:00:36. > :00:42.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:43. > :00:44.Theresa May says a points-based system for restricting immigration
:00:45. > :00:48.will not work and is not an option - so how should the numbers coming
:00:49. > :00:53.Not for the first time Labour MP Keith Vaz finds himself
:00:54. > :00:57.Can the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee survive the latest
:00:58. > :01:06.They voted for a Labour leader many of their MPs don't like -
:01:07. > :01:09.and they might be about to do it again.
:01:10. > :01:11.So is it time Labour members got the right
:01:12. > :01:23.Are we about to see a new generation of grammar schools? Theresa May,
:01:24. > :01:27.herself the product of a grammar, is reportedly in favour.
:01:28. > :01:30.Is selective education the answer to providing opportunity to children
:01:31. > :01:39.All that in the next hour and with us for the whole
:01:40. > :01:41.of the programme today is Labour's Chuka Umunna and former
:01:42. > :01:44.Northern Irleand Secretary, Theresa Villiers.
:01:45. > :01:49.First this morning, Keith Vaz is one of Labour's most senior MPs -
:01:50. > :01:51.has been the Chairman of the influential Home
:01:52. > :01:53.Affairs Select Committee for almost ten years -
:01:54. > :01:56.but this morning he is fighting for his political reputation
:01:57. > :01:58.after a Sunday newspaper recorded him meeting male escorts.
:01:59. > :02:02.Let's speak to our political reporter, Ellie Price.
:02:03. > :02:08.What was uncovered? These are allegations made in the Sunday
:02:09. > :02:12.Mirror that the Labour MP Keith Vaz paid for the services of two
:02:13. > :02:16.escorts, that they came to his London flat and during that time
:02:17. > :02:19.they discussed using the party drug known as poppers as well as the
:02:20. > :02:23.possibility of getting hold of some cocaine. There were some record is
:02:24. > :02:28.made of this meeting and during those recordings it appears that
:02:29. > :02:33.Keith Vaz described himself as a washing machine salesman called Jim.
:02:34. > :02:37.If all that weren't bad enough this morning there were further
:02:38. > :02:45.allegations in some of the papers of links made by man linked to Keith
:02:46. > :02:49.Vaz's charity Silver Star, had paid money to those escorts. Awkward for
:02:50. > :02:53.the father of two who is married, and of course, as you say, he's the
:02:54. > :02:56.chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, pretty much one of the
:02:57. > :02:59.most influential select committees at Westminster dealing with issues
:03:00. > :03:03.of law and order and of course on issues like prostitution and drug
:03:04. > :03:07.taking. In fact, earlier this year Keith Vaz was one of the MPs that
:03:08. > :03:11.persuaded government not to go ahead with criminalising poppers, and just
:03:12. > :03:14.last month the Home Affairs Select Committee released a report
:03:15. > :03:19.suggesting that they should be a relaxation in the laws on
:03:20. > :03:23.prostitution. At this point what has been the reaction from Keith Vaz
:03:24. > :03:27.himself? Keith Vaz has said he has referred
:03:28. > :03:32.all of this to his lawyer. He said it is deeply disturbing that a
:03:33. > :03:35.national newspaper should have paid individuals who acted in this way.
:03:36. > :03:39.We also heard from the Charity Commission who said they are aware
:03:40. > :03:44.of allegations made regarding an individual linked to the Charity
:03:45. > :03:47.Silver Star and they asked journalists to pass on any evidence
:03:48. > :03:51.but as yet there is no formal investigation under way. The big
:03:52. > :03:55.question is now what happens to Keith Vaz? Does he stay as chairman
:03:56. > :03:57.of the Home Affairs Select Committee. He said he will make a
:03:58. > :04:01.full announcement tomorrow when the committee meets but as yet we're not
:04:02. > :04:04.sure, although increasing pressure from a number of MPs here in
:04:05. > :04:07.Westminster. Ellie Price, thank you.
:04:08. > :04:14.Let's get more reaction from Chuka Umunna. Surely he has to step aside
:04:15. > :04:14.as the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee?
:04:15. > :04:22.The revelations over the weekend, when you see things like that, your
:04:23. > :04:27.immediate initial feeling is, what has his family gone through over the
:04:28. > :04:29.last weekend? I'm a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It
:04:30. > :04:34.would be wrong, if you like, allow one of the Sunday papers as sit and
:04:35. > :04:37.be judge and jury on this issue and we will have a conversation with him
:04:38. > :04:41.during our private session tomorrow. Do you think is right for him to
:04:42. > :04:44.continue as the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee which was
:04:45. > :04:47.looking at is used like prostitution, looking at issues as
:04:48. > :04:53.to whether the party drug, the poppers he is alleged to have taken,
:04:54. > :04:56.should be banned? He was in favour of keeping them legal. Is it right
:04:57. > :05:00.that he can really continue in that role?
:05:01. > :05:03.Well, look, we will be discussing those issues during our meeting
:05:04. > :05:07.tomorrow? What do you think? I don't want to give my opinion
:05:08. > :05:10.because I haven't had a chance to talk to him about it. He has sent
:05:11. > :05:13.round to the committee details of the statement that has been put out
:05:14. > :05:18.and been absolutely clear the work of the committee is paramount, we
:05:19. > :05:22.have important reports, not least on female genital mutilation, and
:05:23. > :05:25.ongoing inquiries into counterterrorism, anti-Semitism and
:05:26. > :05:27.other important topics we need to get on with.
:05:28. > :05:31.As his reputation been damaged by this?
:05:32. > :05:35.Well, clearly, if you have revelations in the papers like that
:05:36. > :05:39.and they are allegations, he is taking legal advice on it, you take
:05:40. > :05:42.legal advice on it because you worry about your reputation.
:05:43. > :05:45.What will that do to the Home Affairs Select Committee? If you
:05:46. > :05:49.agree that his reputation is damaged in some way, certainly the
:05:50. > :05:54.Conservative MP from the Tory side Andrew Bridgen said he shouldn't
:05:55. > :05:56.just stepped down as chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, he
:05:57. > :05:59.said he would like to see him step down as an MP. Is he justified in
:06:00. > :06:03.saying that? It's not helpful to jump on these
:06:04. > :06:08.type of bandwagons in advance of hearing from Keith. I don't think
:06:09. > :06:12.that's fair. If Andrew Bridgen wants to make party political capital out
:06:13. > :06:15.of this, then so be it. I happen to think that actually when the public
:06:16. > :06:18.reads stories like this they don't make any distinction as to which
:06:19. > :06:22.party you belong to. I don't think it's a good thing for Parliament
:06:23. > :06:25.when we have these types of story. But like I said I'm reluctant to
:06:26. > :06:29.give a view because I want to hear what he has to say, I haven't had a
:06:30. > :06:36.chance to speak to him about this. Do you think it is, as Keith Vaz
:06:37. > :06:38.said, deeply disturbing that a national newspaper paid individuals
:06:39. > :06:42.who have basically trying to entrap him, as he believes?
:06:43. > :06:46.Well, I think there are obviously questions to be asked about how that
:06:47. > :06:51.happened. He is a private individual too.
:06:52. > :06:57.He is a private individual but he holds an important role looking at
:06:58. > :07:03.matters related to drugs like poppers and prostitution. I wouldn't
:07:04. > :07:07.be rushing to judgment against the newspaper concerned for this kind of
:07:08. > :07:12.thing. But, I mean, where I sort of agree with Chuka it's not
:07:13. > :07:15.necessarily the right thing to rush to judgment today. I think is
:07:16. > :07:19.reasonable for Keith to want to discuss this with his committee. It
:07:20. > :07:23.seems to me it's going to be very difficult for him to stay on.
:07:24. > :07:27.Do you think he should stay on, should he at least step aside? He
:07:28. > :07:29.hasn't decided to step aside at this point.
