Commenting on the release of statistics on school places by the Department for Education, Priti Patel MP said:

‘The shortage of school places – with one in six children in England missing out on a place at their top choice of secondary school – is yet another example of how uncontrolled migration is putting unsustainable pressures on our public services. Education is one of the most important things that Government delivers, and it’s deeply regrettable that so many families and young people have been let down in this way.

‘The truth is that for as long as we remain a member of the EU we are completely unable to control the numbers of people coming to this country – and with another five countries in the pipeline to join the EU, including Turkey, Serbia and Albania, the problem can only get worse.

‘The only way to take back control of our borders is to vote to leave the EU on the 23 June. We can also take back control of the £350 million we send to the EU every single week, and reinvest it in our vital public services. This is yet another example of how Britain can look forward to a more prosperous, more secure future if we Vote Leave.’

The Department for Education has today published statistics on secondary and primary school applications and offers.

• The proportion of first preference offers for 11 year olds is in decline.

• The number of applications continues to increase.

• Immigration is continuing to rise.

• The EU’s free movement rules are placing an unprecedented burden on our schools, resulting in a growing shortage of school places.

The proportion of first preference offers for 11 year olds is in decline.

84.1% of 11-year-olds across the country were given a spot at their first preference, compared with 86.7% in 2013.

This means that around one in six children in England missed out on a place at their top choice of secondary school this year.

This is particularly acute in London, where the proportion of applicants receiving an offer of their first choice school in 2016 was 68.8%, down from 68.9% in 2015.

The number of applications continues to increase.

548,006 applications were received for a place at secondary school in 2016, nearly 50,000 more than the 2013 figure of 499,968.

Immigration is continuing to rise.

The UK population is rapidly expanding as a result of migration from the EU. Since 2004, 1.25 million persons have been added to the population, more than the population of Birmingham.

In 2015, 270,000 persons came to the UK from the EU. This is the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle. This is up from 264,000 in 2014.

In 2015, net migration from the EU was 184,000. This is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Oxford to the UK population. This is up from 174,000 in 2014.

Total net migration in 2015 was 333,000, up from 313,000 in 2014 (ONS, 26 May 2016, link).

The EU’s free movement rules are placing an unprecedented burden on our schools, resulting in a growing shortage of school places.

The Local Government Association says that two out of five council areas will not have enough primary school places by September 2016.

Commenting on Alan Johnson’s remarks on immigration on The Today Programme, Tom Watson’s comments to the BBC, and Rachel Reeves’s comments on The Daily Politics, Labour MP John Mann said:

‘David Cameron failed to achieve any reform of the European Union – particularly in the area of border control. He asked them to change their open borders policy, but the resounding answer was no.

‘While some in the In campaign are desperately trying to hang on to the idea that Cameron’s renegotiation could reduce immigration, senior Labour figures are openly admitting defeat on this issue – and calling for a change to the EU’s obsession with freedom of movement.

‘While it is welcome that they are finally admitting that uncontrolled migration is a problem, the truth is that they still have no solutions. If Cameron’s “renegotiation” told us one thing, it is that the EU will not move on this founding principle.

‘The only way to take back control of our borders and introduce an Australian style points based immigration system is to Vote Leave on 23 June.’

• Leading members of the IN campaign are now calling for restrictions on free movement and admitting David Cameron’s deal was a sham.

• Changes to free movement are impossible within the EU. David Cameron didn’t win any concessions despite the threat of leaving the EU.

• IN campaigners have previously accepted restrictions on free movement are impossible within the EU and its ‘single market’.

• Freedom of movement drives down wages.

• The Home Secretary, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and the OECD have said that mass migration has brought no discernible fiscal benefits.

• Leading IN campaigners have previously praised uncontrolled immigration from the EU stating it is the solution to our problems.

• Alan Johnson claimed Turkey could join the EU without free movement. This is false.

• Alan Johnson claimed juxtaposed border controls at Calais would end. The French Interior Minister has said they will continue.

• Alan Johnson wanted the UK to join the single currency. This would have been a disaster.

Leading members of the IN campaign are now calling for restrictions on free movement and admitting David Cameron’s deal was a sham.

Tom Watson has suggested that curbs on free movement may be needed today. BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg has said: ‘Watson-voters been “telling us for a long time” party needs to do more on immigration, suggests any future govt need to curb freedom of movt’.

IN campaigner Rachel Reeves said today: ‘there are huge problems in the European Union at the moment. I am not that saying everything is fine. I think this referendum is a wake up call to the European Union, to the British Government that things have to be done differently on freedom of movement’.

