Tag: 2014

Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on the European Council on 30th June 2014. The statement was made in the House of Commons in London.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council.

Before turning to the appointment of the next Commission President, let me briefly report back on 2 other points.

First, the Council began in Ypres with a moving ceremony at the Menin Gate to mark the 100th anniversary of the gunshots in Sarajevo which led to the First World War.

It is right that we should take special steps to commemorate the centenary of this conflict and to remember the extraordinary sacrifice of a generation who gave their lives for our freedom.

The government is determined to ensure that Britain has fitting national commemorations, including the re-opening of the newly refurbished Imperial War Museum next month.

Second, the Council signed Association Agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

These reflect our commitment to supporting these countries as they undertake difficult reforms that will strengthen their economies, bolster their democracies and improve the stability of the whole continent.

President Poroshenko joined the Council to discuss the immediate situation in Ukraine.

The Council welcomed his peace plan and the extension of the ceasefire until this evening.

The onus is now on Russia to respond positively by pressing the separatists to respect a genuine ceasefire, to release hostages and to return occupied border posts to the Ukrainian authorities.

The Council agreed that if we don’t see concrete progress very soon, we remain willing to impose further sanctions on Russia, which would not necessarily require a further meeting of the Council.

But the Council will return to this issue at its next meeting which has now been arranged for 16 July.

Mr Speaker, turning to the appointment of the next Commission President.

I firmly believe that it should be for the European Council – the elected heads of national governments – to propose the President of the European Commission. It should not be for the European Parliament to try and dictate that choice to the Council.

That is a point of principle on which I was not prepared to budge.

In taking this position I welcomed the support of the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, in opposing the imposition of Jean-Claude Juncker on the Council.

I believe that the Council could have found a candidate who commanded the support of every member state.

That has been the practice on every previous occasion.

And I think it was a mistake to abandon this approach this time.

Of course there is a reason why no veto is available when it comes to this decision.

And that is because the last government signed the Nice Treaty which gave up our veto over the nomination of the Commission President as well as the Lisbon Treaty which gave the Parliament stronger rights to elect the Commission President.

So once it was clear the Council was determined to proceed, I insisted that the European Council took a formal vote – something that doesn’t usually happen.

Facing the prospect of being outvoted some might have swallowed their misgivings and gone with the flow, but I believe it was important to push the principle and our deep misgivings about this issue to the end.

If the European Council was going to let the European Parliament choose the next President of the Commission in this way, I at least wanted to put Britain’s opposition to this decision on the record.

I believe this was a bad day for Europe – because the decision of the Council risks undermining the position of national governments.

And it risks undermining the power of national parliaments by handing further power to the European Parliament.

So while the nomination has been decided and must be accepted, it is important that the Council did at least agree to review and reconsider how to handle the appointment of the next Commission President the next time this happens.

And this is set out in the Council conclusions.

Mr Speaker, turning to the future, we must work with the new Commission President, as we always do, to secure our national interest.

I spoke to him last night and he repeated his commitment in his manifesto to address British concerns in the EU.

This whole process only underlines my conviction that Europe needs to change.

And some progress was made in arguing for reform at this Council.

The Council Conclusions make absolutely clear that the focus of the Commission’s mandate for the next 5 years must be on building stronger economies and creating jobs, exactly as agreed with the leaders of Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands at Harpsund earlier this month.

The Council underlined the need to address concerns about immigration arising from misuse of – or fraudulent claims on – the right of freedom of movement.

We agreed that national parliaments must have a stronger role and that the EU should only act where it makes a real difference.

We broke new ground with the Council conclusions stating explicitly that Ever Closer Union must allow for different paths of integration for different countries and, crucially, respects the wishes of those like Britain that do not want deeper integration.

And for the first time all my 27 fellow heads of government have agreed explicitly, in the Council Conclusions, that they need to address Britain’s concerns about the European Union. That has not been set before.

So while Europe has taken a step backwards in respect of the nomination of the Commission President, we did secure some small steps forward for Britain in its relationship with the EU.

Mr Speaker, last week’s outcome will make renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union harder and it certainly makes the stakes higher.

There will always be huge challenges in this long campaign to reform the European Union.

But with determination I believe we can deliver.

We cut the EU Budget.

We got Britain out of the bail-out schemes.

We’ve achieved a fundamental reform of the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy and made a start on cutting EU red tape.

We’re making real progress on the single market – and on the free trade deals that are vital for new growth and jobs in Britain.

My colleagues on the European Council know that Britain wants and needs reform…

…and they know that Britain sticks to its position.

Mr Speaker, in the European elections people cried out for change across the continent.

They are intensely frustrated and they deserve a voice.

Britain will be the voice of those people.

We will carry on standing up for our principles, carry on defending our national interest and carry on fighting with all we have to reform the EU over the next few years.

And at the end of 2017, it will not be me, this Parliament or Brussels that decides Britain’s future in the European Union.

It will be the British people.

I commend this statement to the House.

Below is the text of the press conference made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, following the European Council in June 2014. The press conference was held on 27th June 2014.

This European Council has been dominated by discussions about the EU’s direction over the next 5 years. And specifically the decision on the next President of the European Commission.

But before I turn to that, we took an important step today towards stronger relations with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

The agreements, signed today, reflect our commitment to supporting these countries as they undertake reforms that will strengthen their economies, bolster democracies and make our European continent more stable.

President Poroshenko joined us for discussions today. We welcome his peace plan and fully support his efforts to build a peaceful and stable Ukraine.

The onus now is on Russia. The ceasefire has been expanded. So now Russia must: press the separatists to observe a genuine ceasefire; release hostages and return occupied border posts to the Ukrainian authorities.

And we’ve said clearly that if we don’t see concrete progress then we remain willing to impose further sanctions on Russia.

On the Commission President, from the outset, I have been clear where I stand on this issue.

I firmly believe in the principle that the European Council should be the one to propose the candidate.

And that if you believe in a principle you should stand up for it.

That’s why I stood firm in my opposition today.

I believe that by working together we could have found an alternative candidate who commanded the support of every member state, agreeing together on the best way forward.

That has been the practice the EU has followed on every single occasion until today.

And I think it is a serious mistake that other leaders decided to abandon that approach today.

It’s why I insisted that the European Council took a vote.

If the European Council – the elected heads of government – are going to allow the European Parliament to choose the next President of the European Commission, I wanted it on the record that Britain opposed that.

The Council voted to nominate Jean Claude Juncker as the next President of the European Commission. Britain and Hungary opposed.

We must accept the result and Britain will now work with the Commission President, as we always do, to secure our national interest.

But let me absolutely clear. This is a bad day for Europe It risks undermining the position of national governments. It risks undermining the power of national parliaments. And it hands power to the European Parliament.

It is therefore important that the European Council has agreed to review what has happened today and consider how we handle the appointment of the Commission President next time around.

Turning to the future.

This whole process has reinforced my conviction that Europe needs to change.

That was a clear message delivered by voters at the European elections.

Europe has to change to succeed.

And if you are deadly serious that you want change – as I am – then you don’t back down when a vote goes against you.

Voters need leaders who are willing to fight for change, whatever the obstacles, whatever the frustrations, whatever the cost in the short term.

Leaders who – however difficult things get – don’t give up, but resolve to persevere.

So when I say Europe needs reform, and the UK’s place in Europe needs reform, I mean it.

And I argued hard for reform today.

In respect of the Council’s mandate for the Commission for the next 5 years we made, with support from like-minded allies, some progress.

It makes absolutely clear that we must focus our efforts on building stronger economies and creating jobs.

That the EU should only act where it makes a real difference. Where it doesn’t, it should leave it to nation-states.

It states that national parliaments should have a stronger role.

And that we must deal with the abuse of freedom of movement by those who move to claim, not to work – an issue which so worries our peoples.

We have also broken new ground in 2 specific areas.

For the first time all my 27 fellow heads of government have agreed explicitly that they will need to address Britain’s concerns about the EU.

It is in the agreed conclusions the European Council issued today.

The conclusions also state explicitly that ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries and respects the wish of those – like Britain – who do not want deeper integration.

This is an important statement but it is not the end of the matter.

Far from it. The campaign to reform the EU has a long way to go. But on this issue of ever closer union, we have made a start.

Much more change will be needed during the next few years but I welcome the fact that we have embedded these issues in the Council’s mandate to the Commission from the start.

So while Europe has taken one big step backwards today with their choice of Commission President, I have made some small steps towards securing a new relationship for Britain in the EU.

Of course much more is needed. And that will require hard, patient, determined effort in the coming months. It will be tough but I believe it is still possible.

Today’s outcome is not the one I wanted. And it makes it harder, and the stakes higher.

This is an important stand, not a last stand.

My colleagues on the Council know I am deadly serious about EU reform. I keep my word. If I say I’m not going to back down I won’t.

This is going to be a long, tough fight and sometimes you have to be ready to lose a battle to win a war.

It has only stiffened my resolve to fight for reform in the EU, because it is crying out for it.

It has made me even more determined to make the EU address the concerns of all those voters who are intensely frustrated with it and who demand better, because they deserve a voice.

Britain will be the voice of those people. We will stand up for them, and make sure they are heard. And we will not be put off by what has happened here today.

Britain is going to work with intensity and with grit to reform the EU day in day out over the next few years and until we achieve it.

We have shown today that we won’t be put off from that task, we won’t be cowed, we won’t be silenced.

Because the status quo is not right for the EU. And it is certainly not right for Britain.

It is has got to change.

And at the end of 2017, it will not be me, it will not be the House of Commons, it won’t be Brussels who decide about Britain’s future in the European Union.

It will be the British people.

It will be their choice, and their choice alone.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, London, on 11th June 2014.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s G7 summit in Brussels.

This was a G7 rather than a G8 because of Russia’s unacceptable actions in Ukraine. Right from the outset, the G7 nations have been united in support for Ukraine and its right to choose its own future, and we have sent a firm message that Russia’s actions have been totally at odds with the values of our group of democracies.

At the summit, we kept up the pressure on Russia. We agreed that the status quo is unacceptable and the continuing destabilisation of eastern Ukraine must stop. We insisted that Russia must recognise the legitimate election of President Poroshenko; it must stop arms crossing the border into Ukraine; and it must cease support for separatist groups. We agreed that wide-ranging economic sanctions should remain on the table if Russia did not follow this path of de-escalation, or if it launched a punitive trade war with Ukraine in response to Kiev proceeding with the trade aspects of its association agreement with the European Union.

I made those points directly to President Putin when I met him in Paris on the eve of the D-Day commemorations. The inauguration of President Poroshenko has created a new opportunity for diplomacy to help to establish a proper relationship between Ukraine and Russia. I urged President Putin to ensure that this happens. It is welcome that he met President Poroshenko in Normandy and that Moscow and Kiev are now engaging each other again. It is important that we continue to do what we can to sustain the positive momentum. We also agreed to help Ukraine to achieve greater energy security by diversifying its supplies.

The G7 also continued the work we began last year at Lough Erne to deal with the cancer of corruption, with further agreements on what I call the 3 T’s of greater transparency, fairer taxes and freer trade. We made good progress in working towards common global standards of transparency in extractive industries, we agreed to push forwards with establishing new international rules to stop companies artificially shifting their profits across borders to avoid taxes and we agreed to make a concerted push on finalising bilateral trade deals as soon as possible. These included the EU-Canada and EU-Japan deals, but of course also the EU-US deal, which we launched at Lough Erne last summer. I believe this is one of the greatest opportunities to turbo-charge the global economy and could be worth up to £10 billion for Britain alone. With these agreements, the Lough Erne agenda on transparency, tax and trade has been hard-wired into these international summits for many years to come.

There was also a good discussion on climate change, where the recent announcements by the US make a potential agreement next year more achievable, and we should do what we can to make that happen.

In my bilateral meeting with President Obama, we discussed what I believe is the greatest threat to our security: how we counter extremism and the terrorist threat to our people at home and abroad. We agreed to intensify our efforts to address the threat of foreign fighters travelling to and from Syria, which is now the top destination in the world for jihadists. And here in Britain, my Right Hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing a new measure to enable prosecution of those who plan and train for terrorism abroad. In Libya, we are fulfilling our commitment to train the Libyan security forces, with the first tranche of recruits arriving in the United Kingdom yesterday. On Nigeria, we reaffirmed our commitment to support President Jonathan’s government and the wider region in confronting the evil of Boko Haram. We continue to help address the tragedy of the abducted schoolgirls.

Finally, in all my recent meetings with European leaders and again at the summit in Sweden yesterday, there was discussion about the top jobs in Europe. I believe the European elections sent a clear message right across the continent. The European Union needs to change. It is vital that politicians across Europe respond to the concerns of their people. That means having institutions in Europe that understand the need for reform and it means having people at the head of these institutions who understand that if things go on as they have done, the European Union is not going to work properly for its citizens.

Quite apart from the entirely valid concerns about the proposed people in question, there is a fundamental point of principle on which we must not budge. As laid down in EU law, it is for the European Council to make its own nomination for President. This is the body that is made up of the elected leaders of the European nations, and it is not for the European Parliament to try to impose its will on the democratically elected leaders of 28 member states.

Prime Minister Reinfeldt, Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands, Chancellor Merkel and I also agreed on the work programme for the new Commission: completing the single market; energising trade deals; and making further progress on deregulation – a clear focus on jobs and growth. We also agreed the Commission must work together to address the abuse of free movement, so that people move across Europe for work but not for welfare. These were important agreements from like-minded European leaders who share my determination to deliver a reformed European Union.

Finally, amidst the various meetings of the last week I was able to attend the very special commemorations for the 70th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy. Attending the vigil at Pegasus Bridge – marking the moment the first glider touched down on French soil – was a fitting moment to reflect on the importance of our collective defence, something that will be at the heart of the NATO summit in Wales this September. But above all, it was a moment to remember the sheer bravery and sacrifice of all those who gave their lives for our future.