:07:30. > :07:32.I think it is more or less inevitable that he will step aside
:07:33. > :07:40.at least on a temporary basis, yes. But coming back to this sting
:07:41. > :07:43.operation, do you think there is public interest here? Because, that
:07:44. > :07:45.is certainly what the paper will say and has said, in fact, to justify
:07:46. > :07:48.what they did? I don't know the details of what
:07:49. > :07:51.they did and how they went about it. But I think they are probably making
:07:52. > :07:55.a reasonable point, there is a public interest in these facts,
:07:56. > :07:57.given the role that Keith has in parliament.
:07:58. > :08:00.Do you think there is a public interest here?
:08:01. > :08:04.I think when you look at social media and some of the coverage, and
:08:05. > :08:09.the references to sexuality I think that's being pretty distasteful. I
:08:10. > :08:14.don't really think his sexuality should be necessary as a topic of
:08:15. > :08:17.conversation, but it has been. I think the other issues that have
:08:18. > :08:21.been raised, potentially, they are more relevant but there are things
:08:22. > :08:24.people need to explore with Keith. And as you say you will be meeting
:08:25. > :08:28.tomorrow with Keith Vaz. We will meet tomorrow.
:08:29. > :08:33.It will be a private session, we will not have cameras in there.
:08:34. > :08:36.Presumably you will talk afterwards. Afterwards I imagine the committee
:08:37. > :08:39.is composed of members across the house from all the different parties
:08:40. > :08:42.and will have a collective discussion and hopefully come to a
:08:43. > :08:45.collective view about things. Right.
:08:46. > :08:48.Now - Theresa May has stepped out on the world stage at the G20
:08:49. > :08:50.in Hangzhou in China - it's her first big international
:08:51. > :08:53.conference as Prime Minister - and an opportunity to tell other
:08:54. > :08:55.world leaders what Britain's intentions are in the aftermath
:08:56. > :09:07.Let's talk to our correspondent in Hangzhou Robin Brant. Let's get some
:09:08. > :09:11.reaction from the other world leaders. Obama looked glum and
:09:12. > :09:15.seemed to repeat his mantra about the UK perhaps go into the back of
:09:16. > :09:18.the queue in terms of trade deals. There have also been warnings from
:09:19. > :09:21.Japan. Barack Obama, for the record, in the
:09:22. > :09:25.final months of his presidency warned again about the adverse
:09:26. > :09:29.effects that the UK's decision to leave the EU might have on its
:09:30. > :09:32.trading relationship with the United States, as you said. He reminded
:09:33. > :09:36.Theresa May it will be at the back of the queue in terms of any
:09:37. > :09:40.potential UK- US free trade negotiation behind the EU behind
:09:41. > :09:45.America's Asia Pacific partners. That wasn't a Ray of light for her,
:09:46. > :09:48.really, was it? Today the Japanese added to that substantial 15 page
:09:49. > :09:52.document from the Ministry of foreign affairs yesterday painting a
:09:53. > :09:55.bleak picture of what some sizeable Japanese corporations may do in
:09:56. > :09:58.deciding to leave the UK if it leaves the European Union at the
:09:59. > :10:02.same time as not having any access to the Single Market. There was a
:10:03. > :10:09.brush by, brief moment, between Shinzo Abe, Japan's Prime Minister,
:10:10. > :10:13.and Theresa May today. According to the sun's imminent political editor
:10:14. > :10:17.Shinzo Abe pushed her again on more detail on what it will mean for
:10:18. > :10:20.Japanese firms. She's under pressure to give more detail but we know she
:10:21. > :10:22.can't because she herself doesn't know.
:10:23. > :10:27.Except on the issue of immigration where she has been a little clearer
:10:28. > :10:30.in terms of rejecting the idea of a points-based system. In fact, one of
:10:31. > :10:34.her spokespeople at No 10 has actually ruled it out.
:10:35. > :10:38.Well, she's been clearer in saying what she doesn't want. But this is
:10:39. > :10:41.not an affirmative announcement about what the Prime Minister, ten
:10:42. > :10:46.weeks after the vote, thinks, she may want her government to seek to
:10:47. > :10:50.achieve from the European Union. She told journalists accompanying her on
:10:51. > :10:54.the trip out here that the Australian points-based system was
:10:55. > :10:57.not a silver bullet. Her official spokeswoman went further and said it
:10:58. > :11:02.is not an option, and I think adding that there was full Cabinet support
:11:03. > :11:06.for that. Boris Johnson, now Foreign Secretary and a prominent campaigner
:11:07. > :11:09.to leave the EU, of course, has rowed back on his support for that
:11:10. > :11:12.during the campaign. Robin Brant at the G20 conference in
:11:13. > :11:16.Hangzhou. Let's pick up now on Theresa May's
:11:17. > :11:19.comments about what kind of immigration system the UK should
:11:20. > :11:22.have after we have left the EU. During the referendum campaign,
:11:23. > :11:24.Vote Leave said that the UK should introduce an Australian-style
:11:25. > :11:26.points-based immigration system which would end the "automatic right
:11:27. > :11:29.of all EU citizens to come to live and work in the UK"
:11:30. > :11:31.and "discrimination The Australian system awards
:11:32. > :11:38.economic migrants points for their personal attributes,
:11:39. > :11:42.including age and qualifications, and their occupational status,
:11:43. > :11:44.unless you are sponsored by an employer, you must reach
:11:45. > :11:46.a certain number of points Migrants are also subject to medical
:11:47. > :11:56.checks and a character test. In recent years Australia has
:11:57. > :11:59.encouraged skilled migrants to apply and has increased the number
:12:00. > :12:02.of places available in its Migration In 2008, the Labour government
:12:03. > :12:07.introduced a similar system for skilled migrants
:12:08. > :12:09.and students coming to the UK But Theresa May yesterday cast doubt
:12:10. > :12:16.over whether a points-based system She said there is "no single
:12:17. > :12:24.silver bullet in terms And this morning a Number 10
:12:25. > :12:38.spokesman has ruled it out, "As the PM has said many times
:12:39. > :12:41.in the past, a Points Based System We're joined now from
:12:42. > :12:49.Madeleine Sumption from Welcome to the programme. First of
:12:50. > :12:52.all, to you, Theresa Villiers, do you feel betrayed by the fact the
:12:53. > :12:55.system that you campaigned on in terms of reducing the numbers coming
:12:56. > :13:00.into the UK has been rejected by the Prime Minister? I don't because
:13:01. > :13:05.there is a range of ways to Internet the Brexit vote. I think what is
:13:06. > :13:10.clear is that people in this country voting to leave, wanting to regain
:13:11. > :13:15.control over making our own laws in this country, and that includes
:13:16. > :13:18.regaining control of the immigration system and introducing a system
:13:19. > :13:22.which does two things. It enables the people we elect in this country
:13:23. > :13:27.to control the overall numbers, and also gives us in this country the
:13:28. > :13:31.right to reject individuals. So it marks an end to free for all open
:13:32. > :13:35.door immigration from the rest of the EU. You can do it with a points
:13:36. > :13:39.system, or with other systems, or accommodation of a work permit and
:13:40. > :13:42.points based system. Very different ways.
:13:43. > :13:44.Why did Vote Leave believe a points-based system would be the
:13:45. > :13:48.most successful way reducing numbers?
:13:49. > :13:51.I think it would work well but I'm not going to sit here and say you
:13:52. > :13:55.couldn't achieve as good a result using a work permit system. The
:13:56. > :13:58.important thing is that it's implemented effectively, it's
:13:59. > :14:01.rigorously unforced and brings down the numbers.
:14:02. > :14:03.Do you agree with Theresa Villiers on that?
:14:04. > :14:07.During the campaign it was always slightly unclear what aspect of the
:14:08. > :14:11.Australian-style points-based system was being proposed. When people talk
:14:12. > :14:14.about points systems they are often talking about a system that would
:14:15. > :14:18.allow people to come in without a job offer, based on their
:14:19. > :14:21.characteristics, like their education or a language ability and
:14:22. > :14:25.so forth. So that was actually a slightly surprising choice for a
:14:26. > :14:28.country that is trying to reduce levels of immigration.
:14:29. > :14:31.Because you don't think it would have reduced levels of immigration
:14:32. > :14:34.because it doesn't seem to have done under our current points-based
:14:35. > :14:38.system, does it? If you can come without a job offer, as long as you
:14:39. > :14:42.satisfy the measures or requirements, you can still come in.
