is in demand. there is a london is in demand. there is a waiting list to get in. these pupils are some of those who passed the test and secured their place.” cried, i was so happy. really relieved, because it is hard work across the whole year, everyone you know your ages doing it. when you getting it is quite a nice feeling. the head here knows grammar schools are controversial but says the idea of selecting children based on their ability does not have to be exclusive. are they in a grammar school because they are privileged? no, ithink school because they are privileged? no, i think that perception that we are full of white middle—class children is wrong, and grammar school have been doing a phenomenal amount of work in accessing disadvantaged students and creating opportunities for them. schools like this could now get funding to extra places if they take more disadvantaged pupils. it is part of a wider shakeup. the government has abandoned the plan to allow some schools to admit more pupils based on religion, but councils can bring

new faith schools. this is about ensuring there is enough good school places to satisfy demand as the population grows and moves to make sure we have good choice for parents around the country. but at the school gates is expanding grammar schools that is causing most talk.l lot of children today do struggle, and they need i—to—i extra money, anywhere across the curriculum would be helpful. £50 million is a good start but it is not enough. the government could put more money into it, which means they could help more children. but critics including the labour party say school budgets under huge pressure, this is the wrong priority. grammar schools are not at anything extra for pupils, ta ke not at anything extra for pupils, take some children that have been given tuition, who already have an advantage over other children, and leaves everybody else left hind. so u nfortu nately leaves everybody else left hind. so unfortunately the government have shown they are ideological driven to help the selective few. because there is opposition to selective

education, the conservatives had to ditch what had been a key election promise, to lift the ban on new grammar schools altogether. they we re grammar schools altogether. they were worried they could not get the idea through parliament, so this is a slimmed down version. the money forgrammar a slimmed down version. the money for grammar school expansion was already in the pipeline, it might find a few thousand new places but it is not the sweetening education reforms —— sweeping education reforms —— sweeping education reforms the government had hoped. but whatever the political arguments, the pupils here know how they describe their school.” arguments, the pupils here know how they describe their school. i would say diversity. inclusive. iwould say diversity. inclusive. iwould say challenging. in a good way? yeah. i would say enjoyable, i really enjoy it. now it's time for newsnight with emily maitlis. yet more evidence of the government's hostile environment policy going wrong. newsnight has found that dozens of asylum seekers have been told — wrongly — that they no longer have a right to an education. newsnight has been told by asylum charities of over 50 cases

where a study ban has been imposed that shouldn't have been, and many believe these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. we speak to the polish president's chief of staff. you know the concern that poland and hungary are moving towards a creeping authoritarianism now. what would you say to our viewers about that? keep calm. nothing like this happens in poland. and this... what's up, baby? why you looking all sad? come here. # i see nothing wrong # with a little bump and grind # # i see nothing wrong...

the music streaming service spotify has removed r—kelly from its curated playlists for "hateful behaviour". but was it right to? we'll discuss. good evening. an investigation by this programme has forced the home office to radically rethink the guidance it has offered to many of those studying in this country. newsnight has come across case after case of people who were being incorrectly denied education — from english language courses, to a levels — even degrees — after the government's hostile environment policy effectively barred asylum seekers from attending courses or exams. asylum seekers are not allowed to work whilst their cases are pending. for some, study is their one vital connection with the outside world.

after repeatedly showing the home office evidence of this policy failure, they told us today its implementation was wrong and would now be changed. tonight, we see how far the ramifications of this damaging policy have gone — as experts tell us they believe the cases could run into hundreds even perhaps thousands. james clayton has this exclusive report. if you're a student, you don't expect to be told by the government that you can't study any more. but a new home office policy has done just that. bail has been used in the criminaljustice system for hundreds of years. but injanuary this year, bail was extended. almost everyone applying for asylum in this country was now to be put on immigration bail. for those claiming asylum it used to be that when they made their application, they were granted something called temporary admission and this has now changed. we now know that they are granted immigration bail. of course the word bail has

all of these connotations of criminality that previously didn't exist for asylum seekers. in the last few weeks newsnight has found evidence of systematic problems in the way in which immigration bail has been rolled out, specifically the removal of the rights to study for many asylum seekers, something that never should have. something that never should have happened. this is what the immigration bailform looks like. complete with a study restriction. and this is what it says will happen to you if you don't comply. the form was sent to ibrahim, an asylum seeker from northern africa, four weeks ago. we've agreed to protect his identity as he fears talking may damage his asylum claim. i got the letter before my exam, two weeks before my exams, so i couldn't study and i couldn't have my exams. you're not allowed to work. yes. you're also not allowed to study. what does that feel like? feel like angry and depression, sometimes i cry. sometimes i'm thinking

about other things, thinking i would kill myself. i can't study, so what am i going to do? this is the one way i can make my life better but now even they closed one way. the day before ibrahim's exam, his study restriction was removed after judicial review. reading the letter was like, why? what is this? but newsnight has spoken to others like ibrahim with similar experiences of people who should never have been told they couldn't study. we asked the home office whether they kept figures on immigration bail. we were told that they weren't routinely published. and the study ban should only be applied to people who have exhausted their asylum appeal. so, we asked asylum charities up and down the country what they'd found.

