05/09/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles