Author: admin

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 27th January 2014 in Downing Street, London.

Can I just say an incredibly warm welcome to Number 10 Downing Street. I have to say, as Prime Minister in the last 3 and a half years I’ve had some extraordinary gatherings of people in this room, but I don’t think there’s been a more extraordinary gathering or a gathering I’ve been prouder to have than having you here tonight, on this Holocaust Day – a day when we remember the darkest hour of our human history, the Holocaust; a day when we decide to put away all and fight all forms of prejudice and hatred; a day when we think of the dreadful genocides that have taken place since the Holocaust. And it’s wonderful to welcome people here from Cambodia, from Rwanda, from Bosnia. It is an enormously proud day to have you in this room sharing these stories together.

And the stories I’ve heard tonight are just unbelievable stories. People who escaped from the Warsaw Ghetto. People – someone was telling me who was in 2 ghettos, 2 slave labour camps, 2 concentration camps. People who came here as part of the Kindertransport. Someone who showed me their diary, which their grandfather had written in in July in 1939 in Prague, and wrote in that diary, ‘Wherever you go, be a great daughter to the country that gives you a home.’

What I can say to the 50 Holocaust survivors here tonight: you have been incredible children, incredible lives you’ve lived; you’ve lived 10, 20 lives over for all those who died and all those who didn’t make it. And you are an amazing example to all of us. The bravery that you show by going into schools and colleges and communities and talking about the Holocaust and what happened is just so brave, it takes my breath away. I would have thought it would be so easy to want to forget, to stop thinking, to stop talking, but you showed incredible courage and bravery. And having 50 of you here tonight makes me incredibly proud to be Prime Minister of a nation with such extraordinary people in it. So, thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Meeting you all makes me realise what a sacred task the Holocaust Commission has to carry out, and can I thank Mick Davis for chairing it, can I thank the Chief Rabbi, can I thank the survivors who are going to serve on it. We have the heads of some of our best museums. We have people from the worlds of television and film. We have politicians of all parties – we have Simon Hughes from the Liberal Democrats, Ed Balls from Labour, Michael Gove from the Conservatives – can I thank you all for the work you’re going to do. We’ve got fabulous historians, like Simon Sebag Montefiore. We’ve got so many people who are going to carry out this sacred and vital task.

And it is so important because there will be a time when it won’t be possible for survivors to go into our schools and to talk about their experiences, and to make sure we learn the lessons of the dreadful events that happened. And so, the sacred task is to think, ‘How are we best going to remember, to commemorate and to educate future generations of children?’ In 50 years’ time, in 2064, when a young British Christian child or a young British Muslim child or a young British Jewish child wants to learn about the Holocaust, and we as a country want them to learn about the Holocaust, where are they going to go? Who’re they going to listen to? What images will they see? How can we make sure in 2064 that it is as vibrant and strong a memory as it is today, with all of you standing here in this room?

That is the challenge that I have set them. It’s a vitally important task. I can’t think of a more talented group of people to carry it out, but please, as survivors, tell them what you think. Tell them what you want to be as part of this commemoration. You have spent so much time talking about your memories and reminding all of us how we must never forget. One lady I was talking to had already spoken to 6 schools today; I thought I’d had a tough day! That is an amazing thing to do, and you do this day in and day out.

So, I promise you this: the Holocaust Commission chaired by Mick Davis with all those people on it, and this government ready to help, and politicians of all parties ready to help – we will not let you down. Tell us what you think we should do and let us make sure we commemorate these dreadful events, and make sure that here in Britain no one ever forgets what happened and we swear together: never again.

Thank you.

Below is the Q&A following the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the Federation of Small Businesses on 27th January 2014.

Question

Prime Minister, first of all thank you so much for coming today to the FSB’s first policy conference. Your clear commitment to engaging with us and with small firms is fantastic to see. We very much welcomed the announcement at the Autumn Statement of the support you’re giving for business rates, but day in, day out, our members are still telling us that that is the biggest problem that they face going forwards. With 7% of small firms paying more in rates than rent, will you finally tackle this by looking at how you could ensure a complete reform occurs?

Answer

Thank you. Well, first of all, thank you very much for the welcome.

On business rates, let me just first of all state a truism, but it is important with all of this. Whatever tax we’re looking at that we don’t like – and frankly, I don’t really like any taxes – but whatever tax it is, there is one truism, which is: you can only get taxes down or keep taxes down if you’re prepared to make difficult decisions about spending. [Political content removed]

On business rates, I completely recognise what you say. It is, I think, businesses’ – particularly small businesses’ – number one complaint. We tried to address it in the Autumn Statement with, I think, a reasonable package; by capping the increase at 2%, by the £1,000 rebate, particularly for the retail and restaurant premises on the high street that I think have been really hit by the internet shopping revolution; and obviously we’ve extended the small business relate – relief scheme.

I think we do need to look at longer-term reform. It’s not going to be easy, because rates raise, whatever it is – around £24 billion – and I don’t think there is any one solution that is going to make everybody happy. But I think we’ve got to start addressing this issue and understanding – particularly this issue about internet retailing and high-street retailing. I’m passionate about our high-streets. I represent some lovely market towns in Oxfordshire. They’re doing pretty well, actually, because they’ve kept free parking – they haven’t made that mistake – and they’ve encouraged big retailers into the centre of town and made space available. But it’s going to be a growing issue, and I think it needs more work – I agree with you, sir.

Question

You’re asking us what you can do for us. I have one request, please. As regards the banks, could you please ask the credit rating system to be changed? For my personal business is actually doing really very well, but my own private, personal credit rating is poor because I’ve had a business failure in the past. In America they celebrate business failure – you’re not counted as a business unless you’ve had numerous failures behind you. In this country, as soon as you fail in a business, you have a poor personal credit rating – doesn’t matter how well your business is doing, you cannot get assistance financially.

Answer

I think it’s a very good point. I think it’s a cultural point here, which, as you say, in America, serial entrepreneurship, where not every step works out, is not seen as a disaster; it’s seen as a learning process, and that’s what brave entrepreneurs do. And I think we need to change the culture here, so we celebrate that sort of buccaneering style as well. I think that’s the first point.

On the banks I think it has probably, along with the rating system, been the number one small business complaint. When I look at the overall figures now for gross lending to small businesses, there does seem to be some improvement, but I’m still hearing too many stories of people being asked for personal guarantees and putting their flat or their house on the line to get the loan. Whenever I get them, I follow them up, often individually with the bank concerned to get to the bottom of why these practices are still being followed.

Your point about personal credit ratings – I’d like to take that one away. I’ve got my top team from the Number 10 policy unit sitting here. We’ve also got Lex Greenhill – Lex, where are you? Give us a wave. Thank you very much. Lex is sorting out the whole supply chain finance issue for us, which is often a very good way of small businesses helping small businesses to get credit and to get a finance when they’re part of a supply chain. So we’re working on the whole solution, but I take your point very much about personal credit ratings too.

Question

Prime Minister, you say you believe in a recovery for all. How do you respond to figures today showing 10 times as many jobs are being created in London as elsewhere? And just while I’m on the capital, how do you respond to Boris Johnson’s call to further reduce the top rate of tax?

Answer

Well first of all, on the issue of job figures, if you actually take the last 2 years – so, up to the present day – we’ve created – the last million jobs created, three quarters of them were created outside London. So, look, if I look across the country, do I want to see even more growth and even more jobs in our regions? Yes I do. We’ve got to work even harder to get a really balanced recovery? Yes, of course we have. But actually, employment has grown in every region of our country, and actually the second fastest‑growing region in terms of jobs outside London is Yorkshire and the Humberside.

So we need to make sure that happens, and we have a plan for making that happen. That’s why we’re building the roads and railways; that’s why we’re investing in the super-fast broadband; that’s why we’re doing city deals with all of the major cities of our country, to make sure we scour Whitehall for every scheme and every extra bit of money to try and leverage in jobs and investment in those cities. So we’ve got a plan, we’ve got a programme; I think that plan and programme are working, but we really need to work at making sure this is a balanced recovery across our country.

Question

You mentioned something very lightly, which is immigration, and I’m just interested in your comments on what you’re doing with immigration, because public attitudes are tough, public attitudes are anxious, but they’re not anxious about skilled migration, they’re not anxious about business entrepreneurs, they’re not anxious about job creators. And I think with your narrative about the global race, I’m just interested in the comment you make, because you said it’s part of your economic plan, but if the public isn’t anxious about international students and these job creators, then don’t you think that your policies on the business side are actually at risk of damaging our economic growth and our recovery?

Answer

What I would say is I think public attitudes on immigration are sensible and well-informed. The British public recognises the fact that there has been very large, large-scale immigration over recent years, and politicians have not properly addressed this. In fact, in some circumstances, like the decision in 2004 to allow unfettered access to British markets of the 8 countries who then joined the European Union, actually made the situation worse. And the public, I don’t think, are being at all unreasonable in saying can we please have a government and can we have a Prime Minister who takes this issue seriously and puts in place a proper balanced and sensible immigration system? And that is exactly what I’m doing.

And I make it part of my economic plan for this reason. Immigration policy on its own is not really worth very much. What you need is an immigration policy – proper controls on who’s allowed to come and work and live here – you need to combine that with a proper welfare policy, so it pays to work rather than stay on welfare, with a proper education policy, so we are training young people to be able to do the jobs that are becoming available. They are 3 sides of the same policy. So if we have proper immigration control, a proper skills and education policy, and welfare reform so that work pays, I believe we’ll see levels of migration fall, we’ll see net migration come back to the 10s of thousands, where it was in the 1980s, which also the benefit of immigration not being an issue in public life, which I would very much like that to be the case again.

Now, taking your specific points on business and skills and education, I would challenge the point that the government has done anything that would disadvantage those areas. Actually, because we have dealt with the bogus colleges that weren’t really there to provide training courses; they were there as a back door for immigration – because we’ve closed down those bogus colleges, we’ve actually been able to say a very clear thing to our universities and to students from overseas, which is: there’s no limit on the number of students who can come to the UK; you just need a university place and an English language course. So our universities can get out and market themselves around the world, as well as providing great education for our young people.

To business we said: of course we don’t want to disadvantage business by having an immigration policy that damages you. Yes, we’re going to put a cap in place on the number of economic migrants from outside the EU, because it doesn’t make sense to have that uncapped. But we’re going to make sure that things like inter-company transfers that we’re very flexible about. And so I haven’t actually had a stream of businesses coming to my door complaining about our immigration policy, and as soon as they hear it’s tied to reform of education and reform of welfare, they can see you’ve got a sensible, joined-up government, delivering the British people’s priorities.

And as I say, I think the public’s attitudes on immigration – they’re not about race; they’re not about culture. It’s purely about numbers and pressure and making sure we grip this properly, and that’s exactly what I’m committed to doing.

Question

I’m delighted to say that you’re going to get out of the way and you’re going to stand up for us and celebrate what we do. In standing up for us, can I ask you to put more pressure on making broadband the fourth utility?

Answer

Yes. Well, it is. I mean, you’re absolutely – ‘the fourth utility’ is a great phrase for it. If you are a business in rural Britain, a high‑speed broadband connection is as important as a good train service or a good rail service or a good road. It is going to be the way that businesses communicate and succeed for the future. I represent a largely rural constituency. Amongst small businesses, rural businesses it is the issue. It’s not one of many issues; it’s absolutely the issue.

Now, I think if we are fair to Broadband UK, British Telecom, the Departure for Culture, Media and Sport, the money’s going in, the deals are being signed. I think there are 10,000 businesses being signed up every week, but it is always difficult getting to that last 5, 10%. The money’s there to help us do that. We’re going to have to be very technically savvy. It’s good that we’ve hired the former head of British Telecom to come and be our Trade Minister because I can, every now and again, get a little bit of inside advice from him about how we get this to go faster. So we’re totally committed to it and we think we will have the best broadband network in Europe, but we’re going to have to be very creative for the last 5 or 10%.

Question

My own business is involved in business advice and employment law and I also chair the FSB’s Employment Policy Committee. The Chancellor’s comments on the National Minimum Wage evoked quite a bit of interest a few days ago and I wondered what your views are, particularly in terms of the concerns that relate to job creation or the problems that it will cause in particular sectors, like the care sector.

Answer

Well, you’ll be relieved to know my views are the same as the Chancellor’s. [Political content removed] I think the key is this: I think the National Minimum Wage has been a success. I think it’s been successful in part because of the role played by the Low Pay Commission, but I think it’s very important to listen to what they say about what is sustainable for the level of the minimum wage. The facts, though, are these: obviously, the minimum wage lost some of its value during the great recession when the Low Pay Commission didn’t advise putting it up or putting it up by very much and so we have seen an erosion in its value. Under this government it’s gone up by 10%, but if it had its value restored in full, we’d have a £7 minimum wage rather than a £6.30 minimum wage.