The veterans who made it to Normandy are quite simply some of the most remarkable people I have ever had the privilege and pleasure of meeting. I will never forget the conversations that I had that night and indeed the next day. Our gratitude for their service and sacrifice must never wane, and neither should our resolve to protect the peace that they fought for. I commend this statement to the House.

Below is the text of the press conference between David Cameron and Barack Obama at the G7 meeting in Brussels on 5th June 2014.

Good afternoon.

I’m delighted to be here with Barack today.

As we stand here together in Europe, on the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings, we should remind the world of the strength and steadfastness of the bond between the United Kingdom and the United States.

70 years ago, our countries stood like 2 rocks of freedom and democracy in the face of Nazi tyranny.

70 years ago tonight, thousands of young British and American soldiers, with their Canadian and Free French counterparts, were preparing to cross the Channel in the greatest liberation force that the world has ever known.

Those young men were united in purpose: to restore democracy and freedom to continental Europe, to free by force of arms ancient European nations, and to allow the nations and peoples of Europe to chart their destiny in the world.

Thousands of those young men paid the ultimate price, and we honour their memory today and tomorrow. Shortly after D-Day, my own grandfather was wounded and came home.

We will never forget what they did, and the debt that we owe them for the peace and the freedom we enjoy on this continent.

Today, in a new century, our 2 democracies continue to stand for and to uphold the same values in the world.

Democracy. Liberty. The rule of law.

And day in, day out, our people work together to uphold those values right across the globe.

And that approach has been at the heart of what we have discussed here at the G7 and in our bilateral meeting today.

Trade

We have talked about one of the greatest opportunities we have to turbo-charge the global economy by concluding trade deals, including the EU-US deal which would be the biggest of them all.

A transatlantic trade and investment partnership that would create growth and jobs. A deal that could be worth up to £10 billion a year for Britain alone.

It would help to secure our long-term economic success and generate a better future for hard-working families back at home.

That is why I was so determined to launch negotiations a year ago in Lough Erne.

Since we have made steady progress but we have got to keep our eyes on the huge prize on offer and not get bogged down.

Extremism

We also discussed what I believe is the greatest threat we face.

How we counter extremism and the threat that terrorist groups operating elsewhere pose to the safety of our people both at home and abroad.

This year, we will bring our troops home from Afghanistan. They can be proud of what they have achieved over the last decade – denying terrorists a safe haven from which to plot attacks against Britain or the United States.

But at the same time as we have reduced the threat from that region, so Al-Qaeda franchises have grown in other parts of the world. Many of these groups are focused on the countries where they operate but they still pose a risk to our people, our businesses and our interests.

Barack and I share the same view of how we tackle this threat in the fragile regions of the world where terrorist networks seek a foothold.

As I have said before, our approach must be tough, patient, intelligent and based on strong international partnerships.

So:

When it comes to Syria, now the number one destination for jihadists anywhere in the world, we have agreed to intensify our efforts to address the threat of foreign fighters travelling to and from Syria.

We will be introducing new measures in the UK to prosecute those who plan and train for terrorism abroad. And here at the G7, we have agreed to do more to work with Syria’s neighbours to strengthen border security and to disrupt the terrorist financing that funds these jihadist training camps.

In Libya, we want to help the government as it struggles to overcome the disastrous legacy of Qadhafi’s misrule and to build a stable, peaceful and prosperous future.

Barack and I have both each recently appointed envoys who will be working together to support efforts to reach a much needed political settlement.

And we are fulfilling our commitment to train the Libyan security forces, with the first tranche of recruits due to begin their training in the UK this month.

In Nigeria, we are both committed to supporting the Nigerian government and its neighbours as they confront the scourge of Boko Haram.

The kidnap of the Chibok girls was an act of pure evil. And Britain and the United States have provided immediate assistance in the search.

In the longer term, we stand ready to provide more practical assistance to help the Nigerians and the region to strengthen their defence and security institutions and to develop the expertise needed to counter these barbaric extremists.

Ukraine

And finally, we had an important discussion on Ukraine and relations with Russia.

From the outset of this crisis, the G7 nations have has stood united, clear in our support for the Ukrainian people and their right to choose their own future and firm in our message to President Putin that Russia’s actions are completely unacceptable and totally at odds with the values of this group of democracies.

That is why Russia no longer has a seat at the table here with us.

At this summit, we were clear about 3 things.

First, the status quo is unacceptable. The continuing destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine must stop.

Second, there are a set of things that need to happen.

President Putin must:

– recognise the legitimate election of President Poroshenko

– he must stop arms crossing the border into Ukraine

– he must cease Russian support for separatist groups

And third, if these things don’t happen then sectoral sanctions will follow.

Next month will be vital in judging if President Putin has taken these steps.

And that’s what I will urge President Putin to do when I meet him later today.

Finally, we discussed the cancer eating away at the world’s economic and political systems: corruption.

Corruption is the arch-enemy of democracy and development. The best way to fight corruption and to drive growth is through what I call the 3 Ts: greater transparency, fair tax systems and freer trade.

That was at the heart of our G8 agenda in Lough Erne and today we agreed to push for more action on fair tax systems, freer trade and greater transparency, things that are now hard wired into these international gatherings and for many years to come.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the 2014 Vaisakhi Reception held at Downing Street, London, on 7th April 2014.

Prime Minister

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen; well, a very warm welcome. I think this is my fourth Vaisakhi party and I’m very proud to be the first Prime Minister to hold regular annual Vaisakhi parties here in Downing Street. So you’re all very, very welcome.

Now, there’s really 2 parts to tonight. Part is celebrating Sikhism and celebrating your faith and all your faith brings to you as people and to our country. But second is celebrating the immense contribution that Sikhs have made to Britain over what is now 160 years. That is when the first Sikh arrived, Maharaja Duleep Singh, who were – whose children actually had Queen Victoria as their godmother. I can’t promise that to everybody, but it is a remarkable – a remarkable story.

And all I wanted to say tonight was just to reflect on the 3 pillars of Sikhism, on the 3 pillars of your remarkable faith.

The first, worship, Nam Japna: devotion to God. As I say, I’m proud that we hold this reception here in Downing Street every year and I’m proud of what the Sikh faith brings to important parts of our United Kingdom. I’m thinking particularly of the 8 Sikh schools we now have in Britain and I’m particularly proud that 5 of them are free schools introduced under this government’s policy that has allowed people of faith with great ideas for running good schools to establish those schools and provide a great education for your children. So let’s hear it for those free schools and for those Sikh schools here in Britain.

Now, British Sikhs have been an absolute model in terms of integrating into our communities and playing a role in our communities; whether it is in our armed forces, whether it is serving in government, whether it is working in business, whether it is representing us brilliantly on the cricket field, there’s hardly an area of natural life where British Sikhs haven’t made a huge impact. But I believe as well as integrate, it’s very important in a tolerant, diverse and compassionate nation that we allow different faith and religious groups to keep separate to them what they think is really important about their faith.

And I hope you will agree this government has always tried to do that. For instance, we stopped the unnecessary searching of turbans at airports, something we’re proud to do. And today I can announce – today I can announce that while there has always been for someone – there has been for some time an exception that mean Sikhs don’t have to wear hard hats on construction sites, I can announce today that from now on Sikhs will not have to wear hard hats at any places of work in our country, and I think that is an important recognition.

I also understand the importance of all the sacred places that British Sikhs have established, obviously here in our country where your gurdwaras are places of worship, places of education, places of great community cohesion, but I also understand the importance of sacred places on other side – on the other side of the world.

I will never forget the visit that I made to Amritsar and to the Golden Temple; I spoke about it last year as one of the most peaceful and tranquil and beautiful places I’ve ever had the honour and privilege to visit. I know how much hurt and pain there still is in the Sikh community worldwide about what happened at the Golden Temple, and that is why as soon as that information came out about what had happened I immediately ordered that inquiry and published that inquiry properly so that people could see whether there was any British role. But I understand the pain and the hurt that that whole episode has caused, but what I would say to you is that it’s so important we all demonstrate our understanding of the importance of Amritsar, the importance of the Golden Temple, to your faith.

Now, the second pillar of Sikhism, work, Kirat Karni, working hard, something I know – I’m sure my pronunciation is terrible. You should hear my French, that’s even – but it is – it is such a feature of one of the values that British Sikhs bring to our country, the incredible devotion to work in business that is so well known. I think of people like Tony Deep – he’s normally here, but of course he’s so busy running his business that he’s just sent some of his children this time – but I think of that – also, the hard work so many Sikhs now do in our parliament. Not enough – I’m proud that we have in Paul Uppal a British Sikh on Conservative benches, Paul is here working hard – but we shouldn’t rest until we see more British Sikhs on green benches and red benches, until we see more British Sikhs at the top of every one of our organisations – whether that is our army, or our judiciary – not because we should believe in tokenism, but because we believe – I believe – that we won’t access the talent of our country unless we demonstrate that everyone from every background and faith can get to the top of any organisation that they choose, and that is so important for our country.

This year, as we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the First World War, it is also perhaps worth saying something specific about how British Sikhs have served in our armed forces with so much devotion, bravery and courage over so many years. We must be teaching our children in the year to come about the role that the 1.2 million soldiers from the Indian subcontinent played in the First World War. Stories like the story of Manta Singh, who fought at The Battle of Neuve Chapelle, that massive battle on the Western Front in 1915, and when his English colleague was wounded alongside him, he picked him up, carried him, took him to the dressing station while being wounded himself, and then sadly, tragically died afterwards. Stories of heroism, stories of valour; the Sikhs have always had this extraordinary courage and bravery, and it’s been demonstrated so often in the British Armed Forces.

I always remember when – the first time I ever spoke in a gurdwara in 1996 in Stafford. I was fighting the general election in Stafford; I think it’s fair to say I fought Stafford and Stafford fought back pretty vigorously. But I remember before I got to my feet in the gurdwara, a friend who had got me to go there said, “You’re going to be asked to make a speech.” And I said, “Well, what on earth am I going to say?” And he said, “Well, just remember to say that British Sikhs are incredibly hard-working and remember to say that they’ve won more Victoria Crosses than any other ethnic group in the British Army, and you’ll never disappoint.”

Now, the third and final thing I want to say, the third and – the third pillar – and I’m going to get this one wrong – Vand Chakna, commitment to community.

But it is actually – when we think about what British Sikhs do, not just in business, not just in our military but in terms of building strong communities, the community role that the gurdwara plays, but the community role that you all play is so remarkable. I remember reading about those stories in the London riots where Sikhs didn’t just try and protect their temples, they protected other religion’s places of worship too.

Today in this room a little bit earlier we had people from across the country who had shown extraordinary public service in the floods earlier this year, and we had then Sikhs who had gone out of their way to travel across our country and help people – whether they were in Somerset, whether they were in the Thames Valley, whether they were in East Anglia – who needed help. Serving the community, putting back into the community is something deep in the heart of all British Sikhs. So on this, the fourth Vaisakhi party here in Number 10 Downing Street, can I pay tribute again to your faith which has delivered so much to this country and to our world, and above all, can I pay tribute to the role that British Sikhs play in building our country.

We are involved today in an enormous fight for the future of Britain, turning our country around, making sure our economy grows once again. And at the heart of that is the importance of business, enterprise and hard work. Those are values dear to British Sikhs. They are the values that Britain needs more of if we’re going to be a success, so please, keep being all that you are, keep doing all that you’re doing and keep building the great success of our country, of your religion, of your community. You’re hugely welcome. Thank you.

Speaker

Thank you, Prime Minister. Thank you, Prime Minister, for those beautiful words. I just would like to say a few words. We’re going to sing a hymn now and I just wanted to explain a bit about the – the Shabad or the hymn that we are going sing now.

So, Vaisakhi is an age-old festival from the field – from the fields of the Punjab, and it marks the first harvest of the year. It’s a time of taking stock, renewal and rebirth, as seeds are sown for the future and new life blossoms all around the spring – in the spring air.

In the spirit of rebirth and renewal, the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, performed the first initiation back in 1699 on 30 March, thus creating the Khalsa, the brotherhood of the pure. He envisaged a perfect human being, high in ideals, impeccable morals and a perfect blend of saintly virtues and warrior spirit. The Shabad that we will be singing – the hymn that we will be singing – is that written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself in approximately 1699, describing his vision of a perfect Khalsa Sikh, a saint soldier servant of humanity. The second – and it reminds us to look within ourselves and how we measure up to becoming better humans through the service of others.

I would just like to say as well in the tradition of [inaudible], we humbly ask that those of you who are able to please cover your heads and remove your shoes and – please remain silent during the recital. Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at Skanska on 22nd April 2014.

Mike Putnam

I hope everybody had a very good Easter. I guess you weren’t expecting something like this when you arrived back. We’ve also got a number of people from the media here today, so if I could say welcome to Skanska, welcome to Maple Cross; my name is Mike Putnam, I’m the president and CEO of Skanska here in the UK.

Now as a business, we’ve taken the opportunity to link what you’re about to hear with an announcement that we’re looking for 1,500 new jobs here in the UK. And the good news is that that’s right the way across infrastructure, and across building, and it’s to feed the growth that we see ahead. And as I say it links very well to the announcement that you’re about to hear.

Now as an employer, we pride ourselves on our values, and in particular things like green, things like ethics, people development, and in particular with people development, developing people on the job, but also encouraging diversity and inclusion. Now all of that plays very well into these 1,500 new roles that we’re looking for. And sticking with green for a moment, many of you know that the success that we’ve had in recent weeks with Brent civic centre being announced as the greenest public building, achieving the highest BREEAM rating of any building in the UK. And then there was the Financial Times Boldness in Business Award, where we received the award for corporate responsibility and environment, and the great news about that award is that it’s a global award, not just a UK award, where we beat many international brands in the process.

