It's Back to school this week. Here in
Westminster College, there is a
compulsory topic on the curriculum,
migration studies with a special module
on small boats. As far as the public's
concerned, the government's going to
have to reset its exams.
A summer of demonstrations outside
asylum hotels has left party leaders
scrambling to catch up with a furious
public mood.
But there's more trouble ahead for the
chancellor. According to campaigners, a
hundred more British children are
falling into poverty every day. Would
she lift the two child cap on benefits?
And an exclusive interview with the
leader of our national church pits the
government against potentially its most
formidable foe yet, God.
We'll be joined live by the education
secretary, Bridget Phillipsson.
We'll bring you that exclusive interview
with the Archbishop of York and acting
head of the Church of England, Steven
Kotrrell.
We'll get reaction from the Deputy
Leader of Reform, Richard Ty,
and the Conservative Shadow Cabinet
Office Minister, Alex Burkhard.
Plus with us throughout the show, former
Financial Times editor Lionel Barber,
former Boris Johnson adviser Joe Tanner,
and journalist and broadcaster Steve
Richards.
Welcome back to Sunday Morning with
Trevor Phillips. It's a lovely thing
when neighbors exchange gifts. For
example, this morning the French
government's wrapping up the buyer
tapestry in preparation for sending it
to the British Museum. It'll be great
for the many hundreds who've turned out
this summer to demonstrate outside
asylum hotels to have such an epic
visual reminder of the last time several
thousand young men left the French coast
and landed on British shores without so
much as a buy your leave. They came and
they stayed. 950 years later, we've
learned our lesson apparently, and we're
just not having the whole William the
Conqueror experience again. So, in
return for French generosity, we'll be
sending something back. 2,000 people who
cross the channel in small boats during
the next year. Karma says that if you
arrive illegally, you'll be detained and
deported. A message identical in
substance to the one delivered earlier
in the week by the leader of reform,
Nigel Farage. Kimmy Bnock wants to be
even tougher. But this happy harmony is
this morning about to be shattered by a
critic that no politician really wants
to take on. Someone in politics once
famously
said, "We don't do God." But God, or at
least his representative on earth, is
certainly doing politics. The Archbishop
of York weighs in this morning on
migration, taking aim first at Mr.
Farage. We should actively resist the
kind of isolationist short-term
kneejerk, you know, send them in this
case, send them home. Mr. Farage um uh
is saying the things he's saying, but he
is not offering any long-term to
solution to the big issues which are
convulsing our world which lead to this.
Um and uh I I I see no other way.
He also lambasts the government over the
two child cap on benefits calling its
retention shaming. His criticism endor
is endorsed by 37 other faith leaders in
a letter to the prime minister and
chancellor today. So expect to hear that
message repeated in a thousand churches,
mosques, synagogues, and temples this
week. Is politics ready to take on the
almighty? Let's find out much more of
the archbishop a little later. But let's
start this morning with the government
and I can speak now to the education
secretary Bridget Phillipsson who's
here. Morning.
>> Hello. 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? 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 very good and well for
reform 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 uh
record level this time of the year under
you. Uh and actually there is 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
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. They
think political interests are served by
whipping up anger rather than fixing.
>> You keep saying they're whipping up
between them and us is that we are you
keep saying they're whipping up anger.
The anger is there already. You see it
in Eping. We see it in discs. 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, barrage 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 okay 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 about
>> 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
>> are you ready that if you discover that
it's not possible to make those changes
because nobody else agrees to leave the
EC CHR as or to suspend its use as some
uh of your uh colleagues who were home
secretaries uh in lay 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
it.
>> 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 and with the kind of
extrapolation that you've made there I
think is is a bit it's a bit
>> 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 neg 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 ECR around the right to family life
and how that is being applied by the
courts. But yes, our
>> 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
>> to be taken seriously. It' be good 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.
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 to 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
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 the home
office 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 said, but that's not
an answer to the question I asked. 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 D 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 know.
>> 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. Look, 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.
>> Yeah, you keep going back to the
conservative. I wanted to ask you, but
it won't be a quick sort.
>> 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 area responsibility. Last year
for the election, uh you promised that
you'd set out and deliver a strategy to
end child poverty by spring. Well,
that's been delayed. The Archbishop of
York describes uh that delay uh called a
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 absolutely
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 Middlesbrough 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 the 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 un 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 childare, working parents will
be able to access 30 hours of government
back 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 were talking today about the
absence rates. Um I looked at the uh
official statistics, the ONS statistics,
and the problem isn't universal.
Egyptians 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. H 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
challenges. Bridget Fersonson, thank you
very much for your time this morning.
>> Thank you.
>> Well, it's not just schools back from
summer tomorrow. Parliament reopens for
business, too. And who better to start
your mornings with than our very own Sam
Coats and Politico's Anelboy.
Politics at Sam and Ans returns tomorrow
with your daily dose of the day ahead in
politics. And it drops every morning at
a quart to 8. You can scan the QR code
now to get in on the action.
Well, there's a lot more to come on this
show this morning. You've already heard
a snippet of what the Archbishop of York
had to say about Nigel Faraj's migration
policies. We're going to bring you the
rest of that interview a little later in
the program. Reform's deputy leader
Richard Ty is going to give us his
reaction to the Archbishop of York at
the top of the hour. That's 9:00 a.m.
And we'll also hear from Conservatives
with shadow cabinet office minister Alex
Burkhard.
Well, let's see what our all-star panel
made of what we've heard so far from the
education secretary. We're joined all
morning by the former Financial Times
editor Lionel Barber, the former Boris
Johnson adviser Joe Tanner, and
journalist and broadcaster Steve
Richards. Morning all and welcome back.
Um, Lionel, what did you make of what
the education secretary had to say about
the um the migration issue?
>> More than a few tortured responses, I
would say to to your question.
>> to torturing, I think, is harsh. Oh,
>> harsh. I'm very kind.
>> Someone sharpened their pencils.
>> Even off your summer break.
