gb news. >> way . >> way. >> way. >> hello. good evening. it's me, jacob rees—mogg on state of the nafion jacob rees—mogg on state of the nation tonight. thames water is facing insolvency as it's been incompetently run for years . incompetently run for years. nonetheless, it wants you to foot the bill for its disastrous business mistakes and financial engineering. but the answer is simple. thames water must be allowed to fail. police scotland has clarified jk rowling will not be arrested on the snp's new authoritarian hate crime act. but tonight i'll be asking what would happen if i were to follow the law for england live on gb news. but when it was broadcast in scotland, could i be breaking the law.7 and could the labour party be facing new divisions?

on the question of id cards, david the lord blunkett, a former home secretary, has suggested the scheme could tackle the migrant but tackle the migrant crisis. but this typical authoritarian this is a typical authoritarian new labour impulse which must be quelled. plus the long march for the abolition of britain continues as the. as new reports suggest a labour government would axe yet another centuries old british tradition. but can you guess which one it is? state of the nation starts now. i'll also be joined by particularly exuberant panel. this evening barrister and former tory mp jerry hayes, and the man who replaced him in parliament, the former labour minister bill rammell. as always, i want to hear from you. it's a crucial part of the programme. email me, mail margaret gbnews.com. but now it's part the it's your favourite part of the day. news polly day. the news from polly middlehurst. >> jacob thank you and good

evening to you, will. the top story from the newsroom tonight is that lord cameron has told his israeli counterpart today that major changes must be made to the safety of aid to ensure the safety of aid workers in gaza. the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, describing the killing of seven aid workers, which included three british nationals, as tragic and unintended. he said they were delivering vital food supplies, travelling in two armoured cars marked with the words third world central kitchen. the aid group claims the attack was carried out despite them coordinating their movements with the israeli military. but the prime minister rishi sunak, says the work of aid organisations must be protected. >> they're doing fantastic work bringing alleviation to the suffering that many are experiencing in gaza . they experiencing in gaza. they should be praised and commended for what they're doing. they need to be allowed to do that work unhindered. and it's incumbent on israel to make sure that they can do that. and we're

asking israel to investigate what happened urgently, because clearly that clearly there are questions that need to be answered. >> rishi now comments made >> rishi sunak now comments made about scotland's new hate crime law and posted a social media by the author, j.k. rowling are not criminal, according to police scotland. this afternoon, the new law seeks to ban hatred against people on certain grounds . but against people on certain grounds. but the harry potter author says it risks silencing genuine debate on issues around gender as well as ignoring the rights of women and girls. well, the prime minister has come out today and backed jk rowling's concerns, saying that people shouldn't be criminalised for stating simple biological fact . stating simple biological fact. the cost of a postage stamp went up today as royal mail moved to address a drop in demand. a first class stamp will set you back £1.35. that's a rise of £0.10. and it's the same increase for a second class stamp, which now costs £0.85. 12 months ago, a first class stamp

cost just £0.95. it's the fourth price rise in just two years and comes after warnings that lower demand for postage is pushing up costs for royal mail . and costs for royal mail. and lastly, if you've ever gone incognito while using the internet on google chrome browser, then your private information may still have been taken by the tech giant. but now, thanks to a us court ruling, google will be forced to delete all private user data, which wasn't supposed to have been tracked. and despite the case being filed in the states , case being filed in the states, the judgement will also apply internationally, including here internationally, including here in the uk. google initially dismissed the merits of the case. that's the news. for the latest stories, sign up to gb news alerts. scan the qr code on your screen or go to gb news. com slash alerts . com slash alerts. >> well, thank you very much. it's very nice to be back.

having taken maundy thursday and the bank holiday off. and thank you to the people who stood in for me whilst i was away. but now back to the monologue and thames water, thames water, the united kingdom's largest water suppuen united kingdom's largest water supplier, allowed to supplier, must be allowed to fail. thames water has used complex financial engineering to pay complex financial engineering to pay very large dividends to its shareholders . it borrowed shareholders. it borrowed heavily and it borrowed using interest rates linked to inflation and inflation, then took off. it was rip roaring inflation, so they faced very high costs. basically thames water, its owners, made dud investments. now this is not inherently immoral. but when a complex financing scheme fails, it's the shareholders and the bondholders who should take the hit, not the consumer. the shares are now probably worthless and according to a report i read in the times last week, the bonds are trading at 15% of face value. that means that if you invested a pound,

you've only got £0.15 left and 85% lost. now insolvency simply allows the normal process of the free market to take place. the assets are still there. the sewage plants, the water pipes , sewage plants, the water pipes, they're all there and they have value and they could be bought by other investors, and the bondholders would get some of their back . the other their money back. the other creditors get of creditors would get some of their money but the their money back, but the shareholders wiped out shareholders would be wiped out altogether. this could, in altogether. and this could, in fact reduce the price of water in london because the capital in the company would decline as some of the excess debt was straightforwardly written off, allowing the new owners to make allowing the new owners to make a reasonable, regulated return on a monopoly business. which is why the regulation is far on this lower level of capital. on this lower level of capital. on this new basis , few funds could this new basis, few funds could be raised for further investment to stop leaks and to stop the sewage problems. there would be no interruption to supply, no risk to consumers and probably a better, more strongly

capitalised company . so there is capitalised company. so there is no need for a bailout. i always think bailing out a water company sounds particularly odd because when you bail out, you take water out, but leaving that to one side, it would also not be a disincentive to further overseas investment . in my overseas investment. in my business career, i dealt with overseas investors and they know that sometimes their investments go . that's part of go wrong. that's part of investment. they wouldn't have been cheated in way. they been cheated in any way. they wouldn't been down wouldn't have been dumbed down by they'd have just by regulation. they'd have just made . and foreign and made a mistake. and foreign and domestic know domestic investors know that some investors go bad, some are mistakes. thames water became a bad investment not because of the regulatory environment , not the regulatory environment, not because the customers went away, but because of the greed of the shareholders and their own bad decisions. so they deserve no quarter , and the consequences of quarter, and the consequences of insolvency will perfectly insolvency will be perfectly routine. you should not have to pay a routine. you should not have to pay a penny as ever. let me know your thoughts. mail margaret gb news. com but i'm joined now by former labour mp stephen pound ,