:14:43. > :14:45.There are in theory ways of designing a points-based system that
:14:46. > :14:49.would restrict immigration but a work permit system can do that as
:14:50. > :14:54.well. I would agree that in some ways what is more important is how
:14:55. > :14:57.you design the system of criteria of who gets to come in and based on
:14:58. > :15:00.what skills, rather than whether it is a points-based system or a work
:15:01. > :15:04.permit system. Why has Theresa May come out so
:15:05. > :15:06.strongly against the points-based system?
:15:07. > :15:09.The points based systems that have had some problems in countries where
:15:10. > :15:12.they have been permitted. One of the issues that comes up is if people
:15:13. > :15:15.come in without a job offer then there is no guarantee, even if they
:15:16. > :15:27.have relatively high levels of education, there is no guarantee
:15:28. > :15:29.that they will get a job and that has been a problem that has been
:15:30. > :15:32.experienced in some countries that have used the systems and also the
:15:33. > :15:35.UK which had a similar system under the last government. Do you accept
:15:36. > :15:37.it was a flawed system? It wouldn't have actually achieved what you and
:15:38. > :15:39.your colleagues wanted, which was to dramatically reduce immigration
:15:40. > :15:42.numbers. We have always said we are not looking to cut and paste the
:15:43. > :15:45.same system they have in Australia and use it here but the reality is
:15:46. > :15:49.we can take the strong points, the strong elements of points systems
:15:50. > :15:52.such as the ones they use in Australia, or look to other
:15:53. > :15:56.countries as well. As I say, the crucial thing is control over the
:15:57. > :15:58.overall numbers and being able to refuse entry to people if we deem
:15:59. > :16:07.that appropriate. Are you worried, though, that
:16:08. > :16:11.Theresa May is going soft, if you like, on the issue of immigration so
:16:12. > :16:16.soon after the Brexit vote, and she will not deliver the reduced numbers
:16:17. > :16:20.that you wanted to see? I really don't believe she is going soft on
:16:21. > :16:23.immigration, I think this is absolutely central to what she wants
:16:24. > :16:26.to do, and even before watching wanted to do before the Brexit vote.
:16:27. > :16:30.Except she failed at every single point to bring down net migration to
:16:31. > :16:34.the tens of thousands that was introduced as a policy by David
:16:35. > :16:38.Cameron. One of the reason she could not do that was because of our EU
:16:39. > :16:40.membership, and it becomes a most impossible to make that commitment
:16:41. > :16:45.in our manifesto while we retain free movement in its current form.
:16:46. > :16:48.Although the points-based system for non-EU migrants did not dramatically
:16:49. > :16:54.or consistently reduce the number of non-EU migrants, did it? You can
:16:55. > :17:00.design it to reduce them as if you wish to. Doesn't that hit the point,
:17:01. > :17:04.whether it is points-based or whether it is work permit and these
:17:05. > :17:08.are based, or you have to have a firm job offer from an employer, if
:17:09. > :17:12.it reduces the numbers, she will be fulfilling what people voted for
:17:13. > :17:17.when they voted to leave the EU? Carina let's be clear what people
:17:18. > :17:25.voted for, people like Theresa May went around country and said ?350
:17:26. > :17:28.million extra for the NHS, they said no VAT on fuel, nothing from the
:17:29. > :17:30.Prime Minister on that, they said you would get the Australian
:17:31. > :17:35.points-based system, she is just saying that is not going to happen.
:17:36. > :17:39.Three broken promises already. Does it matter about the Australian
:17:40. > :17:44.-based system if the numbers are registered? They went around saying
:17:45. > :17:48.it will solve all our problems, the Australian points-based system. I
:17:49. > :17:51.never denied that immigration poses challenges for us, not just
:17:52. > :17:55.economically but in terms of the cultural make-up, I never went
:17:56. > :17:57.around pretending that somehow this Australian points-based system was
:17:58. > :18:01.going to be the silver bullet that would sort out all our problems.
:18:02. > :18:04.They did, and other chickens are coming home to roost. I am so
:18:05. > :18:10.puzzled by this. It was not like they were not told about this,
:18:11. > :18:15.beforehand. Who is they? The different boat Leave campaigners,
:18:16. > :18:19.Priti Patel, Boris Johnson, they talked about it as the magic
:18:20. > :18:25.solution. That is not what that system does. What they have done in
:18:26. > :18:28.Australia is almost used that to promote immigration. 28% of people
:18:29. > :18:32.in Australia were born out of the country, double the percentage of
:18:33. > :18:36.our own country. We don't have to have the same system as Australia,
:18:37. > :18:42.hang on a second. This is a bit about a raid, but can I just go back
:18:43. > :18:46.to the point. Chuka, when you say it was the solution to all of our
:18:47. > :18:50.problems. What Theresa May has said is that she has heard loud and clear
:18:51. > :18:53.that voters want to reduce the numbers. She didn't say by any
:18:54. > :18:58.specific system, she wants to reduce the numbers. It may be that the
:18:59. > :19:01.points-based system is not the way to do it but if you agree that there
:19:02. > :19:05.needs to be a way to reduce the numbers of immigrants coming in? I
:19:06. > :19:09.think we need to look at numbers, I have never denied that, but we also
:19:10. > :19:13.have to have a debate about what happens when people come to our
:19:14. > :19:16.country, how do we integrate them? We have got the High Commissioner
:19:17. > :19:19.from Australia coming in today to talk to us about this Australian
:19:20. > :19:22.points-based system, but we have to have both of those debates. There is
:19:23. > :19:26.an opportunity here for the Prime Minister, because part of the reason
:19:27. > :19:29.I thought we have to stay in the European Union is because membership
:19:30. > :19:34.of the single market is vital, absolutely vital. Hang on,
:19:35. > :19:38.membership of the single market, as Theresa May has said, she is not
:19:39. > :19:41.going to sign up to, if it means freedom of movement. And isn't the
:19:42. > :19:46.point of the vote, rightly or wrongly, that freedom of movement
:19:47. > :19:52.ends? Do you access to that? As we know it. I except that freedom of
:19:53. > :19:57.movement as we know it, the public, the people have spoken on that
:19:58. > :20:00.issue. I except what they have said. But this is the opportunity for her,
:20:01. > :20:03.because the circle she has got to square is that we want the fullest
:20:04. > :20:08.access to the single market possible. I don't think she should
:20:09. > :20:11.go, oh, I can't do that, I think she should aim for that. And what she
:20:12. > :20:15.could possibly also do is get our European partners to change the way
:20:16. > :20:18.free movement works in the European Union, in essence ending free
:20:19. > :20:23.movement as we know it because it isn't as if they have not got the
:20:24. > :20:29.same... There doesn't seem to be any issue changing fundamentally the
:20:30. > :20:32.movement Bosch free movement. Francois Hollande will go off
:20:33. > :20:37.against Marie Le Pen, likely, she will make that the issue. In Germany
:20:38. > :20:44.and Italy it will happen. She should be ambitious. You have accepted
:20:45. > :20:48.freedom of movement must end. As we know it. Madeleine, in terms of the
:20:49. > :20:51.system you could bring in, what would deliver and radically reduce
:20:52. > :20:57.them as of immigrants coming into the UK? Would it be a Visa or a work
:20:58. > :21:02.permit system? The most common system for controlling work-related
:21:03. > :21:05.immigration is a work permit, essentially that enables employers
:21:06. > :21:09.to put in an application to bring in a particular person to fulfil a
:21:10. > :21:12.certain job. The government will set the criteria, saying you can only
:21:13. > :21:17.bring people in if the skills that they have meet a certain threshold,
:21:18. > :21:19.or if the job meets various different criteria. You can make
:21:20. > :21:23.that system more or less restrictive and it will affect the number people
:21:24. > :21:28.who would be about to come into the country under it. And you would
:21:29. > :21:32.accept that? You can effectively meet the problems and deal with this
:21:33. > :21:36.issue using a work permit system, yes, that is a legitimate system to
:21:37. > :21:41.use. To tens of thousands, in terms of net migration? It would be
:21:42. > :21:45.possible to deliver that immigration target, I believe, but changes to
:21:46. > :21:50.free movement are not going to deliver that target on their own. We
:21:51. > :21:55.also need to press ahead the reforms we are making to non-EU migration as
