Andrew Marr talks to education secretary Damian Hinds MP, shadow education secretary Angela Rayner MP and European Parliament brexit representative Guy Verhofstadt MEP.
Browse content similar to 18/02/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
One of the real problems
with Brexit is that it
stifles debate about so much else -
not enough these days
on health, taxes, inequality,
defence and the rest.
Well, today we're going to focus
on an issue which is coming
up again and again all over
this morning's papers -
the state of our schools,
and the debt burden on students.
Damian Hinds may not
be a household name -
except possibly around his own
kitchen table - but he's the new
Education Secretary in charge
of English schools and universities.
A big job, lots of questions -
first TV interview.
And, from Leeds, where there's a big
Labour summit going on,
the Shadow Education
Secretary Angela Rayner,
like Hinds, spoken of by some
as a future leader.
What, no Brexit?
You know us better than that.
Guy Verhofstadt is the European
Parliament's main man on the talks
and he's got some blood-curdling
warnings for the British side.
And Jeremy Irons has been
telling me why his current
stage role is a warning
to all successful actors.
There is an awful lot of rubbish
about that we are asked to do which
pays us enormous amounts of money,
and it's very easy to opt for that.
And to review this morning's news,
Joanna Cherry, the SNP's
And to review this morning's news,
Joanna Cherry, the SNP's
Home Affairs spokeswoman
in Westminster and Camilla Tominey,
Home Affairs spokeswoman
in Westminster and Camilla Tominey,
political editor of the Sunday
All that and more coming up soon.
First, the news with Chris Mason.
First, the news with Chris Mason.
President Trump has criticised
the FBI for missing the signals
about Wednesday's school shooting.
In a tweet, he said the agency
was spending too much time trying
to prove his presidential campaign
colluded with Russia.
Survivors of the Florida shooting,
in which 17 people died,
have taken part in a rally calling
for tighter gun controls.
The husband of the murdered MP
Jo Cox has resigned from two
charities he set up in her memory
after allegations of sexual
harassment were made public.
Mr Cox denies assaulting a woman
at Harvard University in 2015,
but admits to "inappropriate"
behaviour while working
for Save The Children.
He has left posts at More In Common
and the Jo Cox Foundation
after the Mail On Sunday
published the claims.
The new Education Secretary says
higher Government subsidies
could help fund more expensive
degree courses such as science
and engineering, allowing
universities to charge less
for humanities courses.
Damian Hinds said the idea would be
included in a review
of university funding.
It's likely the review will also
consider cutting or freezing tuition
fees, as well as at reducing
interest rates on loan repayments.
In a report published today,
the Commons Treasury Committee
called the interest rates on loans
"punitive" and "unjustifiable".
It's the Baftas tonight, and nearly
200 British stars have launched
a fund to help end harassment
and abuse of women in the workplace.
Stars attending the ceremony
are also pledging to wear black
in support of the campaign.
Kate Winslet, Emma Thompson
and Dame Kristin Scott Thomas,
are among those who
donated to the fund.
Emma Watson gave £1 million.
Keira Knightley and Tom Hiddleston
have each given £10,000.
Keira Knightley and Tom Hiddleston
have each given £10,000.
Keira Knightley and Tom Hiddleston
have each given £10,000.
At the Winter Olympics in
South Korea, Britain's James Woods
narrowly missed out on a medal
in the men's ski
slopestyle this morning.
Team GB is celebrating its most
successful day at a Winter Games,
with three medals
for female athletes.
Lizzy Yarnold retained her gold
medal from 2014 in the skeleton,
and there were bronzes
for her team-mate Laura Deas and
the skier Izzy Atkin.
And if you're wondering how our BBC
commentary team keep their composure
on days like yesterday,
the answer is...
Yarnold wins gold again!
Laura Deas has won bronze as well!
Not quite the very essence of call,
calm and collected! I think a chair
went flying at one stage!
That's all from me.
The next news on BBC One is at 12pm.
Back to you, Andrew.
And there is Lizzy Yarnold on the
front pages, it is the time of year
we all pretend to understand what is
going on at the Winter Olympics. A
great achievement by her. Also the
story about Jeremy Corbyn and the
Czech agent, this has been
comprehensively denied as lies and
rubbish by all of the politicians
concerned and it does seem, reading
through it, fairly thin. The Sunday
Times there has got Carey Mulligan,
one of the actors campaigning
against sexual harassment in the
workplace but also a very, very
interview we will talk more about
with Damian Hinds, he is on the
programme talking about tuition
fees, grammar schools, faith and
much more in the education system.
We have the political editor of the
Sunday express here and her story
about Theresa May's speech in
Munich, Brexit pledge, no going
back. We will be talking more about
that. There is Lizzy Yarnold again.
The Observer has a different kind of
story, Lizzy Yarnold again but also
shock figures on the dire state of
Britain's prisons, they say
overcrowded, overfunded, drug
infested and violent, R Britton's
rhythms on the edge? And finally the
Mail on Sunday interview there with
Jo Cox's widower, a very sad story
given what that man has gone
through, whatever else it is it is a
sad story for him. Let's turn to did
a's papers and start with Theresa
May add to her speech in Munich?
Interesting speech in Munich because
it was a game of two Haas, she had
preprepared what she was calling the
first of this road map to Brexit,
laying out what Britain would like
to collaborate with and what we want
to Divergent with in Europe... And I
should say, Camilla, you were there
in the room? Snowy Munich, got home
later than planned because the
heavens opened and it snowed heavily
but I was there, took a photograph
of Christine Lagarde from the
balcony in snub to the speech and
walked out halfway through, she
probably did not like what she was
hearing. Neither did some of the
delegates in the crowd so our splash
is not only Mrs May's vision for our
security arrangements in the future
but also the fact she had to combat
a number of quite hostile questions
from delegate essentially saying, if
you want such a deep and special
partnership with us and we are so
great, why have you left in the
first place? Another delegate asking
why they did not have another second
referendum because in Europe when
there were disagreements over the
constitution, make them vote again.
