05/09/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May says a points-based system for restricting immigration

will not work and is not an option - so how should the numbers coming

Not for the first time Labour MP Keith Vaz finds himself

Can the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee survive the latest

They voted for a Labour leader many of their MPs don't like -

and they might be about to do it again.

So is it time Labour members got the right

Are we about to see a new generation of grammar schools? Theresa May,

herself the product of a grammar, is reportedly in favour.

Is selective education the answer to providing opportunity to children

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today is Labour's Chuka Umunna and former

Northern Irleand Secretary, Theresa Villiers.

First this morning, Keith Vaz is one of Labour's most senior MPs -

has been the Chairman of the influential Home

Affairs Select Committee for almost ten years -

but this morning he is fighting for his political reputation

after a Sunday newspaper recorded him meeting male escorts.

Let's speak to our political reporter, Ellie Price.

What was uncovered? These are allegations made in the Sunday

Mirror that the Labour MP Keith Vaz paid for the services of two

escorts, that they came to his London flat and during that time

they discussed using the party drug known as poppers as well as the

possibility of getting hold of some cocaine. There were some record is

made of this meeting and during those recordings it appears that

Keith Vaz described himself as a washing machine salesman called Jim.

If all that weren't bad enough this morning there were further

allegations in some of the papers of links made by man linked to Keith

Vaz's charity Silver Star, had paid money to those escorts. Awkward for

the father of two who is married, and of course, as you say, he's the

chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, pretty much one of the

most influential select committees at Westminster dealing with issues

of law and order and of course on issues like prostitution and drug

taking. In fact, earlier this year Keith Vaz was one of the MPs that

persuaded government not to go ahead with criminalising poppers, and just

last month the Home Affairs Select Committee released a report

suggesting that they should be a relaxation in the laws on

prostitution. At this point what has been the reaction from Keith Vaz

himself? Keith Vaz has said he has referred

all of this to his lawyer. He said it is deeply disturbing that a

national newspaper should have paid individuals who acted in this way.

We also heard from the Charity Commission who said they are aware

of allegations made regarding an individual linked to the Charity

Silver Star and they asked journalists to pass on any evidence

but as yet there is no formal investigation under way. The big

question is now what happens to Keith Vaz? Does he stay as chairman

of the Home Affairs Select Committee. He said he will make a

full announcement tomorrow when the committee meets but as yet we're not

sure, although increasing pressure from a number of MPs here in

Westminster. Ellie Price, thank you.

Let's get more reaction from Chuka Umunna. Surely he has to step aside

as the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee?

The revelations over the weekend, when you see things like that, your

immediate initial feeling is, what has his family gone through over the

last weekend? I'm a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It

would be wrong, if you like, allow one of the Sunday papers as sit and

be judge and jury on this issue and we will have a conversation with him

during our private session tomorrow. Do you think is right for him to

continue as the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee which was

looking at is used like prostitution, looking at issues as

to whether the party drug, the poppers he is alleged to have taken,

should be banned? He was in favour of keeping them legal. Is it right

that he can really continue in that role?

Well, look, we will be discussing those issues during our meeting

tomorrow? What do you think? I don't want to give my opinion

because I haven't had a chance to talk to him about it. He has sent

round to the committee details of the statement that has been put out

and been absolutely clear the work of the committee is paramount, we

have important reports, not least on female genital mutilation, and

ongoing inquiries into counterterrorism, anti-Semitism and

other important topics we need to get on with.

As his reputation been damaged by this?

Well, clearly, if you have revelations in the papers like that

and they are allegations, he is taking legal advice on it, you take

legal advice on it because you worry about your reputation.

What will that do to the Home Affairs Select Committee? If you

agree that his reputation is damaged in some way, certainly the

Conservative MP from the Tory side Andrew Bridgen said he shouldn't

just stepped down as chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, he

said he would like to see him step down as an MP. Is he justified in

saying that? It's not helpful to jump on these

type of bandwagons in advance of hearing from Keith. I don't think

that's fair. If Andrew Bridgen wants to make party political capital out

of this, then so be it. I happen to think that actually when the public

reads stories like this they don't make any distinction as to which

party you belong to. I don't think it's a good thing for Parliament

when we have these types of story. But like I said I'm reluctant to

give a view because I want to hear what he has to say, I haven't had a

chance to speak to him about this. Do you think it is, as Keith Vaz

said, deeply disturbing that a national newspaper paid individuals

who have basically trying to entrap him, as he believes?

Well, I think there are obviously questions to be asked about how that

happened. He is a private individual too.

He is a private individual but he holds an important role looking at

matters related to drugs like poppers and prostitution. I wouldn't

be rushing to judgment against the newspaper concerned for this kind of

thing. But, I mean, where I sort of agree with Chuka it's not

necessarily the right thing to rush to judgment today. I think is

reasonable for Keith to want to discuss this with his committee. It

seems to me it's going to be very difficult for him to stay on.

Do you think he should stay on, should he at least step aside? He

hasn't decided to step aside at this point.

I think it is more or less inevitable that he will step aside

at least on a temporary basis, yes. But coming back to this sting

operation, do you think there is public interest here? Because, that

is certainly what the paper will say and has said, in fact, to justify

what they did? I don't know the details of what

they did and how they went about it. But I think they are probably making

a reasonable point, there is a public interest in these facts,

given the role that Keith has in parliament.

