15/12/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/12/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Theresa May's meeting with EU leaders as the BBC learns that


Britain's ambassador to Brussels thinks a trade deal could take


as long as a decade, instead of the two years ministers


As we come on air MPs are debating the Government's plans to find extra


funding for social care, paid for by an increase


How far will it go to solving this thorny political problem that


Jeremy Corbyn's angered some in the Labour Party


with his decision to hire a former Sinn Fein member to


We've been speaking to his critics and we'll be asking if they're


And they may not be entirely in tune but are these Labour MPs right


to use a Christmas cover version to target some of Britain's


All that in the next hour, and with me for the whole


of the programme today is the Conservative peer


He used to work in Number 10, where he co-authored the party's


Not the last one, actually, the 2010? Time flies when you are


writing manifestos! He's now at the Legatum Institute


think tank and is also a fellow at the the Jubilee Centre


for Character and Virtues. And as character and virtue


are in short supply on this show, Theresa May is in Brussels this


morning for a summit with her fellow EU leaders,


but she'll be excluded by the other 27 this evening when they hold


a working dinner to discuss Brexit. Number 10 says it's relaxed


about not being invited, You would not want to show you were


upset. Meanwhile, back at home,


the BBC has learned that Britain's ambassador to the EU,


he's called Ivan Rogers, has warned the Government that


a post-Brexit UK-EU trade deal might take 10 years to finalise,


and still fail. Number 10 says it's still confident


a deal can be reached more quickly, and says he was representing


the views of other EU members. Theresa May has spoken briefly


to the cameras outside I welcome the fact that the other


leaders will be meeting to discuss Brexit tonight,


as we are going to invoke Article 50, trigger negotiations


by the end of March next year. It's right that the other leaders


prepare for those negotiations, We want that to be a smooth


and orderly process as possible. It's in the interest


of the rest of Europe as well. Theresa May in Brussels. Does it


matter what the Brussels Ambassador thinks about how long it will take


to do a trade deal, he does not know? None of us know. The truth is


this is stepping into the unknown, but we step in in a highly unusual


way, looking for a free trade deal. Most free-trade deals start with two


countries with barriers between them, uniquely possibly in history


we start with complete free-trade, no barriers, so we can only do harm,


if you like, by putting up barriers, which makes a very different dynamic


and one of the reasons the Government is confident it can be


completed much more quickly. Is it clear even when Article 50 is


triggered that we get to talk traded that two-year period, or is it going


to be all about withdrawal? I think we will get to talk trade. We know


that we cannot have that talks about having the talks before


we press the button on Article 50 and we wait for the Supreme Court


judgment on that, but we will be able to start talks not just with


the EU but with other countries, which is critical, we have do


line-up those other free-trade deals while we negotiate. What they say at


the vivid comedy EU politicians, as with ours, it's all posturing to


some extent until the bargaining begins, but if the European


politicians are seen to be dragging their feet on agreeing some kind of


decent access to the single market, are they going to face huge pressure


from their manufacturers and businesses? They run a huge surplus


with us in good? Yes, at the Legato Institute we have set up a special


Trade Commission and brought some of the best trade negotiators from


around the world, and they think that we can do a free-trade


agreement quickly and, critically, once the politics goes out of it and


you are locked into negotiation, it becomes about business, about the


bottom line, it quickly becomes clear once you start modelling any


barriers all other trade impediments that you cause harm, and whether it


is the Italian debt crisis or German car manufacturers, they are not


going to want to take a hit just for the sake of political posture. David


Davies yesterday, giving evidence to the Brexit Select Committee, Brexit


Secretary of State, he made it clear that when it comes to border


controls it would be a matter for Britain, not a matter for


negotiation. Does it not follow from that, then, that we are talking


about a free-trade agreement rather than access, rather than a single


market membership? You cannot say that on board a market controls if


you want to stay a member of the single market. I think you are


right, we are governed into the unknown, I suspect the integrity of


the EU and what Britain wants to get out, particularly around the


restriction of freedom of movement, is a clean break but a free-trade


agreement with the potential for transitional arrangement around


specific industries if it proves to be complex. At the Legatum


Institute, do you think we can begin with Canada or even Donald Trump's


America or Australia, can we begin to outline, I know we cannot sign


free-trade deals until it is all done and dusted, but can we begin


the conversation is? Once Article 50 is triggered, we can start


undertaking the process. Clearly we are bound by European obligations


until the Article 50 process has started. Interesting.


