Brexit and Free Movement Panel Discussion

My name is John Pete, I am the Brexit editor of the Economist

magazine. It is a great pleasure for me to be moderating this panel

discussing Brexit and free movement in Europe House. It is my pleasure

now to introduce the panel. And I will mention them all now in order

of speaking. We're going to start with Diane Mulhall, the Irish

ambassador in London. Ireland has a special interest in Brexit is

probably the country most concerned about Brexit after Britain itself.

Vicky Ford, MEP. She has just managed to make it. Then after Vicky

we will have have a role from the National Institute of economic and

social research, which has done a lot of work on migration. She is

going to be discussing some actual hard evidence, not just opinions.

And we are going to finish the opening discussion with Alex Barker,

of the Financial Times, who I'm sure you have all read some of his

columns, particularly his columns on budget contributions. He is the

Brussels bureau chief of the Financial Times. Each panel is going

to speak for about five or seven minutes. Diane Mulhall to start.

Thank you everyone for being here and to the European Parliament

offers for the invitation to be here. May I just start by making it

clear that we in Ireland regret that the UK is our closest neighbour and

most important external partner has decided to leave the European Union,

but we've got to accommodate ourselves to that reality and try to

minimise the damage that this will do to Ireland, to Irish - UK

relations, and of course to the European Union, which we will be

continuing to be a committed member of the European Union in the period

ahead. So it is a source of sadness to ask that this 44 year partnership

with the UK as fellow members of the European Union will come to an end

in the coming years. And we will have challenges to face in that

context, not least as a result of the fact that we are co-guarantors

of the Northern Ireland peace process. And of course we will

continue to occupy or have that responsibility. On the economic

front, two we trade between Ireland and the UK currently runs at about

?1 billion per week. It is a very significant trading relationship.

And obviously any devolution of that trading connection would be damaging

for both economies, but obviously especially for an economy like ours,

which is so much smaller than the UK economy. There are about 700,000

people in this country in Britain who were born on the island of

Ireland. And many of those of course have children and grandchildren who

live here, and some of those have acquired a renewed interest in their

Irish identity, and the demand for passports last year went up by 40%.

And this year so far it was up by a further 70%. That is an indication

perhaps of the complexities for Ireland. I doubt if any other

country in the European Union has quite that number of people in this

country who are in a position to claim citizenship of any other

European Union country. So, how do we view the issue of free movement,

which is our specific concern this afternoon? What I would say is that

this issue is not a defining political issue in Ireland as things

stand. As it appears to be indeed in the UK. Now, you might say, well, is

that because free movement of people within the European Union hasn't

affected Ireland? That would be quite wrong, because it has affected

Ireland more dramatically, I would say, than it has affected the United

Kingdom. Let me just give you the figures.

cl As late as 20 years ago, back in the 1990s, Ireland had virtually no

immigration. We were a nation of people with an experience of

emigration, but very little experience of immigration. We were

unusual in European terms from that point of view. Today, according to

our census, which was published recently and was taken last year, so

the middle of 2016, 17.3% of the population of Ireland at the moment

was born outside the Irish state which means that we have one of the

highest percentages of immigrants in our population, or non-nationals in

our population of any European country and including a higher

percentage than is the case in the UK.

Now, our top immigrant community come from Poland, 122,000 people.

Out of a population of 4.5 million, it is not a small number, you can

see. The UK, 103,000. Lithuania, 36,000. Romania, 29,000 and Latvia

19,000. Now, those figures may seem modest enough, but if you want to

put them into UK terms, you have to multiply by 12 to get a proportion

of the population. The Irish population is approximately 1-12th

of the population of the UK. You can see, therefore, that in proportional

terms there are far more people from Poland, Lithuania and Latvia in

Ireland than there are in Britain. And indeed, I just did the

calculation of the top ten non-Irish communities in Ireland. And there

are 360,000 EU nationals in that group. That's only the top 10, 9 or

10, one is non-European. So, you are probably talking about a total

population of EU nationals, non-Irish EU nationals of more than

400,000, which gives you something like 5 million, if you multiply by

12. The figures I see in the newspaper suggest that the EU

non-national population in the UK of EU nationals is about 3 million. So

you can see there are significantly more EU nationals in our population

than is the case here in the UK. And indeed, another point I want to make

is that the population of non-Irish EU nationals has remained remarkably

steady in the last five years, since the last census. And in fact, you

would - and given that that last census, that last period between

2011 and 2016 included the period between 2011 and 2013, when the

Irish economy went through some considerable difficulties, the EU

population of Ireland has remained remarkably steady and indeed, if you

look back to 2002, only 15 years ago, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia

were not even in the top ten of non-Irish communities in Ireland and

in fact, the second biggest non-Irish group in 2002, 15 years

ago, was Americans. So you can see how the free movement principle has

totally transformed Ireland's demography. It has given us an

enormous, now, population of EU nationals. And this has happened,

despite the difficulties that have occurred and that have arisen for

the Irish economy after 2009. Now, despite these figures, which are, as

I say, considerably higher than the figures for the UK and the fact that

will Ireland's population, Ireland's unemployment rate remains above the

UK level, currently 6.6%. Immigration is not a meaningful

political issue in Ireland. We had an election last year and there was

no evidence of any party or individual politician seeking to

rattle the cage on migration issues, and trying to make political capital

out of it. We have no populous anti-immigrant eurosceptic political

party. And by the way, we have a full range of political parties now.

There must be seven or eight parties represented in our Parliament. Which

is 150 members. So, I gracing has not become a political football in

Ireland in the way it has become in other parts of the Europe. As we

approach the EU-UK negotiations, we take comfort from the fact that

Ireland's special circumstances are being fully acknowledged on both

sides of the table and it's notable that Prime Minister May's Article 50

letter stressed her desire to avoid a hard border in Ireland and to

maintain the common travel area between Ireland and the UK, which

gives the Irish community in Britain a special status here. In fact under

community is regarded as not being a community is regarded as not being a

foreign community for the purposes of European law. So, that status

will continue after Brexit. So the Irish community will have a special

status here in this country, at least that is the intention of the

British Government, supported by the Irish Government and of course, none

of our European partners have any reason to object to that situation

because, of course, the common travel area predates our membership

of the European Union in 1973. Now, it's not just the Prime

Minister's Article 50 letter that gives recognition to the Irish

issues, the ones I mentioned. The E ucht's negotiating guidelines also

stress the need to avoid a hard border in Ireland and to respect by

lateral arrangements and agreements between Ireland and the UK, which is

a reference to the common travel area and the special status of the

Irish and Brits. So although the Irish and Britain will have a

separate status under the common travel area, we will, as our

Government's latest paper makes clear and we published it yesterday,

a 50-page analysis of the Irish Government's position on Brexit has

been published and I tweeted a link to it

on my Twitter account on @danmlhall if you want it read it. So we will

be looking to an agreement on the rights of all EU citizens in the UK

and all UK citizens in the European Union that is "Wide, ambition and

comprehensive." So I would say, in summary, we are a country that has

been hugely affected by the free movement principle. It has not

created the kind of problem it has created elsewhere, in that there

have been no issues about EU nationals establishing themselves in

Ireland and many of them now have been there for quite a while and

settled there and this seems to be a good experience, from an Irish point

of view. We will be approaching the coming

negotiations as a committed member of the European Union and we will be

looking to see rights of European zints in the UK, the subject, become

the subject of a wide and comprehensive agreement,

guaranteeing their rights for the future. But, also, we will

acknowledge and recognise the fact that the Irish community in Britain,

post-Brexit, will, under UK law, have a special status in this

country for the future. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very

much, Ambassador. APPLAUSE

Round of applause, not least for the comprehensive paper your Government

has published on this, which I think is better than what the British

Government have published. Vicky Ford. Maybe I can pick up on some of

the points that the ambassador has made and take them more. I was born

in the UK, also born on the Ireland of Ireland and I spend a lot of time

in Ireland and sometimes, still, in Northern Ireland and I understand

what you have been talking about the benefits of Ireland as well, having

had free movement. In the referendum it was a key issue for many people

on the doorstep who voted Leave, it was the issue of free movement. I

also think that we in the UK sometimes think the only way to

interpret the EU approach to free movement is the way that we've

interpreted it and actually other countries within the EU put their

own types of control on free movement. So, if you were in

Brussels, for example, where I came from today, you know, you can't just

