“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on yesterday’s Informal European Council.

Countries right across Europe need bold action to recover their economic dynamism, to get to grips with their debts and to secure growth and jobs for the future. And that was rightly the focus of this Council.

So first, we agreed important measures needed to restore Europe’s competitiveness.

Next we discussed the separate intergovernmental treaty on fiscal discipline in the Eurozone.

And finally we issued a statement on Iran, Syria and Burma. Let me take each in turn.

Competitiveness

Mr Speaker, Britain’s agenda in Europe is to promote growth, competitiveness and jobs.

We have repeatedly said that the best way that the EU can drive growth and create jobs is:

• to complete the single market
• to establish trade deals with the fastest-growing parts of the world
• and to cut the regulatory burdens on business.

At this Council we made important progress on all these issues.

We agreed to establish a fully functioning single market in services where there are still 4,700 professions across Europe to which access is regulated by government. And in digital – where there are over a dozen different copyright regimes in what should be one single market – we’ll take action to secure what should be a fast-growing area right across Europe. Together these changes alone could add more than 6 per cent to EU GDP within a decade. We also agreed to complete the energy single market, which has the potential to cut costs for businesses and consumers across Europe.

On free trade we said that 2012 should be a “decisive year” to move ahead on trade agreements with major partners such as Japan, India, Canada and the United States.

And on regulation, we agreed to a growth test to ensure, and I quote, “that all actions at the European Union level fully support growth and job creation”. We also agreed to reduce regulatory burdens – especially for SMEs and microenterprises. And we agreed to complete a patent package to support innovation. This has been discussed in Europe for over a decade, and finally we are making substantial progress.

Eurozone

Next, the Eurozone.

Mr Speaker, we want the Eurozone to sort out its problems. They are having a ‘chilling effect’ on our own economy and tackling them is one of the best ways in which we can help secure growth – both here in Britain and right across Europe.

As I’ve repeatedly said, short-term steps must be taken – and taken properly – the so-called “October Package”. Europe’s banks must be recapitalised. The uncertainty in Greece must be brought decisively to an end. And the firewall must be big enough to deal with the full scale of the crisis.

In the longer term, proper fiscal discipline in the Eurozone is clearly an important part of the solution. And it is something Britain recognises is necessary. So the question has never been about whether there should be greater fiscal discipline in the Eurozone, but rather how it should be achieved.

I went to the European Council last December prepared to agree a treaty of all 27 countries but only if there were proper safeguards for Britain. I did not get those safeguards. So I vetoed that Treaty. As a result, Eurozone countries and others are now making separate arrangements outside the EU treaties for strengthening budgetary discipline, including ensuring there are much tougher rules on deficits. So, at this Council 25 EU Member States agreed a new Treaty outside the EU. Britain and the Czech Republic have not signed up. And we will not be taking part.

EU Institutions

Let me deal directly with the issue of the institutions.

The new agreement sets out roles for the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. While some of those roles are already permitted through existing treaties, there are legal questions about what is planned.

Now, as I’ve said, it is in Britain’s interests that the Eurozone sorts out its problems.

It is also in our interests that the new agreement outside the EU is restricted to issues of fiscal union and does not encroach on the Single Market. The new intergovernmental agreement is absolutely explicit and clear that it cannot encroach on the competencies of the European Union and they must not take measures that in any way undermine the EU Single Market.

But nevertheless I made clear that we will watch this closely and if necessary we will take action – including legal action – if our national interests are threatened by the misuse of the institutions. The principle that the EU institutions should only act with the explicit authorisation of all Member States remains.

So, Mr Speaker, let me be clear.

This is a treaty outside the EU. We are not signing it. We are not ratifying it. We are not part of it. And it places no obligations on the United Kingdom. It does not have the force of EU law for us, nor does it have the force of law for the EU institutions, or the force of EU law for the countries that have signed it. And there will be no inner group of European countries distorting the Single Market from inside the EU Treaty. That is the fundamental protection we secured with our veto in December – and that protection remains.

Foreign Policy

Finally, Mr Speaker, we also made an important statement on developments in Iran, Burma and Syria.

Britain has played a leading role in getting Europe to act together on each of these issues.

On Iran, last week the UK agreed an unprecedented oil embargo which shows our determination to keep up the pressure on the regime to turn away from any plans to develop nuclear weapons.

In Burma, for years Aung Sang Suu Kyi has been an inspiration to her people and the world. Britain has supported her at every stage and has been at the forefront of EU sanctions.

Now, there are signs of a new moment of opportunity for democracy and we should be prepared to relax these sanctions, but only in stages and only in response to reforms. When I spoke to Aung Sang Suu Kyi on Saturday, she emphasised the importance of credible and free by-elections in April. I am sure the House will be watching them very closely.

 
On Syria, the Council condemned the continuing violence and repression of the Syrian people. Mr Speaker, reports suggest that more than 60 people were killed on the streets of Syria last week alone. In total, more than 5,000 people have been killed. 400 children murdered. Tens of thousands of people detained.

Today the Foreign Secretary is in New York to support the Arab League’s call for Security Council action condemning repression and supporting a transition of power. All 27 EU members backed that call for UN action. And if the violence doesn’t end we agreed we will tighten EU sanctions further.

Our message is clear. We will stand with the Syrian people. It is time for all members of the UN Security Council to live up to their responsibilities instead of shielding those who have blood on their hands. The killing must stop. And President Assad must stand aside.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, this was an important Council for Britain.

On competitiveness, the single market and trade, Britain is setting the agenda.

On action to face down dictators and dangerous regimes in Iran and Syria, Britain is leading the way.

And by saying “no” to a new EU treaty we have protected Britain’s interests.

And I commend this Statement to the House.”

 Prime Minister:

Welcome everybody.  Today the Council has tackled three issues: how we boost growth across Europe; how the Eurozone countries are going to strengthen their fiscal rules; and how the European Union must increase the pressure on Assad’s murderous regime.  Let me take each in turn.

Let me start with growth.  This was rightly the focus of today’s meeting.  It has to be our number one priority, not just today, but every time we meet.  My message to other leaders was clear: we’ve got to be bold and decisive.  EU action should match the ambition that we are showing back at home.  So it’s a step forward, I believe,   that we’ve agreed today to accelerate the legislation that will do the most to generate growth, to consider a clear plan at our March summit to cut red tape, to remove barriers to trade in services right across the EU and to make it easier to do business online – the so-called digital single market – across a market with half a billion customers.  And we agreed this must be a decisive year to get trade moving with those big deals we want to make: with India, Japan, the US and others.  These are all good steps forward.  They are things that the UK has been asking for for years in many cases and are now firmly on the agenda.

Second, on the Eurozone.  Eurozone members and others have today agreed a new treaty focussed on tighter fiscal discipline which we understand is important.  Now, this is a totally separate treaty.  That is because we vetoed an EU treaty in December.  We are not signing this treaty, we will not be ratifying this treaty and it places no obligations on the United Kingdom.  But as I said in December, this is new territory.  It’s only been agreed today, it has yet to be ratified or implemented.  There are a number of legal concerns on the use of EU institutions.  Now, we do not want to hold up the Eurozone doing what is necessary to solve the crisis as long as it doesn’t damage our national interest.  So, it’s good that the new treaty is absolutely explicit and clear that it cannot encroach on the competencies of the European Union and they must not take measures that in any way undermine the EU single market.  But I made clear today we will watch this closely and if necessary we are able to take action if our national interests are threatened.  And let me say this: while tough fiscal discipline is obviously important to the Eurozone, it is still vital that the Eurozone countries recapitalise their banks, end their uncertainty around Greece and establish a firewall big enough to deal with the crisis.  These measures cannot wait: the risks are still too great.  They are the immediate steps necessary if the single currency is to succeed.

Finally, on Syria.  It is frankly an appalling situation: more than 5,000 people killed; 400 children murdered; tens of thousands detained.  Tomorrow the Foreign Secretary will go to New York to support the Arab League’s call for Security Council action condemning the repression and supporting a transition of power.  Today, all 27 EU members backed that call for UN action in a move that was led by the UK.  And if the violence doesn’t end there, we will tighten the EU sanctions.  Our message is clear: we will stand with the Syrian people.  And it’s time for all the members of the EU Security Council to live up to their responsibilities instead of shielding those who have blood on their hands.  So, we’ll be making a very strong stand at the UN Security Council tomorrow, led by William Hague.

Question:

Prime Minister, should decisions on Mr Hester’s pay and conditions be taken or overseen by the RBS Board or by you?  And if the answer is the Board, why haven’t you encouraged him to take the bonus he was awarded?