:21:56. > :22:00.well. Right, so do you think a work Visa system would deliver net
:22:01. > :22:04.migration down to tens of thousands, or is that unachievable? A work
:22:05. > :22:06.permit system for EU citizens on its own cannot deliver the tens of
:22:07. > :22:11.thousands because there is quite a lot of non-EU immigration. So at the
:22:12. > :22:17.moment it is quite difficult to see what combination of policies would
:22:18. > :22:21.deliver that, but... So you say it is undeliverable? Depends on
:22:22. > :22:26.economic circumstances, it is not just about immigration policy, other
:22:27. > :22:30.things will affect it. We always said during the campaign this is not
:22:31. > :22:35.just about EU immigrants, if you took non-EU immigrants you would not
:22:36. > :22:38.be hitting this. We need a proper national debate about this, British
:22:39. > :22:42.future, the think tanks, have called for that. This target I think is
:22:43. > :22:47.damaging. I think we should have in mind a number. The number would you
:22:48. > :22:50.have in mind? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question,
:22:51. > :22:52.the problem is that you have a target at the moment that every
:22:53. > :22:56.single year the government is failing to meet, which completely
:22:57. > :23:03.undermines trust in the public that we can manage it. Can I just ask
:23:04. > :23:09.Theresa the leaders, should there be an in-built bias towards EU
:23:10. > :23:15.migrants? We are still linked geographically to our EU neighbours,
:23:16. > :23:18.should there be an in-built bias towards EU migrants? At the moment
:23:19. > :23:26.we have a massively unbalanced system, in that EU migrants can come
:23:27. > :23:29.in whatever circumstances. But we have significant restrictions on
:23:30. > :23:33.non-EU migrants. Levelling that out to some degree I think will be
:23:34. > :23:38.important. I think in terms of the compo misers we might have to make,
:23:39. > :23:41.in terms of the negotiations coming up, it would not be completely
:23:42. > :23:46.illegitimate to give a degree of preference for EU nationals, as long
:23:47. > :23:49.as we retain control of the overall numbers and retain the right to
:23:50. > :23:54.refuse individuals couldn't think it is appropriate for them to be
:23:55. > :23:58.allowed to... It is worth paying the price of tariff free access to the
:23:59. > :24:02.single market to make sure those numbers come down dramatically? We
:24:03. > :24:05.will obviously have to make some kind of compromises on this. I don't
:24:06. > :24:08.think we have to move to a system where we treat EU migrants exactly
:24:09. > :24:12.the same as migrants from the rest of the world, but it is clear that
:24:13. > :24:18.we need a system that ends the freefall we have at the moment. That
:24:19. > :24:22.is interesting, because it leads... Theresa just said something that
:24:23. > :24:25.completely surprised me, suggesting that you would like to see the
:24:26. > :24:30.percentage of immigrants net coming in from the EU to be higher, because
:24:31. > :24:34.at the moment it is 50-50, roughly half of the net immigration comes
:24:35. > :24:40.from outside the EU and half Remain side, and new seem to suggest you
:24:41. > :24:44.want more as a percentage slightly coming in from EU. Which I think is
:24:45. > :24:49.interesting. The important thing is that we get immigration down to
:24:50. > :24:51.sustainable levels and we respect the result of the EU referendum.
:24:52. > :24:53.Thank you. Parliament may not have been sitting
:24:54. > :24:56.for the past six weeks or so, but there's been plenty of debate
:24:57. > :24:59.inside Britain's political parties with three of them holding
:25:00. > :25:00.leadership elections Labour's rumbles on, of course,
:25:01. > :25:04.and with Jeremy Corbyn firm favourite to win again,
:25:05. > :25:07.attention is turning to how he'll Should Labour MPs who continue
:25:08. > :25:10.to defy their leader be allowed to stand
:25:11. > :25:12.for the party again - or should they face
:25:13. > :25:17.being de-selected? The question of MPs' selections
:25:18. > :25:19.was one the Labour leader addressed There's going to be, as you know,
:25:20. > :25:23.a total boundary review, of which the first report will be out
:25:24. > :25:27.this autumn and it will be finally If this parliament
:25:28. > :25:30.runs to full term then the new boundaries will be the basis
:25:31. > :25:33.on which elections take place. And on that case,
:25:34. > :25:35.there would be a full selection process in
:25:36. > :25:37.every constituency. But the sitting MP for any part,
:25:38. > :25:40.or any substantial part of the new boundary, would have
:25:41. > :25:43.an opportunity to put their name So there will be a full and open
:25:44. > :25:49.selection process for every Every constituency Labour Party
:25:50. > :25:52.throughout the whole of the Well, David Osland, a long-time
:25:53. > :25:58.Labour member who has written a pamphlet on how to reselect Mps
:25:59. > :26:12.joins us now. Welcome, why are you pushing this
:26:13. > :26:15.agenda now? It is certainly a big issue in the Labour Party at the
:26:16. > :26:18.moment, it lot of people talking about it, and as Jeremy says, not
:26:19. > :26:23.one that the Labour Party can that in the face of the boundary review.
:26:24. > :26:27.So it is a contribution to a topical debate. Right. How politically
:26:28. > :26:31.motivated is it, in the sense that this is an attempt to try to
:26:32. > :26:36.encourage a well of support for getting rid of MPs that the
:26:37. > :26:40.left-wing party member don't like? I am explicitly saying it is not
:26:41. > :26:46.intended as advocacy of the select early, deselect often, kick them
:26:47. > :26:49.out. But I think there are reasonable questions around
:26:50. > :26:54.selection of Labour MPs, for instance where a Labour MP is known
:26:55. > :26:58.to beat his wife, it is possible that his constituency might not
:26:59. > :27:03.favour his return. Where Labour MPs cross picket lines or repeatedly say
:27:04. > :27:06.that they are thinking of resigning the Labour whip, then maybe they
:27:07. > :27:10.don't value of their labour involvements as much as they should.
:27:11. > :27:14.What do you say to that, Chuka Umunna? Are these issues that we
:27:15. > :27:19.should be looking at the selecting MPs? Root I haven't come across many
:27:20. > :27:25.colleagues who have been talking about resigning the whip beating
:27:26. > :27:29.their wives. But I am completely biased, I am an MP, I have an
:27:30. > :27:32.interest but I think the system we have got at the moment is fair. It
:27:33. > :27:36.is one we have used for many years. And actually what will happen during
:27:37. > :27:40.the boundary review, you have a trigger ballot system in respect of
:27:41. > :27:45.sitting MPs and constituencies where we don't have an MP, we have a full
:27:46. > :27:48.selection process. It has been brought up recently and it has not
:27:49. > :27:53.really been on the agenda for much of my time as an MP, I was elected
:27:54. > :27:57.in 2010. But many of your colleagues are worried about being deselected
:27:58. > :28:00.by the change in membership. It has been brought up by people who feel
:28:01. > :28:04.if you have an excellent constituency MP but they are not
:28:05. > :28:07.deemed to be ideal job you're sitting on the right place in the
:28:08. > :28:11.broad spectrum that is our wonderful Labour Party that they should be
:28:12. > :28:14.punished for not sitting in the right ideological place, in spite of
:28:15. > :28:19.the fact they are an excellent MP with deselection. I think that would
:28:20. > :28:22.be a great shame. If you have somebody who is a good constituency
:28:23. > :28:26.MP who might not always share the view of the leadership, and I
:28:27. > :28:29.definitely want robots, I think that was one of the problems under new
:28:30. > :28:37.Labour. I think Jeremy Corbyn is a fantastic example. He has been a
:28:38. > :28:39.backbench MP, very critical of the leadership and seven leaders from
:28:40. > :28:42.Callaghan through to Miliband forced up the campaign to have one of them
:28:43. > :28:47.removed, Neil Kinnock, he has defied the whip more than ?500, putting
:28:48. > :28:51.more than 200 times with the Tories and was never any attempt that final
:28:52. > :28:57.at all to deselect him because of that. Partly because he is seen as a
:28:58. > :29:01.good constituency MP. Isn't that fair enough, why should membership
:29:02. > :29:05.be able to get rid of MPs, or encouraged to get rid of MPs that
:29:06. > :29:09.don't share the views of Jeremy Corbyn and the leadership? The first
:29:10. > :29:13.point is that members don't get rid of MPs, that is the job for the
:29:14. > :29:18.electorate. Their job is to select who they want to see as a Labour
:29:19. > :29:22.candidate. But should they be people who always agree with the
:29:23. > :29:27.leadership? I haven't heard of anyone arguing that at the moment.