former labour mp stephen pound, who is known for his degree in industrial and action studies. stephen thank you for coming in. now my solution is the free market solution insolvency by out company continues. >> so jacob, i couldn't disagree more. can we agree on one thing? margaret thatcher was a patriot. yes. you think for one minute yes. do you think for one minute she wouldn't be spinning like a top in her grave if she knew that our water, our god given water in this country, has been flogged off to a bunch of shiny suhed flogged off to a bunch of shiny suited spivs in financial towers of somewhere. what's of babel somewhere. and what's the flowing at the only thing that's flowing at the only thing that's flowing at the effluvia into our the moment is effluvia into our rivers profits into the rivers and huge profits into the bulging pockets of the shareholders. cannot be right shareholders. it cannot be right . it cannot be right for our water be a source of profit water to be a source of profit to people who have no interest in responsibility, no in social responsibility, no interest in what happens to our chalk streams, our beaches and our they're duty. our rivers. they're simple duty. their their utter their legal duty, their utter bounden to maximise the bounden duty is to maximise the returns their shareholders. returns for their shareholders. >> think margaret thatcher returns for their shareholders. >> the< margaret thatcher returns for their shareholders. >> the delighted thatcher returns for their shareholders. >> the delighted that tcher returns for their shareholders. >> the delighted that billions would be delighted that billions of come in from of pounds have come in from overseas. has reduced the overseas. that has reduced the amount sewage spillage that amount of sewage spillage that takes the

takes place, has reduced the number leaks and isn't the number of leaks and isn't the case. number of leaks and isn't the cas look, at france, look at >> look, look at france, look at germany for god's look at scotland. >> but i think you also miss out international capital. take wessex water in my part the wessex water in my part of the world in somerset, which is owned ytl, a malaysian owned by ytl, a malaysian company business i company in my business days, i had shareholding ytl for uk had a shareholding in ytl for uk pension funds. so the uk owned a malaysian asset that owned a uk asset. money goes round the globe. don't think that's globe. i don't think that's unpatriotic, nick. that's a unpatriotic, nick. that's just a good balancing risk. but good way of balancing risk. but who should own water? should it be private sector and be in the private sector and subject to private sector disciplines? or would you like to go back to the 1970s? >> no, i would like to go forward this coming century, forward to this coming century, and i'd like to what they've and i'd like to do what they've done germany france. done in germany and france. they've decided that water is just too important to be just too damned important to be given sold off to macquarie, given and sold off to macquarie, or of hedge fund or some group of hedge fund managers australia managers in australia or california. we can't california. look, if we can't actually a situation actually get a situation where we avoid your old university, can't run the boat race properly because of the danger of ingesting the thames, ingesting e coli on the thames, there's radically there's something radically wrong far as i can wrong here. and as far as i can see, to try to impose a

capitalist solution this capitalist solution on this to overregulate, isn't overregulate, it simply isn't going problem with your going to the problem with your argument, jacob is that argument, sirjacob is that you're assuming there you're assuming that there are huge numbers there huge numbers of people there with capital that are with liquid capital that are liquid prepared invest liquid liquid prepared to invest in is, effect, a busted in what is, in effect, a busted flush. we sorry we can't flush. sorry, we sorry we can't you you're getting worse you know, you're getting worse and sorry. i didn't and worse. i'm sorry. i didn't mean know, invest in mean that. you know, invest in this because in all honesty, you know, i that there's know, and i know that there's going be a turning the screw going to be a turning the screw and regulation. inevitably, there'll it there'll be more regulation. it will less attractive. and will become less attractive. and adam years ago, adam smith said 200 years ago, if monopolies do if you remember, monopolies do not customer. they do not serve the customer. they do not serve the customer. they do not consumer. not serve the customer. they do not that's consumer. not serve the customer. they do not that's right.nsumer. not serve the customer. they do not that's right. and1er. not serve the customer. they do not that's right. and that's why >> that's right. and that's why regulation because you regulation is fair, because you can't them investing. you can't have them investing. you can't have them investing. you can't competition between can't have competition between water companies because of the cost infrastructure. the cost of the infrastructure. the real is providing the real cost is not providing the water, building the water, but is building the infrastructure. and infrastructure. yes. and therefore you regulate the return. of that return return. and out of that return the financial engineering goes on macquarie and the on and macquarie and the successor investors just messed up the financial engineering . up the financial engineering. they're still entitled to a perfectly reasonable return. >> i'm sorry. at the moment they've taken a gamble, they've taken a risk and that's what it

is. they've taken a risk and that has blown up in their face. and i agree with that. >> and therefore should pay >> and therefore they should pay the of that. the cost of that. >> we perhaps agree on the >> can we perhaps agree on the one thing that you and i, as shareholders in uk plc should not having perhaps not be having to pay, perhaps agree with that. >> thames water customers >> and thames water customers shouldn't to pay either. shouldn't have to pay either. absolutely. shouldn't have to pay either. absoluthey're talking about >> so they're talking about thames talking >> so they're talking about thamea talking >> so they're talking about thamea 40% talking >> so they're talking about thamea 40% increase.alking about a 40% increase. >> monstrous. >> em- em— >> and look they cannot get their sorted out. we've their supply sorted out. we've still victorian we've still got victorian pipes. we've got bazalgette got more to thank. bazalgette for water. we're in for than thames water. we're in a situation. a ridiculous situation. >> about to do >> they're about to do their major sewer that's nearing completion, the completion, which will be the biggest sewer since the biggest sewer built since the days bastille. days of bastille. >> that's one thing. and the >> that's the one thing. and the thames tideway which is, thames tideway tunnel, which is, you brilliant. i'm you know, it's brilliant. i'm all favour it, that is all in favour of it, but that is all in favour of it, but that is a tiny, tiny proportion of the problem the problem that we have. the overflow, the outflow into the thames. the hampshire thames. look at the hampshire chalk down your chalk streams. look at down your part world. look. what's part of the world. look. what's the effluvia? the place is reeking the mephitic fug of reeking with the mephitic fug of filth actually floating. filth that's actually floating. you clouding these lovely, filth that's actually floating. you rivers.ouding these lovely, filth that's actually floating. you rivers. it'sng these lovely, filth that's actually floating. you rivers. it's outrageous. 'ely, sweet rivers. it's outrageous. but feargal sharkey. >> w- >> that actually predates privatisation. decision privatisation. that's a decision made middle of 19th

