c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other public service providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> british prime minister rishi sunak testified on domestic and foreign policy before the house of commons liaison committee. during the one hour and 45 minute meeting, he clashed with human rights committee joanna cherry on afghan refugee policy and also addressed concerns about china and national security as well as the israel-hamas cease-fire resolution passed by the united nations.

cease-fire resolution passed by the united nations. chair: order, order. welcome to this session of the liaison committee. we are taking evidence from the prime minister. welcome, prime minister, and thank you for being with us. we have two particular overriding, or rather underlying, themes to the discussion today. one is the pressures on public spending and the challenge of squaring the circle between all the demands on public spending, particularly the rise in threat and security issues and the pressure on the defence budget and the need to control public spending -- something that no doubt preoccupies you every hour, prime minister. the other is in the context of our ongoing inquiry into how parliament and select committees in particular can promote better strategic thinking in government. and so in this session, we will

start with a post-budget section on the economy and public services. we will move on to global issues, and conclude with a few questions about scrutiny of strategic thinking in government. so with that, we will start straight away with harriett baldwin, chair of the treasury select committee. harriett baldwin: good afternoon, prime minister. probably the best way to start in that context is to ask, how is the economic strategy going? the prime minister: thank you for the preamble, sir bernard. when i first got this job, i set out five priorities. three of them were economicto halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt, and i am pleased to say that we have made progress on all three, particularly on inflation. that was the number 1 economic

objective, to bring inflation down from the record highs that we saw at 11%, and the last set of numbers, at just under 3.5%, were very encouraging. in terms of the economy, obviously we would all like to see the economy growing faster, but it is worth saying that last year it defied the sceptics, significantly outperformed expectations and did, in fact, grow. all the signs from early this year are that it has returned to growth, as we see in the latest gdp figures. and then obviously we are on track to meet our fiscal rules to ensure that debt is falling. those are the three main priorities that i set out -- there is progress on all three, and we will stick to the plan. i am happy to expand in detail as you would like. harriett baldwin: debt has gone up massively over the course of this parliament. this is a parliament where there has been a record amount of public spending, there has been a pandemic and there has been this energy price crisis. but on that third economic priority, in terms of debt, the office for budget responsibility says that this year it is just

below 89% of our economy, and it is actually rising every year for the next few years, and it is then forecast to slightly dip in the fifth year. i just wonder how do you feel about that, prime minister, given how important it is for the strategic priorities of government to have debt under control? rishi sunak: it is very important that we have debt under control, because financial security is important not just for the country but for the future of our public services. everyone knows the context of the last few years -- the pandemic rightly necessitated the government to step in to support the nhs, the vaccine roll-out, furlough and public services more generally, then there was the energy crisis, which rightly required the government to step in again and support households with energy bills. both of those occurrencesonce in a generation and once in a centurynecessitated an increase in public debt. however, i am pleased that we

are meeting our fiscal rulesboth of themas the obr has verified. every time the chancellor has stood up since i got this job, the overall debt profile has improved in terms of the percentage of gdp. headline debt is forecast to fall from next year and we have always said that on a medium-term trajectory we would have debt falling, which the rule sets out, and the obr has confirmed that we are meeting it. that requires constant discipline on public spending and spending decisions, as you know. harriett baldwin: but you confirm that debt is still rising and that it will rise for the next several years. and under no scenario that i have seen from anyone is it forecast ever to return to what it was before the pandemic. do you think there is any hope for future taxpayers that debt could ever reach those kinds of levels again? the prime minister: yes, i would like to believe so. our fiscal rules were always very clear from the outset about the trajectory that we would have debt falling under. actually, headline debt starts

to fall from next year, i think, rather than in several years. but that was the right thing to do given that at the time that i came into office it was necessary to support the economy in the short term and then make sure there is fiscal strength in the medium term. which is what the rules confirm we are delivering. and over time there is no reason for it not to continue falling over time. as long as we have strong control over public spending, that will allow us, at the same time as growing the economy, to continue reducing debt as a share of gdp over the medium term. harriett baldwin: to put it on the record, the obr has the debt rising from just under 89% this year to 93.2% in 2028. and i just wondered if i could slightly change the subject to the recent budget, which you mentioned, when we had the chancellor in front of the treasury committee, he accepted and was disappointed that on the morning of the budget, one of

the main items -- the cut to national insurance -- was leaked to the national papers. do you know how that happened, and is there a leak inquiry under way? the prime minister: on debt, when i first got into this job headline debt was forecast to be 100% of gdp by 2027-2028, and it is now forecast to be about five percentage points lower than that. that goes to the point that, on every event we have had, the profile has improved. i deplore these leaks, particularly around budget measures. i suffered from them as chancellor myself. i can't recall the specific situation around that leak inquiry, but in general leak inquiries are instituted when there has been a breach of the confidentiality that we expect, particularly around the budget process, given the market sensitivity of those measures. harriett baldwin: so there has been a leak inquiry about the leak of the budget this time? the prime minister: i can't recall specifically on that measure, so i will happily write back to the committee.

in general, leak inquiries are instituted when there is a leak of sensitive information. obviously, it has historically proved difficult to identify the culprits. it is in no one's interest -- certainly not in the government's -- to have sensitive budget measures leaked in advance. harriett baldwin: but they must be kept on a very tight, need-to-know basis. the prime minister: they are typically kept on a very tight basis, and there is strong information security in the treasury, which i know well myself. that tends to become tougher to maintain right at the end of a process, where obviously the net widens as all the materials start to be published, booklets printed and all the rest of it. but in general there is very strong information security, so it is disappointing to see. there is a named list, as you alluded to. harriett baldwin: i look forward to seeing the letter. steve brine: prime minister, the nhs long term workforce plan has

a productivity increase per annum of between 1.5% and 2%. the budget committed the nhs to 1.9% a year -- the top end -- over the second half of this decade. you have put £3.4 billion behind that, which i know is badly needed. the chancellor said, “there are parts of the nhs that are woefully inefficient.” which parts, and how confident are you that this will move the dial fast, as is clearly needed? the prime minister: the first thing to say is that it is not the government's productivity plan, and it is the nhs's own productivity plan. that is the starting point. it has been backed in full with £3.4 billion of largely capital investment, which will cumulatively unlock tens of billions of pounds of saving over the forecast period. i think that the most fertile areas that the nhs have identified are to do with greater use of digital technology.

