I wanted to get your thoughts, first of all, on our top story today. The Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Michal Martin, has said that the threat of being deported to Rwanda is causing an influx of migrants from the UK into Ireland. The Rwanda Bill was only passed on Tuesday. Sounds like it's already having an effect. What do you think?

No, I have to strongly disagree with that. First of all, when you look at the Rwanda scheme as it stands, a cost of £2 million per asylum seeker, possibly deported to Rwanda, half a billion pounds for 300 people. It cannot be justified. And the idea that it is some deterrent. Look, I can tell you candidly, if you were really to get the honest opinion of most government ministers, it would be from their own point of view, this is not really a deterrent. This is all about politics. This is always about a sideshore from, to be honest, distracting from their incredibly poor record. And there is such better usage of the funding that's gone into this scheme that could be done to genuinely tackle the problem of illegal migration. And so, to be frank, I think the government now knows having passed the legislation, it's got a window before the summer really begins, where you tend to see a peak in illegal boat crossings across the channel, and they know time is running out for that. But I cannot justify, I don't know how anyone could justify this scheme on cost or effectiveness, because it simply isn't going to deliver what the government is saying.

And yet, Michal Martin is suggesting that it is that threat of being deported to Rwanda that is behind this influx of immigrants into Ireland. Labor said that it will scrap the bill should you win the next election. But if it looks like it's working, will you still go ahead with that?

When you look at the whole gamut of government policy, the failures across. When people ask us questions like, if the government suddenly became competent and effective, would you keep the things that they're doing? It's a little bit too abstract, to be honest. Now, we don't think this scheme can be justified. We don't think it can be justified on cost. We don't think it is effective. We think there are proper, serious things you can do with that resource that would make a real impact on the problem of illegal migration. For instance, using that resource to go into tackling criminal smuggler gangs, making sure you're not having people in hotels for long periods of time at huge cost because you're processing those claims properly, working with your friends and allies in other countries to return people to those countries if they've come from there, if they don't have the right to be in the UK. These are the serious practical things that make a difference. It's not schemes like Rwanda. Just look at how this has affected the of Britain around the world as well. A huge cost to our reputation as a serious country. So no, I'm afraid I cannot justify the Rwanda scheme at all in any way.

Okay, let's talk about Scotland because a vote of no confidence in the first Minister of Scotland, Hamza Youssef, has been tabled at Holyrood. It's been backed by Labor. And your party has also used this as an opportunity to call for new elections in Scotland. But is that really in the best interests of the public to be facing a parliamentary elections in Scotland? There's a general election further down the line. Don't they really need stability now? Aren't you putting party above country here?

No, people need change. I mean, first of all, it really does take something to make the conservative Government and Westminster look stable and organized, but the SMB have managed to provide that with what we've seen in the last few days. When I'm in Scotland, which I spend a lot of time in Scotland, I'm particularly talking to businesses. What they tell me time and time again is they don't just have one failing government, they've got two. And actually it's worse than that because you've got two failing governments looking for grievances, looking for excuses, looking to blame each other. They desperately want governments in both jurisdictions working together in a way which is about tackling the real problems people face. And look, when you look at the big question, still the cost of living, still the economy, look at labour's plans on industrial strategy, on performing business rates, on clean energy, on getting people back to work by tackling NHS waiting lists. The choice across all of the UK that people want is a choice between a changed Labor Party, focusing on growing the economy, or more chaos, either under the conservative Party across the UK or the SNP in Scotland.

People want the chance. They generally want the chance to have their say on those things. The sooner they get it across all the UK, but particularly in Scotland, the better it will be.

If Hamza Youssef is ousted in this no-confidence vote, couldn't a new leader give the SMP a real boost in Scotland? Is that something that Labor is worried about?

Well, look, when leaders change, and we Be frank, we've seen a lot of leaders change in the Westminster Parliament from the government, from the conservative Party, of course, there's a different pitch from those people. But the SMP have been in power in Scotland for a long time, and they've had at those moments, various moments, actually quite effective popular leaders. But look how poor their record has been. I mean, one in six people in Scotland is on an NHS waiting list. That is really, really very poor. If you had to list the achievements of the SNP in office in those 17 years, there's not a lot to say. Frankly, whoever they switch to, if that is what they're planning to do, I don't think they can run away from that record. I think, frankly, only Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labor can really be the change that Scotland wants and it deserves.

Okay. I know you want to talk about the economy today, which is fair enough, your Shadow Business and Trade Secretary. I know today you're blaming the government for the rising costs of energy, food, and fuel. But energy and food prices going up was down to lots of different global factors. Lots of other countries experienced this as well. Are you really saying that if labor and power, there wouldn't have been rises in energy costs as well as food?

First of all, if the government want the credit for falling inflation, they didn't want to take the blame for rising inflation. I think that inconsistency is fair to point out. The job of the government is to look at why was the UK so particularly exposed to inflation? Why was inflation higher in the UK than in comparable countries? What can we change for the future? Well, first of all, it was a very significant exposure to fossil fuels, particularly gas prices. So that's why labour's plan is for that sprint to clean renewable energy and more nuclear energy to make sure we're never as exposed as that again. Seen the opposite, frankly, from the government, it was because Our labor market, the number of people working has been restricted by how long NHS waiting lists are. So labour's policy to tackle NHS waiting lists is part of the long term answer to that. If you look at, for instance, food prices. Look, there are things that we will do if we get to form a government on the checks and balances that exist between the European Union now and the UK. We have an agreement on what's called SPS products, food and agricultural products, to bring down those checks, reduce those inflationary pressures.

Of course, every country was going to have, after Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, pressures, but the UK was significantly exposed. The government should take those long-term decisions to make sure that doesn't happen again. They're not doing so. We would do so. I think it's fair to point out that at the end of the day, at the end of this Parliament, people will be worse off than they were at the beginning That is still the big story.

Okay, so what would Labor do? You're talking about the double whammy of council tax and frozen tax threshold. Can you commit then today to ending that freeze on tax thresholds if Labor wins power?

No, I can't. You know we'll set those out in a manifesto and in a budget. That's the proper way to do it. I actually deplore the way we've had a budget where we make these big decisions. Then just at the end of that budget, you casually get from the Chancellor, fancy abolishing national insurance of £46 billion, Black Hall. Now there's plans on defense expenditure, apparently going to be delivered by sacking civil servants. We won't make policy in the bad and frankly embarrassing way we see from this conservative government. But we're serious about growing the economy and getting the living standards people want. That's about industrial strategy. It's about building homes. It's about clean energy, it's about reform of the apprenticeship levy and business rates and having that better trading relationship with the EU and other partners around the world. Stronger employment rights through our New deal for working people. This is a comprehensive package from Labor. Again, this is the choice of the election, a changed Labor Party that can grow the economy of five more years of pain under the Conservatives. Again, I say, let's have the chance as soon as possible to put that case to the public in a general election.

Okay. Just to say, I'm sure the Tories, if they were watching, would say, We haven't announced we're abolishing national insurance. That's a long-term ambition. That's probably how they'd describe it, wouldn't they? Okay, well, Jonathan Reynolds, good to talk to you this morning. It probably is. Thanks very much indeed. Thank you so much.