this is what we were told by one charity in halifax. we have 400 asylum seekers housed in calderdale. we see an average about 50 asylum seekers each week is coming to our offices and for every single one of the bail forms that i've seen has the restriction on study. i've personally seen about 20. and in birmingham, asylum matters looked into how many people were getting a study ban with another charity. we found that 45 people's forms, out of 45 people's forms, 28 of them had the restriction on study and the vast majority of the people that access that service, 90% are people that have got a pending asylum claim and therefore they're an asylum seeker. when this legislation was going through parliament, the government said very clearly that the use of the study restriction should never be rolled out in this way. as this letter shows to lord rosser from the advocate general for scotland. the power is not, as was suggested, but trying to deny education. we do not intend to impose,

through the use of the power, a blanket ban on asylum seekers accessing education. in total, newsnight has been told by asylum charities of over 50 cases where a study ban has been imposed that shouldn't have been, and many believe these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. so many of these cases will go unseen. only those who already have connections with lawyers or support organisations will have someone to turn to to discuss the fact they've been given no study conditions. there are plenty of young people, for example, who don't have access to that kind of support and we won't hear about those cases. if i could stress to the noble lord that anyone... on wednesday, two weeks after we first approached the home office with evidence of asylum seekers receiving a study ban, home office minister baroness williams finally admitted there was a problem. there may be cases who inadvertently have actually fallen foul of a study

restriction and as i said before, it's not mandatory to impose a restriction on study and it should only be imposed where appropriate. the home office has now updated its guidance to immigration officials, saying... what the new guidance suggests to us is that the old guidance wasn't clear and possibly incorrect, that the home office officials that were trying to fill out the immigration bail papers given to asylum seekers didn't really understand what they were supposed to be filling out. it's notjust immigration officials that seem to be somewhat confused. take this e—mail from leicester university students. leicester university to students. previously asylum seekers at any stage in the process could study however updated guidance from the home office states

that we are not permitted to use immigration bail conditions to let you study. that is not true. if you're an asylum seeker, you can study. the university of leicester said they were just trying to follow the previous home office guidance. we simply don't know how many people this affects or how many asylum seekers are hauled out of courses. one immigration lawyer told me this could affect hundreds and possibly thousands of people. we did ask the home office for an interview but they declined — they told us, "the provisions are not designed to be used to prevent asylum seekers studying and we are proactively looking to identify cases where this may have happened so that we can correct it. we have updated our guidance and will take steps will make sure such an issue does not arise in the future." i am nowjoined in the studio by baroness hamwee. she is the liberal democrats immigration spokesperson

in the house of lords and brought this to the attention of the government in parliament on wednesday. thank you forjoining us. what is your thought this evening hearing what has happened now? relieved for the people who have been affected by this bit anxious that all of those who have been affected should be told what their rights are. this group of students, refugees, asylum seekers, so often are keen to throw themselves into education, to make their way in this country, and to contribute to this country. they often say we are grateful to be allowed to come here, and to be told that they must stop their education, sometimes the night before they were due to take an exam, must have taken the ground from under theirfeet. so when the government says if people have a problem they should get in touch, is that enough? no, it is not enough. the government should know who these people are, unless their records are very bad, to have issued the bail condition in the first place, they must know.

and it is up to them. the minister used the word proactive and they should take active and urgent steps to contact the people affected. there will be some people watching tonight, and we know the grammar school question is going on and they will say we know all these resources are incredibly limited. why should resources go towards asylum seekers rather than residents? we have a moral duty in this country to look after people who seek sanctuary here. these people are seeking to come into the country as refugees. helping them to learning blish helps them integrate and we hear a lot of discussion about the importance of refugees integrating. and to deny them the basic tools if they stay, and many of them do, to help them contribute to, if you like the economy of the country, at its most basic.