Social care is an issue that's been rising up the agenda


at Westminster recently, as it's become clearer


that there is a growing crisis in how local authorities pay


for care of the elderly and the disabled as the demands


Jeremy Corbyn focused on the issue at Prime Minister's Questions


yesterday, and we brought you news that the Government was set to allow


councils to raise extra taxes to bring forward planned investment


In the last hour, the Communities Secretary Sajid Javid has been


Last year, we agreed to the request by many leaders in local Government


to introduce a social care Council tax precept of 2% a year, guaranteed


to be spent on adult social care. The precept puts money raising


powers into the hands of local leaders who best understand the


needs of their community and are best placed to respond. In


recognition of the immediate challenges that are facing the care


market, we will now allow local councils to raise this funding


sooner if they wish. Councils will be granted the flexibility to raise


the precept by up to 3% next year, and the year after. This will


provide a further ?208 million to spend on adult social care in


2017-18 and ?444 million in 2018. These measures, together with the


changes we have made to the new homes bonus, will make almost ?900


million of additional funding for adult social care available over the


next two years. Sajid Javid making an announcement


that had already been pretty well trailed.


We asked to speak to a minister about this,


Luckily we're joined by our assistant political


He is not allowed to turn us down, he is paid for this sort of thing!


He's in the central lobby of the Houses of Parliament.


Did we learn anything new? It was pretty much as trailed?


I think what we got was a lot of spin about how ?900 million more


money is being given to local authorities to deal with social


care, but when you strip it down it does not look like that. The vast


chunk of that money is, as we reported yesterday, allowing local


authorities to bring forward some of the money they have set aside for


social care, so it is not new money, it is just frontloading a bit of


money. There is a new pot, the social care grant, ?240 million, but


low and behold it is not all it seems because this is money local


authorities already get for housing, for the new homes bonus. There have


been savings in that soap Sajid Javid has taken the savings from


local councils and given them back to local councils and said, go and


spend it on social care. When you put that together you can say to the


Commons, magic, ?900 million more for social care! In the real world,


the local authorities dealing with huge pressures, it will not make


much difference to them, certainly when you hear the sort of money they


believe is needed, they are talking of a shortfall this year alone of ?1


billion, 1 million elderly and disabled people doing without care.


The scale of the difficulties will not be addressed by simply


repackaging existing local authority funding.


As I listen to you I am getting flashbacks to the days of Gordon


Brown and what he used to do with statistics. It sounds like a


legitimate line of criticism here will be that at best this is a


sticking plaster and probably an inadequate sticking plaster, and the


fundamental issue of the cost, growing cost of social care has not


been addressed? I think this


is the real issue, Andrew, because everyone knows social care has been


the looming iceberg for successive governments, and successive


governments have set up Royal Commission is, we have had white


papers, danced around the houses and done nothing. Theresa May yesterday


said, I am going to be different, I am not going to duck that, so we are


looking for a sign that she will grasp the issue and I have to say


today we did not get that, all we got from Sajid Javid was a promise


of a paper to look at integrating health and social. Everyone knows


that has to be done. We also got a promise of a review of their


funding. More reviews, more papers, I suspect people in the care sector


think we really don't need another with you, what we need is money and


action. Norman, thanks for that, good to


talk to you on that subject again. funding for schools isn't a story


that gets a lot of public attention. But yesterday saw the biggest


shake-up in how the budgets of individual schools are set


for decades, and there Here's Mark Lobel


with all the details. The Department for Education


is calling time on uneven funding in England's schools,


and that's because a couple of years ago central government consolidated


different levels of local authority spending on schools and grants


for ethnic minorities All that's left different schools


getting different amounts of money. To address the problem,


the Education Secretary said yesterday the budgets of around half


of England's primary and secondary Our proposed formula will result


in more than 10,000 schools now gaining funding and more than 3000


of them receiving an And, of course, those that


are due to see gains Now, pay attention at


the back as we explain Right now, English local authorities


get on average ?4600 per pupil. Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham


all get more than ?6,000 per pupil and Nottingham,


Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool At the other end of the scale,


Wokingham, Poole and West Sussex Lincolnshire, Derbyshire


and Barnsley are on less And, to underline the disparity,


let's look at one example in Even though it gets just


above the average, it has similar levels of deprivation


to Tower Hamlets in London but the local authority there spends


over ?2000 more per pupil. Every school here,


from Tower Hamlets to Liverpool, will now lose money,


and every school here, from Natalie Perera, now


at the Education Policy Institute, was a civil servant


at the Department for Education, where she worked on the funding


formula five years ago. Back then, the coalition government


postponed what they felt to be a politically contentious issue


which has now come The losses are definitely


the metropolitan areas, The gainers are a bit more


diverse, so some rural, Is more money going into


deprived areas and, if so, where is that money coming from,


and how is it being allocated? There's more money going


into the deprived pot, and that's coming from the general


pot for all pupils and, when we look at how that pot


is being spent, it looks like, compared to now, there's a bit more


money going into the least deprived neighbourhoods and a bit less money


going into the more deprived Does that fit in with


the rhetoric of helping Yeah, it seems like that's what's


driving or what might be The other surprises were that this


takes place over just two years, so quickly, and that the lump sum


that each school receives is being cut up to ?65,000,


which is particularly bad news There will be a 14-week consultation


on the proposals and a final Then councils will no longer


distribute money to schools by 2019, which means that many of the 20,000


primary and secondary schools in England,


as a result of this settlement, inflationary pressures


and extra pension costs, will have to seriously consider


cutting staff, increasing class sizes and narrowing


their curriculum. And we're joined now


by the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb. Welcome back. I know you are going