Now, as I said the other day on a television or radio interview, I can’t remember which, I’d love to be Prime Minister of a country that could afford a £7 minimum wage; I think it would be a great step forward. But we have to let the Low Pay Commission do their work and we should listen to them about we don’t want to do things that will destroy jobs. The job creation of the record of this government is something I’m very, very proud of: 1.3 million more people in work, record numbers in work.

So I hope it will be possible to start restoring the value of the minimum wage. I think we need to listen to the Low Pay Commission, but surely as the country becomes better off as our economy grows, we should be able to afford those increases. But it will be for the Low Pay Commission to advise the government and I think it would be good if, in our country, we don’t make the minimum wage a sort of political football and we try and listen to the Low Pay Commission and let them play the vital role of referee. That’s the key.

One last thing. Of course, as well as seeing the minimum wage go up 10% under this government, because we’ve cut income tax, because you can now earn £10,000 before paying income tax, that is equivalent of another 10% on the minimum wage. So we’ve been focused on how to help low earners and I think that’s the right focus to have.

Question

If you’ll forgive me, I’m going to remind you of the second of my colleague’s questions. She asked you whether you agreed with Boris Johnson, as a tax‑cutting Tory, that you wanted to cut the top rate of tax to 40p.

My question now, if I may, which is: you said this morning that immigration from Romania and Bulgaria was reasonable. How do you know and what you do mean by ‘reasonable’?

Answer

We’ve cut the top rate of tax from £0.50 to £0.45. I think it was the right step to take. I always knew it wouldn’t be particularly popular, but I thought it was the right thing to do, because I want to take steps in this country that are going to encourage investment, going to encourage jobs, going to encourage growth, going to encourage business to invest more [Political content removed]. It is an anti‑business, anti‑enterprise, anti‑growth measure and I would argue, just as what I think George Osborne and I did was right for the economy but politically difficult, [Political content removed]

As for future rates of tax, they are, as the saying goes, a matter for the Chancellor in his budget and I think I will rest with that. But it is important always to think about – taxes are about how you raise the money. You should think about the revenue. I want rich people to pay more taxes. The way to get rich people to pay more tax is to get the economy moving, to get them investing, to get them spending, to get them buying, to get them employing and, actually, we’re seeing the rich paying more in income tax in every year under this government than in any year under the last government.

Immigration, Romania and Bulgaria, the point I was making on the radio this morning is obviously 1st January has passed and that’s an important milestone. We extended the transitional controls from 5 years to 7 years; we’re not able to extend them further. There aren’t any official statistics. I haven’t been looking at unofficial statistics, but just from what I read and see and hear, as you have, I think that these numbers look, as I said this morning, reasonable.

Question

We’re an online marketplace for business loans and our technology means that businesses can typically get finance from our investors within 2 weeks, and you mentioned challenger banks. Obviously it’s great to hear that you’re advocating more competition within the sector, but it would also be good to hear what you think about alternative models within the wider landscape.

Answer

Yes. I’m very keen on these new models, a lot of which are using internet online technology, crowd sourcing in order to help people to fund their businesses. Obviously it’s been frustrating that the banks haven’t been lending more to small businesses. I think the big picture numbers now show a more helpful pattern in terms of gross lending, but I think these other ways of raising finance are incredibly encouraging.

And we should do our bit to help with that. That’s what the Business Bank is about that the government has set up and funded, that’s what the Start‑Up Loans are about and I think we should be as flexible as we can to try and find new ways of encouraging people to invest. That’s what all our enterprise relief schemes are about. The EIS scheme is about getting money into small businesses.

I keep asking investors, ‘Is there anything else we can do to make this work better?’ and people seem pretty happy with the way it’s working. But if people have got specific suggestions for how we help fund small business, how we help entrepreneurs, how we deal with the difficult stages afterwards – the so‑called ‘valley of death’ – Tim Luke and Daniel Korski from the Policy Unit are at the front; all ideas gratefully received.

Question

I own my own engineering company and I’d like to know do you have any plans to further assist manufacturing. I would say that manufacturing went into recession in 2006, before the bank crisis struck. Here we are 7 years later, nothing has been done about training in those years in the meantime, and the clothes you are wearing today were made on a machine, if someone’s not out there making those machines we’re going to have nothing. Manufacturing desperately needs help.

Answer

Right, okay. Well, look, the good news, sir, is that the last figures that we have for the British economy, manufacturing has been growing actually slightly faster than services and I think it’s welcome that we’re seeing a recovery in manufacturing, in construction as well as in our service industries. I think what we also need to see is that export growth and manufacturing obviously, as a very tradable sector, is always a vital part of that.

What can the government do for manufacturing? I think there are 3 or 4 things that are vital. There’s obviously the tax regime that affects lots of businesses, so low corporate tax rates. We’ve got the Patent Box, so if you invent anything here in Britain and manufacture it here in Britain you pay 10% corporation tax. I think the apprenticeship schemes that we’re backing, record funding going into apprenticeship schemes. I think that’s particularly important for manufacturing and those sorts of skilled jobs. I think the transport network – we talked about broadband is vital for a lot of rural businesses; if you’re a manufacturing business we need to upgrade our ports, we need to upgrade our railways and our roads, all of which is happening.

I think that the other piece of the jigsaw I’ve mentioned is these catapult centres that the business department is setting up, where we’re looking at specific industries, specific parts of manufacturing and thinking how can we help by, frankly, imitating the Germans and seeing where you can get the best out of our universities, the best out of our business brains, and put them together in catapult centres to try and literally catapult better technology into our manufacturing industries. So, for instance, the one that we’re doing with aerospace, which is funded with hundreds of millions of pounds, I think could be a real success in an area where Britain is still the number 2 in the world.

So I’m very much committed to a manufacturing based recovery, to supporting manufacturers, I think sills, technology, taxes and transport were the ones I’d put at the top of the list, but if you’ve got other ones, my experts here in the front row, and you can have a go at them after I’ve gone.

Question

I started out when I was 12, I was one of very few number. Obviously I think now we can all say that the age of the entrepreneur really has arrived, and of course the enterprise loans are actually sitting here with Mike and Ben Dyer who are the only young entrepreneur delivery partners for the enterprise loans who are actually giving me a loan at the moment.

So, I think we can certainly say that the age has arrived, the only thing that worries me slightly is – particularly within my industry of food and drink, high end retail – is that that the industry is so crowded, and retail has been so badly damaged through the recession, is that sustainable? Is it sustainable for 12,000 new businesses to be setting up when we go into a retail that 2 brands have to come out for us to go in?

That’s the first point, and then the second one is to do with export, so sort of following on from that. We’ve been exporting – I’ve worked with UKTI for a number of years; I was at the November 2010 event as a speaker. And what we see is an inconsistency on what’s actually being talked about in terms of the support of trade and export. Very quick example, we exported to Mexico, we were told and advised by UK Trade & Investment we’d need a dairy certification. Products arrived into port and were held by customs; we had to pay nearly £8,000 for a new certification because dairy isn’t required.

So I think there’s a little bit of an inconsistency there with what’s being sort of discussed and what’s actually being delivered. So I please ask you that you could talk to UK Trade & Investment to actually engage more with people who are on the forefront of export.

Answer

Okay. Well thank you very much and thank you for what you’ve done since the age of 12 to deliver this enterprise revolution. I mean, I really believe it is happening. When I see what’s happening with the start-up loans, with the enterprise allowance scheme, with the fact here are 400,000 more businesses today than there were 3 and a half years ago in our country, I think we are seeing real signs of an enterprise economy bursting through again.

On UKTI, I think the performance has improved a lot over recent years, but one of the reasons for hiring a great business brain, in Livingston, is to really put him to work on turning around this organisation even more, and making sure it’s looking after small businesses in particular. I think a lot of big businesses already have the expertise in terms of export and how to get on in overseas markets, but small businesses really need that help and support.

On your point on retail, I’m not sure I’ve got a really good answer to that. I mean, you know, we have a very competitive retail market. I mean, when Napoleon said we’re a nation of shopkeepers he meant it as an insult, I take it as a compliment, and I think we should want to have a competitive market where new people should break through. And that’s the business world we live in today. You know, you think about it, a few years ago a lot of these brands that have gone global or taking over the world didn’t even exist. You know, where was Skype 5 years ago? You know where were some of these businesses that have come from nowhere? So I think we should celebrate the fact that we have a lot of bursting‑through small businesses that are going to change their markets, because it’s that process of change that will create the jobs of the future.

Question

I’m afraid it’s a bit about the banks. It’s an ask for a little bit of help. We’ve been very lucky in 2 of my members, we’ve managed to get recompense from the banks for the mis-selling of swap rates. And these are microbusinesses, £120,000 worth of extra interest. They’ve now been given, eventually, their compensation package, which includes about a quarter of an inch of paper to go through. Inside there is a confidentiality clause; we can argue about that.

But the big problem being is that the answer in short terms is, ‘Yes we got it wrong. Here’s your money back. Here’s the compensation we think we’ll give you. And if you don’t like it, you can reapply to us, but be aware that you might not get back what we’ve offered you in the first place.’ And I think that’s completely wrong. If the compensation isn’t enough, the person should be able to go back without fear of losing the initial claim – or we need something to do about that. And just to add insult to injury, the following day, they got a telephone call from that bank saying, ‘We got it wrong before but can we re-do your loan for you?’

Answer

Right. But I think that – that’s a good one to end on sir. Look, I think our banking system is strengthening. I think our banking system is being sorted out. But it’s going to take more time. And I think the 2 key elements that you’re pointing to are, 1, we need more competition. Banks have got to feel the pressure of competition, from the fact that business owners can take their custom somewhere else. They’ve got to feel the pressure that account holders can switch their account to another bank. That is now happening, and I think these challenger banks that you can now see – the Metro Banks, the Handelsbanks, the fact that TSB is out there again – that competition, we need that to change the culture and the practice in banking.

The second area is regulation, and I think, frankly, we did inherit a bit of a mess in terms of regulation, and we’ve taken steps to sort that out by giving the Bank of England an absolutely clear role in terms of calling the time on excessive debt in our economy, which it didn’t do previously. But also having in the Financial Conduct Authority a tough and rigorous regulator on banking practice.

And so this is not going to be easily fixed. I would just beware the sort of quack remedies that I think we’re being offered by the opposition, who come up with something that looks flashy for about a day, and then you realise hasn’t worked elsewhere in the world and is not right. I think under this government you can see the competition is hotting up. The new banks are arriving. There’s more work to be done as we nurse RBS back to health. And let’s let these new regulators get on with their job, and they may be able to look at cases like your – the one you mention, and make sure that we police these organisations better.

Can I thank you very much indeed. I’m afraid I’m told that’s all I’ve got time for. Can I thank you very much for inviting me. Sorry it’s taken 40 years to get a prime minister along, but, as I said, we’ll try and speed up the next – the next arrival – of this prime minister, let me just be clear about that, in case there are any doubts about that one. But thank you very much for the warm welcome. Thank you for the suggestions.

This is about not just a speech and a Q&A; it’s about a process of engagement. We desperately want small business, enterprise and entrepreneurship to succeed in our country. There’s some stuff we need to get out the way: the tax and regulation. There’s some big stuff we need to stand up for on small business. And there’s a bit more celebrating we need to do of successful enterprise and entrepreneurship, and people who create wealth and jobs in our economy. It is a vital piece of work. It’s an incredibly noble thing to do when people start out on their own. And when they create those businesses that become great employers of the future, it is a genuine public service, and we can’t say that often enough.

Thank you very much indeed.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the World Economic Forum at Davos on 24th January 2014.

The key challenge for politicians and business leaders in Europe is how we make a success of globalisation.

For years the West has been written off.

People say that we are facing some sort of inevitable decline.

They say we can’t make anything anymore.

Whether it’s the shift from manufacturing to services, or the transfer from manual jobs to machines, the end point is the same dystopian vision; the East wins while the West loses; and the workers lose while the machines win.

I don’t believe it has to be this way.

Of course, we cannot be starry eyed about globalisation – it presents huge challenges as our economies and societies try to adapt.

But neither should we take this pessimistic view.

If we engage in the right way, if we get the fundamentals of our economies right, sort out our debts, maximise our competitiveness and build on our strengths, then globalisation offers our businesses the chance to win new contracts to export into markets that were previously closed and create jobs fulfilling the demands of new consumers thousands of miles away.

