and i haven't seen the administration'sanguage, that would satisfy these concerns. . . >> we can convict themselves without compromising national security. >> why do we need the commissions and practicalities?

i'm going it ask you to comment on their testimony. >> senator levin, we don't need military commissions unless we want to prosecute. we can detain the people that we captured on the battlefield and ha discussions and debates internationally about what does this 21st century nonstate actor paradigm mean for the right of the geneva convention t detain if you can't define when a war is over. there's no capital so forth and so on. so we can just detain them and not worry about it. >> it's desirable. first of all, it's desirable because we can show the american people just how bad these people are, number one. and also to the international community, we can show these people how bad they are. the reason we have to have

military commissions is quite frankly, some of these evil can't be tried. there's just not the evidence. my own view that alien unprivileged belligerents should not be entitled to the constitutional protection the erican citizens have. and i don't think we should in some cases. but in my mind the mca, you put together in theast few weeks exceeds international standards. it certainly exceeds anything that is being done at hage. one of the great failings was failing to educate the public as to what is at steak that the law applies. it's reasonable to define the terms of the debate and the debate has been framed in the

context of the domestic criminal law. and that's not what the debate should have been about. there are many issues to debate how do you tell where the war is over? what do you do? there are lots of things to debate. but the whole tng of people thinking there's aight to speedy trail and whe do i get my lawyer? i know y probably heard before the comment that throughout the vietnam war the united states governments position was consistent with regard to the people that were captured and kept. and that position was you take care ofhem. even though you are a signature tour to the geneva convention, we expect you to treat them with respect. and when the war is over, you will return to us. the united states government, democratic and republican never said when do we get a lawyer, where do they have a trial? that was never anssue.

we never heard anybody 7 or 8 years ago talking about that and educating the public that's what the standard should be. >> you said the procedures exceed the procedures that the hage terms of protection for people. you've also indicated that you have a couple of suggestions that you've made relative to our language, other than those two suggestions. do you believe this is the right direction for us to go as we've drafted it? yes, senator, i do. >> admiral hutson, let me put the question to you more precisely perhaps, we've had witnesses not just today but long before today that point to the implausibility of some of the procedures being provided to the detainees including miranda

warnings to prisoners that are captured in the course, the pack ability of documents the chain of custody, the difficulti by the need it use highly sensitive national security information, including evidce who's identity cannot be made public. tell us why we can do without, how do we -- why is it not appropriate to use military commissions providing those commissions meet the standards that the supreme court has said in hamden? >> mr. chairman, i'm not sure that it is ippropriate to use military commissions, i'm only suggests the much better avenue is to use the tries and true

district court federal system that has tried in many, many, terrorists quite successfully over the years. you know, i think fund many tally what this debates comes down to for me is that i think i've got more faith in the flexibility and adaptability of federa courts than others perhaps have. miranda is a judge-made law. the word miranda has no place in the constitutn. voluntariness has a place in the constitution. and i think that the u.s. district courts are going to be fundamentally capable of dealing with those issues. and they are not going to as somebody suggested earlier require the soldier to give miranda rights after he breaks

down the door and hold somebody at gunpoint. at's not the mission. that's not a low earcement mission. at that point it's not an intelligence gathering mission. that's all part of the war. i don't think that the federal rules of criminal procedures are going to require that. now if i am wrong about that, i would urge that this committee and the judiciary committee i respect would have a dog in that fight might want look at those rules and make modest changes to the extent you feel is necessary creating this hole parallel system because this whole parallel system to the extent it complies with common article three and provides all the judicial guarants by civil used people then we cuply catted

to the a large extent the federal court system. there's just no reason to do that, moreover, as i mentioned earlier, a lot of expertise and experience and precedent and you're going to bring up a lot, you're going to bring down on the soldiers of the u.s. armed forces a lot of criticism because we tried this twice before. and just as god made green apples, this process is going to be criticid. it's going to be criticized b appellate lawyers, by media, by critics. the military doesn't needt, th department of justice will have to entour it. -- endure it. we will e up with the world beingreoccupied not with the cbimes of the terrorists but with the perceived alleges in our system. i'd just rather use the system

that's out there. >> i think the parallel system has existed for a long time. this is not creation. senator graham. >> admiral hutson, i have a lot of respect for you. >> thank you. >> we've had a lot of debates about this. in july 12, 2006, you came before the house and the senate and you urged us to use t ecmj as the model, and you said i was an early supporter of the concept of military commissions and their use in the war on terror. i believe then and i still believe now that they are grounded in the proper form to prosecute each terrorist and submitted changes to the ucmj that you thought were practical. but what's changed? >> well, i think an early supporter of military commissions. before we actually put flesh on the bones and i was convinced in

those days, quite frankly, that if you populated commissions with people like jonth den, it was going to try. as it turned out, they weren't. we've been here now for how many years and we've tried -- >> but my point is that you said that the ucmj should be the point. and that you believe that the military system was a sound way to try a terrorists. you suggested to the congress that you have deviate but only when necessary. and quite frankly i agree wit you. i do not agree that you would we should abandon the military commission as an option. i do believe as the other two witnesses have indicated, it is a very strong role to play in the fight that we're in and t past and i would like to submit mr. chairman the testimony of

admiral hutson from july 12, 2006 at the house. >> that will be perceived. >> i don't want to belabor the point. we're going to find a wayo make the commissions as effective as possible. let's get back to the idea about senator reed who is a dear friend. we looked at every detainee as a common criminal. a domestic crime. what legal theory would we have to hold someone in definitelyf they were viewed as a domestic crinal law person? how could you do that? >> senator, i don't think there is any existing authority. and i'm not sure there should be. >> right. mr.hairman, i'd likeo share. it would be the biggest mistake would be to use the criminal model but yet still hold people indefinitely without a trial. i do not believe that is a

choice we have t make. but if we're going to view the people as mmon criminals across the board, then we've lost the ability which would allow the tension. do you agree. if you used t law you could detain someone indefinitely. >> yes, i do. subject to the caveat saving the issues of -- right. now general and the honda case justice o'connor said you got article 5 under the question five have convention to make the determination. under this all that's required under article five to determine is an independent tribunal. in the battle world, that would be one person. is that correct? >> yes. >> however, the uted states has complemented so that --

implemented so that it needs 3 officers. >> okay. a three-officer decision. the point i'm trying to make, i don't want to use the article 5 dynamic. this is a war without end we're going to need something new. so it goes back to senator udall, we have to come up wh a hybrid syste for those people that we're n going to try or be able to try, we're doing to have to do something beyond aicle five. that's where i think court under habeas play an important role. >> thank you. do you want to say something? >> thank you. i think we made a decision in the sense that we're prosecuting them in the first place. first of all, i don't thi you have to make the choice of prosecuting them or holding them. if you want to hold them, you can ho them. >> under what theory? >> under the theory that they

are prisoners, presumably, caught in the war. but if e were in korea or vietnam and we didn't prosecute hitler's driver. we held him if we had him. that's the hostilities. once you decide it, putting across ksm and people like that. onceou decided you're going it prosecute somebod you've already in my mind made the decision that he's a criminal on the law. >> the point i'm trying to make is domestic criminal law applies and would not allow this nation to honorly hold someone indefinitely. >> i do. >> do any of you doubt that some of the people at guantanamo bay if released would go back to

killing americans? >> i haven't looked at the files, but i assume that would be the case. >> i want to compliment this committee. i think you have taken a very reasonable approach. the supreme court has told us how this should be formed and what we areoing is setting a standard beyond what international law would require if they were broug to the hageis it something to be proud of? i think the extra process that we are provided will confer legitimacy that is necessary for us to win the war. i think we are very close to producing a product. >> thank you very much for all the energy and effort and experience. but at the end of this effort, it's been invaluable. >> chairman, thank you very much. and thank you mr. chairman and senator graham for your work on this. i'm just kind of a tag on here.

i have a few questions. admira hutso following up from what he said,e made some comments. and then the nation that you just gave you indicated you had -- you supported the concept that would have had certain people on it. i'm just trying to find out the difference from then to now so i understand tt i have another follow up for you. >> i think the difference is time. we can't walk that cat back. we've tried this twice. it's bn roundly criticized. and i very much admire the w that the committee has done with this proposed legislation. >> what do we get out at the other end of the process?

and i have to say that i've come to believe -- i changed my mind. i've come to believ that the federal courts have demonstrated over the years their ability to do this. and that -- i would to repeat myself quickly. i worry about the criticism that it's going it bring on the military that we're asking the military to try to be the organization responsible for prosecuting the worst criminals among the worst criminals this our nation's history. that's just not part of the d.o.d. o the united states armed forces mission. i think it's a distraction that is unnecessary given the fact that we've got this well regarded department of justice federal court system. >> let me ask you this.

an i'll just first comment. i don't worry too much about criticism and for the d.o.d.. you know, it's life. no matter what you make you're going to get criticized for something even if you do somebody that you think is well intended. that's the way life is. ihink the d.o.d. has withstood much criticism. i'm not too worried about that. it shouldn't be a reason that we designed policy. but do you then believe that all detainees should go through the federal court system and there should be no commission or any element of this? and i say of this situion that we're in now or any future situation in conflict. >> i was gratified when i heard jeh johnson say, although nothing everybody was, there was an administration preference.

i would not, i'm not saying that i can't see the situation in which the military commission would be appropriate. i don't think these terrorists or the alleged terrorists as being warriors or combatants or inals or thugs. they are mindlessly and needlessly committing war crimes. and i prosecute them as criminals. >> let me -- what i heard there was and i hopee're on the same -- i'm hearing what you are saying. in this situation the commission is not the best idea. but youid not allow that in other conflicts in the future, a commission may not be a bad idea. >> no, absolutely.