made in the middle of the 19th century have single sewer, century to have a single sewer, for water and for for foul water and for rainwater. and we've had a lot of rain over the last year. >> yeah, but germany and france and said, and even and i and as i said, and even and i find it impossible to say this without scotland, without a smirk, even scotland, who've keep who've decided to actually keep it ownership, do not it in public ownership, do not have you do not have that problem. you do not get issue in germany, you get this issue in germany, you do get the issue in do not get the issue in scotland. i mean, amazingly, it's one the few things that it's one of the few things that works it's one of the few things that worscotland will be coming onto >> scotland will be coming onto onto prefer onto later, but you prefer a nationalisation answer rather than public ownership. than i prefer public ownership. so the god gives us so where does the god gives us the water? >> the water belongs us. >> the water belongs to us. it belongs people. should belongs to the people. it should not to the vampire not be belong to the vampire squid venture. >> the water belong to god, >> the water may belong to god, but pipes don't, do they? but the pipes don't, do they? >> some would say everything does, all do. does, but well, we all do. >> but pipes are not god >> but the pipes are not god given. they're invested. people have to spend money them have to spend money putting them in either most them >> given either most of them were there thames water were there before thames water took and what thames water took over, and what thames water are is, is making are doing now is, is making meant patching the meant they're patching the system for the thames system except for the thames tideway, actually replaced. >> thames >> the thames tideway is a pretty project. many pretty big project. many billions pounds. billions of pounds. >> one. yeah, but >> that's one one. yeah, but

it's enormous system. it's it's one enormous system. it's about money that about 14% of the money that they've put in the they've actually put in the pockets the shareholders. pockets of the shareholders. >> they deserve >> and that's why they deserve to go bankrupt. >> 86% that money should have >> 86% of that money should have been on the infrastructure. >> it interesting? i mean, >> isn't it interesting? i mean, this coincidence, but the this pure coincidence, but the bonds apparently at bonds apparently trading at 15 in the which represents bonds apparently trading at 15 in th> the person that i'm >> so you're the person that i'm desperately promoting the desperately promoting as the next and i think next james bond. and i think you're brilliant. under fire, but fairly good but you're fairly good at defending respect, defending what with all respect, i utterly indefensible. i think is utterly indefensible. >> well, there go. >> yeah, well, there we go. thank you very stephen. thank you very much, stephen. coming jk rowling has dared coming up. jk rowling has dared police after police scotland to come after her gender critical her for her gender critical views. question is, what views. the question is, what happens i break the scottish happens if i break the scottish hate whilst hate law from england whilst it's broadcast scotland, hate law from england whilst it's brlegalst scotland, hate law from england whilst it's brlegalst england?d, hate law from england whilst it's brlegalst england? don't while legal in england? don't forget assessing the forget we'll be assessing the latest step of labour's march through the institutions of britain.

well. yesterday marked the day. the snp's authoritarian hate crime act came into full effect. and as ann widdecombe pointed out in my stead, an snp minister said it was possible police scotland could investigate jk rowling for her gender critical views. indeed the harry potter author dared police scotland to come after her, with the prime minister backing her in comments made last night. earlier today, police scotland clarified she would not in fact be arrested under the new law. but i'm fascinated by the question of what would happen if a broadcast made here from state of the nafion made here from state of the nation in england, which was legal in england but broke this new law as it was broadcast in scotland , would police scotland scotland, would police scotland break through hadrian's wall and come and arrest me, or the executives of gb news? there must be all sorts of situations like this that could unfold and surely it shows that laws like this should be reserved for

westminster. well with me now is thomas leonard ross kc criminal defence barrister. thank you very forjoining me , sarah very much forjoining me, sarah phillimore, who is a fellow barrister, has said that this law could be extraterritorial . law could be extraterritorial. so a tweet from england, a broadcast from england could be caught by the scottish law. isn't that quite problematic? >> well, theoretically , i think >> well, theoretically, i think she's right. i mean, i think the question would be where the effect of the tweet or communication was likely to take place, and if it could be argued that it would have the effect of stirring up racial hatred or hatred against one of the protected categories in scotland, then theoretically, jurisdiction would rest in scotland . scotland. >> and that's quite interesting, because the big change really from existing law across the united kingdom is in relation to genden united kingdom is in relation to gender. and whether you have to accept people's gender as they determine it. or you can say

it's their biological gender, which jk rowling did last night. now, if that is legal in england but illegal in scotland, and you make a broadcast about somebody in scotland, possibly a rapist in scotland, possibly a rapist in scotland, possibly a rapist in scotland , who says he's a in scotland, who says he's a woman, you could be nabbed by the scottish police. >> you could be. i mean, there is a defence in terms of the act in which you could establish that your behaviour was reasonable, and i did wonder whether it would amount to a reasonable explanation that you believed that your, as you were in england , you believed that in england, you believed that the conduct was legal in england, but that would be arguable. i mean, there are so many aspects of this act which are so very difficult to understand. it's quite impossible to give you a concrete answer on it . concrete answer on it. >> and how far do you think it diverges from existing law in the uk? is it as big a change as it's been written up as being, or is it simply a natural

evolution of hate laws that that already exist? >> i don't think it is as big a change as people make. i mean, quite a large part of it was consolidating a variety of acts under which hate crime laws could be found, and already we've had the offence of stirring up racial hatred since 1965, with the race relations act. so essentially they've taken the stirring up racial hatred offence and extended it to a number of protected categories. but it does seem to be quite a high test. i mean, it's not just enough to be offensive. it has to be stirring up hatred against a particular group . group. >> and if we look at this issue around gender, it's about how people identify , isn't it? so people identify, isn't it? so with race, it's relatively straightforward. nobody is saying that if you identify as being non—white , everyone has to being non—white, everyone has to accept that you're non—white. your race is the race that you have that is to an extent tangible, whereas with gender,