:29:28. > :29:31.As Chuka says, we have many excellent MPs and nobody would want
:29:32. > :29:34.to get rid of their MP. Many Labour MPs have come on saying they have
:29:35. > :29:39.been threatened with deselection because they do not agree on certain
:29:40. > :29:47.issues and policies with Jeremy Corbyn. In fairness, maybe in
:29:48. > :29:51.David's offence Burke defence, many are not members of the Labour Party,
:29:52. > :29:53.they are members of the task or the Socialist workers party, not
:29:54. > :29:58.activist in our constituency parties. They are the ones that
:29:59. > :30:01.often put it on the agenda, but to come back to David, I think if you
:30:02. > :30:07.have got the example of a member of Parliament who has been beating
:30:08. > :30:12.their wife, the current trigger ballot process allows for that
:30:13. > :30:16.person not to be selected next time around. What I am unconvinced, of
:30:17. > :30:19.course you have to have somebody commanding confidence among their
:30:20. > :30:22.members, but I don't see where in the system that we have currently
:30:23. > :30:28.got that there is not provision for somebody in that circumstance to be
:30:29. > :30:32.removed. Precisely what I am trying to do in the pamphlet, set out the
:30:33. > :30:37.rules as they stand. Why are you doing it now, not a couple of years
:30:38. > :30:41.ago? Why the need to do it now? If we have been happy that the process
:30:42. > :30:42.has been OK for the last couple of decades, then why start setting it
:30:43. > :30:50.out now? As I said, the process is in the
:30:51. > :30:55.rule book and has been largely unaltered. Why now? With the
:30:56. > :30:58.boundary changes, of course, many constituencies will have to go
:30:59. > :31:05.through that whether they like it or not. There are the issues of MPs who
:31:06. > :31:12.are behaving in a very bad ways, getting into drunken brawls in House
:31:13. > :31:21.of Commons bars. But Eric Joyce is perhaps the example of that. There
:31:22. > :31:24.was no need to change the process in order four Eric Knott end up in that
:31:25. > :31:31.constituency which Falkirk, ironically. -- not to end up.
:31:32. > :31:37.Many MPs do not have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Is that a
:31:38. > :31:43.problem? The Labour leadership has changed and changed dramatically and
:31:44. > :31:46.they want to have MPs that uphold the beliefs and policies and values
:31:47. > :31:51.they hold dear, many of which they share with Jeremy Corbyn, shouldn't
:31:52. > :31:54.the MPs reflect that? I think we do share the same values. Clearly you
:31:55. > :31:58.don't because you don't have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn. A lot
:31:59. > :32:02.of that has to do with competence and other issues. Hands on the
:32:03. > :32:06.table, I nominated Owen Smith. But a lot of people who were in the Shadow
:32:07. > :32:11.Cabinet have highlighted the reason why has been it has been difficult
:32:12. > :32:14.to do our job over the last few months. Is it sustainable for one of
:32:15. > :32:18.those Labour MPs who don't have the confidence in Jeremy Corbyn? If they
:32:19. > :32:24.can convince their membership that they should be reselected and come
:32:25. > :32:28.through the ballot process surely they should. Do you think they will
:32:29. > :32:33.convince them? In the majority of cases I think they probably will but
:32:34. > :32:35.in some cases I think reselection is will happen.
:32:36. > :32:38.Anyone in particular you can think of who might be reselected for not
:32:39. > :32:41.representing the views of the membership?
:32:42. > :32:48.It's not for me to say to activists in other constituencies Dunne
:32:49. > :32:52.constituents' parties. I'm represented by Diane Abbott and on
:32:53. > :32:55.the membership membership are very happy with her.
:32:56. > :32:58.She's very much in line with Jeremy Corbyn, isn't she?
:32:59. > :33:03.And she's an excellent local MP with a strong base in the community.
:33:04. > :33:07.I think that is the case amongst the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs.
:33:08. > :33:11.I just think, I sit here and I'm just dismayed and disappointed
:33:12. > :33:15.frankly, because what's lying behind what Dave's doing here is kind of
:33:16. > :33:19.like a threat. And that is not the way that we do things in the Labour
:33:20. > :33:23.Party. I've been an activist in my local Labour Party for the best part
:33:24. > :33:28.of 20 years and I have never known this kind of atmosphere, certainly
:33:29. > :33:32.whipped up nationally, of threats, of intimidation, we're going to get
:33:33. > :33:36.rid of you. That's the underlying reason, let's be honest. I think
:33:37. > :33:44.it's a bit rich for something like 170 Labour MPs... Hang on. To
:33:45. > :33:49.undermine the leadership, to talk of divisiveness in the context where
:33:50. > :33:51.170 Labour MPs have tried to undermine the leader that the
:33:52. > :33:56.membership have voted for when the deputy leadership of the Labour
:33:57. > :33:59.Party is circulating bogus momentum documents to start talking about
:34:00. > :34:08.threats and divisiveness is a bit rich, isn't it, Chuka Umunna?
:34:09. > :34:13.Divisiveness has come out of Momentum before but I've spoken
:34:14. > :34:17.about it before. This shows how divisive and chaotic the situation
:34:18. > :34:21.in Labour is and the lurch to the left is also illustrated by this. I
:34:22. > :34:24.think that's very bad for this country.
:34:25. > :34:27.Well, it depends what Tory MPs... They would say that and no doubt
:34:28. > :34:31.they are gleeful about this situation. But doesn't it mean there
:34:32. > :34:35.isn't a challenge to the government while this continues?
:34:36. > :34:41.Michael Liddle party members I am really dismayed to see the state of
:34:42. > :34:45.the party at the polls -- like all Labour Party members. The party has
:34:46. > :34:48.to raise its game and take the fight to the Tories.
:34:49. > :34:51.Let's talk about the Shadow Cabinet elections, because that was going to
:34:52. > :34:54.be talked about this evening at the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting
:34:55. > :34:59.this evening. Now Jeremy Corbyn is calling for members to vote on MPs
:35:00. > :35:04.to Shadow Cabinet. Is that a good idea?
:35:05. > :35:10.I'm open to all ideas on this, actually. Yes or no? Let's have the
:35:11. > :35:13.discussion. The membership idea is a new thing that has appeared today,
:35:14. > :35:16.I'm sure it is completely coincidental we're talking about
:35:17. > :35:20.Shadow Cabinet elections. Jeremy Hunt himself has been a big fan and
:35:21. > :35:24.argued for Shadow Cabinet elections within the parliament we Labour
:35:25. > :35:28.Party in the past -- Jeremy Corbyn. It's something worth looking at. One
:35:29. > :35:31.really important point is I don't think it's just all about the Shadow
:35:32. > :35:35.Cabinet. People could have a really important impact of the front
:35:36. > :35:38.benches and on the front bench. Are deputy leader Tom Watson did an
:35:39. > :35:44.incredible job in terms of press regulation from the backbenches.
:35:45. > :35:49.Sure, but if members get the chance to vote for MPs in the Shadow
:35:50. > :35:52.Cabinet, then you could arguably say that so-called former supporters of
:35:53. > :35:56.Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will not be in the Shadow Cabinet.