go and move and live in Brussels because in order to access any sort

of benefit or health care or education or welfare, you have to

have a Social Security number and you can't get a Social Security

number without an employer who is prepared to commit that they are

picking up the Social Security tab. So it is a very different type of

control that they have. And so different countries have approached

this in different ways. But as I said, that's sort of all in the past

and I know that the Government will be looking at the way in which we

decide our own approach to free movement. Theresa May has made that

very clear. So where I want to take it now, on some of the discussion on

citizens' rights because I think that's an area where people are

extremely concerned, both EU citizens living in the UK, and UK

citizens living elsewhere and I think that sometimes the press have

been doing quite a lot of initial, additional sort of stirring of

people's concerns here. Never. I think it is important that the Press

raise the issues, but we need to try and also - and these are really

important issues because they are people's lives - but both... I have

been doing European negotiations for eight years and it is an awful lot

easier when both sides actually agree with an issue. In this case

the EU, both Michel Barnier, who is the EU, both Michel Barnier, who is

negotiating from the for the European Commission on behalf of the

Council and the European Parliament, all agree that this is their number

one priority and they all agree that they want to resolve it. And in the

European Parliament, we had a vote, just before Easter, on our key

priorities for the EU negotiations, the top priority was that the

agreement should address the legal status of the EU 27 citizens, living

or having lived in the United Kingdom and of the United Kingdom

citizens living or having lived in other Member States. So, both sides

are saying that actually, we need to agree the rights on both sides. It's

a question of how soon they can get to the table to start that detailed

work. Now, therefore, in principle this should be very easy to bring

agreement. So maybe there is a bit of confusion as to what we actually

mean about which rights we are trying to make sure are respected

and for me it is the right to get on with your lives and for your

children and your family, your education, etc. The next step that

sort of happened today was Michel Barnier, who, as I said is the EU

Commissioner's chief negotiator, he has made a further statement today

about the citizens' rights and Michel, is a very practical and

pragmatic person who is trying to find solutions here. And most of

what he is saying, I think, will be reasonably easy to agree but there

is some of what he is saying that he wants EU citizens to have rights,

living here in the UK, that may be more than what a British citizen

has. And I think if, with great respect to our fantastic Irish

friends, if you are suggesting that an Irish citizen living in London

would have more rights than a British citizen living...

So, for example, one of the suggestions he has said is the

rights of a EU citizen who married someone from another part of the

world to bring that partner here, they should keep having European

rights, so what if that European right was ever faster, a more

automatic procedure than we would've had in the UK, that could raise a

challenge. He is also saying that an EU citizen living in the UK today,

should continue to be able to have any future rights that are conferred

of them shall as a European citizen, not just as a British citizen.

Again, you could imagine that could be quite complicated. So from the

basic premise, we want to keep parity. People should keep rights

they have today F you choose to come and live in the UK, you should

continue to be treated equally as a British citizen. That would be my

basis for the negotiations and I think it could get a bit tense if

the EU negotiators for the 27 start to ask for more. Just really quickly

on some of the other issues you are talking about. The issue of no hard

border in between Northern Ireland and Ireland is very important and I

think it is also very important then, in how we think about our

trade relationship with other parts of Europe as well. Most of the

things that are stopped at our external borders in any type of a

check are food or animals or plant groups. Over 90% of the groups that

get stopped for customs persons at the poverty Felixstowe would be port

or animal or food issues. So provided we have the same sort of

regulations on how we care for our food, plants and animals, do we need

to have hard customs processes not just between Northern Ireland and

the South, but, across the channel as well? So I have been doing a lot

of looking at how you can have more crafty customs processes and use of

digital technology so you wouldn't have to go back to old-fashioned

check containers and codes, etc and that I think is some very sensible

thinking that has been going Onyedinma that as well.

