If you come to the UK illegally, you
will be detained and deported and never
ever allowed to stay. Period. An
eye-catching new policy on migration
unveiled in a big aircraft hanger today
by the leader of Reform UK, Nigel
Farage. He's leading in the opinion
polls. But could his plan work? We will
discuss on this episode of the BBC's
Daily News podcast newscast.
Hello, it's Adam. Not in the normal
newscast studio, but in the pop-up
newscast studio in Sulford because I've
been standing in for another week for
Matt Chley on 5 Live and you can listen
to that 2 till 4 every weekday. That
show and this episode of newscast is
going to be focused on one big story
though, which is reform UK's big policy
proposals for dealing with what they
call illegal immigration. That's
deporting people who come to the UK in
an unauthorized way. And this is a
package of measures that a reform UK
government would put in place. Basically
meaning anyone coming to the UK without
permission would be sent back either to
their home country or a third country
and there would be no way for them to
claim asylum and ultimately end up as a
refugee in the UK. And a big part of
this would require the UK to pull out of
the European Convention on Human Rights.
So, lots to discuss with BBC News
correspondent and veteran of the home
affairs and migration beat, Tom Simons.
Hello, Tom.
>> Hi, Adam. Hi.
>> And also joining us for the first time
on Newscast it, but probably not the
last, is Dr. Alice Donald, who's
associate professor of human rights law
at Middle Sex University. Dr. Donald,
hello.
>> Hi, Adam.
>> Right, welcome to Newscast. Okay, lots
of things to discuss. Um, let's break it
down into various different bits. I
suppose Tom actually the first thing is
kind of the optics like this was a this
was a big event that reform put on today
wasn't it? Yeah, it looked like a sort
of campaign event, dare I say. Um, big
echoey I think it was an airport hanger,
wasn't it, Adam?
>> In Oxfordshire
>> and absolutely and uh clearly with
cameras, audience and therefore voters
in mind. So absolutely a big deal for
reform.
>> Right. Let's look at some of the details
then and there's lots of different
elements of this. Um, I suppose the
easiest one is what reform would call
the the carrots, which would be offering
people in the UK who'd come from other
countries in whatever way um, money to
leave and help to leave. Clearly, if
reform can get people to leave, put
themselves on planes of their own
accord, then the sort of job of putting
them on planes against their will is
completely avoided. And last year I was
allowed into the home office's fairly
secret facility in Bedfordshire where
they train people to put people on
planes and it takes three security staff
to to get them onto a plane safely and
get them out of the country. So if you
can avoid all of that cost then clearly
that's the way to go for for reform uh
in this new world that they're they're
offering us. Um, but of course the
question is how many people are going to
agree to that given that they've come
through enormous obstacles to get to the
UK and in their view find a new way of
of making a living here.
>> Right now let's talk about the
centerpiece of their their policy
proposal which is the idea of
deportations. Um, when they talk about
deporting illegal immigrants, what
people are they actually talking about
here? Because we don't we we don't
necessarily have illegal immigrants in
the UK, do we? Well, it's complicated.
There is a an act still in place, the
Migration Act 2023,
which effectively makes it illegal to
come into the UK via a small boat. The
government's going to repeal that act,
has already said this, as part of a new
uh immigration uh legislation that's
going through the Commons, but it is
still going to be effectively illegal to
come on a small boat because the
government wants that to be an illegal
thing. What's not illegal because of the
um rights that asylum seekers have is
seeking asylum, which is why everybody
who comes off one of those boats doesn't
run off into the the shingles of uh
Kentish beaches. They agree to be taken
in by the border force and agree to uh
apply for asylum. So, so there's the use
of the word illegal is clearly
controversial, but under the current
system we have, it is not illegal to
seek asylum asylum in this country.
But Alice, this is what reform would
change, which is they would basically
well temporarily rip up the entire
international refugee sort of system for
the UK if they were in power.
>> Yes, that's right. Adam, I you know, I
think really what this looks like if we
just take a step back from from the sort
of theater of and performance of today
is an attempt to, you know, to to really
destabilize or it would have the effect
of destabilizing the kind of post-war
human rights international law
settlement. Um and uh you know the the
talk then is of pulling out of the
European Convention
um dergating supposedly that's
temporarily suspending the effect of the
torture convention which in fact is not
possible to do under the terms of the uh
UN torture convention. um also pulling
out of the Council of Europe Trafficking
Convention. And indeed, one could add to
that list because the UK, if if they
wanted to complete this project, a
future reform government would probably
have to also pull out of the Convention
on Civil and Political Rights and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Um so I it is it would be a very
dramatic um intervention and
destabilization. And I noted that uh
Nigel Farage wasn't ruling out also
including children in this plan, which
is why the convention on the rights of
the child would also potentially be uh
or certainly would be relevant as well.
