Afternoon summary
- The Scottish National party has criticised the plan to spend £4bn renovating parliament because the option of moving the Commons into a brand new alternative building has not been considered. Alex Salmond, the former Scottish first minister, said:
The report on the restoration of the Houses of Parliament lacks credibility. It does not put all options on the table - it does not consider a new build parliament when it must scrutinise all possible options - and it is based on figures which were proposed in 2014.
The UK government will effectively be asking taxpayers to pay a Westminster premium to crowbar a modern parliament into a Victorian building at a time of austerity when Tory policy is hitting some of the poorest in society, and political uncertainty when this UK government has no plan for the UK outside the European Union.
Today’s report publication is just the start of the process, parliament and the public now have the opportunity to debate whether spending billions of pounds to keep parliament in a palace is the right thing to do, when it is clearly not a good use of taxpayer’s money.
- Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has announced that the autumn statement will take place on Wednesday 23 November.
That’s all from me for now.
Later I will be covering Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith at the BBC Question Time hustings on a new blog. The programme starts at 9pm, and I will launch the blog at about 8.30pm. You will be able to find it here.
The New Statesman’s Stephen Bush has written a good blog about grammar schools. He says it will be particularly interesting to see what Michael Gove, the former education secretary, says about Theresa May’s proposals. Here’s an extract.
The re-creation of grammar schools is a significant repudiaton for the Gove agenda that every school should achieve excellence, and if the former Secretary of State lends his voice, that will embolden MPs on the Conservative left to vote against the measure. Gove’s incentive to do so would be personal as well as political. There is no love lost between he and May, who as well as disagreeing on substantial matters of policy have wildly divergent approaches to politics.
But – and this is one of the wider difficulties for the Osborne-Gove tendency, purged en masse when May put her government together – although being defeated over grammar schools won’t have anyone opening the champagne in Number 10, being the architect of that loss would near-certainly bring about the end of Gove’s slim hopes of a return to the top table of politics.
The Sutton Trust, the social mobility education thinktank, has released a briefing paper on grammar schools. Here is an extract.
- Less than 3% of entrants to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals – an important indicator of social deprivation – whereas almost 13% of entrants come from outside the state sector, largely believed to be fee-paying preparatory schools.
- The average proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals in selective areas was 18% when the research was done, and is higher on average in other areas (those without fully selective systems) where grammar schools are located. By contrast, just over 6% of 10-year olds are enrolled in independent fee-paying schools nationally.
- The research also shows that in local authorities that operate the grammar system, children who are not eligible for free school meals have a much greater chance of attending a grammar school than similarly high achieving children (as measured by their Key Stage 2 test scores) who are eligible for free school meals. For example, in selective local authorities, 66% of children who achieve level 5 in both English and Maths at Key Stage 2 who are not eligible for free school meals go to a grammar school compared with 40% of similarly high achieving children who are eligible for free school meals.
The Commons education committee has announced that it will take evidence from Justine Greening, the education secretary, next Wednesday. Neil Carmichael, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee, said:
The new secretary of state has joined a department with increased responsibilities and which is already engaged in an ambitious and challenging programme of reforms. As a committee, we will press the secretary of state on her views on the role and potential expansion of grammar schools but also pick up on a wide range of issues facing schools, further education, higher education, and children’s services.
My colleague Sally Weale has written an analysis looking at whether it is possible to have inclusive grammar schools.
Philip Hammond, the chancellor, is currently giving evidence to the Lords economic affairs committee. He has just announced that the autumn statement will take place on Wednesday 23 November.
Nick Timothy - the man who’s ‘running the country’, and 5 things he might do next
When Theresa May was in China a photograph was published (above) showing her at a summit meeting alongside a confident-looking chap with a long beard. An uninformed person looking at the picture may have concluded that he was in charge and that the woman beside him (Theresa May) was some sort of aide. His name is Nick Timothy, he is May’s co-chief of staff and, on the basis of today’s grammar school news, you could be forgiven for thinking he is running the country.
Timothy used to be May’s chief of staff when she was home secretary and during that period he did not have a media profile. But then he left to work as head of the New Schools Network and, during that time, he spoke to the media and wrote a regular (and very good) column for ConservativeHome, which means we know a great deal about what he thinks.