The reason I wanted to bring batting is because, you know, we've got this

big debate about we need to agree these citizens rights and the money

before we even start talking about what the end relationship would be.

And that's the way the EU negotiators are saying it, but I'm

saying that unless you have a bit more clarity about -- what the end

relationship is going to be, some of the other issues, like Wattel border

is going to be in Ireland, is challenging -- what your border is

going to be. Again, some of these issues are movement of people, tying

into what sort of relationship we want an provision of services.

Yesterday I was with the chief negotiator from the NHS, this

morning I was with the bar Council talking about whether or not we are

going to continue to have lawyers being able to offer their services

across the border. If that is part of our end relationship, it also

makes it easier to backtrack into some of those other discussions we

need to have about citizens' rights today. Final issue, nothing in

Europe ever stays still and we need to remember that the EU 27 are also

discussing their own future. And actually, there's a big discussion

happening within the EU 27 about what is the future of the Single

Market and services, what is the future within that of movement of

people and posting of workers is a very controversial issue at the

moment, especially between Eastern Europe and Western Europe. So will

we can't necessarily assume that the positions that the rest of our

European neighbours were taking five, three or even one year ago

will stay the same over the next few years as well. So these things are

moving. To sum up, both sides want to agree on citizens' rights. Both

sides want to agree on parity for both EU citizens here and British

citizens there. There may be some challenges if we start to ask for

more than the other side. But I do think that there should be an

amicable agreement on this point, because both sides have said they

want to agree. Thank you. APPLAUSE

Let's say that both sides are living in the same galaxy! Heather? So, Dan

and Vicky have very nicely discussed some of the political issues around

Brexit and free movement, and also some of the issues for citizens. I

want to focus on the implications for the economy and employers. As a

backdrop to this I have been carrying out research with employers

before and after Brexit, looking at why they recruit migrants, what the

obligations would be of restrictions on free movement, and what kind of

policies do they think would work for them. First of all I think it is

useful to say what is the problem, what are the challenges? I think the

main problem and challenges for the economy and employers is the fact

that the UK economy and some sectors in particular are very reliant on EU

workers. And so, for example, some of the sectors that we have been

focusing on such as hospitality, 200,000 workers from the EU are in

the sector, 125,000 in the food and drink production sector, and so I

know there is an idea, well, we could all do with a few less Prater

Mosher branches, who cares if they have to close down? But other key

sectors are determined on migrant workers -- on our Mosher. We have

30,000 from Poland alone. There was a report out this week, a Parliament

report on the health and social care sector which highlighted that the

health sector has 60,000 workers from the EU. And the social care

sector has 90,000. It is a lot of workers in key areas of the economy.

