25/04/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Labour promises to scrap Theresa May's Brexit plans

and unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU residents if it

The party's shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Stamer joins us live.

Less than a year ago party loyalties were abandoned as MPs

fought together to remain in the European Union.

Today Remain-supporting Conservatives quit the anti-Brexit

group Open Britain over plans to target Brexit-supporting

Plaid Cymru launch their election campaign today with a pledge

to protect Wales from a Conservative party intent on gaining powers

We'll hear from their leader, Leanne Wood.

Strict teachers can be annoying and some students find them

annoying, but it's best to get it over with because sometimes

when you're older and you progress, you will have bosses you don't like.

And with us for the whole of the programme today,

Sir Michael Wilshaw, the former chief inspector

So it's exactly one week since Theresa May called the snap

Are you feeling pumped up by the democratic

I'm afraid I'm not. I like elections. It's not so long ago that

we had an election. I can fully understand why the Prime Minister

Theresa May wants to go to the country again. She's 24 points ahead

in the opinion polls. FI was her I'd public want a huge majority but

Italy in terms of what's going to happen. So you didn't buy her like

it was about her opposition to Brexit? No, I think she wants a big

majority. It's a fantastic time to go to the country. At a time when

the polls in Wales show that the Conservatives are in the lead,

amazing, and in Scotland, they are forecasting that the Tories will win

ten seats. There has never been a better time. For our Prime Minister

the Conservatives to go to the country. What is going to swing your

vote? The issues on things like public services as Jeremy Corbyn

says he will be campaigning on? I think it will be that. I will be

interested in what the parties say about Europe because that will

capture everyone's attention over the next two years. At the end of

the day, I, like most other voters, will be interested in the whole

issues of the health service, education, adult social care, the

economy. You know, is the party united? The thing about the

Conservatives, it's a united party where unfortunately the Labour Party

is not united, with a rather weak leader. We will find out certainly

on the subject of Brexit and education in this programme.

The question for today is which politician has announced

they are resigning from their party and will stand as an independent

At the end of the show Michael will hopefully give us

Labour's Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer has given a keynote

speech this morning setting out the party's position on Brexit.

This comes as party grandees like Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson

have criticised the current leadership for not having

sufficiently clear policies on Brexit.

This is what Keir Starmer had to say.

If elected in June, Labour would scrap the government's

Brexit White Paper and replace it with a "new Brexit strategy".

The new strategy would focus on "retaining the benefits

of the Single Market and the Customs Union", in order

A Labour government would also unilaterally guarantee the rights

of EU nationals living in the first on their very first day in office.

Labour would also drop the Great Repeal Bill.

That's the government's planned legislation which aims to repeal

the 1972 European Communities Act and also convert current

Instead, Labour would bring forward a new EU Rights

According to Keir Starmer, this bill would safeguard workers' rights

Keir Starmer is here with us now. Welcome to the Daily Politics. There

seems to be a lot of talk about process in your speech today. Would

it be fair to say you and the government have virtually the same

policy objectives when it comes to Brexit? No, we are putting jobs and

the economy first. Prime Minister putting immigration first and that

is a really fundamental difference. I've never underplayed the

importance of immigration. I've never suggested the referendum

didn't have the question of freedom of movement as a major factor. I've

never suggest that it does not need to change but it's a very old

situation indeed when immigration is elevated to a priority above the

economy and drives the prime ministers approach. That is tone and

emphasis. In terms of policies, what are the differences because if we

look at your decision to go unilaterally guaranteeing the rights

of EU citizens, the government has said that is going to be a priority.

They back it wholeheartedly so the end result will be both parties

guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens who are in the UK. There's