Two of the most surprising announcements to come from May since she became prime minister can be directly traced to his thinking. The last-minute decision to delay agreeing the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station? Timothy set out the thinking behind that in a ConservativeHome column last October, The Government is selling our national security to China. And extending grammar schools? Timothy proposed exactly that in an interview with the Daily Telegraph last November.
So what else in on Timothy’s agenda? Here are five policies that he is likely to be pushing, based on what he has said in the past.
1 - Introducing tighter curbs on student visas. (Timothy wrote about that here.)
2 - Making it easier for faith schools to expand. In a ConservativeHome article Timothy wrote:
The government should abolish its admissions rule for faith-designated free schools – which requires a school, when it is oversubscribed, to limit the number of pupils it accepts on the basis of faith to fifty per cent – and replace it with a more effective approach. The existing rule fails according to its own objective: it does little to increase the diversity of Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu schools, because for now at least they are unlikely to appeal to parents of other faiths. But the rule is effectively discriminatory for Roman Catholics: it prevents them from opening new free schools because it is almost certainly against canon law for a Catholic Bishop to set up a school that turned away Catholic pupils on the basis of their Catholicism. Given that there is growing demand for Roman Catholic schools, which are more likely to be ethnically diverse than other schools, more likely to be in poor areas, more likely to be rated Good or Outstanding by Ofsted, and more likely to provide what parents want, the rule should be replaced by a legal duty on faith schools to ensure that their pupils mix – perhaps through sport, performing arts, or school visits – with children of other backgrounds.
3 - Making welfare more contributions-based. In another article Timothy said one problem with the Conservative election defeat of 1906 was that it led to plans for contributions-based welfare backed by his hero Joe Chamberlain being shelved.
In 1906, MPs behaved as though their identities as free traders and tariff reformers were more important than as Unionists, and the consequences of their defeat continue to be felt even now. The Lloyd George ‘People’s Budget’ of 1908 introduced a non-contributory pension system – unlike the contributions-based proposal made by Chamberlain that was rejected by Salisbury and Balfour – and our welfare state to this day remains non-contributory (a fact that is, coincidentally, relevant to the debate about EU nationals claiming benefits in Britain).
As my colleague Heather Stewart has already reported, May’s new director of policy, John Godfrey, is also interested in social insurance systems that create stronger links between what individuals pay and the welfare they get.
4 - More housebuilding. In another ConservativeHome article Timothy wrote:
Often – on aspects of welfare reform, the increase in the minimum wage, and the investment in the Northern Powerhouse and the (excruciatingly badly-branded) Midlands Engine – the Government has got these calls right. But when it comes to energy policy, house building, high immigration, cuts to tax credits, the protection of pensioner benefits, and the profile of spending cuts, it has not.
5 - A full inquiry into Orgreave. The Home Office is still considering calls for a full inquiry into Orgreave, but Timothy said in a ConservativeHome article he was in favour of a proper inquiry.
The economy needed to be reformed, the unions needed to be faced down, and unprofitable pits needed to be closed. But if the police pre-planned a mass, unlawful assault on the miners at Orgreave, and then sought to cover up what they did and arrest people on trumped-up charges, we need to know.
And here are two ideas that Timothy strongly supports - but which May is much less likely to back because they would involve abandoning Conservative party manifesto promises.
6 - Getting rid of the “triple lock” that ensure state pensions rise every year in line with growth or inflation or by 2.5%, whichever is higher.
7 - Abandoning plans to lift the inheritance tax threshold to £1m. In one ConservativeHome article Timothy wrote:
[The chancellor] could redistribute the welfare cuts to take the pressure off low-paid, working people. But the obvious alternative is already off the table: pensioner benefits are protected and so is the “triple lock”, which means that the state pension goes up by the highest out of the growth of wages, inflation or 2.5 per cent. Another option – to demonstrate that the Government really does value hard work above all else – is to stop the inheritance tax cut for estates valued between £650,000 and £1 million. But that policy is not only a manifesto promise but a totem for the Conservative party.
Updated
Sam Freedman, who used to be a policy adviser to Michael Gove when Gove was education secretary and he is now executive director at Teach First, the organisation that gets high-powered graduates into teaching, has put out a statement strongly criticising the plans to extend grammar schools. He said:
The prime minister has said that she wants to create a country that works for all, but education experts are united that the evidence shows grammar schools harm social mobility.
Every child deserves the best education and our country needs all young people supported to succeed. Our focus should be on raising standards across the board to end the scandal of disadvantage determining destiny.