Indeed if we make the right decisions, we may also see more of what has been a small but discernible trend where some jobs that were once offshored are coming back from East to West.

And it is this that I want to talk about today.

All of this is about the same purpose.

Securing sustainable, well-paid jobs.

Giving people pride in using their skills.

Offering workers a chance to make world-beating products.

Bringing more of the benefits of globalisation home and ensuring those benefits are felt by hard-working people in terms of security, stability and peace of mind.

Let me start with what we are doing in Britain.

We have set out a long-term economic plan to secure our country’s economic future.

It has 5 parts.

First, getting the fundamentals right – cutting the deficit so we deal with our debts, safeguarding our economy for the long-term and keeping mortgage rates low.

Second, reducing taxes to help hard-working people become more financially secure.

Third, capping welfare and reducing immigration so our economy delivers for people who want to work hard and play by the rules.

Fourth, delivering the best schools and skills for young people so the next generation can be best placed to win the jobs of the future.

And fifth, driving job creation by backing small business and enterprise with better infrastructure and lower jobs taxes.

Each part of this plan is already producing results.

The deficit we inherited was the biggest in our post war history – but already it’s down by a third.

Our economy is growing.

Just this week, the IMF upgraded its growth forecasts for Britain by more than any other G7 country and we have also seen the largest quarterly increase in employment since records began.

There are now more than 1.6 million new private sector jobs since early 2010 – and around 400,000 more small businesses. We’ve cut taxes for over 25 million people, reformed welfare so that it pays to work and created more apprenticeships than at any time in our history.

And we’ve taken unprecedented steps to back enterprise; scrapping £1.2 billion of red tape – including pushing for the removal of the most problematic EU regulations and investing billions in our infrastructure – in roads, rail and what is set to become the best superfast broadband network in Europe.

Ernst and Young now say Britain is the best place in Europe for new entrepreneurs.

This has not come automatically; it is because we have chosen to build our long-term economic plan on Britain’s great strengths. We have chosen to play to our strengths as an open, trading economy, championing the vital EU trade deals with America, Canada and Asia that can add millions of jobs to our economies and billions of pounds to the value of our businesses.

Rather than trying to pull up the drawbridge and shut ourselves off from globalisation, we have chosen to embrace foreign investment.

We are proud of the Indian investment in Jaguar Land Rover, proud that Emirates invested in a new stadium for Arsenal and Etihad have invested in Manchester City.

And we are proud that in the first half of last year the UK became the world’s largest recipient of inward foreign direct investment.

We have made choices. Difficult choices.

In a time of austerity we have chosen to maintain our spending on science and innovation.

And we have chosen to cut business taxes.

Corporation tax will soon be as low as 20%, the lowest in the G7 and as low as 10% for companies that turn innovation into manufacturing.

This is the country that is so committed to cutting burdens on business, that no government Minister – not even me as Prime Minister – can propose a new regulation that affects business without getting rid of 2 others in return.

This is Britain. Open, pioneering, creative, innovative – and ready for your investment.

Britain also has the chance to become something else.

Let me explain.

In recent years there has been a practice of offshoring where companies move production facilities to low cost countries. We’ve all seen it. We all know it’s true. And it will continue.

But there is now an opportunity for the reverse: there is now an opportunity for some of those jobs to come back.

A recent survey of small and medium sized businesses found that more than 1 in 10 has brought back to Britain some production in the past year. More than double the proportion sending production in the opposite direction.

From food processing to fashion, from cars to computer-makers. It’s not just one sector; it’s across all sectors of the economy.

The food manufacturer Symingtons is moving its factory from China to Leeds.

Hornby the model train manufacturer is bringing some of its manufacturing from India to Britain.

Raspberry Pi computers have shipped production to Wales.

A company I visited yesterday morning – Vent-Axia – has shipped jobs from China to Crawley.

Jaeger, the fashion brand, stopped manufacturing in the UK 15 years ago but is now bringing as much as 10 per cent back to Britain. Take cars. Britain now exports more cars than it imports and based on this success, the automotive industry has indicated it could yet return £3 billion of supply contracts.

But we are not just seeing these trends and opportunities in Britain.

A survey of major US-based manufacturing companies found that more than a third were planning or actively considering shifting production facilities from China to America.

While one recent forecast suggests millions of jobs could be available for re-shoring globally.

To win these jobs we need to understand what is driving these changes.

Part of the story is about rising costs in the emerging markets, a natural consequence of these economies developing and their people becoming wealthier.

Senior pay in China now matches or exceeds pay in America and Europe while rising oil prices and complex supply chains are increasing transport costs too.

At the same time, there are a number of factors pulling companies back home.

Some companies are choosing to locate production nearer to their consumer markets in the West.

By shortening their supply chains, they can develop new products and react more quickly to changing consumer demand. More customisation. More personalization. Better and faster customer service.

For example, you’re inspired by a new trend on the London catwalk and want to make a new product available in days not weeks. A shorter supply chain will help.

So will new technologies like 3-D printing – where you can personalise a design and print in hours rather than choose from a more limited range of pre-designed goods and ship in weeks.

There is no doubt that when it comes to re-shoring in the US, one of the most important factors has been the development of shale gas, which is flooring US energy prices with billions of dollars of energy cost savings predicted over the next decade.

Taken together, I believe these trends have the ability to be a fresh driver of growth in Europe too.

I want Britain to seize these opportunities.

I think there is a chance for Britain to become the “Re-Shore Nation”.

For years we have had UKTI out there helping our businesses to export and encouraging inward investment.

Now I want to give that same dedicated specific support to helping businesses re-shore.

So we are setting up a one stop shop to help businesses capitalise on the opportunities of re-shoring.

Much as Britain can be the “Re-shore nation”, so Europe can benefit from this too.

But only if we act now to make re-shoring as attractive as possible.

As much as there is an opportunity, we have to be careful not to misrepresent it.

So, let me be clear on 3 things I’m not saying.

First, I’m not saying there is a finite number of jobs in the world and that our success depends on some kind of tug of war to win them back at the expense of the East.

That completely misunderstands the nature of what is going on; and how economies work.

Growth and dynamism means that new jobs are continually being created and re-created.

So our gain is not their loss: rather their gain is our gain.

Second, I’m not saying that re-shoring is going to bring back all the jobs that were off-shored in the first place.

We have to keep the scale of this development in proportion.

So far most of the firms involved are mainly bringing back production destined for markets in the West.

Some companies will continue to off-shore more than they bring back and much of what these firms have moved overseas will remain there, if not in China then in other low-cost Asian economies like Indonesia and Vietnam.

Third, I am not saying that our economic success depends on winning some kind of race to the bottom nor should we be engaged in one.

Getting decent, well-paid jobs at every level is what we are aiming for.

And I believe that’s what we can get…and that re-shoring can help.

When mobile network company EE recently decided to move 300 call centre jobs from the Philippines to Northern Ireland, they didn’t do it because wages were lower. They did it because productivity was higher and because the company decided it would be more successful by having a more local call centre for its customers.

And as they make this move, they aren’t just creating jobs for telephone operators.

They are creating jobs for managers, lawyers and technicians too.

So what I am saying is this.

Right now, economies in Europe have a unique opportunity to accelerate this new trend of jobs coming back home.

And we should be confident that we can do this.

As we do so, we should never forget one of our most important strengths.

We should never undersell the core values of our liberal democracy; the rule of law, the freedom of speech and freedom of the media, property rights and accountable institutions, all vital foundations for long-term stability and commercial success.

But for re-shoring to happen we need to build on those foundations.

That means settling once and for all 2 key arguments that risk undermining our competitiveness.

First, on the overall business environment.

And second, on the need for cheap and predictable sources of energy.

Let me briefly take each of these in turn.

All of us here in Davos know what it is that businesses need if they are to choose to locate in Europe. Macroeconomic stability.

European economies with their debts and deficits under control.

Strong finance – like that provided by the City of London.

Consistent support for free trade – especially the vital trade deal with the US.

And above all, we need an unashamedly pro-business regulatory environment – with labour market flexibility, low jobs taxes and a willingness to pave the way for new business and new business models.

These are the issues our Business Task Force highlighted in their recent report – a report 7 European leaders supported late last year in Brussels.

We are making progress in the battle for an enterprise-friendly Europe.

The Eurozone crisis has focused governments on the need for structural reform.

The accession to the EU of countries that experienced state socialism and the progress of sensible pro-enterprise governments.

All these things have helped.

But the fight is not yet won.

There are still people who think that the key to success is ever greater social protections and more regulations.

Some in the European Commission seem to think that if they’re not producing new regulations they’re somehow not doing their job.

And that removing existing regulations is somehow an act of self-harm.

While many in the European Parliament are tempted to gold plate every piece of legislation.

Let’s be clear.

We don’t protect workers by piling on the regulations and directives to such an extent that they become unemployable.

We have to maintain the flexibility for companies to grow and expand.

Incredibly complex and overwritten directives that take this flexibility away, that make life difficult for temporary workers, or that stop firms moving people between plants just mean that companies who want to re-shore will re-shore somewhere else.

By contrast, where countries are embracing reform, new jobs are flowing.

In the UK, BT moved 1,200 jobs back because of flexibility from the unions.

Last year Nissan said it will invest 130 million Euros in its Barcelona plant – mainly because Spanish unions agreed to recast working conditions and allow more flexible arrangements.

Ford, Renault and Volkswagen are similarly keen to take advantage of greater flexibility in Europe, especially southern Europe. It would be madness to stand in their way.

The same is true of energy.

To relocate in Europe, businesses will be encouraged by cheap and predictable sources of energy.

Yes, we need renewables – these are a vital part of our future.

That’s why Britain had made itself one of the best places for green investment anywhere in the world, with the world’s first dedicated green investment bank and the largest offshore wind market in the world.

We need nuclear as part of that energy mix too.

And I’m delighted that in Britain last year we agreed the first new nuclear build for a generation with £16 billion of investment and 25,000 new jobs.

That will ensure safety of energy supplies.

But we also need to explore the opportunity represented by shale gas.

Now I understand the concerns some people have.

We need the right regulations – such as ensuring that well casings are set at the right depths with tight seals.

And governments need to reassure people that nothing would go ahead if there were environmental dangers.

But if this is done properly, shale gas can actually have lower emissions than imported gas.

This week’s announcements from the European Union represent important progress but there is still a way to go in really embracing this opportunity.

We should be clear that if the European Union or its member states impose burdensome, unjustified or premature regulatory burdens on shale gas exploration in Europe investors will quickly head elsewhere.

Oil and gas will still be plentifully produced, but Europe will be dry.

Just look at what shale gas has done for America – for American firms and American jobs.

It has reduced industrial gas prices in America to about one quarter of those in Europe and it’s set to create a million more manufacturing jobs as firms build new factories.

A recent study suggests that US GDP is going to be to on average close to half a trillion dollars higher every year between 2008 and 2035 because of shale.

The Confederation of British Industry and Business Europe are coming together to launch a “Blueprint for Industrial Competitiveness”.

Their message is clear.

Act now to seize the opportunities of re-shoring.

Deal with our debts. Roll back the unnecessary regulation. And embrace the opportunities of shale gas.

Business is making the case.

Please don’t hold back in telling Europe’s governments what we need to do.

European countries face a choice.

If we act now we can ensure our businesses, our peoples and our societies can benefit from the next phases of globalisation.

The security, stability and peace of mind that those we serve yearn for can only be delivered by facing the difficult choices. We must not fail them.

Below is the 2013 Christmas message from David Cameron, the Prime Minister.

Christmas gives us a space when we can consider the things that we value most – family, friends and fellowship. It is a time for being hopeful for the coming year and to reflect on the one that has passed.

Looking back, 2013 has been a year when our country pulled together to overcome the challenges we face. Together we have made real progress on strengthening our economy and creating more decent jobs so that people can provide for their families. This progress is down to the efforts of millions who go out and work hard every day, putting in the hours, running businesses and keeping our economy going.

And there are those millions who keep on strengthening our society too – being good neighbours, running clubs and voluntary associations, playing their part in countless small ways to help build what I call the ‘big society’. Many of these people are Christians who live out to the letter that verse in Acts, that “it is more blessed to give than to receive”. These people put their faith into action and we can all be grateful for what they do.

2013 was a significant year for the Christian faith – a year that welcomed The Most Reverend Justin Welby as the new Archbishop of Canterbury and saw His Holiness Pope Francis elected to lead the Roman Catholic Church. Both have come in with exciting plans to rejuvenate their respective churches, which should inspire Christians around the world.