people can decide to have a different gender. >> yeah, i mean, that is problematic. i mean, it was already an aggravation. so if you committed a breach of the peace, for example, two years ago and it was aggravated by transgender issues, then it was something which could result in a higher sentence . so it's not a higher sentence. so it's not completely new in scotland, but it is new for it to be a sitting offence. undoubtedly it will. it will be the issue. it will be the protected category which is likely to give rise to most trouble. i think everybody predicts that. and already 24 hours in, we've seen a complaint about jk rowling , which i think about jk rowling, which i think everybody in the uk predicted. yes >> well, thank you very much, thomas. now over to my panel. another lawyer, barrister and former tory mp jerry hayes and the man who replaced him in parliament, the former labour minister rammell , bill, do minister bill rammell, bill, do you think this is a sensible evolution of the law to protect minority group, or is it

clashing too much with free speech?i clashing too much with free speech? i think it's way too far. >> i think that you can seek to outlaw or tackle extremism as long as you draw the line at advocacy of violent extremism, you can tackle discrimination through the civil law. as happens with the equalities act. but using the criminal law to take on free speech, i think, is a wholly retrograde step. and as you've made out and as you're, other panellists has made clear, it creates a legal quagmire in terms of, you know, what's judicial bill within england, what's judicial bill within scotland ? and, and i think this scotland? and, and i think this piece of scottish legislation, i think and believe in fairly short order, it ought to be repealed. and i think it may well be, gerry, i agree with bill. >> i mean, this is, you know, i shall be in therapy for a while. but the fact is, you know, this is the desperate grubbing around

for votes for the snp who are imploding. and of course, it's not going to be terribly popular in scotland. i mean, my, my parents are aberdeen ians and you know, you speak to the average decent scot. they'll say, well, do you want someone identify as a woman? we don't care. do you want them actually going to the ladies loo? no no. do you want them going to a ladies prison . no. ladies prison. no. >> but aren't these differentiations quite difficult that you want to stop? you want to stop hate speech . you don't to stop hate speech. you don't want people to say that people of a particular proclivity should be strung up , do you? you should be strung up, do you? you won't stop that. that's easy. >> of course you do, if they say, and it's fundamental to them that they are a woman when they're born a man, and they may then feel very upset, even suicidal, if they're told, no, no, you are in fact a man. aren't they entitled to some protection? >> well, of course you're entitled to protection. they've got it at the moment. the thing is, the protection of is, is for the protection of everybody. if you've got the

full male genitalia and you want to as a woman, i don't to identify as a woman, i don't really care. or the other way around, i don't care. but if they want to go into a ladies room, if they to, ladies room, if they want to, ladies loo, or if they want to go into allowed to be rude about them, well, shouldn't be rude well, you shouldn't be rude about the is , about anyone, but the fact is, should it be a criminal offence to be rude? the answer is no. >> well, there seems to be >> no. well, there seems to be an unfortunate outbreak of agreement, point do you agreement, at what point do you say becomes hateful? where say it becomes hateful? where would you draw the line, bill? >> well , i would you draw the line, bill? >> well, i think you tackle hateful speech and hateful views through open, free speech and debate, that that's the way that you do it. i don't think you can use the criminal law for these issues. you know, if somebody comes out and says, i think black people are less intelligent than white people, i think they're fundamentally wrong . i think it's offensive, wrong. i think it's offensive, and should be tackled. but and it should be tackled. but i don't think you use criminal law. >> but we do already. we've had people on who have been

threatened with or even prosecuted for giving fixed penalty notices for reading out the bible. >> yeah. and i think we've got i think we've gone too far with seeking to use the law to tackle people's views. >> to jerry's point, this isn't just an snp, is it? that actually this is something that more mainstream politics has taken on as well? it's happened in england. there are elements of the criminal law that have already clashed with freedom of speech that you and jerry would both like to see changed. speech that you and jerry would botyeah, to see changed. speech that you and jerry would botyeah, i) see changed. speech that you and jerry would botyeah, i thinkchanged. speech that you and jerry would bot yeah, i think there ed. speech that you and jerry would botyeah, i think there has been >> yeah, i think there has been a progressive, incremental ism that has brought the criminal law into the sphere of open and free debate , and i think that is free debate, and i think that is retrograde. and i think we need to . to. >> so labour's new proposed race relations act, you wouldn't be sympathetic to i don't think that that actually criminalises people's, projection of their views until they get to the point of advocating violence, which seems to be a point which we can all agree on, that if you

go that path. >> however, what happened at the weekend is there was a jewish lady in middle of a lady in the middle of a demonstration, and objected demonstration, and she objected to officer because to a police officer because people were carrying swastika signs and the police officers , signs and the police officers, well, you know, you can't take it out of context. well there is a context, a swastika carrying it in a demonstration against jews. i'm afraid , is a criminal jews. i'm afraid, is a criminal offence. it is a hate crime . it offence. it is a hate crime. it is it. >> it's not threatening any violence. it's a hate . it's not violence. it's a hate. it's not a nice thing to do. i wouldn't begin to defend it. >> crime. >> crime. >> but you see, what you're now saying is it's a hate crime and you don't like it. now, when you think it's perfectly reasonable, it isn't. no it is. absolutely. everybody ends up. the everybody ends up. no. and the snp is more concerned about gender recognition, and we're more concerned because i don't disagree jerry for disagree with jerry for a moment, we're more concerned moment, but we're more concerned about therefore about swastikas and therefore freedom of speech. and the criminal always comes down to what not like? what do i not like? >> but this is where you >> yeah, but this is where you need to be even handed. and

although carrying although i find someone carrying although i find someone carrying a swastika reprehend and a swastika utterly reprehend and offensive, i wouldn't use the criminal law to intervene in those. >> if it is a demonstration. in favour of hamas, if it is a demonstration , clearly against demonstration, clearly against jewish people, if it is a demonstration where you have that swastika, what else could it mean? >> well, there we go. thank you very much . my panel coming >> well, there we go. thank you very much. my panel coming up next, david, the lord blunkett has claimed european style id cards could help stop the illegal migration crisis . would illegal migration crisis. would this be a step towards solving the problem, or would it be yet another assault on your liberties? more retired liberties? plus more retired people than ever are to be dragged into paying an income levy through the chancellor's so—called is this levy through the chancellor's so—ci'll d is this levy through the chancellor's so—ci'll be is this levy through the chancellor's so—ci'll be disclosing is this levy through the chancellor's so—ci'll be disclosing my:his fair? i'll be disclosing my thoughts on the matter