UPDATE: I’ve corrected the post above. Freedman was a civil service policy adviser to Gove, not a special adviser as originally stated.
Updated
Lunchtime summary
- The Houses of Parliament are at risk of a catastrophic crisis that could destroy them unless MPs and peers are evacuated for six years to allow £4bn of restoration works, a report said. You can read the report here.
-
Big companies should be forced to publish their tax returns as part of efforts to clamp down on avoidance and evasion, an independent review commissioned by Labour has recommended. As the Press Association reports, the first stage of the review of HM Revenue and Customs said related documents and calculations should also be publicly available. Parliamentary committees should be empowered to examine sensitive tax information, with MPs and peers deciding whether scrutiny of documents and practices should be conducted behind closed doors, it said. The review by Professor Prem Sikka of the University of Essex also called for the creation of a supervisory board for HMRC to “act as a bulwark against corporate capture and inertia”, accountable to parliamentary committees.
That board should also protect tax whistleblowers, the report said.
In the comments getoutofmydreams asks how many MPs went to grammar school and private school.
I can’t find grammar school figures quickly, but here are the figures for private/state schools, by party. They are from this House of Commons library note (pdf).
UPDATE: Thanks to bastu BTL. S/he has posted a link to this Sutton Trust report which says 19% of MPs in the 2015 intake went to grammar school.
Updated
Oliver Letwin, the former Cabinet Office minister who oversaw government policy when David Cameron was prime minister and who is now a backbencher, sounded rather non-committal on the World at One just now when asked about grammar schools. Cameron was opposed to opening brand new grammar schools. Letwin said that he personally was “perfectly content” to see the government explore the idea of expanding them, but he also said he was “completely agnostic” about whether one type of school was necessarily better than another.
5 thing we've learnt from Justine Greening's UQ on grammar schools
Ministers are often hauled to the Commons to answer an urgent question (UQ) when the government has floated a policy idea in the media but has not yet made a formal announcement. That is exactly what happened today, when Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, was granted a UQ on the back of the Telegraph splash. Normally the minister just turns up and tells MPs to wait until the formal policy paper is published, and in many respects that’s what Justine Greening, the education secretary, was doing today, but these sessions can be nevertheless be quite illuminating and today’s certainly was. Here are five things we learnt.
1 - Theresa May’s plan to “bring back grammar schools” is popular with Conservative MPs - but only up to a point. Most of the Tory MPs who spoke expressed support for grammar schools. But the very first backbencher to be called, and arguably the most important on this issue, Neil Carmichael, the Conservative who chairs the Commons education committee, expressed strong reservations. Telling Greening that the UK was well down the table in international literacy and numeracy league tables, he went on:
It is absolutely necessary for any discussion about grammar schools to not distract us from that fundamental task that we have of improving social mobility and making sure that we have the best use of all of the talent across the whole country and not just talk about the few.
Sir Desmond Swayne, a former PPS to David Cameron and certainly no Tory leftie, told Greening that he would not fancy having to face parents in his constituency who could not get their children into a local grammar school. (See 11.14am.) And Lucy Allan, another Conservative, demanded an assurance that there would be no return to the days of the 11-plus. (See 11.07am.)
2 - Greening herself seems to sceptical about championing a grammar school renaissance. Some Labour MPs said they thought Greening sounded distinctly lukewarm about the policy she was supposed to be defending and they were right. Greening kept stressing the importance of having an open mind on the matter of educational reform and she said nothing to suggest that she is a grammar school enthusiast (while, quite cleverly, also avoiding sounding disloyal to May.) In fact, Greening even seemed reluctant to use the term “grammar school”, instead preferring to talk about selection.
3 - A full return to a grammar school system seems to be off the table - although the government is considering letting more grammar schools open and extending the principle of selection in state education. Greening was not specific about much, but she did make it very clear that the government was not planning a full return to the grammar/secondary modern era. She said:
There will be no return to the simplistic, binary choice of the past where schools separate children into winners and losers, successes or failures. This government wants to focus on the future, to build on our success since 2010 and to create a truly 21st century schools system.
And when asked if she would return to the days of the 11-plus, she replied:
I can assure you that there will be no return to the past. This is about moving forward. This is about having a 21st century approach to our school system, precisely not one that is rooted in the 1960s and 1970s.
But Greening did say: “We do think selection can play a role.” It could be that May is keen to talk about grammar schools is because the phrase is popular with the public. (See 10.08am.) But whether the government’s proposals really do involve a large number of new grammar schools, in the traditional meaning of the word, remains to be seen.