a fundamental difference between unilaterally making the decision on

day one that's what you're going to do I'm saying we will have it as a

priority in the negotiations. What upright minister can't do is give

any guarantee this will be resolved until two years is up. Are you

suggesting people will be deported? Of course not. In the end, the

policy objective is the same. It doesn't help to undermine the

genuine concern millions of people have in this country, we've seen in

tears etc, simply to revert to, are you saying they are going to be

deported? Of course not. What is my state is going to be, people say

pretty much what do I'd do with my children? What are my rights? They

are genuinely concerned about it. William unilaterally take this

action from day one or put it in the mix of no guarantee it will be

resolved for two years? When you say there was no guarantee, the

implication is that those rights of EU citizens to remain in the UK with

the same sorts of life that they have now will not happen under a

Tory government in Brexit negotiations when they've made it

very, very clear that this is going to be a priority in the negotiations

so it may not be date one but it could be two months down the line

and the end result will be the same as yours. Access the Prime Minister

and David Davis are committed to protecting the rights of EU citizens

but -- I accept. To underestimate the concern about when this will be

resolved, and when we unilaterally take it, it's a policy decision open

to the Prime Minister and she has refused to take it today and she has

not said she would do it. Just let me complete on this because people

will say, you're not concerned about UK citizens and the EU but that's

completely not true. They might not reciprocate of course. I genuinely

think, from very many conversations I've had across Europe, if we took

that unilateral action it would be the quickest way to solve this

impasse over all. Lets look at another policy objective you

outlined in your speech. You will scrap the government's Brexit White

Paper and focus on the time the benefits of the single market and

the customs union. How is that different to the government's

negotiating objective which David Davis said as for frictionless trade

and having exactly the same benefits as we currently have? What we are

saying is businesses must be able to succeed in the future in the way

they have succeeded in the past. The question is what sort of approach

are you going to take to achieve that. The government, because it put

immigration as its number one priority, is to take virtually all

other options offer table, so any arrangement with a single market is

off the table, any arrangement with customs union is offer table. Use

they want the UK to be in single market? The European Court of

Justice, even disputes have to be resolved, it off the table. Even

Europol, agencies I've worked with, which to effective read in

countering crime, they are all off the priorities are wrong. We are

saying have the right priorities, leave options on the table. I'm not

pretending that unperformed single market membership can go

hand-in-hand with my acceptance freedom of movement has to change.

That's very important because you said you haven't underestimated

immigration was an important part of many people, of the whole debate and

the vote, so does freedom of movement and in your mind under

Labour's policy on Brexit? Yes, but it doesn't mean no movement. It's an

EU rule and we said it has to come to an end. The status quo has to

rent. You said it had to change in your speech. Immigration rules have

to change. I have said I don't know how many times in the last six

months freedom of movement is coming to an end and the status quo is

unsustainable. I have said over and over again. Why is that message not

getting across because people aren't completely clear on what he was

saying and you barely mentioned it in speech today. You say rules have

to change, and who did not reiterate that, in your mind, freedom of

movement in terms of EU is coming to an end. Because it's obvious. The

rules must change. I think it's not fair to say it's not consistent that

I've not been saying it. You have been saying it but not everybody in

the Labour Party. Let's listen to Peter Mandelson, a senior figure

from the Labour Party who said this in response to questions about

Labour Party policy on Brexit. What is the Labour

position on Brexit now? I think you need to wait

for the manifesto. The problem for the Labour

Party in this election And that is that they are not,

I'm afraid, differentiating their position and their policy

sufficiently from the Government, or haven't done so up until now,

which they needed to do if they were going to

offer the voters... A clear choice. That along the lines

of clear policy differences between the government. Accept the process

may be different in terms of getting to those objectives you have

outlined, but Homer, but in terms of policy objectives, but they are

pretty much the same. Does the Labour Party want to stay in the

customs union? You battled through five or six things we said we will

do pretty much immediately which are a change of position for the

government so to say they are precisely the same as contrary to

the Danube said at the top of the programme. So far as the customs

union is concerned, if you are in the manufacturing sector, there is

concern about coming out of the customs union. The government said

we are not prepared to contemplate saying in it or talking about

amending it. We say leave it on the table. Maybe we can't stay in it and

a judgment call will have to be made, but what upright Minister has

done is take the options offer table before we started. Reads a sensible

in negotiations to give yourself maximum flexibility, to be smart

about how you negotiate. We have ended up with a rigid and reckless

approach where viable options have just been swept off the table and

are simply not there even to be discussed any more. You talk about

the customs union. If we don't leave it, what would happen to the ability

to do free trade deals? I appreciate that but we need to focus on EU

trade deal, 44% of the deal, and get the right arrangements. We need to

look at the customs union as well and see at the end of the exercise

where we are on those issues but what the government has done is say,

we will take the customs union offer table altogether, judgment call when

we know what you'll be done with the EU as far as EU trade is concerned.

I'm not suggesting that nothing can ever change or should change. What I

am saying is if you take options offer table you can't even come back

to them in two years when it makes good sense but that would be the

position you ended up in. In an election the messages have to be

clear and it accommodated process. Having a more nuanced message is

more difficult to get across to voters in an election. It's very

easy to get across the idea that you're taking all the options offer

table. What best guarantees the right outcome for our country

because that matters much more than anything else? Let's look at

workers' rights. You want to replace the Great Repeal Bill with a new EU

rights and protections built. What's the difference apart from the title?