why not just say that? >> well, i mean you're earlier argument was we've tried this and it didn' work and you wrote it o. now you say tt it'skay maybe inhe future or som other conflict that may not be determined. why don't you set it up. we have a good format now. t's do it. >> i didn't want to get into that, because it's not a bad argument. >> thank you. >> once you get it up, i wouldn't use it unless we're talking about it. q. okay. my thought on this and i am listening to the chairman explain toe in a variety of waysnd most recently in one of our committee meetings. i'm convinced that it seems to be a logical approach. i'm struggling. of your rational, it isn't in this situation and i guess i

would jt respectfully disagree, but i appreciate your comments. and to the other two, i don't know if you have any cments, but i need clarification. i don't know if you have additional comments. >> i would just say that it's an interesting dialogue. and there is a legitimate, a real debate as to whether we should treat the situation we're in as an armed conflict or as law enforcement criminal law matter. but i think thacongress has made the decision in september 2001 to treat this as an armed conflict to authorize the president to use military force. as i said in my prepared statement, we do have to take account of the fact that this is not a traditional war. that's why i think we as a committe has taken some step to change the definition from the way it was mca to try to limit

the scope of the armed conflict approach to this. but i think as long as we're in an armed conflict authorized by coress, it's appropriate to use the military justice system to prosecute people for war cres. >> thank you very much. general? >> senator, i think that the fact that we cherish our military and what the military does traditionally and especially today can lead us astray in ting to immobile all people that are warriors or consider themselves warriors around the world. there's lots of bad soldiers in lots of country, and they are still protected by the law of war and treated as soldiers. my good friend dean hutson misses @ mark when he talked

about he doesn't want to give them credit or ennoble them by considering them warriors. he's right thathey are criminals. they are war criminals. he's right that they should be discouraged and they are dispickable and all of this. but still based on what they have done, they have made themselves into soldiers and ma themselves into formidable enemy of this country. th's why i thits pair mount and should be used. i agree the article three course can be used and maybe appreciate. it's a tool for this government. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator begich. regardless of whether or not people think that most or all of

the detainees should be tried in article three courts, we're not addressing that iue ithis legislation. we are trying to reform the military commission law so that it passes in the supreme court. that'sur goal. and we're not deciding here whether people would be tried, whether guantanamo or here. we're not deciding whether or not to abide by commission or article three courts. what we are doing is what everybody wants us to do. that is to have procedures here which will past. you acknowledged in your answer to senator begich i thought exactly that point. and that' what our goal is here. it can be argued elsewhere. guantanamo or here. if you are going it have article

three trials you clearly have to have those trials here in the united states. whether it's 10%, 30%,70%, whatever the percent is, you cannot empanel juries for article 3 crimes in down in guantanamo. there'sany reasons why we got to reform these procedures so that they past muster and we're going to make that effort. we think the three of you for your contribution to that effort. if there is any suggested changes in the language that you have strictly other than the ones you may have addressed today feel free to get those to us this week for the regard because we're going to taking this bill to the floor next week.

we also have a written stateme that's presented to the committee from professor david in l.a., an article prepared by retired judge patricia. these materials will be included in the record. if there's no additional questions, senator begich, if not, with our thas, we will stand adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations]

>> this evening senator ted

>> i am the representative of the council on the district of columbia. so we've been joined here today. we couldn't be more delighted by president obama's administration representative by of course secretary.

the deputy secretary mr. greenely. we're very twilighted to -- delighted to have you here. i want to congratulation you for picking the premiere senior wellness center in the district of columbia. we also want you to know it's not consequence that we've made this investment here. so we're 80,000 strong here. r senior residents are as you've met any of them in yr discussions about 38% male,62% female. for the most part they live in their own homes. they haverivate doctors. for the most part they do very well. they look to our government to make sure that we're providing assistance for home health care for example madame secretary.

we're also making the senior wellness center or whether they are in the mini senior buildings that we have in our community. so i wanted to thank mayor for his commitment, and know he's represented here by our office on agent director. we want to thank you for being here, director. but we also on behalf ofll of our residents f your coitment to reforming our system. we also want to let you know the residents of this district and all of theistricts voted for change and voted for a different senator in our nation. we couldn't be more thrilled to have y here. please note the residents look forward to hearing all of your information and being very

active i the change that we expect for our nation. thk you madame secretary. and i think i want to introduce you, miss ms. greenely who has joined us as well. you have joined us in working and talking to our senior. as we look to senior wellness, that we're looking at our aspects of a senior's life. we look forward to working with you as well. >> thanks to all of you for being here. i'm the secretary ang in. our role in this universe is to come visit wderful programs and promote your good work. if you want to know what we do, yku just need to come here. we have tremendous partners, it's wonderful to be here to work with the mayor and dr. brown. it takes all of us working together to help address the

needs of seniors. the mission has been to pvide supporto senior to help seniors age. and we think of those supports in a couplef ways. we want to focus on health and dependence app. and you can look at any of the programs that you have, health and exercise programs, i was spending a lot of them talking to dr. braun. -- dr. brown. we know we are pushing more and more on that focus. these are wonderful opportities and they start we the partnership that we have in working with the seniors and promoting your activities here the community. we come here and then we talk to the rest of the nation and say we need to be doing this everywhere else. and the good news is we are. this is a good represent take of what's happening across america to help seniors. i know before coming here, we talked about your name.

and that intentionally included wellness in your name. cause i was -- you can't reform to this as the senior center, it's theenior wellness center, by doin that you have called out yourocus on wellness and health. and what's wonderful for me today is to tell you that not only do i understd that but the leadership at the top understands that as well. president obama understands the importance of wellness and health. and so it's wonderful to have her come with us today to talk to you about what they are working on in terms of promoting health and wellness for seniors. i've known the secretaries for a long time. the administration in april, she was the governor in kansas for six years. we started to know each other years ago. when she was the commercial of reinsurance, she always focused on seniors within conmers, and

health. she comes to this position with a long background ofhat it takes to keeps senior hlthy. please help us welcome her today. >> thank you. thankou. 's great to be here in ward 4. ank you to the councilwoman for hosting us. thank you to the director of center for -- not only showing us the center but the wonderful work you do. we went from table and table and hearfrom your greatest fans and supporters. you have a lot o cheerleaders t there. i think it's appropriate here when the nation is consumed with thinking about the legacy of senator edward kennedy that we're here in the senior center and senior wellness center. certainly that was not better champions for older american than senator keddy. i had a great opportunity to know him and work with him over

the years. and not only did he help to create inhe older americans act but fund a number of programs including meals on wheels for senior who can't get to great centers like this but rely on nutrition. and he will certainly be missed. in my opportunity to just visit with folks havinlunch today, i heard about some concerns that i heard acro the country. seniors are worried about will they get to keep their doctor, what about cost that continue to rise, or folks who have medicare coverage struggling to afford prescription drugs. and today we are releasing a report that's brand new called america' senior and health

insurance reform protecting coverage a medicare because i think while a lot of the conversation has focused onhat will happen with americans who have no coverage at all, it's important to talk a little bit about the health reform puzzle for those who have coverage and particularly who's going to happen with medicare coverage. and there is a lot of good news in the bills that have been drafted by the house and senate so far. no longer will years pay for primary care and preventive care. so wellness doctor will be greatly promote the by encourage students and encouraging check ups on a regular basis. it's ironic to me that we will payor cancer treatment but we won't pay for screenings to hopefully get a handle on it. and drug costs will be lowered based on health reform and the

so-called donors about 4 million americans hit every year where they continue to have a pay a premium to get no help will be dramatically decreased. the over payment to insurance companies that currely is occurring with medicare advantage plans will cease to exist. what happens right now is every senior and the bulk of senioring, the majority of seniors are in a plan. they are paying an extra 90 a year for the over subsidy of insurance companies for medicare advantage and not receivi the benefits. if the law isn't changed, if health reform isn't psed opinion dtors who provide servic medicare patients will see a 21% cut in their pay.

that's a carryover of the prior administration that wasn't fix. health reform fixes it. people are worried about losing your doctor. there's no better way to lose your doctor than to cut their pay by more than 1/5 and try to keep folks delivering care. so there is lot of good news for medicare. not the least of which in making changes the overall financing is scheled to fun out of money in 2017. and so the status quo just won't work. it won't work to provide essential services to way too many americans. the president talked abo health insance reform. he's not just talking abouthe americs with no coverage at all. he's talking about what happens

wi the owners who are being priced out of the market, what happened with folks that are booted out of the their health insurance plan who have gotten ill or might have preexisting condition. and what happens with the 43 million americans like a lotf the folks in the center, madame director, w rely onedicare to provide the services. health insurance reform is about all of those americans and will make huge difference in not on the cost that they pay but the kind of quality of care they receive. with that i'd be happy to answer a few questions. >> you mentioned senator kennedy's legacy. yesterday you said that you would like health reform legislation to bare his name. what do you think about that? >> i'd like health reform legislation to ps. and i think naming is a decision

that the united states senate will make. i think passing is the big first step. that's what senator of thes. certainly having a tribute to him would be very appropriate. there was no better champion. this is a life goal of his. i think he delivered his first speech about t bright of americans who have health care across this country in 1969. so he's been having this conversation for a very long time. >> madame secretary, there are two stands that have come through, kennedy the lion, keedy the deal maker. which is more useful as they go forward in the health reform debate? >> i think having been a recoveri legislator myself. you need both. you need principals and to know what the fundamental things that are you believe in. and you need to get things done.

senator kennedy had both. he had a belief system and constituency who had represented strongly and aocated onheir behalf knowing that a lotf the people he spoke for had no other voice or champion. and at the end of the day he knew making progress on issues were critically important. i think we need both right now in the senate. >> in following the strain of the senator kennedy comment, looking forward to health care reform which you want to see passed, what will h legacy mean to passage in negotiations might now? we kno that senator dodd, he was fairly intimately involved. could you cment your thoughts >> i don'think there's any question he will be missed. just his physical presence has

been missed over the last month. because he is not only knowledgeable but had decades of retionships with people. and a lot of legislative process is about relationships. about putting people together, finding some common ground. and kennedy did that as well as anybody. so that will certainly be missed. i hope also that if people are truly interested during his legacy and there's a lot of conversation about that, the best possible legacy is to pass health reform this year and have a bill that president obama could sign. and hopefully at every step along the say they will ask what would teddy do and move forward? >> the naming isn't so important as passing legislation itself. what'sis role in getting that

legislation passed. do you see it as a challenge? >> sure, it is -- there's a very strong voice missing in the senate. and that i always -- it makes things more difficult. i think in the question the help committee bill reflects a lot of what the senator believes he was involved even at a distance in framing that legislation. he has been advocating health reform for 40 years and so that's not going to be lost on anyone. those lessons and that is not going to going away. will his presence and voice be missed? you bet. i could probably take one more. yes, sir. >> the discussions and town halls discussions here in d.c.

about -- can you comments about that? is there any headway or update about the public option plan or no public option plan and what does for the court -- once congress returns and about the options. >> there are three bills out of house committees all of which have a public option component. e bill that was put forward by the senate health committee has the public option. the workhat still isn't finalized is what the senate finance committee wil do. i think the president continues to believe as i do that in a new marketplace having a competitor to private insurance companies is the best way to hold steady and provide consumer choice. and both are essential

elements. whether or not there is another strategy to hold the costs and provide competion like a co-op remains to be seen. nobody has seen the language. but i think holding down costs, not just relying on insurance companies to do something but actually providing some cost competion to lower costs and provide consumer choice is essential. and i think the best strategy that i've seen so far is definitely a public option to do that. might there be other ideas, sure, and they can be evaluated. but nobody is backing away from the notion that we need control and competition in a new market. thank you all very much. [applause]