to argue this new formula is fair. I will come to that. But is it


possible to be fair at all when the whole schools system in England,


because that is what we are talking about, for the rest of the country


it is a devolved matter, the English schools system faces a massive real


terms cut of ?3 billion. That can't be fair. We have protected because


schools budget in real terms. We are spending a record amount, ?40


billion this year. We have to marshal our resources. We have a


record historic budget deficit to tackle and we've managed to protect


schools from contributing to that reduction in the deficit over the


last six years, but we have to make sure that schools are running as


efficiently as possible, that they marshal their staff and resources,


and we are helping them do that. But the National Audit Office, an


independent and reliable authority, points out that school budgets are


being squeezed by pay rises, the national living wage, higher


employer contributions to national insurance and pensions, the


apprenticeship levy, and you add all of that up and it faces having to


make savings of ?3 billion before the end of the decade. It's


equivalent to 8% real percent cut in funding. It's the worst cut since


your party was last in power. Yes, and we are helping schools to


deliver services more efficiently. It emphasises why having a bearer


national funding formula was so important, because we are addressing


these historic unfairness is in areas like West Sussex, the area


that I represent. Historically, it has been underfunded over the years.


We are addressing that across the country and fairly swiftly. Many


people listening will say, if that's your definition of protecting


schools, you wonder what it would be like if you weren't protecting them.


You seem the rankings, the international rankings done by the


OECD, probably the most authoritative global standard. We


are ranked 27th in that. By week, I mean the UK, 27th in the world, the


lowest we have ever been. -- why we. This isn't a time to be taking 3


billion hand-out. That was 15-year-olds, tested November last


year. We have radically improved the primary school system. We had the


first Sats taken this May under this curriculum. Next year, I am


confident we will see rises in our status. But those figures have not


benefited from those reforms. You have been in power for six years. It


takes a number of years to implement reforms. You have to give schools


and amount of time to prepare for the new GCSEs. They started to be


taught September 2015, so the children who took this test took it


in November 2015 and didn't benefit from that. In time, I am confident


we will see a rise. Other countries are doing better, too. That's why we


have to reform. Over the last six years, because of what we have been


doing on improving school behaviour and standards in schools, 1.8


million more children are today in good or outstanding schools is rated


by Ofsted compared to 2010. We are on that success. We shall see,


because the Pisa rankings are quite hard to fiddle or change. 22nd in


Reading, having fallen out of the top 20 in 2006. That seems a long


way to go. There is another point in pic, which is that you have talked


about the UK figures. If you look at the performance of England in that


period, it has been reasonably stable. What is really interesting


and has not had enough coverage is that Wales and Scotland have been


deteriorating in standard, and they haven't been doing the kind of


school reforms that the Conservative and coalition government have. Those


will take time to pay off, but the truth is that you can't stand still


in this game. If you don't pay attention, and it isn't all about


money, it's about reform, those standards will go backwards. But on


the Pisa rankings, you can desegregate for the former


cremations and, if you do that, England still doesn't look great.


Edge the four nations. If you read the Scottish press, there is a lot


of concern about what is happening in Scottish schools and the


government up there is under pressure but, even when England is


taken on its own, it isn't great. Let's look at some of the winners


and losers in this funding formula. Areas getting more money,


Buckinghamshire, West Sussex, Bath. Areas getting less, wooden, Bolton,


in London. In other words, Tory areas get more, non-Tory areas get


less. -- Wigan, Bolton, inner London. London is still 30% better


funded than any other part of England. This formula is fair. It


puts a great weight on deprivation, an low prior attainment in terms of


pupils. Don't forget, we are addressing atrophied funding system


where the data is out of date. It is ten years old and London in that


period has improved its wealth. The level of free school meals in London


has declined significantly. It is still the best funded part of our


system. You can pick some areas which are non-Tory areas and they


will do a bit better, but overwhelmingly there will be less


funding for schools in Manchester, Liverpool, Wigan, Warrington. There


will be increases in Blackpool and Bolton, I understand that. Secondary


places in Buckinghamshire, West Sussex, Bath, Cambridgeshire, they


will all get an increase. The organisation representing schools in


north-east England, where you only have three MPs, say the new formula


is designed, quote, to divert vital resources from schools in


disadvantaged areas to affluent boroughs. As I said, London is still


the highest funded area in the country. We were very careful with


how we construct of the formula, as set out in the film. We took money


from the basic unit of funding, about three quarters of the total


per-pupil funding. We put a lot into deprivation, which is the highest


significant factor after the basic unit, then lower prior attainment,


then sparsity and rural area issues. The biggest single factor is


deprivation. We believe that, if you want to get social mobility and help


children from poorer families, you need to put money into schools. It's


just so happens that some of those areas are less deprived than they


were ten years ago. The north-east of England, although it has been


doing well recently, nevertheless has lots of areas of deprivation.


