07/09/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The government's flagship Brexit Bill

begins what could be its arduous journey through Parliament.

and some Conservative MPs could also make trouble along the way.

So just how much ground will the Prime Minister have to give?

Meanwhile the EU's chief negotiator says

have a different Brexit deal from the rest of the UK,

and calls for a "unique solution" to the question of the Irish border.

Are the people running England's universities paid too much?

Or do we need big salaries to ensure our higher education

sector is one of the best in the world?

Universities minister Jo Johnson joins us live.

And, after seven years of Conservative reforms,

and with us for the whole of the programme today

the founder and headteacher of the Michaela Community School,

which is a free school in north London.

Now, today is a big day in Westminster as the debate begins

on the government's flagship Brexit Bill.

People like you would perhaps like to see education at the forefront of

politics, as it was under Tony Blair and the coalition, has it been

sidelined? Yes, I understand why, but I'm a headmistress, and so I

think that it is the most important thing in the world, one day soon I

hope to see it back in the limelight. As it had an impact, the

fact that "Brexit" is much more in the thoughts of the government and

politicians in general? It has meant that reforms have slightly stalled

in that sense, but the old... The reforms put in at the start... But

keep going, we have seen the impact of that in the exams this year. That

will happen again next year, going through all the subjects. Still

exciting times ahead, I am not too worried. We will be discussing that

later on in the programme with you. Now, as I've said, today

is a big day in Westminster on the government's

flagship Brexit Bill. The European Union Withdrawal Bill,

as its known, begins its second It's a major piece of legislation

which is designed to give legal So what exactly will MPs

be discussing in the first parliamentary test for

the government's Brexit policy is to repeal the European

Communities Act of 1972. And convert thousands of pieces

of EU legislation into UK law. But some controversial elements

have meant the Bill can't expect an easy passage

through the Commons. Many MPs are concerned

about how the government will exercise so-called

"Henry VIII" powers which would allow ministers to make

changes to laws to implement any withdrawal agreement

after Brexit, sometimes without

a vote in Parliament. Labour has already

issued a three-line whip And the Lib Dems and SNP

will join them. who are critical of the government's

Brexit policy, have ruled out a rebellion

over the Bill's second reading when a vote

is taken on Monday. But they may take the opportunity

to join with members of the Opposition in causing trouble

over a so-called "programme motion". Ministers wants to limit debate

in during the Bill's Committee stage but many MPs believe there needs

to be more time for scrutiny. And even if it clears that hurdle

the government faces the prospect of seeing hundreds of amendments tabled

when the committee stage begins in the Commons after

the party conferences. Well earlier the Brexit Minister,

Steve Baker, told the House of Commons why

the powers granted to the government The power was in the bill have been

drawn widely in order that this country, this Parliament, can meet

the imperative of delivering a working statute book on the day that

we leave the European Union, delivering certainty, continuity and

control, and on the area raised by the honourable gentleman, to ferment

a withdrawal agreement that allows us to leave the European Union

smoothly and successfully. Well in a moment I'll be

talking to representatives But first, Lizzie Glinka

is on College Green soaking Set the scene for us? Soaking up is

right, we are having a glorious morning, here on the green, with all

the rain, you can see behind me, excitement building, broadcasters

from around the world, see NN, BBC colleagues over there, and one lone

protester... Who arrived in the last few moments... We don't know if more

of those will be turning out in the next hour or so. At the moment, one

chap, you can see, getting plenty of attention from the cameras over

there... (!) -- CNN. We can speak with Stephen Geffen, from the SNP,

what is the problem with this Bill? A large number of problems, which go

back to the blank page of vote to leave, the government not doing its

job over the last 15 months, but the problem, delegated legislation,

handing over rights of human rights and devilish and process. This is a

huge power grab, the biggest we have seen, it was meant to be about

democracy and taking back control but we are handing back control to

Tory governments. This has been called a fuss about nothing,

devolved powers will be discussed, it is even in the notes of the bill.

