Morning.
>> Oh, morning.
>> Um, the archbishop says that policies
that uh the reforms policies of
immediate detention and deportation are
isolationist, knee-jerk, and so on.
Prime Minister said yesterday that if
you come to this country legally, you
will face detention and return. What
exactly is the difference between Sakia
and Mr. Faraj's policies?
>> The fundamental difference is that
reform and Nigel Farage want to provoke
anger, but they don't actually want to
solve the problems that we face in front
of us. So what we're clear about is that
in order to retain public confidence in
the system, it has to be fair. It has to
be humane. Where people don't have the
right to be here. Of course, we'll take
action to remove them. And removals are
up under this government. But alongside
that, we've always had a proud tradition
in this country of supporting those
facing persecution. But in order to
maintain that tradition, the tradition
that the British people have always
demonstrated, then absolutely we do need
to make sure we've got control of our
borders. And under the Conservatives,
uh, we saw a big increase in the use of
asylum hotels, for example. We saw big
increases in the number of people
crossing the channel. Now, that's
something that's built up over many
years. It's not going to be quick and
easy to fix, but we will.
>> Well, that that's that's the past, and
that is also about motivation. Uh, but
what is the difference between what you
would actually do? M Sakir's words, uh,
detention and deportation are almost
exactly the words that Mr. Farage uses.
Well, of course, we will make sure that
people who have no right to be in this
country are removed from this country.
That's right. It's what people expect.
It's what this government will deliver.
But alongside that, what you have to do
is deal with a huge backlog, process
cases more quickly, and make sure that
people aren't left around for months and
years on end in expensive accommodation.
So it's it's all good and well for form
to chase headlines and whip up that kind
of anger because they don't actually
want to fix it in their interest.
>> You're criticizing the past to fix it.
>> You're criticizing the past. You're
criticizing reform.
>> Uh but numbers coming across the channel
are up to record level this time of the
year under you. Uh and actually there's
no sign of the gangs being smashed. In
fact, the average number of people
coming on a boat has climbed under your
administration. So, let me start ask you
again. And this is a straightforward
thing. There doesn't have to be a
problem with it. There is really no diff
between what you're saying and what Mr.
Farage is saying, is there?
>> Well, the difference is we'll actually
take action to do it. It's one thing to
provoke anger. And I understand the
frustration. I'll tell you one of the
things. I understand the frustration
that people feel because I understand
when they see for example asylum hotels
and big numbers of people in their
community. I understand how that can
make people feel. Of course there can be
no can be no excuse for for what is
rightful protest overstepping the mark.
But Nigel Faraj and reform they don't
actually want to sort this problem. It
is in their interest.
think their political interests are
served by whipping up anger rather than
fixing.
>> You keep saying they're whipping up them
and us is that we'll fix you saying
they're whipping up anger. The anger is
there already. You see it in Eping. We
see it in DIS. We see it in other
places. Let me let me ask you this.
There is a difference between you and
Mr. Farage. He says that he's happy to
change the law or leave international
conventions to achieve his ends. Um put
it another way. He means what he says
and you don't. We do believe there needs
to be reform of the ECHR and that's what
the home secretary is looking at. But we
also believe as a government that our
responsibilities under international law
matter too and our standing in the world
matters as well. And that's why yes we
have to have clear control over our own
borders, a fair system with rules that
are followed and we will ask to remove
people who don't have a right to be
here. But as with all of but as with all
of this
>> to be clear far overlooks is that
migration has him for a minute. Let's
talk about you.
>> My my view is that migration has always
been an important part of our national
story that the British people have
demonstrated enormous generosity over
many many periods of time. Look at the
approach that we took to Ukraine. I just
want to get something clear. In order to
maintain that, we have to have clear
enforcement of
>> To be clear, what you've just said is
that uh you want to see changes in
European convention human rights.