No, I I mean I think this this question
of um the balance between the interests
of the local community and the rights of
asylum seekers, we should call them by
the way uh not asylum seekers but in
large part economic migrants. I mean
this is the problem. Um I I think
obviously the headlines, the pictures
day after day of what ordinary people
protesting, British flags out. I mean,
we've reached a complete ampass. There
needs to be new thinking. Uh, you and I
were talking just before the break about
how the the terms of debate have
shifted. So, what previously appeared to
be off the agenda, no question of say
coming out or suspending parts of the
European Convention on Human Rights, um,
that is now part of it. Now, very
briefly,
>> because it's a complex issue, uh, um,
that's not going to solve the problem.
uh just withdrawing. Uh there would be
some microbium criticism. That's not the
part of it. What they have to do is
process these applications much faster
and I think some new thinking. Trevor,
you heard it here first. I think they
should consider following what some
European countries do and put these
people to work.
ah asylum seekers as um most people
don't know asylum seekers are not
allowed to work at the moment so which
is why they partly why they languish in
these hotels what do you make of it
>> um I think there's there's a frustration
growing from the public we know but
surely the crux of one of those
frustrations was in the words that
Bridget Philips repeated over and over
again which was will
we will do this we will look at that the
problem is this government came in with
a plan for change and yet it does not
appear to have a plan or quite frankly
any idea what to do to solve this
problem and instead the gulf between the
expectations of the public and the
frustrations of the public and where the
government are in terms of answers is
just growing. It's growing every week.
We saw over the summer reform managing
to capitalize on the fact that there was
a complete void really at the heart of
government. We didn't really hear much
at all in terms of policy. It was sort
of left as everyone wanted to have a
break and actually quite frankly this is
the first day back and the person that
is out on the airwaves is Bridget
Philipsson, the education secretary.
Where is the home secretary? Where is
the more senior leadership? And I've got
nothing against Bridget, you know, as a
as a member of the cabinet, but surely
this is the big issue that people are
bothered about and is the first thing
that people are talking about. And the
story today is we're worried about
education attainments and absence of of
>> that is the government's press release.
>> That's the joke of it. Surely if you had
a plan, you shouldn't be talking about
what we will do in the future. We should
be hearing about what is actually going
to be happening tomorrow, the day after,
the day after that to make a difference
to these communities. Steve, are they
miss they are they missing a trick here?
>> Well, I think there are two levels on
the presentational side. Yes. You know
what they should have done when they
clocked and I assume they knew that
Farage was going to hold these weekly
press conferences in August is get the
team together in July and say right who
are we going to put up week in week out
and at least give the impression of
purpose and clarity to counter for arch.
None of that seemed to have happened. So
there is a presentational issue. There's
a much deeper one. It seems to me that
this whole issue is the sort of second
crisis of globalization. We had the
crash in 2008
which triggered a quite effective
internationally coordinated response.
Here each government is trying to deal
with this movement of people which is
the second crisis of globalization on
their own with claims of unilateral
action which will work. The last
government made claims it didn't work.
This government's made claims it's not
working. And it seems to me, you know,
we need a combination of initiatives
from the government. I think Lionel's
ideas are good. Speeding up the process,
getting them to work, but you've got to
get international cooperation on this.
And that's the difference with the
financial crash. With this, everyone's
pretending can all be done individually.
And clearly, it's about movement between
borders, which is going to continue even
if you manage to kick out some of these
people. Yeah. And so in the end there's
going to have to be some level of
international coordination.
>> The the most potent and you're you're
right about the levels of um of
migration. I think this week the United
Nations put the number of global
migrants at 300 million more than ever
before. But at the heart of the
political conflict, Joe, is this simple
question. Who is the government for? Is
it for these guys who've just turned up
or is it for us? Every leader seems to
be unable to answer this question except
for Raj who's completely clear it's us
>> and and and he's putting out ideas and
suggestions that even if quite frankly
under great scrutiny some of it doesn't
work. he is at least throwing something
into the debate and having almost sort
of sparking the conversation as to what
the answers would be and is very
squarely saying I'm putting myself on
the side of you the great British public
who pay their taxes and work hard or
whatever. He's that's where he's saying
I'm going to I'm going to put my flags
as it were. Um and the the challenge is
that the government as I say have just
been seemingly absent. Well, there's
another constituency uh Trevor that you
didn't allude to which is the community
of those um who believe uh unequivocally
and 100% in international law. Now what
if that is not relevant? And I thought
Bridget Philipsson's answer to your
question that somehow the if we withdrew
from these conventions or what or made
changes that this would damage prospects
for a trade deal. I mean really, there
are all sorts of reasons why countries
would want to trade with us or sign a
new agreement. Got nothing to do with
whether we're part in or out of
international conventions.
>> Okay. Well, it sounds like you're giving
the government this morning.
>> It's not a kicking.
>> It's not even a C grade really, is it? I
mean, I know what they it is now, but
they failed. All right. Look, um it is
9:00. You're watching Sunday morning
with Trevor Phillips. In the last hour,
the education secretary has told this
program that the government needs to
balance the rights of asylum seekers and
local people. Bridget Philipsson said
she was ashamed at the state of child
poverty in this country, but the
government was taking more action to
tackle it. Well, I can speak now to uh
the reform UK deputy leader uh Richard
Ty. Good morning, Richard. Good morning.
Uh everybody's talking about about you.
Let's let's start with uh the leader of
the Church of England who says that your
policy on asylum is
isolationist, short-term, and knee-jerk.
What What part of that is wrong?
>> All of it's wrong because our policy on
asylum seekers and removing those who
are here illegally is to look after the
people that the British government is
supposed to look after, which is the
British people, and to make them more
prosperous, to improve the quality of
public services for British citizens.
And you've now got a government that's
basically admitted the opposite is true.
They're more interested in protecting
the rights of uh people who've come here
illegally, therefore they are criminals
than looking after the rights of British
citizens. That's the dividing line. And
that's why the latest poll shows that at
35% we're 15 points ahead of a
disappearing Labor party.
>> Well, well, let's not argue about uh
individual polls. There's no question
that you guys are ahead. But um is there
a problem though for you that this is a
clear statement of of policy but
credible governments uh make agreements
with other parties internationally. Um
what you're basically saying is in the
end what matters is what we want for our
people and deals that we might have made
uh over periods of time with the United
Nations with other countries in Europe
with others they can all go by the
wayside because uh we need to get
reelected.