Mike Parker, director of schools in the north-east, we remain deeply


concerned that the is doggedly pursuing grounds to pursue an area


cost adjustment that will divert vital resources from schools in


disadvantaged areas to affluent boroughs. I come back to my original


point. In real terms, you are expecting schools to make a


substantial cut and to this at the same time. It seems that a lot of


schools in some of the poorest areas are going to be in trouble. The area


cost adjustment means that you fund schools and reflect an area of


funding to reflect higher salaries that they have to face. The other


areas that have gained have historically been underfunded and


are facing real problems as a consequence. What this has done,


this national funding formula, it has taken a series of principles


that we consulted on for several months, and they won widespread


support from the people we approached, because it is right to


reflect the funding of schools based on deprivation, based on prior


learning, based on the number of children speaking English as a


second language. These are key factors. No other government has


grasped the nettle on this issue. It is very controversial. We decided we


would do it, notwithstanding the other pressures on school funding.


But you are doing this at a time when real budgets have been cut in


real terms, and already 60% of secondary schools in England are


running a deficit. Yes, and we have to... And so is the government. We


have to tackle this historic budget deficit. If we don't tackle it, we


won't have a strong economy. We have the fastest growing economy as a


consequence in the G7 and a million more businesses since 2010,


unemployment below 5%, and this is important for the long-term. 60% of


academy is now spent more than their income. That is why the new formula


is important. But you are taking money away from schools. They will


have to make efficiencies and we are helping schools to determine the


best way of marshalling their staff and procuring. We are working on a


national buying scheme for things like electricity and IT. They have


to do more with less. We have seen that across Whitehall. So far, we


have protected schools from those savings. You say that, but people


will still look at the National Audit Office and wonder if that is


really true. We will see in the years ahead if that is the case.


James, grammar schools, another area of education policy, and there was a


consultation, and you, or your organisation, has contributed. What


was your contribution? Before that, one point on the funding issue. I


set up what is called a multi-academy trust, a group of


schools. We have three schools, one of which is in an inner London


borough, and one of which is in Woking, the lowest funded borough.


The discrepancies in funding between those schools is significant. But


the challenges that they face are not that different. When you see it


and what you can do in each school as a consequence, it brings it home.


There is a historic unfairness and the funding environment is tough.


When you see it up close, that unfairness is quite hard to justify


the parents, why you are doing one thing in one of your schools and not


in the other. OK, what about grammar schools? This is probably, if money


is controversial, academic selection is pretty controversial, too. Unless


you can afford to go privately... The challenge that the green paper


sets out was, is there a way in which selection could be included in


the system in a way which benefits those who need it most? The way I


describe it is, is it a tide that can lift all boats? My view is that,


if you set up selective schools in some of the areas which have been


most stubbornly resistant to interventions, they can act as a


catalyst by bringing together academic staff, affluent shall --...


It sounds like a lot of ifs. You would think the bigger danger is


that, for those that make the grammar school in the inner-city,


they would probably go pretty well, but the others would be left behind.


Which is why you have to decide it carefully. I've suggested a pilot


based on the free school model, where it's controlled by central


government. Knowsley council, one of the lowest performing boroughs, had


its own education commission which suggested creating a grammar school


to do that. There is a case for doing it in some of these low


prosperity or what the government is calling social mobility areas. ...


Are you going to leave it to local areas to determine whether they have


grammar schools or are you going to do as James suggests, that central


government will identify where you believe grammar schools could be


useful? It will be demand led, so it will come from the grassroots. They


will have to demonstrate that there is support for a grammar school. 99%


of existing grammar schools are good or outstanding, and what we are


determined to do is to create more good school places. 1.8 million more


children in good or outstanding schools in the last four years, but


still 1.25 million in schools that are not good enough. You have had a


consultation process. As that come to an end? It closed on Monday. ...


So when will the policy emerged? We will examine all the thousands of


responses and we will say something more in early spring in response to


that. But it is important to give parents more choice and to spread


the expertise. There are many areas of the country where frankly very


able children are not getting quality of education that they need.