:35:57. > :36:05.One of the things I really wish we could get away from our all of these
:36:06. > :36:11.ridiculous Blairites... I'm a Labour ite. But they will not be in the
:36:12. > :36:14.Shadow Cabinet, will they? Let's see, these discussions are
:36:15. > :36:18.interesting. One thing I agree on with Jeremy Corbyn is we need to
:36:19. > :36:24.change the way we do politics and the way that our party operates. A
:36:25. > :36:28.kind of gentler politics? Well... Do you think you've seen that with
:36:29. > :36:31.Jeremy Corbyn? I do not and I think the problem has been more the case
:36:32. > :36:38.of the people around Jeremy Roy other than Jeremy himself. Who are
:36:39. > :36:41.you talking about? John McDonnell? -- Jeremy Corbyn. We've already
:36:42. > :36:47.talked about division on this subject. Do you think members should
:36:48. > :36:52.vote on the Shadow Cabinet? Staffing the Shadow Cabinet has been
:36:53. > :36:56.a problem for Jeremy Corbyn, people like Chuka Umunna refused to
:36:57. > :37:00.serve... That is incorrect, this has been parroted by John McDonnell,
:37:01. > :37:04.Jeremy Corbyn and I had a conversation. We did not want a
:37:05. > :37:07.running commentary between what I was saying and what he was saying.
:37:08. > :37:12.We came to a mutual agreement that I wouldn't serve so it is wrong to say
:37:13. > :37:15.I refused. It is divisive to raise this issue now because it strikes me
:37:16. > :37:21.as a factional manoeuvre designed to get people like John McDonnell. You
:37:22. > :37:26.are not factional, you, Dave? Get them out of the Shadow Cabinet.
:37:27. > :37:31.We're playing hardball. You have said it.
:37:32. > :37:33.David Cameron's cabinet used to be criticised
:37:34. > :37:39.The new Prime Minister, by contrast, is a grammar school
:37:40. > :37:41.girl, and her cabinet is 70% state educated.
:37:42. > :37:43.Theresa May and her Education Secretary haven't
:37:44. > :37:45.ruled out the creation of new State Grammar schools.
:37:46. > :37:48.Here's what she said on the subject in her interview on the Marr
:37:49. > :37:52.Justine Greening was on your programme and said she'd be looking
:37:53. > :37:59.So we will look at the work that Justine is doing.
:38:00. > :38:01.But the abiding theme that I want to ensure is
:38:02. > :38:03.there is that of giving opportunity to young
:38:04. > :38:04.people, of ensuring that
:38:05. > :38:07.whatever school anybody is going to, wherever they are in whatever part
:38:08. > :38:16.We are able to ensure they get a good quality of education that
:38:17. > :38:18.gives them the opportunities to on in life.
:38:19. > :38:21.Well, Theresa May's stance has given hope to those like Don Porter,
:38:22. > :38:23.the founder of Conservative Voice, who have long supported
:38:24. > :38:33.1970s Britain, the age of the comprehensive,
:38:34. > :38:39.brought to life on television in Grange Hill.
:38:40. > :38:42.During this time there was a push to move
:38:43. > :38:45.away from selective education which saw many
:38:46. > :38:52.grammar schools closed, or converted into comprehensives.
:38:53. > :38:55.But the 163 grammar schools that still
:38:56. > :38:59.exist in England regularly top league tables.
:39:00. > :39:07.This school has actually been allowed to expand to a new campus
:39:08. > :39:16.We need to build upon the success of grammar
:39:17. > :39:18.schools and create a system that both develops and promotes young
:39:19. > :39:28.That also means a higher standard of technical education for
:39:29. > :39:33.those students who do not wish to pursue an academic path.
:39:34. > :39:35.But it doesn't mean that everything about
:39:36. > :39:39.the previous system of grammar schools was desirable.
:39:40. > :39:45.I strongly believe that the 11 plus as a one-off test
:39:46. > :39:51.The testing of a child only at the age of 11 was far
:39:52. > :39:54.too restrictive and should now be replaced by multiple opportunities
:39:55. > :40:04.The first wave of new grammar schools should
:40:05. > :40:19.be placed in areas of the country facing social deprivation to show
:40:20. > :40:21.their power as an engine of social mobility.
:40:22. > :40:28.trying to return to a bygone golden age of education.
:40:29. > :40:30.It is about trying to create and build great schools
:40:31. > :40:33.Conservative Voice wants to create a grammar school
:40:34. > :40:36.system fit for the 21st-century and that gives a boost to choice,
:40:37. > :41:02.And Don Porter of Conservative Voice joins us in the studio now.
:41:03. > :41:09.Apart from I totally what evidence is there that grammar schools are
:41:10. > :41:11.these great engines of social mobility.
:41:12. > :41:16.It goes back to the 1960s when the grammar schools were putting far
:41:17. > :41:21.more people into universities. 25% of those people going to university
:41:22. > :41:25.were from working-class backgrounds. But that's the 1960s. What about the
:41:26. > :41:30.ones that remain today? They don't send vast numbers of children from
:41:31. > :41:32.poor backgrounds. The evidence is clearly there. They are stuffed full
:41:33. > :41:38.of middle-class children who could pay privately. Welcome of course,
:41:39. > :41:44.Jo, if you ban something the Labour government did in the 1998, we go
:41:45. > :41:52.down from 1300 grammar schools to 164. Even Tony Blair, in his
:41:53. > :41:55.autobiography, described that process of banning grammar schools
:41:56. > :42:00.as academic vandalism. And there is a strong feeling that even he
:42:01. > :42:07.regretted the way in which that was done. They were abandoned. So we are
:42:08. > :42:10.only looking at 164 grammar schools. You say if there were more of them
:42:11. > :42:14.with more children of poorer backgrounds but even of the
:42:15. > :42:17.proportion of those that exist it is a small proportion. Theresa
:42:18. > :42:22.Villiers, would you like to see more grammar schools? I'm happy with the
:42:23. > :42:26.levels. You don't think you should go back over the policy. The party
:42:27. > :42:30.spent a long time arguing over this and David Cameron made a decision.
:42:31. > :42:34.I'm open to new ideas on this but what is of crucial thing is nothing
:42:35. > :42:38.was done must divert us from trying to make sure every single child has
:42:39. > :42:41.access to a good school place. Whatever sort of school they are in
:42:42. > :42:46.I think it would be a backward step if we went back to some kind of
:42:47. > :42:50.binary divide, age 11, where you separate the sheep from the goats. I
:42:51. > :42:53.think one of the concerns about the previous system was the focus on
:42:54. > :42:56.academic excellence in grammar schools wasn't replicated in the
:42:57. > :43:00.quality of the education that people who didn't get into grammar schools
:43:01. > :43:04.were offered, and that's why we have the position we have at the moment.
:43:05. > :43:09.So it is a distraction from creating better state, hence its schools. You
:43:10. > :43:14.even admitted it in your school. Is completely divisive line taken at 11
:43:15. > :43:20.that can ruin kids' chances. That is precisely why we want to change a
:43:21. > :43:24.system. It is restrictive if a child only has the opportunity at 11 to
:43:25. > :43:28.get to a grammar school. I felt my 11 plus, went to a secondary modern
:43:29. > :43:34.and then went to a grammar school after a levels. For me, going to a
:43:35. > :43:38.grammar school was transformational. You might say, Jo, that was
:43:39. > :43:42.anecdotal. But what is also interesting, Theresa I know has
:43:43. > :43:46.grammar schools in her own constituency. She also said she
:43:47. > :43:50.thinks it would be a backward step. But the point that Tony Blair also
:43:51. > :43:53.makes, which I think is fascinating, is that it is people who are in
:43:54. > :43:58.privileged positions who can send their children to private schools
:43:59. > :44:03.who actually then don't wish to give the same opportunity of aspiration
:44:04. > :44:06.to people who can't afford private school.