Prime Minister:

Well look, the arrangements were put in place by the last government.  That’s the arrangements to hire Stephen Hester, the arrangement for payment of bonuses, for the role of the Board, the role of the Remuneration Committee and all of that.  They decided to put this on a commercial basis: to have an arm’s length agreement with UKFI who were going to represent the government’s interest.  Of course there’s a role for shareholders and we made very clear our view about the level of bonus which is why it radically came down.  I think the main thing that needs to happen is for this bank to be turned round, for its balance sheet to be made safe and for the taxpayers’ money vitally to be recovered.  I want to make sure that every penny piece that went into that bank we get back out when we eventually sell down our stake.  That is absolutely vital.  Now of course we’ll look closely at the arrangements that were put in place.  We don’t plan to change them.  We’ll look closely at them, but I think it’s very important that this bank operates under those arrangements.

Question:

 My point was, why in that case did you not encourage Mr Hester to take the bonus he’d been awarded?

 Prime Minister:

Well, the point I made, as it were, on behalf of the shareholder – and the point the Chancellor made very vigorously – was that they needed to show restraint in bonuses.  And that is exactly what I said.  I said if he was going to get a bonus is should be nothing like last year.  That is the role of the shareholder.  Then the role of the Board as the arm’s length principle is to look at the performance and reach a judgement.  And then it is up to the individual whether they take the bonus.  So everyone if you like has played their part.  Some of them have done it in slightly interesting ways if I can put it that way.  Those are the arrangements that were put in place by the last government, those are the ones that we’re currently operating but of course we can look closely at all of that and more.

 Question:

Prime Minister, you’ve just told us that the United Kingdom is unlikely to stand in the way of the European Court of Justice being used to police the new fiscal compact.  If it deals with the fiscal compact, if it tries to rewrite the single market, then obviously you’ll have something to say about that.  Do you regret having put the EU institutions in the frame?  Because some of your colleagues are saying that your decision now is annulling that veto in December.

And secondly, on another matter I think a few weeks ago you briefed Aung San Suu Kyi on how you’ll be raising the recent developments in Burma at this summit.  Are you happy with the response that you’ve got from your fellow EU leaders on those recent developments in Burma?

 Prime Minister:

Well, first on the second question.  I spoke to Aung San Suu Kyi at the weekend and asked her about how quickly she thought the reengagement process should take place between countries in the West, countries in the EU, with the Burmese regime.  And I think it’s very important that we listen carefully to her, an absolute figure of brilliance in terms of what she has been through and what she is now going to achieve in that country.  And I think the message is yes, we should be engaging but we should do it in stages.  And we should look very carefully to make sure that the by-elections they are going to hold are fair, that prisoners go on being released, that they go on opening up and moving towards democracy.  And as they do that, I think there are opportunities for European Union countries to engage and I’m delighted that the Council has made such a clear statement tonight.

On the issue of the veto, look, nothing changes the fact that we were confronted by an EU treaty and we vetoed that treaty.  So, there was the Nice Treaty, there was the Maastricht Treaty, there was the Amsterdam Treaty: all EU treaties.  Well, there isn’t a Brussels EU treaty because I vetoed it.  It doesn’t exist.  They’ve had to make a treaty outside the EU.  Now obviously, they’d prefer to have it inside the EU which is why they’re already talking about trying to bring it back inside the EU.  So, to argue that the veto doesn’t matter seems to me to be bizarre.  We’re not in this treaty, we’re not part of it, we’re not bound by it, we don’t have to ratify it, we don’t take it to the British parliament.  That is what the veto secures you.

On the issue of the institutions, you have to understand that the EU institutions are already used in other settings that we’re not involved in.  They’re used in the Euro Group countries, they’re used in Schengen.  The key point here for me is what is in our national interest.  Now, our national interest is that these countries get on and sort out the mess that is the Euro.  That’s in our national interest.  It’s also in our national interest that the new treaty outside the EU doesn’t encroach on the single market or the things that we care about.  That’s the outcome we want to achieve.  So, we’ll be watching like a hawk.  And if there’s any sign that they’re going to encroach on the single market then clearly we would, you know, we would take the appropriate action if I can put it that way.  But if they’re going to stick to fiscal union issues and all the things they’re planning to do, then that’s an outcome Britain is comfortable with.

But the principle that the EU institutions can only be used when there’s permission of all 27: that is absolutely safeguarded and hasn’t changed and that’s why we reserved our position.  And we’re using that reserve to watch over this treaty and say in as much as this is about fiscal union, fine; start to encroach on the single market, not fine.  So very clear national interests: don’t signature the treaty without the safeguards, so there isn’t an EU treaty, point one.  Make sure the new treaty’s restricted to the fiscal union, point two.  Hold back the position on the institution so you’ve got some real leverage over what these countries will do in that treaty.  But say to your colleagues and friends and partners in the European Union, in the Eurozone, please get on and sort out what’s going wrong in the Eurozone because this is doing damage to Britain.

 Question:

Prime Minister, just next door president Sarkozy said that you didn’t share the aims, the belief in the fiscal pact.  Do you regret that so much time has been spent on this fiscal compact and do you really think that it’s been worth the effort and will dramatically help the European Union?  And secondly, Angela Merkel has made it clear that she is happy to campaign for President Sarkozy: will you be and how will you do so?

 Prime Minister:

First of all, I’m a big supporter and friend of Nicolas Sarkozy and I wish him well.  I think he’s a remarkable man.  I worked with him very closely over the Libya conflict.  I think that was probably the closest that the British and French have worked together in the last 40 years so, I’m full of admiration for Nicolas.  Every now and again, he says something I don’t agree with.  Today, when he said that Britain is short of industry: we actually have a larger industrial sector than France but we’ll gloss over that.

On the issue of the fiscal compact.  Look, I understand particularly why the Germans want to make sure that others in Europe keep a tight fiscal rule, that they do not get into excessive debt and deficit.  Do I think that this treaty on its own is going to solve the problems of the Eurozone?  No, I do not.  As I said in Davos, there is a fiscal issue that needs to be sorted out, but there’s also a competitiveness issue that needs to be sorted out.  Just piling up fiscal rules will not actually help Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and others to compete in the Eurozone.

To do that, they have to reform their labour markets.  They need the opening up of the services in Europe.  They need more competitive markets etc.  Let us not believe it is all about fiscal changes.  There are lots of other things that need to be done too.

As I said, I do not want to stand in the way of what they think they need to do to sort out the Eurozone.  Fiscal is part of it and so that is going ahead not without us involved.  The other part of it, which is the growth package, where Britain is not just sort of letting people go ahead, we are driving the agenda.  The Services Directive, completing the energy market, completing the single market, this is a very British agenda that we are driving very hard and having a big influence on.

 Question:

Back on bonuses, what is your view and your advice going forward for RBS, both for bonuses for other executives this year and in future for Mr Hester so long as the taxpayer is the majority shareholder?  Do you agree with Ed Miliband that there needs to be a cultural change and a shift downwards on the whole question of top executive reward?

 Prime Minister:

I think what needs to happen is a sense of restraint, which is exactly what the Government urged on RBS in the first place, and I think they have to do a better job, as everybody has, to demonstrate how pay is linked to performance.  If that performance isn’t the share price, then people need to see very clearly what it is you are doing to sort out that bank, to turn it around, to make it safe, to make sure that it’s long term value.  That is what I care about.  Is the taxpayer going to get the money back that we had to put into this bank that was so badly managed in the past?  Those are the things that they have got to focus on.

I think they have to have a proper regard in terms of restraint, when they have had so much money from the taxpayer and when they have made so many mistakes in the past.

[political content]

 Question:

Still on RBS, a week ago, you and Vince Cable were saying that what needs to happen is shareholders need to put their feet down and get involved.  I think a lot of shareholders in other banks might say it is all very well for you to say it, but when it came right down to it you did not do it.  It was only after the Labour Party threatened to call a vote on the matter that Hester’s bonus was set aside.  What would you say to those shareholders?

 Prime Minister:

First of all, what we did, as shareholders, was we made very clear our views about what ought to happen.  That is why the level of bonus that was contemplated was immediately halved.  They did not listen as carefully as perhaps they should have done to shareholders, but the view given was a very clear one.  In terms of the changes we are going to make.  It still applies that we want to see binding shareholder votes on packages, pay packages, including rewards for success or failure before they are put in place.  That would make a real difference.  If someone’s contract and whether they succeed or fail and what they are going to be paid would be voted on by shareholders before they are actually in place, that, I think, would make a much bigger difference.

 Question:

Can I take you back to Nicolas Sarkozy?  Did you talk to Nicolas Sarkozy about this calumny against the British economy today, because he has been repeating it in his press conference and saying we chose not only to develop financial services but to boost industry?  Is that a fair assessment of your policy, do you think?  Have you brought it up with him?