Iain Duncan Smith does not have good form on this! He wants to leave the

European Union regardless of the consequences to the economy,

opportunities for young people. If you look at the Bill, in the value

have areas, over devolved competencies, it says the Scottish

Parliament and the other devolved administrations cannot legislate

over areas that are coming back. That seems unreasonable. Monday is

the 20th anniversary of the devil is in referendum which established the

Scottish Parliament, seems like a real shame that on the day that we

commemorate the 20th anniversary, that is the day that Westminster is

taking back control from devolved administrations, reversing the

process. Not just a concern of the SNP and the Scottish parliament but

also Labour, the Welsh assembly, a whole range of organisations and

political parties really worried about this. Really worried but you

touched on the nub of it, mentioning that IDS just wants to leave, you

wanted to remain, are you not really just trying to hold this up, trying

to cause trouble, delay it, which would cause big problems for

"Brexit" in the long term? The Scottish Government is the only one

that has come up with a compromise, Scotland voted 2-1 to remain part of

the EU, England voted to leave, so shall the compromise. Ruth Davidson,

Tory leader, even said, look at the single market after the referendum

last year. We are looking at compromise. What is the point in

having a parliament and me coming down to Westminster if we do not

scrutinise the work, not least on this bill which will have an impact

on all of us, on the opportunities for young people, the environment,

economy, human, big areas. Our job is to scrutinise. The government

seems to be scared, it is striking, it does not have the courage of

conviction to put these bills before Parliament and that is something I

find really worrying. Lot of these can be at committee stage, talking

about thousands of pieces of legislation here, if we don't just

get this done, it is going to completely, it will have a huge

impact on the negotiations and... For all the reasons I have set out,

areas like human rights, the devil is in process, the government has

got the bill wrong. If I think the government has got the bill wrong, I

vote against it, that is my job, the government should not be scared of

scrutiny. Hearing all this stuff about democracy, bring back control,

actually, the Tories want to bring control back to them and Whitehall

and make all the decisions. That is not the way it should work with a

minority government, party should be pulling together and working

together, this is bigger than any one party. OK, thank you very much.

Interesting day ahead. I'm joined now by the

Conservative MP Mark Harper, formerly Chief Whip

under David Cameron, and by the Shadow Brexit

Minister, Jenny Chapman. Welcome to the both of you. Can you

tell us why people should not be worried about ministers having

discretionary powers to change UK laws? For a start, Stephen has his

facts wrong, the reason they should not, this is relevant, powers are

constrained, in the bill that is going to be put before parliament

getting a second reading today, it specifically does not allow

ministers to use their delegated powers to change anything about the

Human Rights Act or equivalent legislation. Can you change any

primary legislation without...? Some of it. You can change coronary

legislation normally scrutinised by Parliament... It is not

unprecedented, worth remembering, the secondary legislation, brought

into British law by this Bill, most of it was of course passed into law

by exactly the same process. Layer upon layer of laws and legislation

and that makes it difficult to unpicked, so let be clear, you can

change primary legislation... I take your point it is not without

precedent, but it is not usual practice, but Parliament --

Parliament will be able to scrutinise usually. Because shooting

committee of the House of Lords, not known for being terribly keen on

leaving the European Union, was clear: it said, you would not

normally do this but it excepted that because of the volume of

legislation that needs to be brought onto the statute book by March 2019,

so we have a smooth exit and people have legal certainty, practically,

you have got to do it in this way, and when the bill was published, the

government should constrain the scope of that, and the government

has done that, so for example, cannot pass laws, to change taxes,

change the Human Rights Act, create criminal offences. It is quite

constrain. The government should listen to the Constitution

committee. I have got what they have said, and the Constitution

committee, so said David Davies, said this is the way it has to be

done, in the way you have described, secondary legislation. The House of

Lords Constitution committee report says, it is a source of considerable

regret that the bill is drafted in a way that renders scrutiny very

difficult and multiple and fundamental constitutional questions

are left unanswered. So I'm not sure the House of Lords Constitution

committee is signed up to the way government is going to actually

implement this Bill? It said it was not ideal but also said it was... It

said more than it was not ideal. 12,000 pieces of legislation into

British law, so that there is certainty and clarity for business

and individuals, there is no other practical way of doing it, ministers

have been very clear, this is about copying legislation across, making

small changes if you require it on the detail. If you are changing the

policy intention, there will be primary legislation that will go

through the full parliamentary scrutiny process, that is why people

should not be concerned. The important point, the time frame, the

clock is ticking, to actually do this Bill and go through every

single piece of legislation and do it by Parliament so that they would

have time to scrutinise it would take years and we would not take the

time frame. But if I can make the point first of all, we are 15 months

since the vote to leave and the government has been quite blase

about taking time out in that we had the delay for the court case, then

another... Presumably you wanted... That was not the choice of the

government. They chose to fight it, which took months more, they also

had a general election, which they probably now regrets... All of this

has delayed progress. Our objection with this Bill... We look very

carefully at the House of Lords report, it was very clear, the chair

has been very clear, that if this were just a case of allowing

ministers to implement technical changes, we would not be having this

discussion. And what we want to see is a removal of the ability of

ministers to make decisions by diktats on primary legislation. So

it will take years, to do what you are suggesting will take longer than

two years. It does not need to, it does not need to, Parliament needs

to do its job, we are prepared to devote the time that is needed, the

government does not have a new Rafael agenda at this moment,

Parliament is not overwhelmed with legislation, we would devote as much

time... I did the mathematics, if Parliament sat 365 days a year, it

would take... You would have to go through 33 pieces of legislation

every day, over that period... But you don't want to do everything. You

would not be scrutinising it very well. But we would be doing a better

job then we were going to be. A lot of people don't want us to leave,

this is delaying tactics, they don't want us to leave or do not want this

done sensibly. Dominic Grieve, former Attorney General, he says

this Bill six to confer powers on the government to carry out "Brexit"