4 - Labour is remarkably united in strongly opposing grammar schools. By my count only one Labour MP expressed some support for the government’s idea (Kate Hoey) and otherwise it was striking how MPs from all wings of the party spoke out very strongly against the idea. Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, was particularly effective. She told Greening:
Can you tell the House what evidence you have to support your belief that grammar schools will help disadvantaged children and close the attainment gap? At a time when our schools are facing a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, with the thousands taught in super-sized classes and schools facing real-term cuts to their budget for the first time in nearly two decades, pushing ahead with grammar schools shows a dangerous misunderstanding of the real issues facing our schools.
This makes it all the more surprising that Jeremy Corbyn chose not to raise the grammar school issue at PMQs yesterday. Perhaps he chose to avoid the subject because his son attended one, and his head of strategy and communications Seumas Milne sent his children to grammar schools. Given that Corbyn’s second marriage broke up because he did not want his son to go to a grammar school, he could argue that his opposition to grammar schools is so strong and sincere that it has led to great sacrifice. But it is understandable why someone very reluctant to discuss his family in public may have decided it was a subject best avoided at PMQs.
5 - The Tories will try to turn this into an issue of what works versus ideology. Greening did not really engage with the arguments raised about grammar schools and social mobility. Instead, she just argued that it was sensible to have a debate, and she accused Labour of being dogmatic.
It would be wrong to discount how we can improve prospects for those children, especially the most disadvantaged, purely because of political dogma. If Labour is not willing to ask itself these difficult questions, how can it possibly come up with any of the solutions?
Updated
Here is my colleague Heather Stewart on Justine Greening’s UQ.
Justine Greening sounding less-than-enthusiastic about grammars in House. She's "open-minded"; no return to the "binary choice" of past.
— Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather) September 8, 2016
And this is from Freddie Whittaker, political reporter for Schools Week.
Lots of Tory MPs shocking the nation by saying that they want grammar schools because they a) went to one or b) have them in constituency
— Freddie Whittaker (@FCDWhittaker) September 8, 2016
The grammar schools UQ is now over.
I will post a summary shortly.
Philip Hollobone, a Conservative, asks if Greening backs the Tory manifesto commitment to allow all good schools to expland. Greening says she does support that.
Peter Bone, a Conservative, says there were no new announcements of policy at the Conservative backbench 1922 committee last night. He would be the first to object if there had been, he says.
Greening says, when the new policy is announced, she will make a statement to the Commons.
Labour’s Clive Efford says investment in early years education does more for social mobility than anything done at 11. Does the government regret closing 800 Sure Start centres.
Greening says it is not a matter of either/or. The government can focus on both.
Labour’s Chris Matheson says you cannot have selection and parental choice. So has the government abandoned parental choice?
Greening says Matheson should wait until the proposals are actually published.
David Nuttall, a Conservative, says grammar schools will not survive if parents do not choose them. But poorer parents should have the same choices as richer ones.
Greening agrees. It would be wrong to take something off the table because of “political ideology”.
Updated
Labour’s Tom Blenkinsop asks how bringing back grammar schools will help the government’s industrial strategy.
Greening says education is critical to the government’s industrial strategy.
Labour’s Kate Green says that her constituency has grammar schools, but that parents of children with special needs feel their children are excluded from them.
Greening says this is an incredibly important point.
Kevin Foster, a Conservative, says there is nothing radical about extending grammar schools.
Greening says she wants a practical debate not an ideological debate.
But Ukip’s Douglas Carswell has tweeting in favour of grammar schools.
Lot of folk criticising grammar schools. Great. So don't send your kids there. Live your life, not other people's
— Douglas Carswell MP (@DouglasCarswell) September 8, 2016
Here is Labour’s Yvette Cooper on Greening’s statement.
Justine Greening shd have the guts to stand up to TMay against this awful plan. Return of grammars divisive & unfair https://t.co/nod8LSaIWL
— Yvette Cooper (@YvetteCooperMP) September 8, 2016
Labour’s Ben Bradshaw says he has not heard Greening explicitly back Theresa May’s policy. Is Greening aware of any evidence that shows grammar schools improve attainment across the board or social mobility?
Greening says the government’s plans have not been published. She quotes Sutton Trust report saying selective schools did not damage other schools around them.