Secondarily, is there some prospect of you heading to Burma this year, given how things are going?

 Prime Minister:

Taking the second point first, I am delighted that William Hague and Andrew Mitchell have both been and had such good meetings.  As I said, I spoke to Aung Sang Suu Kyi on the telephone.  We keep in quite regular touch and my office keeps in touch with hers.  She has an extremely busy schedule with these elections and everything else coming up, so keep all options open.  However, we are going to watch very closely and do anything we can to help, frankly, because there are many depressing things going on in the world, but the flowering of democracy in Burma and the emergence from sort of captivity, as it were, of this great democrat is a wonderful development and one that we want to do everything we can to encourage.

On the issue of industry and finance, we are rebalancing the economy.  We want to see a growth of manufacturing, technology, aerospace and pharmaceuticals.  We have great British companies in those sectors.  If you look for instance at our automotive sector, where we have Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Jaguar Land Rover, each one of those is investing, expanding and growing in Britain.  We are going to rebalance, but we are not going to rebalance by somehow punishing a successful industry, financial services, which is not just the City of London.  It is 100,000 people employed in Birmingham.  It is 100,000 people employed in Scotland.  It is a widespread industry and one of Britain’s strengths.

That is why I have been so clear about the financial transactions tax.  If other countries want to put in place a financial transactions tax as originally envisaged by the European Commission, I know I used the word ‘mad’, but I do think it is an extraordinary thing to do.  The European Commission has told us this would cost Europe half a million jobs.  Now, when we are all fighting for jobs and for growth, to do something that would cost so many jobs does seem to me to be extraordinary.  In the spirit of this healthy competition with France, if France goes for a financial transactions tax, then the door will be open.  We will be able to welcome many more French banks, businesses and others to the UK and we will expand our economy in that way as well as by rebalancing it, because I think this is the wrong move.

I have said very clearly to other European leaders that there are ways of taxing financial services to make sure they make a fair contribution.  We have stamp duty on share dealings.  Other countries could do that.  We have the bank levy, which is taking £2.5 billion more out of the banks every year.  You can do that.  The financial transactions tax, unless it is put everywhere in the world at the same time, simply drives those transactions to the jurisdiction that does not have it.  That has been proven to be the case and that is why we think it is such a mistake.

 Question:

I have two questions.  First of all, what is your message directly to senior Conservatives, such as Bernard Jenkin, senior conservative MEPs such as Daniel Hannan, who believe that effectively you have discarded the veto that you exercised in December by accepting any role at all for EU institutions in the new fiscal pact?

Secondly, you mentioned Ed Miliband.  Why was it the case that an Opposition debate seemed to convince Stephen Hester to give up his bonus, rather than exhortations from the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister?  Can you do something now to tackle the bonus culture among the rest of the RBS executives?

 Prime Minister:

On the issue of the veto, let me repeat, the fact is there is no EU treaty because I vetoed it.  That is the effect of the veto.  There is no treaty that Britain is going to have to sign, comply with, ratify, pass through our Parliament, amend any of our laws.  It does not exist for us.   There is a treaty outside the European Union that is going to be principally focused on fiscal union and, because we have reserved our position over the use of the institutions, because there are legal questions outstanding, we have leverage over that treaty and can do what is possible to make sure it is restricted to fiscal union.  We are maintaining the very important principle that the institutions are only used with the consent of the 27.  By reserving our position, we maintain the maximum leverage, but at the same time we allow Eurozone countries to go ahead with sorting out the Eurozone, which we need them to do.

I think I have answered the question on pay.  As I say, there are arrangements in place and everyone has to play their role – the Government as shareholder, making its views known as shareholder, which is what we did.  The board of the company then is contractually obliged, under a contract drawn up by [political content - the previous administration] , to go through with Mr Hester and the other executives at RBS what their remuneration is.  That is their job.  They have to do their job.  Then they have to justify what they have done.  Then it is up to Mr Hester, as indeed it is up to other people in business, whether to take that award or not take that award.

Anyway, thank you for spending so long here in Brussels today.  Thank you.

Prime Minister:

Thank you.  It’s a pleasure to welcome my friend President Karzai to the United Kingdom again, and also back here to Chequers.  We’ve had very good discussions this morning about progress in Afghanistan, progress towards 2014 and 2015, and all that we are doing to try to help ensure a strong, peaceful, democratic unitary state of Afghanistan.  And the strong relationship between Britain and Afghanistan is evidenced by the long-term partnership that we’ve just signed.  Obviously Britain has paid a very heavy price fighting the insurgency in Afghanistan and tragically we’ve lost another soldier from the Yorkshire regiment recently and my thoughts and the thoughts of everyone in Britain will be with the family of that soldier for the loss that they have suffered.  

But I do believe in Afghanistan that we are making progress, first of all on the ground.  The level of violent incidents is down across the country, it’s down very sharply in Helmand Province where Britain has played such a strong role.  The build-up of the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police Force is very much on target and that is going to be one of the keys to the future stability and security of Afghanistan.  We also want to have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan long after our combat troops have come home and that will happen at the end of 2014.  We will have a long-term relationship that will be based on the friendship of two sovereign nations.  That will be a relationship about diplomacy, about aid, about trade, about investment and about very strong two-way diplomatic ties and conversations like we’ve been having today.  

I think part of achieving that is not just what we are doing on the ground in Afghanistan with all the NATO partners, not just the long-term discussions that we’ve been having but also the need – as the President and I have often spoken about – for a political process that ensures that all Afghans, if they give up violence, if they give up terror, can play a part in a strong Afghan democratic, constitutional state for the future.  That is something that needs to happen to make sure there’s a strong, successful, stable Afghanistan for the future, which is in all out interests and that we have been working towards for so long.

 But, Mr President, you’re very welcome here today and I’m delighted we’ve been able to sign this long-term partnership agreement.

President Karzai:

Thank you very much Mr Prime Minister.  As always, a great delight to be here in the United Kingdom and for you Mr Prime Minister to be gracious to invite us on a Saturday to Chequers. This is my second visit and one that I’m always looking forward to repeating in Britain.

 Today’s signature of the long-term partnership between Afghanistan and Britain is one more step, Mr Prime Minister, towards the commitment of the United Kingdom towards Afghanistan and into the long-term.  Mr Prime Minister, Britain has been Afghanistan’s steadfast friend in the past 10 years in particular.  Rightly, as you referred to, Britain has sacrificed in terms of blood and treasure in Afghanistan.  The Afghan people appreciate that, respect that and remember that.  Built on that foundation, the signature today of the agreement between us towards long-term relationship, will take us into a future where Afghanistan will benefit from the assistance and cooperation and help of Britain towards becoming a fundamentally strong democratic state free of terrorism and economically better off.  

 Mr Prime Minister, through you may I convey to the people of Britain the gratitude of the Afghan people for all that Britain has offered to Afghanistan, for having been ready to sacrifice and having been ready to share Britain’s hard earned tax-payers’ money with Afghanistan for the betterment of the Afghan life and for a better, more secure region and in consequence the entire world.  Mr Prime Minister, a great honour to be here today and thank you for being so nice to receive us here and for the partnership that we just signed.

Question (ITV News)

Prime Minister, on Afghanistan, the French have announced that they are going to withdraw combat troops early.  Is Britain tempted to do the same?  Could we see more troops coming out by 2013?  

Prime Minister:

Well, first of all on Afghanistan, all of the NATO partners, all of the countries involved in Afghanistan have signed up to an agreement that we will take our combat troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, but we will continue after that to have a long-term partnership and relationship with Afghanistan because it’s in the interest of the whole world to have a safe and stable Afghanistan that is free from the terrorism that did so much damage to our countries in the past.  

Now obviously, between now and 2014 there will be opportunities for different countries to reduce their numbers.  Britain has herself reduced our troop numbers over the last year.  I don’t want to see some sort of cliff edge in 2014 when all the remaining troops come out at once but clearly between now and 2014 the rate at which we can reduce our troops will depend on the transition to Afghan control in the different parts of Afghanistan.  And that should be the same for all of the members of NATO who are all contributing and helping towards a strong, stable, peaceful Afghanistan which is in all our interests.

President, I think there’s a question from the Afghan press.

Question

Thank you Mr Prime Minister.  We are getting close to 2014 and as you know, the transition is in progress in Afghanistan.  What’s your message for the people of Afghanistan?  And your commitment after 2014?  Thank you.