>> So are you suggesting that a 70-year-old
outofdate unfitforpurpose agreement is
more important than actually looking
after the interests of the British
citizens today? Let me tell you.
I'm suggesting that when you make a
promise
>> and that is why we're leading the polls
and why the Westminster class is so out
of touch with how furious people are.
>> I'm suggesting that when you make a
promise to a partner, whether it be
another individual or another country,
you need to keep it or
>> for as long as it works for a government
and our citizens
>> or if you want to change it, you have to
get that get you get you need to do that
with agreement rather than unilaterally.
>> You give due notice. So if it's 6 months
notice, we give six months notice. It's
just the same as in a in a business
contract when you're renting a property.
You come to the
>> You're never going to do business with
people who suddenly turn up and say, "By
the way, we've changed our minds." No,
>> you are never going to do that.
>> We we you what you do is you do business
on the basis of the uh the laws and the
notice period for an international
agreement. Most international treaties
have an exit clause, a termination
clause. Frankly, if they don't, then
that's negligent in itself. Let's let's
go back to the key point. This
government seems to have forgotten that
it is elected to look after the
interests of the British people and to
make us more prosperous. And if it
abandons that duty, frankly, they should
give up and call a general election.
>> Are you um saying to the Archbishop uh
essentially, keep your nose out of
politics? Look, I'm a Christian. I enjoy
the church. uh I believe in in uh in God
but no the role of the archbishop is not
actually to interfere with international
migration policies that is determined by
the government
>> but it is his it is his job to tell us
uh what he thinks and what the church
thinks is morally right that's very
different that's very different from
international migration policy
>> and and don't governments have some
responsibility to demonstrate moral
behavior or is it just a business
transaction being in
It's a bit of both, but fundamentally,
>> no, no, you can't have it. You can't
have it both ways. You
>> It's not an either or, but
fundamentally, I repeat, the role of the
government is to make people better off,
to improve our public services, to
improve access to housing. And by
removing hundreds of thousands of people
who are here illegally, we'll ease the
pressure on the housing market, will
ease the pressure on the labor market,
and that'll lead to higher wages.
because currently with give or take a
million people illegally potentially
working in the UK that is suppressing
British wages with a huge black market.
>> All right. Can I just get ask you to
talk about one thing clearly? Um you
want your counselors to object to the
presence of asylum hotels in their areas
and you said pursue legal means. Uh can
you be clear with us that there is no
encouragement from your party to the
sort of person uh who wants to break
into asylum hotels in masks and to
intimidate asylum seekers?
>> Of course. What a ridiculous suggestion.
Trevor,
>> it's not a ridiculous suggestion.
>> It is a ridiculous suggestion. We have
ridiculously said whether
it's ridiculous question. Let me give
you the opportunity to say it's
ridiculous. That's the point of this
interview
>> which is exactly what I'm saying. It's
an outrageous suggestion. Of course,
we're not suggesting that. We've always
suggested lawful, peaceful protest.
Nothing else.
>> All right, let's talk about your broader
plans on this area. You want to stop
illegal immigrants landing in the first
place. Um, you've talked about deploying
the Royal Navy. What would sailor's
orders be? Would it be that they should
sink small boats if they didn't turn
back?
>> I think you might be suffering a little
bit of August sunstroke, Trevor. Of
course, we're not saying sink boats. Get
a grip. We are saying we are saying
what's the point of putting the Royal
Navy out there?
>> The point of putting the Royal Navy out
there is to act as a deterrent alongside
our deportation policy which will deter
people from coming because everybody
will know if they land on these shores
they will be detained, they will be
rapidly processed and they will be
deported.
>> This is very interesting. Um, most
deterrents uh work because the deter is
going to do what he or she says they're
going to do. If you put the Royal Navy
out there, what are they? Are they just
interested observers?
>> Yes. Hanging about in a in a sense
that's what the Basty's time.
>> That's what the border force are
currently there for. They're but they're
acting as a taxi service.
>> Well, why are you wasting the Navy's
time just out there having a look?
Assuming we're right, we and we think we
are that our our policy of deportations
and detaining and deporting works within
weeks, the incentive to come here will
finish. So it doesn't matter whether
it's Royal Navy out there or not.
Therefore, we enjoy the success that
Australia had some 12 years ago when
they had a push back policy. And guess
what?
>> But you're not answering my question.
What is the point of putting the Royal
Navy in the channel if they are not
going to take aggressive actions against
a small boat?
>> It's all part action.
>> It's all part of a terrorist. Do you
know what you do? Just like in business,
you make a decision, you try something,
if it works, you keep pursuing it. If
it's not working, you tweak, you adapt,
you adjust. That's how you work in
business. And that's how governments
should run. And you try a variety of
measures. We've put forward very clear
plans. That's why we're leading in the
polls because people clearly understand
if you're here illegally, you're going
to be detained and deported. If you come
here illegally on small boats, you're
going to be detained and you're going to
be deported. You're going to put people
in disused military facil facilities and
then deport them to a third country. Um
is are there any countries with whom you
wouldn't do a deal? Afghanistan,
Sudan.
>> We we will look to do return deals with
a variety of countries. And do you know
what? Sometimes in business you do
business with people you don't like. If
we want if we want a ceasefire in Gaza,
you've got to do a deal with the vile
terrorist Hamas. If we want a ceasefire
in Ukraine, you've got to do a deal with
the vile monster Putin. Okay? And if we
want to return people to places like
Afghanistan, you may have to deal do a
deal with the Taliban. Sometimes things
are difficult. Sometimes you deal with
people you may not be best buddies with
and go to the pub with.
>> With respect, you you said four times uh
that in business you do this or you do
that. Well, you know, I'm also in
business, but the truth is that there
are things you cannot do if you are an
elected government that you would do in
business. So, just to be clear, there's
no barrier from your point of view doing
deals uh with countries uh that their
human rights records, the likelihood of
people being tortured and so on uh makes
no difference. You would not, for examp
you would probably then have to resolve
from the refugee convention, would you?
We've already said, Nigel was very clear
last Tuesday that we will uh we will
essentially dergate from whatever
international treaties are necessary in
order to make this policy effective
because once again, let me be 100% clear
for everybody. We have to look after the
interests of the British citizens. We're
not responsible for every monstrous
despotic regime all over the world.