:44:07. > :44:09.That is true, Chuka Umunna. This is about giving children from a poor
:44:10. > :44:12.background the opportunity to go to the kind of schools that only people
:44:13. > :44:16.from middle-class families can afford. What about the nine out of
:44:17. > :44:20.ten that don't get to go to the grammar schools? If there were more
:44:21. > :44:23.of them then they would. I think Theresa is right, it would be a
:44:24. > :44:26.backward step at this idea that grammar schools are this great
:44:27. > :44:30.engine for social Mobo the teeth is utter garbage. Most of the pupils
:44:31. > :44:34.who go there are from relatively wealthy middle-class families
:44:35. > :44:38.anyway. Only 3% of grammar school children are on free school meals
:44:39. > :44:43.compared to a national average of 18%. I know from my time as a school
:44:44. > :44:46.governor at a school in my own constituency in Streatham, that the
:44:47. > :44:49.key thing that determines how well the school performance is excellent
:44:50. > :44:54.leadership and good quality teaching. But they are good schools,
:44:55. > :44:58.aren't they? In my constituency? Grammar schools tend to do extremely
:44:59. > :45:00.well and their pupils go on to either extremely good training or
:45:01. > :45:04.university. But again there is all the research
:45:05. > :45:10.that shows if you look at the top streams or sets in comprehensive is,
:45:11. > :45:14.that the higher performing pupils actually do better there than they
:45:15. > :45:20.do in grammar is. The problem with this is it is just so retro. Come
:45:21. > :45:25.on, do we not have new ideas? But there is nothing retro, I know both
:45:26. > :45:29.of you have the privilege of a private education. What is also
:45:30. > :45:32.interesting about those people who have had a private education, they
:45:33. > :45:41.sort of push back when people aspire. Don't you dare... Don't you
:45:42. > :45:44.dare. Aspiration is... Don't you dare just because I went to an
:45:45. > :45:47.independent school I don't want other people to do well.
:45:48. > :45:52.Aspiration is not the sole preserve of those who go to private schools.
:45:53. > :45:57.No one is arguing that. This is nonsense. Also people who can't
:45:58. > :46:01.afford to go to private schools. The point you are making, Jo, I really
:46:02. > :46:07.strongly believe that we need to change next time, and hence we are
:46:08. > :46:12.making the point that the next, or first wave, of new grammar schools
:46:13. > :46:15.should go into areas of severe deprivation. What is to stop
:46:16. > :46:20.middle-class families moving straight into those areas? Because
:46:21. > :46:24.now we know that top state schools, not grammar schools, but top state
:46:25. > :46:28.comprehensive schools, that is what is happening. Those who can afford
:46:29. > :46:31.it move very close by, up go the House prices and immediately the
:46:32. > :46:35.area of social deprivation has changed. I agree with that point,
:46:36. > :46:39.excellent question. It can be decided by controlling the catchment
:46:40. > :46:43.areas of those new 20 grammar schools. If we say 20. That's the
:46:44. > :46:46.sort of number we believe would make a difference and start to
:46:47. > :46:50.demonstrate the point about social mobility. Do you think it would be
:46:51. > :46:55.popular? Do you think people really want it in any large numbers? The
:46:56. > :47:01.last YouGov survey carried out was the early part of last year. 1600
:47:02. > :47:06.and people throughout the country participated in that research and
:47:07. > :47:10.53% of people interviewed actually look forward to the return of
:47:11. > :47:15.grammar schools. And even with Labour voters there were a majority
:47:16. > :47:18.of people who actually wanted the return of grammar schools. Amongst
:47:19. > :47:22.Labour voters? Does that surprise you?
:47:23. > :47:29.If you look at the polls, there is more support for grammar schools
:47:30. > :47:31.than you would think. You keep talking about social mobility and
:47:32. > :47:35.not once during this exchange have you been able to produce any
:47:36. > :47:41.evidence to show that the current system... You mention the 1960s
:47:42. > :47:44.system, promote social mobility. The 1960s model didn't the current one
:47:45. > :47:47.doesn't either. We will have to end it there, thank you for coming in.
:47:48. > :47:50.So MPs are back from their summer hols with their new hair cuts,
:47:51. > :47:53.polished shoes and sun tans - in a moment I'll be asking two
:47:54. > :47:55.seasoned Westminster watchers what work they'll be set
:47:56. > :47:58.in the coming week - first let's have a look
:47:59. > :48:01.David Davis, the new Secretary of State for Exiting
:48:02. > :48:04.the European Union, is expected to make a statement in the House of
:48:05. > :48:14.Tonight, the Parliamentary Labour Party will have its first
:48:15. > :48:18.Backbench MP Clive Betts is expected to put forward a proposal
:48:19. > :48:20.to reintroduce Shadow Cabinet elections, on which a motion
:48:21. > :48:34.Also on Tuesday, the Home Affairs Select Committee is expected to meet
:48:35. > :48:39.to discuss the future of its Chairman Keith Vaz,
:48:40. > :48:40.following allegations about him in a Sunday newspaper.
:48:41. > :48:45.On Wednesday, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will meet
:48:46. > :48:47.for the second time across the despatch box
:48:48. > :48:50.BBC Question Time on Thursday evening will host a Labour
:48:51. > :48:52.leadership hustings programme with Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith
:48:53. > :48:57.And Thursday is also expected to be the publication day
:48:58. > :49:05.To give it maximum publicity Mr Balls will be appearing
:49:06. > :49:09.The former Shadow Chancellor can also be seen showing off his glitter
:49:10. > :49:15.balls on Strictly Come Dancing on Saturday evenings.
:49:16. > :49:21.I am sure you enjoy the first just a few years ago. -- days ago.
:49:22. > :49:24.We're joined now by Isabel Hardman - Associate Editor of the Spectator -
:49:25. > :49:30.Welcome to both of you, no doubt you were watching on Saturday night too
:49:31. > :49:34.but before we get to that, Brexit means Brexit, OK I have finally said
:49:35. > :49:40.it in the programme. David Davis will set out his vision, will there
:49:41. > :49:44.be any specifics, Isabel Hardman? I suspect this statement David Davis
:49:45. > :49:47.is making is largely so that the government can avoid being summoned
:49:48. > :49:50.to the Commons with an urgent question. Although he may say a
:49:51. > :49:54.little more than Brexit means Brexit, he will not give us a full
:49:55. > :49:57.definition that he wants to put in a dictionary. The government doesn't
:49:58. > :50:01.really know what Brexit means yet. Number ten released a statement
:50:02. > :50:03.after Theresa May dismissed the points-based immigration system
:50:04. > :50:06.saying that the government does not yet have a plan for controlling
:50:07. > :50:09.immigration, and for that to be released by an attention is
:50:10. > :50:13.everything still very much in the air. David Davis, even if he has
:50:14. > :50:17.avoided an urgent question, will get lots of hostile questions from his
:50:18. > :50:21.backbenchers, spent the summer agitated about this. Do you think he
:50:22. > :50:26.will get a rough ride or will they be more emollient in this first
:50:27. > :50:29.outing? As far as I can tell, that section of the Conservative Party
:50:30. > :50:33.that was always very aggressive towards David Cameron and very
:50:34. > :50:37.critical of the last regime, as they call it, on Brexit, is behaving
:50:38. > :50:40.itself quite well. They want to support this Theresa May project,
:50:41. > :50:46.and that section of the Conservative Party has always followed the same
:50:47. > :50:49.strategy, good cop, bad cop, tried to demand concessions then play
:50:50. > :50:53.loyal for a little bit. They will want to ratchet Theresa May towards
:50:54. > :50:59.a harder Brexit position over time. I don't think there will be angry,
:51:00. > :51:02.rough scenes but ultimately you need answers to really big questions and
:51:03. > :51:07.the two ones being, is Britain going to stay in the single market? Is
:51:08. > :51:11.Britain going to essentially remove itself from free movement of labour?