in breach of constitutional principles in the way that no

sovereign parliament would allow, is he one of those seeking to frustrate

and delay? I don't agree with the analysis he has set out, I have

looked at the bill carefully, and I have done that before we start

debating in Parliament and it does not. The powers that will go to

ministers are constrained, they are all ultimately reviewable in the

courts. Ministers will have that in mind. If you are going to get

legislation all statute books so you get a smooth exit and certainty for

people, this is the sensible, practical way. Let's put the

scenario to you, Jenny, let's say that you were able to scrutinise, or

you were able to take more time over individual pieces of legislation and

you hit the deadline, March, 2019: what would happen to the country

when all those laws were not on statute books? We agree there needs

to be a mechanism to align laws, we agree with that. In that time frame?

We said in manifesto that the government is going about this and

the particular bill was wrong and we would oppose it, we would introduce

a different way of going about it. What is the different way of going

about it? It's taken Labour a long time to get

to this position deciding to oppose during the passage of this Bill.

What would you do if you were in Government? That's not correct. We

said when this Bill was first published we set out our reasons for

opposing it. We wrote to David Davis saying what they were. If he could

provide movement on this we wouldn't oppose. What is this bit of

movement? We want Parliament to be properly involved. We don't like

it... How? What the Government's going to do on Tuesday, it's going

to setp committees That will be looking at delegated legislation

committees looking at these instruments through The Bill. The

Government has no majority in Parliament. But it is attempting to

make sure it has a Conservative majority on every single one of

these committees. That is not right that the Government should have the

power to make decisions on things like workers' rights, holiday pay

for my constituents in the committee room with the majority not in

Parliament. Why should we trust you on that basis? First of all, Jenny's

admitted Parliament will actually be view nighing these pieces. No,

committee. That's different. That's how Parliament normally proceeds.

We've been clear. If you're going to transfer this volume of legislation

to have the certainty, you need to do it in this way. If the Labour

Party thinks The Bill should be changed, it is open to them to do

that at committee stage. If they are opposing The Bill in principle?

Which is what I asked To bring the law into British law you're saying

we'll leave the EU in a chaotic position. They're not saying that.

They are making a stand against it. They should deal with the detail...

That's what we will decide to do Mark, with all #r79. You say there

is going to be scrutiny. Why only eight days in committee stage. That

is not very long. We've two days to debate the second reading of the

bill. Eight days on the floor of the House of Commons is quite a long

period of time. How long did the Maastrict Bill have? 23 days.

European Communities Act in 1972 had 22 days. This Bill is literally

taking the existing ledgestration and translating it into British law.

It isn't making big policy changes or handing powers to another

Parliament overseas as the mat tricked Bill did. Jenny, you say it

gives them the possibility. What policy area has the Government

independented will make those big policy changes? We believe they'll

make changes to issues like workers' rights, environmental and consumer

pro texts. We're very concerned about it. Cabinet members have

indicated previously that would be their intention. It is too much to

ask the British people to take on trust that a Government minister

given that power now, unaccountably and free of scrutiny, would resist

the urge to make those changes. Would you support a Government that

tries to lessen and weaken workers' rights? No, the Prime Minister's

clear we're doing no such thing. This is about getting British

legislation into law as it is. Let's concentrate on the substance. We've

done the practicalities. There could be a situation where important

protections to Jenny Chapman, her party and supporters, come into

play. And you would have the potential power, I'm not saying you

would necessarily exercise it, but you would have the potential power

to change those protections, weaken them in the eyes of the opposition.

They wouldn't be able to do anything about it. We've been very clear if

we want to change any substantial issues, that will be done through

primary legislation. That's not what the bill allows. The bill allows you

it to happen through a process. The last time it was defeated in

Parliament was 38 years ago. This is the wrong way to go about it and it

is anti-democratic. We can see pictures now on the screen from

inside the Commons. The debate has started. The start of what is a

significant moment in the passage of this Brexit Bill even if the

Government doesn't lose the vote, despite the opposition voting

against it on Monday, there will be a lot of wrangling through the

committee stages when amendments could be put down bioponents to the

Bill within the Tory Party and the opposition. Jenny Chapman,

amendments? Do you have a raft to go? We will. I'm not going to tell

you what they will be. Because? We have to wait until Monday. We will

have amendments as well backbench members and other opposition

parties. You will see Parliament assert itself over this process.