>> Um we we'll come on to some of the
consequences for the ECR in a second,
but Tom, why did that thing about
potentially deporting children actually
come up in the first place today?
>> I have to say I was on air while this
was going on. I didn't hear that bit,
Adam. Um, and but he was asked, what he
was asked a number of times by a lot of
journalists is did he have concerns
about sending people back to potential
torture, potential loss of life in the
countries they had come from? And I
think at one point he did accept that it
did concern him. But clearly the tenor
of all his answers was that the effect
on the UK, the UK's problem with
migration really concerned him more than
the risk to those migrants who who may
be sent back to to very difficult
situations. My reading of the day about
why children came up was because it
could be if you had families coming over
on small boats who are then classed as
illegal immigrants. Would you be
prepared to deport the whole family or
would you just be deporting the adults
and then what would you do with the
child? And then separately uh you can
have people who are here in the country
illegally as it were who have children
while they're here. And we're not like
America where if you're born in Britain
on British soil, you automatically
become British. Therefore, you'd have an
issue about if you were going to deport
the parents because you'd track them
down. What would you do with the
children? That was my understanding
about why we were talking about about
children in in the first place in in the
story. Okay. So, um Alice, let's go back
to then withdrawing from the European
Convention on Human Rights. I was
actually quite surprised. It sounds like
actually the formal process of saying we
don't want to be in it anymore sounds
like it's quite easy actually. Yes, one
might say alarmingly easy in a way. Yes.
So there's a provision in the convention
itself which allows governments to the
word is to denounce the convention which
effectively means giving six months
notice of wishing to withdraw from it.
So the only state ever to have done this
is Greece uh under the military junter
um in the context of of course you know
severe repression, summary killings,
disappearances etc. in the late60s. So
Greece effectively left before it was
pushed um and indeed came back into the
into the convention system in 1974 once
democracy was restored. So no state
apart from Greece has certainly no
democracy has ever uh exercised this
possibility of um leaving the convention
but in fact the the convention itself
presents very few obstacles to doing so
just six months notice. Tom, just what
are the very basics of why reform is
making this pitch to pull out of these
conventions in the first place? What do
they feel it would allow them to do?
Well, it allows them to deport people
who come here and make an asylum claim,
which currently can't be done. You have
to consider the asylum claim, which can
take about a year, hence the need for
the asylum hotels. But but if you don't
have that requirement under
international agreements, then you can
simply turn people around when they
arrive in the UK and send them back to
wherever. And that's one of the
practical problems we're hearing there.
Um so so it's as simple as that. And and
which is why reform wants to make this
simple point that this enables them to
go where other governments haven't been
able to go. Um, and I think the rule
that they uh would set out is that if
you come in on a visitor's visa and hang
on to that visa and hang in hang on in
the UK after that visa has run out, then
you know you could also be uh told you
will never be able to apply for asylum
in the UK. So, so that is all at play
for reform. If they manage to to do this
uh big move of pulling out of those
international agreements. Interestingly,
the government um is doing something a
tiny bit of this with its onein-one out
deal with the French. So, what they've
said is that if somebody uh comes in via
unofficial routes, they can be sent back
without their asylum claim being heard
because of course France would then have
to deal with that. But that needs an
agreement with France and I think all of
this will require reform to be building
agreements with other countries.
>> If I could just add a bit of context uh
here, I think two points. One is that um
the figures show that of the people who
arrive on small boats who claim asylum,
some twothirds of them are successful
and are given refugee protection and for
some nationalities the acceptance rate
is you know almost 100%. Countries like
Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan. So I
think we need to also be careful about
this suggestion that people arriving on
small boats are, you know, they're all
economic migrants or they have no no
business being here. They're not genuine
refugees. So the figures would suggest
that that's not the case. The the other
thing I think is really
>> but reform is saying you don't even but
reform is saying you don't even consider
that because if it's it's about your
mode of arrival def determines your fate
and if you arrive on a small boat you're
getting deported.