well, we've been discussing jk rowling and devolution and

scotland and breaking the law. and richard says should humza yousaf be prosecuted for saying he wanted to make scotland conservative, free, hateful speech. to ears, it's a very speech. to my ears, it's a very good point. i wouldn't be in favour of a prosecution because i believe in freedom of speech, darren says i'm a strong, strong believer of these words. stay out of trouble and trouble won't come to you . think before you come to you. think before you speak act you can't say speak and act and you can't say or do anything wrong. david, lord blunkett yesterday said that identity cards could help tackle the illegal migration crisis . his tackle the illegal migration crisis. his old commandant, sir tony blair, made the same claim two years ago. the former leading lights of new labour have long compulsory have long desired compulsory identification documents, but britain never been a papers. britain has never been a papers. please society. i've always loved the quotation from the historian a.j.p. taylor , who historian a.j.p. taylor, who wrote that until august 1914, a sensible , law abiding englishman sensible, law abiding englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state beyond the post office, and the policeman . office, and the policeman. however, the world has changed in order to deal with the challenges of this century, such

as mass illegal migration. is it time to sacrifice freedom for administrative efficiency and bow down to po faced officialdom? well i've got my panel still with me. jerry hayes and bill rammell , jerry england and bill rammell, jerry england free rather than england sober , free rather than england sober, i do not. >> well, i'm not in favour of england being sober, but but but england being sober, but but but england free. yes, i don't like identity cards. i don't like the concept of them. and what's more, they don't work well in. can anyone. most governments name a single it project by the government, which is actually worked. all right bill. >> well, we can debate the it project, but i've always been a supporter of identity cards. i remember when i was an mp and i regularly held consultation meetings with constituents, the issue would come up, put it to the vote. seven out of ten people were in favour of them, and they can contribute. they're not a panacea, but they can contribute to tackling illegal immigration and fraud.

>> the polling really >> but the polling is really interesting that, because interesting on that, because when look at australia, when you look at australia, which proposal id which had a proposal for an id card, when campaign started, card, when the campaign started, it seven out ten. by the it was seven out of ten. by the time they got to deciding it, they'd not to because it they'd decided not to because it had the id cards. one of had flipped the id cards. one of those things that people, when they them, don't they think about them, don't want because they're a constraint them, because only constraint on them, because only works if when stopped by the police, you have to show it. and we want to be stopped by we don't want to be stopped by the and asked for our the police and asked for our papers, we? papers, do we? >> but there's a whole >> no, but there's a whole series issues that, in series of issues that, in the modern having to modern world, we're having to grapple massive grapple with, like massive illegal immigration, like fraud on a scale that we've never seen before. and it's a trade off. it's a balance. what degree of liberty you prepared cede liberty are you prepared to cede in order collectively tackle in order to collectively tackle a ? a problem? >> but with illegal migration, we give id cards to all we would give id cards to all these who landed on the these people who landed on the shores. just way this shores. that's just the way this system works. >> but, but the that >> but, but, but the point that david blunkett was making, i think, was that the criminal organisers will, instead of advocating that these people

should claim asylum, they'll actually advocate that they should disappear into the black economy and that people in those circumstances could be challenged to produce an identity card may be a tool that would help us. >> you see, i don't like this because this is like the hostile environment that that led to lots of innocent people who are british citizens being told that they weren't british citizens. >> yes, yes. the we have >> yes, yes. the moment we have an know the system an id card, we know the system won't and go to won't work. and i'll go to a bazaan won't work. and i'll go to a bazaar, the souk in tangier, and i'll be offered at least three identity cards. it's a load of old nonsense , you see. old nonsense, you see. >> i just don't think it solves the problem. that, of course , the problem. that, of course, people come here illegally. they will and get into the will either try and get into the black market be employed by black market and be employed by people happy, employing black market and be employed by people illegally,1appy, employing black market and be employed by people illegally,1appy, (give)ying people illegally, or will give them card because we're them an id card because we're allowing most of them to stay anyway. so we're going give anyway. so we're going to give them some of document, and them some form of document, and therefore you don't solve any particular problem . you just particular problem. you just make life a little bit less free for 60 million law abiding people. >> i'm not saying it's a

panacea, but i think it can make a contribution given the scale of the challenges that we face. i think it is worth it. it's also the case that identity cards exist in most european countries, and i don't think are. and i don't think don't get going on that, that that is a massive infringement on. >> i would because it's a fundamentally different relationship between the state that the king is that in england, the king is under the law and on the continent the state is the law. and this is something john fortescue writes about in the 15th century. and it's always been a fundamental difference in our understanding the states, our understanding of the states, why the common why we have the common law rather civil code , that rather than the civil code, that the state is built from the people up rather than being this powerful organ down. it's the same principle that in this country you can do anything unless it's specifically prohibited , rather than the idea prohibited, rather than the idea that can only do what is that you can only do what is specifically that's specifically allowed. and that's the between the difference between the common civil code. common law and the civil code. and think that's very precious. >> no, no, understand the >> no, no, i understand the etymology, how it's come etymology, how how it's come about. however, i don't think the existence of identity cards

in germany and in france, in germany and elsewhere fundamentally challenges the liberties of people. i think it makes a fundamentally different state. >> but but, bill, we've got to go on to the it point. >> the it doesn't really boring, but never mind then we never do anything, never mind the it points dull. >> we're not going to buy that dull analysis from the house of commons library suggested commons library has suggested that 1.6 million that another 1.6 million pensioners will paying pensioners will begin paying income the income tax by 2028, pushing the total million people and total to 9.3 million people and you may well have guessed that the cause of this, as ever, is the cause of this, as ever, is the fear known as fiscal drag, whereby tax thresholds are frozen drives up frozen and inflation drives up income. literally drags income. it quite literally drags the poor pensioners into the next tax bracket . it's worth next tax bracket. it's worth remembering when the tories took charge in 2010, only 4.9 million pensioners paid income tax and we're now approaching nearly double that number. well, back to my panel. so are you a fiscal drag queen? very funny, very funny . funny. >> yes. >> yes. >> the chancellor didn't like that. did he know? he didn't seem to me to be also silly

