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 theyre 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 partys conference in bournemouth they would rescue the nhs with more gps, more carers and greater investment in technology. He investment 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. Also in the news today, the mayor of Greater Manchester has said hed 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 theyre going to have to pay back £101 million. Southern water is next. They must pay back £43 million. Thats 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 britains 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 shes 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. Lets 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 its 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 doesnt 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. Tices take. Its not enough. Its nothing like enough. Its its nothing like enough. Its 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 thats 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. Its been around for 70 years. For heavens sake. Its not unreasonable to say that it might need the odd tweak, the odd amendment. Otherwise its starting to look a little bit out of date. But what i think we need actually is a shock and awe approach. Weve got to wake up the metropolitan elite who are complacent and think everything is fine. Its think everything is fine. Its not its far from fine. Heres not its far from fine. Heres 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. Weve got six months. All of us. Weve got to look at it. Weve got to amend it. Weve got to change it or frankly, were out because i hear from lots and lots of british people up and down the country and people are fuming. People feel theyve 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 were at now. Mass immigration and the home secretary recognises it. Thats 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 whats 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, theyll say, im being alarmist , but no, im not. Im just telling it as it is. Im telling the truth and im 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 weve shown that leadership we can work with the whole of the United Nations to do whats 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 im telling you here and now, im not being alarmist, but im being a realist. If this fails , being a realist. If this fails, everythings at risk. This being a realist. If this fails, everythings at risk. This is everythings at risk. This is existential. Thats the end of existential. Thats the end of my take. So im asking you, what do you think . Should we leave the 1951 Refugee Convention thats 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, im 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. Shes right, to here in the uk. Shes right, isnt she . The situation is completely unsustainable. Completely unsustainable. I agree that the Refugee Convention needs amending , but i convention needs amending, but i dont 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 theyre 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. Thats the reality, isnt it . Thats the reality, isnt it . If theres an economic migrant coming to this country, its 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 dont have those agreements. See, once you come over here and you claim asylum and lets just say youre refused, youre an economic migrant, the government migrant, what is the government doing . Nothing. Have we prosecuted one Single Person whos whos a trafficker . No. Have we sent one person back to rwanda . We havent. Lets be very clear. Hang on. The un 51 convention does not say we have to have returns agreements. Were entitled to do that. Were entitled to do that. Were entitled to do that. Were entitled to reject these applications. If theyre 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, its now accepting three times as many applications, even though theyre far too slow as you and i can probably agree as it did ten years ago, theyve 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. Theres evidential on an theres evidential burden on an applicant is very under the applicant is very low under the convention when dont have convention when you dont have need have any evidence at need to have any evidence at all. You dont even need evidence of who you and evidence of who you are. And i think thats its failing. Think thats where its 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 its they are claiming that its 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 theres 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 youve got theres significant now theres 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 arent those people immediately returned . Well , thats a good question. Well, thats 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 dont punish genuine people. You dont punish genuine Asylum Seekers. Correct . Because of this, genuine is not at war, is it . Come on, ivan. Be honest. So im with you on this. So im with you on this. They should be immediately. I mean, india is a its a member of the commonwealth for heavens 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 theyre trapped by lawyers good self and lawyers like your good self and many others who are making vast sums taxpayers expense . Well, i dont have any ivan well, i dont 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, thats not sustainable. I agree entirely. Weve 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 weve got to say enoughs 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 dont we stop them coming in the first place . Genuine in the first place . Dis genuine ones. Dont we offshore ones. Why dont 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 . Thats not true. I mean well, thats not true. I mean the belgians, for example, theyve stopped boats theyve stopped some boats leaving their shores. Theyve, theyve essentially theyve stopped taken back stopped them and taken them back to belgium. Correct. French not correct. Why the french not doing and ive got my view doing this . And ive 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 ill tell you what Free Movement they want back. Why did belgium do it . Belgium is a member of the eu. Theyve done it because they knew it was the right thing. Weve 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 thats 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 lets just say youre by the lets just say youre right, of the right, lets 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. Its not. What is its how what we do with them is its how we stop them coming in the first place. That is a problem. We need an offshore proce