And sticking with green, as you know I co‑chair the green construction board, alongside the minister Michael Fallon, and actually some of our team, and I think some in here today, have been in the deck offices looking at how to help them from a green retrofit perspective. Anyway that’s enough from me, what I’d like to do now is introduce David Cameron, the Prime Minister, and George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thank you.

Prime Minister

Well thank you very much; thank you for that welcome. I’m delighted to be here at Skanska, you are helping quite literally to build Britain’s future with the work that you’ve done on Crossrail, the countless hospitals that you’ve built, some of which I’ve been to see, the M1 junction that we’ll be visiting later on this afternoon, and all of the great buildings that you’re putting up in our capital city and elsewhere. And infrastructure is an absolutely vital part of our economic plan, and I just wanted to say 3 things before handing over to the Chancellor, and then we’ll take some questions.

And the first thing is this. Look, we inherited a very difficult economic situation in this country, in terms of debt and deficit and unemployment, and I’m not standing here claiming that we’ve sorted it all out; far from it. What I would say though, point one, is we have a plan, and we’re delivering on that plan. The plan was about getting the deficit down, and it’s down by a third; next year it’ll be down by a half. The plan was about getting Britain back to work, and we’ve got 1.5 million more people in work than when I walked through the doors of Number 10 Downing Street. It’s a plan about cutting people’s taxes, to allow you to spend more of your hard‑earned money as you choose, and you can now earn £10,000 before you start paying income tax, next year it’ll be £10,500.

And it’s a plan about delivering the best schools and skills and infrastructure for our country, because those things are vital for the future. Now there are a quarter of a million fewer children in failing schools than 4 years ago; we’ve still got a lot more work to do, though, on all of those items. And fifthly, it’s a plan about cutting immigration, and controlling and curbing welfare. Again we haven’t solved all the problems, but we’ve got a cap on the amount of welfare a family can receive for the first time ever, about half a million fewer people on out of work benefits, and in terms of immigration, we’ve cut net migration into this country by around a fifth over the last 4 years.

So that’s the first point I want to make. The second point I want to make is that infrastructure is an absolutely vital part of this plan. It’s no good trying to run a modern competitive economy unless you build modern competitive infrastructure. Now we haven’t solved all the problems again, but if you look at our spending, this year we’re going to be spending something like £36 billion on plans getting under way; 200 projects will complete this year; another 200 will start this year. If you look at our roads, we’re building more than any time since the 1970s. If you look at our railways, we’re building at a rate higher than any time since Victorian times.

Obviously there’s HS2, but I always say to people about high speed rail, we’re actually going to be spending 3 times more in the next Parliament on other road and rail projects than we will be spending on HS2; it’s not taking up all the money, but it is a vital piece of infrastructure. And this infrastructure, it’s absolutely vital that it’s private sector and public sector. We’ve got to modernise our energy infrastructure, modernise our ports, modernise our roads, hospitals, schools, all of that is a vital part of our economic plan.

Third and final point from me is I’ve given you lots of figures, and believe me I can probably give you even more figures, but in the end, what matters more than the figures is what lies behind the figures. Those 1.5 million more people in work, that is 1.5 million people with the stability and security that a regular pay‑packet brings. Those 400,000 new businesses, that is 400,000 people who are setting out to try and achieve their dream of being in charge of their own destiny. That cut in the deficit means that we’re not going to have to ask our children and grandchildren to pay so much for our debt. So it’s the values of stability, security, peace of mind, those are the things that really matter in terms of sticking to this economic plan and delivering it.

And rather like in construction, when I know you have to say, nothing is done until the whole job is finished, that is absolutely the attitude that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, and I take. We’re well through this plan, it’s working well, but we’ve got to stick to it and we’ve got to deliver it. The job isn’t done, and that’s why, in a year’s time, we’ll be asking you to give us a chance to complete the job. Now let’s hand over to the man that is helping to deliver that plan, whose been a key architect of that plan, Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne.

Chancellor of the Exchequer

Well David, Prime Minister, thank you very much for that, and thank you everyone for coming together here. And what fantastic news we’ve just heard about the 1,500 jobs that are going to be created by this company over the next couple of years. And that is not only a vote of confidence in Britain and the British economy; it’s also, as David was saying, a vote of confidence in economic security, and the economic security that that is going to bring to the families who will get those jobs.

We are working through a long term economic plan; we found this country in a very difficult situation 4 years ago, where we were borrowing £1 for every £4, and people were starting to ask questions around the world about Britain’s ability to pay its way, and I think people had bigger questions about Britain’s long term future. And we said that we had to take some difficult decisions, we explained that to you and we explained it to the British people, we’ve taken those difficult decisions, and I think you can begin to see that the long term economic plan is working. You see it with the jobs being created, you see it with the lower inflation, you see it with the higher growth.

Now we have got to go on working through that plan, and a big part of that plan, as the Prime Minister was saying, is infrastructure. Because in the end as a country, we’ve got to be able to trade with the rest of the world through modern ports, we’ve got to transport goods through modern railways and roads, we’ve got to be able to use the technologies of the future like broadband; and you are involved as a company in all of this work. Now, in the end what can government do on infrastructure? I think it needs to do these things.

First of all, it needs to make sure it can pay for things, and you can only do that if you’ve got a control on the public finances, otherwise your run out of money and things get cancelled and you’re back to square one. Now we have got control of the public finances, and that means we’ve been able to spend more than the plans we inherited on infrastructure, on the roads and the railways that you were just hearing about. That’s crucial; that’s a crucial part of what you’ve got to do. If you’re not, for example, making savings in welfare, then you can’t afford to build those extra roads or lay that extra broadband that we were just talking about. So the first thing is you’ve got to have control of your public finances, and we’ve got control back of our public finances, but the job’s not finished there, we’re still borrowing too much. That’s the first thing you’ve got to do.

Second thing, you’ve got to inspire confidence. With a company like this, you can go anywhere in the world. The management team at Skanska, they’re making decisions about whether they invest in America or China or other countries in Europe, and you’ve got to be a country that they look at and say, you are the go‑to country. And that means confidence: confidence in the economic team that is managing the economy, confidence in the workforce, in its skills and its ambition, and that’s why it’s great news that your company’s making that vote of confidence in the UK. And that’s what we are seeking to make: a climate of confidence in Britain.

The third thing you’ve got to do, because you know this, the projects you’re involved in may take a very long time to come to fruition. You’re working on the Crossrail scheme. That’s been discussed for many years, incredibly complicated planning, probably about the most complicated infrastructure anywhere in Europe at the moment. You’ve got to set out your long term plan for infrastructure, that’s what we’re doing more of today, talking about the 200 projects that are going to be completed this year, the 200 projects that are going to start this year – roads, railways, the Northern Hub scheme which you’re involved in in the North West of England, the flood defences in Exeter, the Mersey gateway bridge, the improvements on the M1 and the A1, all over the country. We have set out the pipeline, the long term plan for infrastructure, so you as a company can make decisions and you as people working in this company can make decisions about your own jobs and your own careers, and where you want to go in this company. That is the third component of having an infrastructure plan. It is much more than just a list; it is part of a long term economic plan.

Now as I said, we came to you 4 years ago, explained the difficult decisions that had to be taken; we’re working through that plan, the job isn’t finished, and now we’re here today to talk to you about how we’re going to go on developing that plan, go on investing in British infrastructure, and with your help and your hard work we will get the job done. Thank you very much; let’s take some questions.

Right, let’s take some questions from members of staff here, and then we will take some questions from the media. And you can direct the questions at myself, the Prime Minister, or both of us. First question over here.

Question

Thanks very much for coming to see us today. I’ve heard a lot about British jobs for British workers in the past; there’s also the skills shortage in the construction industry, and it’s great news that we’re going to be having so many new jobs coming through the pipeline. How can we alleviate people’s fears that the skills for those jobs are in mainland Europe coming across to Britain, and how can we, you know, help to make sure that British jobs do go to British workers?

Prime Minister

I think the short answer is, we’ve got to make sure we’ve got a welfare system that encourages people to work, and we’ve got to have an education skills system that provides young people with the skills that they need to take the jobs that are being created. And I think if you look back 5, 10 years ago, we had a real problem there, in that when we did generate jobs, a lot of those jobs were going to people from overseas coming here, quite understandably, to do those jobs because we weren’t creating a skilled workforce here at home. I think we’ve made some big, big improvements.

During this parliament so far we’ve trained 1.6 million apprentices. I want us to get to 2 million apprenticeships by the end of this parliament, so that we really are training up young people for those jobs. I did one of these meetings at Mercedes the other day, and they said they were trying to take on 5,000 apprentices. And I said, ‘How many people do you have applying?’ And they said, ‘30,000.’ And I thought, how do you decide who gets the apprentices? They said, ‘The trouble is, of the 30,000 that apply, not enough have the basic English and maths.’

We’ve got to remind young people that English and maths are vocational subjects. There isn’t a job – I would say to my children, there isn’t a job in the world that doesn’t require English and maths. My son said, ‘What about football players?’ I said, ‘Well, you’ve got to be able to read the contract, and you’ve got to be able to count the money!’ Everything requires English and maths. So if we get our school system right, and get the apprentice system right, and we have a welfare system that encourages work, then every confidence that we can see those new jobs going to young British people coming out of school, coming out of college, with the skills they need. A lot of planning. We want to work with you.

You know, if you look at what we’re doing with Crossrail, we created a tunnelling academy. We’re training experts in tunnelling in Britain, and as soon as Crossrail is completed, we can then move them on to the HS2 project, where there’s going to be a massive amount of tunnelling, and there’ll be other projects that follow that. So let’s plan with industry the skills that we need, and make sure that you’re working with us, and working with the colleges, to deliver those vital skills. Okay. Lady here?

Question

We’re delighted to hear about the level of investment. How’s the government going to support easing the procurement process, so that this investment actually turns into reality of construction.

Prime Minister

And shorten the times, too, that’s part of the problem. Chancellor?

Chancellor of the Exchequer

The short answer to that is, you’ve got to have the confidence in the government’s procurement plans. In other words, we’re not going out on speculative tenders that you have to invest huge sums of money in, and then the tenders may not ever materialise, and I know there have been some problems in the past with that. The purpose of setting out this list of projects that we’re aiming to undertake – and these, by the way, are not just government funded projects; these are also privately funded projects, or projects where there’s part government money, part private money, private finance.

By setting all of that out, you as a company can work out where the main work is going to be. You can build up your procurement expertise in that particular space, or expand your department, and then have confidence that that project is actually going to be built. You know, if I didn’t have control on the public finances, you’d say well hold on, he’s going to run out of money in 2 years’ time and it’s all going to be cancelled, so why are we bothering with this UK project? Or if you thought well, it’s quite an unstable economic situation in the UK, I’m not sure we want to be putting our bets there.

So the purpose of what I’m saying there is that in procurement, of course you want simpler processes, easier to apply, you’ve got to try and make it easy to comply with all the European rules and UK rules around that, and we have a very open place where you can go and bid – I think one of the great advantages of the UK is, you know, whatever company you are, you can come here and invest and help us build our infrastructure. But ultimately, if you don’t have the economic plan behind it, you don’t have confidence that the project’s actually going to be built and paid for, then you’re wasting your money on procurement and you’d soon spot that.

Prime Minister

Simplifying the planning system as well, has been another major reform of this government – not always popular; I think a lot of the things that the Chancellor and I do are not popular, but they’re right. Simplifying the planning system, making it faster, is absolutely essential if we’re going to build that infrastructure that the country needs. Let’s see who else has got any questions, up here on the balconies, we’ll have questions from anywhere. Lady here – hold on, here’s a microphone.

Question

Following on from the theme about the 1,500 jobs, how do you think that UK government can help Skanska and construction attract more women into construction, and more diverse groups into construction?

Prime Minister

This is something I think, for both of us. Frankly, we should do our part by making it easier to train and employ people. So from next year, for instance, when you employ someone, you’re not going to have to pay National Insurance if they’re under 21. We should be making sure there’s proper careers guidance in school, and there’s a new organisation, the National Careers Service, NCS, in our schools, providing the information for young people about the careers that are available, in things like engineering, construction, careers many people in this room have taken on.

But we do need your help. We need businesses to get into schools and inspire people about what you do. Because, you know, our teachers do an incredible job in schools, and they give brilliant advice to young people. But they give particularly good advice about the path they followed, which has tended to be school, A‑Levels, fill out the UCAS form, go to university… I don’t think we’ve been as good in our schools about giving information about apprenticeships and about vocational training. And we do need businesses to get behind the National Careers Service, get into the schools, and inspire people about what can be done. And I think more women in engineering and construction – it is changing, but we still need to do more, but nothing succeeds like seeing the role model. You know, seeing the person who decided on that career going into the schools. I’m sure Skanska does have a project like that, but we’re very happy to work with you to do more. Sir?

Question

Prime Minister, we invest in as well as build infrastructure. And on Thursday, I’ve got to sit in front of our main board and put to them an investment proposition for a sizeable investment with a utility company in green energy, onshore wind. One of the questions they’re going to ask is about political risk, given some of the hard knocks we’ve had on cancelled projects. What reassurance can I give them on your position on ongoing support for renewable energy in the UK, please?

Prime Minister

Well, I think the overall – the big picture is that we have put our money where our mouth is. We said we’re going to be the greenest government ever; we set up a Green Investment Bank, which is investing in these schemes, and we’ve set out long term plans so that you can see the subsidy that is available for renewable energy. So we’ve got a levy control framework that goes out into 2020 and beyond in terms of the amount of money that is going to go into renewable energies. We’ve also made some very long term decisions, for instance in nuclear power, with the first nuclear power station, Hinkley Point, for 30 years going ahead.