For me, this season is also a time to think about the meaning of Christmas – the birth of Jesus Christ and the hope that gives to millions. In Handel’s Messiah, these words from the Prophet Isaiah are brilliantly put to music: “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

With peace in mind, I would like to say thank you to our brave service women and men who are helping bring peace here and around the world; to their families who cannot be with them; and to all the dedicated men and women in the emergency and caring services who are working hard to support those in need this Christmas.

Have a peaceful Christmas – and a very happy New Year.

Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister on the 25th Anniversary of Lockerbie.

The loss of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie at 7.03pm UK time on the evening of 21 December 1988 was a shocking event. A loss made more poignant still by being so close to Christmas.

Lockerbie remains one of the worst aviation disasters in history and the deadliest act of terrorism ever committed in the United Kingdom.

Though 25 years have passed, memories of the 243 passengers, 16 crew and 11 Lockerbie residents who lost their lives on that terrible night have not dimmed.

Over the last quarter of a century much attention has been focused on the perpetrators of the atrocity.

Today our thoughts turn to its victims and to those whose lives have been touched and changed by what happened at Lockerbie that night.

To families, friends, neighbours, loved ones, and all those caught up in the painful process of recovery.

Let us say to them: our admiration for you is unconditional. For the fortitude and resilience you have shown. For your determination never to give up. You have shown that terrorist acts cannot crush the human spirit. That is why terrorism will never prevail.

And even in the darkest moments of grief, it is possible to glimpse the flickering flame of hope.

The tragedy of Pan Am 103 continues to forge a strong bond between Lockerbie Academy and Syracuse University.

Syracuse lost 35 of its own on that fateful evening. Nothing can restore the promise of those young lives cut short. Yet their memory is honoured by the scholarships Syracuse awards each year to 2 Lockerbie students and 35 of its own undergraduates.

They represent a growing band of beneficiaries, each given the chance to fulfil their own youthful promise.

This is the lasting and optimistic legacy bequeathed to future generations on behalf of those who lost their lives on this day 25 years ago and who we remember here today.

Below is the text of the speech and Q&A by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, as part of the PM Direct tour. The event was held at Tetley, Stockton-on-Tees on 13th December 2013.

Prime Minister

Thanks very much. It’s great to be here. Now, the point of today is your questions and my answers. So, I’ll just make very brief introductory comments. The first is about the state of our economy. I know it’s been a very difficult past 3 years; we’ve had the banking crisis, we’ve had the economic recession, we’ve had a squeeze on people’s finances. It’s been a very tough time, but I really believe we’ve turned the corner and things are starting to improve. Our economy’s growing, we’ve got a million more people in work compared with 3 years ago, we’ve got more businesses starting, we’re beginning to sell again to the world. It’s still a long way to go, but we’ve got a plan; we’ve got to stick to the plan and I believe that plan will deliver.

The second thing is, I know that it has been difficult here in the North East, but, again, I think things are beginning to pick up. I see the signs, in terms of 18,000 more people in work, 12,000 more businesses operating here in the North East. But I don’t want to stand back and just hope it’s going to happen; I want government to step in and help make it happen. And today we’re announcing what’s called the City Deal for Stockton-on-Tees, which is when we get together the local councils, the Local Enterprise Partnership and the government in Whitehall, and try and work out what we can all put on the table to bring jobs and growth to this area.

So, we’re hoping to see 3,500 more jobs, we’re unlocking about £28 million of investment – particularly using the waste energy from the chemical and other industries to heat homes, factories and businesses, which could cut bills by 10% – and making sure that we use derelict land for development and we get our economy moving.

Third and final thing by way of introduction: you often get politicians – and I’m guilty of this as anyone – who talk about GDP, and facts and figures, and graphs and all the rest of it, and it is worth just remembering what this is all for – what this is all about. We want a growing economy, we want more jobs, we want more businesses, because we want people to have a sense of stability in their lives and a sense of security about their future, whether that is finding a good school place for your child, whether it’s about getting your first apprenticeship, getting your first job, getting a secure future. That is what this is all about, that’s what the economic plan is about and that’s why we’ve got to stick to it.

That was all I wanted to say. Now it’s time for your questions and my answers. Feel free to ask about anything you want.

Question

David, the competition with China’s had a huge negative impact on manufacturing over here. You’re now building closer ties with China. How do you see that benefitting manufacturing?

Prime Minister

Well, I think it can be a win-win situation. I mean, the rise of China in the world economy, I don’t think, has to be bad for us; I think it can be good for us. And the way to think about it is like this: China pretty soon is going to have a middle class of 600 million people; that is bigger than the entire European single market. Now, we are a country that produces a lot of things that those people are going to want to buy.

Now, some of those things will be manufactured goods, like Land Rover cars or Nissans made in Sunderland, or what have you. Some of those things will be television programmes, or insurance policies, or banking services. So, we should see this as a great opportunity.

Now, we’re not going to compete effectively with China if we try and out-cheap them on manufactured goods. We shouldn’t try to have some sort of way of thinking, ‘Let’s try and produce things more China.’ We need to move up the value chain and make sure we’re producing things efficiently; that we’ve got good, high-quality products, high-quality services, and that’s how we win.

My job, I see is 2 parts. One is to go to China with businesses, large and small, and help them break down the barriers to go and sell there. And I did that: I took BP, I took British Aerospace, but I also took a man I met at a North Devon show who said he wanted to sell sausages in China. And, actually, he sold 140 tons of sausages, and he was pretty chuffed about that.

But the second thing is we want fair rules about access. It’s not fair if the Chinese can come and invest and sell here, but we don’t have proper access to their markets. So, one of the things particularly I was looking at was protection of intellectual property. There’s a lot of ripping off of formats and ripping off of products in China, and we need to make sure there are fair rules. So, that’s my job: to get us in there, to make sure the rules are fair. But I think we can benefit by having an open market.

And, funnily enough, Tetley is not a bad place to say this. You know, the fact that, actually, it’s now an Indian company, Tata, that has bought Tetley and is putting in the investment – is that a bad thing for our country? I would say it’s a good thing. We want to go out there into the world and say, ‘We’re an open economy; we welcome investment.’ And the more investment that comes, the more jobs there will be.

And I think when these rising economies look round the world, I want them to look at Britain and think, ‘Yes, this is an open economy I can invest in. I can create wealth and jobs there.’ And, I think, that will put us at an advantage to other European countries.

Question

When do you think the North, and the North East in particular, will lose the tag, ‘It’s grim up North’?

Prime Minister

Well, look, if you look at the last (inaudible) this is a very techy answer – but, actually, in the last year the North East has grown ahead of the national average. So, I don’t think this label is really fair. I think the truth of the matter is, there are parts of the North East, North West, that are doing well, and there are parts that aren’t doing as well and we need to help them.

But I think the idea of a straight North-South divide, I think, is outdated and I want to make it more outdated. And that’s why I support things like the high speed railway line, I support electrification of more railways, I support more road schemes that are going to connect our country.

But, I think, the stereotype, I think, is a bit out-of-date already, but I’d like to consign it completely to the dustbin of history through all these infrastructure changes that we’re making. But, sometimes in politics stereotypes and images live on for a long time, and real change has to take place for a very long time before people give up on them.

Question

What are you currently doing to stop the influx of non-skilled workers from the EU, and are planning to do or not claiming benefits?

Prime Minister

Right. An influx of non-skilled workers from the EU – I know this is a major cause of concern. And, look, we belong to the European Union where there are rules about saying that if you apply for a job in another country, you can go and take that job in another country. And that enables British people to go and work in Germany, or Spain, or elsewhere, and it enables European nationals to come and work here.

But, I think there are 2 things we’ve absolutely got to get right. One is, when a new country joins the European Union, they should not have automatic access to our market. When Poland and the other Eastern European countries joined in 2004 they were given instant access to British jobs, even though Poland and those countries were much poorer than us. As a result, the numbers that came were far bigger than what anyone expected – 1.5 million people came. It was one of the biggest movements in population that we’ve seen in the last decades.

That is why when my government came in we said we’d have the maximum amount of time before the Romanians and Bulgarians, who have joined the European Union, can come. That’s why there’s been a 7 year transition period.

And even with that happening I’m still not satisfied, so we’ve made absolutely sure that it’s not possible for people to come here simply to claim benefits. If you’re coming to claim benefits, you shouldn’t – that shouldn’t be allowed. And, also, if you fall out of work, you shouldn’t be able to go on claiming benefits – you should be asked to return to your country.

So, we’re putting in place very tough measures and controls. But, I think, for the future we will need to go further as other countries join the European Union. And as I’ve been arguing, we should be opening up – as other countries join the European Union, we should be insisting on longer transition periods, perhaps even saying until you’ve reached a proper share of the average European Union GDP, you can’t have freedom of movement.

The reason for that is, if you look at migration between, say, Britain and Germany, or France and Germany – 2 countries of pretty even GDP, even economic size – the movements are pretty much balanced. It’s only when you’ve got a real imbalance – a very poor country and a much wealthier country – that you get these vast movements.

So, I’m not satisfied with the way it’s working at the moment. We’ve put in the toughest controls that we can, we won’t let it happen again by having even tougher controls in the future, and, I think, there’s more we can do to stop benefit tourism.

Question

You said it shouldn’t be allowed. Should it not be “won’t” be allowed?

Prime Minister

It won’t be allowed – no, it won’t be allowed to happen in the future. Any future country joining the European Union – while I’m Prime Minister, I will insist on much tougher transitional controls; longer controls, and, as I’ve said, perhaps even saying until your economy – until your wealth is similar to our wealth, you can’t have unrestricted movement. I think that’s very important.

One last thing: I think we need to do more to make sure that there aren’t unscrupulous employers paying below the minimum wage. I think the minimum wage does help to help people in our country, and I think we need to make sure some people aren’t – aren’t cheating, as it were, and paid below the minimum wage. And also, we don’t want to have this thing where you’ve got some employment agencies are simply targeting workers from European countries like Romania and Bulgaria. That shouldn’t be allowed, because – and won’t be allowed, because you should have employment agencies that are willing to take people from everywhere, including the UK.

It’s a whole series of steps we’re taking, but I recognise that in future we’re going to need to do more.

Question

I’d just like to ask, in view of your statement when you came to power, that due to the austerity measures you introduced that we were all in this together. How does that work now with the proposed 11% pay rise for MPs?

Prime Minister

Very good point. Well, I don’t think an 11% pay rise for MPs is acceptable, and I said that in the House of Commons on Wednesday. What happens here is that under the last government I think they quite rightly decided MPs should not vote on their own pay. The idea of MPs voting on their own pay is wrong. We are legislators, we are law-makers, but we shouldn’t be able to deal with our own affairs.

So, we gave that job – about pay and expenses and everything else – to an independent organisation. They’ve been looking at the issue of MPs pay. They’ve come up – to be fair with them, they’ve come up with a package that they say doesn’t cost the taxpayer any more money, because MPs have to put more into their pensions, there’s been some cuts in our expenses, and they’re saying because of that there should be this pay rise. But what I said on Wednesday is it’s just unacceptable, when you’re asking public sector workers to continue a pay restraint, to have this vast increase in one year. So they’ve got to go away and think again, and if they don’t go away and think again, as I said, nothing is ruled out.

As for, ‘All in it together,’ I would argue yes, we’ve had to make tough decisions, difficult decisions, but I think we have made them in a fair way. For instance, we said while we’re going to make spending reductions we’re not going to cut the NHS, and we haven’t cut the NHS; we’ve protected the NHS. While we’ve had to make difficult decisions on welfare – things like capping the welfare that a family can receive – we’ve protected the pension. So pensioners are better off under this government by the tune of about £15 a week. So I think we have been true to being fair, while making difficult decisions. But, as you say, MPs can’t be exempt from those difficult decisions. Neither should ministers.

One of the first things I did as Prime Minister is I cut ministers’ pay by 5% – cut it and froze it for the whole of the parliament. Because I think it’s very important, if you’re the Prime Minister, making difficult, long-term decisions about public spending, you can’t exempt your own government.

Question

Could I just ask about your recent decision to increase the pension age to 68? Would it not be fairer and better for the country to get younger people in and older people out? Young blood, as it were?

Prime Minister

Well I think it’s a good question. It is a tough question this, but I approach it in 2 ways. One is, look we are living longer as a country, and that’s a good thing. And so what we’re saying is instead of arbitrarily fixing the date at which you retire, we’re saying that the assumption should be that you spend a third of your adult life in retirement. So as we live longer, as life expectancy increases, we should expect the date at which you retire to increase. And so that’s why people are able now to see the likely date when it goes from 66 to 67, 67 to 68, and so on. And I think that’s a fair approach.