>> The home secretary has committed to
looking at the article 8 provisions to
seeing whether they need updating and
reforming for the modern age. Yes,
that's right. She said that's something
that we are considering. Are you ready
that if you discover that it's not
possible to make those changes because
nobody else agrees to leave the ECR as
or to suspend its use as some uh of your
uh colleagues who were home secretaries
uh in Labour party want to do?
>> I think that's uh rather getting ahead
of ourselves given that we have the work
around the ECR and we do believe that
work can be undertaken in order
>> you say getting ahead of ourselves. You
had a year I mean you got to get on with
this.
>> You just jumped ahead. So I just said
we're going to we're committed to
reforming article 8 and looking at the
changes that are needed. Let's do that
and see where that gets to to then leap
ahead and with the kind of extrapolation
that you've made there I think is is a
bit it's a bit much.
>> I'll tell you why I'll tell you why this
is an issue. Um the prime minister says
that it may be time to negotiate or you
know or to to that you are saying sorry
that we may need to think again about
the ECR. Well, the prime minister says,
and I'm quoting you here, people who say
that it may be time to ne renegotiate or
suspend a compliance with the ECR are
not serious people, including, and this
is me, including people like Sir Malcolm
Riflland and the former Labour home
secretaries David Blunkett and Jack
Straw.
The prime minister is saying people who
want to reform, change, renegotiate,
suspend the ECR are not serious people.
Now, which is it?
>> So, we have been clear, the home
secretary and the prime minister alike,
that we're going to look at article 8 of
the ECHR around the right to family life
and how that is being applied by the
courts. But yes, our stand and
>> changing ECHR won't, as he suggests, put
us in the same moral comp camp as
Vladimir Putin. That's what the prime
minister said.
>> Our standing in the world matters. If we
want to strike trade deals with
countries, and we've done, we've had
great success in recent years in
striking those trade deals in in the
last year, then we need to be a country
that's taken seriously, we need to be a
country that honors our obligations and
honors the rule of law. Those are
important principles. So, we talk about,
you know, what the British people
>> be taken seriously. It' be good the idea
if we controlled our own borders,
wouldn't it?
>> Yes, absolutely. And that that's what
the British people want to see. That's
what we're doing. Numbers are going up.
The one of the strongest traditions that
we've always had as a country is around
the rule of law. That matters. It
matters that we have clear enforcement
at the border. It matters that we have a
clear set of rules around migration. We
are toughening those up. The action that
the home secretary has set out already
on this around enforcement around make
we've removed more people this year who
don't have the right to be here. We're
processing more cases of asylum seekers
more quickly. It is the reason that
we're spending so much money on
unsuitable accommodation like hotels is
because for years what the conservatives
did was allowed these cases to to stack
up. It's not right and proper. It's not
fair. No,
>> you say that, but here here's the
problem. You say you say you want to get
people out of asylum hotels, but you're
going you went to court this week to
keep an asylum hotel in Eping open. Can
you see why for the average person it's
not clear what you're actually for? You
say one thing but you do another.
>> Nobody I don't want to see large numbers
of people accommodated in asylum hotels.
I understand how frustrating it is and I
understand how the impact that can have
on local communities. That's why we are
committed to closing to ending the use
of asylum hotels by the end of the
parliament. But we've got to do that in
an orderly way. We can't end up with
hundreds of people just out on the
street because a hotel has closed. So
yes, we'll do it. We'll do it carefully.
We'll do it properly. And we will do it
in an orderly way. Minister's view as uh
is it is said in the Home Office's
submission to uh the judges on appeal
that the rights of asylum seekers uh
trump those the interests of local
people who do not want those hotels to
be open. It says so in terms in home
offices submission. Do ministers agree
that the rights of asylum seekers trump
those of local people? What we believe
is that the home secretary and the
government has have a responsibility to
make sure that we are doing our job in
processing cases in accommodating those
in the interim who've come to our
country. The decision that we saw
arising out of the Eping case would have
had bigger consequences right across the
country that would have led to wider
consequences in terms of disruption that
that would have caused. Look, it's far
from ideal. Look, I don't I don't want
to be in the place.