Chris Philp, a Conservative, says he went to a London grammar and owes his place in the Commons to that. He asks Greening to back a new grammar in his constituency.
Greening say she wants to give good schools more freedom to expand.
Labour’s Nic Dakin says Margaret Thatcher said 11 was too early to make decisions that determine a child’s entire future.
Greening says Dakin should wait for the policy options being published by the government.
Gareth Johnson, a Conservative, says schools can select on ability in performing art, art or music but not maths. How can that be right?
Greening says Johnson is right.
John Pugh, the Lib Dem, says the biggest problem in education is under-performing boys. How will grammar schools help?
Greening says her department has more than one policy for tackling under-achievement.
She says the Sutton Trust has done some good research on what can be done to improve boy’s academic performance.
Greening says government’s plan will not involve bringing back secondary moderns
Labour’s Vernon Coaker says bringing back grammar schools means bringing back secondary moderns. How can that be right?
Greening says she does not accept that. Some secondary moderns did not enter any pupils for exams. The education system has changed enormously, she says. She says this is about a modern approach to education.
- Greening says government’s plan will not involve bringing back secondary moderns.
Sir Desmond Swayne, a Conservative, says grammar schools will not suit every area. He says he would not welcome telling parents in some towns in his constituency that, if their children do not get into the grammar school, they will have to be bused elsewhere.
Greening says local communities will have to be involved in these discussions.
Labour’s Pat McFadden says where there is failure and disadvantaged, the answer should not be “this festival of bring-backery”. Instead the government should focus excellence in all schools.
Greening urges McFadden to wait until the government’s plans are published. But Labour are opposing all change, she says.
Julian Lewis, a Conservative, says he attended a grammar school with a mostly working-class intake. Why is it acceptable to nurture sporting excellence but not academic excellence?
Greening says parents should be able to find not just a good school, but a good school for their child.
Labour’s Kevin Brennan asks Greening if Sir Michael Wilshaw was being ideological when he said the idea that grammar schools boost social mobility is “tosh”.
Greening says people will have different views. But we should have a debate, she says. She says it is important to do more to raise attainment.
Greening rules out return to the old 11-plus system
Lucy Allan, a Conservative, asks for an assurance that there will be no return to the 11-plus.
Greening says there will be “no return to the past”. The government wants a system suited to the 21st century.
- Greening rules out return to the old 11-plus system.
The Labour MP Kate Hoey says that she went to a grammar school and that the government is right not to rule out extending grammar schools. She says Greening should visit Northern Ireland, where grammar schools are extremely popular.
Greening thanks Hoey. She may visit Northern Ireland, she says. She accepts that this is a very emotive debate. But she is keen to look at all the options. The government will be setting out its plans shortly.
The Labour MP Chris Bryant also thinks Justine Greening does not sound very enthusiastic about bringing back grammar schools.
This waffly statement from the Education Secretary suggests she doesn't really support Mrs May's divisive plans for grammars.
— Chris Bryant MP (@RhonddaBryant) September 8, 2016
The Labour MP Hilary Benn says the best thing we can do for young people is to encourage them. He says grammar schools are divisive. Why does Greening think it would be good to go back to a situation where children are told they have failed at 11.
Greening says the last Labour government left a legacy of grade inflation and other problems with education.
The Labour MP Barry Sheerman, who used to chair the education committee, says Greening should listen to the evidence, which shows that grammar schools do not help disadvantaged pupils. Look at Kent, he says.
Greening says Kent is trying to get more disadvantaged pupils into grammar schools.
But Sheerman objects to grammar schools on principles, she says. She says it is better to focus on the practicalities.
This is from Lucy Powell, the Labour MP and former shadow education secretary.
And clear from her statement that @JustineGreening is far from convinced about grammars. Seemed almost annoyed!
— Lucy Powell MP (@LucyMPowell) September 8, 2016
Greening says “selection can play a role” and criticises Labour for rejecting it on the grounds of “dogma”
Greening says Rayner seems to be criticising the status quo, while wanting to keep it.
She says Rayner reminds her of the voices she heard on education when she was growing up.
To complain about the school system, but then to object to a debate about reforming it, is illogical, she says.
She says Labour is being ideological. She says the government is interested in practical solutions.
It would be wrong to avoid considering selection because of dogma.
We do believe selection can play a role.
The government will set out its plans, she says. MPs can then debate them.