Do you think there is a public interest here?

I think when you look at social media and some of the coverage, and

the references to sexuality I think that's being pretty distasteful. I

don't really think his sexuality should be necessary as a topic of

conversation, but it has been. I think the other issues that have

been raised, potentially, they are more relevant but there are things

people need to explore with Keith. And as you say you will be meeting

tomorrow with Keith Vaz. We will meet tomorrow.

It will be a private session, we will not have cameras in there.

Presumably you will talk afterwards. Afterwards I imagine the committee

is composed of members across the house from all the different parties

and will have a collective discussion and hopefully come to a

collective view about things. Right.

Now - Theresa May has stepped out on the world stage at the G20

in Hangzhou in China - it's her first big international

conference as Prime Minister - and an opportunity to tell other

world leaders what Britain's intentions are in the aftermath

Let's talk to our correspondent in Hangzhou Robin Brant. Let's get some

reaction from the other world leaders. Obama looked glum and

seemed to repeat his mantra about the UK perhaps go into the back of

the queue in terms of trade deals. There have also been warnings from

Japan. Barack Obama, for the record, in the

final months of his presidency warned again about the adverse

effects that the UK's decision to leave the EU might have on its

trading relationship with the United States, as you said. He reminded

Theresa May it will be at the back of the queue in terms of any

potential UK- US free trade negotiation behind the EU behind

America's Asia Pacific partners. That wasn't a Ray of light for her,

really, was it? Today the Japanese added to that substantial 15 page

document from the Ministry of foreign affairs yesterday painting a

bleak picture of what some sizeable Japanese corporations may do in

deciding to leave the UK if it leaves the European Union at the

same time as not having any access to the Single Market. There was a

brush by, brief moment, between Shinzo Abe, Japan's Prime Minister,

and Theresa May today. According to the sun's imminent political editor

Shinzo Abe pushed her again on more detail on what it will mean for

Japanese firms. She's under pressure to give more detail but we know she

can't because she herself doesn't know.

Except on the issue of immigration where she has been a little clearer

in terms of rejecting the idea of a points-based system. In fact, one of

her spokespeople at No 10 has actually ruled it out.

Well, she's been clearer in saying what she doesn't want. But this is

not an affirmative announcement about what the Prime Minister, ten

weeks after the vote, thinks, she may want her government to seek to

achieve from the European Union. She told journalists accompanying her on

the trip out here that the Australian points-based system was

not a silver bullet. Her official spokeswoman went further and said it

is not an option, and I think adding that there was full Cabinet support

for that. Boris Johnson, now Foreign Secretary and a prominent campaigner

to leave the EU, of course, has rowed back on his support for that

during the campaign. Robin Brant at the G20 conference in

Hangzhou. Let's pick up now on Theresa May's

comments about what kind of immigration system the UK should

have after we have left the EU. During the referendum campaign,

Vote Leave said that the UK should introduce an Australian-style

points-based immigration system which would end the "automatic right

of all EU citizens to come to live and work in the UK"

and "discrimination The Australian system awards

economic migrants points for their personal attributes,

including age and qualifications, and their occupational status,

unless you are sponsored by an employer, you must reach

a certain number of points Migrants are also subject to medical

checks and a character test. In recent years Australia has

encouraged skilled migrants to apply and has increased the number

of places available in its Migration In 2008, the Labour government

introduced a similar system for skilled migrants

and students coming to the UK But Theresa May yesterday cast doubt

over whether a points-based system She said there is "no single

silver bullet in terms And this morning a Number 10

spokesman has ruled it out, "As the PM has said many times

in the past, a Points Based System We're joined now from

Madeleine Sumption from Welcome to the programme. First of

all, to you, Theresa Villiers, do you feel betrayed by the fact the

system that you campaigned on in terms of reducing the numbers coming

into the UK has been rejected by the Prime Minister? I don't because

there is a range of ways to Internet the Brexit vote. I think what is

clear is that people in this country voting to leave, wanting to regain

control over making our own laws in this country, and that includes

regaining control of the immigration system and introducing a system

which does two things. It enables the people we elect in this country

to control the overall numbers, and also gives us in this country the

right to reject individuals. So it marks an end to free for all open

door immigration from the rest of the EU. You can do it with a points

system, or with other systems, or accommodation of a work permit and

points based system. Very different ways.

Why did Vote Leave believe a points-based system would be the

most successful way reducing numbers?

I think it would work well but I'm not going to sit here and say you

couldn't achieve as good a result using a work permit system. The

important thing is that it's implemented effectively, it's

rigorously unforced and brings down the numbers.

Do you agree with Theresa Villiers on that?

During the campaign it was always slightly unclear what aspect of the

Australian-style points-based system was being proposed. When people talk

about points systems they are often talking about a system that would

allow people to come in without a job offer, based on their

characteristics, like their education or a language ability and

so forth. So that was actually a slightly surprising choice for a

country that is trying to reduce levels of immigration.

Because you don't think it would have reduced levels of immigration

because it doesn't seem to have done under our current points-based

system, does it? If you can come without a job offer, as long as you

satisfy the measures or requirements, you can still come in.