We're responsible for our conduct,
aren't we? we're responsible for British
citizens and to make us more prosperous.
And I'll tell you why I use the word
business for who we decide are our
friends. If we keep spending more than
we're earning, right, we're going to go
bust as a country in the same way that
businesses go bust. That's why the
30-year guilt yield is rising to
completely unsustainable levels.
>> Okay. Elon Musk says that British
government has declared war on British
people. Over the top or fair comment?
>> Um, Mr. Musk enjoys uh free speech and
sometimes he might be over the top,
sometimes it might be fair comment. In a
sense, what he says is not relevant to
me or us. We're focused on what's right
for the British people.
>> All right. Um can I ask you about
something else that the archbishop has
talked about and that's the two child
cap on benefits. Um I think you would
scrap it. Is that correct?
>> Yeah. We want a we want a child benefit
system that encourages uh more British
families, more British births because
we've got a we've got a democratic
demographic problem at the moment. But
equally, we need a welfare system that
gets people back into work and stops
people making the life ch lifestyle
choice of essentially deciding not to
work.
>> So you scrap it. You scrap it. Can I
just ask you if you would agree with
Gordon Brown's um way of paying for uh
getting rid of it, which is um
essentially sin tax, uh gambling tax.
We agree with Gordon Brown on probably
zero. Although he does agree with me,
for example, on not paying voluntary
interest on the uh Bank of England's
printed reserves, but we we'll decide
how to pay for it in our way. That's the
reality.
>> So, you're not ruling out a gambling
tax?
We're not setting a policy for a budget
in four years time after the next
general election that we win. Um on your
show, however brilliant.
>> You've already done that on on child
benefits. Uh cap, you said a policy. So
why not on this?
>> Because you're asking a very specific
about to to link something directly.
>> Okay. Okay. Uh you complain when we
don't take you seriously and now you're
complaining when I'm asking you what you
do as government. Anyway,
>> wonderful to see you,
>> Richard Ty. Thank you for your time this
morning.
Okay, back to our panel. Lionel Barber,
Joe Tanner, and Steve Richards, who I
should mention has a new biography of
Tony Blair coming out this month. Okay,
now for the plug. You get you have to do
do some work
>> next month,
>> September.
>> How what do you think uh the
conventional parties have to do to
tackle uh the approach that Richard
Heisy has just outlined, which is if
nothing else crystal clear? Well, you
see, I it is an interesting example of I
think it reinforced the point I was
making to be honest after the Bridget
Phillips uh interview, which is you can
claim to do all these uh things
unilaterally and yet when each of the
unilateral policies are interrogated,
they start to fall apart. I mean, you
ask uh Richard Ty what uh role the Navy
was going to play and it wasn't at all
clear. Uh you ask him separately on uh
this child benefit thing, how pretty
clear they weren't playing any role
except
>> observe watching observe. So so it's not
an answer. In other words, it's not an
answer and they claim it to be part of a
solution. And so the other parties must
much more confidently uh interrogate
these proposals. As I say, they should
have been up every week in August
challenging challenging challenging with
a self-confidence
uh and and and a sense that there is an
alternative route. Now that alternative
route, the problem with it is it's
complicated. Um, and there aren't easy
answers. But clearly this attempt to
suggest uh over August from uh reform
that there are easy answers fell apart
in a 10-minute interview. So So you I'm
not claiming you are representative of
all the the other parties, but you
showed one route of dealing with it.
It's not the only route. Uh it perhaps
none of it matters in the current
political climate but I suspect in the
end it will scrutiny.
>> Lionel
>> uh long on description very short on
prescription. In other words a lot of
very inflammatory language. So all these
people who've come on boats or in this
country the asylum seekers are
criminals. Um he also suggests that
everything is very simple because it can
be just treated and you point pick this
up. It's just like a business. Well,
running a government is not like running
a business. It's extremely uh it it's
completely different. And he also
suggested that there are 1 million
people use the word potentially working
in this country or could work illegal. I
mean this is this is highly in
>> I think what he means is there's
probably about a million undocumented
migrants. That's one of the estimates
that's floating about.
>> Yeah. I'd love to know where that number
came from. But there we are. So, um, as
Steve says, the mainstream parties, they
need to be much more rigorous and smart
about tackling, um, this emptyanced
reform UK agenda because otherwise the
description as opposed to prescriptions
leading to a bump in the poll.
>> Joe, whether or not um, the TIC um,
answers are legitimate, um, the Tories
are having a torid time dealing with it,
aren't they? I think everyone's having a
a difficult time with it because to to
the points we've just raised and what I
said earlier is that you've allowed a
narrative to develop and what's
happening is in pubs and over breakfast
tables and and in newspapers and on
forums online people are saying well
what reform is saying well it sounds
very simple that sounds possible why why
aren't they doing that and instead
there's it's you know it's great that
you're putting that scr you're having
that scrutiny and you're asking those
questions but what's just happened for
the last few weeks weeks when everyone
else has kind of started to think
through these things and thought that
the suggestions seem quite reasonable.
They seem possible and they're against a
backdrop of a of a sort of plan that is
non-existent from not only Labour but
also the other main parties. The Tories
have the Tories are constantly saying
that everything else is wrong without
really taking responsibility for why
we're where we are anyway. But also, you
know, these photo ops and sitting on
boats and saying, "Look, isn't it all
all terrible doesn't answer any of the
questions as to how we get out of where
we currently are and it doesn't stop
people from getting angrier and angrier
and angrier and they will have watched
you locks just now with Richard and
thought, well, why are you having a go
at him? He hasn't done anything wrong.
It's not his fault that we're where we
are and Nigel's trying to come up with
some ideas." And that's what people are
thinking out there. People are saying,
"At least they're having a go." And
Richard's point is valid, but I think a
bit scary for the public, which is in
business, you try things, some things
work, some some things don't. I'm a bit
worried about some of those gambling
gamles on our behalf. I think they are
dangerous, but at least they are trying
to put something into the debate.
>> Yeah, I'm not going to be looking at my
social media feed for a while. But um
but Steve um the thing that we're that
consensus is forming here is that they
the other parties are not really
stepping up to the reform challenge. Um
you know you're all clever and so on but
people in government must be able to see
exactly the same thing. What what are
the tensions do you think inside Labor
at the moment that prevent them from
tackling this head on?