Even if we don't win the vote on Monday, Parliament will not sit back

and let this go through without challenge. As an observer, listening

to debate at the start of this process and this particular piece of

ledgestration, it is an important moment, it will unpick the European

Communities Act set up with all those laws, what's your view? I

worry about the internal strive. It is much easier to sort out issues at

school between children. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. People will say there are

similarities sometimes dealing with MPs? I worry because I feel this is

the time for the country to bind together because we have to sort out

this big thing with the EU. We normal, ordinary people look to you

to solve it all. You all need to be friends. That way you can sort

things out. No pressure No. You two are staying with us for a little

longer. We're going to stick with the Brexit theme.

the EU have published some of their position papers.

We've learnt that the European Union wants Northern Ireland

to have a different Brexit deal from the rest of the UK.

And they want the UK to take responsibility for finding a "unique

solution" so people can work, go to school or get medical

treatment either side of the Irish border.

Let's hear what Michel Barnier, the chief Brexit negotiator

for the EU, has had to say just before we came on air.

The solution for the border issue will need to be unique. It cannot

preconfigure the future relationship between the European Union and the

UK. It will require both sides to be flexible and creative. What I see in

the UK's paper on Ireland and Northern Ireland worries me. The UK

wants the EU to suspend the application of its customs union and

its single market as what will be a new external border for the EU. And

the UK wants to use Ireland as a kind of test case for the future

EU/UK custom relations. This will not happen. Michel Barnier there.

We've also heard this morning that the European Commission has been

critical of David Davis, the Brexit Secretary. Suggested he displayed a

lack of involvement which risked de are dicing the success of the

negotiations after meeting him in July. Let's speak to our old friend,

less of Tell us about the minutes published

about David Davis's behaviour. I've two masses of paper in front of me.

These are minutes of a meeting published yesterday, last night. But

the meeting happened on 12th July. It was between Jean-Claude Juncker

and all the other European Commissioners in that building and

Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator. They were talking about

progress in the first round of Brexit talks which happened in June.

It's a bit old but the stuff that Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel

Barnier says is striking. President Juncker expressed his concern,

according to the minutes, about the question of the stability and

accountability of the UK negotiator David Davis and his apparent lack of

involvement in the process which risked jeopardising the success of

the negotiations. That was something repeated by Michel Barnier earlier

on in the discussion. I imagine some people think that's undiplomatic

language the EU side have been using about David Davis there. The

spokeswoman for the commission who's speaking earlier, said things had

moved on since July. If we want add real picture about how things were

going we should look forward to sets of minutes released in the future

relevant to more recent meetings of the EU Commission. Michel Barnier

was asked about this. He said he stood next to David Davis and paid

tribute to how hard he's working. The European Commission trying very

hard to put this document mind him. David Davis's homework's improved!

What about these commission papers and the one regarding the border

between Northern Ireland and Ireland? That's this other pile of

papers here. The position papers. Stuff on public procurement,

intellectual data. The one which got attention is the dialogue with the

UK over what to do about the Irish border. In summary, it says to the

UK you're responsible for coming up with solutions to this. You're the

country leaving the EU. They propose there will be a unique solution,

unique for Northern Ireland. In their words, does not preconfigure

the solution for the ex-of the UK. Northern Ireland, because it is a

special case, will get a special deal that will not be replicated for

the rest of the UK in the rest of the final Brexit withdrawal

agreement done with the EU. There's also going to be exceptions

potentially written into that withdrawal agreement to allow what's

called cross-border co-operation. In other words, that's written into the

Good Friday Agreement where north and south collaborate on things like

tourism, social securely, health u fisheries and transport and nudge.

In other words, day-to-day life in Northern Ireland and the Republic of

Ireland will carry on as normal. This that's another case where

Northern Ireland will be an exception to what happens to the

lest of the UK. It was really interesting listen to Michel Barnier

in the conference. He is worried about what the UK's proposed. What

it's proposing about an invisible border means it will jeopardise

Ireland's place in the sing the mashed and that the UK might --

single market and that the UK might be using it as a test case for the

rest of the Brexit deal for the rest of the UK. Michel Barnier says that

will not wash. One big area of agreement from both sides, that's

maintaining the common travel area, the free movement of British and

Irish people between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and

the UK. Both sides worked hashed to come up with an agreement that will

be maintained. That will help unlock a lot of other issues Michel

Barnier's talking about. Sorry it's so complicated. You're certainly not

disengaged from the process. David Davis could learn a lot clearly from

you. Enjoy the rest of those papers. Are both the commission and the UK

Government just publishing these endless position papers. I think

there were nine. Just to show they're doing something? They are

part of the dialogue. Michel Barnier said he wanted the British

Government to come up with some potential solutions for the

Ireland/Northern Ireland border. We published a couple of suggestions in

our position paper on Northern Ireland. We confirmed that we want

the Good Friday Agreement to be embedded with the withdrawal

agreement. I read that position paper. There's nothing in there that

anybody would intrinsically disagree with. It doesn't actually... And

there's been an admission also after that position paper that the

technological solution that the UK Government hoped would be put in

place is just not going to work. There still isn't any progress on

what will happen to costumes which is what we're talking about and

trade across the board he: We put forward proposals. The commission

will respond to them. There's a clear agreement Northern Ireland,

that relationship is very important. It is the only external border.