So I think you can say to Skanska, ‘Look there is a long‑term plan, there’s long‑term funds available, the off‑shore wind industry that Britain has is now the biggest in the world.’ We’ve got the largest off‑shore wind farm anywhere in the world built off the coast of the UK and another one coming on stream, almost as big very, very shortly. In terms of on‑shore wind, obviously there will come a time when we will have built enough to meet all our targets and so I’ve always said with subsidies, we shouldn’t keep subsidies for longer than they are necessary and so that is something we will be looking at. But I would argue that if you look anywhere around Europe, I would challenge anyone to find a more open, more attractive set of renewable incentives for energy in this country. I don’t know, George do you want to add to that? You’ve been very involved in this.

Chancellor of the Exchequer

We need investment in renewable energy, we’re absolutely clear about that. We need a mix of energy in this country. We need it in nuclear, we need it in renewables, we need it in gas, five generation oil. We want to make sure that all our eggs aren’t in one basket and again, in the plans we have set out, we’re very clear about the energy projects we are seeking investment in. We have this regime, as the Prime Minister was saying, a levy‑control framework and the electricity market review.

Now they’re – it’s quite technical but what that means in practice for a company like Skanska is you know how much money you are going to get if you commit to this project and there are many other European countries where you can’t get that kind of commitment at the moment. And I thought, you know, a very encouraging decision was the decision of Siemens the other day to make that investment in manufacturing in Hull in renewable energy and wind energy and that is a big company like yours that could go anywhere in the world choosing to put its money in investment into helping the renewable energy supply chain in the UK.

Prime Minister

And they are reckoning that they are going to be producing off‑shore wind turbines, not just for the UK but also exporting elsewhere in Europe. They have based themselves here because they see such an attractive off‑shore wind market.

Next question – lady here. I’ll just get you a microphone – here we go.

Question

I’d just like to ask Mr Osborne, if Scotland do decide to go independent later this year, and given that you have made the commitment that they need to have their own currency, have you thought about how you are going to counter the financial impact on companies like ourselves that obviously work across the whole of the UK? Because there is bound to be some financial implications for us.

Chancellor of the Exchequer

Well, the, the short answer is, if Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, that will be economically damaging for the rest of the UK and for Scotland. We don’t want that to happen, but it’s got to be a decision for the people of Scotland and we are setting out some of the economic risks but we are also stressing all the economic benefits that come from Scotland being part of the United Kingdom, the benefits not just for the people of Scotland but the benefits for the rest of the UK and things like an integrated energy market is a really good example of that.

A lot of our renewable energy is, for example, located, as the Prime Minister was saying, off the Scottish coast as a kind of good example of that – oil and gas investment as well. So, you know, I don’t think we should pretend that it wouldn’t be economically damaging but ultimately, this has got to be a decision for the people of Scotland to make and they will make that decision in September. I think – you know, my priority has been to make sure that they are aware of all the facts, that they are aware of the consequences of that decision and then of course they are free to make that decision.

Prime Minister

Okay, let’s have a question from the media.

Question

Prime Minister, Chancellor, a question for you both. You were both referred to memorably as ‘2 posh boys who didn’t know the price of milk’. Obviously a very difficult image at a time of austerity. Is the fact that you are out here for the first time at an event like this, for the first time in 4 years – does that mean that you think you are through that period and you don’t have to worry about that image anymore?

Prime Minister

No, we’re out here because we want to talk about the long‑term economic plan that we are putting in place for this country and we’re delivering for this country. It’s the most important thing that this government is doing. Lots of things that this government is doing I am very proud of but the most important piece of work is turning our economy round and giving all of our people the chance of security, stability, of peace of mind, of a job and of a secure future.

That’s what’s it’s about. It is the most important thing we are doing. We are part of a team that is delivering that and so we are here today to talk about a key part of it, which is infrastructure. That is what today is about, that is what the government’s about, that is what our economic plan is about.

Chancellor of the Exchequer

We are an economic team, led by a very strong Prime Minister and we set out to the country, 4 years ago, the difficult decisions that we had to take, as a country, together. We explained to people what those decisions were. As a team, we have delivered those decisions and as a result you can see the jobs being created in our economy but the work is not done and we have got to go on working through this economic plan and we have got to make a choice as a country about the team we want to help manage the economy but also the direction we want Britain to go in. And I don’t want Britain to go back to square one. I don’t Britain to go back into the mess it was in 4 or 5 years ago. I want Britain to go on working for a plan that is delivering and delivering for this economic team.

Prime Minister

Let’s have the lady at the back there.

Question

Prime Minister and Chancellor, you both talk about taking control of public funds and tax‑payers’ money. The people of Hertfordshire are paying more than £0.5 million for last year’s Bilderberg meeting. I am just wondering, do you think it is right that they are paying £500,000 for it and if so, what benefits have the people of Hertfordshire seen for the meeting?

Chancellor of the Exchequer

Quite a specific question. But look we host events in this country and we want them to be held peacefully and we want them to be held within the rule of law and there are policing costs associated with all sorts of events that are held here and around the country; and we have a police force precisely so we can police events.

Prime Minister

When the costs are excessive, there are opportunities to apply for Home Office help. Very happy to look at this case but normally, as the Chancellor says, police forces are able to cope with events and organisations that come and hold conferences in Hertfordshire or elsewhere and that’s the way the system works.

Let’s – anyone – or people on the balcony feeling left out? Lady up here.

Question

Thanks. What are your thoughts on the recent proposal from the Infrastructure Forum on the extension of the Capital Allowances regime to include structures and related buildings, rather than just plant and machinery?

Prime Minister

Right, Chancellor, sounds like [inaudible] for bringing him along this year.

Chancellor of the Exchequer

We looked very closely at this idea for the most recent budget and in the end you have got, in a budget, a certain amount of money you can deploy and lower taxes. And, when it came to encouraging investment, we looked at that proposal which organisations like the CBI had put to us and we looked at it alongside another proposal which was to increase the Annual Investment Allowance that goes to all companies for investing in things they want.

And in the end, I thought that was the better measure. I thought it was better targeted. I thought it would also help a lot of small- and medium-sized companies as well as big companies like Skanska which are helped by our lower Corporation Tax rate. So in the end in the budget – you know, the budget is about choices and I thought the best tax measure to encourage capital investment is the Annual Investment Allowance and that is why we chose to do that.

Prime Minister

It is worth dwelling on the main rate of Corporation Tax, now at 21%, coming down to 20%. That is going to give us the lowest rate of Corporation Tax of any G7 country. I think it is one of the things that we can use internationally to attract businesses to come and invest in Britain, to come and headquarter in Britain. We have seen some big steps forward with that in recent weeks with companies coming to locate here and I think, you know, attractive low rates of tax that then companies actually pay – I think that is the right way for a country to go and the Chancellor has been absolutely solid in delivering those tax reductions year after year as a really important choice because, in the end, we want private sector jobs, a private sector‑led recovery so that we can afford the public services our country needs and a low rate of Corporation Tax is absolutely key to delivering that.

Anyone on the top floor or are you – okay, no microphones up there so you will have to shout but if you, if you feel inclined, put your hand up and let’s take another question from over here. Gentleman in the stripy shirt.

Question

Question for the Chancellor. With the 45% tax rate for income – income tax, the – if that had been kept in line with inflation, at what level would that be now and also when will that difference be redressed?

Chancellor of the Exchequer

Well, there are, there are 2 things here. First of all there is the rate of tax so we inherited a 50% income tax rate which had just been put in before the election and I thought that was sending a terrible signal to the rest of the world about Britain as a place to invest and you can see some other European countries that have tried those very high tax rates and it has done huge damage to their economies, not just because of the actual impact of the tax but the signal it sends to the rest of the world, to the kind of things we have been talking about here, you know – the boardroom in Stockholm, what are they thinking about a country with a high rate of tax like that?

So we took a difficult decision that was not the most popular one we’ve taken, to reduce the tax rate to 45p to make it more competitive and actually now, the richest in our country are paying more as a proportion of income tax than they have ever done before. So we’ve also, by the way, insisted that they do pay taxes and done a lot to crack down on offshore tax avoidances and some of you may have seen some of the adverts in the papers and the like.

On the question of the thresholds you’re asking, this budget was the first time in a number of years we have been able to increase the threshold for which people pay the 40% rate but we’ve also ‑ as the Prime Minister was saying earlier– increased the personal allowance which has just now gone up to £10,000 and higher rate tax payers earning up to £100,000 also benefit from that, so everyone up to £100,000 is paying less income tax.

Prime Minister

It’s an important point, there’s a French Prime Minister that once said, ‘To govern is to choose.’ We had to make a choice. When we did have money to make available, how should we spend it? How should we help people? And the choice we made was to help the lowest paid by taking now over 2 million of them out of income tax altogether by introducing that increase in the personal allowance to £10,000. So to put a sort of figure on this, what this means is that if you’re on minimum wage and you work a full 40 hour week, you see your income tax bill come down by two thirds.

So I think that when you don’t have huge resources to deploy I think it’s right to deploy the resources on the lowest paid in our country, that’s what we’ve done. Cutting the highest rate of tax, the 50p to 45p, as the Chancellor said, that was just about – it was a bad signal. We had a higher top rated tax than other European countries and we thought we were going to lose revenue from that; it was a bad signal for Britain so we took the unpopular decision. But the real weight of our tax reform has been helping the lowest paid in our country, 2 million of who used to pay income tax don’t pay it anymore. Lady at the back?

Question

Two very quick questions if I may, the first relating to the UKIP ad campaign. Now, fellow Conservative MP Nicholas Soames has said today, quote, ‘Their campaign is deeply divisive, offensive and ignorant.’ Is that what you think?

And secondly on a slightly lighter note… you talk there about the importance of things like English and Maths, even football. Any tips there for anyone who takes over from David Moyes today?

Prime Minister

On your second question, as an Aston Villa fan, we’ve had a bit of a ropey season so I think I’ll save the advice on the subject of football management, a subject in which I know precious little. So I’ll leave that out.

Parties have to defend their own advertising campaigns, so they’ll have to do that. What I want to talk about is the issues.

Question

Hi. As part of the spending review, improvements and replacements to schools and other educational establishments was cut. Are there any plans to improve that going forward into the next parliament?

Prime Minister

Yes. We are actually now spending more on school buildings and investment in schools than in previous parliaments, so the investments are there. We inherited a program called ‘Building Schools for the Future’ which actually was very wasteful, very slow, didn’t build a lot of schools, and we put in place much better arrangements that are now getting those additional school buildings and schools built.

But schools – as well as bricks and mortar, they are important. I think it’s important to open up our state sector and have more choice for parents and have new schools coming into the state sector. And what you see with our free schools and converter academies is actually new teams coming in and setting up new schools and offering excellent education within the state sector and that is, I think, absolutely vital for our sector. And that is, I think, absolutely vital for our future; the schools and skills that we have alongside the infrastructure, they will be one of the key determinants of our future economic success. Final question. Still can’t tempt anyone up on the balcony? We’ll have the lady at the back. Sorry.

Question

This is a question for both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I’m interested to hear whether you support the recommendations made by Sir John Armitt in his review around the need for an independent commission on infrastructure projects in the UK.

Chancellor of the Exchequer

I have a lot of respect for John Armitt who has delivered some of the biggest infrastructure projects in the world. And where I agree with him is, the more you can build cross‑party consensus for some of these big schemes that last many, many years and need the support of all the political parties, we should try and achieve that consensus and I think you’ve seen that happen over the last couple of years on High Speed 2. That was a project, of course that is controversial, particularly for the communities affected by it, but we’ve actually now got support – and this was clear in the recent vote in the House of Commons.

And I think that means that companies like Skanska who probably want to be involved in this have some of the political risk removed, and there’s some of the certainty that I want that the project’s going to go ahead and is going to be built.

And that’s what John Armitt was talking about with his commission, trying to force that political consensus. I think HS2 is a good example of where that is working, and where attempts to break the consensus by some politicians have actually not got anywhere because the rest of the political party concerned said, ‘Well, hold on, we want to go ahead with this thing, which is going to be transformative, for the economic geography of the country?’ So I think John’s idea of trying to get more cross party consensus for these very big infrastructure projects is a good one.

Prime Minister

It would be more important were it not for the fact that we now have a national infrastructure plan that sets out a multiyear program of all the infrastructure we want to see built and so anyone in the construction industry can ask the different political parties, ‘Well do you support what is in the plan?’ And I think not just HS2 but also it’s interesting, Hinckley Point, this massive multiyear investment getting Britain back into operating and constructing nuclear plants. Again, that’s going ahead on an all‑party basis. So I think actually it is very important that we have this cross party support and the National Infrastructure Plan is a way for everyone to see that these projects have support for the future.

Can I thank you all again very much for the warm welcome. Can I thank Skanska for everything you’re doing in terms of building Britain’s future. Thank you also for your commitment to the green economy and also to a subject we haven’t discussed today, but something Britain can be very proud of which is safety in construction. I think one of the most remarkable things about the Olympics is that that extraordinary park, that extraordinary set of stadia was built without the loss of life in terms of construction. I think that really shows another reason people should choose British companies, British based companies and Britain to come and build. And it has been something we can all be extremely proud of.

So thank you for what you do good luck with your 1,500 new members of staff, good luck with the work you’re involved in. We’re looking forward to going to see this junction of the M1; I hope that traffic will be moving smoothly but if it isn’t the work you’re going to do will make it run smoothly in the future. Thank you very much indeed.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at a reception for flood volunteers at Downing Street, London on 7th April 2014.