This is what this is about. One does the deal go through Parliament? We


will talk about that in the New Year. We will look at the responses


first and continue to talk to colleagues about their ideas about


how we can ensure that more children from deprived backgrounds, from


poorer income families get access to these grammar schools. What we know


is that, when children to attend the schools from the raw families, they


make more progress than their affluent peers. -- from poorer


families. We did ask Angela Rayner from Labour's shadow education bench


to join us but she has been taken unwell.


There's some anger in sections of the Labour Party this morning


after it emerged that Jeremy Corbyn has appointed the former head


of Sinn Fein's London office to work for him.


Jayne Fisher - on the left of this picture in Westminster last year


alongside Martin McGuiness, Jeremy Corbyn and Gerry Adams -


is, according to the Guido Fawkes website, due to start


working in the Labour leader's office in January.


The appointment has caused anger in some parts of the party,


and we've been in touch with some Labour MPs this morning.


One told us that it was "completely bonkers" and was "an early Christmas


Another Labour MP said that the leadership "are completely


divorcing themselves from the rest of the world".


A third told us that it was "another example of shooting


The Daily Politics also spoke to the former First Minister


of Northern Ireland, Lord Trimble, who told us...


"We know from our own intelligence services that Sinn Fein is not


a normal political party and operates under


The IRA remains a proscribed organisation.


It is very foolish of Mr Corbyn to put himself in to a relationship


We also spoke to former Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain,


"She is a very experienced parliamentary researcher and carries


a lot of credibility on a cross-party basis.


She has obviously been hired for her expertise


rather than as a former Sinn Fein employee."


We asked the Labour Party for a comment but a spokesman told


us, "We don't comment on staffing matters."


Joining me now is the associate editor of the Daily Mirror,


Kevin Maguire, and Alex Wickham of the Guido Fawkes website which,


as I said, has been covering the story.


Kevin, when you look at the talent available to someone like Jeremy


Corbyn, why would you pick somebody from a Sinn Fein background? She has


been a Labour Party member for 30 or 40 years and is very respected and


talented. One of the criticisms of his office is it has not been run


well. She will bring in a huge degree of professionalism. It is


interesting that people in Labour who are complaining will not be


named because I suspect if you spoke to Colin McGinn or Vernon Coaker,


two MPs who are hostile to Jeremy Corbyn, but have a big interest in


Northern Ireland affairs, they have dealt with her as well, I have dealt


with her professionally for years and she is very good. I had a little


laugh when I saw the picture of Corbyn with Martin McGuinness and


Gerry Adams in Westminster because Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness


were on their way from David Cameron, that is when it was taken.


There are pictures of Martin McGuinness with the Queen. Jeremy


Corbyn, look... He had his picture taken with them when they were not


going to see the Queen or David Cameron. You will be on the right


side of history in engaging people in Northern Ireland and bringing


them in the mainstream of politics. Willie Whitelaw was meeting the IRA,


John Major had contacts. Jeremy Corbyn was not trying to start the


peace process. Jeremy Corbyn wanted peace. One of the problems with


Jeremy Corbyn... He supported getting troops out. So did the daily


Mirror, because at the time there was huge public opinion in favour of


troops out because it was felt the presence of troops was inflaming the


situation and they were becoming targets themselves. It was about


reducing violence. We tried to speak to the two Labour MPs you mentioned


but could not get a comment from them. This woman has been a member


of the Labour Party for a long while. Full marks to Kevin for


giving her a spirited defence, but if you look at it the Tories' main


attack line against Jeremy Corbyn over the last couple of years has


been that he is a friend of terrorists, remember David Cameron


saying that famously to some controversy, and Jeremy Corbyn has


kind of confirmed the worst fears by hiring a woman he was not just a


Labour Party member or former employee of -- employee of Sinn


Fein, there are photographs of her with Brendan McFarlane, a convicted


terrorist, convicted of the shooting of five civilians, photos of her


with other convicted terrorist guy with Hugo Chavez, she is a member of


the pro-Castro Cuba Solidarity campaign, the list goes on. A very


good attempt at defending her, but it won't really wash with the wider


public. Can you imagine knocking on the streets of a constituency that


has been a victim of an IRA bombing if you are a Labour candidate or


Labour MP and asking for those people's votes? It won't wash. I


have been at meetings when Jayne Fisher has been there with the


survivors of violence. The families of people who were killed by the


IRA. People have moved on, there has been the Good Friday peace


agreement. The truth is, Alex, you and some in the Tory party, if


Jeremy Corbyn could walk on water and have healing hands, you would


accuse him of putting therapy workers out of business. It is just


an automatic response. You have got to move on. People have moved on,


and she is not part of that violence in any way. It is a terrible smear


to somehow suggest in any way that she was. Of course, but... Of course


what? Of course she was not involved in violence or supporting it in any


way? Of course she was not involved in violence. But did not supported?