There are in theory ways of designing a points-based system that

would restrict immigration but a work permit system can do that as

well. I would agree that in some ways what is more important is how

you design the system of criteria of who gets to come in and based on

what skills, rather than whether it is a points-based system or a work

permit system. Why has Theresa May come out so

strongly against the points-based system?

The points based systems that have had some problems in countries where

they have been permitted. One of the issues that comes up is if people

come in without a job offer then there is no guarantee, even if they

have relatively high levels of education, there is no guarantee

that they will get a job and that has been a problem that has been

experienced in some countries that have used the systems and also the

UK which had a similar system under the last government. Do you accept

it was a flawed system? It wouldn't have actually achieved what you and

your colleagues wanted, which was to dramatically reduce immigration

numbers. We have always said we are not looking to cut and paste the

same system they have in Australia and use it here but the reality is

we can take the strong points, the strong elements of points systems

such as the ones they use in Australia, or look to other

countries as well. As I say, the crucial thing is control over the

overall numbers and being able to refuse entry to people if we deem

that appropriate. Are you worried, though, that

Theresa May is going soft, if you like, on the issue of immigration so

soon after the Brexit vote, and she will not deliver the reduced numbers

that you wanted to see? I really don't believe she is going soft on

immigration, I think this is absolutely central to what she wants

to do, and even before watching wanted to do before the Brexit vote.

Except she failed at every single point to bring down net migration to

the tens of thousands that was introduced as a policy by David

Cameron. One of the reason she could not do that was because of our EU

membership, and it becomes a most impossible to make that commitment

in our manifesto while we retain free movement in its current form.

Although the points-based system for non-EU migrants did not dramatically

or consistently reduce the number of non-EU migrants, did it? You can

design it to reduce them as if you wish to. Doesn't that hit the point,

whether it is points-based or whether it is work permit and these

are based, or you have to have a firm job offer from an employer, if

it reduces the numbers, she will be fulfilling what people voted for

when they voted to leave the EU? Carina let's be clear what people

voted for, people like Theresa May went around country and said ?350

million extra for the NHS, they said no VAT on fuel, nothing from the

Prime Minister on that, they said you would get the Australian

points-based system, she is just saying that is not going to happen.

Three broken promises already. Does it matter about the Australian

-based system if the numbers are registered? They went around saying

it will solve all our problems, the Australian points-based system. I

never denied that immigration poses challenges for us, not just

economically but in terms of the cultural make-up, I never went

around pretending that somehow this Australian points-based system was

going to be the silver bullet that would sort out all our problems.