First, the government has said it will protect workplace rights and

access that. It's been loose about consumer rights and environmental

rights and said it won't accept human rights. They said human

rights? The unprotected? Yes, that won't be in their bill. We have to

look at if there's a Tory government return, with a majority, the

temptation to rollback on this and not fully implement these rights

will be too great. You don't believe them which is fine for the B don't

believe the Tories will commit, but what is the difference between the

Great Repeal Bill which is going to take all this EU law and then there

will be decision further down the line as to which bits of legislation

they will keep and your EU rights and protections built if you take

what the government at face value? This is a clear entrenchment of the

full list of rights along with the means of enforcing them in the

current proposals and it is a guarantee against rolling back and

that guarantee will not be available after the election if there's a Tory

majority. Priti Patel and the Cabinet have campaigned on a

referendum she wanted a half workplace rights, halve social

rights, people in the Cabinet now. We are right to say there is the

point of distinction and we want to introduce legislation which would

entrench these rights and it's a fundamental difference. Thank you

very much. Speaking earlier this morning,

Work and Pensions Secretary Damian It's completely incoherent,

the Labour position. They're saying that they wouldn't

accept no deal, which means that they would have to go

into these negotiations saying - whatever happens we will do

a deal at the end of it. That's not a strong negotiating

stance at the start of what will be a long and complex negotiation

and it's characteristic of the weak and incoherent leadership that

Jeremy Corbyn provides the Labour Party and indeed

the coalition of chaos that lies behind this with the other parties,

that they can't come up with a basic negotiating plan that

will stand any scrutiny. We're joined now by the Conservative

MP Dominic Raab and by Alistair Carmichael for the Liberal

Democrats. Welcome, gentlemen. Before I come to

you, your impressions there of what Kier Starmer has said? Do you see

the clear differences between what Labour is offering in terms of

Brexit negotiations, if they were to win the election, compared to the

Conservatives? No I don't. I suppose one of the central issues. I speak

as a lay person in this and not a politician, is - on something as

central to the future of this country as the negotiations on

Europe, why isn't the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, making

a statement about this? Why isn't he talking about this issue? Why has he

left it to Kier Starmer? Well he is the Opposition minister for Brexit.

I suppose when you look back over the referendum issue and the

lead-into the referendum, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour

Party, went AWOL, missing on this, he said the Labour Party was for

remaining in Europe but his private position was very, very unclear.

Two-thirds of Labour voters z in the end, broadly speaking, back Remain.

Voters broadly speaking make their decisions on that. All right.

Dominic Raab, do you think Labour's Brexit observations, having heard

what Kier Starmer said today, are ex-streamly similar to your own in

terms of the end gain it a shows that Jeremy Corbyn could be a

credible Prime Minister on Brexit Nice try. Kier Starmer has been

banging on for a clear detailed plan, the Government has produced

one. He said he would scrap it but hold on, we will not tell you what

Labour Party will do until after the election. The big issue for any

voter, who do you want going into bat in these negotiations with

Juncker junction and Merkel, is it the weak leadership of Jeremy Corbyn

or the leadership of Theresa May? About know the Tories want to pit

Theresa May verses Jeremy Corbyn. But on the plan I cannot see any

difference. Kier Starmer wants his Brexit deal to deliver any benefits

we have. So the custom union he says he wants to retain them and Kier

Starmer is saying the same. There is no difference. The difference is

this. You are right to say there is fudge on Labour's part but we have

soit a white Paper in detail all of our approach. You have 2,000 words.

It could have' been a piece in a paper from Kier Starmer saying -

wait until after the election we'll fill in the gaps then. We know the

plan that May hae has set out has attracted strong support from the

public. They want to see us rally behind the Government, get the best

deal and any vote for the Conservatives, to strengthen our

chance for getting the best deal for the whole country. But it is the

same as Labour, they want to make a unilateral move... Let me finish.

You can hammer home your election messages but voters want to know is

there anything different in terms of the two parties approach. We don't

know that. We do and they are the same as far as people can see.

Alistair Carmichael if Theresa May wins this election, will you finally

accept she last a mandate it take the UK out of the single market We

are looking for our own mandate in this election, that's what the

election is all B I think you have made a fair point today. -- is all

about. As far as the Labour position is concerned, Kier Starmer has come

up with something that is a distinction without a difference,

quite frankly. It is going in the same direction. They are being

fairly clever about it, because the Labour Party has this difficulty, a

big chunk of the seats that they represent in the current Parliament

voted to Leave whereas they as a party were in favour of remaining

and now they are trying to face both ways. Of course which the Liberal

Democrats would never do. As you well know, Jo. But what you have

seen today is somebody who is in his heart a pro-European

internationalist he having to come forward and preach a fairly

nationalist... Not that I want to put words into Labour Party's mouths

he would say he is offering something a bit softer than the

Conservatives, he has accepted Brexit will what but offered

different priorities. In terms of... When it matters. When it mattered in

the Houses of Parliament when we were looking at the Bill to trigger

Article 50. The Labour Party simply folded in the House of Lords. So you

get a commitment today, Kier Starmer saying this is our day 1 commitment

to preserve the rights of EU nationals. But when it really

mattered Labour peers abstained. Well that is a firm policy position

to take and it is different to the Government. But just to be clear,

you will accept if Theresa May wins this election, she will have a

mandate Turkey tat UK out of the single market and also a mandate it

complete the Brexit process without putting the terms of the deal to the

people in a second referendum. -- a mandate to take the cut out.

I think what is legitimate to talk about is the need for a second vote

or a vote on the deal when we get to know it. Actually that will still be

right, whatever the outcome of this election. I will still believe that.

A referendum on the deal. Theresa May has blames the likes of Alistair

Carmichael and Kier Starmer for frustrating the process her

negotiating hand and that's why she had to call a snap election. That

was bogus. They didn't block Article 50 and there was nothing getting in

the way of her negotiating stance. I don't think that's true. How many

times were you defeated in Parliament? We managed to get it

through but we had nerves jangling. It is not quite the same. And we

have a heavy legislative agenda with the Great Repeal Bill. We have heard

from Kier Starmer he would scrap it. He would scrap the key thing to take

back democratic control he and the Liberal Democrat position - hold on,

I listened to you - not only do we represent the referendum, we will

not respect the outcome of this referendum. I think the

worst-possible outcome will be Jeremy Corbyn propped up by these

saboteurs. Jangling nerves is not the same as blocking the process.