>> this month the 8th circuit cot of aeals heard the

>> david cameron -- the british service the established as the world's largest public funded. it provides free health care to all of british residents. >> tay i want to talk about the national health service. because in america today, there is a real debate going on about health care. but here in britain, the recent political exchange over the nhs has been neither real nor a debate. not real because the focused on a qstion. and that is the conservative parties commitment to the nhs. and not really a debate because

the back and forth of the past week or so seems to have been more about political point storming than an extremely serious. how in a world of rapidly rising health care cost and demand should we deliver the rising standards of health care, the peoplexpect, in the 21st century within a taxpayer funded point of view system in which treatment is provided to all on the basis of need not the basis of ability to pay. this is the question i will try to answer today. but first i just want to say a word about the values of the nhs and the conservative parties belief in them. i know perfectly well that some of the changes we've made in this passage over the last few years have not been easy to accept. but there is one change we've

made where frankly it's felt like pushing on a completely open door. that has been making chris stall clear our commitment to the national health service. conservatives rely on the nhs, work in the nhs, voluntary to help the nhs. this posse wants to improve the national health service for everyone. it's not really to do with ideology or philosophy or any abstract political theory. it is the simple, practic, common sense human understanding of a fantastic and precioufact of british life. if you are injured or fall ill, the momentomething happening to someone you love, you know whatever is wrong, where you are from, there's a place you can go where people will look at you

and do their best to make you better. that's why we are committed and to the principal of the health care sysm that for interviews based on need and not oy the ability to pay. but that's just the starting point. the real debate, the real debate we should be having is how do we improve the nhs given the enormous pressures that we're going to face. the death crisis means that we need a new approach to public spending to make sure we get more for less. but in the nhs, i d't believe that even that will do. the pssures on health care spending from an aging populaon for medical advances and from rising expectations are simply too great. the biggest pressure is of course our aging population. the fastest growing age group in britain today are those over 70 years. for the first time ever there

are more elder than children. as people live longer, they are more likely to live with one long-term condition such as diabetes or parkinson's diase. it's estimated that 6 million older people will be suffering. the number of people with dementia will increase. osteopro sis will increase. these are increasing of up to 50% from poday. while we are living longer, we're also becoming less healthy in many ways. obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, health problems are all on the rise, putting massive pressure on the nhs resources with alcohol abuse, and obesity estimated to cost a staggering 4

billion. what is are impression that is are so big to fight? and not just the spur rat scares. we used to think of -- but the number of cases of tb increased by 25% since the turn of the millennium. hiv is fastest growing heah problem in the uk with 80,000 people living with it. and perhaps on the shocking rise in modern disease has been hep title c. since 1997, the number of cases reported each year has almost tripled. the latest figures show that 6,000 people have been affected. the dartment of health estimated you can double that number with nearly 400,000 being

effected. now while the number of patients are rising, so to is the range of treatment. today the medical dvances are increasing at axponential rate. the technoly, all of these things are being integrated into the gork. roadblocks millions a routinely used. those of risk of inherited diseasmay not be referred for genetics diagnostic at a cost of 5,000 pounds. patients under going operations might have sented put into their air ways or blood vessels costing 60,000 pounds alone. these are the technologies we have in operation. right now they are working on

authority official limbs, breathalyzer that can diagnose a disease from a puff. now of course effective new drugs and technology have the potential to cost more. butverall the cost implication in the supply and demand for health care is clear. spending on the nhs cannot stand still. because standing still would taking it backwards. that's why we made the decion to pledge real terms increases in nhs. now that is pledge that labor has not made. the fact which to put it, rather takes the wind out of the point-scoring sales. we are the only party to make that pledge. but even so, we have to recognize given the huge pressures faced by the nhs over the coming decades that increase

in spending alone is not going to be enough. the gap between what we'll have to do and what we can afford to do presents an urgent need for reform. and we need reform on both sides of the health equation. we have to make the supportf health care more efficient. but we must also do something about the increasing demand for health care as well. now the first set of reforms dealing with the supply, that's all about choice and competition. and i believe a focus on outcomes rather than targets. while the second sed of things aling with the demand for health care is about health agenda. and i believe in this party that we have shown w now have the yes credentials to achieve both of those things. reform has become something of a

rty word. after in education, after a number of wasted years, the labor has started moving. so i think it will be quite wrong for me to stand and pledge and started afresh. while, labor going in the right direction, i want us to go further and faster. but where they got things wrong they will cl and undo those mistakes. first of all, let me make sure what you are reforms won't look li. with these endless top-down restructure and reorganizations that have dominated the last decade of the nhs. the changes are rebadge, restructured, and rereformed. these things have caused terrible disruption, demoralization and waste. we believe we can make a big

improvement terms of quality and efficiency within the structures that already exist, the pcts. first by extenting the competition and choice that labor has started. equipping patient with the information they need to refm and exercise more control over their own health. and second by focusing on real health outcoming, will i live longer? will i feel better rather than the political process targets. now the argument seems to have been won a long time ago. market mechanisms will help drive up standarding and drive down some of the costs. speed limitation ofompetition has damaging the unclear and consistency. the nhs and independent never seem to compete of equal terms.

they were weighed in and pushed out. such an approach is never going to bring forward the long-te vestment that we need. only a stable within transparent, and procompetitive frame work will attract the sector in invest in and expand the capacity of the nhs. now that means you need clear payment, commissioner structure, and clarity, and the proposals have set out will give the clear legislative frame work it needs. but reducing political risk, it will open up the opportunity by any providers to all the private sector to nhs patients accepting commercialisk at nhs prices and at theight quality and standards. it should be given in contracts to quality as well as value for

money. and it needs a proper partnership with the independence and sector. not a push over like the government's experience where the contracts were awarded at greater expen than the e live lent cost in the nhs. it's a good example of how a genuine example can work. so identify local children and young people who are on the list waiting for wheelchairs. the primary care truck offers them a base, and within two years who needed one had a wheelchair. this shows that bringing in different organizations is not just about competition, but it cares about it too. greater competition is vital to make a reality for what i see is the next crucial step in nhs reform. that is more choice. the speeches show that the understand the public's demand

for greater control, greater choice over the health care they receive. :

>> they should be guided by gp that they had a real relationship with. why? because it should be a gp they have chosen rather than one they are just a quick. labor undermined the gp relationship with their catastrophic gauche agent of the gp contract. which took the responsibility for organizing away from gps. we're going to restore the link that was lost by giving gps the responsibility of managed that anti-relationship that a patient has with the nhs. so either they will provide the care of that person needs or they have to commission it from another provider, or along with the patient they decide on a combinion that the two. with this power, gps will be able to control the budgets for the care of eac of their

patients. in stead of far-off bureaucracy, soaking up the bunny, local doctors will be able to ensure that money follows the patient and is bent on front-line care. that will depend on the decisions that gps and patients make it all of those arguments we have about trying to protect and defend the emergency unit and the smaller unit from the top down dreadful decisi-making we've hadnder labor, those decisions will be driven by gps and patients in a much, much better way. and there are human benefits are clear also. that family doctors insures that even to the course of your treatment you may see many, many specialist but there is always one person in charge who you know by name and you trust comptely. with their help people will be empowered and informed to make the right choices about their treatment. i think tha will make a b difference for the way peoe feel about the health care that theyet. now of course the thing that actually matters to people most

when they become injured or when they become ill, is what will happen to them whether their pain will be relayed, whether they will be able to live a normal life after the operation is over. in some cases, whher they will live or die. outcomes, outcomes. that is what patients are actually focused on. and that is what the nhs should focus on also. it sounds blindingly obvious but it is something the government seems to have lost sight of. the imposition of all those political process target has skewed the focus of nhs away fr what really matters. the consequence of this approach ranges from the harmless to the outrages and to the downright appalling. three quarters of nurses, three quarters of nurses say patients are regularly in the wrong mortgages to meet a target. the health care commission has linked the pressure to meet target with the rise in hpital

infections. they are the key regulatory body saying that the targets have led to extra infections. and he lets us in compounds are regular users waiti room putting them out of action pazeau amd patients don't enter the work and start the clock running on the four-hour maximum target. tragically, a 16 year old cancer patient died after waiting over an hour for them and good to transfer him. three and lives could have reachedim but they were tied up waiting to hand over patience to amd. health targets have in many cases made people more unwell instead of making them better. and their impact, around all the people who work in nhs has as we all know that significant. by endlessly trying to specify how the nhs should respond to every situation, the government has a salt of the responsibility and a vital sense of vocation of everyone who worksn our nhs. how can that be good for policy, for efficiency, for patient

care? so the first part of our reform, in the area where instead of buildi on the changes made, we want to go in the opsite correction would be to replace labors process targets with actual health outcome measures. conservatives understand there is no one size fits all model that we had drop in why to. this is true in health as an area of the survey whitehall plant would not fit the patie or a pensioner who needs company more than medicine, or the child in a&e who is in covered in bruises. the target, they can't help you with those sortsf things. the millions of human dramas that pour through the doors of the nhs need different responses on the spot decisions, professional initiative judgment and discretion. but replacing targets with outcome measures doesn't mean sort of caving in to the professials and removing a tangibility at some of our opponents have argued that we don't have some ïve view you

can just put taxpayers money into the health servicand just hope for the best. our reform plan will improve accountability, not diminish it. because we are going to replace the bureaucratic accountability, of process targets with the democratic accountability of outcome targets. instead of being obsessed with processe we will be obsessed with the result, the health outcomes that matter to people. what are my chances of living independently if i have a stroke, h long will my dad survived if he gets cancer, what chances do i have of surviving from heart disease? that's what patients actually carebout, the outcome. and that's what the nhs should cus on. so the end of the top down targets and the introduction of transparency, the collection and publication of health outcome information will give people the power to hold the professionals to account. the power of competition, the opening up of the nhs to new

providers will bring innovation and investment. and the power of choice, ability of people to control the service they get will lead to better quality care. these reforms will creat a more user friendly and efficient nhs th both meets patient expectation and restores professional responsibility. so these three forms, more competition, more choice, and a focus on health outcomes are all about making the supply of our health care, the working of the nhs, better and more efficient. that we've also got to look at the other side of the cost equation. we need to do what they can to reduce the demand on the nhs, the demand for health care. and that means a much more effective approach to public health. on almost every public health indicator, britain has ackley gone backwards in recent years. this is the sort of untold and deep depressing story about health in brita. esity, up?

drug abu, up. retransmitted infection, write a. and none of this is inevitable. they are not the necessary prices of becoming a more prosperous country. other countries don't have all of our health problems. we are the most obese nation in europe are our teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in western europe. more than double the western european average. there is nothing inevitable about the. there are plans to reduce political interference in the day-to-day running of the nhs, will enable us to do a very important thing. that is to change the department of health and to the department of public hlth. with sarate public health funding,ing fence protected to focus on preventing illness rather than just tearing i and that way money for the long-term change will not be siphoned off by the short-term crisis and the short-term demand. it will be used whenever tre is a need for spding on public health, a cross government

department at national or local level. that might mean working with a department of children or getting more kids into afterschool sport. it might mean giving local authorityelp dealing with damn housing that is leading rectly to bad health with a ring set budget to treat the causes of poor health, we can start to defy that depressing trajectory of illnesses of the government seen have to resign today but i don't think for one moment this will be enough. i think one important explanation for labors frankly disastrous record on public health is their philosophical attachment to top down state control. when it comes to public health today, you can't just reach for the levers of legislation and regulation. it might he worked for the clean air t of 1956, a good conservative piece of education, of course. but we can somehow just wave a magic wand and bringing the elimination of alcohol abuse act