Why is that? The narrative that you will read commonly in the press is

that it is all about pay and exploitation. But actually research

consistently shows that it is because employers cannot recruit the

labour that they need. So currently we have, I didn't realise that

unemployment was so high, but in the UK it is 4.8%, 6.6% in Ireland. In

some areas of the UK where employers in these key sectors, food and

drink, it is very low indeed, it is more like 3%, effectively zero

unemployment. The jobs in some of those sectors historically, not just

now, are not attractive to UK workers. There is very little

evidence of preference. People say, you know, that Polish workers have a

very good work ethic and that is why they are favourite -- favoured, but

we search does not bear that out. What can be done? I think employers

really do want to attract more British workers. But there are quite

a few challenges to that. These are low paid sectors, they jobs where

the conditions of work or unattractive, working in a factory

is cold and noisy and pleasant. Those jobs have never really

appealed to British workers. -- and pleasant. They are low paid and do

not offer career prospects that young people want. Brexit has shaken

up employers in those sectors, in particular hospitality. They are

looking at how they can create better career pathways. But I think,

I mean, it is good that they are doing that, and I think that is

something that everybody would want to welcome, two up skilled workforce

and so on. But historically, if you look at those sectors, hospitality,

food and drink, manufacturing generally, they have always relied

on migrant workers, there are no two ways about it. I think it would be

fullish to think that we can turn things around even within the kind

of time frames that some of these employer organisations we are

talking about. They are talking about not wanting a cliff edge,

wanting time to adjust, a transition period away from free movement, but

I think in reality you would need much longer than even the ten years

that some of them asking for. I just really don't think that would

happen. But it does seem like as a result of the referendum we aren't

going to have free movement. First of all, the employers that

Wiesberger across the sectors were in denial and they felt it would

have to continue, -- that we spoke have to continue, -- that we spoke

to. They couldn't see any other way. In the months that have passed, they

have come to terms with the fact that they are going to have to work

with some new immigration system. So we have been discussing with them

what would work. They have got three priorities. You won't be surprised

to hear that the first one that Vicky talked about is about keeping

their existing EU workers, who are really important to them. We have

got two point something million EU workers in the workforce, and their

families and dependents, and students from the EU. Shortly after

we spoke to the employers after the referendum vote, there are immediate

concern was about these employees. There were cases where they had

hostile remarks, that they were very upset, and they were very concerned,

the workers were very concerned about their future. Employers have

spent a lot of time reassuring them about their future within the UK. It

is frustrating to them now. We have done some or research recently with

the same employers in the last month, they are frustrated that

those assurances have not yet been given. And I think it isn't just a

question of reassurances about them, it is about their families as well,

that they are able to bring over family members and they are able to

maintain a life for themselves and their families within the UK. That

is the number one priority of employers at the moment, because

they are concerned that they are going to lose the workers that they

have. The second concern is that new policies must address their need for

low skilled Labour. The idea that we can simply transport the system that

we have a highly skilled labour outside the EU to EU workers is

simply not going to work. I think that was ruled out pretty quickly by

the British Government, the fact that the ideal of a points-based

system was ruled out. I think at the same time it is very problematic,

what kind of scheme would you have that would cover low skilled

workers? There has been suggestions that sector -based schemes, I think

that is something that employers do find quite attractive, the idea that

their sector would be seen as having some kind of need. But there is all

sorts of difficulties around that. For example, how would you define

the sector? Some of these, you know, they are not very easy to define,

some of them have quite broad categories. Also, within a sector

there are shortages, say of production workers in the food

sector. No shortage of HR managers, for example. To have a scheme that

apply to the whole sector is probably not going to work. There is

also the idea of sector -based schemes, they would allow the

temporary migration. There has been a lot of discussion of having

temporary, one year or two year the users. Of course, the attraction of

that for the UK Government is that temporary stays of one year or less

do not appear in the migration statistics. The Government is

continuing to keep to its target of reducing migration to the tens of

thousands. And having temporary migrants rather than ones that stay

for a longer period and appear in the statistics would be appealing.