But the second thing I’d say is I don’t think it’s the right way to look at this, just to assume there’s a fixed number of jobs in the economy and we have to divide them up between young people and older people. That I think, is what lies behind your question, that somehow, if you had people retiring earlier we’d get more young people into the workforce.

What we’ve got to do is bake a bigger cake; we’ve got to make the economy bigger. We’ve got to create more jobs. And I think when you look at economies that have tried to make more jobs by restricting hours of work or retiring early it hasn’t worked. You know, that’s what the French have been up to in some degree, and some other countries, and actually they’ve got higher rates of unemployment than we have, they’ve got fewer people in the labour force, you make your economy less competitive.

So, I think retirement is fair if you go with age, life expectancy, and then what we need to do, is help young people into the workforce, actually, sometimes, by making it cheaper and easier to employ them. So, one of the things the Chancellor did in his budget was say that if you employ someone between the age of 18 and 21 you don’t pay any national insurance contributions for that person.

I think we do need to give young people a leg up into the workforce, but we should do it on the basis of making a bigger economy, making more jobs, rather than just carving them up between young and old.

The other point on pensions is if we want to go on paying proper good pensions, which we should, I think it’s right to raise the retirement age rather than saying, ‘Okay, we’re going to have more elderly people, so we have to spread the money more thinly. So I think it’s fairer – I’d rather have a better pension system that we can pay for, with people retiring a little bit later, taking into account the life expectancy changes.

Question

I have 2 part-time jobs, and I work 35 hours. Another person who has a full-time job – 35 hours – they pay 17% tax, where I have to pay 37%. How is that fair?

Prime Minister

Well that doesn’t sound particularly fair, and I’d have to look at your individual circumstances. Obviously, on the income tax you amalgamate the income from the two jobs. What we’re saying is that the first £10,000 that you earn you don’t pay any income tax on at all, and that’s going to come in from April of next year. So, that should benefit you whether you’re working, you know, 40 hours at one place, or 40 hours at two different places.

I suspect where you’re paying extra tax is probably on the national insurance, and I’d have to look at the specific details, but actually, if you have 2 jobs then you can get some national insurance rebated in terms of what you pay. But I’d have to maybe get someone to have a look at your case and see if I can help.

Question

I just want to dwell on the retirement thing. Could it not depend on what type of job you do, as in physical…?

Prime Minister

Well, that’s a good question. In some of the public services, like police and fire and military, there are different rules. I think it’s quite difficult in the rest of the economy to have differential retirement ages for different jobs. And, as I say, I think the overwhelming thing here is we’ve got to deal with the simple fact, which is we are living longer; life expectancy is going up. And so it seems to me fair to say, let’s work on the basis that up to a third of your adult life should be spent in retirement. And if we think that’s a fair basis, then as people live longer you raise the retirement age.

And that has the spin off benefit, as I’ve said, as if you do that then we’ll be able to go on funding properly funded pensions, including this new single tier pension, which will be over £140 a week, which will be coming in as we amalgamate some of the old, rather complex rules that were in place.

So I think that is the right approach. I don’t think it’s possible to totally distinguish between different jobs in the private sector.

Question

I ride a pushbike to work; is there any chance of you having a word with your councillors about getting more cycle tracks?

Prime Minister

Well, some of them are here. Actually, we’ve got some councillors here. But I think this is important. And I think there is a sense, sometimes, that the cycling money goes into the big cities and there’s not enough done, particularly on some of the A and B roads, where it can be quite frightening on a cycle, when the lorry comes past. So, I think we made available some government money under the cycling strategy, and we need the councils to have a look and see what they can do.

Question

Can I just ask the Prime Minister what his views are on the role of the media in politics? The media [inaudible] important political decisions and events are portrayed in such a way depending on which newspaper you read, where it’s almost misleading. Do you ever sit at home and watch the television or read the newspapers and think to yourself, ‘That’s not actually what I said.’

Prime Minister

Politicians will always complain about the media and it’s a bit like farmers complaining about the weather. You know, our job is to make decisions and then to get out and defend and explain those decisions and try and take people with us. So we need the media to help us do that and inevitably, quite rightly, they are also critical and questioning. And I think that’s fair enough. They’re called the fourth estate and there’s a reason for that, they have a role in the democracy to challenge, to probe and to openly disagree with the government a lot of the time.

I think sometimes the politicians and the media need to be a bit more understanding. We need to understand when they make mistakes they’ve got to produce a paper every day, of course they’re going to get some things wrong. They need to understand that, you know, we get asked about every single question under the sun and sometimes we might misspeak or go a little further than perhaps we should.

We should be really proud of the fact that we have a vigorous debate in this country. I on behalf of Britain travel the world and go to all sorts of different places. And we should be really proud of the fact that we’ve got a lively democracy where we have a real go at our leaders and our politicians in parliament, in the press. It’s a good thing. So we shouldn’t be too frustrated about that.

I think in the end the British public is interested in British politics. Not in the day-to-day of it, but they want to know, you know, are you making the right decisions have you got my back, are you trying to sort out things to help me.

And when the British public make decisions at election time, they tend to make pretty sensible decisions because they’re asking the question, ‘Which way is the country going, is that going to work for me and my family, are we making the right choices?’ And there’s going to be a lot of noise between now and the next election, but I’m pretty confident when it comes down to it, you know, if we do a good job they’ll keep us in, and if we do a bad job they’ll kick us out. And that’s democracy, that’s what you’ve – you know, we should celebrate that.

Question

What do you say about the people who say that the last election was decided on the television programmes between yourself and Clegg and Brown?

Prime Minister

I don’t think they were. I mean, I think the TV debates were a very interesting development in British politics and I think a good development because people could have a look at us very directly. But I think when you look at what happened, there was a lot of noise created by the TV debates.

I think they helped people get engaged, but I don’t think they necessarily changed the result.

And obviously as a politician you want to try and get your message across and explain what you’re trying to do. The more ways you can do that the better, because, you know, someone once said democracy is government by explanation. You know, governments have got to try and explain: why are we making cuts to public services? Well, we have to because of the deficit and the danger that our economy would fall over if we didn’t. Why are we asking people to retire later? Well because we’re living longer and we want to pay good pensions.

You know, we’ve got a duty to explain, and so we need to use the media, including tweeting and blogging and everything else because otherwise we’ll get left behind.

Question

What can you do about the European Court of Human Rights and its effect on our justice system?

Prime Minister

I think it’s gone too far. You’ve got the European Union which has got the European Court of Justice, but we’ve also got the Council of Europe, which is much wider than the European Union. And it has the European Convention on Human Rights – perfectly reasonable document actually drafted by the British after the war – trying to encourage European countries to sign up to the basic tenets of human rights.

But the problem is, instead of just examining this basic charter and using it for big important decisions, the European Court of Human Rights has got involved in all sorts of things that should be left to nation states.The most recent example, which has been completely infuriating, is telling Britain that prisoners should get the vote. Now, I don’t know about you, my view is very clear: if parliament decides that prisoners shouldn’t get the vote then they damn well shouldn’t get the vote. If you commit a crime and you go to prison, as far as I’m concerned you leave your voting rights at the door.

Now I don’t think anyone’s at liberty to disagree with that statement, but I happen to think that’s a pretty straightforward statement that in no way infringes human rights; it’s a national decision taken in our parliament. And yet this court has taken issues like that and decided to have a go at nation states.

Question

Do you actually consider that student loans are an appropriate mechanism for funding higher education considering the default rate that’s currently being experienced?

Prime Minister

Right, are student loans the right way of funding higher education given the default rate at the moment? I think they are the right method, and I’ll tell you why. If we start with the big picture. Right, we’ve been talking about how we compete with China and all the rest of it. One of the ways we’re going to compete is by having really good universities, well stocked libraries, well stocked laboratories and the rest of it. Now that costs money, and we need to have that.

We’ve got great universities in this country and we need to go on having great universities. And in the end there’s only 2 places you can get the money from. You can either get it from taxpayers, some of whom have not been to university and are working hard and paying their taxes, or you can get it from students and say that students should contribute to the cost to their own education.

Now, I think it’s right to ask students; one because that means we can go on expanding university education rather than having it constrained under taxpayers’ money. But secondly, we’re not asking all students to pay; we’re actually only asking students that go on and get a good job. You don’t start paying anything back on your loan under our new rules until you’re earning £21,000.

So, I think this is fair. And now we’ve been in for 3 years, and this system’s been in for a couple of years, you can see the number of people applying to go to university is going up and the number of people applying from less privileged backgrounds – from deprived backgrounds is also going up.

And the Chancellor announced in his Autumn Statement that we’re now going to uncap the numbers of people who want to go to university; we’re not going to restrict people. And I think that’s very good for our country. If we think of the future, we want to have those high-skilled, high-trained jobs, and that means more people who want to go to university being able to.

Now, of course we should look at people who default on their loans, but if you’re not paying anything back till you’re earning £21,000 I think that’s quite a fair system, and I think it’s one we should get behind.

Question

I’ve been here 5 years and I’m on the pension committee. And you said that the government are trying to get people more engaged with pensions through auto-enrollment and things like that. What concerns me though is at the end of the day, when you’ve got that pot of money it’s the regulation around finding annuity and the way people get value for money out of those annuities. And that’s concerning me.

Prime Minister

I think that’s a very good point. I think first of all auto-enrollment is a good thing. I think when we had the system where people to opt into a pension system, so many people didn’t because they just weren’t thinking about the future and weren’t thinking about future security. And having a system where you have to opt out rather than opt in I think is going to mean many more people are saving for their old age, many more people will have not just the basic state pension but also a company pension as well. And I think that’s a very good thing.

Then with annuities, obviously it is difficult right now because interest rates are so low that it’s tough to get good value when you purchase an annuity. Now, we’ve got a problem here because we need low interest rates right now. They’re set by the Bank of England, not by me, but we need them to help get the economy moving, to help get the housing market moving. But it does impact older people.

So, I think what that points towards is, first of all, its right to protect the basic state pension and to see that increase every year. It’s right to protect those pensioner benefits, which I said I would at the election; you know, the bus pass, the free TV licence, the winter fuel payments – I said they were safe and we’ve protected them. I think it’s right to do those things. But we’ve also got to look at how we can help people who’ve worked hard all their lives, who’ve saved and are trying to use some income from that saving and they’re not getting very much income from it because interest rates are so low.

So, it’s very much on my radar. I do understand the problem. Obviously lifting the amount of money you can earn before you pay tax, that’s helping some people. But I think you make a very good point.

Can I thank you all very much again for coming. Can I thank you for the questions. I think we had a good range of questions and I’ve really enjoyed it.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, to the G8 Dementia Summit on 11th December 2013.

I’m delighted to welcome you all to the first-ever G8 Dementia Summit.

Today is about 3 things: realism, determination, and hope.

Realism – because no-one here is in any doubt about the scale of the dementia crisis.

A new case every 4 seconds; a global cost of $600 billion dollars a year.

And this is to say nothing of the human cost.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re in London or Los Angeles, in rural India or urban Japan – this disease steals lives; it wrecks families; it breaks hearts and that is why all of us here are so utterly determined to beat it.

Determination to work together

We meet with determination too.

In generations past, the world came together to take on the great killers.

We stood against malaria, cancer, HIV and AIDS and we are just as resolute today.

I want December 11 2013 to go down as the day that the global fight-back began.

Not just on finding a cure for dementia but preventing it, delaying it, and critically – helping those who live with dementia to live well, and live with dignity.

We’ve got some really ambitious objectives for today – to increase funding, to share data – but frankly we have got to be ambitious if we want to beat this.

We’ve got to turn that determination into something real.

Hope for the future

And we meet here with hope.

The debate on dementia can get pretty defeatist.

Of course – the challenge is huge.

And yes – we’re a long way from a cure.

But there is hope.

I see it in the extraordinary work of UK life sciences companies, like Ixico, Cambridge Cognition, Psychology Online and Proteome Sciences, working with others to develop new tests for Alzheimer’s Disease.

I see hope in the US setting new standards for clinical collaboration in Japan – breaking new ground in molecular imaging.

And I see hope in this room – some of the most respected scientists, thinkers and politicians from around the world, coming together to beat this.

We meet in the country where Watson and Crick unraveled DNA… where genetic fingerprinting, the MRI scan and the beta blocker were invented.

We meet with the conviction that human ingenuity can overcome the most daunting of challenges.

We meet with the determination that we will take the fight to dementia – and help improve or save millions of lives.

Life sciences

And in that fight, I want the UK – and UK life sciences – to play a leading role.

We’ve got great strengths – 4 of the world’s top 10 universities, fantastic companies and a National Health Service like no other.