>> Well, in uh we've talked about the
presentational side and I just don't
think they're very good at communication
and that's a big big problem. There's
partly an argument to be won through
communication on the policy matters. It
is really interesting. So Kstarma is
someone absolutely committed to the ECR
or was we've heard Bridget Phillipsson
confirm they're looking at revisions to
it. But that's one example of a very big
internal uh issue whether it actually
whether you can win an argument by
saying you're looking at revising
through international agreement with
others the ECR or whether you have to go
much bigger uh just almost in
presentational terms and say look
they've won this argument now you and
and so that's one of many internal uh
tensions but there's a more fundamental
one which is uh is how the heck do we
deal with this? Um, and that's causing
huge internal pressures.
>> Well, actually, the answers aren't
clear.
>> You you you can see as one measure of
how important the government thinks it
is. Um, here are the prime minister's 93
official uh posts uh in August 2025.
The biggest number by far is on
migration. He he never stops talking
about it, but actually it's not landing,
is it? Well, some of the tweets are
absurd. Uh in his
>> for example,
>> uh I I am removing 30 boats today. I
mean, it's sort of trying to make
personaliz he's not doing it himself.
Someone's doing it. And and some of them
are darkly comic. And I'm not at all
surprised they're not landing, but
sorry.
The idea that this country's borders are
porous, that we are not capable of
enforcing border security is utterly
corrosive and deeply dangerous to the
democratic fabric. It really is. And
therefore the government has to show and
it has to think about presentation but
it has to find a way of communicating
tangible progress in reversing this
trend. It's not just about the boats in
the channel that that's an easy photo
shoot. It is also about as I said
processing asylum uh applications so
that the system has to be galvanized and
that it needs to be much more rigorous.
get these things done so that we can
then deport.
>> But that's the fault of this
>> and and it really is a big problem. It's
a big problem. They can't show tangible
progress.
>> Yeah. The the the storytelling of what
started with this plan and where they've
got to in a year is still we are going
to do things not that we've done things
and what they have done feels like
incremental progress
>> and they need money to speed up the
processing.
>> We will come back and talk about that a
bit later. Next, we'll bring you that
exclusive interview with the Archbishop
of York.
Heat.
Fire! Shouts the commander.
>> There's a dash to safety. We've now got
to wait inside the shelter to see if
there is incoming. I'm Deborah Haynes,
Sky Security and Defense Editor. Should
Russia's war with Ukraine escalate
significantly, pilots like these could
be called upon to go into combat for
real.
Hear that whistle and that crunch. We
know that they're coming from the south
of the city where there's a column of
Russian armory. I'm Alex Crawford and
I'm Skye's special correspondent based
in IstAnul.
>> Look at that sheet of flames. And that
has happened within minutes. And now
it's coming from both sides and it's
moving this way.
Our app gives you the very best of Sky
News wherever you are. Breaking news,
videos, analysis up at 6%. Podcasts
watching us live.
>> Joins us live all in one place and all
at just the touch of a screen. The Sky
News app. Get the full story first.
I'm David Levens and I'm Sky Senior
Ireland correspondent.
I've spent 30 years reporting the
journey from conflict to peace. The end
of the political stalemate, the start of
a new chapter for Northern Ireland.
Catholics and Protestants now facing the
same threat.
>> If we both contract COVID 19, religion's
nothing.
>> Sky News, the full story. First,
>> the Archbishop of York has criticized
reform and its leader Nigel Farage in an
exclusive interview for this program. He
called their plans knee-jerk and said
they offered no long-term solutions on
asylum seekers and their removal. The
acting head of the Church of England
also called on the government to lift
the two child cap on benefits.
Let's talk about the issue that you um
have raised with a letter that signed
with other faith leaders about child
poverty. What is the point of what
you're trying to say? Well, at at its
simplest, uh it it is simply a shameful
scandal that in a wealthy country like
ours,
there are children every day, I mean
thousands of children every day going to
school hungry, don't have a proper
mattress to sleep on, um have all the
stigma um and the lifelimiting impacts
of of of poverty. It shouldn't be this
way, which I know everyone agrees on it
shouldn't be this way,
but at the moment I don't believe we
have the holistic systemic approach to
addressing it, which is needed. So I've
been here today in Middlesborough
speaking with uh various people who are
involved locally in addressing the needs
of child poverty to to learn about
what's happening and to hopefully be a
voice to say we can do better.
>> The child poverty action group says that
there are 100 children uh pushed into
poverty every day. Uh 100 extra children
pushed into poverty every day. and they
attribute the largest cause I suppose uh
for child poverty to this two child
limit. Now the government says it's
going it was going to examine is going
to produce a strategy on child poverty.
It was meant to come on come in this
earlier this year. They say it's going
to come before the end of the year. Um,
how much does it bother you that
actually with this extra number 100 plus
going into child poverty every day that
that uh strategy has been delayed?
>> Well, it's it's hugely frustrating and
it's and it's deeply shaming for us as a
nation. I've been speaking this morning
about some of my own direct experiences
with uh communities and schools that I
serve uh here in the north of England um
across you know particularly here in
T-side and Cleveland. I was at a school
last year where
I mean the children come to school with
an empty lunchbox. Um I used to send my
kids to school with a lunch box. It was
my job to make the lunch in the morning.
The kids go with an empty lungs box
because there's a breakfast club at the
school.
Virtually all the children at the school
are on free school meals. And then at
the end of the day, they set up a
trestle table in the playground
with the local food bank to give
children. That's when they fill up their
empty lunchbox. They take it home so
that they can have some tea. Now, we
know that the two child limit is one of
the contributing factors to growing
child poverty.
Therefore, it is that policy that is
creating that situation. Um, now I know
these things cost money of of course
they do. But the cost of not doing
something, the economic
difficulties we're storing up for
ourselves by, you know, listening to
people this morning, they said over and
over again, you only get one childhood.
And if we don't invest in those
children, if if they don't have enough
to eat, that has a direct impact on
their education and their educational
achievement and therefore a direct
impact on what that child's life is
going to be like as an adult, which will
end up costing us even more money.