>> But that does mean then that we would be
deporting genuine refugees if if the
existing patterns were to be continued.
But I think the other thing that's
really important to to inject into this
is in a sense how kind of aberrant this
discussion is becoming in the UK in the
European context because you know there
has been uh sort of some push back from
some European states in the context of
immigration um in relation to the
European court and so on and you know
the constraints of of being in the in
the convention and the obligations. But
in no other European state is withdrawal
from the convention any part of kind of
mainstream political discussion. So it
you know I think it's really important
to hang on to to see in a way how kind
of insular maybe even parochial the
discussion has become here. Um and it's
paradoxical actually because in fact the
UK really is an exemplary member of the
convention system. So last year there
was one judgment of the European court
against the UK. In the last few years
there have been one or two a year. So
this is not a system which is you know
regularly kind of overruling
democratically made decisions. It's a
very healthy relationship in a way and
the UK is regarded as an exemplar with
our joint committee on human rights in
parliament and so on. So there's a real
paradox about the amount of kind of heat
and uh fractiousness you know bitterness
almost that this debate has taken on
when in fact our relationship with the
convention system is one which is very
well functioning and is regarded as an
exemplar across across Europe. Um now
this week I am still at the BBC HQ in
Sulford standing in for Charlie which is
quite inconvenient when it comes to
newscasts because it means that Tom and
Alice are sat in the um studio without
me. Um, and I'm having to listen to them
in my headphones rather than chatting to
them face to face like like normal. But
there is some convenient things like the
fact that you can just phone up Richard
Ty, the reform UK deputy leader, and do
a live interview with him on the radio
and he'll say yes. Um, so let's play you
the conversation I had with Richard Ty
about 20 2 on Tuesday afternoon on Five
Live.
So, first things first, I just wanted to
ask you about the language that Nigel
Farage and Zia Ysef, his colleague, were
using at this press conference this
morning. They talked about an invasion
by migrants and they talked about um
fighting aged men. Why use such kind of
like almost like military language to
describe the people who are arriving in
the UK?
>> Does the truth hurt? Is it so
uncomfortable for you that you can't
tell the truth? 180 working age. 180,000
people have come to this country via
boats illegally in the last six or seven
years. And the truth is they are all
almost all young men uh who are
undocumented. We've no idea who they
are. And regrettably, we know that um a
a a number of them, a a not
insignificant number, have gone on to
commit crimes, drug dealing, money
laundering or worse. And some of them
come specifically
as members of gangs, for example,
Albanian gangs and others with the
intent to commit crimes. So, yes, I
think the language is is appropriate.
The crisis is a national emergency and
uh the British people are raging fury
furious at what's gone on and the utter
failure of this Labor administration and
the previous conservative administration
to get to grips with this. There's
nothing more important than protecting
our women and girls.
>> And I'm not disputing public concern
about it, but it's describing the people
as of fighting age. I mean, you said
young. You didn't say fighting age. You
could use other phrases like working
age.
Why age?
>> We live in a because we actually in a
democracy pride ourselves of free
speech, freedom of expression, telling
it as it is. And that's the reason that
we are leading in the polls because we
tell it as it is. It's uncomfortable.
None of us would want to be in this
position, but we are where we are and
we've got to deal with this. And that's
why what Nigel announced is we've got to
leave the ECR. We've got to scrap the
Human Rights Act. Those are the key
weapons that allow the lefty human
rights lawyers to conduct this lawfare.
>> A question about numbers. Um the number
was of 600,000 deportations was used
this morning at the press conference.
Where where does that number come from
and what numbers do you would you use
when you're talking about widely? Yeah,
it's widely accepted that there are plus
or minus a million people who are here
in this country illegally. The truth is
we don't actually know but it is of that
sort of order and we've made it clear
that we welcome smart highskilled highly
qualified immigration immigration where
people integrate they work they want to
learn the language great um but what we
can't tolerate is people coming here
illegally working illegally suppressing
British wages consuming our public
services and in many cases then going on
to benefit Well, if the whole point
about immigration is to come here to
work, well then why does anybody who's
come here is uh uh immigrated to the UK,
why do they need any any benefits at
all? You either come here to work or you
don't come here.