2 years ago we set out a life sciences strategy to capitalise on all this.

We’ve been getting more NHS patients into early stage trials, protecting the science budget and making it much more attractive to invest in research and development (R&D).

We are throwing everything we have at making the UK the place to invest and locate and work in life sciences.

And I can tell you today, this strategy is reaping serious rewards.

In the past 2 years we’ve had £1.8 billion of investment into this country announced.

And I am thrilled to announce 3 further pieces of good news.

The first is that the Medical Research Council will be spending £150 million more on clinical infrastructure for dementia and genomics – that is in addition to our G8 commitments.

The second piece of good news: the Belgian biopharmaceutical company UCB have saved £3 million thanks to our new R&D tax credit and they have decided to reinvest that saving back into their centre in Slough.

The third and final piece of good news: GlaxoSmithKline will be investing a further £200 million in UK life sciences that is on top of the £500 million they invested last year – another huge boost to British innovation.

All this is a resounding endorsement of UK life sciences and it’s a vital part of our long-term plan to re balance the British economy to create more decent, skilled jobs for our people.

We want life sciences to be the jewel in the crown of that economy – and we’re on our way.

But my big message to you here is that what’s good news for the UK economy is also great news in the fight against dementia.

So much of what we’re doing here in the UK in life science is increasingly important to dementia research.

Huge cohort studies. Mass patient participation. Personalised medicine.

Take just one initiative – Bio Bank.

More than half a million people have volunteered to take part in this providing blood samples, getting their vital signs checked, so we can see how diseases like dementia get signalled.

The plan is to use Bio Bank to take brain scans of up to 100,000 people – allowing us to see the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s and other diseases.

That is the kind of ambition we’re seeing here in the UK ambition that should give hope to people right around the world.

So we meet with realism about what we face but with the determination to fight this and the real hope that one day that fight will be won.

I just want to end by thanking everyone here for the vital work you do and for joining us in London today.

Below is the text of the statement made by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, to mark the 50th anniversary of the assassination of JFK. The statement was made on 21st November 2013.

Fifty years ago John F Kennedy lost his life – and the world lost an inspiration. Wherever you go in the world today, the three letters – JFK – are instantly recognisable. They summon up the very best of politics: energy, optimism, hope – the belief that a nation united can achieve almost anything.

It was these ideals which came to define the Kennedy Presidency. He demanded that his country rise to the challenges of its time – and the people responded in kind. Although, his Presidency was tragically cut short, its legacy was felt long after. Civil rights, a man on the moon: both achieved after his death – but only possible because of the leadership shown during his life.

Tomorrow will be a day to remember with gratitude what President Kennedy’s life still teaches us – and our thoughts are with the American people.

Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron in the House of Commons on 18th November 2013.

With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the disaster in the Philippines and the Commonwealth Meeting in Sri Lanka.

Ten days ago a category 5 super typhoon brought massive destruction across the Philippines, where the city of Tacloban was devastated by a tidal wave almost 2.5 metres high.

The scale of what happened is still becoming clear – with many of the country’s 7,000 islands not yet reached or assessed.

But already we know that more than 12 million people have been affected, with over 4,400 dead and more than 1,500 missing – including a number of Britons.

This disaster follows other deadly storms there and an earthquake that killed 200 people in Bohol last month.

I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with all those affected, their friends and families.

Mr Speaker, Britain has been at the forefront of the international relief effort.

The British public have once again shown incredible generosity and compassion donating £35 million so far.

And the Government has contributed more than £50 million to the humanitarian response.

In the last week HMS Daring and her on-board helicopter, an RAF C17 and 8 different relief flights have brought essential supplies from the UK and helped get aid to those who need it most.

An RAF C130 will arrive tomorrow and HMS Illustrious will also be there by the end of this week, equipped with 7 helicopters, water desalination and command and control capabilities.

Beyond the immediate task of life-saving aid, the people of the Philippines will face a long task of rebuilding – and reducing their vulnerability to these kinds of events.

Britain will continue to support them every step of the way.

Commonwealth meeting

Let me turn to the Commonwealth – and then to the issues in Sri Lanka itself.

The Commonwealth is a unique organisation representing 53 countries, a third of the world’s population and a fifth of the global economy,

It is united by history, by relationships and by the values of the new Commonwealth Charter which we agreed 2 years ago in Perth.

Britain is a leading member.

Her Majesty The Queen is the Head of the Commonwealth and His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales did our country proud acting on her behalf and attending last week.

As with all the international organisations to which we belong, the Commonwealth allows us to champion the values and economic growth that are so vital to our national interest.

At this Summit we reached important conclusions on poverty, human rights and trade.

On poverty, this was the last Commonwealth meeting before the Millennium Development Goals expire.

We wanted our Commonwealth partners to unite behind the ambitious programme set by the UN High Level Panel which I co chaired with the Presidents of Indonesia and Liberia.

For the first time this programme prioritises not just aid, but the vital place of anti-corruption efforts, open institutions, access to justice, the rule of law and good governance in tackling poverty.

On human rights, the Commonwealth reiterated its support for the core values set out in the Commonwealth Charter.

Commonwealth leaders condemned in the strongest terms the use of sexual violence in conflict – an issue championed globally by my Rt Hon Friend the Foreign Secretary.

We also called for an end to early and forced marriage – and for greater freedom of religion and belief.

We committed to taking urgent and decisive action against the illegal wildlife trade ahead of the conference in London next year.

And Britain successfully resisted an attempt to usher Zimbabwe back into the Commonwealth, without first addressing the deep concerns that remain about human rights and political freedoms.

The Foreign Secretary and I also used the meeting to build the case for more open trade and for developing our economic links with the fastest growing parts of the world.

The Commonwealth backed a deal at next month’s World Trade Organisation meeting in Bali that could cut bureaucracy at borders and generate $100 billion for the global economy.

I continued to bang the drum for British trade and investment.

I went to New Delhi and Calcutta in India before heading to Sri Lanka, the third time I have visited India as Prime Minister.

And I went from the Summit to Abu Dhabi and Dubai where Airbus agreed new orders from Emirates and Etihad airlines that will add £5.4 billion to the British economy.

These orders will sustain and secure 6,500 British jobs, including at the plants in North Wales and Bristol and open up new opportunities for the Rolls Royce factory in Derby.

Sri Lanka

Mr Speaker, the last Government agreed in late 2009 to hold the 2013 Commonwealth Meeting in Sri Lanka.

That was not my decision.

But I was determined that I would use the presence of the Commonwealth and my own visit to shine a global spotlight on the situation there and that is exactly what I did.

I became the first foreign leader to visit the north since independence in 1948 and by taking the media with me, gave the local population the chance to be heard by an international audience.

I met the new provincial Chief Minister from the Tamil National Alliance, who was elected in a vote that only happened because of the spotlight of the Commonwealth Meeting.

I took our journalists to meet the incredibly brave Tamil journalists at the Uthayan newspaper in Jaffna – many of whom have seen their colleagues killed, and themselves been beaten and intimidated.

I met and heard from displaced people desperately wanting to return to their homes and their livelihoods.

And as part of our support for reconciliation efforts across the country, I announced an additional £2.1 million to support demining work in parts of the north – including the locations of some of the most chilling scenes from Channel 4’s No Fire Zone documentary.

When I met with President Rajapaksa, I pressed for credible, transparent and independent investigations into alleged war crimes.

And I made clear to him that if these investigations are not begun properly by March, then I will use our position on the UN Human Rights Council, to work with the UN Human Rights Commissioner and call for an international inquiry.

Mr Speaker, no one wants to return to the days of the Tamil Tigers and the disgusting and brutal things that they did.

And we should show proper respect for the fact that Sri Lanka suffered almost 3 decades of bloody conflict and that recovery and reconciliation take time.

But I made clear to President Rajapaksa, that he now has a real opportunity, through magnanimity and reform, to build a successful, inclusive and prosperous future for his country, working in partnership with the newly elected Chief Minister of the Northern Province.

I very much hope that he seizes it.

Sri Lanka has suffered an appalling civil war, and then of course suffered again from the 2004 tsunami.

But it is an extraordinary and beautiful country with enormous potential.

Achieving that potential is all about reconciliation. It’s about bringing justice and closure and healing to this country, which now has the chance, if it takes it, of a much brighter future.

That will only happen by dealing with these issues and not ignoring them.

Mr Speaker, I had a choice at this Summit.

To stay away and allow President Rajapaksa to set the agenda he wanted or to go and shape the agenda by advancing our interests with our Commonwealth partners and shining a spotlight on the international concerns about Sri Lanka.

I chose to go and stand up for our values and to do all I could to advance them.

That was the right decision for Sri Lanka, for the Commonwealth and for Britain.

And I commend this statement to the House.

Below is the text of the speech made by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, in Kolkata on 14th November 2013.

Thank you very much. Thank you for the warm welcome. I want to use the maximum amount of time today for your questions and my answers, but can I just first of all say how pleased I am to be here in Kolkata. It’s a real privilege for me to come.

The reason I’m here is I’m passionate about the relationship between Britain and India. I’ve been Prime Minister for three and a half years and I’ve visited India now three times. I’ve visited India more times than any other country apart from Belgium, where, of course, I have to go for the European Union meetings. But my passion is about this relationship.

Why? Well I think we have a lot in common. Obviously in Kolkata we think about some of the ties of the past, and the ties of language, and the ties of culture. But I think mostly of the future. We’re two democracies. You are the largest in the world; we’re one of the oldest in the world. And we’re both proud of our democracy. We both face huge challenges from terrorism and from extremism, and we must meet those challenges by working together. We’re both countries that want to find our way successfully in this modern, globalised economy. Obviously, our economies are at different stages of development, but we have some things in common. Neither of our countries has masses of natural resources. We have to make the best of what we can because of our brains, our talent and our people. So I hope we can work together and be partners of choice.

And I see that when I look at the British-India relationship. British business investing massively in India, and Indian business investing hugely in Britain. You now invest more in Britain than in all of the other European Union countries put together. One of Britain’s greatest economic success stories right now is Jaguar Land Rover, based on some great British design and manufacturing, but Indian capital, and some brilliant Indian strategic thinking and management. So I’m passionate about this relationship and passionate about what it holds for the future.

And I’m particularly pleased about being here in Kolkata. It seems to me I’m in the right place, at the right time and with the right people. The right place because this institute is one of the best in the world. It’s going to be training some of the great minds of the future, and it’s great to have that opportunity. This is a good time not only because the Little Master (Sachin Tendulkar) is about to go into bat for his final test and it’s good to celebrate that. Of course, as a supporter of the English team I’ll be quite relieved when he’s not playing any more. But it’s also the right time: there are some important anniversaries. And, of course, one of the anniversaries today is it’s 100 years to the day that the famous poet Tagore got notification of his Nobel prize, 100 years ago today.

And I’m with the right people because you represent so much of what India needs for her future in terms of the talent, the brains and the brilliance that is going to build this country for the future. And Kolkata has produced some great and brilliant brains in the past. We talk now of the Higgs Boson particle: that is because of the physics of Bose. I’m sure we’re going to talk in a minute about the importance of how politics and economics need to go together – something that Amartya Sen taught us, perhaps more than anybody else.

So you have the physics, you have the poetry, you have a huge amount of talent nascent in this great city. So with that, thank you for the warm welcome. Let’s go straight to the questions and hopefully some short and punchy answers as well. There’ll be a roving microphone. And ask any question you like. Who wants to go first?

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question

Hello. Good evening Mr Prime Minister. As we all know, Kolkata had been a major hub for British trade in the past, and after a long time we see the British Prime Minister visit this city. How do you think Kolkata can play a significant role in improving Indo-UK trade relations?

Prime Minister

Thank you. Well I’m very glad to have been the third – I think John Major, who was a Conservative Prime Minister – he came to Kolkata. There’s so much opportunity in India and politicians often visit Mumbai and Delhi and then go home. And I think it’s important to recognise how many opportunities there are.

I’m about to go and meet your Chief Minister. I’m very interested by my first meeting with her. I think there are big opportunities. Your city is expanding and there’s a huge need for infrastructure and for city and town planning, something that Britain has some expertise in. Clearly there’s an enormous amount of work going on thinking about how to clean up rivers and waterways. That’s something we had to do in the UK with the Thames and others. I think there are links between our universities. You have a great tradition of university education and institutes like this. We’re very proud, not just of our Oxford and our Cambridges, but also our other universities, many of whom are looking to start up and partner with Indian universities.