She was unequivocal and quite state
from unlike in her response in
saying, no, we don't keep on voting
under Whig at the answer that we
want, there will be no second
referendum, we are leaving the ECJ,
so, yes, I think probably Manna from
Heaven for the Brexiteers of the
You were watching, Nicola
Sturgeon was presumably watching on
a television set, Joanna?
the first Minister said that Theresa
May put party before country when it
comes to national security in an
interview with the Sunday Herald in
Scotland. She is absolutely right
about that. Probably why Christine
Lagarde left, or got bored with the
speech, because there was absolutely
no detail, all aspirational stuff
from Theresa May but the time has
come for detail to be given on how
we are to have this important,
lasting relationship on security. It
is that Boris
Johnson's speech this week, a
complete lack of any detail and any
engagement with how we are going to
move forward, and interestingly no
reference whatsoever to these
economic assessments that I and
other MPs have seen which very much
tally with the picture painted by
the Scottish Government in a
document they published last
Brexit in any
scenario means a massive hit in GDP
across the UK and job losses.
will get more details soon because
there is this great Chequers summit
and we promised they will come out
and tell us almost everything, not
They should do but
equally when you look at Boris he
was there to create a vision and
often he creates the collar around
it and not necessarily the details.
The time for vision has passed, it
is the time for detail now. We have
to reach a
to reach a deal by October, we have
to set out our store for the
parameters of the deal in March,
April, and none of the speeches we
have had so far have put any meat on
the bones whatsoever.
Let's do some
more politics, Henry Bolton was on
the show last week, I said to him,
are you still in love with your
girlfriend, he basically said he
was, I thought, that is probably
over for him as Ukip leader, and so
it has proved, he has been
Ukippered, according to the Mail On
They have become a party of
irrelevance. The Conservative party
is determined to take Britain over
the cliff edges of the problem for
Ukip if they are no longer relevant.
Let's turn out to Damian Hinds Comey
is relevant, he is Education
Secretary and is given an
interesting interview to the Sunday
Times, not as interesting as the a
few -- the interview he will shortly
get on that chair!
Just a rehearsal
for your interview, Andrew! He is
pointing at things need to change
with tuition fees and university
education on the whole, some
interesting proposals which will be
music to the ears of parents and
grandparents who are perhaps
struggling with the idea of fees and
how much it costs to stand at child
University, and the notion that
there is an idea that university
students spend too much time there,
people doing an hour a
people doing an hour a week of
classes could perhaps condense it
into a couple of years, so he is
talking about sandwich courses,
commuter causes whereby children
live at home and commute locally to
a university to study. He is also
taking on this mantle that Theresa
May introduced during the election
campaign of an alternative to
university and saying that children
should be encouraged where necessary
to take technical education that is
not necessarily a degree...
country is resistant to that kind of
vocational training having the
status it has on the continent,
Germany, Holland and other Places?
It is a problem because parents are
thinking children must go to
university otherwise they will fail
in life, and if there is an
alternative narrative and
alternative training with
comparative esteem, that is a good
thing. An interesting part of the
piece is that he is making his
approach teacher centric, he does
not want to anger the teaching
unions, which has not been easy for
previous Conservative Education
How different is the
debate in Scotland, Joanna?
different, what Damian Hinds is
coming up against is the reality
that students league university in
England with a massive debt burden,
facing a house crisis and stagnant
wages under the Tories. In Scotland
we don't have university tuition
fees, students do not base that,
they leave university with a degree
without huge debt, the SNP
Government has built more affordable
housing, over 30,000 affordable
homes, more to be built in the
future, and my colleagues are
pushing for a living wage across
Scotland as well.
Let's turn to
foreign affairs and President Donald
Trump and this extraordinary
investigation by special prosecutor
Robert Mueller, he has now indicted
a series of well-connected Russians
as being involved and overnight, of
course, sitting in the Oval Office
bedroom, he has been tweeting again.
Naturally, yes, as he consumes a big
Mac and some diet Coke! He has been
tweeting and has basically said,
let's keep in mind that he has
courted a lot of criticism this week
because of his Republican alliances
with the gun lobby, he has blamed
the FBI for missing signals from the
Florida gun shooting last week,
saying, this is not acceptable, they
are spending too much time trying to
prove Russian collusion with the
current campaign, there is no
pollution, get back to the basics
and make us all proud.
There may well be genuine criticism
in the FBI not taking seriously
complaints about this boy from the
past, classmates were being sent
WhatsApp messages suggesting he
wanted to kill people, we were
discussing this backstage, Joanna,
saying there must be lots of
troubled youngsters in America
such claims about guns, but to bring
the FBI into it in this regard and
openly criticise them...
If there is
blatant political advantage, he is
using the senseless murder of
innocent young people do his own
political advantage to try to diss
the FBI because he does not like
their investigation. There is a
story here in the Sunday Mirror that
just 47 miles from the Florida
massacred there is a huge gun show
going on over the weekend offering
free entry to children. There are
troubled teenagers the world over
but the difference is that in
America they can get hold of as much
guns and ammunition as they want.
That is what Trump should focus on.
What is he going to do about that?
Am I right in saying
What is he going to do about that?
Am I right in saying there were
suggestions this kid was mentally
disturbed and one of the changes
that the administration in America
has made is to make it easier for
people with those mental histories
to get guns?
Which is insane. I
think Brits find it in saying you
could walk into a shop and buy a
semiautomatic weapon anyway.