they estimate that about 13 million hours are lost by doctors and nurses every year due to outdated it systems. to give you some examples, if theatre processes are digitised more effectively, that will allow the same number of consultants to do around 200,000 more operations a year. similarly, there is technology that will allow doctors to help read mri and cat scans more accurately, which will mean that about 130,000 more patients will get their results quicker. and then the nhs app can be improved to allow confirmation and modification of all appointments. and they estimate that that will reduce around half a million missed appointments annually, which obviously creates essentially free capacity for the nhs. so those are some of the areas that they have identified. probably another one is the nhs staff app as well, which will allow more efficient rostering electronically and reduce off-framework agency spend, which you will be familiar with.

the nhs are planning in general to set out more details later this year. steve brine: the workforce plan is, without question, one of the most significant interventions in healthcare planning for a generation. do you accept that getting this productivity challenge right, with the things that you have just set out, is make or break for that workforce plan? the prime minister: i think that the two things come together, because the workforce plan itself has a reform element, which is slightly distinct from the overall nhs productivity plan. there are three elements of the workforce plan -- train, retain and reform. obviously, the first is to significantly increase the number of doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare professionals that we train. that expansion has already started. that has never been done before on this scale. retain is to improve retention of staff. then the third area is reform, with the use of new types of

roles, for example, physician associates and nurse associates, the new use of apprenticeships, and ensuring that every medical professional can practise at what is called the top of their license. those types of things will unlock labour productivity, slightly distinct from the productivity plan. steve brine: thank you. achieving that productivity improvement requires making sure that pharmacy, general practice and secondary care all connect up, and the it platforms for connecting them up are critical to achieving that productivity. should the federated data platform be extended to primary care? the prime minister: it probably wouldn't be right for me to comment on individual suppliers -- i am conscious that fdp is a relative supplier -- but, in general, yes, we should be rolling out productivity-enhancing technology across the nhs at both secondary and primary care. we have seen in secondary care very strong benefits from using fdp.

i think that chelsea and westminster was one of the first trusts to use it, and the improvement in productivity from the use was published by the nhs, which is why it has, i believe, been authorised to be rolled out more broadly. and in primary care, what we are doing currently is investing in digital telephony to ensure that we can eliminate the engaged tone that people often get at 8 :00 a.m. on a monday, and then over time improve the software of how to handle calls, which again will improve the patient experience. where there are further opportunities to use technology to improve both patient care and the nature of the work for people involved in primary care, of course we should be doing that. a large amount of the £3.4 billion will go on improving technology to the benefit of staff and patients. steve brine: excellent. i am grateful. thank you. chair: clive betts for the levelling up, housing and communities committee.

mr. betts: good afternoon, prime minister. since you were local government minister, prime minister, things have got worse for councils in terms of their finances haven't they? in the last six years, eight councils have effectively declared bankruptcy. in the previous 16 years, none did. what is the fundamental problem? and before you say, “all those councils have made mistakes,” some of them have, but as john fuller, a conservative leader, said to the select committee recently, while the problems have been specific to some councils, there is now a more general problem. and in the next year or two, about half the authorities will be in financial distress. isn't that a fundamental crisis in local government finance? the prime minister: i think the first thing to say is that councils are the backbone of their communities -- they carry out tremendous work every day, delivering important services to the people they serve. i got to experience that as

local government minister -- being scrutinised by you, clive, at the time. as we discussed then, we recognise that they face challenges, but that is why, particularly over this parliament, significantly more funding has gone into local government, including the £600 million boost in the most recent local government finance settlement. that has meant that councils, on average, will have around 7.5% more spending power this forthcoming year than they had last year. and that settlement, i think, was warmly welcomed by the local government association, the county councils network and, indeed, the district councils' network. mr. betts: but prime minister, that is in the context of a 30% cut in spending power in the past 14 years, isn't it? again, as a conservative council leader said to us, quoting the figures he is experiencing, “when you have social care going up by 19% and children with complex needs going up by 23%, but your income is only going up

by 3% to 5%, it does not take a maths genius to work out that there is going to be a gap at some stage." that gap, according to the lga, is now about £4 billion, even after the extra money in the budget. the ifs says it is about £7 billion. that is a crisis, isn't it? we are seeing social care demands going up, children's care in particular going up, send -- special educational needs -- going up, and other services being decimated in many parts of the country. the prime minister: no, i would not characterise it in that way. of course there are challenges, particularly with inflation, which is why i said in answer to harriet's first question that the overriding economic priority of the government is to bring inflation down, because that will help local councils with their finances, as well as helping families up and down the country. if you look at what has happened from central government to local government over this parliament, since 2019, the grant in cash

terms has more than doubled -- so that is the change. over this parliament, the amount of direct cash grant going from central to local government has doubled, in cash terms, from 2019 to -- mr. betts: why is the local government association saying that 20% of councils face the threat of bankruptcy in the next two years? why is it saying that? the prime minister: of course, every council is going to be different and face challenges, but -- the central government has doubled the grant since 2019 since i was chief secretary. the grant going from central to local government has doubled over this parliament. core spending power has gone up meaningfully over the past four or five years as well. of course, there will always be challenges, but where government can step in to help to alleviate some of that pressure, it has done, particularly with social care, which is a major area of concern -- mr. betts: you have got these concerns expressed right across local government, by conservative as well as labour

councils -- right across. in the spending plans looking forward to the next parliament, the forecast is that dluhc --the levelling-up department that includes local government -- is not a protected department, so there is a forecast for no growth in spending whatsoever. is it really sustainable that local councils could face no increase in support from the government at all for four years without making increased cuts to their services, which are already at rock bottom, or putting up council tax by excessive amounts? what is going to give, prime minister? the prime minister: i do not want to write the spending review here and now -- mr. betts: but it is in the forecast. the prime minister: but the next spending review has not been done. people can forecast all they want, but until the spending review is actually done, there are no plans to comment on. what i can tell you, and what the chair opened with, is that overall public spending is forecast to grow in real terms over the next spending review period -- in cash terms by something like 2.5% or 2.7%

annually. that has not been divvied up into various departments, and that is what spending reviews are for. and necessarily, government will prioritise at that moment, but overall public spending is forecast to rise not just in cash terms but in real terms over the next parliament. that is what the plans in the obr's current forecast contain, for day-to-day spending. mr. betts: but in those forecasts, prime minister, dluhc is not a protected department, therefore it is forecast to have no increase at all in its spending over the next parliament. that is the current forecast, isn't it? the prime minister: all i can say is that the spending review has not been done. the only number that exists is an overall spending envelope for what is called rdel, the day-to-day government spending on public services. as i said, that is forecast to grow just over 2.5% in cash terms -- 1% in real terms -- over the forecast period. how that is divvied up between different departments is the work of a spending review.

