Downing Street has confirmed that Mr Cameron raised human rights issues with Mr Xi but would not go into the specific concerns he had, according to PA.

Mr Cameron’s spokeswoman said: “The Prime Minister raised the issue of human rights, the importance of countries working together to address issues, to talk about the importance of what this means as countries develop and move forwards.”

Dissident Chinese artist Ai Weiwei called on David Cameron to raise the issue of human rights in his continuing talks with president Xi Jinping.

He told Sky News: “I think the British Prime Minister has had a record on putting human rights aside which is very bad strategy and also is a very bad aesthetics, because this certainly doesn’t represent the British people.

“When [people in China] see Mr Cameron not put human rights as an issue, (that) will make people very disappointed.”

Here’s some video of David Cameron unveiling the Hinkley Point deal:

What do the locals think of the Hinkley Point deal with the Chinese? Steven Morris has been finding out:

Prime minister David Cameron also announced a new fund to support research into “anti-microbial resistance” and said the talks with Chinese president Xi Jinping had also touched on issues such as closer cooperation on global poverty, African development and women’s rights.

The UK government says the Hinkley Point deal will create up to 25,000 jobs, up to 1,000 apprentices and also provide billions of pounds worth of supply chain contracts.

The official release is here:

Hinkley Point C to power six million UK homes

And now a question about the UK’s northern powerhouse from a Chinese journalist:

Xi says he’s interested to visit Manchester tomorrow:

Cameron adds:

One of the points of these in depth discussions is to better understand each others economies.

And with that - just one question from a journalist from each country - they are gone.

The second part of the BBC’s question about China’s human rights record was primarily addressed to President Xi.

Xi does not immediately tackle this but says:

I want to answer the steel question. The world is seeing an oversupply [of steel] following the financial crisis. China also has overcapacity.

We have taken a series of steps [to remedy this]. We have cut 700m tonnes of production capacity. You can imagine the task of finding jobs for those workers.

The UK is an important partner for China. Our investment [in the UK reached] 12.8bn RMB by 2014. Our future investments will create further jobs.

We want to avoid protectionist measures.

Coming to the human rights issue, China attaches create importance to human rights. We have found a path suited to China’s conditions.

There is always room for improvement in the world. China is ready to increase co-operation with UK and other countries over human rights.

Questions. BBC - if you were a steelworker losing their job, at same time as seeing the Chinese president in a golden carriage, what would you think? What about China’s human rights record?

Cameron:

We discussed the importance of steel industry, problem of global oversupply. China has plans to reduce oversupply. The stronger our relationship, the more able we are to have discussions about other issues.

We will take action here in the UK, on energy costs, securing projects.

The investment we have announced here today will [use] British steel. We are building Crossrail using almost exclusively British steel.

I reject the [premise] that you either have a conversation on human rights and steel or you have strong relationship. I want both.

Now Xi Jinping is speaking.

I was deeply impressed by the pageantry and warmth displayed yesterday.

A meeting with the prime minister agreed a global strategic partnership and to open up a golden era and jointly create a brighter future.

During the visit we achieved a string of outcomes... including the Hinkley Point deal. This is a flagship project between the two countries.

[Among other business deals] China will issue in London RMB sovereign bond for first time.

Let’s seize the opportunity .. to bring more benefits to our countries.

A relationship fit for the 21st century, benefiting our people and the wider world.

We discussed the excess supply of steel and how we can tackle it.

We are able to have discussions about more difficult issues such as cyber and human rights.

David Cameron is now giving a press conference.

I want to see more trade flowing between our countries.

I am pleased to announce an historic deal [to build Hinkley Point}

Lisa Nandy, shadow energy and climate change secretary, expressed concerns about the cost of the project, and said she had written to the Public Accounts Committee to ask them to look at the terms of the deal in detail.

She said: “There are real fears about what this deal will mean for family budgets, and for our national security too. “These concerns must be addressed before a final investment agreement is made.

“Hinkley Point C is likely to be the most expensive power station ever built anywhere and it is largely families and business who are picking up the tab.

“I’m deeply concerned about the costs for households, and particularly vulnerable groups like pensioners.”

That is why I have written to the Public Accounts Committee and asked them to scrutinize in detail the terms of the agreement ministers have reached.”

Another to greet the deal warmly was Phil Whitehurst, national officer of the GMB union, who said: “We welcome this financing for Hinkley Point C as another piece of the jigsaw in place for a project with 25,000 job opportunities, 1,000 apprenticeships and 60% of the construction cost going to UK companies.