They did, and other chickens are coming home to roost. I am so

puzzled by this. It was not like they were not told about this,

beforehand. Who is they? The different boat Leave campaigners,

Priti Patel, Boris Johnson, they talked about it as the magic

solution. That is not what that system does. What they have done in

Australia is almost used that to promote immigration. 28% of people

in Australia were born out of the country, double the percentage of

our own country. We don't have to have the same system as Australia,

hang on a second. This is a bit about a raid, but can I just go back

to the point. Chuka, when you say it was the solution to all of our

problems. What Theresa May has said is that she has heard loud and clear

that voters want to reduce the numbers. She didn't say by any

specific system, she wants to reduce the numbers. It may be that the

points-based system is not the way to do it but if you agree that there

needs to be a way to reduce the numbers of immigrants coming in? I

think we need to look at numbers, I have never denied that, but we also

have to have a debate about what happens when people come to our

country, how do we integrate them? We have got the High Commissioner

from Australia coming in today to talk to us about this Australian

points-based system, but we have to have both of those debates. There is

an opportunity here for the Prime Minister, because part of the reason

I thought we have to stay in the European Union is because membership

of the single market is vital, absolutely vital. Hang on,

membership of the single market, as Theresa May has said, she is not

going to sign up to, if it means freedom of movement. And isn't the

point of the vote, rightly or wrongly, that freedom of movement

ends? Do you access to that? As we know it. I except that freedom of

movement as we know it, the public, the people have spoken on that

issue. I except what they have said. But this is the opportunity for her,

because the circle she has got to square is that we want the fullest

access to the single market possible. I don't think she should

go, oh, I can't do that, I think she should aim for that. And what she

could possibly also do is get our European partners to change the way

free movement works in the European Union, in essence ending free

movement as we know it because it isn't as if they have not got the

same... There doesn't seem to be any issue changing fundamentally the

movement Bosch free movement. Francois Hollande will go off

against Marie Le Pen, likely, she will make that the issue. In Germany

and Italy it will happen. She should be ambitious. You have accepted

freedom of movement must end. As we know it. Madeleine, in terms of the

system you could bring in, what would deliver and radically reduce

them as of immigrants coming into the UK? Would it be a Visa or a work

permit system? The most common system for controlling work-related

immigration is a work permit, essentially that enables employers

to put in an application to bring in a particular person to fulfil a

certain job. The government will set the criteria, saying you can only

bring people in if the skills that they have meet a certain threshold,

or if the job meets various different criteria. You can make

that system more or less restrictive and it will affect the number people

who would be about to come into the country under it. And you would

accept that? You can effectively meet the problems and deal with this

issue using a work permit system, yes, that is a legitimate system to

use. To tens of thousands, in terms of net migration? It would be

possible to deliver that immigration target, I believe, but changes to

free movement are not going to deliver that target on their own. We

also need to press ahead the reforms we are making to non-EU migration as

well. Right, so do you think a work Visa system would deliver net

migration down to tens of thousands, or is that unachievable? A work

permit system for EU citizens on its own cannot deliver the tens of

thousands because there is quite a lot of non-EU immigration. So at the

moment it is quite difficult to see what combination of policies would

deliver that, but... So you say it is undeliverable? Depends on

economic circumstances, it is not just about immigration policy, other

things will affect it. We always said during the campaign this is not

just about EU immigrants, if you took non-EU immigrants you would not

be hitting this. We need a proper national debate about this, British

future, the think tanks, have called for that. This target I think is

damaging. I think we should have in mind a number. The number would you

have in mind? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question,

the problem is that you have a target at the moment that every

single year the government is failing to meet, which completely

undermines trust in the public that we can manage it. Can I just ask

Theresa the leaders, should there be an in-built bias towards EU

migrants? We are still linked geographically to our EU neighbours,

should there be an in-built bias towards EU migrants? At the moment

we have a massively unbalanced system, in that EU migrants can come

in whatever circumstances. But we have significant restrictions on

non-EU migrants. Levelling that out to some degree I think will be

important. I think in terms of the compo misers we might have to make,

in terms of the negotiations coming up, it would not be completely

illegitimate to give a degree of preference for EU nationals, as long

as we retain control of the overall numbers and retain the right to

refuse individuals couldn't think it is appropriate for them to be

allowed to... It is worth paying the price of tariff free access to the

single market to make sure those numbers come down dramatically? We

will obviously have to make some kind of compromises on this. I don't

think we have to move to a system where we treat EU migrants exactly

the same as migrants from the rest of the world, but it is clear that

we need a system that ends the freefall we have at the moment. That

is interesting, because it leads... Theresa just said something that

completely surprised me, suggesting that you would like to see the

percentage of immigrants net coming in from the EU to be higher, because

at the moment it is 50-50, roughly half of the net immigration comes

from outside the EU and half Remain side, and new seem to suggest you

want more as a percentage slightly coming in from EU. Which I think is

interesting. The important thing is that we get immigration down to

sustainable levels and we respect the result of the EU referendum.

Thank you. Parliament may not have been sitting

for the past six weeks or so, but there's been plenty of debate

inside Britain's political parties with three of them holding

leadership elections Labour's rumbles on, of course,

and with Jeremy Corbyn firm favourite to win again,

attention is turning to how he'll Should Labour MPs who continue

to defy their leader be allowed to stand

for the party again - or should they face

being de-selected? The question of MPs' selections

was one the Labour leader addressed There's going to be, as you know,

a total boundary review, of which the first report will be out

this autumn and it will be finally If this parliament

runs to full term then the new boundaries will be the basis

on which elections take place. And on that case,

there would be a full selection process in

every constituency. But the sitting MP for any part,

or any substantial part of the new boundary, would have

an opportunity to put their name So there will be a full and open

selection process for every Every constituency Labour Party

throughout the whole of the Well, David Osland, a long-time

Labour member who has written a pamphlet on how to reselect Mps

joins us now. Welcome, why are you pushing this

agenda now? It is certainly a big issue in the Labour Party at the

moment, it lot of people talking about it, and as Jeremy says, not

one that the Labour Party can that in the face of the boundary review.

So it is a contribution to a topical debate. Right. How politically

motivated is it, in the sense that this is an attempt to try to

encourage a well of support for getting rid of MPs that the

left-wing party member don't like? I am explicitly saying it is not

intended as advocacy of the select early, deselect often, kick them

out. But I think there are reasonable questions around

selection of Labour MPs, for instance where a Labour MP is known

to beat his wife, it is possible that his constituency might not

favour his return. Where Labour MPs cross picket lines or repeatedly say

that they are thinking of resigning the Labour whip, then maybe they

don't value of their labour involvements as much as they should.

What do you say to that, Chuka Umunna? Are these issues that we

should be looking at the selecting MPs? Root I haven't come across many

colleagues who have been talking about resigning the whip beating

their wives. But I am completely biased, I am an MP, I have an

interest but I think the system we have got at the moment is fair. It

is one we have used for many years. And actually what will happen during

the boundary review, you have a trigger ballot system in respect of

sitting MPs and constituencies where we don't have an MP, we have a full

selection process. It has been brought up recently and it has not

really been on the agenda for much of my time as an MP, I was elected

in 2010. But many of your colleagues are worried about being deselected

by the change in membership. It has been brought up by people who feel

if you have an excellent constituency MP but they are not

deemed to be ideal job you're sitting on the right place in the

broad spectrum that is our wonderful Labour Party that they should be

punished for not sitting in the right ideological place, in spite of

the fact they are an excellent MP with deselection. I think that would

be a great shame. If you have somebody who is a good constituency

MP who might not always share the view of the leadership, and I

definitely want robots, I think that was one of the problems under new

Labour. I think Jeremy Corbyn is a fantastic example. He has been a

backbench MP, very critical of the leadership and seven leaders from

Callaghan through to Miliband forced up the campaign to have one of them

removed, Neil Kinnock, he has defied the whip more than ?500, putting

more than 200 times with the Tories and was never any attempt that final

at all to deselect him because of that. Partly because he is seen as a

good constituency MP. Isn't that fair enough, why should membership

be able to get rid of MPs, or encouraged to get rid of MPs that

don't share the views of Jeremy Corbyn and the leadership? The first

point is that members don't get rid of MPs, that is the job for the

electorate. Their job is to select who they want to see as a Labour

candidate. But should they be people who always agree with the

leadership? I haven't heard of anyone arguing that at the moment.