She is standing alongside a man who was jailed for an attack in which


five civilians died. I would challenge Kevin's point about


whether people have moved on. The problem the Labour Party has with


its patron of debate, whether they feel they have moved on in how they


feel about the IRA, Sinn Fein and so on, I have to say as somebody from


an Irish Catholic background it is pretty obvious that the IRA and Sinn


Fein have not done a lot for the reputation of Irish Catholics in


this country who want to integrate and assimilate, and having that


associated with the Labour Party, the Labour leader, I don't think


people have moved on, they may have moved on in a bubble but in reality


they feel strongly about the history of sectarian violence. I can apply


for an Irish passport as well, and I might have to Brexit, and played the


Catholic part as well, and I find when speaking to people about


Northern Ireland they wanted to stay back where it was. They are happy


now that in Northern Ireland you have parties working together, not


always perfectly and there are huge tensions, none of that should be


ignored, but people have moved on, and that is why I don't think... Can


you imagine what Paul Nuttall is going to do with this information?


He is already eating into Labour heartlands, he is already going on


that patriotic is an attack line. Peter Hain, former Northern Ireland


Secretary, not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn's, he says he knows Jayne


Fisher and this is blown out of proportion. Jeremy Corbyn's team


have said she is a lovely person but at the end of the day you can make


those arguments but it does not cut through. When you knock on people's


doors, I spoke to a Labour MP a few months ago who said that they knock


on doors in their constituency, a constituency which was bombed by the


IRA, and the thing they hear is that John McDonnell is the Shadow


Chancellor and has links to the IRA, how can I vote for you? This feeds


into that Tory and Ukip attack line. I can see for your attacks Jayne


Fisher is just collateral damage, you have just taken her to battered


Jeremy Corbyn, I understand that. But if you express it the Rayudu on


doorsteps, yes, people will react badly. -- the way you do. If you


tell them the truth and they meet Jayne Fisher, they will not. Don't


you think, whether right or wrong, shouldn't Mr Corbyn have some people


around him, all leaders need this at some stage, who would protect him


from himself? This is a man as a young MP he hosted two convicted IRA


terrorist in Parliament, two weeks after the Brighton bombing, two


weeks after the IRA tried to destroy the British Government with a bomb,


he invited two convicted IRA terrorists into Parliament. This


appointment, she may be good, she may be smart, she may have her hands


entirely clean of violence and all the rest of it, but this just brings


his record back. Wouldn't be wise advice be to say, Jeremy, there were


other people about? On the specific, he was trying to pull the IRA away


from violence, and in the end it worked. We don't want to overstate


his role... But in the early days, when nobody else was doing it, it


was good that people like Jeremy Corbyn were reaching out, the Good


Friday peace agreement, I was there in 98 in Stormont when it was


hailstones, it was a landmark moment. Of course Tony Blair,


Jonathan Powell, Bertie Ahern, it was a landmark, but you needed


people, you always need in politics and civil society, to reach out and


do some of the early work. But you are right, he needs to widen his


team in Westminster, it needs to be more professional. She is very, very


professional. We are talking about Labour's links to the IRA today,


that is not the message Labour want to put out. It is the message you


always want to put out. No more times that, we are out of time but I


thank both. -- I thank you both. Now to the latest part of our series


looking at the issues faced by key Government departments


in the run-up to Brexit. We've already covered


the Home Office and the Department for the Environment and Rural


Affairs. For today's Brexit Tracker,


we've turned our attention to the Department for Education,


which, since the summer, has also That used to be with the business


Department. You have to keep up with these things.


Ministers and their civil servants in the Department for Education have


to wrestle with many issues as they plan for a post-Brexit


world, not least what leaving the EU will do for the number


Will an exodus of migrants free up places, and how will that affect


Overseas teacher recruitment has increased in recent years,


with many in particular coming from Spain.


Around 17% of university staff are EU nationals,


so education officials will be taking a keen interest in changes


Will an exodus of migrants free up places, and how will that affect


EU students applying for courses starting next autumn will not see


any changes to their loan eligibility or fee status


for the full duration of their course, but politicians


will need to work out what EU students will need


to pay in good time for the subsequent academic year.


University research funding has been guaranteed for projects that start


before the UK leaves the EU, but the Government will now be able


to look again at the long-term future of UK collaboration


Will UK universities be able to continue to participate


in the Erasmus Plus exchange programme, which allows


students to study in Europe for free for up to a year,


The Scottish Government has said that EU citizens will,


like Scots themselves, continue to receive


free university tuition following Brexit, but English,


Welsh and Northern Irish students will still have to pay fees.


Will the post-Brexit settlement with Scotland look to end


These are just some of the issues Education Secretary Justine Greening


and her team have on their plates as the Government moves ever closer


to triggering Article 50 and firing the starting gun on our exit


We're joined now by the former Liberal Democrat schools


He's now chair of the Education Policy Institute.