A really warm welcome to everybody here. We have quite a lot of parties and receptions in this room, but I have to say, there are few that give me as much pleasure as having all of you here this afternoon. Because the fact is, in December, in January, in February, we saw some of the worst British weather we have ever seen. We had coastal surges, we had storms, we had river flooding, surface water flooding and parts of the country underwater for weeks.

But while we saw the worst of British weather we saw the best of British spirit. And that is why all of you are here: because of the community spirit that was shown up and down our country, of people looking out for their neighbours, of helping each other, of giving to each other was truly remarkable.

And I tell you, as Prime Minister, it is such a privilege and an honour to travel the country and see that community spirit at first hand. Whether it was Facebook sites to clean up Chesil Beach; whether it was community cafes in Somerset; whether it was Scouts, Guides and others pitching in; whether it was a group of young Muslims from Yorkshire, who headed all the way down to the Somerset levels. We saw schools and churches used as community hubs; our emergency services were amazing; our military were extraordinary – let’s give them a round of applause. We saw it with flood wardens, with councillors, with volunteers; people of all ages with all skills, everybody asking ‘What can I do?’

And it’s that great quote by Ghandi, who said that the best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others. And I’m sure that there are many, many people here, who, although you had to work incredibly long hours, although you stood in that flood water – and it’s freezing when you stand in flood water for hour after hour – who look back and think of it actually as a time when communities came together, and we all really showed what an incredibly resilient and compassionate and caring people and country that we are.

So all that I wanted to do today really was 3 things. First of all, I wanted to say a very big thank you to all of you; in your own ways you performed extraordinary community service. And the whole country should be really grateful for that. The second thing to say is, please keep at it. Because I hope we won’t have weather quite as bad as that, but the fact is we have seen more extreme weather events, we have had things that we keep being told are 1 in 100, or 1 in 200 year events, and they seem to be happening more frequently. I think my own constituency flooded so badly in 2011, some floods again, this time, but you know, these things just a few years apart. So please keep doing what you’re doing.

There are 2 things I want to say in respect of that. First is, I think there’s been an extraordinary community fundraising effort, in terms of hardship funds to make sure that people who perhaps didn’t have insurance have been able to get support. Today I can announce we are going to put another £500,000 into the community foundations around the country in the areas that have flooded because I think they play a key role in helping people and families get back on their feet.

But there’s a second thing we’re doing which came directly out of a meeting I had during 1 of my flood visits. I remember standing in Surrey, talking to some of our volunteer rescue services, and someone explaining to me that he’d come – as soon as he heard about the floods, he’d come all the way down from Cheshire and he was working 24/7 helping getting people out of their homes and helping people in the very bad floods around the river Thames. And he pointed out to me that our volunteer rescue service people have to pay for their own equipment and pay for their own training. Well I don’t think that is right. And so, you know we’ve taken £4 million from the so called Libor fines to be used to help pay for uniforms and training for our volunteer rescue services.

So that was the second message. Keep on doing what you’re doing, because it is such a vital work. And I know we’re not out of the woods yet; we’re not out of the water. So let’s stick at it, all of us, whether we are farmers, whether we’re businesses, whether we’re government, whether we’re flood wardens, whether we’re councillors, we’ve all got to stick at it. The recovery phase is often the most different – difficult.

The third thing I wanted to say is just that, I believe that we should do more as a country to recognise extraordinary voluntary service. We have good ways of doing that: we have obviously the honour system which has a role to play, we have Big Society Awards that go to organisations that do a great job in terms of stepping up and stepping out for our communities. But there’s something else I want to do. In America for a long time now, they’ve had these wonderful awards called the Points of Light. George Bush Senior made a great speech when he talked about the 1,000 points of light in our society, extraordinary volunteers who do extraordinary things, shining out particularly in dark and difficult times. Well you were in many ways those first points of light here in the UK. So today I’m announcing that Britain is going to have its own Points of Light scheme, working in alliance with the Americans who have already had their 5,000th award given out.

Today I’ve had a huge privilege of handing out the first 5 awards to people who did extraordinary things during the storms and the floods in terms of community service. But I think it’s really important as a country that we recognise that people who step forward – who volunteer – they are the best of British, they show that great British spirit, and we should celebrate that properly in our country.

But above all, a very big thank you. Please enjoy coming here to Number 10 today. You will meet people who did similar things to you, but in totally different parts of the country; I’m sure you’ll have great stories to tell and great experiences to share. But above all, as Prime Minister, I just want to thank you for showing the best of British spirit. Thank you very much indeed.

Below is the text of the press conference held between David Cameron, the Prime Minister, and Matteo Renzi, the Italian Prime Minister, at Downing Street in London on 1st April 2014.

Prime Minister

Good afternoon. I’m delighted to welcome Matteo on his first visit to London as Prime Minister. We’ve already worked together at the European Council, at last week’s G7 meeting in The Hague. And, today, we’ve had the opportunity for more in‑depth discussions about our bilateral relationship, about the European Union and, of course, about Ukraine. And I just want to say a word on each.

On our bilateral relationship, we’re both leaders who are taking the difficult decisions needed to build strong and resilient economies to create jobs and to create a more secure future for hard‑working people. Here in Britain this week, we’re bringing in the most important changes to our tax system for a generation, including cutting corporation tax to 21% today. And I support Matteo’s efforts to implement a package of ambitious reforms in Italy that will strengthen the economy there and encourage foreign investment and help hard‑working Italians too.

We want to increase the trading relationship between our 2 countries. It’s already worth over £32 billion a year, and Britain is the leading European destination for Italian investors, up 5% last year, with new projects creating almost 1,800 new jobs here at home. But we believe we can do more to strengthen ties, particularly in the advanced engineering, energy and tech sectors, and we’re already looking at how British businesses can seize the opportunity of the world expo in Milan next year.

We also want to work together to make the EU more competitive. Europe is falling behind the powerhouses in Asia and South America, and we need to match the difficult decisions we’re taking at home with ambitious reforms in Brussels. Italy will be taking over the presidency of the EU later this year at a vitally important time. I know that Matteo wants to make growth and jobs a central theme of the Italian presidency, and today we’ve agreed the next Commission must put an unrelenting focus on driving growth across Europe: cutting red tape, completing the single market in energy, unleashing Europe’s digital economy. These are all things that we agree about and discussed over our meeting.

We also want to see these trade agreements with the rest of the world. A deal with the United States would be a massive prize: €119 billion a year to the European economy. That is equivalent to €545 for every family of 4 across Europe.

Finally, we discussed the situation in Ukraine. We remain united in our condemnation of Russia’s completely unacceptable behaviour in recent weeks. Russia needs to choose the path of de‑escalation and dialogue. President Putin should accept this means entering direct talks with the Ukrainian government. We share Secretary Kerry’s view: there should be no decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine at the table. In the long term, we want to do more to support the Ukraine government as they get to grips with their debts, they implement reforms and they build a more prosperous future for the Ukrainian people.

We also want to secure and diversify Europe’s energy supply, and this is an area where we intend to do more work together in the coming months. So, Matteo, a very warm welcome. We’ve had good discussions. We share many objectives for the future. I look forward to working with you in that future. And I don’t know whether it’s just me, but Prime Ministers seem to be getting younger all the time. Matteo, over to you.

Matteo Renzi

Thank you. Thank you David and thank you everybody, and thank you for your invitation. Downing Street, Number 10, is a dream for everybody, so thank you so much for – also for the cooperation and the partnership.

Matteo Renzi (via interpreter)

I think that it is very important for Italy to strengthen the importance and stress the importance of our relation with Prime Minister David Cameron, with the United Kingdom, and I think that it is very important to present reforms for our country which is a prerequisite for Italy to face, together, the reforms that Europe needs. Italy must be more simplified and more streamlined and must improve. Italy must play its role. In this case, Italy will be able, together with all its partners, and the historic partners in particular, to create a different Europe.

Matteo Renzi

We want better Europe, not more Europe: a better Europe. A very balanced Europe, against the red tape of bureaucracy and with an idea of future for our children, not also for our [inaudible].

Matteo Renzi (via interpreter)

I believe that it was very important to share strategies on the Mediterranean, on the digital agenda, on the energy challenges and also on the future of economy and growth at a time when, unfortunately, we still have many things to do. I was talking with Italian journalists today, and we also touched upon it with David, about the figures for unemployment. 2011: UK unemployment, 8%, Italy, 8.4%. 2013: UK, 7%, Italy, 12.3%. What happened?

Over the last 3 years, we have lost a lot of ground and now it’s the time to run again with an economic performance which can be valuable by looking at the European Union and our partners so that we can base ourselves on growth and not on red tape.

David has already talked about Ukraine and also about our joint interests. In our partnership, I think that we should stress that we are going to be in Cardiff in Wales for the NATO summit, and I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for accepting to have the G7 of energy ministers in Italy before the Brussels G7.

So, there are many things that we share. I think that it will be very interesting if this different Europe that we want to build – we are going to be able to build it fighting against the fear of those who are afraid of changing, but clearly there is no great Europe without the presence of the United Kingdom: without David Cameron and all British people. So, it is essential for us in this path – which is a complex path which we have in front of us. The UK presence in Europe is not questionable. It is essential and crucial for us, and we are going to work together, I’m sure.

Prime Minister

Thank you Matteo.

Question

Mr Renzi, listening to you, it makes it sound as if Italy and you are an ally of David Cameron’s in wanting fundamental reform of the European Union. Am I right? And does that mean that Italy wants to bring powers back from the centre to Italy, or is your vision of a reformed Europe completely different from the Prime Minister’s?

And, Prime Minister, can I ask you 1 question about Ukraine, which is: do you really share similar ideas about the level of pressure that should be applied to Moscow, because those countries, like Italy, which are much more energy dependant on outside sources, tend to be much less in favour of applying the sort of pressure on Moscow which could produce retaliation?

And finally to you, Prime Minister, many people are very angry about what they see as Royal Mail being sold off far too cheaply. Do you think people are right to feel angry? The tax payers feel that they were given a very poor deal by the government.

Prime Minister

Thank you very much. Well, Matteo perhaps you’d take the question first.

Matteo Renzi

Absolutely – absolutely yes. I think there is an alliance, not ideological, not confused, in the process of a reform of Europe. But for us, for Italy, today is absolutely important start for ourselves. It’s impossible in Italy to fight against bureaucracy of Brussels if we spent few days to conclude a process of administration in our country. It’s impossible for us to fight against the ideas of bureaucracy, of red tape, in Brussels if our system is old. So, for this reason, in this moment in Italy, it’s absolutely important to change institutions, to change electoral law, to change the constitutions. Yesterday, maybe you know, we presented the reform: the law of reform of constitutions. Very important because this is also the problems between central government and the regions, because change the role of Senate, because change the role of a part of politician. So, for us, it’s possible to speak about reforms in Europe only if before we change ourselves, and this is the challenge in the second half of 2014, when Italy will lead the semester of European presidency. I think we can discuss with our partners and with David about the future of Europe.

Prime Minister

Thank you very much. I’m sure we’re going to be great allies in fighting the bureaucracy that Matteo’s just referred to. I think it’s really important for all countries in Europe to do that.

To answer your questions very specifically: on Ukraine, of course different countries have different perspectives, but, actually, I think the EU has done well, in that 28 countries came together and set out a tough, consistent and predictable set of measures to send a very clear message to Vladimir Putin about what had happened, why it was wrong and what needed to happen next. And crucially, at that last EU Council, we agreed that the European Commission should start to draw up detailed plans for sanctions if Putin and Russia went further into eastern Ukraine. And I think that was a good step forward, and we agreed that: right across the EU we agreed that. And we also agreed the important steps, in terms of travel bans and asset freezes.

So we all bring our different perspectives and our different histories and arguments but, actually, we came together, and I think we’ve set out a very consistent way forward and the right way forward for the EU.

On the issue of energy dependence on Russia: we discussed this in our meeting. Again, different countries have different positions. Britain is very un‑reliant on Russian gas; we have a very small percentage of Russian gas coming into our system. But, I think, where there’s agreement across Europe is that this is a long‑term piece of work that has to be done. It is in all our interests – whether, frankly, we’re reliant on Russian gas or not, it’s in all our interests that all of Europe becomes less reliant, so we’re a more resilient continent. So that when shocks take place they don’t affect the gas and oil prices so badly, and countries are able to make more independent decisions.

So, it’s a long‑term piece of work, but I’m delighted that Matteo’s taking on the work of chairing the G7 energy ministers – the meeting will take place in Italy – because that’s going to be a start of the process – as the EU will also take forward – of making us all more energy independent. That’s going to mean building LNG terminals, it’s going to mean new pipelines, it’s going to mean more interconnections between different European countries, it’s going to mean completing the single market in energy. These are good things in themselves, but they will also make us less reliant on Russian gas, and that will be strengthening for all of us in the long term. But a long‑term piece of work: you can’t expect results immediately on that one.

On the Royal Mail, what I would say is this: you know, a decade ago this company was losing money and people thought that it was in an unrecoverable situation. I would argue the British taxpayer has benefited in 3 ways from the changes we put in place and the privatisation that’s taken place. There’s the benefit of a sale of Royal Mail and the capital receipt. There’s the benefit that this is now a profit‑making company, paying taxes into the Exchequer. And thirdly, this is a successful company, doing well, doing well for Britain. So I think we’re much better off with Royal Mail in the private sector, and I look forward to that work being completed.

Question (via interpreter)

So you’ve had endorsement abroad on reforms in Italy. The priority is work; you say that we have to run. How can we run and match that with the possibility of a mediation in Italy?