“The UK needs nuclear power to provide low-carbon base load electricity to keep the lights on the eight to 10 days per month when renewables are not generating power for the grid.”

But the GMB said it would continue to campaign against giving the go-ahead for Chinese nuclear technology to be used in a new nuclear power station at Bradwell.

But Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said: “If we are to keep the lights on, wean ourselves off fossil fuels and meet global climate change targets, nuclear energy has a vital role to play in our economy.

“It is clean, safe and secure, and the construction of power plants creates thousands of high-skill jobs and apprenticeships.”

Proponents of renewable energy have also - unsurprisingly - attacked the Hinkley Point deal. Paul McCullagh, chief executive of renewable business UrbanWind, said:

[For the government] to suggest that renewable energy subsidies were axed due to the impact they had on homeowner’s energy bills, and then to agree a strike price more than twice the current wholesale price for electricity generated by Hinkley Point, seems utterly backwards.

Rather than supporting technologies, such as onshore wind and solar, that are readily deployable, popular with the public and increasingly cost-competitive, the Government has chosen to back a generation method that is ten years away, at best. On top of that, it comes at a price that will almost certainly increase energy bills for homes and businesses alike.

National Grid have already warned that the chance of blackouts this winter will be the highest for a decade. If we experience an unexpected further outage, like we did last year with the unexpected closure of two EDF nuclear power stations over safety fears, then we could face big problems meeting demand. A new nuclear power station that is ten years or more away is not going to be much help.

We’ve done a Q&A on the key issues surrounding the Hinckley Point deal:

Here is our full report:

The cost of building the new power station has risen by £2bn.

Under the terms of the deal, the Chinese firm is taking a 33.5% stake in Hinkley Point in exchange for £6bn of funding with the rest owned by EDF.

BREAKING NEWS

EDF and Chinese firm China General Nuclear Power have confirmed a deal to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

The deal is expected to be signed shortly.

Wall Street has opened higher, with the Dow Jones rising 39 points, or 0.2%, to 17,256. The Nasdaq has opened 0.5% higher while the S&P 500 is up 0.3%.

Fiat Chrysler boss Sergio Marchionni has just rung the opening bell on the New York Stock Exchange, with Ferrari’s prancing horse logo displayed prominently behind him. Ferrari shares will trade under the ticker RACE.

In about 15 minutes, Ferrari shares will start trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Marc Sanders, partner at Dutch tax adviory firm Taxand Netherlands, told PA the EU ruling would “rock the corporate world to its very core”.

He added: “Whilst multinationals were lured to EU states with offers of low tax rates as an incentive, little did they know that, despite having agreement at the highest national level, this would come back and bite a decade later.”

Anders Dahlbeck, of ActionAid, described the tax rulings as “just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to corporate tax breaks”. The international NGO estimates that developing countries lose at least $138bn a year to special tax breaks.

The EU is right to act against sweetheart deals which allow multinational companies to avoid millions in tax but this only addresses part of the problem of international taxation.

These sweetheart deals in Europe and developing countries are part of a race to the bottom on tax which hits the poorest hardest and leaves healthcare, schools and other key public services starved of resources.”

We need a fairer global tax system which tackles tax breaks in Europe and developing countries, ends the race to the bottom on tax and supports developing countries to find a sustainable route out of poverty.”

Margrethe Vestager’s boss is, of course, European commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, who was Luxembourg’s prime minister and finance minister when the tax dodging deals were struck. He has claimed he was not involved.

Speaking the European Parliament in September, Juncker said: “The fight against tax avoidance and evasion is one of the Commission’s top 10 priorities.” He added that he felt he had “a duty to fight tax evasion and avoidance.”

He was strongly critical of the current system, labelling it “unusable and unjust” with “multinational companies extremely adept at making use of differing tax rules in EU countries.”

But he also stressed the need to balance the crackdown on corporate tax avoidance with boosting investment in the EU. He said: “there is a need to generate greater growth and investment given the current lack of investment, however, company taxation should not act as a break on investment.”

Vestager said: “We need a fundamental shift in corporate philosophies.” She said paying their fair share of tax should be part of companies’ social responsibility.

Linklaters competition partner and state aid expert Natura Gracia said today’s decisions are “basically about the Commission setting the limits for what member states can and cannot do in terms of reaching individual agreements with tax payers”.

She added:

It’s a bold move by Vestager showing that she will not shy away from taking decisive action even in a controversial policy area such as taxation.