>> That's what the judges said, but that's
not an answer to the question I asked
you. Do you agree with these home
officers submission that the rights of
asylum seekers are more significant,
more material than the interests of
local populations?
>> It is about a balance of rights. When
people come to this country and claim
asylum, we have a responsibility as a
government to assess their cases and to
process them. For those who have got a
clear right to be here, for the for
those who have evidenced what they are
facing in terms of persecution,
refugees, then that will be decided.
where they don't then we will take
action to remove people from the
country. So we do have a responsibility
to process those cases and yes
>> and the responsibility to those asylum
seekers is more important than the
responsibility to those who live
locally.
>> Our responsibility to those who live
locally is also important as well and I
understand I completely understand why
many people in places like Eping where
where hotels have opened up feel
incredibly frustrated about that. They
have a right, of course, to demonstrate
lawfully and peacefully. Of course,
where it crosses a line that isn't
consistent with our long-standing
traditions in this country of respect
for the rule of law, respect for the
police, and our responsibility to make
sure that we have safe communities for
everybody living there. And given what
is alleged to have happened in Eping, I
appreciate this is an ongoing case, so I
won't go too far in saying much about
this. Given what is alleged to have
happened, I can understand the concern
that causes to local. Can you understand
that what you've just said to someone
who lives in one of these towns, Eping
or Dis or wherever it is, you said that
it's a government's uh responsibility to
balance the rights, as they would put
it, of people who've just arrived, made
no contribution to this country against
the rights of those who've lived here
forever, who pay their taxes, who uh
want their towns to be safe and
tranquil. And your view is that these
two things, these two sets of people are
equivalent and you can balance the
rights. Can you see how infuriating that
must feel to somebody in one of these
towns?
>> I completely understand how frustrating
and how angry people will often feel
about the use of asylum hotels. We
wouldn't
>> That's not what I'm asking about. I'm
asking about your view that these that
their interests have to be balanced.
That's a different question. Can you see
how people would be angry about that?
>> I do. And we wouldn't be starting from
here, but I don't want to be in the
position of having a number of asylum
hotels across the country in operation.
That number is coming down. We've got
much further to go and we will close
them by the end of this parliament. And
I know people don't like us even a year
in as a government saying this is what
we inherited. This is what we inherited.
Right? There was a widespread use of
asylum hotels by the conservatives that
increased enormously at enormous cost.
You keep going back to the conservative.
I wanted to ask you but it won't be a
quick fix. Sort it.
>> Your lawyers under your guidance have
said in terms that the rights of asylum
seekers are more important than the
rights of local people in Eping Forest.
Would you at least acknowledge that that
is what they will hear? And I I I it's
not it's up to you. Ministers can say we
agree with that or we don't agree with
it. You can't simply say let's balance
things. Do you agree with what your
lawyers said or don't you?
>> Yes, of course we do. But what I would
add is that whilst I recognize the quite
obvious and legitimate concerns that
people have about use of asylum hotels,
had we not acted in the way that the
home secretary did around that case, we
would have ended up with lots of
disruption in terms of what that would
have meant around asylum hotels. We will
close them, but we will close them in an
orderly way, not just where we turf
people out on the streets in significant
numbers.
>> All right, let's let's turn to your own
specific uh area responsibility. Last
year for the election, uh you promised
that you'd set out and deliver a
strategy to end child poverty by a
spring. Well, that's been delayed. The
Archbishop of York describes uh that
delay uh cause of failure as I'm quoting
him here as hugely frustrating and
deeply shaming. Um he's frustrated. Are
you ashamed?