Obviously Trump was rightly
condemned last week for talking
about mental health issues but not
seemingly making the correlation
between the fact that at the end of
the day Republican campaign is
largely propped up by the NRA.
tweet is just so typical of Trump,
no statesman-like behaviour
Can we quickly point out
the Oxfam UN story is carrying on
all the way through today's papers?
A colleague of mine has pointed out
the fact that the UN now is facing
its own abuse scandal, apparently
612 outgoing cases in the last year
alone, incidents involving 201I
think complaints of abuse against
children with seven claiming their
abuser has left them pregnant. The
tip of the iceberg is a phrase that
springs to mind.
And quickly, the
fantastic, three medals for the UK
yesterday, all young women
participating in what I consider to
be absolutely terrifying sport! But
shining in them and we can only
applaud them, it is great for women
in sport to see the medals coming
from female athletes.
Very nice to
end on a good story, thank you both
very much indeed.
As we've been hearing,
the indictment of a group
of well-connected Russians
for attempting to subvert the US
takes President Trump
into new territory.
I'm joined now by somebody
who has spent many years
following this story -
Luke Harding, the Guardian's former
Russia correspondent and author
of "Collusion: How Russia Helped
Donald Trump Win The White House."
Do we actually know that Russia
helped Donald Trump to win the White
I think after Friday we can be
pretty certain matters the case.
What the indictment revealed was a
full-blown espionage operation
involving Russian operatives going
to America, paying operatives to
dress up as Hillary Clinton.
Extraordinary stuff but there are
two defences that Donald Trump has
been mounting yesterday and today.
One is that this happened well
before he announced he was going to
run for the presidency, Virgo it
can't really be about him, and
secondly that Mueller has found no
evidence that had actually changed
the election resulted
The time I
doesn't run in Donald Trump's favour
because bearing in mind his first
visitors every Moscow was back in
1987 and he has been a target/ off
cultivation and seen as somebody who
could disrupt the political system
and damaging delegitimise...
spotted early on as a provocative
figure in American politics?
kind of characteristics they were
interested in. They were looking for
people who were vain, ambitious,
narcissistic and contains all of
They could no have
known he was going to run for
president or was it just a lucky
They saw him as a candidate
of chaos, and I think they thought
that Hillary Clinton would win but
it would undermine her and be a
stone in her shoe although it
through the presidency and, of
course, he got across the line and
he refuses to acknowledge the role
Russia has played. Leases it is a
hoax, fake news, Democrats, and what
he hasn't acknowledged even now is
that this is a major attack on
Mueller has not
yet proved collusion, he has not
proved that the Trump campaign was
actively in knowingly involved in
this. Can you update us on why we
are going amiss complicate it,
multisided investigation? Is getting
near to the White House?
I think the
players are in the White House
garden. Trunk and see them in the
Oval Office and you can tell from
his nervous tweeting that he is a
nervous guy. The gunfire is there
and that is why he has been waging
this campaign against Mueller and
the FBI. Bearing in mind, four
people have been arrested already,
two have admitted lying to the FBI.
That there was no collusion on
Friday does not mean there will be
no collusion in the future and I
think this could be the beginning of
what will end in disaster for Donald
A lot of people who were
supporters of Hillary Clinton and
others will hope this will end up in
impeachment for Donald Trump and
that is the end of the Trump
presidency but that, of course,
gives us the presidency of Mr p. Two
so I think we some way of that and
everyone thinking of Watergate but
this is... Him a tough this out and
serve his full term. What we have
learnt is about the porous and is of
western democracy and there are
questions about... How porous we
Yes, and whether the Russians
interfered on Brexit did we don't
have a Robert Muller but I think the
government is terrified to ask these
Fascinating, and thank
you for talking to us.
And so to the weather.
It's that rather wonderful time
of year, when across much
of the country anyway,
it suddenly feels like Spring.
Lots of startled looking people
staring up at the sky and wondering
what that bright yellow thing is.
But I bet there's bound to be one
last blast of frigid horror
before we get there.
Sarah Keith-Lucas is in
the weather studio.
You have hit the nail on the head.
It is felt quite springlike but
don't get used to it. Things are
going to turn colder through the
week. Today is not a bad day with a
lot of dry weather on the cards. The
best of the sunshine towards the
east, some rain in the west later,
courtesy of this front approaching
from the Atlantic. We have high
pressure holding on across
continental Europe, keeping a lot of
dry and bright weather towards
eastern parts of the country, so for
Kent, Norfolk, right up towards
northern and eastern Scotland, some
sunshine and even under the cloud
further west for England and Wales,
if you brighter spells. Northern
Ireland sees rain through the
afternoon but it is mild,
temperatures for many of us in
double figures. Overnight the patchy
rain work ceased with so much of the
country having a damp and cloudy
night but under that cloud it won't
be cold so a frost free start to
Monday. More cloud than over recent
days with outbreaks of rain towards
eastern parts where is further west
it should brighten up. Some glimpses
of sunshine for North Wales,
Northern Ireland, where temperatures
could reach around 13. Colder
towards the east. That theme
continues with the colder air moving
across much of the country as we
head through the latter part of the
Not spring yet.
Labour's hierarchy has gathered this
weekend in Leeds to talk
about a wide range of policies.
We've already been talking
about changes to Government policy
when it comes to student fees -
Or maybe not?
Angela Rayner, the Shadow
Education Secretary joins me.
You will have seen the reports that
the Government is reopening the
whole issue of student fees. To you
We have had three
announcements of reviews in the last
12 months and eight years of the
Conservatives that have damaged
education and totally decimated our
further education infrastructure, so
another review really isn't going to
solve the problem of the hike in
interest rates which this government
has done, and the tripling of
tuition fees. Most students have
said that the removal of maintenance
grants is one of the biggest
barriers to them at university at
the moment and the Government have
said nothing on that.
Are there more
children from disadvantaged
backgrounds going to universities
after tuition fees arrived or not?