i always come here, we have these debates, and it is completely reasonable for everyone to say that in their individual area they would like more money to be spent on their particular interest, and i am sure we will hear that from many colleagues, as the chair pointed out at the beginning, but i think it is incumbent on colleagues to explain which department they think that increase should come at the expense of, or indeed what taxes should be raised to pay for it. the government is in the business of always having to prioritize, but the framework that we have set out is one where public spending continues to grow in real terms over the next parliament. the next spending review will divvy that up among the competing priorities, and the track record over this parliament is for a substantial increase going into local government, particularly in the area of social care, where the most pressure has been. mr. walker: prime minister, i want to follow up on clive's there was some small amount of extra funding and the reason budget but many local authorities have a deficit in their children's social care budget.

the other thing you can do in your coordinating role across government to make sure they support you from different government departments is better coordinated. can we make sure we invest in addressing the deficits rather than in programs around them like safety valves and delivering better value? it seems to have gotten larger and larger over the years. >> the first thing to say is all children, young people of school age should receive a great education regardless of their background and circumstances, we want that to be the case and that's why over the course of this parliament, the budget has increased about 60% in 2019 recognizing some of the pressures we've seen in the plans of that time. today's announcement is almost 2.5 billion in places which is

warmly received. you are right about the cost-cutting nature but which i'm sure we will talk about. it's not always easy for government to get precisely right. i've seen that as a local government minister and coordinating with colleagues when came to children's social care. what we need to do is make sure those ministers are not joined up that when it comes to spending reviews, the chancellor announces that the moment of a spending review, the relevant departments in areas which have cost-cutting equities are properly coordinated so things don't fall between the gaps. the last thing i would pick up on his we are investing, and you touched on it and i appreciate the safety valve for the immediate relief and they can help that we are investing 50 million pounds in the change program was launched in the

autumn of last year which is nine different partnerships and covers about 30 different local areas. i think it's important we test those interventions at that level before rolling them out on a systemwide basis. people can have debates about the pace but given the importance of getting the reforms right, it's right that we have it as a trial in those areas. >> particular in terms of two areas, kinship care and children placement, we need to support people instead of keeping people out of the care system. if we are going to meet our aspirations, we need to make sure we can grow its there to address the demand. if i can just change the subject to financial education. we've received a lot of inquiry into financial education.

how do you strike the right balance between taking the opportunity of his many peoples as possible and making sure they are equipped with a financial education they need to make it in the modeled world. -- in the modern world. >> i'm grateful to the committee and i don't think those things are in opposition. broadening mass education is to ensure everyone has a good understanding of math. the more research, it's usually important for future earnings potential and the potential in many aspects of everyday life. sadly, we haven't done a good enough job on it in the past. one in four children leave education without basic and numeracy. the reforms we've announced will

help particularly for most of the disadvantage. over time, they will have more teaching time in the classroom compared to her peers. that will disproportionately benefit disadvantage children and we've created 30,000 pound bonus for teachers who will teach stem professions over the first five years of their career including math. for the first-ever time, that will apply to people teaching in colleges, not just schools. it would broaden the benefit of that intervention. lastly, we announce new funding, hundreds of millions of pounds, to help students successfully reset math gpse and that disproportionately advantages disadvantaged children. it's not about everyone doing math, it's people having a decent degree of similarity in

capability in math. >> you also commended the departments moved to strengthen this education in classroom and we for lots of evidence about the broader risk to children from too much exposure to screen time, social media and the mental health pressures it creates. do you think there is more we can do to protect children in this space? do you think we should do more to support parents and knowing how to protect children? >> as a parent to girls with mobile phones age, i think that that -- i think about that a lot. i've been struck by how many teachers and parents speak to me around the country about kids and schools. this will really help schools navigate that and ensure the default is children not to be able to have access to their phones during the school day.

before we move beyond it, i think it's important we do it for the kids. this stuff is not easy and we need to implement all the things in there. they will make a significant difference to protecting children from harm of inappropriate content. whether that's bullying, pornography, self-harm and a lot of times getting that legislation right in implementing that should be the priority. i'm thinking more broadly about this question. i think school is one of the most immediate areas to focus on. it's something i think about as a parent. people have made suggestions. originally had the privilege of speaking to two mothers about some of these issues as well and i've been reflecting on the conversations about them.

>> thank you, prime minister. >> good afternoon, prime minister. my committee recently met with the 600,000 who were inactive to long-term sickness often with mental health needs. despite them telling us how they want to work, none of them are receiving medical interventions to help them get better. they are not subject to any employment incentives and no requirement or expectation. do you agree it's an appalling indictment of our health and welfare industries? >> it's a tragedy for those people. work can provide in norma's amount of purpose and fulfillment to people's lives. everyone who can work should work. it's not fair for everybody else

in health and financial stain ability and give them financial security but because it can bring that person dignity to their lives. as to where we can provide support to people into work, you are right to highlight and that's been one of the unfortunate consequences of the pandemic is the rise in economic inactivity particular for those who are long-term sick and concentrated. it's also at the younger and older and. doing a bunch of things and billions of pounds of been announced with a combination of the chancellor and the work of the pension secretary back to work plan, talking therapy and universal support we need to make progress on it and you are right, we need support everyone who wants to to work. >> in broad fiscal terms, do you think it's an unfortunate

trajectory of spending particularly on younger working age people due to sickness? >> the work needs to be sustainable. it's important we look at this. i spoke about this previously. we have the wc which youa are familiar with. it's something we haven't looked at in a decade. over that time, three times as many people have been deemed unfit to work them and they were a decade ago. most people would think the country is not free time sick or than it was a decade ago. that's suggestive of this -- of a system that's not working. he rightly highlighted that a significant chunk of those people wanted to work. that's why we are reforming the government and doing things like talking therapy through mental health and we are making sure the system is fair in the sense of how we use the administrative earnings threshold. the expectations of people who can work to work to make sure

it's fair and ensure long-term sustainability. >> thank you. your assumption that the triple lock should be in place for the entire period? >> we talked about this at the weekend. i have nothing further to add to what he said. it doesn't necessarily apply to the departments position. i think you can safely assume that he meant without writing the entire manifesto now. >> do you genuinely think that's plausible. >> the track record of the government is that we make it a priority in making sure that if you work all your life, you deserve what you deserve in retirement at support in jamaica and the government and the triple lock is an expression of that.

