18/02/2018 The Andrew Marr Show

Good morning.

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

Express.

All that and more coming up soon.

First, the news with Chris Mason.

First, the news with Chris Mason.

Good morning.

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...

..they don't.

Yarnold wins gold again!

Yes!

(EXCITED SHOUTING).

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.

Thank you.

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

important

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

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

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

party.

You were watching, Nicola

Sturgeon was presumably watching on

a television set, Joanna?

Indeed,

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

month...

Job losses?

Brexit in any

scenario means a massive hit in GDP

across the UK and job losses.

We

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

quite everything?

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

Sunday.

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...

This

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

Secretary.

How different is the

debate in Scotland, Joanna?

Totally

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

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

making

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.

This

tweet is just so typical of Trump,

no statesman-like behaviour

whatsoever.

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

supersonic teetering?

This is

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

Presidential Election,

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...

They

spotted early on as a provocative

figure in American politics?

Rehab a

kind of characteristics they were

interested in. They were looking for

people who were vain, ambitious,

narcissistic and contains all of

those boxes.

They could no have

known he was going to run for

president or was it just a lucky

guess?

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

American democracy.

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

Trump.

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

are?

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

questions.

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

weekend.

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 -

something, presumably,

Labour welcomes.

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

welcome mat?

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

system.

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

education.

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

operation.

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

education.

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?

I

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.

It is

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?

My understanding

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

to them?

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

Manville.

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?

Absolutely.

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,

Shakespeare, Johnson.

For me, the play has a resonance.

It's...

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.

Mmm.

It's like being in a superhero film

for the rest of your life.

That's right.

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,

religious upbringing,

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,

controlling couturier?

He came onto set as the character,

and that's what he...

Yikes!

..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?

Yes.

OK, well, listen, very,

very good luck in Los Angeles.

Thanks a lot for talking to us.

Thank you.

Thanks, Andrew.

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"

against Britain.

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

that?

Exactly.

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 -

British Parliament,

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

political declaration

in an international agreement.

So, those are the three things -

withdrawal agreement,

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

afterwards...

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.

Why not?

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.

Financial passports

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

disadvantage for...

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

competitive advantage,

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 normal.

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 presume...

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,

unknown territory?

That's unknown territory.

Unknown territory.

Mr Verhofstadt, thanks very

much for talking to us.

Thank you.

So, as promised, in his first

television interview

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

table?

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.

So

why rivulet?

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

diversity.

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

world economy.

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

any change?

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

the table?

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

students.

Things like the interest

rate might change as a result of

this review?

We can't pre-empt that.

I said might.

You can't look at one

aspect of the system in isolation.

I

am trying to discover whether this

is a real review which is actually

going to change things or not.

It is

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

are there.

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.

So

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

review?

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

Are

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,

not loans.

Having maintenance loans

has meant students can get access to

more money to help with the cost of

living.

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

funding.

Santi Mina, the

universities minister, said that as

he speaks to students he could feel

his pain.

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.

Labour

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.

You

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

your watch?

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.

I

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

others.

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

schools.

Why not?

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.

You still

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?

There was

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

Parliament.

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.

Schools

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.

It is

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?

There are

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

University...

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

education?

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...

The

university should pay them back some

money if they don't get some

education?

Universities are

autonomous institution that this is

the them to take these decisions but

I would expect that that would be

taken into account top

Damian Green

whoa Hinds, thank you for talking to

us.

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

religion?

That's all for this week.

Until next Sunday, goodbye.