2009, 2010. bureaucratic methods are increasingly ineffective today. why? because the public health problems of today are increasingly the consequence of perfectly legal decisions made by people, individually in their own private space. people choosing t binging on junk food. to sit on the internet rather than going for a run, two-drink to pass out. now i stu my neck out about this issue before in a speebh in moscow, which i suspect was the fact speech, what i said instead of blaming facts are everything, we've got to recognize there is a moral choice that personal responsibility cannot be shirked. i have also spoken about how difficult it can be to make responsible choices within a highly seductive commercial environment. i think what i said about chocolate oranges will also go with me tthe great. but i don't regret it because the truth is that many g businesses are making huge

profits on t back of peoples very poor health choices. so what? a party that can make sense of this, is not the party that instinctively reaes to the bureaucratic solution,ut the party that understands and is utterly committed to promoting bo personal responsibility, but also corporate responsibility, and the party that understands that its social responsibility, everyone playing their part, not state control, and in britain today it's the conservative party that is that party. now i don't want to be unfair in my criticisms of labor. they do have some of the best intentions about the n, and they have done some good with the nhs to but they and their reform have come to the end of the line. our health service is crying out for the next stage of change. and i believe we have shown tha we are the ones bring about that change, a we have earned

the right to call ourselves the party of the nhs today. we believe in the nhs. we understand the pressures it faces. and we have a plan to make the changes that it needs. so with the party of the nhs today, values of the nhs but we had a vision for the future of the nhs. we are the only ones who are committed to the resources the nhs needs, and we're the only party with a plan that the nhs needs. so this is the real debate. we should be having in this country. and i believe that the conservative commitment to the nhs combined with conservative reform of the nhs can ge is, if you like, the best of both worlds, the fairness of a national health service that is unique to our country combined with the quality and the personal services that people are used to in other countries. and that is what a conservative government will dedicate itself to do. thank you. [applae]

>> thank you. thank you. now have time for questions. and andrew, who has done this job done for many, many years has a huge expertise and knowledge of the nhs and has worked with both all of us who use the nhs, but also the professionals in the nhs. d i think builds up a very good relationship with the. he is also here today, and microphone up. if the questioning gets real technical. but who wants to kickff? >> mr. cameron, welcome speech. thank you very much in the. russell would like to ask you, and nearly seven years there would have been without any kind of children's unit in southpo. we might well get a walk in

unibody end of this year but under a lot of pressure. do you think a seaside resor is the right thing to do? and also services are being transferred to other hospitals without any consultation with the public. >> thank you. very good to see a. i remember campaigning with you on the street. i think the biggest change we can make is what i referred to in the speech is that at the moment i think people feel that decisions about the provision of health services are sort of handed down like tablets of stone from on high. and i remember the debate about particular maternity unit and emergey uns, but people felt that ministerial groups were making decisions. and has completed the wrong way for us to deliver our health services. to help, the pattern of health should depend on the decisions that we make and that gps make with us about where we want to be treated.

and way to save the community hospital, and they deeply believe are good for us, the way to save the smaller units that many people want to have their children in, it's actually for gps and us as individuals to make decisions to use those units so they are successful. that's how the provision of care, should be determine rather than top down decision-making from whitehall. i think that is one of the changes we want to bring. >> the lady here in the front. >> has said there is a deep philosophical difference between the conservatives attitude of the nhs and the lor party's attitude and that the prime minister can take all members of his party believe firmly in the nhs. >> our party has helped to build national health service. it has been in existence now nce shortly after the second world war. there have been as any conservative years as labour government and conservative goments have built hospital,

have built the nhs over many, many years back and actually only one party that has ever cut the nhs, and that was the labor party in 1977. why did theyo that? they did that because they left the country as they'r going to again in areadful financial state. in the realuestion for labor is this, we have made a very clear commitment that we will increase the budget of the nhs in real terms every year by more than inflation over parliament. why can't t labor party make the same pledge? they think they are the party of e s, it is a very simple question. will mr. brown pledge to real terms increases in the nhs. i've done it. will be followed by late? that's the question you deeply everyone is behind you in your party? >> of urse. conservative party has shown, who has run a campaign? you know from yr work. who has run campaigns in the last few years to save emergency

unit, to stand up for the maternity units, to campaign for the children services that has been conservative candidates, conservati mps. we have been the ones running the street, defending nhs while labour politicians have been shutting down much of the comiunity rvices. that's what has been happening. let's boil it down to one simple question. as they say in jerry maguire, show me the money. right? we have shown you the money. we have made an exception of the nhs. everyone knows that public spending cuts are going to have to be made after the next election if we have to do. very poorly. obden brown will not say it clear he. showed that everyone knows that's going to happen. even his own figures demonstrate it but we have made an exception to the nhs did we thinit is special. will he do the same? very simple question. [inaudible] >> thiguy is a member of the european parliament, quite eccentric views. and if you ask orden brown to back all of the use, of all the

people, he still has people who want to nationalize its a. he still has people who mourn the death of communism. most of his party still members of c. and d. i think the relevant question, is show me the money. we have shn you the money. come on, gordon brown. follow our lead. >> i completely agree with what you said about people ought to take more personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. but what we actually propose to do with the government to encourage peopl to do that? >> a very good question. i think there is no one -- there isn't a restoration of personal responsibility and bill you can pass the parliament. i think what you've got to dit in every avenue of life, in every decision you can take, ascus of a very sime question. does this encourage responsibility o does it discourage responsibility. so we should be saying when it comes to helping families, is

the tax and benefit system healthy and responsible decision-making for people want to stay together and directing, or discourage it. when it comes to a special responsibility thing power to professionals to do the right thing or are we covering them in red tape and try to second-guess the. every single thing that we do. and it goes across whether we are talking about how we relate to families, how we relate to crim how we relate to the professions. and all those different ways. and part of it is actually using what in america they lled the bullet popn. is actually when you see by businesses and responsible behavior, use praises and say, you know for instance, what they do to help employ people with mental health problems. that is a credit to them and to our country. but when you see a responsible behavior, people marketing in inappropriate ways whether it's the early sualization of childrenwhether it's unhealthy food or other things, y feel

quite free to say that also. it has landed in hot water before. about for instant point-of-sale displays in supermarkets and elsewhere. but i don't regret it for one moment. we all as rent subject to thes pressures. and anyone, you go to buy a newspaper, you still have to run that chocolate as you go down. everyone recognizes thipoint. it's like sort of a chicane of crisps of chocolate. and just to get by the time you get there, the tee-year old or the five year old have actually pulled your concert off and on and so hard to get you to bty things you should be by. we should have a realistic debate. not regulate, not sort of banter, not pass a law that says you can't sell this you can't sell that. t to say the companies, look, we're all in this together and if people make badn a responsible choices, your taxes will go up.

i wanted to visit, i want to cut your taxes. i want to make this the most from the enterprise country this can be. i can't cut your taxes if a ibault with the social breakdown, if we could d with the unhethy choices we are making. so we are all in this together. show some corporate responsibility just as we show personal responsibility, and we will have a healthier nation. which would cost less. we have less social break-in and what could be a low tax country. but in the end, if you're not a socially and personally responsible country. that's the debate we suld be having. right in the back. gentleman in the thai. >> if we're going to make the health service more efficient, however going to assist in improving morale so that we dot have the horrendous figures of 14% people taking sick leave in the ye as original heard yesterday? >> i think it is partly a morale issue because of theressures in nhs but also partly a

management issue. the figures came out are not acceptable. we haveot a proem of people taking a lot of sickness and taking a lotf time off, and that isn't accepble. as i say it is partly morale, and will help interminable row by restoring a sense of professional responsibility, getting off people's backs with these process targets. but we alsneed good manement in the nhs inefficiency in the nhs and the competition and choice i have been talking about, i think we'll try to. i think it is an extremely important point. one last question. someone from over here. this geneman right here. >> i am doctor christian, and founder of the cooperatives. i welcome the statement to turn out of responsibility doctors. at my right to understand than at you iend to return the responsibility to the collaborative american services collectively r administered by the local gps so that in a hour

stations always invite gp rather than by somebody commercially airlifted from somewhere for convenience? >> guessed that i will bring in and on this but it seems to me that the key, the gatekeeper in the nhs should beat the gp. the way to introduce a choice and competition driven moderate if you let the gp and the patient work together to make the choices about the path you choose through the nhs. we are not well enough informed consumers to know when we get ill etc. which treatment we need and which hospital, by which doctor. you would have to be incdibly expert to do that. but working with her gp, you can ask about what choices are available on what options are available. you canak that choice and the ney should followhe decisions that you take and the gp holds t budget under patrick seemto me this is the way to cut out the bureaucracy, the middleman, and to make that happen. and to those who say choice and

personal respoibility and personal choices are not going to work in the nhs, consider this. no when almost anyone gets ill, or they have a child is ill, what is the first thing we do? we log on, we plug-in, swine f or epilepsy or damage or whatever to find out about it. and by the time we go to the doctor or when we get back to the doctor we are also bond with questions and information are subject that is a really good thing. an we should encourage that we shouldn't encourage people to be informed and empowered and to act on that advice. but on the point about cooperatives, let me bring in andrew. >> think you. and thank you for the question. just to add one thing really is that out of our general practice is literally that. is an extension of general practice. so the 2004 contract where it fundamentally went wrong was to treat 6:30 p.m. at night to 8 a.m. in the morning. somehow not part of the gp's

responsibility. that doesn't mean we're going to go back to a world where each gp ha to be available all night to the patient. at gps collectively, and that is your point i think, collectively should be in a position to commission the care and will make rlpportunities for greate efficiency as well because they were built to look at extended hours opening out of hours general practice, walking centers, and the contract with the a good service and be able to look at all those things together. ther than seeing them as four separate contracts are actually they all are part of how you de with urgent need for care that isn't 8999 emergency during the course of the night or the weeken >> thank you very much d i thank everyone for coming and to all those who organized today's event. and this great debate by the nhs to continue, but for arthur, we are off for a hospital visit. thank you very much in the. thank you. [applause]