pensions are much less likely to be in poverty. they will see it almost 900 pound increase in just a couple of weeks in the state pension and that comes on top of significant support over the winter with energy bills and doubling of the winter fuel payments. his face to the kind of country we believe in and make sure we look after people at that stage of their lives. i think it's the right thing to do and triple lock is what this government brings and we will continue to protect that. >> thank you, sir. given the projected profile spending on three things, state pension, working age benefit and the nhs over the next five years, do you think there is something in what paul johnson said about living in silence between the front benches about how constrained public finances will be? >> i can't speak for other parties. we set out plans that continue

to have public spending growing and we have a design outlined and the future spending review. i think it's right that we lean toward productivity to get more. public vector productivity is around 5% lower today than it was before the pandemic. no one is asking anything heroic. is just returned to where we were if we can manage that. just returned to where we were is worth 20 billion pounds per year that is a figure and that's been suggested there is billions of pounds of productivity. more generally, that's the public sector less productive than it was in 2019. my focus is yes we will grow

public work and focus on getting more out of the money we put in so that we can responsibly cut people's taxes because i think that's the right thing to do. we talked about a country i believe and i believe in working hard and having had that hard work rewarded. we've done 900 pound tax cuts and we want to go further and that requires a strong control on public spending including welfare and getting productivity so we can keep cutting people's taxes. >> thank you very much. now we move to the justice committee. >> what you are doing with the proposition that has an effective justice system is fundamental to a civilized society. >> yes. >> that includes a being properly funded, doesn't it? >> yes. >> we have record levels in the

crown courts in record numbers of people in prison to the extent the justice sector is having to take emergency measures to manage them. the two are linked, aren't they? how do we unblock that? >> i think it's worth remembering the pandemic and the impact of the pandemic. we made a decision during the pandemic to protect jury trials which i know something the committee knew and everyone was supportive of. justice slowed during the pandemic inevitably and what that meant is that there has been something like a 50% increase in the reman population as people are awaiting trial. that actually accounts for the biggest increase in the prison population over that time. it's reasonable to say that we should not have persevered with jury trials and that was a

mistake i said that at the time. i don't believe anyone did at the time. at the same time, we are in the process of the largest prison building program since the victorian age. it's something that will give us thousands of more prison places and that's happening at the same time. we are investing in prison capacity. it's being delivered but there is a particular issue of what covid did to the remand population which is causing the shortness of operational pressure. >> the backlog has not return to pre-covid levels. the lady chief justice gave evidence of our committee early this year and said it will not be possible to achieve the government's goal of reducing cases down. they can't deal the system as it

stands. justice is an unprotected apartment. -- department. there are failures in education and health care and treatment and in children's services. this accounts for a large number of entrants in the prison population. should we take another approach to funding? >> we are absolutely committed to reducing the outstanding caseload in the courts. i met with the lady chief justice to discuss this on a couple of different occasions and we are working closely with her and on the criminal justice partners to speed up justice and improve the experience of court cases. a few specific things i could point to -- we funded over 100,000 sitting days for the financial year

unless financial year, we've committed to keep the youth of the 2019 court room which is in the next financial year which has made a difference and recruiting 1000 extra judges nets on track and it's helping the courts where there are pressures in the backlog. the result of covid is higher than it was but we are doing what we can to bring it down. >> according to the lady chief justice, there is about 100 cases and some cases are unusable because of maintenance backlogs in the present. anytime we look to gain at the opportunity for this parts of the justice system, they seem to sensible to get the work done.

is that something we can do in a joined up fashion? >> i'm less familiar with the contracting arrangements but i'm happy to get more information on that. i do recall we had put more money into prisons especially courtroom maintenance. it was something the lord chancellor raised in the previous and the lady chief justice and i think that was signed off on some time ago.there is is extra funding going into court maintenance. and to your precise concern how that is being spent on the contracting -- >> it's been suggested to us that they are out of date and clunky. the money takes a long time to get spent and is not gotten into the system and gotten delayed. >> i can happily take that away and discuss that with the justices. we want to spend the money and

we want to make sure the money is going to the right place. >> in a separate aspect, the importance of it the sitting justices to businesses. are you aware at the moment that a small business which may have 95,000 pounds of money coming in can be working up to 70 plus weeks if it goes to trial. that's 17 weeks more than years ago. that can't be good for the british economy, can it? >> i'm not familiar with those statistics for that particular but i'm happy to look into it but more generally, i don't disagree with you that there is an economic benefit to having swift justice. >> the problem is the county seat deuced 95% of the local work. that causes massive delays.

it takes away the proposition that the economic benefit will be achieved for capital investment in improving the technology for the system. >> i will happily do that. we've invested money into digital transformation in courts and i remember signing off on that. >> not in the county court? >> not in the county court but we have been doing that. >> i understand that. you might think about justice in terms of crime because that gets the headline. >> i will make sure i look into that. >> always very grateful when you follow-up with your letter on the topics you have been able to cover in detail. thank you, sir bob. dana johnson? >> good afternoon, prime minister. on your pledge to stop the boats come use at last time that considerable progress had been

made. i'm sure you will be disappointed by the figures of the first three months of this year, the attempted increases compared to last year and they are before. i wanted to ask you about the safety bill which we will get fairly soon. do you have an airline that will get -- send people to rwanda or will you use the raf? >> we are making arrangements with a range of options of varying degrees. i don't want to get into the details of those because that would involve commercial conversations. >> is at 1000 pounds per person? >> the preparations are being made and had been when made for a while. >> so you cannot say whether it's an airliner not. >> it's a commercial conversation. this has been in place for a while. >> other than 53,000 people in

the u.k. the immigration act came into play last year. are you expecting to send 33,000 people to rwanda if they can make a claim for asylum in this country? >> they have to get royal assent and the bill has to be put in voice and there will be -- put in force and there will be cohorts put in place to apply the policy and there's a range of different options for that. it's in the planning phase right now for that. >> these people are in limbo so are you guaranteeing that group will go through? >> i wouldn't say it's in limbo but some of those people should not be able to stay. we will do everything we can to remove them either to their home country or a safe alternative like rwanda.

there is no limbo about it. our intention is that everybody who arrives here illegally should be removed. >> but they are in limbo at the moment because they cannot claim asylum and you cannot tell me how many you think will go to rewind. -- to rwanda. >> the ima needs to be commensurate. they still come under the rules. >> they come under the rule of immigration -- of the illegal immigration act. these are 33,000 people who cannot claim asylum and they are waiting i assume to be sent to rwanda. i've got a bunch of other questions. can you explain why number 10 blocked appointments of independent appointments for immigration? >> i don't believe that is the case. progressives in the house have mentioned this in details in the house. a report