>> And so just in terms of the
practicalities of the the proposals, I
mean, this wouldn't be able to start on
day one of a reformed government, would
it? Because you'd have to give notice
that you were departing some of the
treaties. um you would have to then do
the deals with the countries to either
return people to their country of origin
or you'd have to do another kind of deal
like with Rwanda to send to a third
country. So actually it could be it
could be a couple of months maybe even a
couple of years before it actually
>> correct. We're not we're not the the the
intent and the planning will take place
uh before a general election. We're
prepare we'll be preparing draft
legislation produced by our own lawyers
and barristers. We're not going to rely
on civil service uh folk to do this. And
so we'll get lots of stuff ready and
then yes, there will be a process of
implementation, but people will
understand in the run-up to the general
election, this is what we plan to do and
we are deadly serious about it. And um I
think that's what the British people
want to do. Now if the Labor government
recognize the concerns of the British
people and say actually once again
reform is on the right track and and the
Labour party they they copied us on
defense spending 2 and a half% and then
towards 3% of GDP on defense well if
they want to learn from our immigration
policies and do this in the current
administration good that's the benefit
of the British people we're glad to lead
by example and lead the way in policym
>> so just talking about that
implementation period well this you get
all your ducks in a grow as as the new
government. So, what could that be?
Could that be years or would that be
months?
>> We think it'll be months. And I think
people know that we are we are pretty
business-like. We get stuff done. We're
not mucky about
uh that if anybody can do this, then uh
it's Reform UK. And what we need is a a
decentsized
working majority so that we can drive
this through as rapidly as possible. Um
is it easy? No. Uh would would all of us
rather not be in the in this position?
Yes. But we have to deal with the facts
as we face them. We've got a national
emergency of uh illegality and we've got
to deal with it. It is as simple as
that.
>> Um Labor put out a press release saying
exactly four months ago, Zia Ysef
promised that reform would publish a
comprehensive strategy, a full policy
document, a detailed plan with
year-by-year timelines and clear
targets. Um that's not what we've got
today, though, is it?
Well, we've set out a clear plan. We've
set out some very uh what some people
would would describe as tough uh
uncompromising policies and plans. Um
there's a reason why actually we don't
give all of the details to the
opposition, what we might call the
enemy. And that's because um you know,
we don't want to give them all the tips
of the trade. uh we know uh there is a
detailed uh a whole raft of uh details
behind this and we will continue to work
on it. We'll continue to work on the
draft legislation required and and also
as you work with lawyers you have to
look at the pluses and minuses of
particular routes and you tweak it, you
adapt and then say well it might not
work because of this or that. So all of
that we're looking at over the coming
couple of years before a general
election. We've had a text from Ollie in
Oxford who says, "Could you ask Mr. Ty
how an Afghan interpreter who's had
their details leaked in the data leak
will be able to legally claim asylum for
them and their family in this country
that they helped during the conflicts?"
So that's a bit about actually would you
still be able to take people in for
humanitarian reasons under this new
regime? And Oie also says, "How can I
have my human rights protected if all
human rights law is going to be
repealed?" So there's kind of two things
there. Would you still have a route for
humanitarian arrivals
>> on the Well, um the the key thing is and
Nigel said this morning in the press
conference that genuine Afghan
translators who worked alongside the
British forces of course uh they will be
welcome. They should have been uh
accepted by now. But if they haven't
been and they're still uh not being
processed, if they are genuine,
regrettably there are many people who
have tried to jump on that bandwagon.
That's just a fact of life. With regard
to human rights, look, you often get
things with the best intentions when the
human rights act was was was invented,
but it's been hijacked by the lawyers
and used to a whole raft of uh different
ends. Let me just remind everybody in
the 80s and 90s before the human rights
act in 1998, do you know what? The
economy was growing at 2 and a half to
three and a half% per year. We were all
getting better off. Public services
worked. The country was in a much better
place than it currently is. So actually
the world's not going to end if you
haven't got one piece of legislation
called the human rights act. Um before
that we acted on common law on precedent
and things work rather nicely. Thank
you.
>> Okay. Um Richard and you sort of
suggested that this is much about
putting pressure on Labor to kind of go
in the right direction. If we get to the
end of this parliament and actually the
small boat arrivals have fallen quite
significantly and people feel actually
there's more sense of control like would
you would you abandon these plans and go
actually the system ain't so broken
after all or maybe even say Kier Star's
succeeded in fixing it
>> if if Star has fixed it great then we'll
all celebrate we'll all be pleased will
we abandon the plans no because uh we
think that actually we've got to make
sure that our borders are secure our
sovereignty is secure and our women and
children are protected. So these are
important necessary measures. Um but if
the government's made progress then
credit where credit's due. Let's let's
look forward to that. I hope they do. Uh
but we are frankly very skeptical and we
need to uh prepare a plan B and C in the
event that this government's plan A
doesn't work.