While the Commission recognises the legitimacy of tax rulings and the freedom for Member States to decide on their tax regimes, companies should be mindful of relying on those rulings going forward. Given the significant financial consequences of state aid enforcement, it will be prudent for companies to test the legality of individual rulings they have received or will be applying for.”

Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition commissioner, said:

We’ve found a large variety of methods, one more complex than the other ...

These arrangements shifted profits from one company to another in the same group without economic justification.

But the result is that companies pay almost no tax on profits made.”

You can listen to the press conference live here.

The Amazon and Apple tax deal cases are very different from Starbucks and Fiat, Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition commissioner, has told a news conference.

These are very different cases and will be assessed on their own merit. The outcome today does not prejudge the next decisions we will eventually take.

We will take a decision when the cases are ready for decision making.”

In the UK, the Liberal Democrats celebrated the EC ruling as a “game-changer in the fight against corporate tax avoidance”.

Catherine Bearder MEP, chair of the Liberal Democrat EU referendum campaign, said:

By working together across Europe, we can clamp down on tax-dodging and get a fairer deal for British taxpayers and businesses.

Outside the EU, Britain would find it much harder to ensure multinationals pay their fair share.”

In the case of Starbucks, which has a coffee roasting subsidiary in Amsterdam, the Commission concluded that a tax ruling issued by the Dutch authorities in 2008 gave it a selective advantage, and reduced its tax burden by €20-30m.

In particular, the 2008 ruling artificially lowered taxes paid by Starbucks Manufacturing in two ways, the Commission explained:

• Starbucks Manufacturing pays a very substantial royalty to Alki (a UK-based company in the Starbucks group) for coffee-roasting know-how.
• It also pays an inflated price for green coffee beans to Switzerland-based Starbucks Coffee Trading SARL.

The Commission said a tax ruling issued by the Luxembourg authorities in 2012 gave a selective advantage to Fiat’s financial subsidiary in the Grand Duchy, Fiat Finance and Trade, which has unduly reduced its tax burden since 2012 by €20-30m. It said the 2012 tax ruling “endorses an artificial and extremely complex methodology that is not appropriate for the calculation of taxable profits reflecting market conditions”.

In particular, it artificially lowers taxes paid by Fiat Finance and Trade in two ways, the Commission explained:

• Due to a number of economically unjustifiable assumptions and down-ward adjustments, the capital base approximated by the tax ruling is much lower thanthe company’s actual capital.
• The estimated remuneration applied to this already much lower capital for tax purposes is also much lower compared to market rates.

EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager said:

Tax rulings that artificially reduce a company’s tax burden are not in line with EU state aid rules. They are illegal. I hope that, with today’s decisions, this message will be heard by member state governments and companies alike. All companies, big or small, multinational or not, should pay their fair share of tax.”

You can read the commission’s full statement here.

The EU Commission said the companies’ tax deals with the Netherlands and Luxembourg gave them selective tax advantages. A statement just issued said:

The Commission has ordered Luxembourg and the Netherlands to recover the unpaid tax from Fiat and Starbucks, respectively in order to remove the unfair competitive advantage they have enjoyed and to restore equal treatment with other companies in similar situations.

The amounts to recover are €20-30m for each company.”

Back to the EU tax ruling, which should be coming any minute now.

Alan Clarke of Scotiabank said:

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s projection for the full year is for a £20bn reduction compared with the previous financial year. So we are moving in the right direction, but not fast enough.

There is still six months to make up for lost time, but I suspect that the £69.5bn target for the year will not be met.”

Investec economist Chris Hare said:

Today’s (marginally positive) print marks a continued closing in the deficit, but still not at quite at the same pace as that embodied in the OBR’s projections. We are now six months into the fiscal year and cumulative borrowing stands at £46bn – that is £1.2bn per month less, on average, than the first six months of the last fiscal year. At this rate, borrowing would be set to reach around £75bn in the 15/16 fiscal year, versus £90bn in 2014/15.

However, this would imply a slight overshoot of the OBR’s borrowing projection of £69.5bn for 2015/16. This is no major cause for concern though – we have only reached half time in this fiscal year.”

Margrethe Vestager’s tax crackdown on global corporations comes after last year’s LuxLeaks. The leaked documents showed that the Grand Duchy – a tiny state with a population of half a million – struck tax deals with some 340 companies around the world to help them save millions in tax.

In a useful primer ahead of the EC ruling, Politico writes:

Wait a second, can Vestager actually set corporate tax rates?