question of the bbc to ask a chancellor of the exchequer. >> i'm sure it was. they should have had absolute respect . were have had absolute respect. were you golf this afternoon? have had absolute respect. were you they golf this afternoon? have had absolute respect. were you they shouldn't. s afternoon? have had absolute respect. were you they shouldn't. it'sternoon? no, they shouldn't. it's a serious problem because, look, they pay absolute respect. >> but when they're interviewing the chancellor, it's a serious matter affects people. the chancellor, it's a serious nthought affects people. the chancellor, it's a serious nthought it affects people. the chancellor, it's a serious nthought it was:ts people. the chancellor, it's a serious nthought it was:ts p> well, there's nothing wrong with comments. you've with cheap comments. you've been making life and making them all your life and very well, if i may say, i don't work for the bbc. >> no. >> no. >> certainly has. >> certainly has. >> well, of course i have. i've made living out of it. but made a living out of it. but look, it's electorally stupid . look, it's electorally stupid. now you're entitled to say, well, course, you know, well, of course, you know, you've triple lock. you've got the triple lock. pensioners rather pensioners are doing rather well. but you're clawing well. yeah, but you're clawing back an awful lot of money. there's more pensioners now who can be brought into tax. how, what are the optics of this for the electorate now the interesting thing you , bill, interesting thing for you, bill, is what's the labour government are about it. the are going to do about it. the what's the plan. and you'll say, well we've got to cost these things, blah, blah blah, but what are you going to do? are you going to bring these people out of taxation? the fiscal

drag? >> well, first of all, we're going to have to sort out the economic shock mess that we're we're going to inherit. but, you know, on the principle, i actually find it ironic that the one group that still prefers the conservatives over labour, it appears the tories are taking on through fiscal drag. and, you know, all the recent tax changes, the cuts in national insurance, of course, pensioners don't pay national insurance, so they're getting they're not getting any compensation. they're not getting any comperthe on. they're not getting any comperthe bizarre point of the >> it's the bizarre point of the last budget. the last budget hit tory voters. yes . how many tory voters. so yes. how many labour are out labour voters are let out houday labour voters are let out holiday homes compared to tour operators? so we whack them, which is a problem for your constituency, not particularly nonh constituency, not particularly north east somerset, but there'll be some, there'll be some. more further down to some. it's more further down to cornwall devon. get cornwall and devon. you'd get more that. there are some more of that. but there are some in north somerset then pensioners, up pensioners, we don't put up their so they're their threshold so they're paying their threshold so they're paying and we have paying more tax and we have a tax cut they don't get. so if you're a tory voter we introduce fiscal that hit you. fiscal measures that hit you. you delighted rubbing you must be delighted rubbing your glee. you must be delighted rubbing youwell glee. you must be delighted rubbing youwell certainly, .ee. you must be delighted rubbing youwell certainly, however, i'm >> well certainly, however, i'm going be non—partisan

going to be serious non—partisan about issue. there's about the issue. there's actually a more serious actually a much more serious point if you look at what's point that if you look at what's happened 15 years, happened over the last 15 years, pensioners been protected, pensioners have been protected, whereas rest society, whereas the rest of society, and particularly the young, have faced all the challenges. and at some stage, at some stage there's going to have to be some rebalancing. and i don't think either the conservative party or the labour party are facing the labour party are yet facing up to that. >> what do mean by rebalancing? >> well, i mean, look, the older people their own home. they people own their own home. they made money just by made a lot of money just by owning and mortar. owning bricks and mortar. the triple has protected their triple lock has protected their income, have been income, they have been reasonably protected since 2010, when there's been an era of austerity and other people, the young have lost out. isn't bill's point a fair one that you need an element of rebalancing? >> no. i mean, let's talk raw politics. the tories politics. do they? do the tories want win election, or want to win the election, or isn't it rather noble that jeremy is putting the jeremy hunt is putting the overall interests of the country first, than narrow first, rather than narrow parties? i don't believe a word of that. i saw the smell . of that. i saw the smell. >> i'm asking the questions. >> i'm asking the questions. >> yes, i know, but it's

nonsense. >> i've got to put the other side of the argument, of course, sometimes. >> you know, it's nonsense. >> but you know, it's nonsense. we're supporters we're killing our own supporters and ridiculous. and that's ridiculous. >> it's also a reality >> yeah, but it's also a reality that triple lock is that the triple lock is unsustainable. yes. the longer run, who's going tackle that? run, who's going to tackle that? >> going to tackle that? >> who's going to tackle that? who's going attack? is it who's going to attack? is it your when they come your government when they come in, suspect will, you in, as i suspect they will, you will when tony will remember when tony blair was minister there was prime minister that there was prime minister that there was increase of £0.15 was a pension increase of £0.15 or and the tories or something, and the tories dined out on that for years, and therefore triple lock gets dined out on that for years, and the ofore triple lock gets dined out on that for years, and the of that triple lock gets dined out on that for years, and the of that sortiple lock gets dined out on that for years, and the of that sort ofe lock gets dined out on that for years, and the of that sort of problem.:s rid of that sort of problem. >> we then threw money it to >> we then threw money at it to row back the issue. yeah and row back on the issue. yeah and of course it's reinforced. absolutely. it's reinforced by the block of the the fact the one block of the electorate that consistently votes votes in large numbers votes and votes in large numbers are pensioners. are pensioners or pensioners. >> carry >> and we hope that they carry on conservative. not on voting conservative. so not not of panel think that not all of my panel think that thanks to my panel up thanks to my panel coming up next, labour party wants to next, the labour party wants to cut another ancient british cut out another ancient british custom. which custom. can you guess which centuries old tradition they will . next? will axe. next? >> on patrick christys tonight, 9 to 11 pm, the migrant baby

con album and gangs target uk mums to be in a plot to register illegal migrants as the fake father , nigel farage wades in on father, nigel farage wades in on that and leave our flag alone. england football hero peter shilton slams woke team gb for messing with the union jack. i blow the lid off academia tens of millions of pounds of your money is spent on pointless studies into gay porn, trans guff and decolonise isation. that's patrick christys tonight 9 to 11 pm. be there

i >> -- >> well, we've been talking about identity cards and pensions and ray says illegals are given id, which clearly states not eligible for work. i know this because i have a friend who was working with someone who had this. well, that's brilliant. they're very effective, therefore. and sheila says, wore an identity