Prime Minister

My message to the Afghan people is that we want what you want, which is a strong, safe, stable, democratic Afghanistan living in peace and stability with its neighbours.  We want that country to be run by the Afghans, for the Afghans, with an Afghan army and police force to provide that security and that stability.  That is what we hope to achieve between now and 2014.  But let me be clear, after our combat troops have left in 2014, there will still be a strong relationship between Britain and Afghanistan; a relationship based on diplomacy, based on trade, based on our continued aid programme to help the Afghans build a stronger country because it’s in our interests just as it’s in your interest to make sure that the future Afghanistan is democratic and stable and free of the terror of the past.  Those are our aims.  They don’t go any further than that; that is what we’re in Afghanistan to help deliver and that is what we believe we can deliver by the end of 2014.

Thank you very much.  Thank you.

President Karzai

Thank you ladies, thank you gentlemen.

Mr Cameron said:

“Last year I had the privilege of meeting an extraordinary, courageous woman.

Trude Levi was just twenty when she was ripped from her family.

She was forced on a journey that can only be described as hellish, through concentration camps, work camps and death marches.

 

 

She saw and suffered some unspeakably evil things, but she survived to tell her story and pass it on to the next generation.

 

It is so important that stories like Trude’s continue to be heard, and read, and spoken about.

That way the brutal truth of the Holocaust can never be dimmed.

 

And that is why Holocaust Memorial Day matters so much.

 

It is about keeping the truth alive, guarding against prejudice in all its forms and above all, showing respect to those who were killed and those who survived.

 

And as we reflect on this part of our history – and all the millions killed through genocide – we must not forget the persecution and hatred that exist today.

 

We’ve got to learn from the past to improve the ways things are now.

 

As Trude said, we must “remember the beauty of this world and ensure we do everything we can to safeguard it.”

 

So I want to thank everyone involved in marking Holocaust Memorial Day, not just for keeping those memories alive, but for building a better future.”

 Watch the video below:

Prime Minister David Cameron:

“We meet today at a perilous moment for economies right across Europe.

Growth has stalled. Unemployment is rising. The prospect of Europe getting left behind is all too apparent.

While China grows at 8%, India at 7% and Africa at 5.5%, the European Commission forecasts the EU will grow by just 0.6 per cent in the whole of 2012 – and even that is assuming the problems in the Eurozone get better not worse.

Yesterday in Britain we had the official figures for the final quarter of last year – and they were negative.

Other large economies of Europe are forecast to have a similar outcome. 

In just four years Government debt per EU citizen has risen by 4,500 euros. Foreign direct investment has fallen by around two-thirds.

And in more than half of EU Member States, a fifth of all young people are now out of work. So this is not a moment to try and pretend there isn’t a problem.

Nor is it a moment to allow the fear of failure to hold us back. This is a time to show the leadership our people are demanding.

Tinkering here and there and hoping we’ll drift to a solution simply won’t cut it any more. This is a time for boldness not caution.

Boldness in what we do nationally – and together as a continent.

In Britain we’ve had to be bold.

We were faced with the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history more than 10 per cent of our GDP.

We had the most leveraged banks, the most indebted households and the biggest housing boom. To be cautious would have been catastrophic.

Instead we were bold and decisive. We formed the first Coalition government for 70 years.

We legislated for a fixed-term, five year, Parliament which has helped to give people the confidence of stability and credibility.

We put forward an aggressive set of plans to get to our economy back on an even keel. £5.5 billion saved in the first financial year.

Welfare bills – cut.

The cost of government – cut.

Public sector pay – frozen.

The state pension age – increased. 

Let me give you one example – reform of public sector pensions. This is a difficult issue for any government.

We want public servants to have good pensions. We’ve ensured that’s the case but at the same time cut the long term cost in half.

By taking bold decisions to get to grips with the debt, Britain has shown it’s possible to earn credibility and get ahead of the markets.

Our borrowing costs have fallen to the lowest for a generation.

We will be equally bold in meeting our key ambition: supporting enterprise and making Britain the best place in the world in which to start or grow a business.

So we’re pursuing an unashamedly, pro-business agenda.

Scrapping needless red tape, simplifying planning and reviewing all regulation. Creating the most competitive business tax regime in the developed world. Making bold investments in new infrastructure, including high speed rail.

And while we may be fiscal conservatives, we are monetary radicals injecting cash into the banking system and introducing credit easing measures to make it easier for small businesses to access finance.

So my message to you – in this special Olympic year for Britain – is that we are a country that is absolutely committed to enterprise and openness. 

Come to Britain. Invest in Britain.

Be part of this special year in a truly great country.

So yes, in Britain we are taking the bold steps necessary to get our economy back on track.

But my argument today is that the need for bold action at European level is equally great.

Europe’s lack of competitiveness remains its Achilles Heel.

For all the talk, the Lisbon Strategy has failed to deliver the structural reforms we need.

The statistics are staggering. As measured by the World Economic Forum, more than half of EU Member States are now less competitive than they were this time last year while five EU Member States are now less competitive than even sclerotic Iran.

For every euro invested in venture capital in the EU, five times as much is being invested in the US.

The single market remains incomplete. And there are still a colossal 4,700 professions across the EU to which access is regulated by government.

And that’s not all. In spite of the economic challenge, we are still doing things to make life even harder.

In the name of social protection, the EU has promoted unnecessary measures that impose burdens on businesses and governments, and can destroy jobs.

The Agency Workers Directive, the Pregnant Workers Directive, the Working Time Directive.

The list goes on and on. And then there’s the proposal for a Financial Transactions Tax.

Of course it’s right that the financial sector should pay their share. In the UK we are doing exactly that through our bank levies and stamp duty on shares. And these are options which other countries can adopt.

But look at the European Commission’s own original analysis.

That showed a Financial Transactions Tax could reduce the GDP of the EU by 200 billion euros cost nearly 500 thousand jobs and force as much as 90 per cent of some markets away from the EU.

Even to be considering this at a time when we are struggling to get our economies growing is quite simply madness.

We can’t go on like this. That is why Britain has been arguing for a pro-business agenda in Europe.

And this is not just a British agenda. Over the last year we have spearheaded work with 15 other member states across the EU – both in and outside of the Eurozone.

This weekend Chancellor Merkel joined me in calling for a package of deregulation and liberalisation policies.

And our ideas now lie at the heart of what the European Commission is promoting too.

Together we’re pushing for the completion of the single market in services and digital which could alone add €800 billion to EU GDP and leading the drive to exempt micro-businesses from excessive regulation – both new and existing.

But we need to be bolder still. Here’s the checklist.

All proposed EU measures tested for their impact on growth. A target to reduce the overall burden of EU regulation.

And a new proportionality test to prevent needless barriers to trade in services and slash the number of regulated professions in Europe.

Together with our international partners, we also need to take decisive action to get trade moving.

Now I’m not going to give you the standard speech on Doha.

Last year, at this very forum, world leaders called for an all out effort to conclude the Doha round in 2011. We said it was the make or break year. It was. And we have to be frank about it. It didn’t work.

But let’s not give up on free trade. Let’s step forward with a new and ambitious set of ideas to take trade forwards.

First, rather than trying to involve everyone at once, let’s get some bi-lateral deals done.

Let’s get EU Free Trade Agreements with India, Canada and Singapore finalised by the end of the year.

Completing all the deals now on the table could add 90 billion euros to Europe’s GDP.

And let’s also look all the options on the table for agreement between the EU and the US, where a deal could have a bigger impact than all of the other agreements put together.

Next, let’s be more creative in the way we use the multilateral system.

Far from turning our back on multilateralism, we need the continued work of the WTO to prevent any collapse back to protectionism to ensure we take account of the interests of the poorest countries and to ensure the WTO framework is fit for 21st century trade.

And it means going forwards, perhaps with a coalition of the willing so countries who want to, can forge ahead with more ambitious deals of their own, consistent with the WTO framework.

There are some proposals out there already – like the Trans-Pacific Partnership – but why not also an ambitious deal between Europe and Africa? Or even a Pan-African Free Trade Area?

This is a bold agenda on trade which can deliver tangible results this year. And I am proposing that we start work on it immediately.

Of course, the most urgent question of all facing Europe right now is how to deal with Eurozone crisis. And this is where I believe Europe needs to be boldest of all.

Vital progress has been made. The European Central Bank has provided extensive additional support to Europe’s banks.

Many Eurozone countries are taking painfully difficult steps to address their deficits and to give up a degree of sovereignty over the governance of their economies in the future.

And of course there was the agreement to set up the firewall. These are welcome and necessary steps.

And I don’t under-estimate the leadership and courage that has got us this far. But we need to be honest about the overall situation.

The crisis is still weighing down on business confidence and investment.

A year ago bond rates were 5% in Spain, nearly 5% in Italy, and more than 7% in Portugal.