>> mr. hamilton was involved. it seems some people said there was a whistleblower that he took the action he did because they were reports of the home office not responding. >> there was a response to all those and he welcomed the response to those reports having been unleashed. two are to be published. >> yes. >> they are imminently published and obviously the home secretary and his ministers will go over them in detail. >> very quickly, do agree there is a moral case to support lord brands amendment to the safety of the rwanda bill to make sure that afghans helped armed forces in afghanistan are not sent to rwanda? yes or no? >> we have an existing it's brought- thousands of people to

the u.k. under three different treaties. in the interest of time, we don't need to go over them all here but there were three different treaties and we brought people safely from afghanistan to the u.k. to provide and that commutes debt -- contributes to our half a million people we welcome to the u.k. every year. >> the people in the small boats , there is an issue of why those schemes are not working. >> it's not that the schemes are not working, it might be that there are many more people would like to come to this. we have the resources and the capacity to face this. >> i don't think that's the view of most people looking at both schemes. >> i think you could infer from that that because people are coming, they are working. there is a limit to amity people we can take in this country and where we can house them.

we heard earlier from clive about the pressures on liberal government. the pressure falls on local government so that's why we have to be conscious. >> my question was specific about the moral case of supporting british forces in afghanistan. my final question -- i wanted to ask you, you have already accepted the moral compensation to be paid to the affected victims. did your whips tell mps last december that they had compensation recommendations would be no tax cuts? is that what you are imposing? >> that's not something i'm aware of but more generally, i'm acutely aware of the proceedings on this issue and the suffering of all of those impacted by what is appalling scandal.

i consistently acknowledged justice should be delivered and we are working hard to put things right. that's why the acceptance of moral compensation was made in october of 2022. it affected individuals in bereaved partners registered with the scheme to proceed into repayment at that time. i provided evidence as well to the inquiry and the ministers have made statements about things where doing to provide psychological support services and expert groups advising the government had to make informed choices and responding. >> so the answer is no to my question? >> that's not my answer. >> thank you. >> joanna cherry from the human rights committee. >> good afternoon, prime minister. we can continue the rwanda policy. the joint committee of human rights said the rwanda bill does not comply with human rights obligations and that it replaced

the u.k. breach of international law. it observed that other nations might be influenced by the way in which the u.k. treats its international obligations. they pointed to the example of residents of pakistan who referred to our policy in defense of his country's decision to expel from pakistan hundreds of thousands of afghans who fled from the taliban regime. are you proud that he used your rwanda policy to justify doing that? >> i'm honestly not responsible for the comments of others in the country. what i can say is that i'm very confident that our rwanda schemas in compliance with their international obligations. we work very hard to ensure that's the case. the principle of sending people to rwanda was supported by the

high court and not challenged by the court or the supreme court. i'm very clear on what we are >> it was mentioned the number of people being the table regime reaching the united kingdom shore on small boats. are you proud you were reaching for an amendment to prevent afghans who supported his majesties armed forces. does that make you proud? >> i disagree with that characterization. we had debates about operation data base and what they do with that. that is unhelpful. >> i'm asking you a perfectly

reasonable question. there are people coming -- >> you are rephrasing. [inaudible] >> it would have prevented them from being deported to rwanda. i'm asking if you are proud -- >> you have interrupted me twice. we have a clear obligation that we support those who aided us in afghanistan and we are deliver being on that. we have been bringing thousands of afpgs safely to the u.k. in a way that is sustainable and we provide them with appropriate support and we have welcomed a half million refugees from different countries so we have a proud and compassionate record of making sure we support people

that need the help but it needs to be done in a legal way and sustainable to local communities and individuals concerned so we can provide the support we need. that is why we believe that they are the right way to do that. we do believe we have an obligation and we are delivering on it. >> there is a 137 page information note on human rights in rwanda updated in january and it had forces ranging from the united states state department it human rights watch which set out shortcomings of human rights in rwanda. why is it you feel able to ignore the information in insisting rwanda is a safe

country? >> we have a new agreement that adopted the assurance that people will be respected and supported and improve the processing of people's claims. the high court did find it was generally safe for individuals to be relocated in rwanda and that was not calendar by the court -- challenged by the court and all the obligations will be met and without discrimination. the constitution of rwanda includes a broad prohibition of discrimination and doesn't criminalize or discriminate against affects that have been raised and they are passing new laws. for all those reasons we are confident that this policy is the right one and it is covering our obligations and i have

quotes that they are determined to make it work. >> the united kingdom has some of the best human rights protections in the world for people who are seam sex or transgender but there are no such laws in rwanda and they warn individuals can experience discrimination and abuse including from local authority. there are no specific antidiscrimination laws that protect lgbt individuals. why do you think it would be safe to send them to rwanda? >> i will prefer to my previous answer they have a broad prohibition against discrimination and don't discriminate against sexual

orientation. we have a binding treaty that makes clear obligations will be met in terms of treating people without discrimination and the bill means u.k. decision makers would always be able to consider compelling evidence relating to an individual's particular circumstances and our courts have agreed that rwanda is generally safe for individuals relocated. >> if rwanda is as safe as you say huawei -- what way do you think it will be a deterrence? >> because people won't bible to remain in the u.k. and what we have seen from the situation with our albanian deal is once we have a functioning return

agreement we can return them back to a different country. the arrivals drop as they have from albania. if you look at how other countries australia have dealt with it has been found to work. that is why i'm conference that deterrence works and without question this is a novel thing to do but we have to look at novel situations to a situation that would otherwise continue to get worse. i don't think that is right, fair or compassionate because we saw people are dying when they are exploited by gangs making crossings so the right thing is to break that cycle. having an effective deterrent is critical. >> now we will going to counsel. >> with respect to the decision

in gaza and israel and u.s. call for cease-fire what will you do to ensure that is implemented? >> we were pleased to support the resolution at the u.n. because it was consistent with our position which is for an immediate sustained humanitarian pause to allow for the safe release of hostages, more aid to gaza and a platform for a more massing cease-fire. we will continue to do everything we can. but it is asking israel to comply with humanitarian laws and aid but continue to call on hamas and work with countries like egypt and qatar to unconditionally release the

hostages. >> does everything we can include looking at export licenses? >> we have a robust strategic export license criteria and we don't want it to -- >> is that under review? >> yes. >> so, when we look at gaza with more than 30,000 individuals wounded and children specifically 13,000 killed and 17,000 orphaned, is that something taken into account we looking at the u.k. licenses? >> yes. you wouldn't expect me to comment on legal assessments you can expect all the things you talked about are regardless of the export license criteria are

things that are concerning. i repeatedly said the humanitarian situation in gaza is awful and it is right to do everything we can to alleviate the suffering of people and just yesterday the royal air force air dropped 10 tons of food supply working with the jordanian and that has brought aware, rice, cooking oil, baby food. we want to get aid in through every root we can, land, air and sea and we have done a lot by land. there is the first significant drop by air which has been welcomed and we are working with partners to improve aid access on the pair time corridor.