says, i wore an identity bracelet throughout the second world war. what's the problem? well, sheila , you must have been well, sheila, you must have been serving your nation. so thank you for that. and you very much for that. and thank for watching. gb news thank you for watching. gb news it was it 1999, the year of our lord, when the house of lords was debating the house of lords act, when a shriek murmur act, when a shriek and murmur echoed gallery one echoed from the gallery one charles heir the charles beauclerk, heir to the century old lineage of the duke of saint albans, descended therefore from charles the second, exclaimed this bill, drafted brussels is treason! drafted in brussels is treason! what we are witnessing is the abolition britain . before us abolition of britain. before us lies the wasteland. no queen, no culture, no sovereignty, no freedom. up for your queen freedom. stand up for your queen and country and vote this bill down. the bill not voted down. the bill was not voted down. the bill was not voted down and it restricted the voting rights of hereditary peers, leaving only 92 of them in the house of lords. but sir keir starmer, the leader of the labour party, has reportedly got plans to axe the hereditary peers altogether for finishing the work of his mentor, tony blair, and throwing tradition into the dustbin of history. well, joining me now is lord

strathclyde, tom, thank you very much for joining strathclyde, tom, thank you very much forjoining me. it do you think the remaining 92 hereditary is are still justifiable ? justifiable? >> well, first of all, i'm delighted to be on your show, jacob. thank you for inviting me along. i mean , this, story along. i mean, this, story that's emanated this weekend about labour party policy. i mean, it just takes us straight back to 1998, when the labour party promised us long term reform of the second chamber and what, sir keir starmer is saying now, he hasn't done any thinking or none of his people have done any thinking at all about things like the size of the house, the age limits, tum limits, the house of lords appointments commission or any of the other things that need to be done. and that's why this announcement is so incredibly disappointing, because it creates a an appointed chamber entirely in the hands of whoever is prime

minister. >> and you were a very distinguished leader of the house of lords, and the government had a good track record of getting business through when you in charge, through when you were in charge, do you think the lords has changed since 1999 and become more political, or is it working quite well as it is? >> both of those? >> both of those? >> i do think that the house of lords has become far more assertive, partly because billy people believe their own propaganda that they are somehow there on merit, and they're there on merit, and they're there to do a particular job. there to do a particularjob. but generally speaking, the house of lords does the job that it is asked to do. it scrutinises and revises legislation. it debates the great issues of the day and does them all extremely effectively. so if there's going to be a change, it should be on a cross—party basis. this is an important house of parliament. there should be, consultations, there should be committees meeting to decide how it should be done. in the same way that

david cameron and nick clegg did in the reforms that they tried to bring through in 2012. there is still a lot of work that needs to be done, and that should take priority rather than simply using the sledgehammer of removing the hereditary peers . removing the hereditary peers. >> and do you think the hereditary peers are still making a contribution now they're down to 92, that the ones involved are inevitably the ones involved are inevitably the ones who are more interested in contributing to the work of the lords. >> well, you're quite right. >> well, you're quite right. >> mean , most of the >> i mean, most of the hereditary peers who are now in the house of lords want to be their act are actively involved in the work of the chamber within the conservative party, there are many who act as, as ministers or in the whips office are involved as, as sort of politically politically active in the work of the house of lords. and that's true as well in the crossbenchers. so there's no, chance of the hereditary peers not playing a part in the house of lords. they are very

active and they contribute a great deal , active and they contribute a great deal, and more of them are tory than labour. >> inevitably , i suppose. so it >> inevitably, i suppose. so it would be quite a reduction if they were just removed in the tory representation in the lords. >> well, of course, that is labour's old game. in 1998 they removed over a third of the conservative party and simply replaced them with their own people and that's exactly what they're trying to do. again there are about 45 hereditary peers in the conservative party in the house of lords. if they got rid of them, you can be absolutely sure that they wouldn't be replaced if they form a government in the next general election. >> but do you think the hereditary principle remains justifiable in the more democratic world that we live in? i mean, it was marvellous in the 18th century when we had rotten boroughs and all those sorts of things, but is it justifiable now? >> absolutely not. nobody is

making the case to defend hereditary in our modern polity. what we are saying , what we are, what we are saying, what we are, and what we should all be interested in is to make sure that we have a second chamber that we have a second chamber that works effectively and looks and doesn't simply allow itself to be decided upon by the prime minister on his or her whim . we minister on his or her whim. we need something better. that's why we need to look at the appointments commission. we need to look at the age, and we need to look at the age, and we need to look at all the other faults. >> well, lord strathclyde, thank you for joining you very much indeed for joining me. is my panel. me. still with me is my panel. gerry hayes and bill rammell. bill, this is basically labour's given up on proper reform of the house of lords. just kick out a few tories and fiddle the system. >> well, i don't know what's going to be in the manifesto and this is one story in the financial times. however if when this is one story in the fin come times. however if when this is one story in the fin come tones. however if when this is one story in the fin come to power, iwever if when this is one story in the fin come to power, partzr if when this is one story in the fin come to power, partzr itheien we come to power, part of the reform package is to remove the hereditaries, i would welcome that. know, rightly that. you know, we rightly

removed £600, over 600 of removed over £600, over 600 of them in 1998. it is indefensible that people sit in our houses of parliament simply on the basis of the family they were born into. but 1911 parliament act says it's temporary measure until more democratic means of until a more democratic means of having an upper chamber is found. >> 1999 the labour party says that it's going to be a temporary measure until you've worked out the final reform. this then happens. so you this then never happens. so you just hack away and remove the odd tory. >> no, there would have to be balance. and of the things balance. and one of the things that i think need is that i think we need is a balancing mechanism, so that you don't a disproportionate don't have a disproportionate benefit to one party benefit politically to one party and historically and frankly, historically that benefit has been to the conservative party. but the other this mix and who other bit in this mix and who knows what the labour manifesto will up saying is, are we will end up saying is, are we going to have an elected house of and i actually think of lords? and i actually think that would massively that would be a massively retrograde because you retrograde step because you would inevitably create massive tension an elected house tension between an elected house of commons and an elected house of commons and an elected house of lords. and i don't think that is the way forward.