You tried to. You have a majority at the moment. You know, if others, as

Jo has clearly pointed out, you had no difficulty really getting the

Article 50 bill through. If your case is strong enough, you should

be, with the majority you have got, get it through Parliament. We have a

majority 617. I don't think any Government would not want a stronger

mandate. You have the DUP on your side as well. You have a healthy

working majority. There has been no point where you've really come -

thanks to the Labour Party, and the weakness of the Opposition you get

from them, there has been no point where you have come under any real

threat. There will be a problem for you, for the Liberal Democrats, in

areas like the south-west, where at one time you were strongly

represented but, of course, many of those areas n those constituencies

in the south-west, many people there voted Leave and actually how much

chance do you really think you have of winning back those seats? Well

all the signals we get coming from the campaigns in the south-west are

that there is a real resurgence in Liberal Democrat fortunes down in

that neck of the woods. It is as far away of my own constituency where

you have been campaigning, that it is possible to get but everything I

hear is very positive and of course it has to be said, and I think it

would be accepted that elections, whatever you say about them, are

never actually on any one single issue. There will always be other

local factors that will have a bearing. Before I get you g Dominic

Raab. You will know a string of high profile Conservative MPs have

withdrawn their support from the Open Britain group because that o

willing targeting pro-Brexit MPs, like Anna Soubry and Nicky morgue A

do you welcome that? I think it is welcome. They have been thoughtful

contributors to the debate albeit from a different perspective from

me. I think it is good to rally behind the UK. I welcome T it is for

others to worry B I respect Niki and Anna and they have been thoughtful

contributors. You do feel the same about Stephen Dorrell. He is

supporting the campaign in his role. What do you say to him? I say time

for the political haggling toned. Let's get behind the Government and

the country in securing the very best deal for the whole country. To

be honest with you, these campaign groups or the Liberal Democrats

trying to sabotage these negotiations, just make the risk of

getting no deal. Are you calling him a saboteur? Is that the term you

will use? Because we don't agree with you, doesn't mean we are a

saboteur. They are trying to grind the Government to a halt. It is

called Opposition. You don't get it from the Labour Party. You do get it

from the Liberal Democrats, you clearly don't like it but it is part

in being in Government. So suck it up and get on with it. Oh, right,

and on that. I will leave you with your two messages.

So, this morning three cross-party groups campaigning

Let's talk now to one of those involved in today's story,

the former Conservative MP Stephen Dorrell, who chairs

The Conservative MPs who support Open Britain, were always going to

withdraw their support? I do understand why it is difficult, who

are carrying the party Labour as official candidates in the election.