There's a clear commitment O'Make that work. Details need to be done

to get to a final agreement. Doesn't it show this idea of sequencing

negotiations is not really working. You can't really discuss the future

and status of that Irish border without including what will be the

ultimate Free Trade Deal and customs? Isn't that the case? You're

right. It is incredibly difficult. The phasing of this doesn't require

completion of an agreement or things to be completely resolved. It

requires significant progress. I think I have some sympathy for David

Davis on the issue of Northern Ireland. To expect it to be resolved

within the next couple of months is just not realistic. What I'm seeing

is a huge amount of political will, actually, from Europe and from the

UK Government and from the Irish Government to find a solution. It is

not going to be easy. It probably will not be rest #068ed until, as

you say, we get a clearer idea of what the future relationship on

trade is going to be. Let's talk about Labour's position regarding

the single market and customs union. It is now the policy, having gone

through various met fofsh Sis, you'll stay in the sing the market

and the customs union through the transition period. Tom Watson says

that could be a permanent state f and Keir Starmer said remaining in

the customs union could parliament ninetyly be a viable option? Is that

the case? That you are going to be the party of free movement and

submission to the European Court of Justice? the European Court of

Justice? Our position is very clear, but what it is not is always the

most simple, I accept that, we would like to stay in a transitional

arrangement, for around two years, is realistic, and that would involve

us remaining part of the single market, and the customs union, but

it is time-limited, and only as a transitional period. So Tom Watson

was wrong to suggest it could be permanent? I don't think he said

exactly that. He did, on Newsnight. I saw it on Newsnight, he was

answering three questions in one breath will stop he said it could be

a permanent state. It could be but that is not our policy. We need a

customs relationship with Europe where we do not have friction at

borders and customs and tariffs, everyone wants that, even David

Davis says he wants that, that is not a particularly radical thing to

say. In fact it might be the same, as what the government is suggesting

looking at, a customs union. What we want is a transitional deal, we are

clear about that. Without that, you have a cliff edge, some Tory

backbenchers are relaxed about that but we are not, and neither is

business. The government is hinting, David Davis this morning, in Brexit

questions, he was hinting that he is softening on the argument. He was

not too far away from saying he agreed with us on this will stop do

you agree? We have been clear that we want an increment agent period,

you need to have the full transition, interestingly... You

will be coming out of the single market? You need a period in which

you will implement the arrangement that we reach for afterwards. You

cannot do that... We have been clear, if you stay in the customs

union, the single market, you submit to free movement, the court of

justice, the whole point about the referendum was voters decided they

did not want to submit to those things. We have been clear that you

cannot go from being in the European Union to the final position, and

that final deal, overnight, you have got to ferment it over a period of

time. The Prime Minister is clear. Government is shifting because it

realises it has too, because it would be crippling for British

industry to have anything other than an

interim arrangement, and on freedom of movement, allow me to say this,

the Labour Party fully accepts that freedom of movement is ending and we

need a new immigration system. It will need to end after we leave the

European Union, March, 2019, after the transitional period, clearly, if

you leave the single market, you leave freedom of movement. That is a

time limited interim state, because there has been a lack of progress.

Thank you both, very much. The question for today is

what did grime artist Stormzy call Theresa May at the

GQ Men of the Year awards? A) peng, B) bossman,

C) mandem or D) paigon? At the end of the show, Katharine

will give us the correct answer. Our guest of the day today,

Katharine Birbalsingh, when she made a now famous speech

to the Conservative conference. She declared that the

education system was broken But how radical have they been and

what's next for schools in England? We'll hear Katharine's

thoughts in a moment. First Emma Vardy has

been back to the classroom. Over the past six years the

coalition and Conservative governments have tried to change

education, with the introduction of free schools and academies and as

students here have found out, a brand-new exam system. Much of this

initiated by the former Education Secretary Michael Gove, who had a

radical vision for schools and wanted to put a renewed focus back

on core traditional subjects. His flagship policy was the

introduction of free schools, which can be set up by groups of parents

or organisations like charities and businesses but which would be funded

by central government. Existing schools were encouraged to convert

to become academies, giving them greater control over their

curriculum, budget and staffing. It is possible to deliver a knowledge

rich curriculum, demanding, two students from backgrounds who years

ago would have been written off, and do that while reducing the workload.