>> Uh you've been working with the foreign
prime minister Gordon Brown on this. Um
Mr. Brown says that we should pay for
this
>> by a new tax or further taxes on
gambling. Um more generally, because
this is your betick really, um do you
think that there's a case for extending
and increasing what people call sin
taxes, taxes on things that are bad for
us, gambling, alcohol, sugar, and so on.
>> Yeah. So, obviously I speak to you as a
church leader, not a politician, not an
economist. Um, but I hope I'm not naive
in the way I look at these things. I
think my primary role
is to take a moral and ethical argument
about in a wealthy society like ours, we
should not be accepting of such high
levels of of poverty and we should
address it. Obviously, that needs to be
paid for. And I think we do need to be
open to fresh thinking about how that
happens. And so I'm really interested in
Gordon Brown's proposals. Um the the two
which I think are the headline ones are
I think I'm right in saying we have the
lowest levy on gambling in amongst um
you know European nations. So that is
obviously something we could and should
look at and I I would have no trouble in
supporting that. But he's also mentioned
you know we the people of this country
bailed out the banks in 2008 2009
whenever it was they are now making
record profits this is about what kind
of society do we want to be what are the
values that underpin it and how do we
all make our contribution there's
another territory on which that issue of
what kind of society we want to be what
our values and so on is very hot let's
put it that way at the moment that is
the issue of migration and particularly
asylum seekers. Um can you understand uh
that some of the people that you
minister to feel resentful that perhaps
the interests of people who haven't
grown up here and haven't contributed
and so on yet are being put before
theirs. Oh.
>> Oh yeah. I absolutely can. Um not not
least a single mom with three children
who's being penalized for having that
third child. Of course I understand
that. But it's what is the solution? Um
the solution isn't to stigmatize asylum
seekers. In the same way it's not the
solution to punish and stigmatize uh
single moms with three children. The the
the solution must be to look at what are
the causes of these things and to
address those in a holistic long-term
way. Well, that's true in the long term,
but this weekend
there are people in asylum hotels and
there have been people last week uh in
the last week or two outside saying not
in our
>> I understand that. But the reason that
happened this weekend is because of
long-term failures to address the
long-term issues that lead to to to
people seeking asylum. And you know I
make no apology for saying we need a big
holistic and in this case international
vision for saying why is there the mass
migration of peoples across our world at
the moment. We know why it's because of
climate change. It's because of
conflict. Um it's because of lack of
international development and
investment. These are the things that
that drive it. It's also a lack of safe
routes for asylum seekers into our
country. So what's your response to
those people who are saying policy
should be you land here uh unlawfully uh
you get locked up and you get deported
straight away. No ifs, no buts. Well,
I'd say to them uh you haven't solved a
problem. You've just you've just you've
put it somewhere else and you've done
nothing to address the issue of what
brings people to this country. And so if
you think that's the answer, you will
discover in due course that all you have
done is made the problem worse. So don't
misunderstand me. I have every sympathy
with those who find this difficult.
Every sympathy as I do with those living
in poverty, but I don't think we should
um well, we should actively resist the
case, send them home. Is that your
message to Mr. Farage?
>> Well, well, well, it is. I mean, Mr.
Farage is saying the things he's saying,
but he is not offering any long-term to
convulsing our world which lead to this
and uh I I I see no other way. Let me
just finally talk to you about the
church's moral authority. Has it been
undermined by the controversies over
safeguarding? You yourself
>> have been called on to resign by uh one
of your fellow bishops last year because
>> uh of what she said were your failings
in this area. But essentially the point
is does the church still retain the
moral authority to be a credible witness
on these issues?
So I know that the church has been
shamed and humbled by our failings,
particularly these failings we're
talking about in areas of safeguarding.
And and I want to take every opportunity
to apologize to victims and survivors
and those whose confidence in the church
has been knocked by those failings.
But a core value and a core belief of
the church is of humility, penitence
and the belief that all of us can be
better than we are. All of us can start
again, that there can be change.
And we have been humbled by our
failings. But I believe it can make us a
more humble church.
and and I do believe that I want there
to be a society where there is
accountability
but where there is also the opportunity
to learn and start again. So the church
of England and many other denominations
and indeed many other institutions have
learned so much in the last 20 years in
these areas. That learning goes on and I
I want to say sorry for my personal
failings in this part. But I also want
to say clearly that I am learning and I
am determined to be part of the change
that will rebuild the trust that I know
has been knocked and sometimes broken in
the last year or so.
That's reasonable. Thank you.
We were speaking in a multi-bank
warehouse in Middlesborough where the uh
archbishop was meeting leaders of
anti-poverty charities.
Now next we'll get further reaction to
that intervention by the archbishop from
the conservatives.
Heat. Heat.
Oh, heat.
Our
app gives you the very best of Sky News
wherever you are. Breaking news, videos,
analysis up at 6%. Podcasts, watching us
live.
Let's speak to the conservatives now.
I'm joined by the shadow cabinet office
minister, Alex Burkhard. Morning.
>> Morning, Tro.
>> Um, do you agree with the Archbishop
that those who are making the case for
isolationist, short-term, and knee-jerk?
Um, and are you, the Conservative Party,
guilty as charged? Look, I think it's
very clear to everyone watching at home
on Yeah. watching your show, Trevor,
that far too many people are coming to
this country illegally. That there needs
to be full adequate deterrence to
prevent that from happening and that we
under this government we don't have
that. And that's why the conservatives
be very clear under Kem that uh yeah if
we get back into power we will make sure
that uh anyone who crosses the channel
illegally tries to get into our country
illegally is deported.
>> You didn't do that before did you? No.
>> Why why should anybody believe you can
do it now?
>> No, we we didn't uh we didn't succeed in
that. Uh but if you look at the work
that Chris Phil and Kemmy have done uh
since Chem took over, you'll see that
they've now put together a very um
comprehensive uh legal answer to how we
solve these problems. And that goes much
further than the last. How come she and
Chris Phelp who was also in government
at the time um didn't get rid of the
asylum hotels when they were were in
power? So what we were as you know T
because you follow these things very
closely. What was happening under us
that was that we were trying to find uh
a very firm deterrent which was offshore
processing in Rwanda. Uh by the time at
the end of our term in office we had
gotten to that point but Labour coming
in immediately scrapped it. And now and
now they're seeing the consequence.
