there's an amazing opportunity in the security area. actually were british industry can really capture a great chunk. we hope something like 90% of the world defense market. we all held 4% of the security market. with a and a half thousand people came to that show us what they were made with the things are coming out of our academe and at a british industry, particularly smes level. i made using technology. i think we can jump up and get to that level. fantastic opportunity. but overall to believe we were very close to those. . .

>> and that's one the constant elements of debate that we have with our russian counterparts. similarly, in relation -- and -- before my visit, for instance, to moscow this year, i made sure that i was speaking to all of the energy, the very senior figures in the british energy company working on that. we also tried to ensure our energy security. though 2% of british gas comes from russia in the moment. but the energy security of our allies is just as important. if they collapse, the impact for us would be significant. we work very closely. we've been in the leading country, i would say, that make sure there wasn't another outage

between ukraine and russia. we have managed from old government to new in ukraine. we're hopeful in future years there's a much more secure way of maintaining. that the other thing is liberalization of the energy market across europe would be a useful step, actually to try to ensure our energy security rather than to undermine it. some the ways the energy deals are constructed between germany, for instance, and russia, don't help the rest of europe to get a good price. and they rig -- they effectively rig the market. that's another area where what would feel like ordinary foreign office business is actually an essential part of trying to maintain our energy security. >> and our response to malcolm wilkes review of international is going to come out shortly with inputs from a whole raft of

leading on that. no doubt. >> one the issues that we feel is it could be the case for 2020, 90% of our electricity will be generated from gas. 80% of which could be imported. now that's a pretty insecure situation to be in. >> well, i think what we've highlighted are come of the areas of concern. that's why we are addressing it. we're look at -- so our response will be out shortly on this. you're absolutely right. it's an area of great concern. that's why it's so close and this response will be coming out shortly. >> the european union is absolutely essential to this. there's a significant amount of this is coming from norway into europe, despite all of the rules of eweon. we also know across europe we have to have a much better connected grid so there's much

greater energy resilience in the other countries. >> you said earlier, you were anxious about our nuclear program. that you've had a good look at it. and we were now spending, i think to quote you, a lot of money. >> they are doing a lot of work to resolve it. a lot is being resolved. >> tell us the issues are? >> i don't think i want to go into those. >> i have lord coming up. >> i just want to have the conversation that you have which is fascinating that doesn't quite explain how the national strategy form lates or influences policy. you know, giving this indication some of the issues. i mean a few years ago, gas indicated they want to take over and i never heard a word from british government suggesting it wasn't unreasonable marketplace. at some point, you might come to the conclusion that there were good security reasons for not doing it. i'm interesting to know who is going to resolve those kind of

policy dilemmas, and perhaps on the other side of that, we've had british energy companies investing in russia. and finding their assets effectively appropriated or certainly undermined. so we have a business strategy or an economic strategy. and we have a national security strategy. and they would appear if you look at the last few years to be in conflict. how does the policy dilemma resolve? when does the national security strategies kick in and the normal economic or business policy succumb to that? >> yeah, you are raising a very important error. it's capability, and where -- may what control we keep over certain aspects of our -- well, our of industrial base and things like that. there is a group that does look at that. but i think it's something we probably need to put more effort into. and the defense section can speak on the defenses aspects of

it. i believe, let's take cyber, for example. i believe we need our own ability like crypter to keep within our nation. the decision has been made that should be the case. when it comes to the larger issues in terms of should this company be allowed to take over or that one, these things are looked at. they need to be debated. there's one going on at the moment, i wouldn't mention that one because it is going on. but these things are looked at and analyzed. i think we maybe need to do more work overall in looking at some of these sovereign capability issues. i know for example in areas of food supply and things like that, we're now so much in the just in time economy that it's very easy to break this cycle and provide this stuff. and i think if one looks at something like the impact of the ice storm in canada, just before

2000, when they almost lost everything in montreal, the impact, there were things effected that we know thought would be. so for example, not being able to use card, not being able to get money penalty people couldn't buy food. the next thing was breaking into stores. and so on and so -- now all of these things we look at. we have a group that looks at domestic issues. that needs to cross into some of the work on the sovereignty issues. >> these are not divorced one from another. there's a recognition in the national security strategy and repeated and we attempt to stand it up in the defense paper that we cannot possibly like it or like it not, defend ourself on our own from the many threats that there are and from the many interest that we have. you know, we have to work with others. we have to have defense capabilities that support, you know, the international rule of

law. because, you know, we cannot defend our energy suppliers as a nation. it's not just pipes from russia, you know, but everybody tends to concentrate on this. but a large proportion of our gas comes from the middle east, through the straits and pirate waters of, you know, the freedom of the seas is an important part of this. we cannot and do not do that on our own. we have naval task forces dealing with policy now that come from so many different nations working together. so actually, you know, configuring our defense capability and configuring our security capabilities so that they support the rule of law. and therefore, the free supply of food and energy, you know, that our country is so dependent upon is built into our structure. it's not diversed from the strategy. >> i accept that. but i think lord west touched on the point have you globalization