- Greening says “selection can play a role” and criticises Labour for rejecting it on the grounds of “dogma”.
Angela Rayner says the cat is out of the bag; we now know the government’s policy.
She says the evidence shows that grammar schools do not help disadvantaged pupils.
This policy will not help social mobility but will entrench inequality and social disadvantage.
She says Theresa May promised to lead a one nation government, she promised to follow the evidence, and she promised to govern in the interests of the many, not the few. But this policy fails on every measure.
Justine Greening responds to urgent question on grammar school
Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, asks for an urgent question on grammar schools.
Justine Greening, the education secretary, says education is at the heart of the government’s plans to create a system that works for everyone.
But Labour left the education system in a poor state, she says. Since then, standards have risen, she says.
She says she is “open-minded” on selection in schools.
But there will be no return to the “binary choice” of the past, where pupils are divided into winners or losers.
The government is looking at a range of options, she says.
- Greening says government looking at “a range of options” and that she is “open-minded” about selection.
- She says there will be no return to the “binary choice” of the past, where pupils are divided into winners or losers.
Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, has also condemned Theresa May’s reported views on grammar schools. In a statement he said:
Theresa May’s argument for grammar schools is so flawed that it does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny. A postcode lottery is not fixed by creating a different discriminator
I assumed that grammar schools were the obsession of a few on the right of the Tory who party who seem to want to stop the world as they want to get off, but it seems this thinking has seeped into Number 10.
You can see clearly that without the Liberal Democrats to restrain the Tories they are showing their true colours: divisive and uncaring.
We need to make every school excellent, support every child and make sure every young person has the aspiration to succeed. If Theresa May suddenly cares about inclusive education she should extend Liberal Democrat achievements in the coalition such as free early years education, the pupil premium and free school dinners.
Fox says he would consider hiring foreigner to head international trade department
In the Commons Liam Fox has just said he will have an open, international competition to find a new official to head the new international trade department.
- Fox says he would consider hiring foreigner to head international trade department.
Updated
Government trying to make 11-plus tests 'less susceptible to coaching', minister says
In the House of Lords yesterday Lord Nash, an education minister, answered a private notice question (the Lords equivalent of an urgent question) on grammar schools.
He did not give many details away about the government’s policy, but he made two interesting points.
- Nash claimed there was “no clear evidence” to support the anti-grammar school views of Sir Michael Wilshaw, the outgoing Ofsted chief.
I am a great fan of Sir Michael Wilshaw and he has done an excellent job as chief inspector. He is right to pinpoint the great transformation in London schools, started under a Labour government through their London Challenge and academies programme, which we have sought to continue. In fact there is no clear evidence to support his views but, as I have said, we are keeping an open mind. We are aware of the strength of grammar schools and would like more free school meals pupils going to them.
- He said the government was trying to make the 11-plus tests “less susceptible to coaching”.
As always, the noble baroness makes a very good point, relating to coaching for tests. We are working with the Grammar School Heads Association to see whether we can develop tests that are much less susceptible to coaching. Some 66 grammar schools now prioritise free school meals applications.
Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, has put out a statement about Theresa May’s reported comments about grammar schools. (See 9.10am.) She says that, if May is talking about introducing “an element of selection” in state schools, she does not understand how the system works. Keates said:
There is already more than an ‘element’ of selection in the system. Selection is deeply rooted and the warnings on the adverse impact on social mobility are too late.
The education policies of the previous coalition government, continued by this one, premised on extensive and excessive autonomy for schools and the obsessive pursuit of deregulation, have rapidly increased covert selection, often targeted at pupils from materially deprived backgrounds.
Sending out strong advance signals to prospective families that if their child obtains a place at the school they will be expected to make significant financial contributions to school funds, requirements to purchase uniforms from expensive sole suppliers and charging for educational activities are all strategies of covert selection.
It is now a reality that access to education for some children and young people is based on their parents’ ability to pay.
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, is taking questions in the Commons for the first time now. Tom Brake, the Lib Dem MP, has just asked about the trade negotiators Fox’s department will be forming. Brake said that he had been speaking to a headhunter recently - prompting laughter from MPs who thought he might be contemplating an alternative career. That was not what he meant, Brake said.
Fox did not give details of how many trade negotiators he would be hiring, but he said he did not want to create a big army of bureaucrats.
Updated
The Polling Digest website has published a helpful analysis of what the public think about grammar schools, based on two recent polls. It is worth reading in full, but here is the conclusion.
