07/09/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/09/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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,


Download Subtitles