25/04/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/04/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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!


Download Subtitles