:51:12. > :51:14.How do those two ambitions it together because everyone else in
:51:15. > :51:17.the European Union will say if you want to be in the single market you
:51:18. > :51:21.pay into the European budget and you keep free movement. David Davis just
:51:22. > :51:25.doesn't have the answers to those questions now, Theresa May hasn't
:51:26. > :51:29.was her personal view. She doesn't want to announce a because it is
:51:30. > :51:35.part of a negotiating strategy. It will be playing a dead bat, I'm
:51:36. > :51:39.sure. I am sure it will be for today but aren't we in the position now,
:51:40. > :51:43.Isabel Hardman, where Theresa May has implied that controlling the
:51:44. > :51:48.UK's borders will be paramount, more important than gaining some sort of
:51:49. > :51:51.tariff free access to the single market? And, therefore, are they not
:51:52. > :51:56.looking at a cost that will have to be paid in order to get that access
:51:57. > :51:59.so there isn't freedom of movement? She was very clear in her interview
:52:00. > :52:04.on the Andrew Marr Show, that this was a message made by the British
:52:05. > :52:08.people and the government had to abide by that. I suppose if we have
:52:09. > :52:12.had anything more than Brexit means Brexit, she has said Brexit means
:52:13. > :52:15.controls on immigration. Dismissing the points-based system is also
:52:16. > :52:18.disappointing for those in the leave who used it as part of their
:52:19. > :52:21.campaigning tactic, to say they wanted control, but they didn't
:52:22. > :52:25.naturally want to reduce the numbers that much, if you look at the
:52:26. > :52:30.details. She clearly believes in the juicing the numbers and she believes
:52:31. > :52:34.that is what voters were demanding that their Brexit vote. Let's turn
:52:35. > :52:40.to Labour, the PLP, Parliamentary Labour Party meeting tonight, the
:52:41. > :52:45.first one after recess. I presume Labour MPs will accept there will be
:52:46. > :52:47.a Jeremy Corbyn victory in this leadership? I don't know anyone who
:52:48. > :52:52.is seriously expecting anything else. Some have talked up the
:52:53. > :52:56.chances of Owen Smith, and there have been surprises in politics
:52:57. > :52:59.recently but broadly speaking the Parliamentary Labour Party is sort
:53:00. > :53:03.of preparing itself for the next round of trench warfare with the
:53:04. > :53:10.leadership. And part of that will be hoping Owen Smith manages to hold to
:53:11. > :53:15.a relatively close contest. Ultimately, the broad parameters of
:53:16. > :53:18.this conflict that 170 odd Labour MPs say basically don't have
:53:19. > :53:23.confidence in the leadership of the Labour Party, he will be reinstated
:53:24. > :53:27.by the membership. That is two parties in essence, one who think
:53:28. > :53:31.the leader is a disaster who could not be recommended to the country as
:53:32. > :53:34.a Prime Minister, and the others who think he is completely brilliant or
:53:35. > :53:38.despise the MPs enough that they want to keep him there. It is hard
:53:39. > :53:43.to know how that goes forward. How do you think it goes forward, Isabel
:53:44. > :53:47.Hardman? Will there be another Labour leadership contest then?
:53:48. > :53:51.There is a group of Labour MPs who think the good thing to do is to
:53:52. > :53:55.have a perpetual challenge against Jeremy Corbyn to make his leadership
:53:56. > :53:59.unsustainable, but they accept it could destroy the party as they do
:54:00. > :54:03.that. They think Corbyn is just throwing the party anyway, but it is
:54:04. > :54:06.a very high risk strategy. You have Ed Balls advocating a return to the
:54:07. > :54:11.front bench after Jeremy Corbyn has been elected, which I find difficult
:54:12. > :54:14.to imagine why any Labour backbencher, like Chuka Umunna, who
:54:15. > :54:19.can get more air time not on the front bench with their own airtime
:54:20. > :54:23.would want to -- their own views would want to return to the front
:54:24. > :54:26.benches. I promise you there will be time to discuss it on another
:54:27. > :54:27.occasion but I have to leave it there.
:54:28. > :54:30.Now - let's go back to the G20 summit in China -
:54:31. > :54:33.because in the last half hour Theresa May has been speaking
:54:34. > :54:36.to journalists there - let's have a listen to what she had
:54:37. > :54:42.She was asked how she intended to restrict immigration was still
:54:43. > :54:44.getting a good trade deal with the EU.
:54:45. > :54:47.for the best deal for the United Kingdom.
:54:48. > :54:50.Yes, the voters' message on 23rd June was clearly that
:54:51. > :54:53.they didn't want to see free movement continuing as it has done
:54:54. > :54:56.They wanted some control in movement of people
:54:57. > :54:58.from the European Union into the United Kingdom.
:54:59. > :55:01.But we also want to get the best deal possible for trade
:55:02. > :55:05.And I intend to go out there and be ambitious.
:55:06. > :55:08.And I think there is a benefit, not just for the United
:55:09. > :55:11.Kingdom, of a good deal in trade in goods and services, but a benefit
:55:12. > :55:16.Right, she is feeling confident and optimistic. She would say that at
:55:17. > :55:21.this particular stage, but realistically she is not going to be
:55:22. > :55:25.ever to get both, is she? Let's see, I think she should be ambitious, I
:55:26. > :55:29.think she should aim high, which is the fullest access to the single
:55:30. > :55:32.market possible, and see if she can get them to reform the way free
:55:33. > :55:37.movement works of it is not as we know it. Aim high. Do you think
:55:38. > :55:45.Chuka has a point? I think getting both is to liberal. -- is
:55:46. > :55:51.deliverable. In terms of access to the single market, it is in terms of
:55:52. > :55:55.the interest of the remaining EU and our interest to have a good trading
:55:56. > :56:00.relationship. It is in no 1's interest to start working up
:56:01. > :56:03.tariffs. Are you worried about the warnings from Japan about pulling
:56:04. > :56:07.out companies are they can't get her free access to the European market?
:56:08. > :56:10.I was struck by what the Japanese ambassador said to the today
:56:11. > :56:14.programme about the crucial importance of making a success of
:56:15. > :56:21.the Brexit process. That is the reality, they don't want to disrupt
:56:22. > :56:23.the ability of German manufacturers... You should be
:56:24. > :56:26.worried. We will see how that unfolds.
:56:27. > :56:29.Now - Britain's politicians may not have been in Westminster but they've
:56:30. > :56:31.no doubt been spending the summer contemplating our place
:56:32. > :56:36.But what blue sky have they done their thinking under?
:56:37. > :56:39.Ellie's here to see if Chuka and Theresa can put the politician's
:56:40. > :56:52.Thank you, Jo. Boris Johnson, Theresa, I will ask you, a busy man,
:56:53. > :56:56.where did he go on holiday? I know he once went on holiday to Canada,
:56:57. > :57:05.Dennehy would do that again this year? Greece. Knight he knew it.
:57:06. > :57:10.Next, we have our new Prime Minister, Theresa May, she did take
:57:11. > :57:16.some time off but where did she go? She went to Switzerland. That's easy
:57:17. > :57:22.because she goes every year, doesn't she? Next we have Tim Farron, where
:57:23. > :57:33.did he go? I thought that might fox both of you. Did he stay? He went to
:57:34. > :57:38.Spain. Good choice, I was there too. Jeremy Corbyn, he has had a busy
:57:39. > :57:43.summer, going to have to hurry. The UK. That is because he didn't
:57:44. > :57:47.actually have a holiday. Poor man. Guess, apparently colleagues were
:57:48. > :57:51.cross, where you cross that he took a holiday in the run-up to the
:57:52. > :57:54.referendum? Don't answer that. We have George Osborne, he had a bit
:57:55. > :58:07.more time on his hands, where did he go? Ho Chi Minh city, he was spotted
:58:08. > :58:16.firing guns there. David Cameron, remember him? He was Greece as well,
:58:17. > :58:19.wasn't he? Corsica. He did go on several holidays, and the Sun
:58:20. > :58:27.reported that he and his family holidayed in a luxury villa with a
:58:28. > :58:29.private beach, granny flat, Poole and Wi-Fi. -- swimming pool. He has
:58:30. > :58:46.a lot of time on his hands. Davis is up in the House of Commons
:58:47. > :58:50.this afternoon and I will be back at noon tomorrow with all of the big
:58:51. > :58:51.political stories of the day, so make sure you join me then. From all
:58:52. > :58:53.of us, goodbye. The one o'clock news is starting
:58:54. > :59:01.over on BBC One now. Get your flags ready and join
:59:02. > :59:09.Juan Diego Florez and many more for the world-famous
:59:10. > :59:13.last night of the Proms.