Today they are still 5% in Spain, up to 6 % in Italy and 14% in Portugal.

So we still need some urgent short term measures.

The October agreement needs to be fully implemented. The uncertainty in Greece must be brought to an end. Europe’s banks recapitalised.

As the IMF has said, the European firewall needs to be big enough to deal with the full scale of the crisis.

And Chancellor Merkel is absolutely right to insist that Eurozone countries must do everything possible to get to grips with their own debts.

But we also need to be honest about the long-term consequences of a single currency.

Now, I’m not one of those people who think that single currencies can never work.

Look at America. Or the United Kingdom. But there a number of features common to all successful currency unions.

A central bank that can comprehensively stand behind the currency and financial system.

The deepest possible economic integration with the flexibility to deal with economic shocks.

And a system of fiscal transfers and collective debt issuance that can deal with the tensions and imbalances between different countries and regions within the union.

Currently it’s not that the Eurozone doesn’t have all of these it’s that it doesn’t really have any of these.
 
Now clearly if countries are close enough in their economic structure, then tensions are less likely to arise.

But when imbalances are sustained and some countries do better than others year after year, you can face real problems.

That’s what the current crisis is demonstrating. Of course private capital flows can hide these problems for a while.

In the Eurozone that’s what happened. But once markets lose confidence and dry up you are left in an unsustainable position.

Yes, tough fiscal discipline is essential. But this is a problem of trade deficits not just budget deficits.

And it means countries with those deficits making painful decisions to raise productivity and drive down costs year after year to regain their competitiveness.

But that does not happen overnight. And it can have painful economic and even political consequences. Nor is it sufficient.

You need the support of single currency partners – and as Christine Lagarde has set out, a system of fiscal integration and risk sharing, perhaps through the creation of Euro area bonds to make that support work.

As Mario Monti has suggested, the flip side of austerity in the deficit countries must be action to put the weight of the surplus countries behind the euro.

I’m not pretending any of this is easy. These are radical, difficult steps for any country to take.

Knowing how necessary but also how hard they are is why Britain didn’t join the Eurozone.

But they are what is needed if the single currency, as currently constituted, is to work.

Of course some people will say, it’s all very well Britain making these points, but you’re not in the euro and last month you even vetoed adding a new treaty to the EU.

Let me answer that very directly.

I understand why the Eurozone members want a treaty inside the EU but if they do, there have to be safeguards for those countries in the EU but who have no intention of joining the single currency.

I didn’t get those safeguards so the treaty isn’t going ahead inside the EU.

But let me be clear. To those who think that not signing the treaty means Britain is somehow walking away from Europe let me tell you, nothing could be further from the truth.

Britain is part of the European Union. Not by default but by choice.

It fundamentally reflects our national interest to be part of the single market on our doorstep and we have no intention of walking away.

So let me be clear: we want Europe to be a success.

And all the measures we’ll be proposing for next week’s European Council can help achieve that success.

But we want Europe to succeed not just as an economic force. But also as a political force: as an association of countries with the political will, the values and the voice to make a difference in the world.

When that political will is there, we can make a decisive difference.

Together with President Sarkozy, Britain led the new European sanctions on Iran’s oil exports so the world does not have to confront a nuclear armed Iran or a wider military conflict.

In Syria, we have taken a lead against Assad’s repressive violence and we will not let up until he steps aside.

And of course in Libya we secured a UN Resolution and put together a multinational national coalition faster than at any time in history.

British and French pilots led the way in the early hours when the fate of Benghazi was at stake and together we saw it through, helping the Libyan people overcome tyranny and secure their own future.

So I’m proud to work with my European partners.

And I’m proud of what we can achieve. I stood on this platform only a year ago and said that Europe could recover its dynamism.

I still believe we can. But only if we are bold. Only if we fight for our prosperity. Get to grips with the debt.

Take bold decisions on deregulation, on opening up the single market, on innovation and trade and address the fundamental issues at the heart of Eurozone crisis.

All these decisions lie in our own hands.

They are the test of Europe’s leaders in the months ahead.

Yes, the stakes are high, incredibly high.

But there is nothing about the current crisis that we don’t understand.

The problems we face are man-made and with bold action and real political will we can fix them.”

Prime Minister David Cameron:

“Once in a generation, each member has the honour of leading the Council of Europe.

Today, I want to speak about the once-in-a-generation chance we have, together, to improve the way we enhance the cause of human rights, freedom and dignity.

We have an ambitious agenda for the coming months…

…to reinforce local democracy…

…to combat discrimination…

…to strengthen the rule of law across Europe.

But the focus of our Chairmanship, as you know, is our joint effort to reform the European Court of Human Rights.

The role of the Court has never been more challenging.

As the Council has expanded, more and more people have applied to seek justice.

We need to work together to ensure that throughout these changes, the Court remains true to its original intention: to uphold the Convention and prevent the abuse of human rights.

So today, I want to explain why I believe the Court needs reform and set out some of the proposals on the table.

UK Commitment to Human Rights  

First, I want to make something clear.

Human rights is a cause that runs deep in the British heart and long in British history.

In the thirteenth century, Magna Carta set down specific rights for citizens, including the right to freedom from unlawful detention.

In the seventeenth century, the Petition of Right gave new authority to Parliament; and the Bill of Rights set limits on the power of the monarchy.

By the eighteenth century it was said that:

“this spirit of liberty is so deeply implanted in our constitution, and rooted in our very soil, that a slave the moment he lands in England, falls under the protection of the laws, and with regard to all natural rights becomes instantly a free man.”

It was that same spirit that led to the abolition of slavery…

…that drove the battle against tyranny in two World Wars…

…and that inspired Winston Churchill to promise that the end of the “world struggle” would see the “enthronement of human rights”.

As he put it, victory in that war was the “victory of an ideal founded on the right of the common man, on the dignity of the human being, and on the conception of the State as the servant, not the master, of its people.”

These beliefs have animated the British people for centuries – and they animate us today.

When the Arab Spring erupted, the UK was a principal supporter of resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council.

We are leading EU partners in maintaining pressure on Syria.

We have played a key role in securing EU sanctions against Iran.

Through the UN, we are working to empower women in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East.

We have pledged additional money to the Special Fund for Torture Prevention.

And we are contributing to the Council of Europe’s own Human Rights Trust Fund.

All these are clear signals of our belief in fundamental human rights.

And if called to defend that belief with action, we act.

When the people of Libya were reaching for the chance to shape their own destiny, Britain stepped forward with our allies to help.

Visiting Tripoli a few months ago, seeing the crowds of people who were jubilant and free, I was reminded of what Margaret Thatcher once said:

“the spirit of freedom is too strong to be crushed by the tanks of tyrants”.

It is our hope that this spirit of freedom spreads further – and we will continue to support those reaching for it across the Arab world.

We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust.

This has a lot to do with Britain’s national character – a love of freedom and an instinctive loathing of over-mighty authority.

But it is also about our national interest – to live, travel and trade in a more open, secure world.

When a government respects its citizens’ human rights, that makes for a more stable country – and that is good for all of us.

It was that great champion of freedom, Vaclav Havel, who said it best:

“Without free, self-respecting, and autonomous citizens there can be no free and independent nations. Without internal peace, that is, peace among citizens and between the citizens and the state, there can be no guarantee of external peace.”

In other words, a commitment to human rights is both morally right and strategically right.

Achievements of the Council and the Court  

So I want no one here to doubt the British commitment to defending human rights…

…nor the British understanding that the Council of Europe, the Convention and the Court have played a vital role in upholding those rights.

But believing these things does not mean sticking with the status quo…

…because as we are agreed, the time is right to ask some serious questions about how the Court is working.

Over sixty years ago the Convention was drafted with very clear intentions.

It was born in a continent reeling from totalitarian rule…

…shocked by the brutality of the holocaust…

…sickened by man’s inhumanity to man.

Its purpose was clear: to spread respect for vital human rights across the continent – for life, liberty and the integrity of the person.

It has achieved some vitally important things over the decades: exposing torture; winning victories against degrading treatment in police custody; holding heavy-handed states to account.

And since the Berlin Wall fell, it has played a major role in strengthening democracy across central and Eastern Europe.

Of course, we should remember that oppression and brutality are not just facts of Europe’s past.

As we sit here today, in Belarus there are people being thrown into prison for their political beliefs.

Dissidents’ voices are being silenced and their rights are being crushed.

What is happening less than a thousand miles from here underlines the continuing importance and relevance of the Council, the Convention and the Court.

It reminds us that now, more than ever, we need a Court that is a beacon for the cause of human rights, ruthlessly focussed on defending human freedom and dignity, respected across the continent and the world.

It is in that spirit that I have come here to speak to you today.