>> gordon brown and israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu to question on the release of the pan am lockerbie bomber, iran's nuclear capabilities and the middle east peace process. during a news conferencarlier this week in london. this is 20 minutes. >> let me t of all welcome prime minister netanyahu to london. it is a great pleasure to have you here to congratulate you on becoming prime minister and to work with you on allhe issues that affect both our countries and the futurof the world. prime minister netanyahu, and we

have had good talks today. dascussion of legalistic as ever but more off domestichan before. i reiterate that we in the united kingdom will always main a strong friend of israel. and that israelis and palestinians will always be able to count on our support for peace. we share a vision of a secure and confident iael, accepted often by its neighbor alongside decades of waiting a secure and i'll post an. in the region at peace with itself. i strongly agree with prime minister netanyahu and we've talked about this on many occasions, but the palestinian economy must be allowed to flourish so i strongly welcome his recent moves to remove checkpoints on the west bank, and economic roadmap and i know thathe prime minister is committed to exactly that. we also discussed thissue of settlements. i make clear that a settlement activity was a brier to

two-state solution. i have increasingly confident however that there is a genuine ll to make progress that a ch activity will result in ny steps toward normalization from ara states. president obama has my strong suppt inis efforts to pursu this agend and i know prime minister netanyahu will be meeting mr. mitchell tomorrow. the u.k. willook to work with the u.s. and the european union and the international community to support pital economicly and in the security field the implication that any future pce agreent. we also discussed and will continue to discuss iran. i made it again absolutely clear to president netanyahu that we deplored recent comments that the iranian regime about israel. such dir tribe has no place in a civilized world. we also share israel's concerns over iranian ambitns to develop a nuclear weapon. the region and world have nothing to fear from a civilian u.k. program in iran, but iran's

actions do not makeheir arguments convincing. iran needs to coopere with the inteational community, to take a president obama's unprecedented offer of engagement. until then, the international community will continue to view iranian offials with suspicion. prime minister, wcome again. i lookorward to working as closely to you again in the future. we share our anxieties of iran and we share a common desire of peace in the middle east. i wl be happy to answer any questions after this stateme by you. i ask you to speak to the press. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, prime minister. i'm very pleased to be here in great britain today with good friends, good friend of israel, gordon brown. brain has shared a link with our history and a common

relationship that is based on shared valueand common interest. i just came from the palestine exploration fund. it was established by joy in 1865 and some of the most remarkable and moving studies of jewish htory's and the holy land were undertaken in the 19th century. and the findings there had jt what i just said, there is a shared heritage and a shared history and i think in many ways younow that, gordon, from your own personal history. we have common hopes and we have also common challenges. and i discussed with the prime minister of the need to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. it's clear such weapons would pose a grave threat to israel, to ouregion, to the world.

and i woullike to take the opportunity to commend the continued efforts of the british governmentto address this threat. in a clear voice that comes out of london, and i think that we should expect all responsible members of the international community to show similar results. we also discussed the peace process. i reiterated ra's commitment to peace and outlined what i believe is the winning formula for peace. a demilitared palestian statthat rognizes the jewish state. and we're working hard to advance a peace process that would lead to an actual piece result. and i hope to move forward in the weeks and months ahead. we are not waiting. we have already moved.

my government has removed 150, to be precise, 147 checkpoints and roadblocks. the 14 remaining checkpoints, 12 of them are manned 24 hours a day. seven days a week. to facilitate movement. i have extended the time of passage on t bridge on the rdan river in order to facilitate movement in and out of the palestinian territories. i sre that seeks to move and have removed roadblocks to economic activities on the west bank. we have moved on the ground. i have also moved n mely in deed but in words. i have spoken about the need to achieve up demitarized palestinian state next to a jewish state, and i think that this has resonated far and wide.

it wasn't easy to do but this is what we have done in a short period of time, the four month we are in fice. so we have moved. we expect similar movement from the palestinian authority. and certainly based on what we have seen in the recent conflicts, there has not been that movement. that is an understatement. but there has to be that movement. there has to be not mery a partner on the other side. there has to be a courageous one. cause i think we have shown a certain amount of fortitude and leadership, and that is what routes reqred for the palestinians a. they have to say unequivocally is over. we're going to make a real peace. you'll b a final peace. it will be a piece that wil end all claims to further conflict. it will be a peace that will result in palestinian refugee once and for all and just as can come to israel, palestinians can come to the palestinian state.

but not in israel because there has to be a jewish state. and if we are asked to recognize a palestinian state as the nationstate of the palestinian people, it is absolutely essential for the palestinian leadership says to the palestinian people you will have to accept israel as the nationstate of the jewish people. recognition is the pivot of pee. the absence of such a clear and forthright expressions by the palestinian leadership, of such recognition, is what has been holding peace of. and this is what people expect. so we have moved forward. we intend to move forward. but we expect the palestini partners to be courageous partners for peace and move forward. and with the help of our friends, in the united states, in britain, and elsewhere, i think we can achieve progress.

and a confab of credits and surise the world. but there is no substitute for courageous leadership on all sides. and i want to take this opportunity to thank you, gordon, a true friend of israel, and a true friend of peace, and i think a champion of decency. and i want to express my hope that we will continue working together in the time ahead for the benefitf the people of israel, the people of israel -- britain. and for the benefit of peace. ank you. >> thank you very much. prime minister, i have ask you about the release of the lockerbie bomber. y. you remain silent on this issue until now? what if he was the involvement of the u.k. government in his relief -- release?

was at the right thing or the right thing to release this man? >> my first thoughts have been with the families of the victims of the lockerbie bombing. and i hav to tell you that i was both angry and i was repulsed by the recession that a convicted bomber, guilty of a huge terrorist crime received on his return to libya. when i met general qadhafi over the summer, i made it absolutely clear to him that we had no role in making the decio about his future. because it was a quasijudicial matter, because it was a matter legislated for by thecottish parliament and n by us, it was a matter over which we could n interfere and had noontrol over the final outcome. i want to make it absolutely clear however that whatever the decision was made on compassionate grounds byhe scottish parliament i result of

fight terrorism, to work without a country to ight and root out terrorism is total and we want to workith countries, even countries like libya who he renounced nuclear weapons now and want to join the international community. we want to work with them in the ght against terrorism around the world. >> two questions, please. [inaudible] >> prime minister brown, called in prison to stop funding israel he left his opposition organizations su as breaking silence, what is your reaction to that? >> i think we're trying to achieve two goals. one is to reactivate the pce procs, and the second is to enable normal life for the israeli resident and introduce,

we have about a quter of a million people, to have children, to go to schoo classrooms a in kindergarten, kindergartens they need to have a place to house theamilies that this is very different from grabbing land. and i have made it clear that we are not going to build new settlements. what we are seeking to achieve with the united states in the talks were conducted or conduct a more or conduct after tomorrow, is defined a rigid formula that will enable us to at once launch the process but enable those residents to continue living normal lives. and when we have something to report on the stack, which is not necessarily what has been reported, and then you will hear it ld and clear from a. >> let's be clear tha we want to d everything we can in the united kingdom to support the peace process. we want an israel that people

feel secure against the reat of terrorism, and that should be diminished by any actions that are taken. and what a viable palestinian economic state so that people could see the benefits of prosperity from peaceful coexistence and working together. and we want to work with prime minister netanyahu and with the palestinians t make surehat happen and want to involve the rest of the arab states in making sure that they support a peace process that works. >> jeremy from the bbc. a question for each of you. first of all, mr. netanyahu. will you continue, while utah, continue t build homes for jews in those parts of jerusalem that israel captured in 1957? and mr. brown, do you think that the scottish decision on the lockerbie release has undermined britain's position with allies like israel and the u.s.? >> i mad it clear in my

conversation with president obama in washington amah incense, that rusalem is a sovereign country of israel admits of no limitations on our sovereignty. this is directly -- to put a fine point on this, jerusalem is not a settlement. a settlement issue is outstanding. it has t be one of the issues resolved in the negotiation alongside the palestinian recognition of the jewish state. and if i could demilitarization arrangements for any future peace agreement. but our position is that jerusalem is the united capal of the jewish people. is only been around a swiveling around there for three and half thousand years. we recognize obviously have residents with jerusalem. they enjoy all that equal rights and all the equal benefits of the jewish residents that we don't draw a different. >> i don't think what has happened will undermine our relationship with israel or the united states, or other countries who are engaged with

us in the fight against trrorism. i made absolutely clear that whatever the decision is made on a quasijudicial basis by the scottish parliament, our determination to fight terrorism it is clea it is sho since the committee leven, it is shown in the support that we have given in iraq and afghanistan even with problems with terrorism reared its ugly head, and it has shown in every action we have taken to protect the british people and prect people beyond against the threat of terrism. final question. >> question to both prime ministers. something that has clarify as soon @s possible because time and months is taking way. iranian problem. according to your intelligence, how much time do you evaluate left until i ran, before iran turned, which ishe point of no return? and should all measures peaceful measures, be

unnecessary or fail or lead to a dead end, and you think they inevitably eventually a military action will have to be taken against iran, if everything else fails? >> well, as you know, i am not in the habit and i'm not going to do it today to give out details of inteligence advice that is given t us about matters sensitive as nuclear weapons. but i do say to you that we recognize the threat that is posed by iran. we recogni that if they make the decision to go forward and tocquire nuclear weapons, tt is of profound significance to the rest of the world tha we believe thatran has a choice. they can work with the international community. they can access to civil new clip our and take th rightful place with a peaceful and important par in the world. or they can find themselves ostracized and excded because of the decision to break the nonproliferati trey and to hide from the world what they

are doing to build up nuclear weapons power. i hope iran will make the right decision. i believe is an obama has offered iran a way forward for this, but i also believe that we've got to be open with every option with iran and at the same time if there is no further progress immediately, then i believe the world will have to look at standing as a matter of priority. >> first, i need to correct, i'm in my response, jeremy. we have not been around in jerusalem for 3500 years. we have been arould there only 3000 years it. so pretty long i would say. the second point you ask. time is running out. is late in the day. but it is not too late. and if the is a firm resolve by iernational community to

apply, crippling sections to borrow a phrase from secretary of state hillary clinton, then i think this regime will have to make a very fficult decision about its future course. i think it is susceptible to these pressures. i think what has been revead in the recent events, dramatic events of the iranian election is that this regimeoes not enjoy the support of the iranian people. it isar weaker than meets the eye. at it the resolve of the responsible members of international community is strong and firm, then however late theour, the future can b secure. and this is our preference. i thinkhat the stronger of those actions, those sanctions

are today the less there will need to be stronger actions tomorrow. >> thank you both. >> thank you very much.