And one of my pleas today is this: that I think we benefit from openness. It’s always difficult for governments to get rid of protectionist barriers, to open up economies, to scrap tariffs, because it presents political challenges at home. But it’s in our interests to do that. I gave you the examples of where we’ve opened up to Indian capital and we’re benefiting. I hope India will continue to open up so that it will be easier to invest in universities, in infrastructure, in insurance and all those sorts of areas, many of which are championed here in Kolkata. So we need that steady opening up in order to continue the work.

But the commitment is definitely there. The British are very enthusiastic about this. Next question. Gentleman at the back.

Question

Starting from the Depression there was a shift towards Keynesian economics. Then Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan put it towards – more towards a free market economy. Now, at this juncture, where 2008 crash has happened, and loss of regulation has been blamed partially for that, and on the other side the sovereign debt crisis happened as well in Europe. So which way should the economy go?

Prime Minister

Very good. Which way should we go? I’m very clear. I believe in open markets, in enterprise and a free enterprise system. I think that is the best way to create wealth, and then you have the ability to fund public services, to tackle problems like poverty and inequality. But you need a free enterprise open market economy. And I think that argument is never fully won: you have to fight for it again and again in each generation. I think Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan did a huge amount to push that argument and it became more adopted. But the argument’s never fully won and you have to keep making it.

I think what the global problems of 2008 to 2010 taught us two important lessons. One was about the regulation of financial services. That in a market economy, you do need proper regulation of financial services. Banks are such important organisations that you can’t allow them to go bust, because if they go bust they take some of the economy down with them. So therefore they need to be properly regulated. And you need to have a responsible organisation in your country that has a clear line of responsibility for bank regulation. And in our case it is now the Bank of England. It is this government that has absolutely made that clear.

I think the second lesson it’s taught is this: that from time to time there are problems and difficulties in economies. They’re not always under your control. Any politician who tells you they’ve abolished the trade cycle – that there’s no more boom and bust – that politician is talking nonsense. There are events and difficulties that happen to economies and you have to recognise that. So the second lesson is a very simple one which we all recognise in our daily lives, which is, you should fix the roof when the sun is shining. When times are good, you should aim for a surplus, you should aim to put aside money, you should aim to reduce your debt levels, so that when difficult times do hit, you have the capacity to help people and to help your economy. And I think that’s been a real lesson that we’ve had to learn between 2008 and 2010, and that’s why my government in the United Kingdom is still having to wrestle with this big deficit. We’ve got it down by a third, but we need to get it down altogether. And then in the good years, as the economy keeps growing, we should be targeting a surplus.

So, I think the argument for market economics is right. I think we need to go on fighting it, and I think we then need to recognise it needs to be accompanied by proper and sensible regulation of financial services. That would be my answer to that question. But I’m sure your economics professors will have lots of other ideas and proposals as well.

Question

So, good evening Mr Prime Minister. My question is: considering the fact that you are ruling over the first hung parliament in British history since the Second World War, has that impeded your policy making? And how has the experience been of a coalition government in reference to the referendum on EU membership and military action against Syria? And also, do you feel this will be a sustained trend in British politics from now on?

Prime Minister

Right, very good question. I gather you have some experience of coalition governments in India as well. The last coalition in Britain was Winston Churchill in the Second World War who had a coalition government throughout the war. That it was concluded Conservative and Labour. So we’ve had very little experience of coalition.

We have an electoral system that tends to deliver quite decisive results. But I was faced in 2010 with a hung parliament, and I thought the right thing to do was have a coalition rather than a minority government. Partly because of the crisis. We were having to take radical steps to get public spending down, get the deficit down, take long-term decisions, and a coalition government gave me a majority and the ability to do that.

So, we’ve made coalition government work. It’s been quite a radical government: we’ve reformed welfare; we’ve reformed education; we’ve reformed the funding of higher education, for instance. We’ve taken some big long-term steps. But it is sometimes frustrating. There are areas where I’d like to go further and faster, where I think I could turn things round more quickly for the British economy. But in politics the first duty of the politician is to serve the nation. And if you’re serving the nation when you have a hung parliament, the best thing to do, if you’ve got real crisis in your country, is to think how do we get together and make the right and long-term decisions.

More questions. Gentleman here.

Question

Thank you. How do you realistically assess the chances to get back competencies from the European level to the British level before the referendum?

Prime Minister

Okay. Just to give the background: Britain is a member of the European Union, which is the club of countries now stretching right across Europe, as far east as Lithuania and Poland. A club of 28 countries. And there’s a big debate going on in Britain at the moment about is membership in our interests and how should we change this organisation? And my contention, which you refer to, is that we should try to bring some powers back from Brussels to Britain.

One of the reasons I say this is that the European Union now includes two lots of countries, and this will be very interesting to the economists amongst you. One lot of countries has a single currency – they have the Euro as their currency. And if you have a single currency it drives you towards further integration. You have to look at standing behind each other’s debts, making sure you regulate your banks in the same way, having more fiscal transfers between countries that are doing well and countries that are doing badly. A single currency drives integration.

Britain is not in the single currency, we’re not going to join the single currency. We have our own currency: the pound. As one of the top ten economies in the world we can sustain having our own currency. So, in my view what we should be trying to do is make sure that Europe can include both countries like us, which would like a lighter touch system, less regulation, greater flexibility, but at the same time accommodate these eurozone countries who clearly need tighter collaboration.

That’s the political challenge. My view is we can reform Europe in that way. I’m confident we’ll get a good outcome. And then I will hold a referendum, if I’m Prime Minister before the end of 2017 to say to the British people, ‘Right, we’ve made some changes, we’ve got some powers back. The thing is more flexible. It works better. Do you want to stay in it, or do you want to leave it?’ Because in the end you can’t hold countries in organisations against their political will. You need to operate on the basis of consent. And I want to get consent for a new sort of Europe, which I think it would be in Britain’s interest to remain a member of.

But I am confident that we will because of the logic of the single currency means those countries need to take these steps. I’m confident that I’ll be able to get a good deal for Britain.

Next question. Gentleman here.

Question

Good evening, Mr Prime Minister. My question sir, is what are your views on the revelations made by Edward Snowden?

Prime Minister

Right, okay. Well, we have a rule in British politics that we don’t comment on intelligence and security issues, but I think that would be rather a boring answer to your question. So let me say say a little bit about it.

First of all, it’s perfectly legitimate for countries to have and maintain intelligence and security organisations. Our job as governments, our first responsibility is public safety, is national defence and keeping our country safe. And I think it’s perfectly legitimate to have intelligence and security agencies that do just that.

And when you think of the horrendous attacks like you experienced in Mumbai, or we have experienced in London and other parts of the United Kingdom, like Manchester. If we can take steps to prevent these attacks happening, if we can take steps to arrest the people who are responsible then – then we should take those steps. So I’m absolutely clear it’s good to have properly funded, properly organised intelligence and security services.

In Britain, we do have a very good way of making sure they’re governed properly. They are accountable to a committee of Parliament, called the Intelligence and Security Committee, that can look over their work. They operate under the law that we have passed in the United Kingdom, and their work is overseen by Intelligence Commissioners. So, I’m satisfied we have a pretty good system for making sure these organisations act in a proper way.

As for the Snowden revelations, all I would say is this: it is very damaging when you reveal lots of information about organisations that necessarily have to be secret. And you’re in danger, with revelations like Snowden, of helping the terrorists and of helping the organised criminals. Because if they find out all the ways in which they are being followed or monitored, they will take the relevant action.

So look, we shouldn’t be close-minded to the importance of accountability and the importance of making sure these organisations are governed properly. But let’s not be naïve and think that we suddenly live in a world where we don’t need intelligence and security. We do, and in India you know that perhaps as well as anybody.

Beyond that I probably shouldn’t comment, but I think I’ve given you a flavour of where I’m coming from on this issue.

Right, next question. Gentleman in the middle.

Question

Sir, my question is about the Arab Spring, and what are your views about the international community’s reaction to the mayhem that happened in August in Syria? And how do you see the international community responding in future?

Prime Minister

Look, I’ll give you my straightforward headlines. I think first of all we should welcome the Arab Spring. When people and countries want to move towards greater freedom, greater rights, greater engagement, greater democracy, as democrats – whether we’re Indian or British – we should welcome that.

But we should do something else, which is recognise democracy is a journey, it’s not an event. You don’t become a democracy just because you hold one election. It’s the building blocks of democracy that sometimes matter as much, or even more than the elections themselves. Is there equality before the law? Is there access to justice? Is their freedom from corruption? Are there property rights? These things matter as much as actually the event of holding the election.

So, yes welcome the Arab Spring. Two, recognise this is a process. Three, recognise there’ll be setbacks. In Britain, if you take our history and how long it took to go from the idea of not having an absolute monarch to having a full-throated democracy, it was the work of centuries. I think this is important to recognise.

So, I think that that is the right approach. Syria and the events of the 21 August – I think it was a truly dreadful day for the world because chemical weapons were used against civilians in a conflict on a really horrifying scale. Dreadful things happen in the world every day and we have to focus on those that really matter the most. But it seems to me the whole world came together after the First World War and said that chemical weapons use was completely unacceptable. And even in awful events of the Second World War, there wasn’t that sort of routine battlefield use of chemical weapons we saw in the First World War. So I think it was really was a horrific act and I think it was right for the world to take a very strong stance. I obviously wasn’t successful in my own parliament in taking quite the stance I wanted to. But nonetheless I would argue that the stance that people like me took, and the Americans took, has led to what’s happening now in Syria where all the signs are, they really are removing and destroying their chemical weapons. So I think the chemical weapons agreements and treaties are really worth trying to hold onto as a world, in all our interests. And so I think that’s my answer there.

Gentlemen here.

Question

Sir, my question is relating to the trade of goods between India and Britain. So what we’ve realised is India and Britain, the trading in goods has increased in absolute numbers, but as a share of each country’s overall trade has declined significantly. The economist puts it that India trades with China in a week what it ends up trading with Britain in a month. So what what would be your key areas of improvement to bolster trade between India and Britain?

Prime Minister

Yes. Very good. Obviously China and India are geographically closer than Britain and India, but you are right. Our exports to India went up 25%, which is welcome. I think also the investment flows, that can often be a sign of future trade flow, and the fact that India is investing so much in Britain and Britain is investing so much in India, will lead to greater trade flows in the future. But I think there are some actions we need to take here collectively. The trade agreement – the EU-India – European Union-India Free Trade agreement – has been sitting around for a very long time, and we need to make some progress on this. For instance, a very popular and successful product in Britain, Scotch whisky: there are still tariffs of 140% – 150%.

So I think we need to recognise that it will be in all our interests, but we need to be bold. We need politicians to be bold, to put more on the table. Sometimes people say that you make a problem easier to solve if you make it bigger, and maybe this is a problem we need to make larger by putting more into the package, and really then trying to take some risk. So if we get rid of those trade barriers, I think that would help.

I also think the other thing we need to recognise is trade between countries like ours, where a lot of our wealth is in human capital, is more difficult. Because it’s not simply about exporting physical goods. It’s about combining universities. It’s about working together on healthcare. It’s about services, like insurance, banking and architecture. These are almost more difficult to liberalise. But if, for instance, we could get far further on mutual recognition of qualifications, then that would – which we made some progress on this week – would make a big difference. So some of our prizes are harder to get, but nonetheless, if we get them, they will be all the more important.

And on that note, let me make a point about students, because I know there’s always concern about visas and the message the British government sends out. I want to send a very clear message to you today. Two points. First of all, there is no limit on the number of Indian students that can come to Britain and study in a British university. You have to have an English language qualification, you have to have a place at one of our universities, but there is no limit whatsoever. As many who want to come can come.

Second point: when you leave one of those British universities, if you can find graduate employment – a graduate level job – there is no limit on the number who can stay and work. Now, I think that is a very clear offer. Of course, Britain has to have immigration control. Of course, in a relatively small geographical country with a relatively large population we need to manage those numbers. But I think the offer to students – and I make it very openly to Indian students – I think the offer is very clear and very good.

Next question. Gentleman here.

Question

Good afternoon Prime Minister. A lot of STEP students are coming here to India because Asia is becoming really important and India is a developing country as well. And I believe that Europe is becoming a museum. It is not competitive any more, and that’s why I come here as well. And my question is: how do you think we can keep Europe on a competitive level?