Because today, the ability of the Court to play this vital role is under threat.

As I see it, there are three inter-linking issues that should cause us concern.

Too many cases  

First, the Court is being compelled to do too much, and that threatens its ability to do what is most important.

We have seen a massive inflation in the number of cases.

In the first forty years of its existence, 45,000 cases were presented to the Court.

In 2010 alone, 61,300 applications were presented.

This has created a huge backlog – more than 160,000 cases at its peak.

There can still be a delay of some years before cases are heard, which means tens of thousands of people with their lives on hold.

These will inevitably include some of the most serious cases: of detention; torture; people who have had their fundamental rights denied.

Let me be clear: impressive steps are already being taken to filter out inadmissible cases more quickly.

The Court should be congratulated on that – but a new problem is emerging.

More and more of the backlog is now made up of admissible cases that, according to the current criteria, should be heard in full.

Again, the Court is doing good work to deal with this.

A system to prioritise the most important cases is in place.

But the sheer volume risks urgent cases being stuck in the queue.

That means the very purpose of the Court – to prevent the most serious violations of human rights – is under threat.

Court of the fourth instance  

This flood of cases is linked to the second issue.

The Court is properly safeguarding the right of individual petition – and it’s a principle the UK is committed to.

But with this, comes the risk of turning into a court of ‘fourth instance’…

…because there has already been a first hearing in a court, a second one in an appeal court, and a third in a supreme or constitutional court.

In effect that gives an extra bite of the cherry to anyone who is dissatisfied with a domestic ruling, even where that judgement is reasonable, well-founded, and in line with the Convention.

Quite simply, the Court has got to be able to fully protect itself against spurious cases when they have been dealt with at the national level.

A good start has been made with Protocol 14, which makes clear that cases aren’t admissible if there is no significant disadvantage to the applicant.

The initial case where the protocol has been used shows exactly the kind of thing I mean.

The applicant was taking a bus company to court for 90 Euros compensation, because they felt their journey from Bucharest to Madrid hadn’t been as comfortable as advertised.

One of the matters at issue was that they didn’t provide fully-reclining seats.

The domestic courts had turned him down, and he was taking his case to the Court.

Now I think we can all agree that fully-reclining seats would be very desirable on a trip from Bucharest to Madrid…

…but we can also agree that this is a completely trivial case, and is not the kind of case that should be heard here.

The Court agreed – and quite rightly rejected the claim.

But this case just underlines how important it is for the Court to have that consistent power to control the cases it admits.

Slim margin of appreciation  

The third issue is that the Court is, quite rightly, determined to make sure that consistent standards of rights are upheld across the 47 member states…

…but at times it has felt to us in national governments that the ‘margin of appreciation’ – which allows for different interpretations of the Convention – has shrunk…

…and that not enough account is being taken of democratic decisions by national parliaments.

Let us be frank about the fall-out from this issue.

As the margin of appreciation has shrunk, so controversy has grown.

You will know that in the UK there is a lively debate about the way human rights law works, and how our own national courts interact with Europe.

Yes, some of this is misinterpretation – but some of it is credible democratic anxiety, as with the prisoner voting issue.

I completely understand the Court’s belief that a national decision must be properly made.

But in the end, I believe that where an issue like this has been subjected to proper, reasoned democratic debate…

…and has also met with detailed scrutiny by national courts in line with the Convention…

…the decision made at a national level should be treated with respect.

Another example of this – and one we can all agree on – is in the area of immigration.

At Izmir, we collectively invited the Court, “to avoid intervening except in the most exceptional circumstances.”

All states agreed that the Court was, in some cases, too ready to substitute its judgment for that of reasonable national processes and all agreed that that was not its role.

In other words, it should not see itself as an immigration tribunal.

Protecting a country from terrorism is one of the most important tasks for any government.

Again, no one should argue that you defend our systems of rights and freedom by suspending those freedoms.

But we do have a real problem when it comes to foreign national who threaten our security.

In Britain we have gone through all reasonable national processes…

…including painstaking international agreements about how they should be treated…

…and scrutiny by our own courts…

…and yet we are still unable to deport them.

It is therefore not surprising that some people start asking questions about whether the current arrangements are really sensible.

Of course, no decent country should deport people if they are going to be tortured.

But the problem today is that you can end up with someone who has no right to live in your country, who you are convinced – and have good reason to be convinced – means to do your country harm.

And yet there are circumstances in which you cannot try them, you cannot detain them and you cannot deport them.

So having put in place every possible safeguard to ensure that ECHR rights are not violated, we still cannot fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them.

Together, we have to find a solution to this.

These concerns are shared by many member states.

And at the heart of this concern is not antipathy to human rights; it is anxiety that the concept of human rights is being distorted.

As a result, for too many people, the very concept of rights is in danger of slipping from something noble to something discredited – and that should be of deep concern to us all.

Upholding and promoting human rights is not something governments and courts can do alone…

…it is something we need all our societies to be engaged with.

And when controversial rulings overshadow the good and patient long-term work that has been done, that not only fails to do justice to the work of the Court…

…it has a corrosive effect on people’s support for human rights.

The Court cannot afford to lose the confidence of the people of Europe.

Right moment for reform  

Taken together, these issues threaten to shift the role of the Court away from its key objectives.

The Court should be free to deal with the most serious violations of human rights; it should not be swamped with an endless backlog of cases.

The Court should ensure that the right to individual petition counts; it should not act as a small claims court.

And the Court should hold us all to account; it should not undermine its own reputation by going over national decisions where it does not need to.

For the sake of the 800 million people the Court serves, we need to reform it so that it is true to its original purpose.

Already 47 members are agreed on this, and great work has been done.

Now we would like to use our Chairmanship to help progress that work.

This is the right moment for reform – reforms that are practical, sensible and that enhance the reputation of the Court.

Our proposals 

So we are looking to improve the efficiency of the Court.

New rules could enable it to focus more efficiently and transparently on the most important cases.

We want to improve the procedures for nominating judges.

The Assembly needs consistently strong shortlists from which to elect judges – and  clear guidelines on national selection procedures could help with that.

And we are hoping to get consensus on strengthening subsidiarity – the principle that where possible, final decisions should be made nationally.

It is of course correct that the Court should hold governments to account when they fail to protect human rights.

In these instances it is right for the Court to intervene.

But what we are all striving for is that national governments should take primary responsibility for safeguarding their citizens’ rights – and do it well.

Subsidiarity is a fundamental principle of the Convention, and at Izmir, we were all clear that more needed to be done to give it practical effect.

For that reason, we will shortly set out our proposals for pushing responsibility to the national system.

That way we can free up the Court to concentrate on the worst, most flagrant human rights violations – and to challenge national courts when they clearly haven’t followed the Convention.

Of course, re-balancing this relationship is a two-way street.

The other side of the deal is that members get better at implementing the Convention at national level.

That is why, in the UK, we are investigating the case for a UK Bill of Rights, and thoroughly examining the way our liberties are protected.

Parliaments also have a key role – and we are proud of the role that our own Joint Committee on Human Rights plays.

And of course, this Assembly makes a vital contribution, helping states to honour their obligations.

Together, through these institutions, we can reduce the number of violations and ultimately ease the burden on the Court.

Conclusion 

Let me finish today by saying this.

With this Chairmanship we have a clear opportunity to agree a practical programme of reform.

Built on the noble intentions of the Convention.

Forged through consensus.

Driven by a belief in fundamental human rights and a passion to advance them.

This is undoubtedly a challenge – but it is a challenge we can meet together.”

“Thank you. Thank you very much for that introduction. Good afternoon everyone. Sorry to break up the speed networking – that sounds like a lot more fun than listening to a speech from me. I think we should probably introduce speed networking into the European Union and then those Council meetings, instead of being nine hour dinners, we could probably crack on and get them done in 90 minutes.

Delighted to be here and delighted to be launching this initiative. I said earlier this month that 2012 has got to be the year when we go for it. The year that we light new fires of ambition in our economy. The year when we get behind Britain’s grafters, do-ers, hard workers and entrepreneurs.

This isn’t something we’d quite like to do; this is something we’ve absolutely got to do because enterprise is critical to this country’s future.

As so often, Winston Churchill put it best. He said some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger that needs to be shot. Others look on it as a cow that should be milked but not enough people see it as a healthy horse pulling a sturdy wagon. In other words there is only one sensible and sustainable way to grow your economy and that is through brave people starting and growing businesses, employing people and creating wealth. Now some might say, ‘Well we agree with that but shouldn’t we just try to consolidate our success stories in big business and let them be the ones to drive recovery?’ And yes of course those businesses are vitally important but more important still is the small business, the new, the young – the businesses that haven’t even been born yet. Because over and over again studies show that small, high-growth firms are the engine of new job creation and they punch way above their weight. So if we want to make our economy stronger, this is where we’ve got to focus our fire power, on encouraging more people to start up and helping small businesses to grow.