Yesterday, former Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, recognised that free movement was causing problems, stating we need to ‘put new controls on economic migration’.

Leading IN campaigner, Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, whose is married to pro-EU lobbyist Nick Clegg has claimed that the agreement in February was a ‘Mickey Mouse negotiation that the Prime Minister did’.

Alan Johnson has also admitted the renegotiation is a ‘sham’. When asked by Evan Davies whether the renegotiation ‘is a bit of a sham?’, Alan Johnson replied ‘I think so’.

Changes to free movement are impossible within the EU. David Cameron didn’t win any concessions despite the threat of leaving the EU.

EU law provides that: ‘Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States’.

The European Commission states that: ‘free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of the Treaty’. The Council of Ministers argues that: ‘the free movement of persons is a fundamental pillar of EU policy and that the internal market and its four freedoms are indivisible’.

The Prime Minister promised to change this before his ‘renegotiation’. His final deal contained no changes to free movement.

In his 2014 conference speech, Cameron said: ‘Numbers that have increased faster than we in this country wanted at a level that was too much for our communities, for our labour markets. All of this has to change – and it will be at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe. Britain, I know you want this sorted so I will go to Brussels, I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement – I will get what Britain needs’.

IN campaigners have previously accepted restrictions on free movement are impossible within the EU and the so-called ‘single market’.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has said it is impossible to be in the EU or the ‘single market’ ‘without accepting the free movement of people. That is an absolutely clear principle, which has been made very starkly clear to this country by Germany and France, and is internationally accepted’.

Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, has said ‘part of the deal of being part of the European Union is free movement of workers… we have a need for people to come in’.

The Executive Director of the IN campaign, Will Straw, has said: ‘we cannot end free movement, end budget contributions or unilaterally ignore EU regulations’.

Freedom of movement drives down wages.

The Bank of England has found that ‘the immigrant to native ratio has a small negative impact on average British wage’. The study found that ‘immigrants in recent years are most predominant in low-skill occupations’. The study concluded that: ‘the biggest effect is in the semi/unskilled services sector, where a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2 percent reduction in pay’.

The Chairman of the IN campaign, Lord Rose acknowledged this and admitted wages will go up if we Vote Leave, stating: ‘If you are short of labour, the price of labour will go up’.

The Chancellor’s former close adviser, Rupert Harrison, agrees. A BlackRock report in February co-written by Harrison said leaving the EU could mean ‘lower immigration [which] could make labour scarcer in the long run, pushing up wage costs’.

The Home Secretary, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and the OECD have said that mass migration has no discernible fiscal benefits.

In her speech to the 2015 Conservative Party conference in Manchester, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, said: ‘not all of the consequences can be managed, and doing so for many of them comes at a high price… But even if we could manage all the consequences of mass immigration, Britain does not need net migration in the hundreds of thousands every year… The evidence… shows that while there are benefits of selective and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero. So there is no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade. Neither is it true that, in the modern world, immigration is no longer possible to control… The numbers coming from Europe are unsustainable and the rules have to change’.

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee found in 2008 that there is ‘no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration… generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population… We also question the Government’s claim that immigration has generated fiscal benefits… The overall fiscal impact of immigration is likely to be small’.

The OECD has found that: ‘Immigrants are thus neither a burden to the public purse nor are they a panacea for addressing fiscal challenges’.

Leading IN campaigners have previously praised uncontrolled immigration from the EU stating it is the solution to our problems.

Last month, Alan Johnson claimed that: ‘If you are thinking about free movement, the people who come over here under free movement… They are helping to solve a very important problem’. He has said that if free movement were ended, ‘you would have a very serious problem for the economy’.

The Executive Director of the IN campaign, Will Straw has said ‘ending free movement’ involves the ‘sacrifice jobs and low prices, which would be the consequence’.

Alan Johnson claimed Turkey could join the EU without free movement. This is false.

On The Today Programme, Alan Johnson claimed Turkey could join the EU without accepting free movement.

Not even the Government believes this to be the case. In April, the Government acknowledged that when Turkey and other accession countries join the EU, their citizens will have the right to come to the UK: ‘once a country becomes a Member State of the EU its citizens have the same rights under EU law as other EU nationals’.

Alan Johnson claimed juxtaposed border controls at Calais would end. The French Interior Minister has said they will continue.

On The Today Programme, Alan Johnson claimed that the UK’s juxtaposed border controls at Calais would end in the event of a leave vote. This is false.

The French Interior Minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, has said: ‘Calling for the border with the English to be opened is not a responsible solution. It would send a signal to people smugglers and would lead migrants to flow to Calais in far greater numbers. A humanitarian disaster would ensue. It is a foolhardy path, and one the government will not pursue’.

Mr Cazeneuve confirmed this remained his view in March and that he was in charge of French immigration policy.

Alan Johnson wanted the UK to join the single currency. This would have been a disaster.

As a minister in the Department for Trade and Industry, Alan Johnson, said companies should be ‘pleased’ at the Labour Government’s ‘strengthened’ support for the single currency. He said companies would be ‘pleased to see we have strengthened our commitment to the principle of joining the euro’.

Alan Johnson also said: ‘we recognise the potential benefits of euro membership for our manufacturing exporters, which is why we support the single currency in principle’.

Commenting on the European Court’s decision on social security, Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State in the Department for Work and Pensions at the time the challenge was brought, said:

‘It’s absurd that we have to to run every nut and bolt of domestic policy past Luxembourg, and then engage in lengthy and expensive court battles if they decide they don’t like what our democratically elected Government is doing.

‘As well as the cost to taxpayers of fighting these lengthy drawn out cases, it’s clearly an illegitimate challenge to our sovereignty. Although David Cameron didn’t want to admit it, this case and others like it are proof positive that the unelected European Court of Justice is now supreme above our elected Parliament. They decide the rules and the only way to prevent this kind of intervention in future is to Vote Leave on 23 June.’

Commenting, Anne-Marie Trevelyan said:

‘The Prime Minister made a solemn promise to the British people in our manifesto which, sadly, the EU makes impossible to honour. EU migrants will still be able to receive child benefit and even export it abroad. Today’s judgment does not change that. Rather than admitting that the EU prevents the UK from controlling our welfare system, our borders and our economy, promises have instead become aspirations; commitments have become ambitions.

‘We have consistently been defeated and sidelined in the meddling European courts. Judgments have made the cost of living more expensive, undermined our borders and put UK security at risk. If we want to take back control from the EU courts we have to Vote Leave on 23 June.’

The European Court has today handed down its judgement in Commission v United Kingdom, Case C-308/14.

• David Cameron has failed to meet his manifesto promises on child benefit because of EU law.

• After this judgement, all EU citizens will still retain the right to come to the UK, despite Cameron’s promises.

• The Commission has pursued this costly action despite a clear finding four years ago by the UK Supreme Court that the ‘right to reside’ test was lawful.

• The judgement is of little assistance to the UK, because it cannot systematically check whether EU citizens are lawfully resident in the UK, as the Advocate General and the Court have confirmed.

• Even taking into account today’s ‘victory’, the Government still loses over three-quarters of cases in the European Court. It has increased the price of beer, undermined the UK’s border controls and weakened our security.

• It appears this case has been scheduled for immediately before the referendum in order to deliver a ‘victory’ for the Government just before the poll.

David Cameron has failed to meet his manifesto promises on child benefit because of EU law.

The Conservative Manifesto promised: ‘If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid’.

David Cameron’s renegotiation will still allow the export of child benefit. The deal says new EU legislation could give member states ‘an option to index such benefits to the conditions of the Member State where the child resides’. This also only applies to new claimants and makes clear the export of child benefit will continue.

Cameron also promised that EU migrants would not be able to claim child benefit during their first four years in the UK. The 2015 Conservative Manifesto stated: ‘We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years’.

Since child benefit, unlike certain tax credits, is not a ‘non-contributory in-work benefit’, it would appear the emergency brake will not apply to it, meaning the Conservative Manifesto has likely been broken.

The Government does not claim that the ’emergency brake’ will apply to child benefit. The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, has conceded that: ‘Details of the proposals for restricting in-work benefits for EU nationals will be subject to further negotiation and we cannot speculate on these’. The Minister was unable even to state which benefits the ’emergency brake’ might apply to.

After this judgement, all EU citizens will still retain the right to come to the UK, despite Cameron’s promises.

The EU Treaties provides that: ‘Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States’. This is entirely unchanged, either by Cameron’s renegotiation or by the judgement today.

In his 2014 conference speech, Cameron said: ‘Numbers that have increased faster than we in this country wanted at a level that was too much for our communities, for our labour markets. All of this has to change – and it will be at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe. Britain, I know you want this sorted so I will go to Brussels, I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement – I will get what Britain needs’.

The Commission has pursued this costly action despite a clear finding four years ago by the UK Supreme Court that the ‘right to reside’ test was lawful at great expense to the taxpayer.

In March 2011, the UK Supreme Court considered almost identical arguments in the context of eligibility for state pension credit. By a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court held that the test was lawful.