No, she can’t. Tax rates is one of the areas where national capitals reign supreme. But some of them — especially Luxembourg City and Dublin — have been offering ultra-low tax rates to attract some of the world’s biggest corporate names, and the money, jobs and prestige that come with them.

Ultra-low tax rates are fine, says Vestager, provided they are available to all companies and not just the chosen few, who would enjoy an advantage over smaller, less-well-connected rivals.

Why is Vestager first targeting Fiat and Starbucks, not Apple or Amazon?

Since taking office, Vestager has charged Google with breaching EU competition law, and opened probes into Qualcomm and Amazon. So maybe she felt it was time to give U.S. tech firms at least a temporary break. Charging one European carmaker and one U.S. coffee shop chain avoids the accusations of only bashing Silicon Valley.

She could, however, be testing the waters. Apple is the big one.

The rulings are likely to be appealed, but are already having far-reaching implications, according to international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Heather Self, partner at Pinsent Masons, said:

Multinationals will be particularly anxious about the Starbucks case. The ruling process in the Netherlands is long-established and very well-respected internationally. For competition authorities to challenge very technical tax rulings by competent authorities in this way is extremely destabilising.”

It has implications not just for companies that have received tax rulings from the Netherlands in the past, but for any multinational operating anywhere in Europe. The fact that EU competition authorities feel it appropriate to intervene in highly complex international tax issues adds another layer of complexity and unpredictability.”

Caroline Ramsay, senior associate and state aid expert at Pinsent Masons, added:

Having taken the cases this far, most experts are anticipating that the EU will rule that the tax rulings did constitute an award of unlawful state aid to the tax payer. If the findings are as is expected, then it is highly likely that they will be appealed to the European Court of Justice, and the taxpayers themselves may also appeal the decision.”

While this appeal process could take some years, in practical terms, we are already entering a new era. Multinationals are already ensuring that state aid is part of their considerations in setting up a new tax structure in Europe.”

So what is it all about?

The European Commission is expected to rule that Starbucks and Fiat Chrysler had unlawful tax deals with the Netherlands and Luxembourg – by declaring that they constitute unlawful state aid. The American coffee company has made the Netherlands its European hub by basing a bean-roasting subsidiary in Amsterdam. Fiat has based an internal financing subsidiary in Luxembourg, to benefit from favourable tax treatments in those countries.

Both companies are believed to have been paying a fraction of the headline tax rates in Luxembourg and the Netherlands for many years, my Guardian colleague Simon Bowers reports.

Any additional tax would be paid to the authorities in the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

Amazon and Apple are next, and could open the floodgates to more tax rulings, legal experts say.

Returning to the European Commission’s decision on tax avoidance, a press conference will be held at 12.30pm in Brussels (11.30am UK time), but the ruling could come earlier.

Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition commissioner, has been dubbed the Danish tax reaper. She even cancelled a trip to China, citing pressing work matters, to announce the ruling today which comes after a 15-month investigation.

Starbucks could be billed about €30m (£22m) in additional taxes, according to the Financial Times (£), which cited sources close to the investigation. Fiat’s bill is expected to be even higher.

Good morning and welcome to our rolling coverage of the world economy, the financial markets, the eurozone and the business world.

We are expecting an EU ruling on tax avoidance this morning. Starbucks and Fiat Chrysler are likely to have to pay tens of millions of euros in additional taxes, with the European Commission expected to rule that they had unlawful deals with the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Rulings on Amazon and Apple will follow.

My Guardian colleague Simon Bowers writes:

Starbucks has for years made the Netherlands its European hub while Fiat has based a lucrative internal financing subsidiary in Luxembourg. In both cases, the multinationals approached the local tax authorities to seek assurances that their controversial tax structures in these countries would not be challenged.

These assurances – often known as “comfort letters” – are expected to be torn up on Wednesday when Margrethe Vestager, the competition commissioner, confirms the commission has concluded that the two tax rulings constitute illegal state aid. The decision into the sweetheart tax deals follows a 15-month investigation.”

You can read the full preview here.

Also today:

• Home Retail Group, which owns the Argos and Homebase chains, has just issued a profit warning.
• UK public finance figures for September are out at 9.30am
• The Ferrari IPO in New York is due to kick off at $52 a share, valuing the company at $10bn. Fiat-Chrysler wants to spin off the brand to set it apart from its more mass market brands.
  
• And Bank of England governor Mark Carney will give a speech on Brexit this evening.