I understand why that's difficult but I don't think it changes the

nature of the argument we are making to voters, which is that this

election is unlike any previous elections in my lifetime. In

addition to the normal factors you take into account, in a general

election vote, that's the party label and also the nature of the

candidate locally, we also think there is this hugely important issue

of this country's future relationship with Europe, where

views do, as a matter of fact, unavoidable fact, cut across party

lines and our argument is that individual voters, in making their

can choice about the candidate who will be their Member of Parliament,

should ask whether this individual will apply on an open-minded basis,

the test, during and after the end of the negotiating process, which is

the best route forward for Britain. Is it to have leave on the Prime

Minister's terms, is it to leave without agreement or is it to remain

within the. U? But in the end, Stephen star. -- within the EU. But

in the end Stephen Dorrell, we have a first past the post system and

people are still elected on party labels, so your campaign is doomed

really I don't think it is. Look, everybody knows that individual

Members of Parliament havep personal votes that they pick up but because

of their record locally, it has nothing to do with their party

label. This election, is unlike other elections that in addition to

the party label and the local following of Members of Parliament,

there is a third dimension to it - what is going to be the attitude to

this individual candidate, if elected to the House of Commons, in

holding the Government to account through and at the end of this

critically important negotiation process? What I want to ensure is

that there isn't a one-dimensional view in the House of Commons. I

understand that. But I'm talking about the practical logic of your

argument. You say you cannot as a Conservative support candidates from

your owner party who support Brexit or hard Brexit. Which means you

cannot support Mrs May. Well, I'm not a constituent of Mrs May so that

issue doesn't arise. Point that I'm seeking to highlight to members of

the European Movement, and of course much more generally that when voters

cast their vote, yes they are electing a Member of Parliament, a

Government I should say, but they are also electing a Member of

Parliament who will have this critical duty, during the next

Parliament, to hold the Government to account and to insist, as I hope

they will, of an open-minded review of where Britain's interests lie in

the light of this negotiation. What about your loyalty to the party, to

the Conservative Party and the line they are following. If you are going

to be targeted Conservative MPs, whom you disagree with on the issue

of Brexit, are you actually advocating supporting Liberal

Democrats and Labour? I mean that could result in your expulsion from

the Conservative Party? Well, my individual position - I don't think

matters very much in this. Well it does, you are chairing this

movement. What matters is the message to voters that when you are

casting your vote, of course as I have already said, I believe Mrs May

will be the next Prime Minister, after the election, I hope she is. I

hope, also, that the next House of Commons will be made up of people

who insist that the negotiating process doesn't simply hark back to

the referendum and say - you must accept what we say. But, actually,

insists that there is an open-minded review of where Britain's interests

lie, when we know what the real choices R Right. What do you --

choices are. What do you say, Michael Wilshaw, do you think this

campaign will have any traction? valuable I think the voters, when

they vote next month, will be looking at a wide range of issues

and not just this one. They won't be saying to themselves, is this

prospective member of Parliament a softer Brexiteer or a hard

Brexiteer? They will vote on a whole range of different issues. I think,

you know, the election of Emmanuel Macron in a few weeks' time, and I

think that will happen, we don't know yet but we think that's what's

going to happen and Angela Merkel in Germany, if that happens and Europe

stabilises and the European economy prospers, there's no reason for

Europe to give an inch on negotiations and that could spell

bad news for Britain, bad news for trade and all the rest of it. And I

think if things go badly in negotiations there is every reason

to go back to the country. I would support that move. Support the

Liberal Democrats them? If negotiations go badly for Britain

than I think that people need to look at it and vote again. Stephen

Borel, thank you very much. Today, as Theresa May visits south

Wales on the campaign trail, up in the north of the nation

Plaid Cymru is officially launching their campaign saying

they are the only party who can defend Wales as the UK heads

into Brexit negotiations. Their leader Leanne Woods

joins us from Bangor. Welcome back to the programme. You

said you are in defensive mode. Sounds like your party is on the

back foot? The country that I live in, Wales, faces some serious

dangers in the coming years as the Brexit negotiations unfold. If we

are pulled out of the single market there are real threats to jobs and

to people's livelihoods and there is even you could argue, a threat to

the existence of our very nation. This is about survival for us. We

have to defend what we have, we believe the Tories want to take

powers away from our National Assembly and so their selection for

us is all about defending Wales. You said it's a threat to the survival

of Wales. Do you back the case of a Progressive alliance to stop the 70s

winning seats in Wales? I've previously said we should do all we

can to reduce the numbers of seats the Tories should be able to win in

Wales. We need to increase the numbers of Plaid Cymru MPs and we

need to reduce the number of Tory MPs. My problem is that, since the

Brexit referendum, Labour has failed to stand up for Wales and have been

too interested in their own infighting and their own divisions

to stand up for the Welsh national interests. So you would not do a

deal with Labour? The Green party, the Lib Dems in Wales, to keep out

the Tories? I have previously suggested cooperation to do that,

and that idea has not gone anywhere, but now we have to focus on making

sure that this election returns a maximum number of Plaid Cymru MPs

because that's the only way Wales will have a strong voice in

Westminster after the election. If you look at the latest opinion poll

which I'm sure you have seen, it was pretty startling in terms of how the

Conservatives might do in Wales, it indicated they might get a majority

for the first time in something like over 100 years. Isn't it the best

chance to stop the Brexit deal and save Wales actually getting in with

Labour to make sure the Tories don't win any more seats? The Tories are

on a roll. A poll which came out yesterday shows that they are ahead.

We have got six weeks to go before the end of this election. People in

Wales would do well to remember the Tories record. I grew up in the

valleys in the 1980s. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and she

decimated the coal industry. Today, we are still paying the price for

that and we have had Labour representation for many, many years

and they have failed to pull us out of the economic mess we have been in

and the Tories now with an increased mandate risk making things even

worse. Why are they capitalising on Labour's difficulties and struggled

and not you? We have yet to have the election campaign yet. There has

been lots of problems with polls in recent times. There's a real poll on

May the 4th, Plaid Cymru is looking to do well in a number of areas. And

so it is that one I'm more interested in more than anything

else. You are worried about Brexit the gauche Asians but Wales did

vote, albeit by a small majority, to leave. That makes it difficult for

you in this campaign, doesn't it? Yes but people didn't vote to lose

our funding, we did not vote to lose jobs and put those jobs at risk.

People did not vote for a hard, Tory extreme Brexit. If that poll becomes

true, that's exactly what they will be voting for in your mind, if they

do actually put a cross next to the Conservatives, and they become the

biggest party, will you accept that is what Wales wants? That's exactly

why people should not vote Conservative, it risks people's

livelihoods, and I would say there is a better option for all of those

Labour voters who are fed up with being taken advantage of if you like

by the party. Labour have accepted people's votes, you could have

weighed Labour's votes in the valleys of Wales in the past and

people have moved away because they see they are unable to form any kind

of a government so it Plaid Cymru's opportunity now and it's only as who

will stand up and defend Wales. Leanne Wood is, thank you very much.

Now I need to watch my Ps and Qs because I've got

Until last year, Sir Michael Wilshaw was the Chief Inspector

So he ought to know a thing or two about what makes a good school.

But some have questioned whether the watchdog

he used to head up, Ofsted, has the right approach.

All parents want to give their kids a head start in life.

But it's not always a level playing field.