>> You're doing same thing that they do.
you've le to blaming them for something
that you could have done when you were
in the reason I'm blaming them Trevor is
because we now have much higher
crossings than we have ever had before
and that is because the people who are
running the smuggling gangs have seen
that this government is a soft touch uh
and consequently things are only going
to get worse under this administration.
We have put forward very firm legal
proposals that would solve this problem
and the government needs to take account
of them. Yeah, Joe Tanner on the panel
was saying earlier on that one of the
problems that the Conservative Party has
right now is that you still haven't
truly acknowledged the mistakes that you
made. Why can't you just say on this
question asylum hotels on the asylum
hotels? Why can't you just say we blew
it?
>> I think it's entirely wrong to say that
we haven't acknowledged mistakes and uh
it's very
>> I'm asking you to acknowledge a specific
one and which you've now decided was
wrong. Why can't you just say that? So
the mistake that we made, I think, was
that we did not go far enough on uh
overruling human rights legislation that
was binding the hands of the last
government and preventing them from
taking the tough action that was
absolutely necessary. I think by the end
we'd actually gotten to that point, but
then the general election prevented that
legislation from being implemented. The
Labour Party came in, they scrapped it.
We have now put forward very clear
legislation that would solve this
problem. Uh and it's clear that this
government isn't going to do it. This
problem is going to get worse. they are
going to need more hotel spaces, not
fewer. Uh, and we're going to see um,
you know, uh, this this problem across
the country uh, get much worse.
>> Have you decided that you're going to
get that you want to get us out of the
European Convention on Human Rights?
>> As you know very uh, very well, Trevor,
because we've spoken about it before.
Uh, we have a very senior Casey um, Lord
Wilson looking at all of the legal
intricacies of this problem at the
moment because it is not simple. It is
not straightforward and anyone who
pretends it is hasn't looked into it.
And when we get that when we get that
report, you will be one of the first
people to hear exactly uh what our uh
what our proposals are. But to be clear,
the purpose of this exercise is to make
sure that there will be no legal
obstacle to us solving the problem of
illegal migration in the channel. There
will be no legal obstacle.
>> So I'm by the way, it's a privilege to
to be first to get this information, but
Oh, one of the first. Okay. Um, you say
that to all the girls. But look, the the
point I really want to ask is as a
matter of principle, if it is possible
for you to withdraw the UK for the from
the ECHR,
is it your view that we should do that
>> if that's what's necessary, we will do
>> Your leaders written to councils uh Tory
le councils to keep going to oppose the
presence of asylum hotels in the court.
Um, I want to give you the chance just
to be clear that there's no
encouragement from your party to from
the sort of person who wants to break
into asylum hotels and
>> No, no, no. Of course, of course not.
And people have an absolute right to
peaceful protest. Um, yeah. And
certainly on this issue, Eping's very
very close to my constituency. I
completely understand uh why people are
angry about what's happened there. I'm
angry about what's happened there. Uh,
but you there is a line. you know, we
don't resort to violence in um uh in our
protests.
>> Well, one of the reasons I'm asking you
that is Eping Forest District Council's
complaint is that is in theory about a
planning violation.
>> Yeah.
>> But in practice, are you sure it isn't
because they and you just don't want
people in the Bell Hotel walking their
streets? The leader of the Brooks
Council and another one of yours told my
colleague Jonathan Samuels yesterday
that, and I'm quoting him here, we don't
want these people walking around the
area. So, as you know, Trevor, there's a
very serious allegation made against one
of the people who was uh in the Bell
Hotel. Following that, the council wrote
to the home secretary and said, "Please,
will you shut this down?" Uh,
>> there are allegations against three.
Does that justify smearing the other 13?
>> The Bell Hotel is on the high street in
Eping. Uh, it is right in the center of
the community. There are um people under
in the area feel worried and unsafe and
the council asked the home secretary to
close it down. she declined and they
therefore look for legal routes in order
to be able to uh close the close that
hotel and they will continue I hope they
will continue that legal battle because
I believe very strongly that Iette
Cooper and the Labour government is
putting their uh obligations to uh
asylum seekers above their obligations
to local people and I don't think that
that is accepted. So, so your problem is
not really about planning. Your problem
is these men you think are dangerous.
>> The the problem is that there are people
in Eping who don't feel safe and should
be able to feel safe in their own
community and uh there a legal window
has opened up for the council to be able
to uh force the home secretary's hand.
Uh she has chosen to side uh with the
asylum process and not with the people
of
>> All right. Just very briefly, last quite
last last point. Church of England used
to be known as a Tory party at prayer.
The Archbishop of York says that it's
shaming to keep the two child uh cap on
benefit and your policy is to keep it.
Do you feel ashamed?
>> No, absolutely not. I think that people
who are on benefits should have to face
the same choices as people who are in
work. Uh I don't think that an
incredibly expensive extension uh to the
welfare system is what uh the British
people want or can afford at this moment
in time. But even even outside of that,
I think in principle, we shouldn't just
be endlessly extending welfare. Alex
Burkart, thank you for your time this
morning. Cheers, Trevor. Thanks.
>> In just a moment, we'll hear once again
from our panel.
I'm Mark Stone and I'm Sky correspondent
based here in Washington DC.
>> We'd been warned that we would meet
people in the lowest moment of their
lives. Their story is one of fundamental
American failure.
>> Well, a slow drive for the president as
he approaches his golf club, but I have
to say there are more media here than
there are supporters.
>> I've witnessed the remarkable passion
for politics here, but the anger, too.
>> This is just the audience that Joe Biden
wanted. Is this the moment to reform gun
laws? You know, it's it's easy to go to
politics, but it's important. It's at
the heart of the issue.
>> For all the talk of a toned down,
humbled Trump, yes, maybe there was just
a little less rhetoric, a little less
divisiveness, but in the end, it was the
same rhythm, the same speech, the same
man.
>> All them people that died in Russia and
Ukraine, they'd still be alive today if
Donald Trump was president.
>> If it was my wish, have a businessman
that's strong like Trump, but maybe just
doesn't say as much. You know,
>> we are under uh Israeli military
restrictions in terms of some of the
things that we can film, but it's
important to be in there.