There are more students per se going
into university but we also know
that more students and in particular
the disadvantaged students are
leaving university with over £50,000
of debt so, actually, more students
are leaving university not getting
into the jobs that they want and
being saddled with debt for many
years, and the system is completely
unsustainable. The Government,
frankly, are not leading on this,
they are being led by the Treasury
select committee and the opposition
who have a vision for the future,
which will ensure we have the skills
we require in our economy and that
further education gets the parity of
esteem you spoke about earlier in
the programme instead of the cuts
they face because we know we need
higher education and further
education in this country to ensure
our economy grows in the future.
There is a suggested in these
interviews that different kinds of
university courses will be more or
less expensive, that humanities,
history, English, social sciences,
would be cheaper than sciences or
maths. What do you think about that?
We are told we need sciences or
maths and so therefore to make bows
to Chris Morris when flies in the
face what the economy is going to
need in future and part of our
industrial strategy we need to make
sure we get students on those
courses. Many of those are
subsidised by other courses so it is
going to cause more chaos in the
sector. What we've said is that by
ensuring we directly fund
universities, by making sure their
money comes straight from the state
and corporation tax, is that
universities would have the money to
have a world-class university
Last time we you said you
said you had brought along a very
big abacus to wipe out -- work-out
the cost of wiping out all student
that. Is that still an aspiration
for your party?
Jeremy said he would
look about what we have outlined is
a clear vision for an education
service which is important because
it will be free from the point of
use from cradle to grave. The
economy faces real challenges in the
future and our businesses do. We
have to make sure we have the skills
in the economy to go forward and
that means making sure people can
retrain, go to university, get
higher education as well as further
education and, of course, the
technical skills we need for the
economy of the future. We have a
vision for that but unfortunately
the Conservatives have been managing
decline, take our eye off the ball
and we had eight years of an
unsustainable Tory failure on
Might be the case that
£100 billion to wipe out all student
debt is not the priority given all
the challenges you face if you come
into government soon.
Like today I
have outlined the fact that our
schools are not currently the safest
for our young people and children
because the Government have still
not proposed to put sprinklers in
schools. We have flammable cladding
on schools, asbestos in schools, so
we've been prioritising making sure
that our school children are safe,
our classrooms have the funding on
the qualified teachers in order to
deliver on our skills and future of
her economy so our priority has been
to make sure we get those students
into education and we can provide
the future workers and the economy
our future needs.
A lot of people
will agree with you about sprinklers
in schools, for instance. Presumably
you are worried about the
possibility of a Grenfell Tower
happening in a British school. I
must ask how much this is going to
cost and if this new money you are
going to put in? You will have to
rip up a lot of school buildings and
remove walls and put in new
cladding. It is quite a big
National Audit Office
said schools moved around 14 billion
and the Government has only
earmarked around 4 billion. We said
that his capital investment and we
would borrow to make sure that
investment is in our schools so we
will put 13.8 billion into making
sure our schools are up to a good
standard and that is what our
children deserve. We can't have
children in unsafe school
environments. Many schools, their
building is falling apart, they are
not fit for purpose. We have
Portakabins where children are in
temporary classrooms. That has to
stop and we need to invest in
You are the Leeds for
this policy summit and people have
seen some fairly extraordinary
scenes on state whether factionalism
bubbling inside the party broke
down. Do you think the scene where
the female chair of the national
policy forum was shut up by a male
colleague was a disgraceful one?
have known Katrina for many years as
a former colleague and she won't be
shut up by anyone, she is a fabulous
colleague. We have robust debates in
the Labour movement and we have had
a fantastic policy forum where we
have debated and toured about the
issues we face of the country and
unlike the Conservative conference,
which looks like a wake, ours is
lively and about making sure we have
the responsibility to.
certainly lively. Katrina wandered
about to be taken on the new chair
and that was stopped because the
wrong candidate was going to wind it
up is that right?
was that the notification for chair
had not been given enough time so
therefore it was not enough -- not a
question of whether we have a chair
but about making sure the maximum
delegation of Cameron Yates was able
to take place so my understanding
was completely different to that.
Lucy Parr, one of your colleagues,
said it was bullying and smut of old
school control free Querrey, not new
politics. She is right, isn't she?
-- smacked of old school... Two is
the bad conference in September, it
was about government in waiting, we
have the answers but the future of
our economy and the future of
Britain and we are focusing on that
and not internal fighting.
One question, 20,000 Labour Party
members of Britain to you saying
they want a proper discussion about
the party's policy on Brexit. Are
you going to carry on not listening
We are always discussing
Brexit and we will be discussing
today as part of our international
commission at the Forum. We always
discuss Brexit and it is something,
as you know, you don't do a
programme where it is not discussed
and that the Labour Party it is
constantly discussed at every level.
We do discuss it constantly. Angela
Rayner, shadow education secretary,
thank you for joining us.
Long Day's Journey Into Night has
been described by director
Richard Eyre as "the saddest
play ever written".
In his current production, however,
it's also strangely uplifting.
Eugene O'Neill's American
masterpiece sees Jeremy Irons back
on the London stage.
He plays a successful actor married
to a morphine addict, played
by freshly Oscar-nominated Lesley
Well, I caught up with both actors
and asked why they think this is one
of the greatest plays ever written.
I knew you didn't
mean to humiliate me.
I knew that was the way
you had to do everything.
I was grateful, and touched.
I knew buying that car was a hard
thing for you to do,
and it proved how much you loved me.
In your way.
Especially when you couldn't really
believe it would do me any good.
Mary, dear Mary...
For the love of God,
for my sake and the boys' sakes,
and your own, won't you stop now?
Yes, maybe it is sad,
I think it's also probably the best
American play in the canon,
and what divides it, for me,
from most of the plays
is that it was not written
for money, it was not written
to be a successful play.