you would accept that this is not an isolated incident, this is part of not only a government policy, but if you like a political culture that seemed to have to toughen up its response to immigration across all parties, including your own party? the tone of this must have come from the top. i suspect home office officials are very overloaded but they are taking the line that they think that their masters are seeking them to pursue. do you mean the mistresses, do you mean theresa may who was there at the time? yes, yes. the term hostile environment came into currency when she was the home secretary, and although we are not supposed to use that term any longer, it is going to leave a case for a very long time. although they will make clear it was not a deliberate policy,

it was a misinterpretation? but if people were so careless as to misinterpret and think they needn't pay enough attention as to what the detail of the policy is, doesn't that say something about the culture within the home office? do you think your own party did not do enough when it was in power. it had five years of being in a brilliant league position and place of power to talk about this if it had chosen to? i think all politicians find it difficult to talk about. yes, of course, i wish we had been able to do more on a number of subjects, but when you are the junior partner in a coalition, there has to be a limit. and i saw quite a lot of home office legislation that things had been pulled back. for instance, the right to rent stop immigrants having to prove that they were entitled to be in the country. we got that turned into a pilot so it was not applying. we managed some achievements.

baroness hamwee, thank you for coming in. whatever we think about the european union in this country, for much of eastern europe it's a club many are still desperate tojoin. albania and macedonia are the latest applying for membership. they know it will be dependent on meeting criteria and conditions — democracy, rule of law, an independentjudiciary and a free press, at the very least. but what happens when those who've already earned their membership start to move toward a creeping authoritarianism, erosion of the very standards the eu seeks to promote? when poland and hungaryjoined the eu 14 long years ago, it promised to be more than just a summer of love. after years of knocking on the door, the moment had come. these formerly eastern bloc countries would seal their liberal credentials, joining the most powerful club in europe. for a decade or so, the promises broadly held. but today, the eu finds itself being tested

by the creeping authoritarianism of its member states. hungarian pm viktor orban is back in power with a resounding victory after campaigning on an anti—immigration platform. he too has moved to shut down his opposition. poland's ruling party is attempting to muddy the independence of its judiciary and silence its free press. the law and justice party have promised to the people that they would build a better state, that they would reform the state. but instead of that they have been building, for the past three years, something like an alternative state and they are clearly running out of resources. copying mr orban is, i think, not in the interests of poland and the polish society and the polish citizens. why you are leaving? no, because i have to say something to you. so, how should the eu respond? leaders know that punitive measures

risk pushing the two countries away. but ignoring their behaviour contravenes everything that the union represents. its strongest card is to suspend poland's voting rights in eu summits but it needs hungary to see that through and as an ally of poland, hungary has already promised a veto. after his landslide, viktor orban was emboldened to take his message to the eu, telling it to give up its "delusional nightmares" of a the united states of europe and to change its thinking on migration. so far, the eu's disciplinary measures have fallen on deaf ears. it may now choose to withhold funding from member states which don't keep to the rules. in poland, eu money makes up 61% of infrastructure spending and 55% in hungary. would this curb the two countries? and set an example to potential future member states? or could it cement the east—west rift rocking the very foundations on which the eu was built?

this afternoon i sat down with krzysztof szczerski, the president of poland's chief of staff. i started by asking him if, after 14 years in the european union, is it still a club that poland wants to be a part of? yes, of course. poland knows the benefits of unity of europe. when europe was divided, we were the victims of the division of europe. a united europe is good for us. and yet you know that the eu feels that you are no longer playing by its rules, that the independence of thejudiciary is being eroded now, that the press and the media are no longer free? we are in a dialogue with all those assumptions. it is not based on the facts as we believe, but on the assumptions that we want to clarify and if it is needed, we are ready to make changes to polish internal law like thejudiciary. they're in a dialogue

with the commissioner. it should end up before we start a discussion on the future of europe and the future of a financial perspective for europe, because this is what is real. when you talk about clarification, the european commission said your reforms mean the judiciary is now under political control of your ruling party. they can't tolerate that. that was not the aim of the reform. it was just make it more efficient, the majority of the polish society surely agrees that the polish judiciary is not working well. but to bring it under political control, that sends out a real warning now that you don't value its independence. you're presenting one of the opinions, i'm presenting the other one. i am saying this is not the way the reforms should be regarded. that was not the aim of the reform, it was just make it efficient. and you know it is not me presenting this argument, it is the eu, and it is meps voting in favour of invoking article seven,

which would actually take away poland's voting rights. that is how serious this has become now. i do hope that this vote will never happen. that is why we are working with the commission so it will end up before it gets to the council for voting. this is the sentiment among the capitals of europe also. the states of europe do not want this vote to happen. poland is the biggest beneficiary in terms of eu funding. at the moment, the eu is threatening to cut that now. either you follow their rules, or you get yourfunding cut, so which will it be? poland is the biggest beneficiary of the eu funds and we have no concern... so you don't worry that you are going to get yourfunding cut? the only thing we're worried about is this close, this condition is too generous. we want it to be specified and we want it to be really addressed to the financial management and the anti—corru ption of legal systems in the beneficial member states, because this is also

in our interest. you know the concern of the eu is that poland and hungary are moving towards a creeping authoritarianism now, which is out of step with what the eu believes in. what would you say to our viewers about that? keep calm. and nothing like this happens in poland. in poland, the voters decided and gave the mandate and the legitimacy for the current government to rule over the country, and on the specific political platform that was introduced in the campaign. and this political platform is now realised, so it is exactly what should happen in a democracy. and if the eu doesn't like what it sees in poland, what is your message to the eu then? you should like what you have, because poland is the important member state of the european union.