I went to one in Kent where, instead of a school bell,

they play Vivaldi so pupils know how long they've got to get

So three years ago the headline figure of a number of GCSEs,

including English, maths, C and above, they got 24%

and last summer we got 56%, which is rapid and radical actual

increase in results in just three years.

As well as hiking up exam results, the school became an academy in 2013

also received a good rating from Ofsted following its most

So is that what a school needs to make the grade?

The Ofsted report and the results don't tell the full story.

There's lots and lots of elements of course.

Reputation can be double-edged because good reputations can linger

when their sell by dates have gone and poor reputation can linger

when the school has been transformed like we have.

There's the ease with which you can recruit teachers and something

that is important to me and I've said this from day one is that

children enjoy coming to school and feel safe and happy in school.

Ofsted inspectors do now take more factors into account when assessing

and rating but some experts say there is an inherent unfairness

against schools whose pupils come from more challenging backgrounds.

If you're focusing on schools getting a high number of pupils

with GCSE results and that being closely linked with Ofsted

If you're more interested in the rate of progress pupils

are making and their performance in context taking into account

levels of disadvantaged and so on, it would suggest from the data that

Ofsted outcomes at the moment are unfair.

When you start talking about unfairness, you're in danger

of becoming a bit bleaty and making excuses but I'm not.

But as they say, I'd just post the question,

to judge one school which has a very, very different make-up

in terms of the background and the affluence and the support

of the families against a school where it is radically different,

I just think it should have some questions raised.

You need to think about questions that, when proved, you can ask

But maybe it's the pupils who have the answer

You should be able to share your opinions with teachers

I think the teachers need to push you and make you drive

and take into consideration what your ambitions

are and what you aspire to be after what you do

Strict teachers can be annoying and some students find them annoying

but it's best to get it over with because sometimes when you're

older and you progress, you will have bosses you don't

And maybe that's another measure, learning those valuable

So very wise, those pupils in that film.

And Sir Michael Wilshaw, former Chief Inspector

of Schools in England, is still with me.

Do you accept the point it is unfair for all schools to be judged by the

same measures when they come from different parts of the country and

have very different experiences in terms of deprivation and wealth?

They are not judged by the same measures. Interesting looking at

that school in Kent, I looked at the GCSE scores, 56%, quite good, and

the judgment of Ofsted was good, but it is below the national average,

56%. The reason why inspectors judge the school to be good is because we

looked at the intake at the School, looked at the starting point is the

children who go to the school and we measure the progress that those

children make the starting points. So you are focusing on added value?