It was written cathartically over
some years by Eugene O'Neill.
So it's very much
about his own family?
I think it's the greatest
play I've ever done,
and I've done some stonkingly good
plays by huge writers,
you know - Chekhov, Ibsen,
For me, the play has a resonance.
It's very good to relate to it,
it's about a family and these deep
things that they all have
in their own closets.
And then, right after
we were married, there
was the scandal of the woman who'd
been your mistress suing you.
From then on, all my old friends
either pitied me or cut me dead.
Old man Tyrone, like Eugene's
own father, was a very,
very successful actor,
but I was thinking slightly
of you because there is something
that happens to him,
it must be every actor's
ultimate nightmare -
he has one fantastic role
which earns him huge amounts
of money, and he can
never get away from it.
It's like being in a superhero film
for the rest of your life.
I think it speaks to all actors,
because there's an awful lot
of rubbish about that we're asked
to do which pays us enormous amounts
of money, and it's very
easy to opt for that.
And you see this man, Tyrone,
looking back and thinking,
"I would've done without all this
worldly wealth if I could be proud
of what I'd done in my career."
And your character, Lesley,
Mary Tyrone, you come
onto the set and you're shaking,
and you don't stop shaking
all the way through the play
because you are a dope fiend,
again based on Eugene
O'Neill's own mother.
Well, Mary's had a rather
tragic and lonely life.
I mean, she's married very young
this glamorous actor.
She's a rather pious girl,
dreams of being a nun,
and then she falls in love
with James and imagines
she's going to have this
marvellous, wonderful life.
And, in fact, it's
a very lonely life.
He's pursued his work and she's had
to travel with him all the time,
and she's been left in hotel rooms
night after night.
And she loses a child as well,
so it's basically mother's
little helper, she's given
some morphine or...
And of course she gets hooked,
she gets hooked on it.
And, final question, I suppose,
about it is whether you feel there's
any hope or redemption here at all?
Oh, God, yes.
I think that's the wonderful
thing about it.
I think the extraordinary
thing about this play
is you leave, as an audience...
I was quite uplifted, actually.
That's right, strangely cathartic.
Whether it be on the simple level
of, "My family's difficult,
but it ain't that difficult!"
Or indeed just watching
and thinking, God, the human spirit,
how it fights through the suffering
that we all have in life.
I think what you see
in our production as well
is that this isn't just a family
that's at loggerheads with each
other, they actually, you can see
that they love each other.
They rip each other to pieces
but at the same time
they really know each other
and they love each other.
Very much like my own dear family!
Tyrone and Mary have a lot
of love for each other,
and I think that what we show
in the production as well is you get
glimpses of what their life would've
been like when they were younger,
and how hot they
were for each other.
So you've been nominated
for Best Supporting Actress
in Phantom Thread, which I greatly
enjoyed but is one of the weirdest
films I have ever seen!
Explain a little bit about it?
Well, it's quite
a simple story, really.
It's about a brother
and sister who run a London
couture house in the 50s.
They're very co-dependent,
very locked into each other
and each other's lives.
And he has had a sequence of lovers
and muses in his life that come
and go, and his sister Cyril,
which I play, deals with them
and deals with him.
No, don't turn it on me,
I don't want your cloud...
Oh, shut up, Cyril.
And you can shut right up.
Don't pick a fight with me.
You certainly won't come out alive.
I'll go right through you,
and it will be you who ends up
on the floor, understood?
And Daniel Day-Lewis chose it
as his final film, he said.
You didn't know that
when you started filming?
No, and I don't think
he knew it, either.
I don't think he came to it
thinking, "I'm choosing this film
because it will be my final film."
I think it was a decision
he came to subsequently.
What, working with you?
Thought, "I'm never
going to do this again!"
That's it, end of story!
He's famously a method actor -
did he come on to set every time
you saw him with a needle
in his mouth, looking like a scary,
He came onto set as the character,
and that's what he...
..likes to do.
And, listen, whatever gets
you through the night,
and gets your performance
on the screen, so be it.
It's not how I work, it's not how
lots of other actors work,
but it's how he works,
and, you know, who are we to rib it?
Three Oscars, he's not done badly.
That's pretty all right, isn't it?
OK, well, listen, very,
very good luck in Los Angeles.
Thanks a lot for talking to us.
And Long Day's Journey Into Night
is at Wyndham's Theatre in London
until 7th April.
Guy Verhofstadt, former
Belgian Prime Minister,
is now in charge of the Brexit talks
for the European Parliament.
He's a hate figure for many Leavers
- Nigel Farage, for instance,
called his appointment
a "declaration of war"
This week I went to meet him
in Brussels, and asked
whether the EU actually wants a free
trade deal with Britain.
What we want as the European
Parliament is an association
agreement, and in this association
agreement there will be a free-trade
deal inside, because we think that
the future relationship with Britain
needs to be broader than only
trade and economics.
So, you do want a free trade
agreement as part of
So there should be no real
problem in achieving that,
given that our regulations
are pretty much similar?
Maybe I can...
Maybe I rectify a little bit.
We want, in fact,
more than free trade.
We should like to have, for example,
Britain still in the single market,
Britain a member of the European
Economic Area, Britain a member of
the customs union, and so on.
The trouble with your
vision is, it's
basically Britain staying
inside the EU but without a vote.
That's more the question
about transition, what
you're talking about.
Let's talk about transition.
They will talk about transition -
I hope so - in the coming weeks.
And transition is mainly
the continuation of what we call
the existing rules, the existing
policies, without having a say,
that's true, because Britain,
in the transition, will not be
longer present in the European
Parliament, the European Commission,
the European Court of Justice
and the European Council.
Boris Johnson says that it would be
intolerable and undemocratic for us
to have to accept new rules,
new changes to the rules,
without even being in the room
while they are made.