>> release of the pan am one '03 lockerbie bomber al-megrahi. picture was originally sentenced to life in prison for his role in the 1988 bombing that killed 270 people. this is a debate on the scottish parliame on the government's decision to release him to his home country of libya. justice secretary secretary macaskill defended and to question. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> this is the topic of the

utmost seriousness in the eyes of many across the globe. while today's business will understandably, i will respectfully remind members that we all have a party play in maintaining the sense of dignity and decorum that is expected of us. cabinet secretary will take question at the end of the statement and therefore there should be no ierruptions or interventions during. this is a 20 minute statement and i will now call on the cabinet secretary justice, kenny macaskill. >> on the 20 foggers, i announced the deciions i have taken in relation to two applicatns in respect of mr. al-megrahi. i am absolutely committed to the tegrity of this institution. i believe it is appropriate that i should lay off the bases a reasoning of my decision. accordingly, i will now repeat the substance of that announcement for the benefit to parliament and will answer any and all questions which members

may have. onhe evening of the 20th two simmer, 80, they claimed the live of 270 innocent civilians. four days before christmas, n, women, and cren going about their daily lives were truly murdered. they included 11 from one small scottish town. that town was lockerbie. a name that will forever be associated witthe worst terrorist atrocity ever committed on u.k. soil. a prisoner transfer application was submitted to the government of libya seeking the transfer of mr. al-megrahi, the man convicted in the scottish courts. he also sought to be released on compassionate grounds. this crime proceeds both the

election of our government and even the rest of the nation of our parliament and scotland. the decisions that are conseqnce of the post of secretary that i am proud and privileged to hold. the applications have been lawfully made. and i was obliged to address. final advice from officials was given lead on friday, 14th of august, 2009. i'd deflected up on that advice before making and announcing my decision. it was my responsibility to decide upon these two applications. these were my decisions, and my decisions alone. in considering these applications, i strictly followed due process, include the procedures laid down in a prisoner transfer agreement,nd in the scottish prison service guidance of compassionate release. i listeno many representations

and received substantial submissis. i have already published key material on both the applications from prisoner transfer and for compassionate release. i will now move to publish other relevant to. some of this can only be done with the pmission of others which we are now seeking. the scottish police and prosecution service under the conference of investigation with the assistance of the united stat and other authorities. i pay tribute to them for the exceptional manner in which they operated in dealing with both the aftermath of the atrocity and th complexity of a worldwide investigation. went after al-megrahi was brought to justice, it was before a scottish court, sitting in the netherlands. and i painted it to our judges who presided and acted justly.

mr. al-megrahi wasentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people. when such an appalling is perpetrated, it is appropriate that a severe sentence be imposed. mr. al-megrahi has since withdrawn his appeal against both conviction and sentence. and as i've said consistently throughout, that's a matter for him and for the courts. that was his decision. my decisions were predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed, and a life seence imposed. the remaining concerns to some on the other issues of t lockere atrocity. this is a global issue, and international in its nature. the questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of scots law a strict agreement of the scottish government.

if aurther inquiry or bill to be appropriate, then it should be initiated by those that have acquired power and authority. the scottish government would be happy to fully cooperate in such an inquiry. bolivian government applied on fifth, may, 2009 for the transfer of mr. al-megrahi. to the transr agreements are negotiated by the united kingdom government. throughouthe negotiations, and at the time of the signing of the agreement with libby, the scottish government opposition was made clear. it was pointed out that the scottish prison service had only one lyan prisoner in custody. twithstanding that, the united kingdom government failed to secure as requeed by the scottish government and exclusionrom the pt for anyone

involved in the lockerbie air disaster. as a consequence, mr. al-megrahi was eligible for consideration for transfer in terms of the agreement entered into by the government of the united kingdom and libya. i received numerous letters and representations, and recogze that the decision on transfer would be a personal significae to those whose lives have been affected. accordingly, i decided to meet with groups and individuals with a releva interest. i met with the families of victims, those from the united kingdom who i vote yes on board the flight, as well as ose whose kinfolk were murdered in their homes and lockerbie. a lady from spain whose sister was a member of the cabinetry, and i held a video conference

with families on the united stes. i am grateful to each and every one of them. as i said earlier, for their fortitudon a matter which i know was still a source of great pain. i also spoke to the uted states secretary of state, hillary clinton, and the unite states attorney general, eric hoer. i met minister and his delegation from the libyan government. i've noted and csidered all the points presented, and also relevant written representations i received. prior to that agreement, it was scrutinized by the westminster joint committee on human rights. this was the first pt that did not require the consent of the prisoner. as a result, jack straw, uk's secretary of state for justice, gave a commitment that in cases

could applications were not submitted personally by the prisoner, e prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. mr. al-megrahi had the opportity to make representations. he chose to do so in person. that was his decision. of natural justice to refuse thisequest. therefore, i was duty bound to meet him. it was clear that both the united states government and the ameran families objected to a prison transfer. they did so on the bis of agreements and they said he dn't need prior to trial regarding the place of imprisonment of anyone convicted. the united stateattorney general eric holder was deputy attorney general at the time of

the pretrial negotiations. he was adamant that assurances have been given to the united states government that any person convicted wld serve his sentence in scotld. many other american families spoke at theonferenccot that they place placed upon these assuranceover the past 10 years. that clear understanding was reiterated to me by the u.s. secretary of state hillary clinton. i saw the views of the united kingdom government. i offered them the right to make representations or provide information. they declined to do so. they simply inrmed me that they saw no legal dy of transfer, and that they gave no issuances to the u.s. government at the te. they declined to offer a full explanatn. as i said last thursday, i found

that highly regrettable. i therere do not know what the exact nature of those discussions was nor what may have been agreed between government. however, i am certain of the clear understanding of the american families and the american government. therefore, it appeared to me that the american families and government either had an expectation or we led to believe that there wld be no prisoner transfer, and the sentence would be served in scotland. it was for hat reason that i accordingly rejected the libyan government application for prisoner transfer for al-megrahi. i now turn, as i did en, to the issue of compassionate lease. section three of the prisoners

and criminal proceedings in scotland act 1993 gives the scottish ministers the power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds. the act requires that ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justiing the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. although the act does not specify what the grods for compassionate release are, guidance from the scottish prison service to assess applications suggest that it may be consided when a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness, and death is likely to come soon. there are no fx limits for life expectancy, may be considered an appropriate period. the guidance makes it clear. that all prisone irrespective of the sentence length, are eligible to be considered for

compassionat release that guidance dates from 2005. on 24th of july, 2009, received an applicaon from mr. al-meghi for compassionate release. he was diagnosed with terminal prostateancer in september 2008. . .

>> >> also, as laid out in statute, i consulted the parole board. the opinion of his doctors that dealt with him, hired to -- the diabetes of prostate cance and having seen him during each of these stages, but his clinical condition declined. a range of specialist reached the consensus that the disease after several different trials of treatment, hormone resistant, no treatment options of known effectiveness. mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi was exampled by the doctors on august 2009 at the port from the

director of health andare from the scottish service. it indicates that the prognosis is no responsible estimate. the advice is based not only on the physical examination, but also from other opinions who had been involved in the care and treatment. he may have longer, i could only base my decision on the medical evidence that i had before me. it had been suggested that mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi would be released from prison to reside elsewhere in scotland. clear advice from the deputy chief of the police was at the security implications would be severe. a minimum of 40 officers would be required to monitor mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi to live in scoand.

i therefore ruled that out as an option. having therefore met the criteria and forever felt to me to decide whether this abdelbaset ali al megrahi should be the lease, i was conscience but deeply hailed that many would disagree whatever my decision. however a decision had to be made. it was a decision based on the law of scotland and the values i beleve that we seek to hold. it was not based on political diplomatic or economic. and as a matter of great regret that mr. abdbaset ali al megrahi was received in such a manner.

it showed no grieves to the 270 families. it needed to be dealt with in a low-key and sensitive fashion. to support my decision, it was given to uk and u.s. governments so they could seek silar assurances. however, my decision was eade following due process and according to the law of scotland, i had to use the values and laws of scotland. we will forer remember the ple that has been perm -- perpetrated. the pain and sufferingill remain forever. scotland can never heal. scars can never fade. those who can be believed cannot be expected let along

forgten. is one no court in any jurisdiction in any lines could revoke or overall. this is terminal, final, and e revocable. he is ing to try. in scotland, we are people who pride ourselves on our humanity. it is viewed as a defining characteristic. the personation and outreach cannot and should not be a basis of losing sight for who we are. the values that we hold and t faiths and believes by which we seek to live. mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi, as i said, did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. they were not allowed to return to their families to see out

their lives, let alone their dies days. no compassion was shown by him today. it is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days. presiding officer of the justice demands that judgment be imposed by compassion be available. our belfs dictate that justice be served and compassion is about upholding the biefs that we seek to live by. remaining true to our values as a people. no matter the severity of the provocation perpetrated. r these reasons and these reasons alone, it i my dision that mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi convicted in 2001 for

the lockerbie bomber should be released toly ya and allowed to now. that was my decision. i will now answer questions. >> thank you. the cabinet secretary as you indicated will now take questions. if members who wish to ask questions will push their press-to-speech buttons. >> thank you, i want to thank that for the statement and making it available in advance. last week the scottish government mad our o decision, with our own consequences. the scottish judicial process has compassion running through it. that is why we have no death penalty. that is why we have the right of appeal, parole, and that is why

prisoners can apply for compassional release. and that passion is at every point by the rights of the victims and our society. and that is why the final dgment in this case was rightly the ministers. he had the requirement to consider an application, but not a duty to grant it. i acknowledge it was a difficult decision. but does he understand how much te angered the majority of scotland. does he understand thate see our flag flying to welcome a convicted bomber. does he understand the convicted murdered in prison. he could have had jack straw to justify this. but what he said to the joint committee was that a prison

would be invited to make representations. we met this was his decision and his alone. he had no obligation. and after that visit abdelbaset ali al megrahi dropped his appeal. the cabinet victory will tell us in thatis meeting and for the avoidance he published his note. how does it explain that the media told us exactly how and exactly wn abdelbasetli al megrahi uld be released. a full week before the formal decision. and prisoner transfer application, that could have been ruled out because of two ongog appeals that were supplied to the case. but mr. macaskill dried that

case, and then rejected the application for prisoner transfer because the american families believed that the sentence woulde served in scotland. how does he think those families felt when he acknowledged with one breh that their views that the sentence would be completed in scotland made abdelbaset ali al megrahi could not be release wo a libyan prison yet in the next breath he sent them home to freedom unlicensedo sentence in prison. they cannot hdle ts whole affair from tart to finish. between the pain and anger at home and abroad, is t nothing mr. macaskill now regreats about his decision and the way in which it was reached.

>> well, i believe what i said in the statement that it was my decision andy decision alone. and at is to what ie said throughout. i do accept that he showed neither compassion or the atrocity or sensitive when he s shown compassion by us. by the values that we have i terms of the decisioning we did it with abdelbaset ali al megrahi. i did not put any pressure upon him to drop his appeal. it was his decision and his decision alone. that was made clear to him and his agents throughout the basis upon which the decision i made that was i had to look at. the prisoner transfer application and noou're wro to say thatt would have automatically been ruled out. it was submitted by his agents to be matters that was putrefied