>> And when Nigel Farage says he thinks
there's a risk of civil unrest because
of the level of immigration, what what
does he mean? What does that unrest look
look like? what's his kind of what's his
worst case scenario?
>> Uh because uh we actually get out and
about, we knock on doors, we speak to
people, uh we we meet groups in pubs. Uh
I've done a couple of such meetings just
in the last two days. And let me tell
you, the rage, the anger, the pure fury
amongst the British people is at a level
that we've never experienced before. And
it's not unreasonable to to to
essentially uh alert the mainstream
media and the establishment class as to
what is going on out there in the real
world. And that's why you've seen what
has been almost exclusively peaceful
protests from moms and dads uh outside
some of these migrant hotels. And of
course uh we want protests to be lawful,
peaceful, rational. Um but um but in a
sense uh that decision by a judge in
Eping recently that was as a direct
consequence of lawful lawful peaceful
pressure put on the council uh to uh to
take the hotel owner to court and I
think the judge's decision was in part
response to that lawful peaceful
protest. So that's a a a valuable and
highly respected part of a functioning
democracy and that's who we are. But
isn't the problem though what you're
promising the earliest it could come
into force would be in beyond four years
time and so actually you're you're
highlighting the the anger that exists
now but your response to it is something
that's going to in theory be so is that
>> if you can have a word if you can have a
word in the prime minister's ear and ask
him to call a general election earlier
then we'll be delighted bring it on. I'm
just getting at the point that isn't the
responsible thing to do to try and quell
the unrest rather than acknowledging the
the risk of the unrest and having a
solution that's years down the line.
>> The the reason that there is such anger
out there is because politicians are not
telling it as it is. And the reason
we're leading in the polls is that we
are telling it as it is. We're
reflecting the mood of the people and
people want this dealt with. And if if
if us talking about this, putting
pressure on the government, forces the
government to adopt some of these
measures sooner rather than later, then
we're doing our job in opposition. And
bearing in mind, of course, we are the
real opposition, as in fact, I think
Karma recognizes
>> with your four MPs
>> and and our 33% in every national poll,
we're leading by 7 to 10%. So, you can
argue it both ways. The reality is we
are a serious political force that are
the current favorites to win the next
general election.
>> And just on the issue of when the next
election is going to be, why did Nigel
Farage make that little kind of sidebar
point at the news conference today that
when someone said, "Oh, the next
election in four years time and he said,
"Oh, really? You think it will be that
long? What's what do you reckon is going
to happen?"
>> Well, uh he then went on to refer to the
uh the 30-year bond yield of the cost of
government borrowing. We are heading
towards a serious financial drama
sometime in this parliamentary term. The
cost of 30-year government borrowing is
at a record 30-year high, give or take.
And uh there's a lot of very anxious uh
economists and people like me who've
been warning you cannot keep spending
more than you're earning to the tune of
150 billion pounds a year when the
economy is barely growing and expect it
to end well and expect the bond markets
to be calm and rational about this. So
we have some serious economic challenges
ahead as well as the immigration
challenges that we've just been talking
about.
>> And you think that would the pressure
from the bond markets would would force
Karma to call an early election?
>> Look, it's it's it's hard to predict the
future. What I can predict is that we we
face a a very difficult financial
position in the the months and years
ahead. and this government uh if it
doesn't properly get to grip and start
reducing wasteful government spending
then there's trouble ahead.
>> Okay, Tom, let's talk about some of the
practicalities then. So, how would these
deportations just actually practically
logistically work in in the reform
brain?
>> Well, we already deport people of course
and and actually let's be careful about
the the word we use because deportation
generally applies to foreign national
criminals. So people have committed
offenses here. They're then sent to
somewhere like Brook House, the
immigration removal center at Heathro,
Colbrook. There's another one. There's
another couple at So that's a Gatwick
Brook House. There's a couple at
Heathrow. So they're like prisons.