We have not decided for Britain
to leave and we have not...
It is Britain who have requested
the transition period.
It is not we who ask for it.
In effect, your answer is "tough".
Why it's tough?
It's normal, when there
is a transition, so we are not
against the transition.
I think the transition is even
necessary, because you need a period
necessary to discuss
and to negotiate a future
relationship but it's normal
that in a transition,
you simply continue
with the existing rules
and the existing policies.
A big problem at the moment
in the transition talks is about
the free movement of people.
Theresa May says that it's not
the same for somebody to come
from the continent of Europe
and settle in Britain
during the transition period,
already knowing that Britain
is leaving the EU.
That's a different life
choice, if you like,
from somebody who joined before
we decided to leave.
So why should people coming
during the transition period have
all the rights of people
who came before?
Because transition is simply
the continuation of the existing
situation, and what we...
That's a bureaucratic answer.
No, that's not
a bureaucratic answer.
I will give you the answer.
It's not acceptable for us that
rules will continue without change
for financial services,
for goods, for whatever other
business, and only for the citizens,
their situation will change.
That is penalising citizens.
Why should everything
continue for services,
for goods, for imports,
exports and only for the citizens,
they will be worse off?
That is for us not acceptable.
We even do not want
to talk about it.
But they know what the situation is.
They know Britain is leaving,
and they still want to...
But Britain asked for a transition.
Britain needs a period
from now on, let's say,
until the end of 2020,
to prepare itself,
so then it's normal.
But the rights and duties will be
the same in transition.
That counts also for the UK
nationals living on the continent.
Theresa May says her
position is a red line.
You are absolutely the same,
"Our position is a red line".
There is no meeting
of minds on this.
It is possible the entire
transition period will fail.
What happens then?
If there is no transition,
then you have automatically
the withdrawal of Britain
on the 29th of March of next year.
What the British government can do
is that they prepare the new system
for after 2020 but they cannot
seriously say, "Look,
all the rules and stays in place,
only for the citizens
there is a new situation".
That is not fair on citizens.
Let's move, if we can, to the end
state, the final agreement.
It goes fast!
In your interview, it goes fast,
but in reality it will take years.
Is it at all possible that
by the time that we formally leave,
in March next year, there will be
a free trade agreement?
Is that possible?
I think what is possible by the 29th
of March of next year,
if everybody agrees with it -
European Parliament -
will be the withdrawal agreement.
Inside that withdrawal
agreement, also, an agreement
on the transition, a transition,
for example, of two years, the end
of 2020 or the beginning of 2021,
and the third thing that will be
possible is an annex,
a political declaration, describing,
more or less in detail,
I should say...
What the free trade...
What the future
relationship will be.
And then we will use the transition
period to clarify this
in an international agreement.
So, those are the three things -
inside the withdrawal agreement
the transition, a deal
on transition, and an annex
and political declaration describing
in detail already -
because everybody has an interest
to do that in detail,
not to have misunderstandings
Describing that future relationship.
It's fairly clear - it's not
completely clear yet to us -
what Theresa May is going
to ask for.
David Davis described it to me
as Canada plus, plus, plus.
What he meant by that was a free
trade deal, no tariffs,
no nontariff barriers for goods,
cars and so forth, but and special
agreements on things
like financial services.
That's what they're
going to ask for.
And, again, is that not
reasonable, to do that kind
of special bespoke agreement?
Yeah, but that will not be
the outcome of this negotiation.
That cannot be the outcome.
No, the outcome will be...
There can be not a type
of saying, "Oh, this
is interesting, that we like.
This is not interesting for us,
we dislike it, we don't want it".
What will be in that
part of the association
agreement, we will see.
will not be there any more
because that's the actual system.
You need to be part of the single
market to have that.
So that will be a far more difficult
negotiation than simply to say, "Oh,
we like financial services,
so we put it in.
We don't like this sector
and we put it out".
That will be for the future.
That will be not now.
There are disagreements
on the European side,
the continental side,
as well, about this.
The Italian prime minister said,
for instance, it would be
unthinkable not to have financial
services as part of the agreement.
Yeah, but that's...
There will be, certainly,
something about financial services
but there will be also something
about regulatory equivalence
because what we don't want is that
with this whole agreement,
we establish a type of financial
centre that is competing
with the continent, not in a serious
way, by every time lowering taxes,
lowering the type of rules,
so that we create a competitive
You're worried about
a race to the bottom.
We want a level playing
field for that.
So that's the key in all this.
There has to be a level playing
field in this and no
neither for the Europeans and not
for the British side.
There are a lot of people in Britain
who want to divert in some areas
and carry on converging in others.
But that's what you allowed
for Japan, that's what
you allowed for Canada.
Yeah, but there is a big difference.
With the Japan trade agreement
and with the Canadian trade
agreement, what we tried to do
is to converge, while what Britain
is asking for is...
They are allowed to carry
on diverging, aren't they?
Is a request for divergences
in a number of fields.
And that we don't want.
We understand that, OK,
Britain wants to diverge
in a number of fields
and regain their sovereignty
but they have to take then, also,
the consequences of it.
If you divert, it will be...
It sounds a little punitive.
No, it's not punitive.
It's your decision.
Is a decision of the British people
to go out and to like divergences
and that's the big difference.
So, I'm Theresa May now,
or I'm Boris Johnson now,
and I come to you and I say,
"Canada plus, plus, plus".
You say, "No chance".
Is that right?
I'm not saying that.
Everything is depending on the red
lines of the British side.
I say the single market is the best
solution for the British industry
and the British economy
but the British government doesn't
want that, because the red line
is no freedom of movement of people.
I say the second-best
option for is a customs
union but Britain says,
"No, it's not possible
because we want to regain more
competence on trade policies."