Question

Mr Cameron, in the same way Renzi’s government has proposed a series of reforms, your government has proposed a few points to remain in Europe. So what kind of support the euro‑sceptical United Kingdom can find in Italy, whose dreams is the United States of Europe? Thank you.

Matteo Renzi (via interpreter)

The Italian path is very clear: constitutional reforms, changing the public administration, a deep change in the tax system and in the civil justice system and, naturally, changing the rules on the job market. On the labour market we have a system whereby there is no flexibility.

I talked about statistics earlier. These statistics have seen a growth of unemployment despite the rules that had been made – should have improved and simplified the situation. Therefore, what happened over the past few years is wrong. It has produced more bureaucracy in the labour market and it hasn’t solved any problems. In the sector of vocational training in Italy, the trainers worked a lot but those people who needed to work didn’t work enough. So, we must simplify and accelerate. That is why I told David what choice we made: a law decree, which has already been approved, on fixed‑term contracts and apprenticeships, which is already a law. And yesterday we officially presented, in parliament, a bill which, will have to be discussed by the Italian parliament, on the reform of the labour code. Also, to give guarantees so that companies can have more opportunities to invest in Italy.

1 example: in Italy today there are 2,100 articles dealing with rules on the labour market. Obviously, in the end you always end up in court. Today, we want only 50 or 60 articles, which are also written in English, for investors, so that if you carry out an operation you know how long it will take, who carried out this operation and what the rules are.

There are all possible mediations in the parliamentary debate, but it will not be possible to change the basic approach. That is to say: giving guarantees to those who don’t have any, and give the freedom to entrepreneurs to hire, in a real way.

Prime Minister

A lot of the support that I hope to get from Italy, which was your question – of course, Matteo and I will have our differences: he’s on the centre‑left, I’m on the centre‑right. But we’re both reformers. We both want to reform Europe so it focuses more on the economy and jobs. We both want to reform Europe so it focuses on cutting bureaucracy. And we both want to achieve keeping Britain in a reformed European Union. So I think there’s lots of opportunity to work together.

What I’m taking from what Matteo’s just said is that, frankly, there’s no point deregulating in Italy if you have those regulations re‑imposed in Brussels. And that is exactly the approach that I take, and so I think there’s a really good alliance that we can forge on this vital issue.

Question

Could I ask both of you whether you had the opportunity to discuss your expectations for the first match at the World Cup at some point? And Prime Minister Renzi, is it clear, from what you’re saying, that treaty change in Europe cannot be a priority for you or your country at the moment? And, on the specific issue of freedom of movement, you will know that David Cameron has said that freedom of movement should not be an absolute right, that he’s making sure that he feels that there should be restrictions on, for example, welfare benefits for people who come from one country to another. Is that an agenda that you agree with? That you are willing to pursue?

And Prime Minster, David Cameron, could I ask you: what is your issue with the Muslim Brotherhood at the moment? Because, looking at the situation in Egypt currently, many people would say that the organisation is perhaps more sinned against than sinning?

Prime Minister

Let me take the question on the Muslim Brotherhood. Look, I think it’s very important people understand that, as a government, we are obviously opposed to violent extremism, the violent extremism that we’ve seen on our streets – tragically in, for instance, that dreadful incident in Woolwich – but we’re also a government that is opposed to extremism. We want to encourage people away from a path of extremism, and we want to challenge the extremist narrative that some extreme Islamist organisations have put out.

What I think is important about the Muslim Brotherhood is to make sure we fully understand what this organisation is, what it stands for, what its links are, what its beliefs are – in terms of both extremism and violent extremism – what its connections are with other groups, what its presence is here in the United Kingdom. Our policies should be informed by a complete picture of that knowledge and that’s why I’ve commissioned this piece of work, by a very experienced and senior ambassador: John Jenkins, who’s our ambassador in Saudi Arabia. And I think it’s an important piece of work, because we’ll only get our policy right if we fully understand the true nature of the organisation that we’re dealing with.

We did discuss the World Cup, but –

Matteo Renzi

This is a problem. This is a problem because I’m a big supporter of the trainer of the Italian soccer team, Cesare Prandelli, so I support him, and obviously I support our national team. But in this moment it’s not – we are not sure about their results. I think our alliance is not a problem for the match, so –

Jokes apart, in this moment in Italy the priority is a different idea of the future of our countries. In the last period, Europe – this is my personal opinion – lost the quality of dream, and became only a place of bureaucracy and of red tape. So, for this reason, I believe the first challenge is not to discuss about your questions, but about division for the next generation of Europe as a place of freedom. And first of all, this could be possible only if we invest in a different idea of growth, a different idea of institutional levels and, for this reason, the alliance with David is absolute.

For the rest, we have a lot of time to discuss but, in this moment, I believe that, absolutely crucial for Italy, is the presence of UK in Europe. Not only for the past of the UK, but for the future of Europe, because this is not simply a tradition. This is not simply an idea of the past. This is the challenge for the future generation and for our children’s, and this is the priority. For the rest, we discuss in the future.

Question (via interpreter)

Italy and the UK have many links in the world of finance, as shown by the merger between Borsa di Milano and the London Stock Exchange. What is the message to give to the City in view of the new privatisations in Italy and the need to support the Italian treasury? Are you going to meet people from the finance world or have you already done so?

For Mr Cameron, since Mr Renzi underlined the different trend of unemployment in the UK than in Italy, I’d like to know if you have a recipe to suggest. Any suggestions to give? Thank you.

Matteo Renzi (via interpreter)

Very briefly, I believe that while I cannot give a message to the City, I can take a message from the City. Over the past few days and weeks there has been a lot of attention in the Italian market from all over the world. Since London is the capital of world finance, this city is where things happen, but if you look at the data from the last few weeks, many investors are betting on the future of Italy, and to me this is positive.

The fact that, also, Italian media are starting to face, just now – I’m not going to name any names – but they have a lot of interest for Italy for many reasons, because Italy has a lot of stability in front of it, until 2018, because Italy is no longer a problem for Europe. Because thanks to reforms they understand that this country wants to invest in the future and not just pay the debts of the past.

For these reasons – there aren’t any specific meetings in the City. I have taken the message. Clearly this message can be meaningful only when unemployment is reduced in Italy. This is the beginning of a journey. We will see, over the next few months, how this change will bring Italy below the double digits of unemployment: below 10%. This is what we want to do; this is our objective, and we are going to reach it over the next few months and years. We can reach this objective.

Members of the financial world – well, it is impossible not to meet them in London. You meet them everywhere, even in the street. We are going to meet some members of the British finance tomorrow morning at the residence of the Italian ambassador, whom I would like to thank. And we are going to meet some newspapers, specialist newspapers. But today, among the many things we are going to do, there is a field which is growing in the export – also in the UK: fashion. And it is not the only one. I think that it will be important to work together also on food to show that Italian food is good for you. And the event David referred to, Expo Milano, is very important. But, this evening, for me, there is going to be a very interesting event on fashion and on the Italian history in fashion, which is very important for Italian export.

Prime Minister

I’m sure Matteo doesn’t need my advice. He has a very clear programme for cutting unemployment. But, for countries that have big deficits, that have large debts, there is no choice; you can’t increase employment by expanding the public sector. You have to do something very simple, which is you have to make it easier for one person to say to another person, ‘Come and work for me.’

And so, what we’ve done here in the UK is we’ve backed start‑up businesses, we’ve cut jobs taxes, we’ve invested in apprenticeships, we’ve helped small businesses. We’ve made it easier for people to get a job and to keep a job. And, in the end, there are no shortcuts to that. It’s about having a flexible and active and attractive labour market.

We’ve got 1.3 million more people in work than when I first walked through the doors of Number 10 Downing Street. I know that Matteo has the same sorts of ambitions for Italy, to make it easier to employ people, to get people more jobs and to make sure that right across Europe we see unemployment fall, which we need to.

And we must – here in the UK, we’re going to keep at it. This week, we give a £2,000 national insurance rebate to small businesses, which will help them, we hope, to take on even more people and keep this good jobs story going.

Thank you.

Matteo Renzi

Thank you so much.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at a PM Direct event held by Saga in Brighton on 24th March 2014.

Thank you very much. Thank you, thank you. Great – great to be here. No long introduction from me because I really want to spend this time answering your questions. Let me just make 2 points; about the budget and the thinking behind it.

The first is this: you can tell a lot about a society by how much it enables people to live in dignity and security in their old age. Now, I am not claiming that we have solved all the problems of helping pensioners in our country, but this government, while making difficult long term decisions about our economy and our future, has tried to help pensioners live out their lives in dignity and security.

We protected the basic state pension with the triple lock, so it always goes up by earnings, prices, or 2.5%: whichever is the highest. That’s had a real impact over the last few years. We protected those pensioner benefits, a promise that we’ve kept in terms of the Winter Fuel Allowance, the free TV licences, the bus passes and suchlike. That is important.

Then you’ve got these moves in the budget which will help pensioners to use their savings better. And so you’ve got the abolition of the 10p rate on savings income up to £5,000; you’ve got the pensioner bonds. The pensioner bonds are very important because a lot of pensioners say to me, “Look, I’ve worked hard, I’ve put some money aside, but because interest rates are so low I don’t really get any income from my savings.” These pensioner bonds will help pensioners to do that; there’s £10 billion worth of them available, but there’s a limit of how much any one person can take. And so it’s a good way of helping pensioners have that dignity and security.

So that’s the first thing I wanted to say. The second thing I wanted to say is that all of this links to the long term economic plan that we have for our country. We’re involved in a giant turnaround exercise: to take an economy that was truly troubled after the 2008 Great Recession and give it a chance of success in the modern age.

Now this plan, at its heart, is about creating jobs, and we’ve got more people in work. It’s about cutting people’s taxes, and we’ve now lifted to £10,000 the amount of money you can earn before you start paying income tax. It’s about making sure that we build the schools and provide the skills that are going to be essential for future generations. It’s about controlling immigration and controlling welfare, so that people who work hard and do the right thing get rewarded. And it’s about building the infrastructure that this country needs.

So, it’s a plan and you can see every aspect of this plan and we’re going to report in on this plan over and over again. By the end of it I expect you’ll be bored to death of hearing about this plan but the point I want to make about this plan is actually not the facts and figures, but the values behind it. Because in the end, that’s what matters most of all: why are we doing this? Who are we doing it for? And what will the country feel like when this plan is successful?

And the values, I would say, at the heart of it are, first of all, that if you work hard the system should be on your side and help you, rather than punish you. That’s why being able to earn £10,000 before paying tax is so important. That’s why allowing pensioners to keep more of their savings, get a decent income in retirement and not to have to take out an annuity, so they can spend their money as they choose. That’s why that value – about trusting people, helping people and recognising the worth of working hard and saving – is so important.

But perhaps the most important value of all – particularly at a time when people see economies struggling, and, worldwide, the difficult positions people are in – most important value of all is stability and security. Giving people a sense that we want to help you have that security and stability in your life, whether that’s about helping people to get a job, whether it’s about helping people to start a business or whether it’s giving people that dignity and security in old age. Those are the values that lie behind this plan and this budget was very much in line with this plan and I’m really pleased about the steps we’ve been able to take to help pensioners have that dignity and security, to reward saving and to say, “It’s your money to spend as you choose.”

But I’m sure there’ll be many other things that pensioners want, that future pensioners are worrying about, that you want to ask me about today. So please don’t hold back; any question you like and I will do my best to answer it.

Question

Thank you. Prime Minister, I’m not going to talk about pensions; I’m talking about inheritance tax. And I recall your promise when you came into power – or just before you came into power – about inheritance tax was going to have a quantum leap – I think it was about £1 million – and now we see that it’s not. A lot of us save not just for ourselves but for our children, our grandchildren, and in this particular area we see house prices rising year on year, in fact, month on month, and yet we’re not being able to pass on a lot of that inheritance because most of our equity is tied up in a house. So that 1 issue, I think, gives us a lot of concern. Are you able to address that?

Prime Minister

If we go back – I’m not going to give you a history lesson, sir, I wouldn’t dare – but if we go back to 2007: in those days you could only – the threshold for inheritance tax was £325,000. And if you remember, George Osborne – then shadow Chancellor – made this speech and made this promise that we wanted to radically change that and lift it to £1 million. That was our aim. Straight away after that, Gordon Brown – realising what a brilliant pledge it was by George Osborne – then changed the rules so that you could pass between husband and wife, and also between civil partners. So the effective threshold for inheritance tax went from £325,000 to about £700,000.

But would I like to go further in future? Yes I would. I believe in people being able to pass money down through the generations and pass things onto their children. I think you build a stronger society like that. And I think, of course we should – you know, you have to have caps and limits and we have to think about those, but generally speaking we should be encouraging people to pass things on to their children. And 1 of the reasons why George Osborne made that pledge was this point about property, was that when the limit was £300,000 or so, quite a lot of, you know, hard working families who’d worked hard, who’d saved, who’d put that money into their house, were being caught by inheritance tax. And inheritance tax should only really be paid for by – only really be paid by the rich; it shouldn’t be paid for by people who’ve worked hard, who’ve saved and who’ve bought a family house in Peacehaven for example.

So the ambition is still there; I would like to go further. It’s better than it was [Party political content] but it’s something we’ll have to address in our manifesto.

Question

I wonder if I could ask you a question about infrastructure? We’re in this great county of Sussex – West Sussex, Brighton and Hove, East Sussex – 1.5 million people, but a bare 5 miles of motorway, Prime Minister, in the whole county. Is it possible you could ask the transport secretary to look at that motorway deficit, particularly in respect of lack of East/West motorway and the possibility of expansion of Gatwick Airport?