but i don't disagree i think the situation is awful and we are trying to do as much as we can to alleviate it. >> the air drops would be the least effect and most effective is lands crossing. what can you say you have done with that is it >> i agree with that. what we need is many more trucks today the the pre october there were 400 or 500 trucks a day and now it is a fraction. that is not good enough. i made that point to prime minister netanyahu and we will continue to press for more lands access. but i think it is right to do extra aid by other corridors and the air drops will help and the

maritime corridor and the better is remove barriers to land aid. >> and aids is particularly short in northern gaza which is having difficulty getting supplies. we have documented cases of babies being born and mothers too weak to feeds them and they are dying. >> as i said we would always call on israel to comply with obligations understood international humanitarian law. that we are putting into the region and doing it by every corridor. we also are putting, i have raised with personally prime minister netanyahu to bring more in through the north and northern crossing.

that is something with allies we continue to raise to open support access into for the gaza. that is something we have talked about with the jordanians and i discussed that with the king of jordan because if we can get aid through the top that would be helpful. >> getting aid is only one part of the solution. it is about the distribution of aid and it is a issue of who will access the aid and you imagine they have an incredible track record and two months since the u.k. suspended support at the time and they expect the decision to make. do you have an update? >> the first thing i will say we have the report of staff being involved in the 7th of october

attack and we are committed to getting aid to gaza and that hasn't had any impact on our contributions. it is important that people know that. so the u.n. office of internal efforts have provided their reports to the u.n. secretary general. we want to hear on the undertakings of personnel and we are talking consistently with allies how to conclude that because i don't disagree, it does have a violate role to provide aid but it is right we reflects on the reports on governance that has been provided and our opposition is consistent with many of our allies.

i wouldn't like to speculate. we are all keen to get more aid in but givenen the appalling allegations it is important they are addressed. >> a brief point on gaza. how is the cease-fire that donate have any condemn face of hamas consistent with them being evil and military? >> i can appreciate that point. it is not a perfect replication and on hamas in particular. as you know i have been unequivocal in condemning hamas and we will always do that. with hostages, though, the way that i read the resolution and it should be reads it does

recall that the taking of hostages is prohibited under international law and demands the needs and unconditional release of hostages. this is unconditional. this is a temporary report which is consistent with our position in the words of the resolution needs and unconditional release of hostages and more humanitarian aid can flow it. i think that has been my consistent position and the wording it was not perfect yet close enough to our position that we should support it. i'm disappointed to see some reporting last night that hamas already is not engaging in conversations. it can't be right for hostages to be held lake that and it is reasonable to want safe return of citizens which is why we've

always said immediate humanitarian effort needs to be combined with release of the hostages so we can get more aid in and hamas hasn't complied and they are the ones responsible. >> would the government ask to divest itself of tiktok? >> we have taken steps previously on tiktok on government but support generally we engage with tiktok and other companies to make sure we have a good understanding of the security of u.k. data that it meets the security standards that we expect. we routinely do not comment on specific cases, but what i can say is we continue to monitor any threat to our national

security to u.k. data from all sources and wouldn't hesitate to take steps. >> would you allow tiktok on your children's he's known? >> that is not relevant it this. >> [inaudible] >> it is competition in market authority responsibility to assess the impact on consumers. we don't have a role in the rule of mergers. there was the investigation into the joint venture table published their assessment that with require a view. we have the national security investment act which gives the government the powers as needed to block a modified action as we have done in previous actions.

you would not expect me to comment on that to a process we have not hesitated to use and thoughts it made sense particularly in the case of newport where we used that. >> the chinese company exploring on stock exchange. will that be allowed to proceed? >> it wouldn't be right to comment on individual can companies. >> there's a probe hraurpbg -- launched into imports of china. we said no and why did we say no? >> i don't think that is quite right. we have people to advise us and

we do our work from that. something i discussed with the european commission president and i'm pleased on the electric vehicles. we were able to reach resolution with tariffs that would have gone up on imports and exports on electric vehicles -- >> but we refused to join the e.u. discussion? >> we have the ability to conduct our own discussion. these are commercial things. >> there are things from companies from china we are acting to take out huawei but we talk out models duals from these -- models from these? >> china represents greatest threat to our economic security

and we have seen behavior we just won't stands for. their actions in relation to our allies' democracies are concerning which is why we have taken the retaliatory action and we will address that. we talked about critical national infrastructure it is worth bearing in minds i made a decision to ensure chinese data and nuclear energy company will not be part of the project and the government approach was to remove the huawei from the 5g network and there are other things we are doing to protect ourselves and where we identify ridiculous and threats -- risks and threats. >> we are about to join and china wants to join. if they seek once we are a member will we block their application? >> that is not an propose thing but everybody who joins needs to

meet very high standards. that was a condition of our joining. i know it is something shareholders by our allies in the partnership and that is a block of people who maintain a set of high standards who wish to join would need to agree. >> that was six studies and we have not had an ambiguous. the united states house of reference passed legislation to divest in tiktok and it is connected. congress has talked about concerns about forced labor. we have taken out huawei but the secretary has power to initiate an investigation to investigation subsidies in the chinese e.b. industry. it was like where allies are

acting we are just thinking about it. >> i think that is completely and utterly wrong and not borne out by the evidence. you are approach to china is more robust than most of our allies. you look at our strategies you talked about huawei, there are european countries including germany that haven't removed them from their telecom infrastructure. we place controls on china last year. they have not been replicated by the e.u. and in some cases are broader than those of the u.s. our foreign investor regime is the most recent of that and is more robust tan -- than any other countries and on trade we

already are less dependent on china than australia, korea, japan, u.s., many other countries and lastly i don't think any other countries has set up a national protective security agency which we have funded dealt with by mi5 which panes we can provide specific support to countries to manage the threat from all states when it comes to espionage so i'm confident our approach in dealing with the risk china poses is very much in line with our allies and in most cases goes further in protecting ourselves. >> does the chinese economy qualify as a market economy? >> it represents the greatest threat to our security and

fundamentally different values to ours and increasingly authoritarian at home. that is a concern that the track records the last few years is one we have taken measures to protects ourselves. huawei, export license control. >> i take that to be a no. moving on i should say the context is very much ukraine in our minds which we lay emphasis on every session. though we are not asking specifics this time except last time you said a successful russia in ukraine is threat. we take that as red. jeremy quinn. >> it goes from that.

they have been asked to do a great deal and the report highlighted serious concerns in the event of a war including stock pipes and supplies an trading. we feed to be ready to deter all those concerns that you recognize? >> i believe that we are investing in our defenses. if you look at the track record the last few years i approved things since colds war and there have been something like 10 billion pounds the next few years particularly focused on stock files and nuclear and we further do and we are seconds largest defense spendser not just now but the past decade and

others have nothing but respect and admiration from our forces and are keen to do more with us. that is why we strengthened our military alliances, defense alliances with countries like japan, south korea and others. >> we are investing but clearly a lot has happened since 2020. the secretary referred to us entering into a prewar worlds. against that back drop we do we hit our 2.5% ambition. >> it is worth saying defense spending is on an upward trajectory to hit 2.3% on defense spending and it is important to recognize that investments in support in ukraine are investments in our

security with the chairman the security in the atlantic is indivisible. russian fors being degraded is a benefit for us. what i would say the last year or so has made it clear that there is work to be done on the defense industrial production and that is not a u.k. only concern. that concerns our allies across europe and nato which is why we have put more money into munitions, long-term contracts and missiles or ammunition. i think that has the last year or so shown we need to up our game with defense industrial production. we are making investments and can look forwards to a significant increase.