As Chuka says, we have many excellent MPs and nobody would want

to get rid of their MP. Many Labour MPs have come on saying they have

been threatened with deselection because they do not agree on certain

issues and policies with Jeremy Corbyn. In fairness, maybe in

David's offence Burke defence, many are not members of the Labour Party,

they are members of the task or the Socialist workers party, not

activist in our constituency parties. They are the ones that

often put it on the agenda, but to come back to David, I think if you

have got the example of a member of Parliament who has been beating

their wife, the current trigger ballot process allows for that

person not to be selected next time around. What I am unconvinced, of

course you have to have somebody commanding confidence among their

members, but I don't see where in the system that we have currently

got that there is not provision for somebody in that circumstance to be

removed. Precisely what I am trying to do in the pamphlet, set out the

rules as they stand. Why are you doing it now, not a couple of years

ago? Why the need to do it now? If we have been happy that the process

has been OK for the last couple of decades, then why start setting it

out now? As I said, the process is in the

rule book and has been largely unaltered. Why now? With the

boundary changes, of course, many constituencies will have to go

through that whether they like it or not. There are the issues of MPs who

are behaving in a very bad ways, getting into drunken brawls in House

of Commons bars. But Eric Joyce is perhaps the example of that. There

was no need to change the process in order four Eric Knott end up in that

constituency which Falkirk, ironically. -- not to end up.

Many MPs do not have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Is that a

problem? The Labour leadership has changed and changed dramatically and

they want to have MPs that uphold the beliefs and policies and values

they hold dear, many of which they share with Jeremy Corbyn, shouldn't

the MPs reflect that? I think we do share the same values. Clearly you

don't because you don't have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn. A lot

of that has to do with competence and other issues. Hands on the

table, I nominated Owen Smith. But a lot of people who were in the Shadow

Cabinet have highlighted the reason why has been it has been difficult

to do our job over the last few months. Is it sustainable for one of

those Labour MPs who don't have the confidence in Jeremy Corbyn? If they

can convince their membership that they should be reselected and come

through the ballot process surely they should. Do you think they will

convince them? In the majority of cases I think they probably will but

in some cases I think reselection is will happen.

Anyone in particular you can think of who might be reselected for not

representing the views of the membership?

It's not for me to say to activists in other constituencies Dunne

constituents' parties. I'm represented by Diane Abbott and on

the membership membership are very happy with her.

She's very much in line with Jeremy Corbyn, isn't she?

And she's an excellent local MP with a strong base in the community.

I think that is the case amongst the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs.

I just think, I sit here and I'm just dismayed and disappointed

frankly, because what's lying behind what Dave's doing here is kind of

like a threat. And that is not the way that we do things in the Labour

Party. I've been an activist in my local Labour Party for the best part

of 20 years and I have never known this kind of atmosphere, certainly

whipped up nationally, of threats, of intimidation, we're going to get

rid of you. That's the underlying reason, let's be honest. I think

it's a bit rich for something like 170 Labour MPs... Hang on. To

undermine the leadership, to talk of divisiveness in the context where

170 Labour MPs have tried to undermine the leader that the

membership have voted for when the deputy leadership of the Labour

Party is circulating bogus momentum documents to start talking about

threats and divisiveness is a bit rich, isn't it, Chuka Umunna?

Divisiveness has come out of Momentum before but I've spoken

about it before. This shows how divisive and chaotic the situation

in Labour is and the lurch to the left is also illustrated by this. I

think that's very bad for this country.

Well, it depends what Tory MPs... They would say that and no doubt

they are gleeful about this situation. But doesn't it mean there

isn't a challenge to the government while this continues?

Michael Liddle party members I am really dismayed to see the state of

the party at the polls -- like all Labour Party members. The party has

to raise its game and take the fight to the Tories.

Let's talk about the Shadow Cabinet elections, because that was going to

be talked about this evening at the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting

this evening. Now Jeremy Corbyn is calling for members to vote on MPs

to Shadow Cabinet. Is that a good idea?

I'm open to all ideas on this, actually. Yes or no? Let's have the

discussion. The membership idea is a new thing that has appeared today,

I'm sure it is completely coincidental we're talking about

Shadow Cabinet elections. Jeremy Hunt himself has been a big fan and

argued for Shadow Cabinet elections within the parliament we Labour

Party in the past -- Jeremy Corbyn. It's something worth looking at. One

really important point is I don't think it's just all about the Shadow

Cabinet. People could have a really important impact of the front

benches and on the front bench. Are deputy leader Tom Watson did an

incredible job in terms of press regulation from the backbenches.

Sure, but if members get the chance to vote for MPs in the Shadow

Cabinet, then you could arguably say that so-called former supporters of

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will not be in the Shadow Cabinet.