>> and gerry, the 92 were left essentially as a card to say there must be proper reform to complete this process if they're removed. basically everyone's given up on proper reform, haven't they? because the house of commons won't accept everyone's given up on proper reform. >> every of parliament, >> every member of parliament, i suspect you as well. if you ever lost your seat, which i hope you don't, you'd be crawling on your hands into the hands and knees to get into the house of lords. they all do, because have to because they feel they have to serve country . but look at serve the country. but look at tommy strathclyde. tommy clark, strathclyde. strathclyde. good man. strathclyde. sorry good man. he is personifies everything we needin is personifies everything we need in the house of lords. it works. if you had a blank sheet of paper, you wouldn't have it. what's wrong with the hereditary? >> tom was an hereditary. yes. >> tom was an hereditary. yes. >> he was. >> he was. >> yeah, well he is. he may have got, i can't remember he got a life peerage or not, because he's been leader of the for house so long and all that. >> all a bit weird. but most of the hereditaries have little things tucked little. >> he's worked incredibly things tucked little. >> delivered rked incredibly things tucked little. >> delivered enormouinbly hard, delivered enormous amount for his

service. >> yes. people. robin ferrers, you great, great, you know, great, great, great people . why, why stop them? people. why, why why stop them? they the they care. and what's the benefit house lords? benefit of the house of lords? it's reviewing chamber. it's it's a reviewing chamber. it's the chamber which tries to clear up mess that you guys have up the mess that you guys have made the of commons. made in the house of commons. >> bill's point about an elected house. no member of. that's right. of the house of right. no member of the house of commons an elected commons ever wants an elected house of lords because it would be like the us. get be like the us. we'd get gridlock and it would be a challenge the lower house. challenge to the lower house. >> and whips would have >> and then the whips would have a say. and that is wrong. >> and then the whips would have a got and that is wrong. >> and then the whips would have a got and that is wrong. >> and then the whips would have a got a chambers wrong. >> and then the whips would have a got a chamber which g. we've got a chamber which actually leave alone . actually works. leave it alone. >> but i'll tell you the other reason why i'm not in favour of wholesale would wholesale reform. it would suck the of the first time the life out of the first time of a labour government. will of a labour government. it will be know, there'd be be that, you know, there'd be massive debates , massive massive debates, massive disputes, with vested disputes, mps with vested interests don't want to see interests who don't want to see wholesale reform. i remember 1998, and there are about 7 or 8 different propositions and tactics . every one of them was tactics. every one of them was voted down because people didn't want a solution. >> i looked up when the coalition had its reform of the

house lords, what michael house of lords, what michael foot enoch powell done foot and enoch powell had done in 1960 1969. i'd looked up all their speeches. i was ready to go through that all over again. absolutely right. yes. >> it works. leave it alone . >> it works. leave it alone. it's an aspiration. it'll be in your manifesto. the 92. >> yeah. keep the 92. no, no. god i get rid of him. we're almost getting easter agreement. but thank you to my panel. that is all from me. up next, it's patrick christys . patrick, what patrick christys. patrick, what are you presenting this evening? >> great show. look, >> great show. jacob look, a rapist, paedophile, asylum seeker that we can't deport. i've farage that. i've got nigel farage on that. millions taxpayers millions of pounds of taxpayers money being spent on hard left academic research, as the academic research, such as the europe that gay porn built england hero peter shilton slams team gb for desecrating our flag and a gb news exclusive. people waiting for days for an ambulance in our broken nhs. >> well, it helps me , said some >> well, it helps me, said some of your programme's rather more racy than i think i could cope with. >> patrick. we don't have that

sort of thing on state of the nation, but it's sounds very good fun and mr shilton is a very good man, i will be back tomorrow at 8:00. i'm jacob rees—mogg. this has been state of the nation and the weather in somerset. amazing. raining somerset. amazing. it's raining everywhere else. but in somerset, a haven of perfect, beautiful and beautiful blue skies and sunshine. family are sunshine. and my family are enjoying thoroughly whilst enjoying it thoroughly whilst i am the metropolis. am stuck in the metropolis. >> looks like things are heating up boxt boilers is sponsors of weather on . gb news. weather on. gb news. >> good evening. here's your latest gb news. weather update brought to you by the met office. yes, there will be some dnen office. yes, there will be some drier, brighter weather around across southern parts tomorrow, but quite bit of but first there's quite a bit of rain come, by an area rain to come, driven by an area of low pressure and an associated frontal system that's sweeping from the southwest, sweeping up from the southwest, bringing rain for bringing outbreaks of rain for many, initially tonight many, though initially tonight there some dry weather there will be some dry weather across parts of northern ireland and though the and northern england, though the outbreaks rain arriving here outbreaks of rain arriving here and across eastern parts of

scotland, some persistent rain could actually bring some hill snow over the highest ground across the far northwest of scotland. may touch across the far northwest of sc frost d. may touch across the far northwest of sc frost first may touch across the far northwest of sc frost first thing ay touch across the far northwest of sc frost first thing tomorrow uch of frost first thing tomorrow morning. otherwise wednesday gets off a mild, cloudy and gets to off a mild, cloudy and rather start for many rather damp start for many outbreaks of rain, which could turn and persistent across turn heavy and persistent across parts northern ireland parts of northern ireland and southern through southern scotland. through the morning. continue morning. they will continue across many northern areas into the afternoon, though, breaking up a little bit across more central and southern parts of england and wales, turning drier a few showers, but also some decent bright sunny spells in which should feel relatively which it should feel relatively warm with highs around 16 celsius markedly colder than celsius but markedly colder than this further north. more unsettled weather as we unsettled weather to come as we go thursday , watch out go through thursday, watch out for some heavy outbreaks of rain sweeping their from west to sweeping their way from west to east southern parts of east across southern parts of england, outbreaks england, with further outbreaks of further too, and of rain further north too, and more rain pushing in more persistent rain pushing in from the southwest later on. and the unsettled theme continues as we head towards the weekend. could turn very windy, in fact, by saturday, but temperatures rising, get to 20 rising, likely to get to 20 celsius by a brighter outlook

celsius by by a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> it's 9 pm. i'm patrick christys tonight. live of our flag alone. england football legend peter shilton on team gb's desecration of our union flag . also exposed the albanian flag. also exposed the albanian child rapist asylum seeker that we won't deport. and the fake migrant baby con gangs target single mums to fake their way into britain. plus a gb news exclusive people waiting for days for ambulances in our broken nhs. also we've got ladies in labour look to rig the

deck and allow