>> you agree we would moment russia is out spending ukraine five to one and it is producing munitions in excess of with the u.s. and europe and with 40% of the russia spends clear going to the war, i know you said earlier the government is about prioritization but would you accept we are at the point where we can not afford to invest more in our defense? >> i agree and we have prioritized it and yesterday's announcement is further evidence of our commitment to our security and making sure there are enterprises safeguarded for years to come. munitions is a particular issue you are right to highlight

russian production and we announced in february we were going to invest 250 million pounds and a couple weeks we talked to cutting edge growth and that is why my first trip of this year was to ukraine. i was the first foreign leaders to be there and first major country to announce our financial support this year which increased the last two years. so we can't do there alone. and it is all very well what we are spending on defense and providing support to the ukrainians but we need allies to do the same. that is the only way collectively to give them the help they need. i'm pleased we have taken leadership and that was recognized by president zelenskyy and that is the track record, first country to provide legal aid and battle tanks and

long range weapons all those things were emulated by others. but we are leading, i'm proud of our role but we feed everyone else to step up. >> i would like to say on the 2 . 2.35 rule we will have more but the last question just mentioned the nuclear yesterday and that was a positive announcement last week. we need more nuclear investment and structures, the list goes on. how will you institutionalize that effort to get to where we need to be? >> all the things you mentioned were covered by the announcement yesterday doubling the ph.d. because we have those and investing 200 million pounds in

the transformation and they do an enormous and important job for us. we owe them a debt of gratitude. i have been sharing information since i became prime minister and we have made it a proper national endeavor. you can expect we will put the governance in place to ensure the delivery of that and i think it is now getting the attention and focus it difference and needs and i'm sure we can deliver on the task ahead. >> we have coordinated all the aspects, and the defense aspects as well and we brought it all together in the past year.

>> what are you thinking in putting the 2.5 into that. >> we will try not to write too much into that right now. >> coming to the strategic thinking in government -- >> we are material there. we have the recommendation of the state pension age do you have a time for a response on that report? >> no, i don't only know the details of the report. as we said we are going through that. >> on the same theme, he retires

at the end of this month. last night a motion was put to [inaudible]. what is the status of that name? >> i will have to get back to you, i'm afraid. i apologize. >> i will be ready because the panel wrote to you in mid january and it is important. if i can on to civil service reform the chancellor announce ed we can initiate us thats and continued to grow. is the government goal still to reduce the size? >> yes, i alluded earlier to efficiency savings. it is a statement of policy but more broadly back to the earlier

comments we see a 5% decline in private sector skpheupbs the pandemic. everyone should be looking to unlock that money to reinvest in public services, good for the taxpayer and citizens. head count is one of the features of productivity as a general rule which is to get better public facility. >> do you have a figure for that? >> i haven't got the head count so i refer you to whatever the chancellor said. he was giving it very close attention. >> what is your response to the recommendation of the secretary and heads of the civil service roles be separated? >> i think we are still in the

process of digesting all of his various recommendations and will responds to doubt at the appropriate time. i think it is something we are already hearing and trading and other things that i cannot recall every recommendation. >> last year when i asked you about your views of characterizations of the civil services resisting government policy you expressed your faith in it. is that still the case? >> yes, very much so particularly as prime minister as chancellor the support i doctor the reports i receive and number 11 in the treasury and now number 10 and i'm grateful for it. >> what are your thoughts of your predecessor who said she was undermined by the deep state? >> i think that is probably a question for her rather than me.

>> are you a deep stater? >> probably a question for her. i wouldn't tell you if i was. we wouldn't tell anyone else. >> i wouldn't tell anyone if i was. with it not indicate a few chance getting overly excited? one lunch menu to the other. this commission has the power to recommend candidates to the house. not to make any recommendations since 2022. are you going to allow them to recommend in this parliament? >> i'm not sure that they haven't so i would have to look

into that. i don't have any particular aversion to it. my throughout is that we had. >> those have been few each year. >> i don't have any particular issues. we have to find the right time and make decisions. i don't have a preset objection. >> on principle in the house of lords appointments are there any circumstances in which you would appoint individuals to the house of lords [inaudible]? guest: waoeupbg r i think we talked about that last time i was here. that is not what i have done or would intends. constitutionally and legally for the prime minister to make recommendations to the sovereign uptears and act as his advisory.

certainly that is the way i followed. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. now we are moving on to -- i hope that you are right to give more of your time so it is slightly extended. we are going to inquire into the strategic thinking in government and sir jeremy touched on one of the decisions are the program of the well nuclear enterprise spanning simple and military and others on energy and hs2, which affect strategic decisions affecting deep strategic thinking. what were the processes led to these and are you satisfied and

as they better institutionalized so we see more of this strategic thinking? >> thank you for that. i don't think there's any particular process that led to those other than just being examples of things i was looking to do. i didn't want to join them as i focused on the long-term and i have some other like the long-term workforce plan. it is not something that was done before because most people think they won't be around in 13 years to be trained will ends up benefit being anybody. so, i have always tried to focus on the long-term of the country whether a different approach and that is their plan and what we are doing all of them are examples of that longer-term thinking which is a good thing. i think it is the right thing to do and as best as possible get people to focus on long-term is

good. >> what do you think we learn from cross departmental leads such as contest or task force that we can use in other areas? >> i think some of these things it is probably the benefit of having people outside government come in would be very valuable. i'm not sure how repeatable the situation is the ordinary course of business. i think having external people to come in to focus on something we have replicated to some extent for the a.i. task force which is slightly distinct from government, we have been lucky to attract people and they have done an excellent job and widely respected around the world particularly in the u.s. and