>> I'm ashamed of the very high numbers of
children growing up in poverty that we
see in our country. So, I understand the
archbishop's challenge around bringing
those numbers down as well. came into
politics to do is what I believe very
strongly that the family that you're
born into, family circumstance shouldn't
determine everything you go on to
achieve. It's why we've already taken
action as a government. New free
breakfast clubs, the child care
expansion that rolls out from tomorrow,
30 hours of government funded child care
for working parents. And alongside that,
just recently, we announced the single
biggest expansion of free school meals
to all families in receipt of universal
credit. that will lift a 100,000
children out of poverty. But do I accept
the challenge that there is absolut that
there is more to do on bringing those
numbers down further? Yes, I do and I
agree and this government will deliver
that.
>> I I sat with the archbishop um this week
and um talking to some charity leaders
in Middlesborough area you know well and
was really interesting um he talked
about Church of England schools where
children come to school with empty lunch
boxes. They get breakfast thanks to the
breakfast clubs,
but then they fill up their lunch boxes
uh at the food bank in school or else
they'd have no tea when they get home.
Um he thinks that that points to and
demands the lifting of the two child cap
on benefit because uh he and others
think that that is main driver for child
poverty. Are you ready to lift that two
child cap yet?
>> So, as part of the work that you
mentioned that I'm leading with the work
and pension secretary on the child
poverty strategy, of course, we're
looking at every way that we can lift
more children out of poverty. That does
extend to social security measures
alongside that. It's not the only way we
can lift children out of poverty and of
course it does come with a big price
tag, but we know that not acting also
comes with serious consequences and
impact too. So for those individual
children, you know, poverty blights life
chances. It holds people back. It's a
moral scar on our country. But it
damages us all because as a society, as
a country, we're less productive. Our
economy is weaker. So of course, there
are choices. The choices we've made
already around expanding free school
meals, for example, will make a big
difference. The univer the free
breakfast clubs will make a really big
difference. And the changes we're making
around cutting the costs of school
uniform to parents at the start of uh
coming in from next year alongside that,
too. So we've already made a lot of
progress but yes I accept that over many
many years what we've seen is a big
increase in the number of children grow
growing up in poverty. I you know
growing up I experienced some of that
myself. So I know what it feels like. I
know the damage
>> it's going to be higher at the end of
this parliament according to the child
poverty action group.
>> Well that is obviously depends upon
wider and further government action.
>> Okay. Oh what what would that be that
further government action? Well, for
example, the changes that uh we're
bringing in uh from tomorrow around uh
access to child care, working parents
will be able to access 30 hours of
governmentbacked childare. One of the
biggest barriers around child poverty is
skills, access to work and other
challenges.
>> Can I just very quickly ask you very
quickly ask you about a thing that
you've talking about today and you've
been talking about last couple of weeks
um and that is the uh poor performance
of uh white children on free white
British children on free school meals.
and you're talking today about the
absence rates. Um I looked at the uh
official statistics, the ONS statistics,
and the problem isn't universal. Gypsy
and traveler children three times uh
likely to be uh misclasses as the
average, but Chinese children are less
than half as likely. Um same something
similar for black Africans. Um what
should we learn from those communities?
>> I mean this is this is complex area. I
think that as you say the numbers speak
for themselves and particularly where it
comes to um white children on free
school meals the challenge we see around
attendance around doing well in their
GCSEs is a real one and I'm determined
to grasp it we'll be setting out more
later on this year through the school's
white paper but I think what what I see
in my own community in the northeast
where some of these challenges are
really profound is whether families and
whether young people really see the full
benefit and value of education whether
they see doing well at school as the
route to a good life because some of
these challenges also are about access
to good jobs about the labor market and
and on attendance. You know, this is
this is the start of the new school to
new school term is starting. It's an
exciting opportunity to really focus on
what we can do together parents uh
government and schools and it's why
we're putting more money into backing
schools around attendance and behavior
particularly in some of those
communities where we see the greatest of
>> Bridget Fson, thank you very much for
your time this morning. Thank you.