poland is a devoted european state, a very pro—european society, 80% of the poles support the european union. so this is actually the reservoir of energy for europe. we are part of the family and of course, you can this way or another, exchange opinions about your members of the family, but we are a family and you have to love your family. but what is the point of being part of this club whose values of freedoms and liberties you don't entirely share? we believe in the four freedoms of europe, also the free movement of goods, people, services and money. so we believe this should be kept. everyone is welcome to poland to come, look and see that this is the country of the happy people living as they want to live, and making the political choices as they want to make political choices.

what will you do to work with britain now in its brexit arrangements? we want to keep the ties with britain. of course, this needs negotiations. this needs practical arrangements. the devil is in the detail as always. it is a long way ahead of us, but britain can... should believe in poland as their ally. the important thing is that britain is still part of the west. it still has assets in europe. europe has its assets in britain, especially in the sphere of defence and security. and you have brought me finally, on that note, to relations with russia now. there is a lot of fear among eu member states of russia and its actions. where does poland stand? we are the first, as the border country, we are the first exposed to the offensive capacities being built by russia and we have to respond to that by balancing his offensive capacity

is by our defensive capacities so we are secure. thank you very much. spotify has spoken and its made a deicison. it will no longer have r&b star r kelly on its playlist. # i see nothing wrong # with a little bump and grind # i see nothing wrong # baby # i see nothing wrong...# it's part of its new hate content and hateful conduct policy — in other words — spotify, the world's biggest music streaming service, believes its musicians have to earn their place through decency of character. r kelly has been dogged for years by sexual assault allegations, which he denies. spotify says the new global policy is designed to remove anything that expressly and prinicipally promotes

advocates or incites hatred or violence. so once you've started making value judgments about the moral worth of your artists, where do you stop? joining me now, ali shahid muhmmed from us hip hop group joining me now, ali shahid muhammed from us hip hop group a tribe called quest. nice to speak to you. do you think spotify is right? thanks for inviting me. i just want to say from the beginning that although my podcast is on spotify exclusively, my opinions are solely my opinions. understood. so i think spotify is right, i think they're in a very precarious position considering the state of the world right now in terms of questioning morality on all sides. and especially because they are partially owned by record companies, so it's like the record companies censoring themselves and that's not something...

i was going to say that isn't normal, but that's not true. often, at least speaking from a hip—hop group, there have been times when we have submitted music that the record company has said, hey, the content might be a bit a little strong, you may want to reconsider. spotify, because they aren't the record company, they are a streaming service, a distribution service, and again, as i stated, partially opened by the record company, but taking a position that hasn't been taken before. i think they are right. i can't say they are right but because censorship exists, at least in america, i don't know how it's done in the uk, across music, across movies and television, certain content, given labels that will allow it to be seen or not. i think that's where we are now. so let me ask you, what effect do

you think it will have on those singers who don't make it onto the list? do you think r kelly will change the way he writes? do you think it will make these artists less popular or more popular? i think obviously if you want to make it on a list that is extremely popular and you don't fit the requirements then as an artist you may opt to or not opt to because you may feel that you have artistic license to be able to express yourself in any way. and you may decide that there are other platforms that may be better suited for your art. will he change his music? i don't know. i think for spotify to take the position of saying... and to be clear, they aren't removing r kelly's music

from spotify, it's just certain playlists that they promote. i think it's a good exercise, you know, because i think for all artists, you have to be challenged as to what is the purpose of your art and if you question yourself and feel that your art is making a specific purpose and you articulate it and make a great argument for it then other companies the interesting thing about this, before it was the market that decided that — if i don't like your music i can choose whether to listen or not, but now you have a publisher or platform being the kind

of moral editor. are you comfortable with that? i'm comfortable... firstly we have to understand that spotify is a corporation. am i comfortable with a corporation deciding for its own platform the rules, yeah because i don't own it. if artists owned the platform, to take a strong attitude would make sense, but we don't own it. it is something our music is distributed on. that's my personal opinion. personally because i'm an artist, when i create, i have a high standard of morality and a sense of responsibility. for me personally, i try to make sure that it something that's going to be truthful and helpful. that's me. other artists may feel less inclined and feel they don't want to have these governors stifling my art and expression. so they may take a different position.