One of the things I really wish we could get away from our all of these

ridiculous Blairites... I'm a Labour ite. But they will not be in the

Shadow Cabinet, will they? Let's see, these discussions are

interesting. One thing I agree on with Jeremy Corbyn is we need to

change the way we do politics and the way that our party operates. A

kind of gentler politics? Well... Do you think you've seen that with

Jeremy Corbyn? I do not and I think the problem has been more the case

of the people around Jeremy Roy other than Jeremy himself. Who are

you talking about? John McDonnell? -- Jeremy Corbyn. We've already

talked about division on this subject. Do you think members should

vote on the Shadow Cabinet? Staffing the Shadow Cabinet has been

a problem for Jeremy Corbyn, people like Chuka Umunna refused to

serve... That is incorrect, this has been parroted by John McDonnell,

Jeremy Corbyn and I had a conversation. We did not want a

running commentary between what I was saying and what he was saying.

We came to a mutual agreement that I wouldn't serve so it is wrong to say

I refused. It is divisive to raise this issue now because it strikes me

as a factional manoeuvre designed to get people like John McDonnell. You

are not factional, you, Dave? Get them out of the Shadow Cabinet.

We're playing hardball. You have said it.

David Cameron's cabinet used to be criticised

The new Prime Minister, by contrast, is a grammar school

girl, and her cabinet is 70% state educated.

Theresa May and her Education Secretary haven't

ruled out the creation of new State Grammar schools.

Here's what she said on the subject in her interview on the Marr

Justine Greening was on your programme and said she'd be looking

So we will look at the work that Justine is doing.

But the abiding theme that I want to ensure is

there is that of giving opportunity to young

people, of ensuring that

whatever school anybody is going to, wherever they are in whatever part

We are able to ensure they get a good quality of education that

gives them the opportunities to on in life.

Well, Theresa May's stance has given hope to those like Don Porter,

the founder of Conservative Voice, who have long supported

1970s Britain, the age of the comprehensive,

brought to life on television in Grange Hill.

During this time there was a push to move

away from selective education which saw many

grammar schools closed, or converted into comprehensives.

But the 163 grammar schools that still

exist in England regularly top league tables.

This school has actually been allowed to expand to a new campus

We need to build upon the success of grammar

schools and create a system that both develops and promotes young

That also means a higher standard of technical education for

those students who do not wish to pursue an academic path.

But it doesn't mean that everything about

the previous system of grammar schools was desirable.

I strongly believe that the 11 plus as a one-off test

The testing of a child only at the age of 11 was far

too restrictive and should now be replaced by multiple opportunities

The first wave of new grammar schools should

be placed in areas of the country facing social deprivation to show

their power as an engine of social mobility.

trying to return to a bygone golden age of education.

It is about trying to create and build great schools

Conservative Voice wants to create a grammar school

system fit for the 21st-century and that gives a boost to choice,

And Don Porter of Conservative Voice joins us in the studio now.

Apart from I totally what evidence is there that grammar schools are

these great engines of social mobility.

It goes back to the 1960s when the grammar schools were putting far

more people into universities. 25% of those people going to university

were from working-class backgrounds. But that's the 1960s. What about the

ones that remain today? They don't send vast numbers of children from

poor backgrounds. The evidence is clearly there. They are stuffed full

of middle-class children who could pay privately. Welcome of course,

Jo, if you ban something the Labour government did in the 1998, we go

down from 1300 grammar schools to 164. Even Tony Blair, in his

autobiography, described that process of banning grammar schools

as academic vandalism. And there is a strong feeling that even he

regretted the way in which that was done. They were abandoned. So we are

only looking at 164 grammar schools. You say if there were more of them

with more children of poorer backgrounds but even of the

proportion of those that exist it is a small proportion. Theresa

Villiers, would you like to see more grammar schools? I'm happy with the

levels. You don't think you should go back over the policy. The party

spent a long time arguing over this and David Cameron made a decision.

I'm open to new ideas on this but what is of crucial thing is nothing

was done must divert us from trying to make sure every single child has

access to a good school place. Whatever sort of school they are in

I think it would be a backward step if we went back to some kind of

binary divide, age 11, where you separate the sheep from the goats. I

think one of the concerns about the previous system was the focus on

academic excellence in grammar schools wasn't replicated in the

quality of the education that people who didn't get into grammar schools

were offered, and that's why we have the position we have at the moment.

So it is a distraction from creating better state, hence its schools. You

even admitted it in your school. Is completely divisive line taken at 11

that can ruin kids' chances. That is precisely why we want to change a

system. It is restrictive if a child only has the opportunity at 11 to

get to a grammar school. I felt my 11 plus, went to a secondary modern

and then went to a grammar school after a levels. For me, going to a

grammar school was transformational. You might say, Jo, that was

anecdotal. But what is also interesting, Theresa I know has

grammar schools in her own constituency. She also said she

thinks it would be a backward step. But the point that Tony Blair also

makes, which I think is fascinating, is that it is people who are in

privileged positions who can send their children to private schools

who actually then don't wish to give the same opportunity of aspiration

to people who can't afford private school.