The basic conclusion from the recent polling data is that grammar schools generally receive more support in the polls than proposals to stop building grammar schools or close them down. However, it is certainly interesting to note that public opinion is quite nuanced; when people were confronted with two counterarguments to grammar schools, support was in some cases strong. What does this mean for the overall stance of public opinion? It could mean two things: first, it could suggest that public opinion is malleable and that if parties opposed to new grammar schools exploit that malleability, the voters may be turned away from grammar schools. Alternatively, though, it could suggest that while voters are clearly aware of the counterarguments to grammar schools – and have some degree of affinity with them – this is already baked in to the polling numbers; in other words, that voters know the problems with grammar schools but feel overall that grammar schools should still be opened.
Polling Digest also says that people “overwhelmingly agree that grammar schools help academic success and increase social mobility”. This is interesting because it is the exact opposite of what people who are experts in social mobility have been saying, like David Willetts here, or Alan Miliburn here. (Put more bluntly, the public are wrong.)
My colleague Sally Weale has written a very good article about what it is like for parents in Kent where children are sitting the 11-plus to see if they can get into grammar school.
There is an urgent question on grammar schools in the Commons at 10.30am.
UQ at 10.30 from @AngelaRayner asking @JustineGreening on Government plans to lift the statutory ban on opening new Grammar Schools in Eng
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) September 8, 2016
The speaker takes a dim view of ministers announcing policy on the front page of the Telegraph and not in the House of Commons chamber.
Tusk says UK should start Brexit talks with EU "asap"
Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, is meeting Theresa May in Number 10 this morning.
Meeting PM @theresa_may to inform about EU27 #Bratislavasummit and discuss process for Brexit talks pic.twitter.com/ANGuFY7wAC
— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) September 8, 2016
Our goal to establish closest possible EU-UK relations. Ball in UK court to start negotiations. In everybody's best interest to start asap
— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) September 8, 2016
Tusk is saying Britain should start its Brexit negotiations with the EU “asap”. He seems to be referring to triggering article 50, the formal process that starts the two-year withdrawal process. But May has already said she will not do that until early in the next year. It is not clear whether or not Tusk is suggesting that that timetable needs to be accelerated.
Updated
Theresa May addressed the Conservative backbench 1922 committee last night and she used the session to explain her plans to bring back grammar schools. According to today’s Telegraph splash, she told her MPs that she wanted a new generation of “inclusive” grammar schools.
According to sources at the meeting, she answered critics by saying: “We have already got selection haven’t we – it’s called ‘selection by house price’” ....
She will publish a green paper and give a major speech after telling MPs last night that she wants a new generation of grammar schools to be “inclusive and not exclusive”.
Mrs May said she wanted an education system that “catered for the different needs of all children” and indicated that grammar schools have a role to play. She suggested that some of the government’s 500 new free schools, announced by David Cameron shortly before he stepped down, could be grammars. “She said she didn’t want a situation where parents wanted a selective school only to be told they couldn’t have one,” a source at the meeting said.
Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, has been defending the government’s plans this morning. But Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister and former Lib Dem leader, and Ed Balls, the former shadow chancellor, have both used interviews this morning to criticise the plans. Clegg said:
I know they talked about grammar schools in their manifesto. They didn’t talk about extending selection to free schools and so on, which seems to be now what they intend to do. This is the danger of having a new government with new leadership and new priorities, not elected by the people, now foisting their own evidence-free prejudices upon us. There’s no evidence at all that that is the answer to many of the problems in our education system.
And Balls said:
To tell a kid at 10 or 11, you’re second best, they then have to arrive at that school and the teachers have a huge task to persuade them, you can still do well, you’ve still got talent, you’ve still got ability. You shouldn’t do that to kids at 10 or 11.
My colleague Jessica Elgot has a full update here.
I will post more on this as the debate moves on.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: NHS England publishes the latest hospital waiting figures.
9.30am: The Office for National Statistics publishes figures on zero-hours contracts.
10am: Liam Fox, the new international trade secretary, takes questions for the first time in the Commons.
11.15am: John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, publishes plans to reform HM Revenue & Customs.
3.30pm: Philip Hammond, the chancellor, gives evidence to the Lords economic affairs committee.
Later, at 9pm, Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith will be taking part in a BBC Question Time hustings. I will be covering that on a separate blog.
As usual, I will be covering the breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
Updated