Yes, all our judgment based on the progress, not just the outcome but

the progress children the starting points to end points and we

recognise that some schools are in tough challenging areas and that

schools and head teachers and teachers have to work that much

harder than in other areas. We judge progress more than anything else. Do

you then want to hit back at criticism is coming your way from

teaching unions saying that Ofsted was very demoralising for teachers

in those tough areas where they were dealing with many pupils from a very

low base? I've been around a long time, a teacher and a headteacher

and I remember what standards were like in the 70s and the 80s and 90s

before Ofsted came into being in 1992. Standards were absolutely

dire. In London, look at London now, and now London is doing

exceptionally well. Schools are doing better because a better

teaching, leadership, but primarily because of accountability. The

accountability of inspection, league tables, publication of results and

so on and it's quite interesting, you had a piece on Wales, and what's

happening in terms of Brexit, the Welsh education system is tanking

compared to the progress England is making. One of the reasons is

because the Welsh government took away accountability, results, they

did not publish results, they took away league tables, and they are

rapidly reintroducing those measures now and the Welsh performance is

absolutely terrible. I suspect a lot of the people in Wales are not

voting for Labour because of what they did to education. What about

funding? How much of an influence is funding from government in terms of

outcomes? The Institute for Fiscal Studies says per pupil is likely to

fall by about 8% in real terms over the next few years and what will

that do to add comes and results? Over the last 20 years, funding has

been pretty generous to school budgets and they have been ring

fenced. The government... Is that why they have done well? Partly for

that reason, but I think the government is right to rebalance the

budget formula. If you look at somewhere like Barnsley, which is

underperforming, a deprived area, they get 50% less funding in

secondary schools than Hackney, where rye was a headteacher. That

cannot be right. There will be transitional problems between one

family and another. Having said that, the government needs to keep

an eye on where that 8% cut in the budget is in real terms not cash

terms. Let's leave it there. Staying with education,

one of the policies likely to be in the Conservatives' election

manifesto is the creation of more grammar schools,

something our guest of the day Michael Wilshaw isn't

very happy about. Since becoming Prime Minister,

Theresa May has pushed for more Here she is last

year explaining why. We know that grammar schools

are hugely popular with parents. We know they are good

for the pupils that attend them. Indeed, the attainment gap

between rich and poor pupils is reduced to almost zero

for children in selective schools. And we know that

they want to expand. They provide a stretching education

for the most academically able, regardless of their background

and they deliver In fact, 99% of existing

selective schools are rated 80% are outstanding,

compared with just 20% So we help no one, not least those

who can't afford to move house or pay for a private education,

by saying to parents who want a selective education

for their child that we won't let There is nothing meritocratic

about standing in the way of giving our most academically

gifted children the specialist and tailored support that can enable

them to fulfil their potential. And the Conservative MP

Graham Brady, who chairs the backbench Conservative 1922

committee, is here. Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

Apart from anecdotal, what actual hard evidence is there a grammar

schools help overall standards or social mobility? I think there's a

huge amount of evidence, if you look at the performance of education

authorities as a whole, then of those top ten in GCSE results, seven

out of ten are party selective and at A-level, eight out the top ten

are party selective, and if you look at those local authorities which are

doing best, they get children into higher education institutions, nine

out of ten. So there is hard evidence to back up the expansion of

grammar schools? The English education system, is

doing better than the Northern Irish system which has a selective system.

Has grammar schools. If you look at Buckinghamshire and Graham will know

this, we debated this issue a few weeks ago. If you look at

Buckinghamshire which has a selective system, something like 54%

of secondary schools which are not selective are either in special

measures or are requiring improvement. And you read across

from those statistics to Kent which has a selective system, to Sutton,

to Southend where they have grammar schools you see those youngsters who

don't go to the grammar schools doing incredibly badly in what are

secondary modern schools. Well there is the evidence that it does not

help pupils who are on free school meals, whatever the measure you want

to use, to raise their standards or improve social mobility. Michael's

concerns is about the quality of the other schools and I think that's

probably where he should be focussing his concerns. If you look

at transferred the area which I represent, which I think has the

best state education in the country, it is not just the grammar schools

that are getting phenomenally good results, it is the high schools.

They would be getting average results from the country even

without the grammar schools. Trafford is an of a fluent area. It

is very mixed. Let me quote the figures to you. If you look at

pupils on free school meals what percentage of them are at the

grammar schools? Relatively low percentage.

2.5 one of the grammars grammars and 6% in another. There is a variety

across different schools but if you look and Michael pensioned this, if

you look at Northern Ireland, it has 70% of pupil on free school meals

getting good GCSEs results. Why hasn't that happened in Trafford.

You picked Stretford but 2.5% in Altrincham grammar. Hang on, this is

the evidence against this argument that it helps social mobility. The

figures show less than 3% of children in grammar schools are on

free school meals compared it 18% of children in the same area. I'm in

favour of grammar schools doing more to encourage people to come in and

take the test. One of the biggest reasons I think where there has been

a move backwards in this decade is that the test is no longer taken

universally, it is largely self-selecting. I want far more

people taking the test to #345ik sure we get all of the children. Is

the solution more grammars schools and then you would help more people

from backgrounds. No, it isn't. I mentioned this when I debated this

issue with Graham some weeks ago. The Conservatives are made a big

difference to standards, actually. You know. The introduction of

academies and free schools, tougher testing, a tougher curriculum, and

so on, has made a big ditches that's why English standards apart from

Ofsted and accountability, are going up. Why now, throw a spanner in the

works of your own policies actually? I wouldn't. I'm happy to take all of

the plaudits that Sir Michael wants to give for the Conservative

education policy but there is a fundamental point here. I think that

the choice of schools, the kind of schools that should be available

should really be there for parent. I don't think it is for politicians or

even for former Chief Inspectors of schools to decide what kind of

schools should be available to people. There is real demand. #r5e8

evidence that they work and think it is right we open that up when people

want them. But they would argue they only work for a #2350u people would

you like to see grammar schools in every county? I would like to see

them where there is demand. I never said I would force it. Middle class

parents who pay for a tutor. You are making a big assumption. The proof

is in the people that go to the grammar schools that exist. The

grammar schools that remain tend for more in the more affluent areas. I

would love to see state grammar schools in the big urban areas and

more deprived areas T would be a starting point for the policy. Would

it add to the improved standings you are talking about? To tell a

youngster at 10 or 11 that they are a success or failure and that their

whole future depends on what happens on one day in one test I think is a

big, big mistake. I mention one student because I taught Bobby

Seeing you will, in the University Challenge and he was captain of

Emmanuel. A boy Iing taught. Came from a very poor part of south-east

London. He didn't - and if you discuss this with him, he didn't

start to show his mettle until he was in year 8, 9 when he was 12 or

13. Youngsters progress at ditch rates and to say sto a youngster at

10 - that's t you are going a second class school because you didn't pass

the 11-plus. Nobody should be sent to a second class school I'm open to

the point of which schools select. Whether it is at 11 or 14 or

wherever it might be, that's something we can look at but the

crucial thing Hooker is that grammar schools are not the whole of the

storey. As long as the high schools are also high 46 performing schools

as they are in Trafford. If you are taking pupils away from the schools

in the same y you are not going to help. In Trafford, the performance

of high schools, it drives high standards. It is not as we have

heard throughout the rest of the country, when you look like areas

throughout Buckinghamshire, for example, you are just going to

dilute the potential. The drive should be to raise the standard of

the other schools and the other side of the coin which is critically

important as well and I'm so pleased to hear Philip Hammond introducing

this, the introduction of tech levels, something we have been bad

at, I'm delighted that Theresa May is moving forward with grammar

schools, where people want them but also with a new initiative to help

higher quality technical education, it is the right kind of schooling

for each child. Graham Brady, thank you very much.