That is an incredibly powerful message into the system, sensible

schools of all types should be following that direction. As of

2016, 61% of secondary schools have become academies. And 15% of

primaries. Controversial plans to force all schools to convert to

academy status were abandoned after a U-turn, and now, only failing

schools will be required to convert by 2022. These reforms have not won

the confidence of teaching unions. We were told academies and free

schools would transform standards, the fact of the matter is, over half

of academies, Academy trusts, at secondary level, are underperforming

or seriously underperforming. So what has happened is government has

left education to the market and the market has failed to provide. Talk

to the person next to you, right down one or two ideas. Since the

1980s, pupils receive their grades for GCSEs in letters, Hayes and bees

and so on. But from this summer, GCSEs switched to a numerical system

with nine being the highest grade. -- As and Bs and so on. We spent

five years learning one method of learning, and then hearing we were

doing a new system, that was really... It was a strange thing to

get used to. I thought I would be aiming for and a star, now I am

aiming for a nine... Probably better than I would normally aim, as there

is something to aim for. -- A*. The exams were substantially more

demanding, the abolition of controlled assessment, all students

taking English and maths for all exams, that was a complex and

difficult change but it was handled very well and students will have

felt well supported through it. The new format has faced opposition from

some teachers. The impact has been one of complete confusion for

parents and employers, who have not understood the new grading system,

and for students, it has meant exams which are very very difficult, and

which have very low threshold marks. This year, plans for the creation of

a new wave of grammar schools in England were abandoned, after the

Conservatives lost their majority in the election. And the Queen 's

speech did not announce any legislation for education. There is

something of a blank page when it comes to wear schools reform can go

next. STUDIO: In 2010, you told the

Conservative Party conference that the system is broken, do you stand

by those comments? Yes, the reforms are very much, the reforms that are

taking place, things are improving, it is always good to be climbing up,

and that is where we are going. Do you think the system is still open?

I think we have work to do, things are improving all the time. Right,

you set up your own free school, what was that like as an experience?

It was not easy, took us three years to set it up, in Wembley park, and

we have got years seven, eight, nine and ten and in 2019 we will have

GCSEs, and it is really exciting. Thank goodness for the free school

movement because we would not exist without it. It has allowed us to do

things differently, we very much believe in knowledge and explicit

instruction, teachers standing at the front and teaching. We have

seven or eight teachers every day from around the country, from

Glasgow, they come all the way to see us and take ideas away and take

them back to their own schools. Are you the poster girl for these

Goveite reforms but I don't like to consider myself a poster girl for

anything, I am a head Mitch is, but I am a believer in the changes that

have taken place. -- I am a headmistress. These were created in

part of the country where it was not needed, where there was not a

shortage of places, these free schools, that this was an

opportunity to hit out against the educational establishment rather

than bolstering and improving conditions and grades in existing

schools. That has been levelled. Grades... That has happened, in

existing schools? Yes, I mean... Competition is always a good thing,

and innovation is always a good thing, what the free school movement

has managed to do is allow innovation to happen, not just at

Michaela Community School, we believe in knowledge, other free

schools, like School 21, have different ideas, it has allowed

diversity to come into the education established in. Not to the detriment

of schools who say that they are losing good pupils to schools like

yours. Why would that be the place. -- case. We have to compete with

local schools, and while we are popular, there are other schools

around us that are just as popular. Has that revolution stalled, since

Michael Gove left the department? I think that if the case, he loved

education. And I think that was his thing. Having said that, the

Conservative Party have been backing those reforms and making them

happen. Do you think there is quite the momentum that there was before?

No. The government pledged ?500 million for 140 more free schools in

the manifesto, that is looking less likely to happen. They need to boost

other areas of the education budget, are you disappointed? No, I do

not... I do not feel either way, as long as free schools are still

around to happen, I think that is what is important, for the reasons I

was saying about diversity and innovation. It allows us to find out

what works. The point about these reforms, and exam reform and so one,

is that... We need to find out what works and we need to be interested

in finding that out. What do you say about the criticisms that some free

schools have been self-selecting, they do not select by exam entry but

self-selecting in the way they have their catchment area, or by the

curriculum, because they have the freedom, to make Latin compulsory,

for instance, or do mind high levels of music, do you think there is a

strong element of self-selection, in other words, getting better

performing students to come in in the first place. They cannot do

that, they have to follow the admissions code like every other

school. They have more freedom in how they set out catchment area and

curriculum, you can be self-selecting. For instance, we at

Michaela Community School have a lottery, people apply, then the

council does the admissions, just like the council does the admissions

of the local schools. We get a pretty standard crop of kids from

the local area. I don't recognise what you are saying, certainly not

with regard to Michaela Community School. What about criticism of

occasions and changes to qualification and grading system,

why change it again, what was old with the old A*-D? He says he would

like to go for the very best, that young man, I admire him, children

are being pushed to their potential. Which he is now, last year, for

instance, 5.7% of children got A*s, the great creep has been taking

place over years, it was important to do something. -- grade creep. And

that has also enabled all subjects to matter, what I mean is before, we

were looking at only five A-C, schools were under pressure to make

sure they could deliver on English and maths, they may pull them out of

other subjects and give them extra lessons. Aren't they the most

important? Yes, but you do not want that to be to the detriment of your

other subjects, where as when all the other different subjects are

being counted, and this progress allows that to happen, it allows all

subject to began to, it is complex, but it allows them to be counted,

also not just the grade boundary of D-C, that was being looked at,

schools will concentrate on that. Moving a 72 and eight minsters as

much as moving a three and so, it changes, changes schools ways of

doing things. -- moving a seven to an eight means test as much as

moving a three to pay four. Every child counts, that is a good thing.