That is true, Chuka Umunna. This is about giving children from a poor

background the opportunity to go to the kind of schools that only people

from middle-class families can afford. What about the nine out of

ten that don't get to go to the grammar schools? If there were more

of them then they would. I think Theresa is right, it would be a

backward step at this idea that grammar schools are this great

engine for social Mobo the teeth is utter garbage. Most of the pupils

who go there are from relatively wealthy middle-class families

anyway. Only 3% of grammar school children are on free school meals

compared to a national average of 18%. I know from my time as a school

governor at a school in my own constituency in Streatham, that the

key thing that determines how well the school performance is excellent

leadership and good quality teaching. But they are good schools,

aren't they? In my constituency? Grammar schools tend to do extremely

well and their pupils go on to either extremely good training or

university. But again there is all the research

that shows if you look at the top streams or sets in comprehensive is,

that the higher performing pupils actually do better there than they

do in grammar is. The problem with this is it is just so retro. Come

on, do we not have new ideas? But there is nothing retro, I know both

of you have the privilege of a private education. What is also

interesting about those people who have had a private education, they

sort of push back when people aspire. Don't you dare... Don't you

dare. Aspiration is... Don't you dare just because I went to an

independent school I don't want other people to do well.

Aspiration is not the sole preserve of those who go to private schools.

No one is arguing that. This is nonsense. Also people who can't

afford to go to private schools. The point you are making, Jo, I really

strongly believe that we need to change next time, and hence we are

making the point that the next, or first wave, of new grammar schools

should go into areas of severe deprivation. What is to stop

middle-class families moving straight into those areas? Because

now we know that top state schools, not grammar schools, but top state

comprehensive schools, that is what is happening. Those who can afford

it move very close by, up go the House prices and immediately the

area of social deprivation has changed. I agree with that point,

excellent question. It can be decided by controlling the catchment

areas of those new 20 grammar schools. If we say 20. That's the

sort of number we believe would make a difference and start to

demonstrate the point about social mobility. Do you think it would be

popular? Do you think people really want it in any large numbers? The

last YouGov survey carried out was the early part of last year. 1600

and people throughout the country participated in that research and

53% of people interviewed actually look forward to the return of

grammar schools. And even with Labour voters there were a majority

of people who actually wanted the return of grammar schools. Amongst

Labour voters? Does that surprise you?

If you look at the polls, there is more support for grammar schools

than you would think. You keep talking about social mobility and

not once during this exchange have you been able to produce any

evidence to show that the current system... You mention the 1960s

system, promote social mobility. The 1960s model didn't the current one

doesn't either. We will have to end it there, thank you for coming in.

So MPs are back from their summer hols with their new hair cuts,

polished shoes and sun tans - in a moment I'll be asking two

seasoned Westminster watchers what work they'll be set

in the coming week - first let's have a look

David Davis, the new Secretary of State for Exiting

the European Union, is expected to make a statement in the House of

Tonight, the Parliamentary Labour Party will have its first

Backbench MP Clive Betts is expected to put forward a proposal

to reintroduce Shadow Cabinet elections, on which a motion

Also on Tuesday, the Home Affairs Select Committee is expected to meet

to discuss the future of its Chairman Keith Vaz,

following allegations about him in a Sunday newspaper.

On Wednesday, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will meet

for the second time across the despatch box

BBC Question Time on Thursday evening will host a Labour

leadership hustings programme with Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith

And Thursday is also expected to be the publication day

To give it maximum publicity Mr Balls will be appearing

The former Shadow Chancellor can also be seen showing off his glitter

balls on Strictly Come Dancing on Saturday evenings.

I am sure you enjoy the first just a few years ago. -- days ago.

We're joined now by Isabel Hardman - Associate Editor of the Spectator -

Welcome to both of you, no doubt you were watching on Saturday night too

but before we get to that, Brexit means Brexit, OK I have finally said

it in the programme. David Davis will set out his vision, will there

be any specifics, Isabel Hardman? I suspect this statement David Davis

is making is largely so that the government can avoid being summoned

to the Commons with an urgent question. Although he may say a

little more than Brexit means Brexit, he will not give us a full

definition that he wants to put in a dictionary. The government doesn't

really know what Brexit means yet. Number ten released a statement

after Theresa May dismissed the points-based immigration system

saying that the government does not yet have a plan for controlling

immigration, and for that to be released by an attention is

everything still very much in the air. David Davis, even if he has

avoided an urgent question, will get lots of hostile questions from his

backbenchers, spent the summer agitated about this. Do you think he

will get a rough ride or will they be more emollient in this first

outing? As far as I can tell, that section of the Conservative Party

that was always very aggressive towards David Cameron and very

critical of the last regime, as they call it, on Brexit, is behaving

itself quite well. They want to support this Theresa May project,

and that section of the Conservative Party has always followed the same

strategy, good cop, bad cop, tried to demand concessions then play

loyal for a little bit. They will want to ratchet Theresa May towards

a harder Brexit position over time. I don't think there will be angry,

rough scenes but ultimately you need answers to really big questions and

the two ones being, is Britain going to stay in the single market? Is

Britain going to essentially remove itself from free movement of labour?