Not to employers. Because EU workers have very helpfully met the UK is

demand for low skilled workers, but they also have posts at all levels

within organisations, and employers have seen them as a source of

recruitment to more skilled level positions within their

organisations. I think it took some time for that to happen,

particularly for Eastern European migrants, but it is happening and

employers actually don't like the idea of having somebody for a short

period and bend them going home. The idea of a temporary scene is not

appealing to employers. We have had some discussion about the arrest

scheme. -- the wrist that scheme. It would be built on the current youth

mobility scheme, actually it currently applies to young people, I

think it is 18-30, from Canada, New Zealand and Australia. But there is

only 42,000 in the scheme. They have to have something like 18 or ?19,000

in the bank, and they pay an additional 200 something pounds. It

doesn't really seem like a scheme that is going to take off unless it

is adjusted in some way. But it certainly would not appeal to most

employers in the sectors that I am talking about, Duminy who is just

here essentially in a holiday and is going to go back. -- somebody who is

just tear up essentially on a holiday. So the third priority for

employers is to have the minimum of bureaucracy. That doesn't really

seem very realistic at all. But they realise that actually immigration is

not really going to be policed at the border, the UK Government

doesn't want to stop tourists coming in, people coming in the short

periods, it is going to be policed in the workplace. We had a series of

Round Table discussions, one for the food and ring sector and the other

one for hospitality, and there were visibly disturbed and shaken by the

idea, when they realised, well, hang on, I don't have these passports and

angered. They currently do check -- I'm going to have to check. They

currently do check that their workers have the right to work it,

but we will have an array of different arrangements in all

likelihood, they are very concerned about that. One of their concerns is

that they are going to run foul of the law. We all know what happens to

employers when that happens. And the kind of bad publicity they would

have, locally and potentially nationally as well. But they do want

systems which are going to be very responsive. Currently, if you want

to recruit somebody from outside the EU have to go through quite a

lengthy process, you have to advertise the job for 28 days. That

is not going to work the employers in industries like food and drink

and hospitality that really need somebody straightaway. They are not

averse to the idea of having to give somebody a job offer before they

come to the UK. That might be something that we do end up with.

Currently that does apply to workers from outside the EU. But I think on

the downside, as far as perceptions from the public are concerned, that

would open the door much more to agencies. We will have much more of

a role of agencies going out to Eastern Europe in particular and

recruiting people, giving them the job offer, and then coming here.

So... Those are the three areas of priority for employers in terms of

new immigration policy. But I think there are two other groups that we

do really need to consider. First of all there is the public. What did

they vote for? Did they vote for the end of free movement of people,

there is a bitter dispute about that. But if you look at the kind of

immigration that the public does not like, it is immigrants who are here

for a short period of time, who don't saddle, who don't contribute,

he'll just basically get what they can, and send the money home. I do

fear that the kind of policies that are being thought of, considered and

develop now are going to lead down that path. The policies that

currently seem to be considered are those that would involve short-term

stays, that will in some way in Courage agencies. I think it is like

where Vicky has been an MEP, it will be quite visible. I think you will

have big groups of migrants being shipped in by agencies, staying for

quite short periods. That is exactly the kind of immigration that people

thought they were voting against when they voted to leave the EU. The

other group that I think we need to consider is migrants themselves.

Obviously, you know, they have a lot of choice about where they can work

within Europe. Speaking to employers, they are currently, there

is currently little evidence of the kind of mass exodus of EU migrants

from workplaces in the UK. I think it is because it is a case of wait

and see. Everybody is waiting and seeing. I think actually for quite a

few migrants who have family here, it is not easy...

Approximate Welcome to the great countive Nottinghamshire and in

particular here to Carlton at the head of the Gedling constituency.

And this is a constituency that we would like to see represented, after

the general election by our fantastic candidate, Caroline

Abbott. Here in Nottinghamshire, as I am

esure over the Midlands we have been out on the doorstep, as we do,

talking to the members of the public and one message comes back to us

time and again and that is people saying to us that they trust Theresa

May. Hear, hear. People say they trust Theresa May as a strong and

stable leader, working in the national interest that this country

needs in challenging times and at this general election, whether in

Nottinghamshire or any constituency across the UK, there is only one

leader who will secure us both the deal that we need, as we leave the

European Union and will secure the stronger Britain that

Nottinghamshire, the Midlands, the whole country needs to secure our

future and our children's futures. So, wherever you come from today,

whether from the great cities of the Midlands, like Nottingham, like

derby, Wolverhampton, Stoke-on-Trent and of course like Birmingham, or

whether you have come from the market towns like Newcastle under

lime or new washing or you have come from our former international towns

lying Mansfield and Ashfield where we are campaigning in

Nottinghamshire, places that the Labour Party have taken for granted

and neglected my whole life. Hear, hear

APPLAUSE. Wherever you come from today, there

is only one partied and one leader who is committed to building a

country that works for everyone and will work for every part of the

Midlands. That leader is Theresa May.

So, would you join me, would you join me today in giving a very warm

welcome, here to Nottingham, back to Nottingham, to the Prime Minister,

Theresa May. Thank you, thank you very much

everybody for that welcome. Thank you, Robert for those words and it's

great to be with you here in Gedling today as we put the local elections

behind us and now focus on this absolutely crucial general election

in just 29 days' time. And we can take absolutely nothing for granted.