My third proposal is, "OK,
let's look, then, maybe,
into one or other association
agreements," and maybe
there will be, also,
opposition by the British
government, saying, "Yeah,
but that implies the role
of the European Court of Justice,
and we don't like the European Court
of Justice," so a lot depends not
on the European side.
A lot depends on the red lines that
are put on the table by the British.
Is there a big difference
between you and Michel Barnier
on any of this or do
you think alike?
No, the specificity
of the European Parliament is that
we're going to be very keen
on the issue of the citizens'
rights and we are very
worried, I can tell you,
and if you will give me
the opportunity to say that
to the British public,
very worried about this.
It's going to be a bureaucratic
nightmare in the system for the EU
citizens living in Britain
and for the UK nationals
living on the continent.
We want a system for the EU citizens
for the future which is very simple.
A simple declaration by them has
to be sufficient to continue
to have their rights.
Can I ask what happens if,
perhaps over this issue,
the European Parliament votes down
the deal or the British Parliament
votes down the deal?
What happens if the
deal is voted down?
Then there is a Brexit on the 29th
of March without any arrangement.
That is what is happening.
But I presume, if
that is happening...
I have only a small experience
as a politician in Belgium
and in Europe, so not in Britain,
but I presume that if that is
happening, for example,
the UK Parliament voting down
the deal, there will be, I presume,
a crisis in British politics,
I presume maybe an election,
maybe after that election
a new government and maybe
a new position of that
new government on Brexit.
So I call it...
That is precisely
what I'm asking about.
May I call it like that,
That's unknown territory.
Mr Verhofstadt, thanks very
much for talking to us.
So, as promised, in his first
since taking the job,
the man responsible for English
schools and universities,
Education Secretary Damian Hinds.
Welcome. I ask you first of all
about this new review on university
tuition fees? Is everything on the
We've got a very strong
higher education sector in this
country and the system has been in
place since 2012 and has been very
effective in making sure Al
universities are properly funded.
But also it has been
fair in the split and cost between
taxpayer and students and there are
more disadvantaged students going to
university. To address your question
of why review, when the system was
brought in it was not anticipated
that so many universities and
courses would all have the same fee
for their course. There has not been
as much variety that has come into
the system as we would have expected
and wanted, so I think it's right to
ask questions about that and see
what can be done to stimulate that
Is it true that as a
result of this, some courses, for
instance the humanities, English and
other things, could become cheaper?
I don't think politicians are going
to be setting the costs of all
different courses for all forms of
education. All subjects have great
value and great worth. What we need
to look at is the different aspects
of it, so the cost to put on the
course, the value to the student and
also the value to our society as a
whole and to our economy there are
some subjects in higher education
and technical education where we
will need more of those coming
forward in the future because of the
changes and new challenges in the
I am puzzled. You
look at this and what are the
universities do as a result of the
review? How do these things change
if it is not the Government imposing
Would be wrong to
pre-empt the review. There will be
an independent panel that will look
at these aspects, how students
decide where to study, what the
costs are to put on those causes and
looking at some of the subjects we
need for the future. They will make
recommendations on the Government
will then act to drop
If you are a
student, a prospective student or
the parent of a student, you will be
very interested in the tuition fees.
Is it possible as a result of this
but you will look again at the very
high interest rates on the maximum
cost of tuition fees, the maximum
price tax, and how students get to
pay them back? Are those things on
You talk about the
maximum price target it up there are
some causes when £9,250 in fees is a
good deal indeed and what the
interest the dozens makes the skin
more progressive. That means people
who may cause of money in their 20s
and 30s will contribute more others.
Are these things being reviewed not?
The independent panel will look at
this and Government will respond but
the panel can look at these
different aspects. The Treasury
select committee report the
distance, makes the point that we
shouldn't think about student debt
in quite the same way as another
debt. We need to think about the way
these things come across to
Things like the interest
rate might change as a result of
We can't pre-empt that.
I said might.
You can't look at one
aspect of the system in isolation.
am trying to discover whether this
is a real review which is actually
going to change things or not.
a real review.
Things will change?
We are looking to make sure there is
the variety and choice in higher
education that would be students
have full visibility of those
options and also that they know
about the progress of elements that
So, for instance, does
the review cover alternatives to the
current system of paying for
students at University? Would
recover, for instance, a different
kind of graduate tax? Would be
possibly attacks people have
suggested on all graduates, a modest
tax, to pay for universities? Is
that on the table?
Right now we have
a hybrid scheme. It has elements of
a Labour scheme and a graduate
contribution scheme. Already you
don't pay anything if you are not
earning over £21,000, which will
soon go up to £25,000, so it is a
hybrid system but will the review
look at alternatives? Absolutely,
because this is a review not only
about higher education and
universities but about tertiary
education as a whole and that
includes nonuniversity roots and we
are already making big reforms.
it is possible? To spot we need to
look at how that works after 2018.
It is possible the tuition fees
could end as a result of this
We think it is right with
you but from university education
you should benefit and that is what
the system does. What we're doing in
the review is looking at how that
system works, making sure there are
alternatives, that there is more
variety, and that could include
lower cost ways of delivering
education which might be shorter
courses, which also means less time
out of the labour market, more
opportunities to work, to study
while you work, and so wanted
you looking again at maintenance
grants? For a lot of poorer students
that is the real issue. They end
with their £56,000 debt, of which
roughly speaking half as the grant
to pay for a roof over their head,
eating while they are at university.
That is a lot of money and many
people think that is a real
disincentive to many students
staying on at university and
therefore you should look at
bringing that maintenance grants,
Having maintenance loans
has meant students can get access to
more money to help with the cost of
And more debt. To spot we
must remember that when we talk
about these large numbers, and I can
appreciate the concerns that people
have, a lot of people will never pay
off at full amount of money. That is
a deliberate feature of the system -
that if you don't earn over
soon-to-be £25,000 you won't pay
back at all and if you get to the
end of the 30 years without it all
being paid off it is written off.