Prime Minister

Look, I think you are asking for the Europeans in the audience, asking absolutely the question. And I passionately believe that Europe can have, and European countries like mine, like yours, we can have a very bright and brilliant future. But we can’t go on as we are. We’re competing in a global world with countries that are on the rise, not just India and China, but Malaysia and Indonesia and Singapore, and we do need to change the way we do things. We’re not going to succeed by trying to have low wage economies and all that. We’ve just got to build on our strengths. The European countries still have some great strengths. We’re still very innovative. Britain, I think, produces more patents per head of the population than any country in the world. We’ve got some of the best universities in the world, which is an enormous potential driver. Britain and Belgium, we have the time zone in the middle of the world, so you can trade with Asia in the morning, with America in the afternoon. Britain, of course, has the global language, which you don’t quite have in Belgium but you speak very good English so you’re nearly there.

But look, if we invest in our competitiveness, our innovation, our creativity, I think we have every opportunity to be success stories, because it is not a zero sum game. India’s gain doesn’t have to be Britain’s loss. This is not, as I’m sure your economic professors will back me up on this, the whole point about global trade. It’s not a win/lose situation. If you actually have clear rules, you get rid of tariffs, you get rid of protectionism it can be a win/win situation. And Europe has played to its strength of innovation, creativity, high-paid and high-value jobs. Play to those strengths and we can be a success. And the more that we’re able to link up and work with developing countries, the better we’ll be able to do it.

Our problem though at the moment – we are too addicted to a high-cost, high-welfare and over-regulated world. And we need to recognise that fact and we need to be more competitive. I think is one of the great battles we face.

In fighting it, and based on something Amartya Sen said, which is the link between political openness and economic openness and success – one of the most important things we have in European countries, and you have here in India, are our democratic institutions. Now of course, there are examples around the world of countries that are not democracies, but can point to economic success. But I think we should have the confidence, as people who believe in democracy and rights and equality in front of the law and the rule of law and predictability – those things in the end are tremendous sources of strength. The best combination you can have, in this globalised world, is robust, open and inclusive political institutions that go with robust, open economies. You have those two things. That can lead to the greatest success, even if you don’t have the oil and the gas. Even if you don’t have all the natural resources, you can be a real success story.

I like quoting the example of the two Koreas. You can stand on the border. One way you’ve got South Korea, which in 1960 was the same level of wealth as Zambia. It’s now 20 times wealthier than Zambia. You look north, where they’ve had closed political institutions, a communist system, they are one of the poorest countries in the world in terms of material poverty.

So you know, you have choices as a country, and it’s not dependent on your mineral wealth. It’s not dependent on which part of the globe you’re in. It’s dependent on the institutions you put in place, the policies that you pursue, the choices that we make. Shakespeare – writing rather a long time ago – put it very simply. He said, ‘Our destiny lies not in the stars but in ourselves.’ He was absolutely right.

Next question. Sir.

Question

Mr Prime Minister, moving away from politics and economics, as the CEO of the sixth largest economy in the world, do you have any words of advice on the personal or professional front for management students like us?

Prime Minister

Right. Advice on management. Well that’s what you’re here to study. You should probably be giving me the advice. I think the lessons I see in, as you put it, being CEO of an economy, but Prime Minister of a country, is the importance of team. You know, Prime Ministers do not make all the decisions. They don’t run every department. The most important thing you do is pick a team, and a talented team, and a team that you can work with and trust. I think that is absolutely vital.

I think the second thing is a clear strategy – you need to have a clear plan in politics as in business. It’s like sometimes being in an asteroid shower. You’ve got things flying at you every day. Should you go to Sri Lanka? What are you going to do about the famine in the Philippines? Why’s this minister done that? All these things are coming at you. You need to have a plan for your core role of how you make your country succeed, how you turn your economy round, how you get things right. And you need a plan that you then carefully implement. I think those are the two most important things that I’ve learnt. But I’m sure studying here you will be able to look at very good academic examples of leadership that has worked and leadership that has failed. And I’m sure there are more scientific ways of looking at it than those two examples I would give to you.

More questions. Lady at the back there.

Question

Good evening sir. So my question is regarding the Commonwealth Association. What would be Britain’s involvement in the Commonwealth Association and what is the future that you predict for these group of countries?

Prime Minister

Right, well I think the Commonwealth is still a club that is worth trying to make the most of. The statistics are pretty extraordinary. It includes a third of the world’s population. It includes a fifth of the world’s economy. It includes an incredible diversity of countries. So you’ve got some of the leading power houses of Africa – Nigeria and South Africa. You’ve got some of the most successful South Asian tigers – Singapore and Malaysia. You’ve got the world’s largest democracy – India. We’ve got very advanced and successful countries – Canada and Australia.

So it links all different parts of the globe. And what we need to make the Commonwealth a success is a sense that it should be based on a clear set of values that we hold together as important. And what we did in Perth at the last Commonwealth meeting was sign up to a Commonwealth Declaration that put, what I like to call the golden thread of ideas, absolutely at the heart of this organisation. A belief in the rule of law, in freedom, in human rights and democracy. And I think it’s a club where we try and support those initiatives and pat each other on the back when we get it right, but point a bit of a finger when we get it wrong. I think that is a good organisation to have.

And I think it also provides a meeting place where other issues can be discussed. So when we go and meet in Sri Lanka, there’ll be issues about climate change, issues about how we tackle poverty, whether we can be the driving force to get the UN to adopt proper ideas for tackling poverty.

So, I think it is a worthwhile organisation. It’s certainly not perfect and we’re going to be discussing that I’m sure in the days ahead. But I think in a globalised competitive world, being a member of organisations that bring people and countries together is a good thing to do. So I think we need to make the most of the Commonwealth, but in an ideal world, I’d like to see it get tougher on the human rights democracy, on the golden thread of things that, as I’ve argued, make countries successful in the long term. I’d like to see a toughness on that, because I think in the end it’ll be in all our interests,and sometimes belonging to an organisation helps you to lift your own standards because you do listen. Even if in the initial stages you sometimes push criticism away, in the long term you actually do listen to the points being made to you by your colleagues in these organisations.

Last couple of questions. Gentleman here.

Question

Good evening sir. My question is regarding the British public healthcare system. You spoke a lot about human capital, and it comes at the huge cost to the Exchequer. Is your position on that, and the amount of resources that are dedicated to that, non-negotiable, or is there some more room for improvement? Thank you.

Prime Minister

Very good question. Well I’m a great believer in our National Health Service. It is a universal service. It is available to everyone in Britain on the basis of need, not the basis of ability to pay. And so it is a brilliant thing in our country that if you fall ill, you can go to some of the best hospitals anywhere in the world and get treatment. You can go and see a general practitioner in our primary healthcare system and have the health of your family looked after, and at no time does anyone ask you, ‘Have you got insurance?’ ‘How much money have you got?’ ‘Please can I see your credit card?’ It is a demonstration of British values about everyone paying in and looking after everybody. And by and large, it’s an excellent system.

In terms of the cost, yes of course it’s expensive. I think we’re now spending around 9-10% of our GDP on healthcare. When you compare that with some of the systems that either have private health insurance or have a mixed system, I think you’ll find ours is pretty good value for money. So, I would defend our system. Of course it needs reform and improvement. Every country in the world faces these challenges of aging populations, new treatments coming on stream, more children surviving into childbirth with – with disability conditions and all the rest of it. So huge challenges, but I think that actually we’re quite capable of – of – of meeting them.

It’s been an interesting time over these last three and a half years as Prime Minister. I haven’t cut the NHS. I’ve had to cut other services, but we’ve kept the money going in: sworn increases every year. And, actually, it’s treating now – 1.2 million more people are arriving at Accident and Emergency for treatment every year compared with three years ago, and yet actually the figures for waiting times, for service levels: they have held up very well.

So, I think it is a good system. We need to improve it, we need to make it less bureaucratic, we need to make sure that it can work with private and voluntary sectors rather than just itself, but I would argue, you know, healthcare is always going to be a key political issue for any government to deal with. But I don’t look at other systems and think they’ve got it right and we’ve got it wrong. I think we have a good system that we can improve. But every country must take its own path.

Lady here.

Question

Good evening sir. Going back to the issue of the work visa issues that you just mentioned, it’s really commendable that there is no limit on the number of students who can work there. But then what is your view on the regulations that are being imposed regarding the sponsorships – that the companies now need to provide the sponsorship for the students? And my personal experience – like, a lot of companies are outrightly rejecting students just because they are unwilling to provide sponsorships for them.

Prime Minister

As I said, we have a system where there’s no limit on the numbers who can apply, but we do have a system where we’re not saying that when you leave university you can do non-graduate jobs. And so that’s why a number of people want to seek sponsorship.

We also have a system – and let’s be frank about this – we have a system where we charge. You know, a university education is expensive, and we charge students for it: both overseas students and our own domestic students. Now I would argue – and you could have a good economic debate about it here – I would argue that actually it’s fair to ask students to pay the cost of higher education. Because the evidence shows that if you have a degree – certainly in my country if you have a degree – that enhances your earning power by about £100,000 over your lifetime.

So you’ve got a choice. You can either ask taxpayers to pay, or you can ask undergraduates, graduates and business sponsors to pay. I think it’s fairer to do the second rather than the first, not least because you’re then asking the people who benefit from it to pay for it, and you can use the public spending you save from that on other areas that are in deep need. And if we’re in this global race, and if we have to keep our budget deficits down, you’ve got to try and reserve your money for the things that really need your attention and charge, for instance, students for those courses.

Gentleman here in the checked shirt.

Question

Are there any plans to give Sachin Tendulkar a knighthood once he retires?

Prime Minister

What is great about Sachin Tendulkar is not just the record – and it is an extraordinary record – but I think sportsmen and women can be extraordinary role models to young people. And I think the power of cricket, sometimes to bring countries together, to bring cultures together, is really powerful. And I think it’s that we should celebrate as much as the runs.

I’m still recovering from my game of cricket on the Maidan in Mumbai when I was bowled out by someone who was about 12 years old, while the BBC were filming it. And when I got home, Geoffrey Boycott, one of our most famous cricketers, manhandled me and kept saying, ‘You’ve got to get your left arm out here, laddie’, also all on camera, which was slightly embarrassing when you’re being manhandled by a cricket player.

But lots to celebrate about Sachin. But fortunately the honours system is not entirely within my control.

Last one. Let’s have someone right at the back. The lady right at the back in white.

Question

You’ve been the youngest Prime Minister of one of the biggest countries in the world, so do you think having a young Prime Minister is better or one who’s experienced and older?

Prime Minister

I sometimes say to people when they say, ‘Well, you know, you’re – you’re so young doing this job.’ I say, ‘Well that is the one problem that time will take care of.’ There are all sorts of other problems that time doesn’t heal

I think it’s not age that matters; what matters is commitment, belief, ability, building a team and trying to do the right thing. I see prime ministers who are almost twice my age, sometimes doing a fantastic job. So I don’t think age is the key determinant.

I was in a particular situation where my party had been out of power for really quite a long time. My party wanted to modernise and refresh. It wanted to take some different pathways and get back in touch with people, and so it decided to take a risk and go for the younger leader rather than the older one. But I don’t think it’s age that matters – I think it’s all those other things that make a big difference. But certainly doing this job puts the years on you in any event. So, you probably not only get older but you start feeling a bit older too by the time you’re done.

Go on, we’ll have the gentleman – you’ve been very patient.

Question

Good evening, sir. It has been already been 70 years that United Nation has been founded. So, do you think that permanent members of Security Council should be restructured with new members like India, Brazil and Germany.

Prime Minister

I mean first of all, United Nations is not perfect but it’s very good in our world that we have something like that. You need to have institutions and rules in order to try and have some sensible governance and approach across our world. So, we should all back the United Nations, back the UN charter and back the decisions that it makes.

But one of the ways we should improve it is by modernising the Security Council. There is no justification for the way that it looks at the moment, and I have made this argument before. I made it when I came to India when I first became leader of the Conservative party. The Security Council ought to include India as a permanent member, no doubt about it.

But as important as the changes is, I think, making sure that the Security Council demonstrates political will. I think this is sometimes where as a world we fall down, and I’m sure you study this in your political science classes. One could argue a lot about institutions: how you change an institution, how you improve an institution, do you need new rules, do you need new members? These are all very important political questions, but never forget, at the end of it, what matters more than institutions, is actually political will, is deciding to act, deciding to take a stand.

And as I hope as many of you go into business and some into diplomacy and who knows some into politics, I hope you think about that. Don’t just think about reforming institutions, you have to think about how you behave within them, when you take a stand, what you stand up for. Because, in the end that’s where the United Nations succeeds, as it did over Libya, for instance, when it took a stand. It took a view and it allowed change to happen. And that political will is as important as any of the institutions or the things that we study in our important books, journals and other things.

Can I thank you again for a wonderful welcome. It’s been a real pleasure coming here and best of luck with everything you do. Thank you. Thank you very much.