Hear, hear And we are certainly not taking anything for granted as

regards our team. We have a great team here of local candidates,

standing across the east and west Midlands a great team and what I say

to people across the whole of the Midlands is this - this is the team

that I need behind me to ensure that we have that strong position to

shall negotiate the best deal for Britain in Europe. This is the team

that is going to be taking out our positive message on to the streets.

Ta message of strong and stable leadership in the national interest.

Of strengthening the UK's position in those Brexit negotiations, of

building a better future for the United Kingdom and every vote for me

and my local candidates is a vote that strengthens our hand in those

Brexit negotiations. And just stop for a minute to think what the

alternative would be, because it would be tow risk making Jeremy

Corbyn our Prime Minister. -- to risk making Jeremy Corbyn our Prime

Minister. Can you picture it? No. LAUGHTER Jeremy Corbyn sitting at

the negotiating table with the combined might of the negotiating

team and the 27 others countries ranged against him but the Liberal

Democrats and Scottish national parties are all lining up to prop

him up and the possibility of a Corbyn-led coalition of chaos is

real and a vote for any other party is to take a step closer to Jeremy

Corbyn sitting at that Brexit negotiating table. Now, we must stop

that, by winning support, here in the East Midlands and in the West

Midlands and across the whole of the United Kingdom. But we must also

expose the nonsensical policies that Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party

are putting forward in this election campaign. Because they simply do not

add up. And we know Labour would wreck the economy and that would

render all their promises totally undeliverable. Now, by contrast,

what we are doing is taking positive, credible, deliverable

policies, out to voters. Policies like capping energy prices to

support working families. Like protecting workers' pensions against

irresponsible bosses, like bringing in new mental health laws to end

injustice. That is the positive message that we will be taking out,

over the next 29 days, out into our communities and out on to the

streets and it is a positive message and what I say to people is that it

isn't about how people have voted before. This election is about who

people want to lead our country for the next five years. This election

is about strong and stable leadership in the national interest.

And my instruction top candidates is very simple and very clear - take

nothing for granted. I want you to be out there, on those streets, no

stone unturned, no street unwalked down, no door unknocked on. I wanted

you to ensure that you are out there with the voters. Because it is only

by working flat out every day, until June 8th, that we will ensure that

we can gain the trust of the British people and earn their support on

polling day. So, that's what I want you to be doing. I want you to be

out there, campaigning hard and you know, over the years, as a Member of

Parliament, I have been - 20 years in Parliament now - over those years

I have learned how important it is to speak directly to voters and to

listen to their concerns. And that, as I say, is exactly what I want you

all to be doing. I've also learned across those 20 years that you

should never try to predict election results. LAUGHTER

I leave you with these thoughts on that point. If you recall back to

the 2015 general election, the opinion polls got that one wrong.

They got the EU referendum wrong and Jeremy Corbyn was a 200-1 outside

chance for the Labour Leadership. So we need to take our positive message

out there on to the streets. Making the case for that strong and stable

leadership in the national interest. Going out there, taking that message

to people. And it's by doing that that I think we can show people that

a vote for me and my team, my local candidates, is a vote for the

leadership that is needed, that strong and stable leadership to take

us through Brexit and beyond, a vote for me and my team and the local

candidate, my local candidates is a vote to strengthen our hand in that

Brexit negotiations and a vote for me and my team and my local

candidates is a vote that lock in economic security for the whole of

our country. By taking that message out, then we can win people's

support and by winning people's support, thenning, together, we'll

show that we will strive for Britain, we will fight for Britain

and together we will deliver for Britain. Thank you.

APPLAUSE Hear, hear.

Thank you, now we will take some questions, I see Andy. Is Andy?