What about vocational education, you focus on core academic subject, as

we would call them, what about vocational education, shouldn't that

be on the next? Say we do, we also give two hours a week of Michaela

Community School and two hours a week of -- at Michaela Community

School, we give two hours a week of music and two hours a week of art.

My own opinion on vocational is that there is not enough especially after

age 16, provision for that. There is 8000 apprenticeships across the

country for construction, 8000...! That is it! Absolutely we push the

university but there will be some pupils who want to do

apprenticeships and go into other fields. I do wish the government

would look at that and make more provision and put more funding into

technical and vocational. We will stick with education.

The government says English universities could be fined

if their leaders are unable to justify salaries above that

A new regulator is to be set up to determine whether university leaders

The Universities Minister, Jo Johnson, was speaking

I do not want to read about VC pay in the newspapers

These headlines raise fears that student fees are not being used

efficiently and that governance processes, including, but not

limited to remuneration committees, are not working effectively.

This is why I've repeatedly urged the sector, through guidance

to HEFCE, to show restraint in levels of senior pay.

We do need demonstrable action now to protect value for money

for students and taxpayers in the future to ensure that

vice-chancellor pay levels are seen as fair and justified.

There's been criticism of what you said, as always when Government

ministers stand up. People think you've taken too hard a line on

this. If you look at the University of Oxford. The vice lance letter

being paid ?350,000. Is it fair to say the vice-chancellor is being

paid too much? We're not setting a pay cap. We are requiring

institutions who want to pay over 150,000 provide the new regulator

with evidence supporting the need to do so. It is really important in an

environment in which students are paying for their own fees and

taxpayers are injecting roughly 70% of the money into that suss Tim

there's demonstrable efficiency across the higher education system.

This is minimum requirements of accountability. Do you think

?350,000 is too big a salary? It is a salary which needs to be

justified. Oxford and Cambridge have come out as the top two universities

in the world according to thetime survey and significant increases in

their income, it is a major export. Why are you trying to kick them?

We're requiring accountability and transparency for for taxpayers.

Rhetoric is important. In this era, when you're looking at pay

generally, you're saying these people don't deserve it? No, we're

calling for restraint in the system. Pockets of our higher education

system have generated negative publicity because of big increases

in pay. It may not be typical across the system. We need to make sure

remuneration committees are independent. So people have

confidence in the way money's being used. When will we see results on

this? It sounds like a consultation going to a regulator. If you wanted

to reduce pay, do it? Universities are autonomous organisations. We

passed a law bringing in the office for students which has power to

ensure efficiency and proper use of resources. The office will be

consulting shortly on guidance it will issue to the sector on getting

accountability to rue mine ration committees. We need them to be

independent so confidence grows in the system zblment in two years'

time, nothing could change and these salaries stay the same, rightly or

wrongly. We want the salaries to be justifiable. Transparency is a

powerful towel. There is a perception committees are not

operating transparently. This will change. It may be an important issue

as far as you are concerned. In a way, isn't this the Government

trying to deflect attention away from the real issues that became

quite big talking points during the General Election, tuition fees and

student loans. If there are changes to vice-chancellor's pay, it won't

result in lower fees for anyone? It is really important everyone feels

confident their investments whether it is the taxpayers or students'

investments in higher education is worth while. The Government's

committing 70% of the communities income to higher education. Why are

fees going to go up because the rate of inflation's going up next year.

Never mind about the pay going to vice-chancellors. . You've said

that. What about fees? The return on higher education is enormous for

students through it. Life time earnings ?250,000 higher. Higher

education fees have to be set against the benefits they generate

for the individual and society and the economy at large. Something has

to finance higher education. We are sharing the burden between the

individual studentant general taxpayer. 6.1% increase will be the

interest rate on a student loan. That's extraordinarily high. Let's

look at the interest rate. It is paid in the repayment period only by

the highest earners. 2 and 5% of graduates. If think are earning over

?42,000. That represents a cross-subsidy into the system for

lower easterners. If you want to reduce the interest rate, you're

removing a cross subsidy from those earning above ?42,000 to the lowest.