, and indeed that was a mark that was made clear by the uk vernment. in terms ofompassion, i said i followed the due process laid down the laws of scotland and the i inherited. i followed the guidance and submissions and required to do not simply from the laws but to say what is laid out to make sure theustices don. that includes taking him to the prison governor a indeed the parole board. as i indicated in my statement, each and ery one of them recorded compassionate release. and you are right, there was still judgment for me to be made. i believe the due process had been followed by the laws of scotland, and i also believe we are required to show compassion, even if it is not shown to us, it is our position ofhe people

of scotland that we wish people to treat us as we are treating to us. he failed to show that to us, but that don't mean we need to follow that. i believe i upheld the process and upheld the values and i stand by my decision. >> presiding officer, i had an adnce copy of his statent. for me the image of the terrorists atrocit is etched many any memory. i shall never forget my sense of disbelief and horror. which is why i want to make clear that the decn to release mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi was not done in the made of scotland or in my name. it was a decision made by mr. sam monos government and minister. if his condition is so severe that keeping him in prison is

imhumane, why would he not have been released to a secure house or hospital in scotland? this is seriously suggesting that our scottish police would notdequately protect mr. abdelbaset alilegrahi. the police officers in a few weeks seems a small price to pay to protect scotland's international reputation. and if they are going, it is incapabl of providing compassionate and sensitive value of care. is abdelbaset ali al megrahi's own lawyer considers mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi would receive better treatment than in scotland than libia. presiding officer, compassion and justice would have been

better served than by convicted terrorists as a hero in libia to a backdrop. [gavel] >> equally disturbing is the prime minister gore can brow his decision was significant implication of policy and trade. so whap jot efforts are now being untaken by gordon brown to limit the damage done to our countries international representation and to our economy. >> of course we have seen that i thk the suggestion that we could have gone to hospice is ludicrous. people go there to obtai the last few moments to suggest that we could have sent to any hospice i scotland where others would have seen turned into

that. [applause] >> this was a suggest that he could have gone to the house in newton. we took advice from the our largest police authority. 14 officers to be with him in the house. to hospice, we didn't see a problem for those entitled to die in peace. on compassion can i call. compassion which is afterall one of the principals and strides of the scottish parliament by which the government should update. it is not a shine of weakness. indeed with the cases, it seemed to me to be a sight. despite country voices i will have a decision which will be a

source of pride for many scots and one which will be respected. i expect that there are many in america who disagree with my decision. nothin can sway therief and pain. you can be assured that the due process will be forwarded according to the laws and values and people of scotland equally. there's also some support out there in the international community for what we have done as a government. >> thank you cabinet secretary too for a copy of his statement. signing off sir, in the eight years mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi was found guilty, the prison world has changed. on the wrong side of change with afterinternational reputation failing not going. this parliament has been called too late to support. that's wrong. i ask for a vote next week to

the demonstration that there's a wider view. why did the government choose to announce the biggest news in ten years in basement of a and not to the parliament. where is the according account in that? during the statement he said at least eight times that he was responsible for the decision. but at least eight times he sought to passhe blame. and a so-called hand on the other, why did he visit him in prison? who was said? will the jote be published? and will the appeal be discussed? what advice did he take from this on that matr? we now knowhat mr. macaskill

d not need to visit. a written representation was all the that was required. how many prisons can elect to have a minister visit themven if they have lawyers perfectly able to write a letter. doesn't the comment mean that no prisoner, however bad the crime, will ever have to request that again. when the first minister discovered the country -- 40th anniversary celebrations. will the scottish governmen support a voteo restore our international reputation. other than the defining image will be ruined by many for many, many years to come. >> m secretary. >> the decision for this parliament are matters for the bureau and ultimaty for the

presiding officer. i sai to you mr. stt as i said last, it was my decision, and my decision alone. i stand by it. of the matte, i didn't speak to the crowd. that would have been entirely inappropriate. as you should be aware, we do have the separation of powers. and in terms of peoples and pbocesse we are looking to do as much as we can. we need to make sure those feel written and cooperated. and to the bases of it being released have it wish to be given the curtesy to see whether or not they wish the endings they provided to be the least. you have an absolute assurance from myself as the secretary that we will seek to provide those papers. can i say i appreciate this your position of the leader of the democratic. can i say y did raise queion

about whether this will be a position f future people? can i say those who has been given compassion before under the terms of jim a former leader of the ns. he was given a life sentence, he was released. leerily he committed a crime. i believe that to adhere to the values of the people of scotland. and finally, can i simply call from another form of leader from the democrats. to say it this morning, it was clearly need on compassional grounds of my decision. it wasn't made of trade agreement. i think people shoul focus on that. i think most of the opinions in scotland is in favor of a decision to release a compassionate drir. it maybe that you take a different view, but i repeat what i said, it was my decision,

i stand by it and i'll take the continues sequences. >> order. order. we've come now to open questions. iave 30 questions. i'm very queen that everyone that asks are short and the answers be as brief as they can be. >> of other than criticizing the legal system and the application of the justice in in case, will you support the decision on release him on compassionate support ranges from the scotland. did the cabinet secretary agree to the justice system for compassion and deny that to be politicize that decision. and if anyone who's ever made in

here before has ever actually been released compassional release? >> well, i can confirm that those who failed to meet the criteria, no cabinet secreta for justice has ever refused any application for 2000. that is how the position is. that was scotland i followed, as he followed before me. >> thank you. will the cabinet -- when will the cabinet secretary published his advice to meet delbaset ali al megrahi personally given he was not required to meet him. how would it have been justice to decline to meet him in person? the media kne about this decision a week before those families, will there be a full leak into thsupportingra? >> it is quite right. i didn't meet with e arican

families. that wasn't possible. we did have a video link in families in new york and washington. we were able to exchange and i listened to the respect of the information and paps were seeking to make as much available as possible. we have to make sure those that contributednd pvided are able to give their consent. if they do not, it would be wrong of us to publish that. that will be dealt wit well, there's been a huge amount of information here. and i didn't read it myself, but the decision has been made four weeks ago. the types of england said the decision to use it. it was a right of range for speculatn. i said i made my decision on wednesday, august 29, i made it publish on wednesday, august 2009 and i stand by my actions

today. >> there was nontegrity, justty and compassion and that these are the values of the actions of the parliament and the government. it's up to secretary to support from some of the victims families in scotland as well as the families you mentioned today. and there still seems to be some confusion about what was made by compassionate release. i wanted to say what that means and the guidancef this seion. >> the guidance to see it laid out in the guidance within the scottish prison that have been followed by people and myself. it wasn't sply the laws and guidance but the values.

equally i'm glad that scotland took the risk on this, because connvvingn scotland said is decision has sent a message to the world. but what it has to be is scotland. we have define the nation by how we treat others, we have chose mersey. i understand the anger and grief, and i respect their views. i would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy, instead, it was better to choose mercy -- >> it was a decision. i believe that folwed due process and i believe i stood up for the humanity. >> thank you presiding officer.

people offered support to the families of the victims. this was particularly appreciated by the relatives of the 180 americans who had died in the skies over scotland. and a relationship o trust and frieship has continued now for over 20 years. how many ofhe families of the american victims did the cabinet secretar consult as he was making his decision to release abdelbaset ali al megrahi on compassion grounds what account did he tef their views? and other than to speaking to the deputy chief what advice did he receive on compassions alternatives? did he explore those which would have enabled the promise to them has been honored? >> can i say as i said to

everyone else, the suggestion that we could have sent him to a hospice in scotland that was ludicrous. we have people who are tieing. they go there to spend their last moments with some tender ness and be able to meet with their family, not a circus. in relation to the police, we discussed it with the as it has been said by me, i do not direct the police on operational matters. it is their advice, the clear advice for them was the nsequences if he remained would be severe. a minimum of 14 officers just to ve him looking after without any other matters. i decided on that bases of what advice that it would be inappropriate. in terms of the americans i interviewed and had radio of

conferences with thos that wished. we offered them every curtesy. i'm conscious -- what i can say is the heart and pn they had started on the 21th of december 1988. it was caused by the action perpetrated by abdelbaset ali al megrahi. i am aware to the heartlt pain and sufring, and i can do nothing to take it away. it will remain with them until theay they die. hi to make the decision on the abilityo impose the judgment that we had, but equally to stand up which is to be able to show mercy, which i did. >> the cabinet secretary has soug to relse suspiciouse that there had been deals dug. however, the original deal of prison transfer, gordon brown

washe conta of the libyan leader in the last six weeks. and we have met with kay daffy's son twice. you suggest that none of tse events and -- did the first printer or the cabinet secretary feel at any stage because of their naivety and international experience they were being used asaw in a much bigger international game? >> well, i did make it quite clear that the goverent of united iingdom fled to represent or provide infmation that would have contradicted infrmation i received from the victims and the american family and indeed from the government of the united states. that was highly regrettable.

i cannot comment or state what did or did not take place between gordon brown or tony blair. i acted, as i said, without politil, or dip mr. diplomatic situations. it wille for others to decide whether it was right or wrong to act from the law. >> i thank you the cabinet sdcretary for his statement. d ask him to clarify how much advice and support he receid from the first printer in hiss damaging and disgraceful mishandling of the rease of the mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi, any or none. and can i ask you to confirm that hisefinition of scottish compassion and his bizarre reference to the rule inll of

this of a higher power were whatever role that might be, mean tt every termly ill prisoner however heinous their crime will now be released from scotland's jail. is that scottish justice? it is certainly not the view of justice in scotland. >> briefly please. >> does kenny offer to release every criminal on compassion grounds if they demand it? does he appreciate today that people across scotlan have major concerns about his conduct and creditability as justice minister? >> i'm sorry. i must ask. there should be no applause from the gallery. that is against the rules of this part. >> it won't be for each and every one of us to decide what our definition of compassion is.

but i do believe that when you take it and make to give se consideration to what is or not. because it's those comments that seem to be what i subscribed to and which i believe are supposed by scotland and the catholic church. you may disagree. but i stand by my view and i believe the view of minister. the first minter, as i said at the outset, it was my decision and my decision alone. i made thatecision, and i stand by i and i fe the consequences. >> if we are to get through all of the members, they make them briefer than they are today. one question per member without too much preamble. thank you. the cabinet secretary decide the

process of consultation in relation to the prison transfer agreement with regard to his meeting, can the cabinet secretary confirm the position of jack straw that has the right to put the case? and can he also say -- one question, please. thank you. >> well, as i said this was the first ever prisoner transfer application that could be made by a national government without the consent of the prisoner inlved. the application that game before me was anlication from libia. it was not my requirement to listen from abdelbaset ali al megrahi. i practiced in the courts of scotland in 20 years. i have never yet come across an instance where somebody cho to

represent themselves except in an instant where they were harassment ofitness scene that they would be reefer'sed that right and entitlement, natural justice had taken it. >> a number of people raised with the way he was received when he returned. do you have any representations to the libyan government? under the consideration of a possibility of the release that would have pventing them from engages in the public ground sounding? >> as i saidn my statement, mr. martin, assurances were given to me by the libyan government and i regret they we not upheld to. which is clearly the education that which the decision to go.