Sorry, I can't see him into the lights? Do we have the BBC? Thank

you, Prime Minister, Alex Forsyth BBC nu.s Labour and the Liberal

Democrats have promised to pour billions more into schools, you have

repeatedly said that school funding is at record levels but it doesn't

take into account rising pupil numbers, will you commit to maintain

or increase per pupil funding and will you consider abandoning your

plans to change the funding formula, in light of criticism from within

your own party, and some headteachers who say they are

worried about ending up broke? Well, first of all school funding is at

record levels and we've also, within that we are putting record levels of

funding into early education. We've protected the school pupils' premium

worth ?2.5 billion but what matters in education is actually not just

about the funding, it is about the results you see and the education

you are providing for the children. What we see across the country is

1.8 more children in good or outstanding schools. That's

important because we want to ensure that every child gets a good start

in life and that's why our policy and what we are proposing is to

ensure a good school place for every single child. So that they get that

best-possible start in life. And on the funding formula issue, if you

look across the political spectrum, people have accepted for years now

the current funding formula is unfair. What we have done we have

put a proposal out. We've had comments on it and in due course we

will respond to it but everybody agrees we need to look at that issue

because the funding has been unfair over the years. ITV? Emily Morgan

ITV News. Prime Minister, do you agree with your party Chairman that

those who made complaints about the Tory Party electi expenses

politically motivated and wasted police time? Well let's see what has

happened in relation to this. I'm pleased what we see, of course, is

that after full and lengthy investigation, the legal authorities

have confirmed what we believe all along and what we have seen along

that the local spending was properly reported and declared and that the

candidates have done nothing wrong. Now, of course police time has been

taken up in relation to this issue. Those who made those complaints will

have to consider the basis on which they made the complaints but all I

would say is - actually, if we look at the expenses issue, we have seen

all the may scombreerts and the Scottish Nationalists being fined

for mistakes having been made on national expenses, we have paid our

fines and I sincerely hope the other parties are paying theirs. Prime

Minister, the Telegraph - Tim Farron says he is the only working class

leader in the election. Are you middle class or upper class and are

you proud of it? I'll fell you what I am, I'm somebody who is here to

work for ordinary working families up and down this country. Hear,

hear. APPLAUSE

And I want it make sure that it doesn't matter what background you

come from, it's up to you, your tappents and your hard work as to

how far you go in life and we want to create a better few toor for all,

for everyone across the country. Thank you, Faisal.

Prime Minister, I must follow up on the CPS issue, you said local

returns from fine, but the Crown Prosecution Service said there is

evidence to suggest that returns may have been inaccurate. Was there an

issue at CCHQ? Can you confirm to the public that this campaign has

learnt the lessons of that and you are returning a straight campaign in

2017? We have always reported expenses

according to the rules. What the CPS found clearly in those cases that

they looked local constituencies is that spending had been properly

recorded the candidates have done nothing wrong. And there was an

error made in our national return in 2015 in our general election, the

Electoral Commission finders for that we have paid that fine. Other

parties were also find and as I say I hope they have paid their finds,

as well. We have seen you in the Conservative Party advert on the

front page of one of our papers recently. Clearly you are trying to

win places like Mansfield. Do you truly believe that you can win in a

former mining town that has been Labour for nearly close to a

century? As I have just said, this isn't about who people have voted

for before, it is about who they want to lead the country over the

next five years. It is about who they will believe will have the

strongest negotiations and the strongest possible deal for Britain

in Europe. But matters for people in Mansfield and across the whole of

the Midlands. It is about locking in job security, incomes for people. A

strong economy to pay for our NHS and public services. This is about a

very clear choice. There is only one of two people who is going to be

premised on the 9th of June. Me or Jeremy Corbyn. Which one of us do

people want to leave the country for the next five years? I will take one

more question. Rowena Mason from the Guardian. What the CPS actually said

is that there is evidence to suggest that the local candidates returns

may have been inaccurate, so it is not right to say that all local

returns were correctly filled out. Will you apologise for that because

it might mean that some local candidates breached their spending

limits at the last election. The CPS has decided, they are an independent

body, they have decided that no charges will be against no candidate

in this matter. Candidates did nothing wrong. This is very

important. I've said it several times, candidates did nothing wrong.

What we're doing our the selection is going out there with a very

positive message which is about the future our country. This is a

critical general election for the future of our country. It is about

the leadership of our country for the next five years. It is about

ensuring we can take his country through Brexit, make the best deal

for the UK and beyond to build a better future for us, our children

and our grandchildren. Thank you.