And our guest of the day James O'Shaughnessy is still here -


he set up an academies trust which runs three primary schools.


David Laws, in 2014, 15, six of teachers who gained qualified status


in England came from overseas. Is that going to be a problem posed


Brexit? It could well be because the approach of the moment that Theresa


May seems to want to take is one that will give, we think, priority


to try to get net immigration numbers back down. At the moment


there are only a restricted number of teaching roles, particularly


generally science subjects are given priority in terms of visas, so if


the EU is subject to the same constraints then I think we will


find it quite difficult to recruit, for example, the many


foreign-language teachers the Government is going to need at this


-- as it in temps to improve foreign-language take-up. It seems


they will have to be liberal with this? I think the message from the


Brexit vote if a majority of people want to see an end to free movement


where people can come and go without having a job. There are some


industries, David talked about one subsector within an industry, where


it inevitably one is going to have to rely on immigration in order to


pull some of those gaps, particularly in the short run. One


of the things that have happened in the last 15 years is instead of


importing a lot of doctors into the NHS we have been training our own to


try to address that so clearly there are things the Government will have


to do here to address that. Of course there will still be inward


migration. So the Government will need to qualify more teachers? We


will need to do some of that work in our own country but one of the


challenges will be what wider impact does our leaving the European Union


have on the growth numbers and public spending? We have a situation


where with the constraints on teacher pay we are seeing


difficulties recruiting into the public sector, including teaching,


so the wider impact on public expenditure will impact on our


ability to recruit new teachers. Will it lead to more of what Mr


Clegg used to get annoyed about, unqualified teachers? I don't think


so, there is clearly a policy choice for the Government on whether to


extend the access to state schools for unqualified teachers. The


evidence shows that even those schools that have the ability to


recruit unqualified teachers don't generally like to use that freedom,


they generally want people with suitable qualifications.