Are you looking at maintenance
grants again or not?
The review is
looking at all aspects of tertiary
Santi Mina, the
universities minister, said that as
he speaks to students he could feel
It depends what you mean
by feel their pain. When you are
looking at a large figure in terms
of an accumulated financial
liability leave university, of
course I can understand why that
could feel difficult. We need to
make sure that even the current
system people are aware that you are
not going to be repaying unless you
meet a certain threshold but the
whole point of this is to look at
all of these elements in the system,
to make sure there is variety and
choice and to make sure the system
itself it can be and there is value
for money for everybody.
would bring that maintenance grants.
This feels like tinkering.
It is and
what you said. This is a full look
at the whole of tertiary education,
at the university sector but also
the technical end and the
alternatives to university,
including things like degree
apprenticeships but the whole
variety in technical education.
went to a Roman Catholic grammar
school. Theresa May was very, very
clear at the start of a Premiership
that she wanted new grammar schools
to restart. Will that happen under
What we are looking at
is the existing grammar schools and
schools in general whether Mr Mather
parents are providing a good
education and there is need in the
area, can expand to take on more...
At is that what I am asking.
appreciate that but what we are
looking at... What I'm looking at it
out for selective schools those same
options to expand other as for
You are not going to reopen
the issue about opening new grammar
schools? You once said you wanted a
selective school in every
conurbation or small-town. That is
not going to happen. New grammar
schools are not going to be reopened
on your watch quest for
That is not
what we're doing. We're talking
about being able expand existing
Are already quite
a few selective grammar schools of
the country but a small minority of
the total, 21 thousand 500 schools
in the country, there are about 60
selective. We have a variety in
terms of Free Schools, academies,
maintained schools, comprehensives,
and they all have a place.
haven't told me why you are not
going to bring back new grammar
schools to adopt
I am focused on
making sure we have good schools
available in all places. There are
some parts of the country would have
an established sister with selective
education and in those places
schools should be able to expand if
there is need parental demand that
they are providing good education.
You are planning to make it easier
for children to take -- for parents
take their children out of sex
education lessons, no?
already an established right to do
that. We're bringing relationship
education in primary school and
relations about sex education in
secondary schools and those will be
in all schools and it will be
compulsory to have them in all
schools but there is an established
right which will continue for
parents to be able to withdraw their
children from the sex education bit
of relationships and sex education,
not in the science curriculum but in
relationships and sex education that
right exists and will continue and
that was made absolutely clear when
the legislation was going through
Again, my simple
question is, why? You look at
today's rampages and all the issues
over the treatment of women and Me
Too, and relationships are at the
core of what has gone wrong and a
lot of our country of -- culture.
Should be mandatory for children to
learn the basics of this at school?
There are many pressures. In a way
it is the best time to be young but
there are new presenters of the
interest in cyber bullying and that
is why we are bringing in the
relationship education in primary
school and relationship and sex
education in secondary.
around the country are facing really
severe budget problems, as you know.
Parents are being asked to pay for
books and all sorts of things. We
went to a primary school in your own
constituency and we talked to a
woman called Victoria Grainger whose
six-year-old son is there and she
said they are losing teaching
assistants for primary one and two
every afternoon. She said losing
these teaching assistants has made a
real difference to the children. The
teachers don't have time to pay the
same attention to them as before and
they are relying on parents to step
in to make sure they don't lose out
too much. "I am apolitical but I am
concerned about the way things are
going". What is your message to her?
I pay tribute to everyone who works
in our schools does that incredible
job that you outlined. There was
more money going into schools than
before, £41 billion, going to be
rising to 43.5 billion over the next
couple of years. Funding will be
held in real terms over that period.
We've found an extra £1.3 billion to
be able to do that but there are
cost pressures, I do recognise that,
and that is why we are working
harder than ever with schools to
help them on of questions.
said that the biggest problem on
your table is the retention and
recruitment of teachers. The number
of teachers leaving the profession
has been going up and it is hard to
get teachers into teacher training
colleges, Bertie % down this year.
Wires that happening?
still more teachers John Miller
Professor Manly Beach, 32,000 last
years, and more teachers in schools
than they're worth.
than they're worth. A lot of
teachers have that vocation to go
into teaching but one of the top
destinations for top graduates at
Nearly 5% of teachers
are leaving which is a new rate. I
are wondering why.
You are right
that we need to do more on
recruitment and retention. I know
workload is a significant issue for
teachers and I'm determined to do
everything we can.
I must we want
one last thing, the university
strikes are coming up quite soon and
lots of students will lose education
as a result. Should they get a
rebate because they have lost
Nobody wants to see the
sort of disruption we are talking
about and I do hope this dispute
will be resolved and that is the
outcome we want to. But if it isn't,
you know, we've been talking about
the student finance system. Students
take out loans to invest in
themselves and their education and
they have rights as consumers...
university should pay them back some
money if they don't get some
autonomous institution that this is
the them to take these decisions but
I would expect that that would be
taken into account top
whoa Hinds, thank you for talking to
Now a look at what's coming up
straight after this programme.
Join us from Leicester where as the
UK and the US talk about what to do
about the jihadi beagles we asked,
should all those who come back from
Islamic State be punished? And
should state schools be able to
restrict their faith to one
That's all for this week.
Until next Sunday, goodbye.
Andrew Marr talks to education secretary Damian Hinds MP, shadow education secretary Angela Rayner MP and European Parliament brexit representative Guy Verhofstadt MEP.
Plus actors Lesley Manville and Jeremy Irons.
The newspapers are reviewed by Joanna Cherry and Camilla Tominey.