Now we’ve made a start. We’re rolling back the bureaucratic, anti-business culture we’ve had for too many years in this country and we’re creating in its place a real climate for enterprise. Corporation tax has been cut and we’re cutting it further. Red tape has been cut and we’re cutting it further. Enterprise zones have been rolled out including here in Leeds to get the best and the brightest to start up. Entrepreneur visas have been brought in to get the brightest in the world to come here with great business ideas. And of course there’s entrepreneur relief so that those who start their own company can keep a bigger slice of their gains. Now since the election more than half a million jobs have been created in the private sector but this is not, and never can be, a case of job done. So today I want to tell you about two new things that we’re doing.

First, through 2012 we’re running a big national campaign to encourage more people to start up a business. Its core message is simple: there is a business in everyone. So what is the business in you? We need many more people to see themselves as entrepreneurs. To understand that each success story starts with a first step. Anita Roddick – she began The Body Shop from her kitchen. Richard Branson’s mother found a necklace on a train, clearly didn’t give it back to lost property, but sold it for £300 – interesting story – and that was the start-up capital for Virgin. Starbucks kicked off when three academics, probably with four or five opinions between them, wanted a good cup of coffee in their neighbourhood and they invested a few thousand dollars in a café.

Now of course it’s not enough just to exhort people to start up; we’ve got to give them practical help and that’s what this campaign and that’s what StartUp Britain is all about. If you talk to anyone who is starting a business, and they’ll tell you the number one thing they need is obviously money. Now we get that. That’s why we put in place agreements with the banks and targeted government schemes to get more cash flowing to small businesses. The trick is connecting that money to those who need it and that’s what our new online finance finder is going to do. It’s a very simple, very useful tool. Just answer a few questions about your business and the finance finder will tell you where to go to get the money you need.

Another thing entrepreneurs need is good advice. Starting a business is one of the hardest, most stressful things that anyone can do and it’s invaluable to know someone who’s been there and taken those risks themselves. That’s why we lined up thousands of mentors across the country and this campaign is going to connect them with the people who need their advice. But beyond those practical things, what entrepreneurs really need is the inspiration to keep on going when things get tough, as they inevitably do. So thanks to StartUp Britain, a campaign, as has been said, run by entrepreneurs, for entrepreneurs, they’re going to be able to log on and hear the stories of people who’ve done it all before. Now all this is coming together in one place in one campaign online and it’s going to be a real shot in the arm for enterprise in this country.

Now the second thing we’re announcing today is a very simple, very practical idea. It’s about using the spare space that we have in the public sector, in the government sector, to help businesses to grow in the private sector. We’ve heard from so many people who say, ‘Well I’ve got a great idea, I’ve got a little bit of start-up capital, I’m desperate to get it off the ground but I can’t find the space’. Or, people who say, ‘I can find the space but we’ve got to sign a three-year lease and we just can’t afford it’. And then of course you’ve got many people working in business during the day – or in government during the day – wanting to start a business but not wanting to misuse their office facilities or office computers and so what we need is additional space for them, sometimes space at the end of the day or even overnight. What we need is the British equivalent of the Silicon Valley garage – spaces that are cheap, flexible and available right now.

Some of these places are already opening up around the country – in fact I gave a speech in one of them last week. It’s called Hub Westminster. It’s at the top of the building that homes – that houses New Zealand House and you can rent an evening desk space there for just £40 a month. Then if you decide to take the plunge, maybe quit your job, start your own thing, you can start renting a fulltime desk space and hire more as your business grows. So this is a brilliant idea and we want to help expand it.

Now, the British government has got a huge stock of buildings at our disposal. The first priority for the ones we aren’t using is obviously to sell them off, but in the meantime many are going to be sitting idle. So let’s match the capacity we’ve got in government with the need that is out there. Let’s provide office space where we can to those who can use it. So we’ve sent a message right across the public sector to government departments, to agencies, saying, ‘Give us your unwanted space. That office that has lain dormant for years; the shop that’s been boarded up; the rooms no one ever uses – the answer is out there: give that space to entrepreneurs for business creation.’

Now the Department of Communities and Local Government have said they’ve got two floors of an office block in Leeds, a large vacant building in Birmingham, another one in Plymouth. In London the Department for International Development has also found some space, so we’re throwing open the doors of government and letting the entrepreneurs in. And frankly this won’t just be good for the entrepreneurs and the business people involved; I’m hoping it’s going to be good for government too.

We’ll have civil servants who will then be sharing the water coolers, the lifts, the corridors with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs that their policies will affect and I think this will be a good connection between public and private sectors. It could even be that the building we’re in today is available for use. So if you’re in Leeds and you’ve got an idea for a business it could start right here. This is the very epitome of a roll your sleeves up government; not waffling on about the theory of how we can help business or shuffle a bit of money around, but doing something practical that will really help.

So we’re doing all this with optimism and confidence because Britain is a country with enterprise running through its veins. I found this on New Year’s Day when my daughter got me out of bed and said, ‘I want to make mince pies’. We made some mince pies and she sold them to my protection team for £1 a time. She’s only eight years old; I thought that was a good spark of enterprise! Some of them are still recovering, but nonetheless…

But this is the country that led the agricultural revolution, that led the industrial revolution, that helped to kick start the technological revolution. We’re the country that invented the jet engine, the DNA, the World-Wide Web, Viagra – almost everything you think of, most of the sports you’ve ever heard of. We’re the country that sells tea to China, vodka to Poland and yes, cheese to France. Enterprise is what we do in Britain so this is the year that more than ever we’ve got to go for it and with StartUp Britain’s help and with all your help, that is exactly what we’ll do. Thank you very much for listening.”

Thank you. I’m delighted to welcome Prime Minister Monti to Number 10 Downing Street today. I think Britain and Italy have very common interests. We’re both leading members of NATO, leading members of the European Union. We’re both supporters of free enterprise economies and obviously we co-operated very closely together over the Libyan conflict and I’ve thanked Prime Minister Monti for hosting our aeroplanes and crews for all the missions that they flew over the skies of Libya.

Today our discussions are focussed on the European economy, on the urgent need for a credible solution to the Eurozone crisis, and on how we can release the brakes on growth to generate wealth and jobs and enterprise. We both agree that the EU single market with 500 million customers, €11 trillion of economic activity, this is a unique resource and we must make the most of its advantages. There are three priorities where I want to see action.

First, a new EU growth test. I think we should subject every EU proposal to a growth test about whether it’s going to benefit growth in the European Union.

Second, I want to see the completion of the single market in the services. This alone could generate €140 billion of additional growth in our economies and it’s time to get rid of all of those special restrictions that have been allowed to stay for too long, whether its recruitment agencies or travel agencies or building surveyors. All these things can make a big difference.

Third, I want to see an ambitious programme of EU trade deals with some of the fastest growing areas of the world – India included. This would link us up with some of the largest markets and make sure we can benefit from those trade deals. I’ll be advocating these ideas at the European summit later this month. If the EU doesn’t get to grips with these fundamental issues of competitiveness we will all be permanently worse off but if we take the right decisions now I believe Europe can still compete and succeed in a fast-changing world. So it’s very good to welcome Prime Minister Monti here, who is such a strong and consistent leader on these vital issues in the European Union. Prime Minister Monti, a very warm welcome and over to you.

Prime Minister Monti:

Thank you very much Prime Minister. It was a real pleasure and privilege to be here at Number 10 with Prime Minister Cameron. Thank you very much for your hospitality and for the straightforward and highly constructive nature of our conversation on the European issues and broader international issues.

As the Prime Minister said there is, between the UK and Italy, a long-standing, deep co-operation. We share values. We share policy initiatives. We share a deep interest in the EU as a whole and also in the speedy solution of the Eurozone crisis. And it is very important also to put the difficulties of the Eurozone into a wider and better perspective to accelerate work towards European economic growth and job creation and there we fundamentally share the view with the British Prime Minister, the British government, that Europe should first of all exploit the assets it has and the single market is possibly the most basic and most fundamental of these assets. That’s why we renewed our joint willingness to work for the single market to move a further step ahead particularly as regards to services, the opening up of national markets and also – and we are very attached to this on the Italian side – to have a more credible enforcement of the existing market rules. So it’s important to not only complete the single market on paper, so to say, but also to make sure that it is a credible and well-respected single market and we know that the British interest as a member state which – I can say this as a former European Commissioner – is on average, a prompter and better complier with the rules than many other member states.