whatever i came to learn and it has a tight tkwhraoeupbed mandate and it is -- tightly defined. there's the model we try to replicate the model with the amount i. task force but it is a quite specific area. >> contest? >> probably the same. given the importance of the issue, i think that -- like the vaccine there are certain issues with regard to that failure. >> what about net zero? >> we just mentioned that. that is widely recognized to be the largest stroupblg endeavor dah strategic endeavor as we step to decarbonize the

industry. master cross part strategic program. how important do you see getting a consensus to achieve such a big strategic shift across the country? >> it is important. we don't carry people with you, what you will do is turn people off to the we will idea entirely, which would be bad. i have children we want to leave them in a better situation and it has to be a realistic way or people will turn off the whole idea and we will have adjusted our policy on this last year and i think that was the right thing to do. one of the areas i highlighted was that we have an incredible track record of decarbonizing than every other economy and we can have confidence in our plans and do things to ease the

burdens on families saving them five, 10, 15,000 pounds and hit our obligations which are more ambitious tan any other country. the other thing i know you have been in correspondence with the secretary of state on rightly is around the scrutiny that happens with the carbon budgets. >> you don't have to answer all of my questions in speech. you touched on them in your speech. you characterize it as pragmatic response. so have seen it as an attempt to introduce a dimension to undermine the consensus we already v. i do you address that? >> our track record is clear, we have decarbonized faster than any other country. our target is ambitious and we can be proud because we are not water being down any target. but i inherited plans that would

have cost families five, 10, 15 15,000 pounds to change equipment in houses or switching out cars but others doing this and i didn't think that was necessary or appropriate but we will still be better than pretty much every other country and do in a way that recognizes the cost on ordinary families and i think that is the right approach. if other people want to say we should rush into it without regard to cost then that will be their argument and that is fair. but to justify my approach is the portion of pragmatic approach that will get us there. >> you also toucheded on

parliamentary scrutiny and we have been engaged with the secretary and i'm pleased to get responses from the secretary of state this morning ahead of this herring confirming many ideas away put forward for informing parliamentary scrutiny but the carbon bucket you pointed out. i take it from that response you endorse that we need to get involved in the passage for the seventh carbon budget from 2038 to 2042 that the methodology and path is scrutinized by parliament. >> yes, thank you to you and your committee for the recommendations and suggestions. the secretary of state very much agrees into the part of what you say but you mentioned last time we put in place legally binding

targets on carbon production with far reaching impact it was debated for 17 minutes and was voted through without any thoughts on what would be required. i don't think that is right and that will change in the future. your suggestions are very helpful in formulating the right way to do that but it is clear at the same time says we want to reduce carbon emissions they are clear about what that means and we should all be clear eyed about what it means. we shouldn't just wish the end without having a conversation about the means and next time our country we will be the better off for it. >> thank you. one final quick question. yesterday was another announcement by your secretary the sustainable farming percentage should be limited to encourage food production. does there reflect a recognition that food security is a public

good? >> yes, and i made that point in the conference when i spoke to increase that production. book do that. that is why we want to make sure that is incentivized that. the primary purpose is to produce food. >> that's a message you can send to the tractor drivers that were surrounding winston yesterday. >> yes and know. i had conversations the reform are going to increasing food security and production in the u.k. and that is what we need to do. there's lots of opportunities to do that. we have to protect agriculture use for that purpose and that is what the announcement was. >> thank you. >> prime minister, thank you. we have a lot of evidence suggesting that to have a

strategic culture so the ministers get better strategic advice. we need to reestablish a national school of government of some kind in order to teach strategic thinking and decision making and help containing the culture. how much do you agree with your two predecessors that this should be done? >> yes, i am actually open to the idea. sorry, when you talk about the physical locks or general principle? >> no other civil service has a physical election for teaching face to face. >> i'm a supporter of that and part of what i was contemplating out of the economic campus at darlington i was thinking of with you can incorporate something like that. i'm very single -- sympathetic

to that. and very were welcome to the committee recommendations on that to pick up in the next spending review and i think it is an eminently plausible idea. >> it is unlook almost any other profession. we have ongoing professional training. would it be a good idea this administration was set up to train ministers and would be ministers and advisors so were understands the same language? >> i think there's already an established program for ministers. i think there are eight different training courses involved. they are open to all ministers and on top of that the instructor runs to very specific

training with ministers dealing -- sponsoring major projects and there's the program that picks up a couple of recommendations so. i think it is open to considering what we have the right wreck nymphs in place but there is nothing that are actually training modules in place. >> finally, it is widely understood that the younger generations feel very disengaged in politics. they don't feel engaged in strategic questions that will affect their futures. what do you think parliament could do to address this and how much could you consider following fun lands of having a futures committee that engages with the government on long-term questions like the secretary who is asking questions about what

our democrats will be like and who is asking the questions and parliament should be the source to ask the questions. >> intergenerational fairness is vitally important that is why we are trying to consider the intergenerational and we were talking about didn't every pound we borrow today are taxes for our kids and grandkids they will have to pay back. so making sure you reduce the debt burden is an important part of en assuring that. i ---en -- insuring that. i'm not sure whether that with quite do what you are wanting it to do. i think that is a question for parliament, not the government. i don't disagree we need to focus on an

intergenerationalment >> it is the government to propose the leaders of the house should have do that. i have to further questions. thank you, prime minister and we wish you and your family a good easter break. >> thank you very much. >> today u.s. ambassador to the united nations lin did thomas greenfield discusses diplomacy in the pacific islands at 3:00 on c-span, our free mobil video or on line at c-span.org. tonight and this week we will show recent supreme court cases which they have to rule on and we will talk to reporters about some of the legal issues. they will air each night at 9:30 eastern on c-span.

here is a look at the schedule. tonight we will have that cases that could result in weakening the rule making process and be a to interprets and implement law. then moore v united states challenges the constitutionality of a trump era corporate tax law. wednesday the court looks at the legality of the 2018 ban on bump stocks which modified firearms. thursday another second member case on with under diets protective orders can legally own firearms. friday two cases on social media contents and states' ability to regulate it. watch the supreme court oral arguments this week beginning tonight at 9:30 eastern on c-span. you can find all of our supreme court coverage on our web site. c-span.org. ed >> get contact information for members of government in the palm of your land when you

preorder your copy of the 2024 congressional directory with information of every member of the 118th congress and the president's cabinet and it cost $32.95 plus shipping and hamming and it himself support our nonprofit organization. scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org. delivery is this spring. >> the house will be in order. >> this year we celebrate 45 years of government in congress lake no other. since 1969 we have been your primary source for capitol hill providing balanced coverage getting you to where the policies are debated and decided. c-span,