How do those two ambitions it together because everyone else in

the European Union will say if you want to be in the single market you

pay into the European budget and you keep free movement. David Davis just

doesn't have the answers to those questions now, Theresa May hasn't

was her personal view. She doesn't want to announce a because it is

part of a negotiating strategy. It will be playing a dead bat, I'm

sure. I am sure it will be for today but aren't we in the position now,

Isabel Hardman, where Theresa May has implied that controlling the

UK's borders will be paramount, more important than gaining some sort of

tariff free access to the single market? And, therefore, are they not

looking at a cost that will have to be paid in order to get that access

so there isn't freedom of movement? She was very clear in her interview

on the Andrew Marr Show, that this was a message made by the British

people and the government had to abide by that. I suppose if we have

had anything more than Brexit means Brexit, she has said Brexit means

controls on immigration. Dismissing the points-based system is also

disappointing for those in the leave who used it as part of their

campaigning tactic, to say they wanted control, but they didn't

naturally want to reduce the numbers that much, if you look at the

details. She clearly believes in the juicing the numbers and she believes

that is what voters were demanding that their Brexit vote. Let's turn

to Labour, the PLP, Parliamentary Labour Party meeting tonight, the

first one after recess. I presume Labour MPs will accept there will be

a Jeremy Corbyn victory in this leadership? I don't know anyone who

is seriously expecting anything else. Some have talked up the

chances of Owen Smith, and there have been surprises in politics

recently but broadly speaking the Parliamentary Labour Party is sort

of preparing itself for the next round of trench warfare with the

leadership. And part of that will be hoping Owen Smith manages to hold to

a relatively close contest. Ultimately, the broad parameters of

this conflict that 170 odd Labour MPs say basically don't have

confidence in the leadership of the Labour Party, he will be reinstated

by the membership. That is two parties in essence, one who think

the leader is a disaster who could not be recommended to the country as

a Prime Minister, and the others who think he is completely brilliant or

despise the MPs enough that they want to keep him there. It is hard

to know how that goes forward. How do you think it goes forward, Isabel

Hardman? Will there be another Labour leadership contest then?

There is a group of Labour MPs who think the good thing to do is to

have a perpetual challenge against Jeremy Corbyn to make his leadership

unsustainable, but they accept it could destroy the party as they do

that. They think Corbyn is just throwing the party anyway, but it is

a very high risk strategy. You have Ed Balls advocating a return to the

front bench after Jeremy Corbyn has been elected, which I find difficult

to imagine why any Labour backbencher, like Chuka Umunna, who

can get more air time not on the front bench with their own airtime

would want to -- their own views would want to return to the front

benches. I promise you there will be time to discuss it on another

occasion but I have to leave it there.

Now - let's go back to the G20 summit in China -

because in the last half hour Theresa May has been speaking

to journalists there - let's have a listen to what she had

She was asked how she intended to restrict immigration was still

getting a good trade deal with the EU.

for the best deal for the United Kingdom.

Yes, the voters' message on 23rd June was clearly that

they didn't want to see free movement continuing as it has done

They wanted some control in movement of people

from the European Union into the United Kingdom.

But we also want to get the best deal possible for trade

And I intend to go out there and be ambitious.

And I think there is a benefit, not just for the United

Kingdom, of a good deal in trade in goods and services, but a benefit

Right, she is feeling confident and optimistic. She would say that at

this particular stage, but realistically she is not going to be

ever to get both, is she? Let's see, I think she should be ambitious, I

think she should aim high, which is the fullest access to the single

market possible, and see if she can get them to reform the way free

movement works of it is not as we know it. Aim high. Do you think

Chuka has a point? I think getting both is to liberal. -- is

deliverable. In terms of access to the single market, it is in terms of

the interest of the remaining EU and our interest to have a good trading

relationship. It is in no 1's interest to start working up

tariffs. Are you worried about the warnings from Japan about pulling

out companies are they can't get her free access to the European market?

I was struck by what the Japanese ambassador said to the today

programme about the crucial importance of making a success of

the Brexit process. That is the reality, they don't want to disrupt

the ability of German manufacturers... You should be

worried. We will see how that unfolds.

Now - Britain's politicians may not have been in Westminster but they've

no doubt been spending the summer contemplating our place

But what blue sky have they done their thinking under?

Ellie's here to see if Chuka and Theresa can put the politician's

Thank you, Jo. Boris Johnson, Theresa, I will ask you, a busy man,

where did he go on holiday? I know he once went on holiday to Canada,

Dennehy would do that again this year? Greece. Knight he knew it.

Next, we have our new Prime Minister, Theresa May, she did take

some time off but where did she go? She went to Switzerland. That's easy

because she goes every year, doesn't she? Next we have Tim Farron, where

did he go? I thought that might fox both of you. Did he stay? He went to

Spain. Good choice, I was there too. Jeremy Corbyn, he has had a busy

summer, going to have to hurry. The UK. That is because he didn't

actually have a holiday. Poor man. Guess, apparently colleagues were

cross, where you cross that he took a holiday in the run-up to the

referendum? Don't answer that. We have George Osborne, he had a bit

more time on his hands, where did he go? Ho Chi Minh city, he was spotted

firing guns there. David Cameron, remember him? He was Greece as well,

wasn't he? Corsica. He did go on several holidays, and the Sun

reported that he and his family holidayed in a luxury villa with a

private beach, granny flat, Poole and Wi-Fi. -- swimming pool. He has

a lot of time on his hands. Davis is up in the House of Commons

this afternoon and I will be back at noon tomorrow with all of the big

political stories of the day, so make sure you join me then. From all

of us, goodbye. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. Get your flags ready and join

Juan Diego Florez and many more for the world-famous

last night of the Proms.