Prime Minister

Well, first of all, on the Gatwick Airport, I can’t really say anything about that because we’ve got the Davies Review that is looking at our airport capacity, and he’s said there are really 3 options. He said we need more – we need more capacity. Not immediately, it’s not a panic, but he says we do need to add another runway if we want to try and keep our hub status as a country. And he’s got 3 suggestions: he says that there is the Heathrow suggestion, the Gatwick suggestion, or possibly – the east of London option.

So all of those 3 are being looked at. I think he’s doing a good job. 1 of the things he’s done is stop people panicking about this issue. He says that it has to be addressed but we don’t have to do it tomorrow, but we do need to make a decision in good time and we will in the summer of next year.

In terms of roads, actually I would say this government has stepped forward with quite a lot of investment into road and rail schemes. I know sometimes in places like Sussex people say, “Well all the money’s going to go on HS2.” Does anyone think that; all the money’s going to be wasted on HS2? Here’s the fact of the day for you: in the next Parliament, we’re going to spend 3 times more on other road and rail schemes as we will on HS2. I think HS2’s really important, it’s actually going to link up our country, it’s going to help drive economic development through the Midlands and the North and bring the country together – but we’ll be spending lots of money on other things. So there will be money available for pinch-point schemes in places like Sussex, for road and rail improvements. In terms of motorway deficits I’m very happy to look at what you say. There have been some specific road upgrades in Sussex in the last few years, but we we’re happy to look at more.

Question

I’m 70 years old. I have a pension pot which I haven’t touched yet, but I’ve been looking into an annuity. With the budget changes, what benefits do you see for my pot?

Prime Minister

Right. Okay. One of the most important things in the budget is the money for face-to-face financial advice, because I think this is a very complicated area – pensions – and people really need to have good advice before they take a decision. What we’ve decided to do, sir, and this may help you – I don’t know your own circumstances – we’ve got the bigger decision that happens in April 2015, which ends the need to have to buy an annuity if you’re in a defined contribution scheme, and most people are now in defined contribution schemes. But even before that, we’ve taken a set of measures that help people to draw down income from their pensions by changing the rules around that they help people take a bigger cash lump sum, including in small pension pots, and they change some of the tax circumstances around those things. So my advice would be to talk to your own financial advisor, see your own circumstances, and whether these changes can help you.

Behind them all is a very simple piece of thinking, which is that you’ve worked hard, you’ve saved during your life. That money in your pension pot is basically your money and you should have greater freedom to spend that as you choose.

Now of course you then get the argument – and we’ve heard a bit of this over the last few days – “Well, if you allow people to spend their own money, they’ll blow it all on a cruise; they’ll spend all the money, and then where will we be?” Well first of all I’d say it’s deeply condescending to say to people who’ve worked hard, who’ve saved all their lives, who’ve been thinking about the future –to say, “Well you can’t trust them to spend their own money because they’re irresponsible people.” They’re not irresponsible people; they’re responsible people. That’s why they saved in the first place.

But if you want to get technical there’s another reason for feeling confident about this change which is that we’re changing the basic state pension system in this country. Right now, as you know, you get your basic state pension and then there’s a minimum income guarantee and a top-up through the pension credit which takes you up above £140 if you’re a single person. And what we’re doing is we’re replacing that basic state pension and the pension credit top-up – replacing it with what’s called a single tier pension, so when people retire, they will retire on a basic state pension of above £140.

Now why that matters so much is because it is lifting people out of the means test, it’s lifting people out of that pension credit top up, so even if they do go and spend lots of money on certain things they’re not going to be reliant on a means tested system. They’ll be reliant on the basic state pension which will have lifted them above the means test system. So I would argue this is the right thing to do; giving people more opportunity to spend their own money as they choose, giving people more freedom, but it’s also the right time to do it, because we’ve changed the system fundamentally so that it wouldn’t have the bad consequences were people to go and blow all their money. But I don’t believe they will, because I don’t believe people are fundamentally irresponsible; I think people are fundamentally responsible. I believe in trusting the people, a slogan my party came up with at the turn of the 20th century, and I think we should stick to it now.

Question

All I want to do is say thank you. I’ve been holding on to my trivial pension since you got elected, and I’ve been asking you to change it to what it is now. If I’d have cashed my pension in when I should have done, I’d have had 25% and £14,000 a year pension. Now, I can draw the whole lot out and thank you very much indeed.

Prime Minister

Thank you. I mean, there’s – what’s interesting about this argument is that we were – when I was a back bench MP – I was elected in 2001 – there was a private member’s bill then called the Curry Bill, and it was to try and abolish the need to take out an annuity. And we went along and we voted for this bill Friday after Friday, and tried to get it through, but even that bill wasn’t as good as what we’re doing now because there was no single tier pension proposal then so even an abolition of annuities proposal still had lots of small print about how much income you had to have before you could guarantee that you wouldn’t need an annuity. And so it’s this single tier pension move that’s made it possible to do what we’ve done, and I’m really glad that it’s going to benefit people like you.

You still pay tax on it, of course. You draw it down, but you pay it at your marginal rate and this is a really good argument, because then you can draw down money year after year in a way that makes sure that you pay tax on it, but you pay at your marginal rate, rather than pushing yourself up into a higher rate.

Question

The budget seemed almost perfect. What has George got left for next year; he needs to pull a few rabbits out of hats. Has he got anything left?

Prime Minister

Well, I mean, budgets are – it’s a very dramatic event, the budget, isn’t it? I think we all – it’s sort of a national event. I’m not sure other countries get quite as excited about their budgets as we do. But you know, a budget is only as good as the underlying economy that it is commenting on, and I think while, you know, I’m very keen today to talk about these important steps for pensioners and trusting people to spend their own money as they choose and rewarding savings, actually, in a way the real news in the budget was that the economy is improving. We still haven’t reached the peak that we were at before the crash, as it were, but we’re working our way back and the really encouraging thing is we’ve seen 1.3 million more of our fellow countrymen and women in work – that’s good news – we’ve got 400,000 more business operating in Britain, we’re exporting more to fast growing markets on the other side of the world.

So the economy’s on the mend but there’s a lot more work to do. What George and what I and others will be thinking about for next year’s budget will depend on how well the economy is doing and whether we can continue to make some progress in helping people to keep more of their money to spend as they choose. But that’s what it’s all about – budgets are great events, great buzzy events – but in the end what really matters is the long-term economic plan, turning the economy around and making sure we have an economy that is delivering a recovery for all. Because the truth is there’s still lots of people in our country, who – they may have found work, they may have found that job, but earnings are still going up quite gradually, prices in the shops are still quite high, people are still feeling that it’s a very tough set of circumstances, recovering from this very difficult, long and great recession. But we are getting there, and if we stick at the plan, we can make sure more people feel it.

Question

There are many people who’ve worked hard all their lives, done the right thing, as you rightly said, and when they get to pension age they obviously are, so-called, wealthy. Are you able to give any commitment on withdrawing Winter Fuel Payments and bus passes for so-called wealthy pensioners.

Prime Minister

Well I made a very clear pledge at a Saga gathering, and I made it again at the election, that we should keep the pensioner benefits. Obviously all pledges are about the Parliament that you’re going into and we make new pledges in our manifesto for the next Parliament. But we said very clearly we would uprate the basic state pension, keep the Winter Fuel Allowance, free TV license, the bus pass, the cold-weather payments, and we’ve done all of those things. We’ve kept our promises in all of those areas.

We’ll set out our policy for the next Parliament at the next election. I don’t want to pre-judge that. The only thing I would say to people who think you save lots of money by not giving these benefits to top-rate tax payers is that you save a tiny amount of money and you always introduce another complexity into the system. But we made our promise to this Parliament, we’ve kept our promise in this Parliament. I’m very proud of that, because I don’t think older people in Britain should be asked to suffer for the difficult decisions that we have to make. Making promises and keeping promises is a very important part of politics so woe betide the politician that makes one of these big promises and then says “Oh, sorry, I didn’t really mean it.”

Question

We’ve just very recently done a scrutiny in Brighton & Hove on the effects of alcohol in the city, because we do have quite a problem with binge drinking etc, and 1 of the things that came out of that was the amount of excessive drinking that is done in people’s homes by older people. It’s something that really came to the fore, and I just wondered if you could tell us what the thinking was in reducing the tax on beer by a penny a pint, and were health issues taken into account when that was considered?

Prime Minister

Absolutely they were. I think the decision behind the beer duty is really much more about our pubs.

We do have a problem in terms of binge drinking, and sometimes that’s spilling over into violence and bad behaviour and anti-social behaviour on our streets. We do have a problem with that, and we have to tackle it in lots of different ways. We need to address, 1 of the biggest causes of the problems, which is excessively cheap drink provided by supermarkets deep discounting and that’s why we’ve passed this rule to say you can’t sell for less than duty plus VAT, and that will have an impact. I think there are all sorts of things we need to do in terms of policing and in terms of public order which we are doing, and the evidence is that the situation is getting better rather than worse.

But I don’t think we should take steps that would disadvantage the responsible drinker and the responsible pub,. Pubs have had a pretty tough time in recent years – a combination of the smoking ban, very cheap drink in supermarkets, some of the other regulations and all the rest of it. And I’m a great supporter of Britain’s pubs, I think they provide a sort of social glue to help bring communities together – the focus for the village, the focus for your part of the town – and so trying to help pubs by cutting beer duty, which we’ve done in both of the last 2 budgets is the right thing to do.

I did look at the idea of minimum unit pricing for alcohol, which is an idea that’s got a lot of merit, because you’re basically saying a unit of alcohol, however it’s consumed, should never cost less than, say, 40p, and they’re trying this in Scotland. And that wouldn’t actually put up the price of a pint in a pub, nor would it put up the price of a bottle of wine in a supermarket. But I think 2 things: 1 is, we should wait and see how it goes in Scotland, and see whether it works in Scotland, and the second thing is, at a time when families are having to take difficult decisions about budgets and everything else, I think it’s just a change too many. So I let’s let the duty plus VAT thing settle down, let’s see what happens in Scotland, but yes, public health concerns about alcohol, public order concerns about alcohol, very important part of what the government’s doing. But don’t let’s clobber pubs as we try and get this right.

Question

I can see that ending the annuities is very popular with many people, myself included, and I can see that spending money on cruises would be a very good idea. But you were talking about dignity in old age, and you’ve only got to visit hospitals where perhaps 60% of the beds are taken by elderly people who are called patients, to see that many people don’t have dignity. And it feels like politicians have been asleep by the fireside for the past 30 years. Isn’t the truth that a lot of the pension pot that I and others will take – isn’t that going to end up in the pockets of private nursing home owners?

Prime Minister

Well look, first of all, I would repeat what I said about giving people the choice. You don’t have to take out an annuity; you don’t have not to take out annuity: you’ve got the choice now; you can decide whether that’s right for you. If what you’re saying is, “Does dignity and security in old age have a lot to do with much more than money?” I absolutely agree with you. We won’t have true dignity and security in old age until we make sure our NHS really does everything it can to look after older people better. Now, there are some great examples of care and frankly there are some less good examples of care and the Health Secretary and the Care Quality Commission are now really shining a light on standards and quality of care.

I think we need to do a lot more on dementia. That’s why I’ve set a dementia challenge for the country. We’re going to double the amount of research that’s going in. We’re encouraging communities and people to become more dementia friendly, to learn about the nature of these diseases. We’ve got to stop this rather condescending and wrong attitude that dementia is just part of ageing. It isn’t. It’s a disease and we ought to be trying to tackle it like we’re trying to tackle cancer or heart disease.

But the point about care homes is also important, because I know there is a concern that, of course, if you take your money out of your pension pot and have it as your own money, then it counts as your money when you are assessed for care needs. That is true; that is the case. But, again, you have the choice: you can leave money in your pension pot or take it out. And also, we are putting in place a cap on the amount of money that someone can be charged for their care needs. And I think this was a very important step we took in this Parliament, a step we took very much as a coalition; we talked about it, it was a very big change. And I think there was a great unfairness that if you were hit, say, with dementia, sometimes at a relatively young age, you could be facing hundreds of thousands of pounds in nursing home charges eating up every last penny of savings that you had in your house, in your savings account or elsewhere. Putting a cap on the maximum amount that you can lose is a fair and a good step to take.

We haven’t solved the problem of dignity and security in old age but protecting spending on the NHS, protecting the pension, protecting the pension benefits and now allowing pensioners more freedom to spend their own money as they choose are all good steps forward.

Question

Now, talking of health, pensioners have nothing unless they have health to enjoy their life. The Royal Sussex County Hospital, our local large hospital, in fact has had planning permission – you know where I’m going now, I think – has had planning permission for a massive extension which will be beneficial, should the need arise, to everybody here in this room. Could you assist to get the capital released to enable the build?

Prime Minister

You’ve given me a very clear message. I can’t say anything about it now. It’s something that the Treasury and the Department of Health are looking at. I know how important it is. You know, this is a vibrant city and people want to see really good health services in their community. So message received and understood.

Question

What can you do or what would you like to do where people own their own homes and when they go into a nursing home they’re made to sell their homes to pay for their care, whereas somebody that has not got their own home, they get exactly the same as I or any of my friends would get that have to pay for it and it costs them nothing? After all, national health is from the cradle to the grave and not everybody needs a nursing home.

Prime Minister

That’s absolutely right. It’s what I was discussing with the gentleman here. I mean, I think there has been this unfairness in the system in that you can have 2 people living next door to each other; 1 person’s worked hard, saved, bought their own home, the person next door has not done any of those things. The person next door without the savings, without owning the home, gets the whole of their care paid for while the person who’s saved gets charged. That’s why we’ve brought in the Dilnot cap, so that there’s a cap of £75,000 on how much you can draw down in terms of paying for that care. This should mean – because this is early days in terms of this policy coming in – that no one has to sell their home to pay for their care.

