 its 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 turtles 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, its quite scary because under the National Security law , which the National Security law, which is incredibly opaque, he could face life imprisonment. But my dads age, even if its 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 fathers 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. Thats all from me. Up next, its the great professor daniel wootton. Dan, whats on the evening . The menu this evening . What a powerful yeah, what a powerful interview. It so interview. Jacob and it is so shocking, isnt it, that we dont whats going on dont talk about whats 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, thatll be exceptionally interesting. And exceptionally interesting. And its 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. Thats all coming up after the weather. Ill be back tomorrow at 8 00. Im Jacob Rees Mogg. This has been save the nation and as you know, even with a hurricane coming in, im sure somerset lovely weather. That warm feeling inside from boxt boilers, proud sponsors of weather on. Gb news. Weather on. Gb news. Hi there. Its 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 uks asylum system. And the uks 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 system in the united states, a court has ruled that the former President Donald Trump and his Family Business were found liable for fraud , for illegally liable for fraud, for illegally inflating his assets and net worth. Worth. The ruling came after a civil lawsuit brought by new yorks attorney general, letitia james. She accused him of inflating the value of his assets by as much as £2. 9 billion to access preferable loan terms. The assets include his mar a lago estate in florida , his apartment estate in florida, his apartment in trump tower and other buildings and golf courses. A buildings and golf courses. A trial has been scheduled for october for the second. Back here at home, the mayor of greater