>> What we've been allowed to see over here
is a humanitarian corridor
free wherever you get your news. A young
American medical student is making
remarkable things happen.
>> I've seen a lot of difficult things and
honestly, it breaks my heart. These
children don't deserve that. I don't
think there's a single Arab I know who
isn't seriously disturbed by what's
going on.
>> And so they gathered for this wonder of
nature.
>> I'm very excited right now.
>> This is an extraordinary moment beyond
anything I could have expected.
Sky News. Get the full story first.
There's always more to the news than a
headline. We want to discover to delve a
little deeper to find out what's really
going on. Explanation, analysis, the
people at the heart of every story. I'm
Neil Patterson and this is the Sky News
Daily podcast. So, by the end, we'll
hopefully all understand what's going on
in the world just that little better.
Available wherever you get your
podcasts.
>> Fire shouts the commander.
There's a dash to safety. We've now got
hear that whistle and that crunch. We
of the city where there's a column uh of
in Istanul.
Back to our panel, Lionel Barber, Joe
Tanner, and Steve Richards. Um Joe, what
did you make of the Archbishop's um
intervention particularly on the child
poverty issue? Um, I think he raised
some really interesting points and he
repeatedly I know that the the
conversation comes back time and time
again to an issue of the the benefit cap
and and whether that's that's the answer
to everything. And he kept repeatedly
saying about an holistic approach being
needed. And I think that sort of sums up
where we are as a country really that
there's a series of holistic approaches
that are needed on a lot of the big
challenges that we've got. He was very
clearly saying that yes, that was a
factor, but it wasn't the answer to
everything. And it it does often come
down to a suggestion of well, if
actually you reverse that policy, is
that going to suddenly solve everything?
It clearly isn't. There is much more uh
under there's much more underneath why
we've got the serious situation of
poverty. And you know a few years ago I
was a school governor and we used to
have a as chair of governors actually we
used to have a problem of attendance and
we had problems of you know dirty
uniforms or kids in sort of ill-fitting
uniforms and that was a sign of the fact
that things were maybe difficult for
some families but it's moved on so far
to the point where children are not
being fed properly before school and
even in school. So the stuff he's
talking about is is a genuine sign of a
growing problem but it's not an easy
fix. Uh Lionel, it's it's a curious
situation here where uh the party that
is uh wants to get rid of the two child
care his reform.
>> Yes. Very very interesting. Uh I don't
see whether Richard Ty was in favor of a
sin tax, a gambling tax or indeed a bank
levy that the Archbishop of York. So he
was holistic. He got pretty
prescriptive. Um, look, this this is a
serious problem, but it's going to cost
2.5 billion a year at least by 2030,
maybe 3.7 billion a year. We've got
other commitments, too. So, the only way
of tackling this, and this is why it was
so damaging what happened earlier the
this year in the government's retreat on
on welfare reform.
>> I mean, you've got to look at this
overall. The Institute of Fiscal Studies
is very clear that this can be done, but
it's it it has to be done within an
overall envelope.
>> Okay. Against the background that we've
been talking about really is the decline
as much as anything else of Labour's
electoral fortunes. So, if we look at um
our regular polar coaster, big feature
reform has led every poll since April. I
mean, that's extraordinary. Governing
party down to 20% and there are all four
parties in it. Steve, this is new, isn't
>> Yeah. Although we should remember at the
general election it was very
interesting. Reform had MPs. Greens got
a few MPs. The Lib Dems got 70 MPs. So
um the two party hold which remember was
very big in the 2017 general election. I
think the two part the Labour and Tories
got the biggest share of the vote since
the 50s. Um that's broken. Now the big
question is for how long? Um is this a
sort of permanent thing? Is it like the
SDP in the early 80s which rose in a
similar if you had a chart in the early
80s the SDP would
>> Yeah, there was a time when the SDP was
uh 40 40
>> way more than reform. Um so so so not
entirely new. Uh but it's a massive
challenge and the child poverty thing
we've just been discussing is one
example of this. So reform can say yeah
we're going to lift the cap. No
explanation as to how you have Bridget
Phillipsson in. She's reviewing uh child
poverty uh in government desperate to
lift that cap. Um with Gordon Brown
Karma wants to lift it but they are the
ones who have to find the money. And the
big question for this budget is whether
it would just be tax raises to please
the OBR and balance the books or whether
they will have money to do things like
this as well. Um and and without it, you
can see this continuing for some time.
Uh the big question is for how long. I
certainly think next summer's elections
in Scotland, Wales, local elections,
this will be the scene um with with
profound consequences. Well, it's it's
it's interesting that the Labour plus
Conservatives actually, if you look at
it, I I think we think that this is a
small put together, it's it's a smaller
share than Jeremy Corbyn won in 2019
17 2017. Um we are eventually I think
Joe going to return to talking as well
as uh about migration about the economy
and looming large is uh Rachel Reeves's
budget
right now. It looks like there there's
no win for her here, is there?
>> No. And it also looks like they're
floundering a bit because there's been
all this kite flying. if it was for
every kite they've thrown up, not one
would have been able to fly because
there's so many of them in the air at
the same time. They're all sort of
getting tangled up. Um, so it's not been
a great spectacle to be honest in terms
of the way that the they're sort of
addressing this and the the feeling that
there isn't anyone with a really solid
hand on the tiller that even the run to
the budget is looking pretty precarious
to be honest that it's becoming
>> the mechanics of getting it done. just
the just the narrative, the lack of
narrative from the government, but also
the growing concerns about what's going
on with the guilt markets, the the the
sort of growing narrative that we are
heading into a pretty challenging time
and that everything is is sort of so
delicately balanced. The list of things
that needs to be funded is growing, but
actually the list of options just looks
pretty all over the place.
>> 20 seconds. Nigel, what? Lionel, what
you got to do?
>> Nigel, I'm not Mr. Farage. Hold on. I
mean, I'm ahead of
>> Sorry. Sorry about that. Sorry about
that.
>> Original sin was to say, "We're not
going to increase income tax and
national insurance." Terrible mistake.
Boxed her in. She's got no margin of
maneuver. Second, she should have
relaxed or reinterpreted the fiscal
rules last year. Now, she's in a box.
>> Thank you. That is it for this week's
show. We've got a great autumn ahead.
See you next Sunday. Our