London is home to some of the world's super-rich.

But for too long, according to campaigners, the capital's been

a haven for corrupt individuals from overseas who buy assets

A bill being debated in the Lords today aims to clamp down on corrupt

It's one of the handful of pieces of legislation being pushed

But does parliament really have the political will

They buy luxury London property and educate their children at our

Among the capital's wealthy elite are individuals who use the proceeds

of criminal activities abroad to finance a lavish

It was inspired by a whistleblower from Russia.

Lawyer Sergei Magnitsky alleged that a circle of Russian interior and tax

ministry officials had conspired in a $230 million tax fraud scheme.

He uncovered evidence which appeared to show state officials had enabled

vast sums to be stolen from the public purse.

But he was imprisoned and allegedly beaten to death.

Lawyer Sergei Magnitsky had been tortured and murdered

We've been trying to pursue justice for him in the last

$30 million allegedly from the Magnitsky case has now

?41,000 was spent here at this couture wedding dress

?115,000 was paid to Harrods Estates, this luxury

And ?20,000 in fees paid to this private school.

Nobody had ever been prosecuted in Russia.

They've all been allowed to keep their money and many have

Investigators say billions of pounds of assets in the UK are bought

by foreign officials from corrupt regimes and even dictators.

Bill Browder has campaigned to get governments around

Imposing new sanctions here in Britain against rich Russian

officials could have repercussions for the UK's relationship

with Russia at the highest levels of the Putin regime.

London has been a haven for bad guys from all over the world for human

rights violators and other kleptocrats and the reason

it is is because there has not been any consequence to that.

Nobody's lost their assets, nobody's been arrested.

According to the National Crime Agency, as much as ?100 billion

of illicitly-gained wealth is laundered through

Under the current system, relatively few assets are seized.

The Criminal Finances Bill will introduce Unexplained Wealth Orders.

When a person is suspected of being involved in serious crime

or human rights abuses abroad, the High Court will be able to order

them to explain the origin of assets that appear disproportionate

The order itself will be a very powerful investigatory

It depends on whether the government and the police

We've identified over 140 properties in London worth in excess

of ?4 billion between them that ought to be prime targets

for the Unexplained Wealth Order, but the Home Office's own impact

assessment assumes that there will be none of these orders

in the first year it becomes law and only on average 20 a year

after that, recovering assets they value at just ?6 million.

It estimated the UK is only recovering a fraction of the corrupt

So can London ever really stop being a place where rich individuals

can live alternative lives and hide their past crimes?

Back to the election campaign and Theresa May

Our correpondent Vicki Young is following the Prime

Theresa May believes there are no-go us now from Bridgend.

Theresa May believes there are no-go areas from the Conservative. They

are upbeat and think they are make gains from Labour. There are various

reasons. One is the issue of Brexit. Theresa May wanting to make this

election about Brexit. Saying needs a mandate to negotiate a good deal

and Wales is a country that voted to leave the EU and there is a sizeable

Ukip vote. They polled around 14% in Wales and the Conservatives are

confident they can take back quite a lot of former Ukip voters and really

harm Labour's chances. Right. I mean the election campaign hasn't

officially started, in that sense, what do you Will do you think in the

terms of the style of Theresa May as she goes out on the campaign trail,

from now on? I think it is going to be interesting as to how much she

does meet voters themselves and how much she does dwell on the issue of

Brexit. I think here in Wales, in South Wales particularly her

argument is going to be broader than that. She's looking at Labour's

record here, saying they haven't delivered when it comes to the NHS

and schools and I think she might broaden that argument to talk much

more and try to appeal to working class voters, to former Labour

voters saying and coming forward with ideas about aspiration, about

helping people on lower incomes. So it will be interesting to see how

that works and even Carwyn Jones, the leader of Labour here in Wales

has admitted that they have a mountain to climb. Now Labour don't

think it is going to be totally disastrous for them here but

certainly Labour MPs are pretty concerned that that the Tories could

be making inroads and if the Conservatives were to win more seats

than Labour here in else with a, it would be the first time since

91850s, something to think about. That's historic to say the least.

Looking at Brexit. The poll has indicated former Labour voters who

went to Ukip last time, many of those will switch their vote to the

Tories T makes it difficult for Labour to appeal to voters who

perhaps voted Leave in the referendum when they are still

firmly Remain in Wales. Yes, I think it will mean that in marginal seats,

for example, and that of course really does help the Tories, not

just here in Wales but places like the South West. It'll help them

maybe fend off the Liberal Democrats. So the idea that Theresa

May is going out around the country saying - I need this mandate, I need

to deliver, and then you have Labour making speeches where they say they

accept the referendum result but they do sound reluctant to go along

with it, whole heartedly, that's not going to down well in places like

this. OK. Thank you very much. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was which politician

has announced they are resigning from their party and will stand

as an Independent candidate Marine Le Pen. It is, well done.

Thank you. This is all Roz,

she's trying to frame me!