You're not allowed in and out. Um you do
get to keep a phone. Uh and you're kept
there until you are taken to the
airport. Um sometimes in handcuffs uh
and then put on the plane and flown
back. I think you're given some money to
to help you the other end. But that is
that um the correct term for people who
are being sent to another country
because they haven't been given asylum
is removals. But I think reform will end
up probably always using the word
deportation because it has a a bigger
impact I think. So so that's that's what
happens but it is expensive. Uh the
government has increased a number of of
removals and deportations especially
with foreign national criminals but
clearly what reform's talking about is
of another order. And I think crucially
they're saying that anybody uh bearing
in mind you won't be able to claim
asylum under their system if you come in
on a small boat. Anybody who comes in
tries to claim asylum then has to be
held in a a detention facility. I think
they're planning to build some new ones.
Uh so that's an additional practical
economic demand on your policy that
you're going to have to provide. So it
come it becomes quite complicated. And
then of course there is the practical
difficulty of what you do about the end
country. So you're going to fly a plane
with people on board to a country like
Iran which is going to be very tricky.
Are you going to need the support and
the cooperation of the country they're
going to reform saying yes you are and
therefore you're going to have to
potentially pay some some some money to
incentivize those countries to take back
people who we don't want to consider
their asylum claims in this country. All
of that is not a simple process.
>> And also reform's argument when you say,
"Well, hang on. What if country X
doesn't want to do a returns agreement
with the UK, so you can't send people to
them?" They've got a twofold response.
One, which is a diplomatic thing of,
"Well, we put the thumb screws on
Country X, for example, applying
sanctions to to their individuals and
their businesses or stopping giving
visas to to people from country X to
come to the UK at all." And then the
other thing is they'd say they'd have a
backup of you'd then return somebody to
a third country like Rwanda like the
tries were planning to do or a new third
country like Albania.
>> That's right. And that's difficult. We
know that this government has tried to
do tried to create a sort of returns hub
policy with Albania and the Albanians
have said they're not terribly
interested in that idea. So the idea
that countries are sort of queuing up to
take back people who've not been given
asylum or not had their asylum claim
considered in the UK. Well, let's see. I
mean, I think what this all comes down
to, and I think the sort of overriding
analysis you might put on all of this is
that the general tenor of reform's pitch
today was this is simple common sense
policym. And I think clearly just from
the discussion we've had so far on the
podcast, it's not simple. and it won't
be simple. And some people might say,
well, look, reform pushed Brexit when
that came up and and said that this was
a simple idea that we could take back
control and reform turned out to and and
Brexit turned out to not be simple. So,
I think this is the kind of area we're
talking about. But let's be clear, there
are some very angry people in
communities. I've been to Eping a lot in
the last few weeks to Canary Warf to uh
Chessant where there are asylum hotels.
There are there are very angry people
there who say they should not be in
their communities and that is what
reform is looking at. That's their the
people they're trying to sell this
policy to. M and you mentioned the point
about detaining people because of course
at the moment if you're in the asylum
system you get housed by the government
and that could be in a hotel that could
be in private rented accommodation. It
could be in something that looks a bit
more like a like a a facility but you're
free you're free to enter and leave.
That's not a prison. That's not like
being detained.
>> It's not because you're not regarded as
doing anything wrong. you're regarded as
somebody who's making under your rights
as we've talked about internationally an
asylum claim. Uh you're not allowed to
work and that's because the go this
government and many other governments
previous governments have decided that
it's much better to pay a fairly small
amount to people so that they don't go
don't need to work to literally have
something to eat uh rather than have
them compete at the bottom of the
British jobs market for for for work
against British workers. Um and there
and you are given some health care. You
are I think probably as Nigel Farage
said today given some dental care. Uh
the hotels that are being used, you
know, it has been claimed that they are
sort of some kind of luxury hotels.
They're not particularly luxurious. The
the one in Canary Warf that recently
opened, I tracked down a a guy who
worked in maintenance at that hotel and
he said really it's it kind of needs a
lot of work. It's not exactly a luxury
hotel certainly anymore. Um and of
course then if you are given asylum the
government stops paying for you. You can
then work and the uh the the the burden
if you like of making sure that there is
housing and uh support goes to the local
authorities. Uh so so it's more it's
quite complicated and it's certainly not
uh an an easy you know asylum seekers
are not given a vast amount of
resources. They are given some
resources. It's got to be said.