What we’re hoping it’s going to do once we’ve brought the cap in and said there’s a maximum that you can have to spend on your own care, is drive the creation of a really exciting insurance market so that people can insure even against losing the £75,000.

Now, this is all coming in in the next few years, it hasn’t started yet, so this insurance market hasn’t taken off in the way that I’d like yet, but it will. It’s an expensive step we’ve taken, because obviously, tragically, lots of people are having to sell their homes to pay for care now, but the ideal is a situation where you’ve got a cap, you’ve got an insurance market, no one has to sell their home to pay for care. And even if people choose to, they should be able to delay that into the future.

So that’s the aim, and I think again it links to this thing about dignity and security in old age, which is absolutely what drives me and drives this government in terms of coming up with the right policies.

Thank you very much indeed.

Below is the text of the press conference made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on the European Council on 21st March 2014.

Good afternoon. This has been a wide-ranging European Council, obviously with the situation in the Ukraine at its heart. I’ll come to that shortly, but first I want to say a few words on other important issues.

First, on the economy. In this week’s budget we set out more action to build a resilient economy that delivers security for hard-working people in Britain. And we set out specific measures to support manufacturers, investors, exporters, savers. Here at the summit we’ve discussed how to make Europe more competitive, to generate more growth and create more jobs. As I set out at Davos, there’s a real opportunity to bring back jobs to Britain and the rest of Europe, to re-shore those jobs. And today we’ve agreed to encourage that by doing more to cut red tape, to attract investment, and to stimulate innovation. As I’ve said, I believe Britain can be the re-shore nation. The news yesterday that Hitachi will be having their train-making headquarters in the UK is a good example of that.

We’ve also discussed how businesses need affordable energy prices to keep pace with their competitors elsewhere, so we’ve agreed to accelerate our efforts to complete the internal energy market and to improve the energy flow across the continent with more interconnections. We want the EU to play a strong leadership role in efforts to secure a global climate deal next year in Paris. That means swift agreement on a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and I fully support the 40% target proposed.

On tax, I’ve also led the charge on tax reform, tax transparency, attacking tax evasion around the world, putting it at the heart of the G8 agenda. 44 countries have now committed to the early implementation of automatic information exchange on tax matters. And I’m delighted that at this summit, we’ve finally unblocked this issue in the EU with Luxembourg and Austria now committed to automatically exchange too, and a new commitment by all of us to agree new rules by the end of this year to ensure that the EU keeps pace with the new global standard.

I also raised the situation in Sri Lanka. As you know, this is an issue I care deeply about. I want to see reconciliation in the country, and that means properly addressing issues of the past. President Rajapaksa has failed to do this, so now we need an international, independent investigation into alleged war crimes. The UN human rights commissioner has called for this, and that is what a UK co-sponsored resolution at the UN human rights council supports. Countries will vote on that resolution next week, and today I secured the full backing of all of the European Union for that approach.

Turning to Ukraine. Since we last met, a sham and illegal referendum has taken place at the barrel of a Kalashnikov, and Russia has sought to annex Crimea. This is a flagrant breach of international law, and something we will not recognise. This behaviour belongs to the Europe of the last century, not this one. It cannot be ignored, or we risk more serious problems in the future.

So it was very important that the European democracies represented here should send a strong and united message that Russia will face further consequences. And that it what we have done. We have subjected 12 more individuals to travel bans and asset freezes, bringing the total to 33. We have cancelled the EU-Russia summit, agreed not to hold bilateral summits, and we’ll block Russian membership of the OECD and the International Energy Agency. We’ve agreed to rapidly implement economic, trade and financial restrictions on occupied Crimea. We will only accept Crimean goods in the EU if they come from Ukraine and not Russia, and it’s clearly set out in the conclusions agreed today.

We’ve also reiterated that if Russia takes any further steps to destabilise Ukraine, there will be far-reaching economic consequences. And we have, for the first time, in the conclusions published today, tasked the European commission to prepare such possible measures. Our message to Russia is clear: choose the path of diplomacy and de-escalation, or face increasing isolation and tighter and tighter sanctions. We’ve already seen 10% wiped off the value of the Russian stock market this month, reports of capital flight and down rated credit ratings.

But the best rebuke to Russia is a strong and successful Ukraine, free to make its own choices about its own future. Every leader at this summit is very clear on that. So this morning we took a formal step to closer relations between the EU and Ukraine, with the signature of a landmark agreement between us both. We welcomed President Yatsenyuk to our meeting for the second time in a fortnight, and I support his efforts to lead a stable democratic government that reaches out to the regions and respects the rights of minorities.

We also commend the restraint of the Ukrainian authorities under particularly difficult circumstances. We want an OSCE mission rapidly deployed, or we’ll send an EU mission instead. In the long term, the biggest challenge will be to build a strong Ukrainian economy, rooted in strong institutions that respect the rule of law. We continue to work on an IMF package for Ukraine, and we’ve called on MEPs to rapidly confirm the removal of customs duties on Ukrainian exports, which should benefit businesses there by up to €500 million a year.

Finally, we agreed to set up our efforts to reduce Europe’s dependency on energy from Russia, and we’ve asked the European Commission to produce, by June, a comprehensive plan to achieve this. So today we’ve agreed action to stabilise Ukraine in these difficult circumstances, to support the Ukrainian government, and to build closer ties between the EU and Ukraine. In the long run, Ukrainian success will be one of the most powerful answers to Russian aggression. This is the vital contribution that Europe can make to help the Ukrainian people in their hour of need, and we are determined to deliver it.

Thank you very much, happy to take some questions.

Question

You mentioned the future list of sanctions, possible sanctions, being drawn up, and these would be triggered if there’s further destabilisation of the Ukraine, so I wanted to know what you would regard as destabilisation.

And also, you’re sharing your thoughts on the unsatisfactory process by which Qatar was awarded the World Cup in the Sun this morning, obviously you want to say a bit more about that. But I was wondering under the current circumstances, given we’re pulling out of cooperation with Russia on a whole range of fronts, is Russia a suitable host for the World Cup?

Prime Minister

Well, first of all, on football, I’ll leave that for the football authorities. I said what I said about being involved in that process in my memories of it, but I think the football authorities will want to look at this evidence and see what they make of it. I think that’s the important point there.

On the issue of what counts as further destabilisation of the Ukraine: well, if – for instance, if Russian troops were to go into the east of the country, you know, the Russians need to know that would trigger, as it says in the conclusions that we’ve published, far reaching consequences in a broad range of economic areas. And that’s why for the first time these conclusions talk about the European Council asking the commission and member states to prepare possible targeted measures.

So I think it is very, very clear that we’ve done – I think, today, in respect of what’s happened in Crimea, I don’t think people were fully expecting what we’ve done, which is to say, from now on, goods from Crimea have to come through Ukraine or they’re going to get very hefty penalties and tariffs put on them. That is a step that I think is very important that we’ve taken, that I don’t think people were expecting. But we’re still being clear that the third stage of sanctions would be triggered by further destabilisation of the Ukraine and we’ve made further progress in setting out exactly what that means.

Question

America announced some measures yesterday that seemed to – sort of, highlighted the different approach between Brussels and Washington. Why is it that there are no businessmen or oligarchs on the EU list, and indeed, none have even been put forward to go on that list? I understand. Surely if you hit people like Abramovich, who uses the city London as a sort of playground, you would send a much stronger message to Russia.

Prime Minister

Well, first of all, I don’t really accept this idea that there’s a divergence between the EU and the US. I think actually both the US and the European Union have been taking strong, predictable, consistent and tough measures.

If we actually look at the number of people affected by these visa bans and asset freezes, it’s 32 from the US, 33 from Europe. In some respects, Europe has gone further than the US, obviously, with respect to what I’ve just said about trade measures against the Crimea.

I think the difference is the slightly different processes we have about how to highlight who should be subject to a visa ban or an asset freeze. The EU approach is very much to target people who had a direct connection with what has happened in the Crimea. And that’s why the figures that we have singled out are military figures, figures from the Duma, presidential advisors, heads of the Russian state news agency, and of course, a range of Crimeans. The Americans have done that and then also added also some other people as you said.

But we have slightly different approaches, but generally I think the EU and US are actually working well together actually demonstrating, as I said, a strong, tough, consistent and predictable approach.

Question

Also on the American side in the White House statement yesterday, they name economic sectors such as metallurgy, energy, trade, etc, as possible areas for the stage 3 sanctions potential. Is that something that you think the Europeans should be following – in the sense of naming and asking the commission to prepare further sanctions – that they should be naming the kind of parts of the economy that might be hit, to let the Russians know how they might be hurt.

And secondly, could you also tell us whether at last night’s dinner you had a mobile phone with you?

Prime Minister

On last night’s dinner, I did have a mobile phone on me but it didn’t work. I think very sensibly we decided to block the use of mobile phones at last night’s dinner so we could focus on the text and the work. It was hard pounding, it was a long night of negotiation, but I think actually we ended up with a, as I said, strong, clear, predictable set of things.

In terms of, you know, what I came to this council wanting to see was really 3 things. I wanted to see an expansion in terms of the number of people subject to travel bans and asset freezes, and that was achieved. I wanted to see clear measures in respect to what’s happened in the Crimea, and that has happened, particularly with the point I’ve made about how we’re going to target goods from occupied Crimea. And the third thing I wanted was to, more clarity on what would happen if Russia went further in destabilising the Ukraine, and for the first time we have tasked the Commission to prepare possible targeted measures.

To answer your question very directly about, well, what areas could these affect. The text says a broad range of economic areas. Now obviously, that must include some of the key areas like finance, like the military, like energy. There’s nothing left out from that text, and I want to be clear that all of those sorts of areas in my view would be and should be considered, and obviously the Commission and member states now need to prepare possible targeted measures in order to be in compliance with what we agreed last night.

Question

Just talking about the different approaches to individuals in the lists of sanctions, does that mean that you have ruled out, or the EU has ruled out ever adding oligarchs and businessmen to that list? I mean, yesterday we saw that Russian politician Alexei Navalny called from Roman Abramovich to be sanctioned by the West. Would you ever consider that?

Prime Minister

Well we certainly haven’t ruled anyone out from this approach. But as I say, the EU approach, and the way that it works under the laws that we have, is that you need to target people who have a direct relationship with the action that’s been taken.

That is why, if you go back a couple of weeks, I said very clearly, it should include Russian Members of Parliament. They have acted to vote again and again to accept this illegal referendum, to annex the Crimea to Russia. They are part of the problem, they’re part of what caused this, and so they should be targeted. And the same should apply in terms of military advisors, presidential advisors, and yes, anyone else, if there’s a direct link between what they are doing and the situation with Russian destabilisation of the Ukraine.

So that’s the approach that we should take, and people who get involved in that should know that they are liable to possibly be subject to an EU travel ban or asset freeze.

Question

A lot of countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, have this concern about their energy supply, and there is a suggestion that should these harsher sanctions – these harsher measures be taken – they should be compensated in some way for losses to their economies. Was this something that was discussed, and is this something you think is feasible?

Prime Minister

Well, it wasn’t something that was discussed. I mean, look, there’s a longer term issue here, which is that Europe needs to make itself more resilient and more independent in terms of its energy. And there was a good and long discussion about that, there were some good conclusions that you’ll see published today, asking the Commission to draw up a plan. But also, at – at my insistence, actually explanations of some of the things – like the Southern gas corridor, like making sure that shale gas can be imported from the US, like the way we approach the TTIP agreement – that I think could make a difference.

I also think that if you look at a map of Europe, and you look at a map of where shale gas is available, you see substantial shale gas reserves, not just in the UK, which we should be looking at, but also you see a lot of shale gas in Southern and Eastern Europe, which is worth exploiting as well.

So there is I think the issue with energy is that we should be looking at the long term energy diversification security and resilience right across Europe, that’s something I think colleagues are now enthusiastically pursuing.

We should also remember that of course Europe is, I think, 25% or so reliant on Russian gas, but if you look at Gazprom’s revenues, something like 50% of them come from Europe. So, you know, Russia needs Europe more than Europe needs Russia, and that’s an important point to make in these conversations.

Question

Prime Minister, have you had a chance to talk to the Portuguese government about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and Scotland Yard’s investigation into her disappearance?

And on a lighter note, bingo – the Chancellor says he loves playing the game, Nick Clegg says he’s a fan. Are you a fan? Do you play? Or do you plan on playing bingo in the near future?

Prime Minister

On Madeleine McCann, I have spoken to the Portuguese Prime Minister before, I didn’t speak to him at this Council about this issue, but obviously, I’m pleased that the Metropolitan police have taken this case forward, and they’ve been working with the Portuguese, and I stand ready if ever required to speak to the Portuguese Prime Minister or other Portuguese authorities again. But I haven’t been asked to by the Metropolitan police, so I think then they seem to be making some progress.

On the issue of bingo, the issue here is trying to make sure that we have a fair tax system, and I think bingo wasn’t taxed fairly, and I’m very pleased that we’ve managed to cut the tax on bingo.

Question

I wanted to ask you whether you have discussed other regions around Russia, such as Transnistria? Have you mentioned Moldova, and do you plan on signing DAAs with Georgia and Moldova sooner than August?

Prime Minister

Yes, we do actually. The conclusions say that the European Union reconfirms its objective to further strengthen the political association and economic integration with Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. We confirm our aim to sign the association agreements, including the deep and comprehensive free trade areas, which we initialled in Vilnius last November, no later than June 2014. That was a change that we made last night, and I think that was a very positive signal.

Obviously there were discussions about other regions and areas, and I think a general lesson people were drawing, which is that if this can happen in Ukraine, then we have to be very clear about how unacceptable it is, because otherwise we will face similar situations in similar countries with a similar sort of unacceptable behaviour.