The Government claims that: ‘Departments do not quantify the cost of time spent by government officials throughout the infractions process’.

The judgement is of little assistance to the UK, because it cannot systematically check whether EU citizens are lawfully resident in the UK, as the Advocate General confirmed.

EU law forbids systematic verification of whether EU citizens are lawfully resident in the UK. It states that ‘this verification shall not be carried out systematically’.

Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón stated clearly that EU law ‘precludes national legislation from adopting any approach that might be tantamount to presuming that, after the first three months of residence and before he has acquired a permanent right of residence, [an EU] citizen is unlawfully present in that territory, so that it would systematically be for the person in question to prove that this is not the case. As a matter of principle, the opposite presumption should, in fact, be made’.

The Court found the right to reside test was lawful precisely because ‘this verification is not carried out systematically by the UK authorities for each claim’.

Even taking into account today’s ‘victory’, the Government still loses over three-quarters of cases in the European Court. It has increased the price of beer, undermined the UK’s border controls and weakened our security.

The UK loses three-quarters of cases in the European Court. Even taking into account today’s ‘victory’, the UK loses more than three quarters of cases in the European Court. Since the UK joined the EU in 1973, it has lost 101 out of 132 cases before the European Court in which it has been a party, a failure rate of 76.5%. Since David Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010, the UK has been defeated on 16 occasions: a failure rate of 76.2%.

The European Court has increased the price of beer. On 12 July 1981, the ECJ ruled that the UK’s low duty on beer ‘afford[ed] protection to domestic beer production’ and was therefore illegal under EU law. In his 1984 budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, said ‘we lost; and I am now implementing the judgement handed down by the court last year. Accordingly, I propose to increase the duty on beer by the minimum amount needed to comply with the judgement and maintain revenue: 2p on a typical pint of beer’.

The UK’s border controls are under constant attack from the European Court of Justice. In December 2014, the European Court said that the UK cannot require family members of EU citizens from other EU member states to have a permit issued by UK authorities. This is despite the fact that a High Court Judge had found permits from other EU countries to be systematically forged, stating ‘Systemic abuse of rights and fraud calls for systemic measures’. The European Court’s rulings make it easier for terrorists and criminals to enter the UK using forged documents.

The 2014 judgement of the European Court also means that the UK cannot require persons purporting to be EU citizens to have a document issued by the British Government which attests to that status ‘in pursuit of an objective of general prevention’ of terrorism and serious crime. This constitutes a threat to the UK’s security, in light of the fact that ‘eight Schengen countries were on the list of the top 10 nations reporting stolen or lost passports in Interpol’s databases’, according to the former Secretary General of Interpol, Ronald K Noble. The Italian ID card, for example, is made of laminated card. In April 2016, Frontex noted that: ‘The number of persons aiming to get to the UK with fraudulent document significantly increased (+70%) compared to 2014. This trend is mostly attributable to the increasing number of Albanian nationals often misusing Italian and Greek ID cards followed by Ukrainian nationals abusing authentic Polish ID cards’.

It appears this case has been scheduled for immediately before the referendum in order to deliver a ‘victory’ for the Government just before the referendum.

The Commission brought its action on 27 June 2014.

Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón delivered his opinion on 6 October 2015, in the middle of the Conservative Party conference.

This case has taken 23 months and 18 days from the launch of proceedings until judgement. The average time taken for a ‘direct action’ (such as where the Commission sues a member state) in 2015 was 17.6 months. This means this case has taken six months longer than usual to decide.

Statement by Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP – former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry – on BT’s letter to employees.

‘Few companies are less affected than BT as far as their day-to- day business is concerned by whether Britain is in or out of the European Union. There are no tariffs or obstacles on phone calls in or out of the EU. So why are BT bosses trying to cajole their staff to vote to remain in the EU?

‘Rake and Patterson are abusing their position to advocate their personal political beliefs – to which they have long been wedded. Given that their similar warnings about non-membership of the Euro were so wrong in the past, they might show a little humility and focus on the real interests of their hard working employees, long suffering customers and the thousands of small businesses who desperately need faster broadband.

‘But there is probably a second reason: BT hope that the European Court would protect BT management from pressures for greater separation of Open Reach to ensure more competition in provision of broadband. Small businesses in my constituency have lobbied me for this. Apparently OfCom would have gone further in this direction but for fear that they would be challenged in the EU Court on the basis of the EU Framework Directive. This is another example of Big Business bosses relying on the EU to protect their cosy practices – and another reason why British business as a whole will benefit if we take back control.’