whether for uk nationals or indeed others and according to the government of the united stat sought assurances. i regret very much that those were nottuck too. >> regardless of the current views on both sides of the controversy, he is a dying man. it is likely very soon to become a fact of history that he would have died in libia, not in a scotland prison. does the secretary agree that the decision was far longer-term consequences is the decision that must be taken not only by the scottish but uk government to public all information relevant, not only to mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi release and any prior discussions but also to his original conviction in order to everyone, scots, americans, libyans, and the world will be able to finally answer the seous and troubling

outstanding questions in this case. >> can i simply say that i stand by the investigation and conviction and the fact that that conviction was upheldn appeal. i do recognize the issues of concerns to many. this will be a matter to be proceeded with by others. if sought by this chamber or anyonelse, we can consider it. but clearly the laws of scotland are restricted to our small jurisdiction. the powerf scotland is restrained and many of the matters are matters beyond the jurisdiction of the law of scotland, beyond the scottish parliament, they maybeatters that should be investigated, but it should be for those with the powe and indeed with relevant authority. >> thank you very much. presiding officer, further to this question to undertaken to

publish, can i ask h to clarify with the appeal proceedings an the untested findings of the review mission that there may have been a miscarriage of justice naming a resident of washington tc as a mber. whether the relevant material will ilude publication of the report and if that is not within his power, will he suppo my call for publication? >> well, i stand by the position that i stad for the 20th of august. i have great pride in the cabinet secretary of justice and the action taken by the police, the prosecution service, and the scottish course. they did scotland a great service in bringing him in justice and trial. i do recognize individuals here and elsewhere have use for concern. it will be for them to decide and other decid to decide. what i can say is the scottish governmen will fully cooperate

in any way to make sure we can alswer questions. but it is for others to decide our rules that are restricted to the jurisdiction of our land and powers with the limits powers of this kin of divulge. >> thank you. i'm sure the secretary will be well aware anuric noisinthat his decision has suddenly resulted in criticism. this could seriously deteriorate if the plan to seek iestment funds he in scotland moved ahead. does the justice secretary agree that such visit wld not b bell understand or aropriate at this time and that suc a visit should be ruled out to avoid further damage to scotland's reputation? >> i have to say i'm not aware. we will do nothing to damage the government's interest. but i would simply say that you

may disagree with my decision. to the forr colleague tom gail who said the justice minister has arrived at the right decision. >> thank you. will the cabinet secretary say to what he said in his prison cell what he said to the back and will he say whether or not he has made any effort to discover from council why he believes that he would enhan his chances of returning to libia if he gave up his appeal? >> i made no such reference to abdelbaset ali al megrahi, his counsel, whoever i've nevep met, or his sister who with him. no suggestion was made. it would have been entirely inappropriate. i said it was following due

process and proper guidance. and i made it quite clear that his skill was a matter for heaven and the courts. he made his decision without any interference from myself. >> tha you presiding officer. the future life span of people having prostate cancer can vary from two months to many years. the condition can extreme handicap to almost living an normal life. can the secretary detail the advice and the prospect of treatment of his cancer? >> cabinet secretary. >> well, he is better qualified in medical mattershan myself. it has been provided by the uned states government to them and indeed has been made available. clearly it's quite clear from the evidence not simply from the director of health and social care at the scottishrison service but indeed the consultants and other experts

who dealt with situation and treatment prior to and after that was ill. that is a matter of record. it is a matter that may see and li longer or shorter. but the information was and produces that threeonth time scale had thereafter been reached and it was on that that i made my decision. >> thank you, does the cabinet secretary recognize for those of us who generally take a differentiew and believe he made a grave error of justice that compassion is deeply offensive. can i ask the cabinet secretary if he specifically asked the officials to investigation? what did the cabinet secretary specifically ask his officials to instress grace? what were the results? and will he publish the details? >> we spoke to the deputy chief

counsel. he is the man in charge of operational guidance. his advice that weavto accept. i do not believe that i should ever seek to interfere with the operational matters within the domain of the police. maybe it is believed that the hospice should have been made available in stland. i believe that the hospices that we have are entitled to be treated with the digny and sang to do that they are entitled to and should not be numerous police officers and the interage. that would have followed. >> government was sought. to assist our understanding in the decision making process, will the cabinet secretary show

all communications and make them public in terms of what there s no such core response and communication. >> we will be more than happy to produce whatever information w can. we are seeking efforts to provide us with victims of national governments. i cannot comment on what they will do or see becau i have not heard from them. it will be from them to justify their actions. >> presiding officer,he people have long ago made it clear they want to move on. unfortunately, this is what it meant for them again. i'd like to ask the cabinet secrar will he and his party support the liberal democratic for the rease to be debated at earlier opportunity in the chamber to show the world what thatter is rather than thi minority's goverent view, y or no? >> well, these are matters that

i said at the very outset that are matters for the bureau. i do n seem to impose upon them if that is the wish of bureau, then clearly i will answer. these are matters that i would be matter to fully cooperate with. >> riding officer, i will never forget that particular day. it was the very next morning i leftith my family on pan am flight out of here. the implications left very firmly in my mind. in relation to the house and more on he advice he got from the police and in particular, what costs were given to him? >> cost is not a factor thate take into account. it be vieweds feasible, we could have bared that cost. this is ensuring for the safety

and those in consequens that lived in close proximity to him. i have to consider the consequences of that decision had i forced mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi upon a hospice in scotland that spends a lot of his time to get funds to look at our people in their dying days. i followed advice that was based on reasons. >> it is a matter of great regret that the criminal justice system was not tested. the cabinet secretary has said today itas not a condition of release that he had to withdraw. can he offer an an explation then? he said his name wod be cleared or turn to the weak of the guilty verdict. can you confirm to the cabinet

secretary what it would have taken for the appeal to have contue or was it an obstacle to his release? >> well, according tthe laws of scotland, it wod have had to continued abroad or here. as a matter of fact, no pressure was brought opinion and indeed that affair once agaito the times of london that made it clear that he is quite clear that no pressure had been brought upon him by the government of scotland. he did so because he agreed to go home to die >> thank you. can ihank the cabinet secrarytatement and his decisi which i support. n i ask the cabinet secretary who said we need someone to provide over the parliament. what is the justice, wisdom,

compassion, and integrity. each of us should embody these principals every day and carry out a family duties. >> i don't seem to impose my views, fais, beliefs on anyone i can say i made this decision following the laws of scotland of what believed is my interpretation to be thealue of scotland. many will disagree. especially i have to say, i'm heartfelt by the support that i've received and in particular arch bishop. >> thank you presiding officer. in his statement last week and again today the justice secretary stated he h drawn out a request. yet the time for request for transfer, appeals were still pending. does the cabinet secretary,

priser c take place when all other legal processes can be completed. can you advice how he wanted a prisoner transfer, when it was required of him? can he advice us whether his admissions on that matter have ever been adviced to be incompetent? >> no, they've nev been incompetent. it was the basis that i felt to be inappropriate. it was clear to me the americans had received or had an expectations that they have had received clear informaon prior to trial that mr. ab gave would serve its sentence in scotland. it was not that i made my decision. >> one of the most proprostous consequences and one thahas been melt by the local community is the responsibility that falls

on the council of mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi. can y confirm what conversations he's had and what laws he explained to them, the arrangements put in place to recall to custody, should that prove to be necessary? >> well, as you are aware, w do not operate the socia work dictly from the house. it was for that reason it was read to the social department who became responsible. clearly it is appropriate of these discussions. clearly the requirements ould beaid down that mr. adelbaset ali al megrahi. i will be happy and doubtless will be of the problems. the fact of the matter is the guidance and laws prescribed that it has to be east and there is no character. that is what is laid out by the due process that i followed.

as we say we sought that ensure that appropriate conditions will be i place, place of residency, limitations on travel, other matters in scotland but also tabling into account the me car already and unique circumstances relating to this case. >> presiding officer, someone who is in theay-after panel was brought down. i saw first hand the full effects of that atrocity. it's something i'll never forget. the bbc has been able to report exactly -- something they would not have done unless they were share of their facts. on the morning of their decision. >> some to a question please. >> indeed, the herald also ported his decision hou before he made it.

the -- somebody has been leaking information, either the minister or the press itself? >> the application for compassion came in on the 24th of july. the medical report i received from the director of health and social care was dated the 10th of august. the final submissions i received from my officials were late on the 14th of august. i made my decision on the 19th of august i made a statement on the 20th of august. there has been a variety of speculation. some people speculated i was going to refuse it. the sunday course spectlated they knew all of this four weeks ago. i have narrated the timeline, i

took due pross, and i follow that. >> i'm sorry, i was misinformed. >> thank you, presiding officer. as a former associate member of the neurology services, i'm interested i the health department. i understand that guidance that death would probably take place within three months. the reports that i have seen that in july, the expectations were to be looked at. in july he is expected to survive until april 2010 and all medical advisors have said it was difficult to determine. so the three months is highly questionable. i would ask him who he took advice from other the urologist and the prisoner officer. did he take any advice from a care expert who would have a

greater understanding of the possibilities around this. if he lives for many longer for e three months, this will add to the insult to americans families. >> i followed the three-month rule. that was the medical information given to me. the medical report that came from the director of health and social care from the scottish prisoner was dated 10th of august. that was based on the 3rd of august view. it had been a change for the worst. i do not have the benefit of c simpson's training. but i do follow dhe rules and science that are laid down. i do recall that dr. simpson has also served as a master for justice. i followed the same rules and regulations had he been required to do that.

>> we notice you will need to be extremely brief. >> i feel much of the presiding officer that there has been reports in the media and commts from members of this parliament concerning the availability of information on that case prior to to the announcement. can the ab net secretary therefore once again confirm in order to bring an end to these accusations when the medical report and other reports from the prisoner and government on when it was based, when they were received, and the time scale on which the decisions were made. >> as indicated, obviously the final submissions on the 14th of august, later on. and i made my decision on the 19th. >> the cabinet secretary, can you discuss any of the potential economic impacts and prior to either with cabinet or with

anyone with the scottish government? >> absolutely not. >> yomight be aware, it falls on the authority representing to monitor mr. abdelbaset ali al legrahi under the terms of his release. it is my understanding that the scottish government have only assisted he intend a video conference once a month. a video conference once a month. what action will you take if he fails to show up for his monthy appearance? >> presiding officer, on the basis of t medical evidence, i have returned him to the libia to die. >> the cabinet secretary will be aware that the uk daniel suggested that bases this was throwing away a bargaining chip. will he join with me as

condemning these comments as inappropriate, and would he urge all our politiciansn this chamber to obje these ideas? >> wel the laws i followed are the laws laid out by previous administrations an some under liberal labor administration within the scottish parliament. i followed due process. i hope and believe that everytng who igiven the triple a in this position before me or following me for whatever political party, will do so without consideration on political, economic, or diplomatic grounds. >> can i regret the politicizization on the matter and the justice secretary for a courageous decision which is consistent with the priipal of scot's law and christian molity of the widespread of

suppor does he share, however, what happened with abdelbaset ali al megrahi returned to libia. does he accept that there is nothing that anyone in this parliament could have been to stop that. it is entirely irrelevant. >> government secretary, presidg officer, i'm gla we share the same beliefs and falls and that they transcend whatever politicalffiliations we have. it is quite ride. it was deeply regrettable. he acted without compassion and showed no sensitivity but to say r values are deeper and different. >> thank you. i'm sure you wil not suggest that you have monopoly on beliefs and values since i'm a chriian myse. i do not sre your position. however, i think we have often taken that position. you have indicated that the cost is not a factor in thiscottish justice system.

can i therefore ask you again, specificically which alternative compassionate release options you considered, what advice, whathe costings of them would be, and if you are not prepared today if you will publish has a a matter of urgency. >> i can say as i said to others, i was not prepared to put this on any hospice in scotland requiring to deal with term terminally ill, that would be unfair on any of them. accordingly, i, and i alone ruled that out. the other aspects relates to residents in the house were based upon the advice that i had. i have a gat supporter of our police both of what they forget what they did, and what they do on a daily basis. >>