Why is the interest rate set at RPI? That is the higher rate of inflation

but everything you pay out as a Government is at CPI? This is an

historical feature of the system. It doesn't make it write. How do you

justify you're charging on student loans a higher rate of inflation

than you, as Government ministers, pay out on? We keep the student

finance system under review to make sure it is fair and effective. We'll

continue to do so. Under review is meaningless. Every Government says

everything is under review. Is it fair or isn't it? The overall

student finance system is fair. It enables more students from

disadvantaged background than ever before. You're 52% more likely to go

to university to a highly selective institution. Not just low tariff

institutions. It is even the most pretingious. According to the

statistics, the gap between the most and least advantaged students has

widened. There is a record level of people from disadvantaged going to

university. The gap between the two hasn't narrowed. The participation

rate, there are still more people going from advantaged backgrounds.

There is work to do to continue to get more from disadvantaged

backgrounds to university. Do you think the rates of interest on

student loans is partly to blame? Have you to concede a 52% increase

in disadvantaged areas is OK. What's your view about the rate of interest

which is something that Conservative colleagues of Jo Johnson have

raised? I suppose it has to be paid for. Sure, but this is the rate? The

idea is the people who come out, because there are so few who will be

able to pay back, you have to have higher rates. The thing is, what's

really important is whether or not all of the courses that are being

followed should be followed. When I was talking about apprenticeships

and so on, perhaps some of the people doing these university

courses should be on apprenticeships. We'd reduce the

numbers at university. That is OK. It is OK for us to have vocational

qualifications and for us to have technical colleges well funded. We

want both. High quality technical routes. This is the whole purpose of

the apprenticeship levy raising ?2.8 billion. It is the whole purpose of

the skills reforms culminating in the introduction of T levels. We

want great universities too. The economy of tomorrow will require

high skilled graduates in bulk. Have you put more of a focus on

encouraging more and more people to go to university than perhaps

developing the apprentices and technical education at a fast enough

rate? It is not a choice. We want world-class institutions. Oxford and

Cambridge topped the global league tables. We also need brilliant

technical and vocational routes. It is not an either or. Should foreign

students be taken out of the immigration figures? This is a red

herring. They are not capped. We welcome them in in Ltd numbers and

can come and stay and work provided they get a graduate job. Should they

be taken out of the immigration figures? We're the second most

successful country attracting international students. Thank you.

the beginning of the debate on the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Lizzie Glinka is still on College Green for us.

When I introduced the European Union Withdrawal Bill earlier this year, I

said that was just the beginning of a process to ensure the decision

made by the people in June is honoured. Today, we begin the next

step in the historic process of honouring that decision. Put simply,

this Bill is an essential step. It Des not take us out of the European

Europe, that's a matter for the Article 50 process, it ensures on

the day we leave businesses know where we stand. Workers' rights are

upheld. Consumers are protected. This bill is to ensure as we leave,

we do so in an orderly manner. David Davis flanked by Theresa May

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was: What did grime artist Stormzy call Theresa May

So, Katharine, what's the correct answer?

Well, lets have a look now at Jeremy Corbyn presenting Stormzy

with his Solo Artist of the Year award earlier this week.

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our Solo Artist of the Year,

It's so incredible to be here with everyone.

I do want to use this to say Theresa May is a paigon

and you know what we're doing right now.

Yeah, it's awkward, innit, when I say that, innit, yeah, trust.

We're joined now by Jasmine Dotiwala, a former MTV presenter

and music columnist and now manager of the Media Trust.

Welcome to the programme. Tell us what does baying an mean?

Untrustworthy. Someone who's betrayed people. Thank you. Jeremy

Corbyn is a grime fan, pub haar with grime artists. We saw that at the

election with grime for Corbyn trending. Is it too early to talk

about a grime vote? It's interesting with Jeremy Corbyn and the grime

scene. Everyone thinks young people are voting for Labour and love

Labour. It is Jeremy Corbyn they resonate with. Jeremy Corbyn's

strong-willed, has a strength of character. That resonates with them.

If you think about the way the grime music scene's been criticised and

judged, it is similar to Jeremy Corbyn. They're criticised the way

they dress, company they keep. Why do they relate to a bearded man of

his age who's vegetarian, maybe about to become a vegan, from

Islington. You say vegan. A lot of the grime scene are vegan and

vegetarians. Lots of connection. Young people are inclusive. Young

people tell us people like Jeremy Corbyn who are not about war and

nuclear weapons and inclusivity represent who they are. This genre

of music emerged in London. Is it still very much a London scene? No.

National, each global. Grime music's taken over the word. Everything they

stands for reflects their society and stories. The difference is at

the moment politicians are looking at the grime scene but not acting as

much. That's what they need to do. Thank you for coming in.

Sadly for some, there's no This Week this evening.

Andrew will be back for late night fun on a Thursday in a fortnight.

Do join Anushka Asthana for Friday's Daily Politics.

Immense congratulations to you. You are the final 12.

But at the same time, you are now nothing.

An elite group, including scientists,