Let's look at universities now. We hear a lot about continued access


for EU students coming to this country. But EU academics make up


17% of university training and teaching research posts. Will we


remain a destination? How universities are regarded, a lot of


them, as world-class. A lot of European universities are not. Can


we continue to be a beacon for them? Absolutely, into microwaves, because


there are definitely going to be both students and staff coming to


universities the argument round immigration is not about the high


skilled end. Politically, it is an easy argument to win. The other


thing is about research. There is concern in British universities at


your feet -- European research programme called Horizon 2020 and


Britain's role post-Brexit. Interesting to note that both Israel


and Tunisia, definitely not members of the EU, are involved in that


programme, so there is no reason to think that Britain couldn't continue


to play a central role in that very important strand of European


research work. I think he is right on the last point, that we could


strike deals to allow access to particular programmes. The big issue


for education is the university sector and the extent to which


Theresa May wants to use control of student numbers to get a quick win


on immigration and reduce net immigration quickly. If she does


that, both for EU and presumably non-EU students, the UK university


's dependence on both students and the huge amount of money that they


bring in could actually be exposed and could do quite a lot of damage


to our higher education sector. So I think there is a lot of legitimate


worry about this. You are going to see strange impact on student


numbers as people try to access the UK before Brexit and then are


uncertain about the consequences of Brexit. It's the big issue in


education. The government, including the coalition government up to 2015,


said it had helped to clean up the higher education sector in terms of


getting rid of colleges and students coming here were now by and large


going to what were regarded as proper institutions. -- getting rid


of bogus colleges. Having done that, would it not make sense to take


student numbers out of the immigration figures? At the time,


something like 900 bogus colleges were closed. So obviously a lot of


progress has been made on that. First, I think the government has


been quite adamant it isn't going to take them out of the figures. There


were discussions yesterday about it. The other thing of course is that,


in theory, students are sort of a replenishing body. The net inflow


and outflow should net off against each other every three years, so


what is actually causing the increase in figures is people who


stay on, and some of them stay on for jobs and studies. They can do


that at the moment. EU students can. Non-ease you students cannot. --


non-EU. To be frank, we have had a pretty clear signal that we need to


do something about lowering immigration, so saying that one way


we are going to do that is by not counting one type of immigration


wouldn't wash very well. It isn't to say that we shouldn't do something


about it, but just taking them out of the figures feels like a con. Do


you feel that people concerned about immigration would regard a Chinese


student coming to study at Imperial as an immigrant? I don't think that


people are worried about it. They were worried about bogus colleges,


of course. That could have been a way of illegal immigration. Yes. I


don't think they are worried about genuine students coming in. One


wants to see the numbers to understand those flows, but what is


important is how the numbers are presented but what the government is


targeting. To me, it makes no sense to have a target that focuses on a


lot of students who are coming in to the benefit of our education system


and economy, and I think what Theresa May should be trying to do


is not to massage or distort the numbers, but looking again at this


net immigration target and make sure she is targeting things that make


sense for our economy and not have a target that causes her to pursue


policies... Briefly, Erasmus, which has benefited many British and


European students, I think 15,000 British students participated last


year. Can we stay in that? Norway, Macedonia and Turkey are all part of


that programme. So you think the answer is yes. We can do if we


strike the right deal and have a proper adult negotiation. That


should be part of it. Now there are already several


political songs aiming to get into this year's Christmas singles


chart, but a group of Labour MPs yesterday launched another -


and they're showing a distinct lack of seasonal goodwill


towards some of Britain's To the tune of Do They Know It's


Christmas, their song names half a dozen companies they say


are mistreating their staff by stripping them of Sunday


pay and other perks following the increase


to the minimum wage. The Labour MP who organised


the recording is Siobhan McDonagh. She joins us now, as does


the Conservative MP Kwasi Kwarteng. It looks like you took all these


people hostage and made them saying. They did of their own volition


because they want to talk about low pay and how people are being hit by


the national with living wage and losing their other conditions. They


are not perks. They signed up for double-time on working Sunday and


bank holidays and there are a group of people out there who are angry


that they have lived by the rules and not been treated right. That is


right, regardless of the athletics, the message is quite strong. --


aesthetics. Marks Spencer has removed premiums for working Sundays


and anti-social hours. Tesco cut overtime pay, changing it from


double to time and a half. B dropped extra pay for Sundays. Cafe


near road no longer getting free lunch while on shift. I think it is


worth complaining about. Having to do ovation before you share in a


bonus isn't the most terrible thing. -- having to do probation. You


appreciate that, with the national living wage, they are having to pay


more money to more people, and these companies are not charities. They


have to make money. They do, but they have to keep doing that. So you


take away a free lunch while you are on shift? Or you don't pay people


for their lunchtime. How much are you saving? How mean. They are well


established companies. These people are good people and they get up and


go to work everyday and, just like all of us, they have to pay their


mortgage and look after their kids and it isn't right and it shouldn't


be happening. The only reason this issue is being talked about on this


programme is because of the video. Your gut and dined out on its desire


to do something for the just about managing. -- your government dines


out. And people losing the perks and conditions are just about managing


and they are losing out. The government has taken hundreds of


thousands of people out of tax. We have increased the personal tax


allowance from 6020 ten to 12,000, so to say the government isn't doing


right by people who are struggling is completely false. I hope that the


boards of these companies will think about it, look again at their next


board meeting and, if they don't look at it, Theresa May will look at


closing these loopholes. These are well liked companies. They are great


companies. Are you worried that this plays to the narrative that Labour


is anti-business? Not that old IMS and new Labour as you get in the


PLP. -- I am as new Labour as you get. I am doing this because we


could find no other way to give voice to these people. Marks


Spencer has had its problems recently but its profits last year


were ?690 million. Now it is saying that it wants to removed premiums


for working Sundays. When I worked as a student, you got more if you


worked on a Sunday. Kingfisher, B finish, pre-tax profits of 436


million in the first six months. Tesco, 71 million pre-tax profit in


the first six months. Cafe Nero, 24 million in profit, up 8.5%, and now


they say to their staff, you can't have a free lunch when they are on


strict. It must cost peanuts. -- on shift. So you want to penalised


successful companies? On the Sunday point, when you were a student, and


I dread to think when that was... No need to get personal. Sundays were


completely different. These people have a contract which gives them


double-time on a Sunday. This group of people in Marks and Spencer have


worked there since previous two 2004. They have done 30 years for


the firm and they love the firm but they are upset it isn't doing right


by them. -- 13 years. What is your position? I have sympathy with both


positions. Do you know some companies that are doing this well?


It is all very well to complain but we have record employment, record


low unemployment. All those people who are going, some of them


conditions, but pay is going up. Who are the companies you think are


doing this well? A company off the top of my head is Pret. Their


employer says, my staff are my bread and butter. There is no way I am


going to do this to them. It is just about fairness. It isn't about


anything bigger than that. Tesco has taken on 15,000 extra seasonal


workers this Christmas, and maybe they are doing that because of this


kind of environment. If you force them to carry on playing fields


perks, they may not take on so many people. -- paying these perks. We


are talking about people who already have contracts though. Witch when


wages have been squeezed for some long, you would think good companies


would want to look after their people. We have got record


employment. There are more people working today in Britain than ever


before. You can't sustain that by increasing wages all the time. This


isn't about increasing wages. We have run out of time. RB Tory MPs


going to produce one? I don't think the singing would be as good. You


could do Pump Up The Jam. How long did that take you? Three days.


The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.


And I will be on BBC One tonight with Alan Johnson,


Michael Portillo, Miranda Green, John Nicolson, Chas and Dave,


and Brian Blessed for the final This Week of 2016, looking back


MUSIC: Stand By Me by Ben E King


Download Subtitles