We believe it is in the British interest as we know it is in Italy’s interest for the two countries to work together for a more credible single market as one of the instruments for economic growth. I’m delighted of this great similarity and indeed similarity of views and readiness to work together with the Prime Minister and with our respective teams already in view of the European Council of the 30th January.

 Thank you very much Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Cameron:

Thank you very much indeed. We’ve got time for a couple of questions.

Sky News:

Thank you very much. Prime Minister, if the IMF increases its bailout fund to the euro to the tune, possibly, of a $1 trillion, would Britain increase its contribution proportionally which I think is something like 60 or 70 million, and how difficult would that be to get through the House of Commons? And I noticed that the Falklands is back on the agenda. Why is that, and how serious is the threat? And I wondered Prime Minister Monti if I could ask you this. For days we’ve been watching these harrowing images of the Costa Concordia lying on its side and hearing the harrowing tales of the survivors. Was this a disaster that could and should have been avoided? Thank you.

Prime Minister Cameron:

 Firstly, on the IMF we’re founder members and great supporters of the IMF. It’s a key international institution. We set out our conditions at the Cannes G20 about expansion of the IMF. We believe the IMF must always lend to countries, not to currencies. We would only act if that was with others, not just as part of a Eurozone measure. But above all, we want to see that the Eurozone is standing behind its own currency but the case has to be looked at in that context, but we’re founder members of the IMF and strong supporters of it. In terms of the Falklands, the point is this is the 30th anniversary. As I said in the House of Commons, it’s right to commemorate the people who served, the people who were wounded and the people who tragically were killed in that conflict. But it is, I think important for Britain to send a very clear message that as long as people in the Falkland Islands want to remain British, we respect their right of self-determination and the reason for holding a National Security Council which discussed other things as well, but to discuss this issue, is just to make sure no one is in any doubt that Britain supports that right of self-determination and we will go on doing so for as long as people in the Falklands want to continue in that way. And I think it’s very important that everyone understands that.

Prime Minister Monti:

On the terrible ship accident which occurred in Italian seas a few days ago, obviously any such disaster could and should be avoided. I cannot run ahead of what will be the conclusions of the multiple and meticulous enquiries that are being conducted by the pertinent authorities. I can attest of the extremely generous co-operation that was given by the population of the localities near the accident. And by the way, I was very grateful to the Prime Minister for his expressions of solidarity in relation to this incident and everybody can be assured that the Italian authorities are both taking care of the prevention and limitation of any environmental negative implications of this accident as well as obviously in the first place providing all the necessary help to those affected.

Prime Minister Cameron:

Okay, a question from your press.

Italian translator:

A while ago Mrs Merkel has made a declaration which I can sum up in this way, ‘I’m still trying to understand what Germany can do to help the euro but nobody can tell me’. So I’d like to know if you have any suggestions, and I would like to address the same question to Mr Monti.

Prime Minister Cameron: 

 Would you like to go first?

Prime Minister Monti:

With pleasure, Prime Minister.

(via translator)

Germany is at the basis of the euro. The euro couldn’t have been born without Germany and the German citizens who wanted – just like all of us – a solid and stable euro for their purchasing power, like in the case of the Mark, hence all the mechanisms to have discipline in public balances, and I am very grateful to Germany for this. I think that there are difficulties for the European… for the euro countries because there are deadlines with respect to public balances such as in countries like Italy. And I don’t think that we can ask specific questions to Germany, and there is this problem of the governance of the Eurozone and some challenges cannot be met. Therefore Italy is contributing to finding a solution and in this the role of Germany is extremely important. Governance must be improved – and I’m referring to discipline, fire walls and the need to avoid contagions. And growth policy is also very important. And we have talked about this with Prime Minister Cameron and this is something that is affecting not only the Eurozone but the whole of the European Union.

Prime Minister Cameron: 

Well thank you. There is much that I would agree in what Prime Minister Monti has said. It’s true that some progress has been made in dealing with the crisis of the Eurozone in terms of the additional support that’s been made available to European banks. This has clearly had an impact and that is welcome but I think we need to be frank about the overall situation where interest rates are still very high in many European countries which I think shows that so far what has been done is not working well enough. It’s not enough and so we have to ask ourselves what more do we need to do and I would just make one point about the short-term and one point about the longer-term.

In the short term those things that we’ve spoken about at many European councils, the fire wall – the bazooka as I have called it – the need for a deliverable, sustainable solution for Greece, and the importance of strengthening the banks, we still haven’t completed that agenda and we’ve got to complete that agenda. But the point I would make is it’s only a short-term agenda.

There’s a longer term agenda which is about competitiveness. We focus a lot in the European Union about fiscal deficits and of course that is important but we also need to look at current account deficits, we need to look at competitiveness. And that is where the single market reforms, the changes that Prime Minister Monti and I have been discussing are so important. But we need to emphasise the importance of countries that need to become more competitive – the deficit countries. But also, we can’t ignore – and Martin Wolf of the FT is often writing about this – we can’t ignore that for every deficit country there has to be a surplus country. So there are steps that everyone can take to help ease these longer term problems and fractures in the Eurozone that I think will make a fundamental difference. But I think we can start on the 30th January with a really convincing set of steps on digital market, on services market, on energy markets, on growth tests, that will help open up all of the European economies and help those deficit countries deal with their deficits, and help those surplus countries also make sure that they are growing and consuming and expanding at the same time. That in the end is how we will make sure that we have a sustainable future in the European Union.

Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. And thank you once again Prime Minister Monti for joining us today.

Prime Minister Monti:

Thank you very much.

“Well welcome everyone.  It’s great to have you here at Number 10 Downing Street.  I’m always – bit terrified with Queen Elizabeth I looking down on me, prove that anything is possible in life.  But a very warm welcome.  We’ve got some extremely talented head teachers here, we’ve got my policy aide here.  We’ve got Michael Barber who spent many years in this building working for a previous government and is helping us now, also working at Pearson.  And obviously we’ve got the Secretary of State for Education on my right.  Sir Michael Wilshaw who has kindly agreed to become Head of Ofsted and take on one of the toughest jobs there is in public life, but I think one of the most important and I’m really looking forward to working with you. 

The subject we’re going to look at today which I’m very passionate about is the issue of coasting schools.  I think we’d all agree that the last government and this government taking very, very strong action to try to turn around schools that are failing.  Also, I think this government is doing a lot to celebrate the excellence there is in the secondary state sector and the primary state sectors, really good schools that are powering ahead to show what can be done.  But I think there’s a danger in all of this to miss what is in the middle in terms of some schools that are just above failing – they get left for too long – and also, I think this is a subject that doesn’t get addressed enough, schools that might be ranked as satisfactory or even actually might be ranked as good schools but that could actually do so much better. 

And I think one of the consequences of recent years where we’ve seen some extraordinary stories of turnarounds and new schools in relatively deprived areas and of course Michael for many years ran the Mossbourne Academy in Hackney which is a classic example – a brilliant example – of this.  We’ve seen schools that were previously failing turned around with incredible results at GSCE and A-level.  And that’s prompted me – but I’m sure many others as well – to ask the question: if you can do that in Hackney, if you can do that in inner city Manchester or inner city Birmingham, why aren’t we doing that everywhere across the country and actually striving for better results?

Now it’s not just a question of the aspiration of head teachers, or the aspirations of teachers, it’s also about the aspirations of parents and I think our great allies in this agenda as well as – and we’ll hear about Ofsted inspections and what teachers and heads should do – I think our great allies in this should be well-informed parents who want their schools to do more and I think try to raise the rate of… the level of aspiration not just in schools but actually in the home and in society about schools is a very big part of this agenda.  That’s enough from me.

I’m going to ask Michael to set out what he’s talking about today and the proposal he’s making and then perhaps Michael will come in and we’ll open it up and please feel free to agree, disagree, challenge, promote, argue or indeed anything else.  Mike, over to you.”

Street League engages young people in structured football and education programmes, helping them to harness their strengths on the pitch like teamwork, leadership and motivational skills, and apply them to the world of work. During 2011 Street League have helped more than 400 young people into work or education and training – many of whom have been among the hardest to help and from some of the most troubled or disadvantaged backgrounds.

The reception was attended by Arsenal football captain Robin Van Persie, around 40 young people who have benefitted from Street League’s work and some of the employers who have taken them on over the course of the year.

Over the year Downing Street staff – including the Prime Minister himself – have been volunteering with Street League. This has included running mock job interviews and hosting Street League events such as the Summer graduation with Cesc Fabregas, the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero and Adrian Chiles; and the session with Pele in the Downing Street garden in August.

Read a transcript of the Prime Minister’s speech at the Street League reception.