>> And under the reform detention center
plan, they would build facilities that
could hold what 22 24,000 people pending
their removal. And I was just looking
and actually our biggest prison that
we've got is is about 2,000 places,
isn't it? So, this would be the
equivalent of creating 10 of our biggest
prisons again.
>> Exactly. and reform have said today that
they have some ideas about where they
might go, but they won't say because I
think both Najar and and Zsef have said
they're worried that Labour might sell
that land off the government might might
sell that land off to use for something
else to prevent them from building these
detention centers. Uh and so they're not
going to be clear about where they're
going to be at this stage. But don't
forget, every time you say you're going
to build one of these facilities, you
are likely to get some sort of a local
protest. Having said that, if they are
secure facilities where asylum seekers
are not allowed in and out,
>> you might damp down the the protest
locally.
>> And Alice, just to go back to this thing
about withdrawing from the European
Convention on Human Rights and just the
knock-on effects that might have in all
sorts of different bits of British life,
two questions. Number one, just explain
why it is that this could jeopardize the
Good Friday Agreement in Northern
Ireland, at least in a lot of people's
assessment of that.
>> Yes. Well, effectively because the
treaty is contingent upon the UK being a
member of the European Convention and
that that protection being afforded to
people within its jurisdiction. So erggo
if we left um we would be in breach of
the treaty um
>> or you'd have to renegotiate the Good
Friday Agreement
>> which I think would be very difficult
and inflammatory. Yeah.
>> And then in terms of what would replace
the European convention on human rights
and the human rights act which is what
puts the human rights convention into
British law in which Tony Blair did in
1998. What I mean presumably we we would
still have rights in the UK post that
would we
>> well it would depend really what if
anything replace so certainly you'd have
to repeal the human rights act if you
were to leave if the UK was to leave the
convention so you'd need a parliamentary
majority of course to do that but
supposing that happened it would depend
what if anything you replace the human
rights act with. So as you know there
have been uh various endeavors over the
years to to do just that. Dominic Rob's
one being the latest which went nowhere
in the end um to to have a so-called
British bill of rights bill of
>> rights. But one of the complicating
things here is of course that we have
also the common law um here and it
contains as you know that the common law
of course consists of a set of in some
ways distinct from the convention but
also overlapping rights and freedoms of
course personal liberty, access to
justice, the right to a fair trial,
freedom of religion, freedom from
torture indeed. So um you know it it
>> oh so basically some of the things that
judges would be using are using now
which reform don't like they would still
be using in future because they're
British.
>> Indeed. Yes. Um so it would be very well
improper really to be instructing judges
then to disregard that as well you know
to sort of try and sort of unpick those
you know historic rights and freedoms
which of course are often invoked by
politicians like Nigel Farger. don't
need the convention because we have our
wonderful British tradition. So, one
might say, well, you can't have it both
ways. If the common law is is to be
respected and valued, then that also uh
you know enshrines, for example, the
prohibition of torture. And just last
point for me Tom is it was interesting
talking to Richard Tyson hearing reform
people today because you can almost
imagine that they actually don't want to
implement any of this and actually what
they really want to do is to just put
pressure on the government to be tougher
and the fact that Richard Ty says oh
yeah if Garmmer smashes the gangs and
solves the small boats then we wouldn't
need to do this. I'm not so sure
actually Adam. I I think that there is
an intent there. Uh because I think
there is a genuine belief that there is
a sizable part of this country's
population now that really has had
enough of of immigration and this type
of immigration in particular. I mean
specifically this type of immigration.
So I kind of felt they were fairly
>> fairly serious when when they said what
they said. And it'd be interesting to
see how the politics of this play out
because of course the government has to
stop the boats and as you said I think
in the interview significantly reduce
the number of people coming in by small
boats and it has committed itself
completely to stopping the use of asylum
hotels. Now, if we get to three or two
or three years from now and neither of
those things has happened, well then the
politics get quite difficult for the
government because this is you can be
sure is going to be a key reform talking
point dur during the next election and
you might wonder whether the government
will start to consider what it can do on
on human rights on on the the refugee
convention and all of that to give
itself some more leeway. So I think if
if if they can't do it the way they're
trying to do it, you know, by policing,
by intelligence, by using
counterterrorism techniques against the
people, smugglers, and by very good
administration to get rid of all those
asylum claims, then we we shall see.
>> Tom, thank you very much.
>> No problem at all.
>> And Dr. Al Donald, thanks to you, too.
>> Thank you very much, Adam.