and other strategies left everything to leave us much more vulnerable to things beyond our control. does it not start to suggest -- or will the public come to the conclusion that what we have to work internationally and we need cooperation, we perhaps need to think about having more of our own national security and the resources under our own control and be less dependent on international without disagreeing with you. isn't that where it might? >> i mean lord wested started touching on, we try to deal with that with the different strategy, for instance, we maintain sovereign capability. what exactly do we need to be able to produce within the united kingdom, and to what can we trust the world market and the free availability of defense capability? so it's something that we've wrestled with in that area. i think it's something that we

sure wrestled with in every area. to what degree are there practical alternatives in sovereign capability? and, you know, where it makes sense we ought to look to develop them. but, you know, as a nation, we are a very outward looking, globally dependent nation. and it's before thed hugely from globalization as well as having these risk that we have to mitigate. >> the russia issue, you're absolutely right there have been significant problems for british and other investors in russia in terms of their fears of appropriation. when i was there recently, all of the british companies were saying they were having, you know, effective operation now and things had improved somewhat. but there's another problem for us. which is that, and where there isn't significantly more investments, the likelihood is oil and gas isn't going to keep oncoming. and as a third level problem for russia itself, which is being just an oil and gas economy is a

very dangerous position to put yourself in, as long as, you know, prices are high, you're fine. but in times when they are low, then they, you know, things are very dangerous for you. that's why we've also looked at other countries where there have been some problems. we've had to look hard at venezuela and the very similar issues about trying to be for instance, you may make lots of money in venezuela, but you might not with able to take the money out of venezuela. similarly, if there's going to be oil taken out of gulf of mexico, mexico is going to have to change its laws. >> malcolm bruce is saying not so specific in relations to energy companies. i think what he's been saying is very important. >> i think you talk about food. i think in 1936, it was the height of mid summer madness to grow fruit in england when we can buy it much more cheaply from america. which didn't turn out to be a

good plan. >> we got quite a few things wrong. >> i think it's very good that you are thinking about these things. that we're going to have some real difficulty in that the european union doesn't like golden chef, the treasury doesn't like golden chef. if they decided to sell it tomorrow, you would have quite a difficulty. and, i know that the liberal market theory will tell you the perfectly good that suppliers are american or spanish. in good times it is, but in wad times, it isn't. in one british firm i worked, which doesn't exist, i can tell you different kinds of things. when -- as you very well know the heart and soul of the gec was led in the country. and the british government went to sea, it got listened to. there's other two great firms, swish and german, and we have to

think a little bit about this without throwing away our commitment to free markets overall. but there has to be a call. i'm not sure we're in a position that legal powers are there for you. if you are working on it. >> all i'd say is this is an area where we do -- you raise some very valid points. actually, i believe that when -- if we make the decision that the national interest is going to do something, it's amazing how one can ensure that one achieves that somehow. but i agree, it's a very difficult area. it's something we need to look at. and we do look at it. we look at the interdependency of those things as well. >> what's done? >> i'd like to continue the malcolm bruce was referring to. being part of international trade most of my working life, there was a company that there's no way could have controlled elsewhere and some of you might have heard of it.

the point that lord west brings up is delivery, it's key. the whole world is moving to that. we are still an island. what i was curious about when you were just saying you're looking at a forward strategy of what might happen in europe and european union is key or could be important in the years to come. to what extent, when you are looking at a long-term national interest beyond this table, taking it 0, 40, 50-year view, not tomorrow, not the next election, to what extent are you saying the scenarios who will be our allies? what would happen if the european union did not exist and broke up in some format? where would it come from? what would our energy situation be at? do you go as far as that taking your view around the world where our interest might lie? >> i can't -- was it wellington or castle ray, one of those three who said britain has no

permanent allies, only permanent interest. i suppose that's -- sorry. well, you know. [laughter] >> it's good to have an attorney just to be able to remind you. i knew somebody said it. anyway. [laughter] >> anyway. the point i was going to make really was obviously we have to be absolutely focused on our interest. and sometimes we have to persuade others in europe that our interest lie in exactly the same place as them. but i -- but there are key elements of our security which we know are enduring and which are perfectly aligned with every single one of our european allies. i've mentioned them today in relation to energy security. that's not going to go away in 30, 40 years time. likewise in relation to climate change, that's why climate change have been one the key issues that we wanted to pursue

vigorously with our european allies. >> we have our horizon scanning unit within the office who's job is to look out into the future in this sort of way. i'm not sure if they've looked at indeed the 50 years with alliances. i don't know whether they have done that. but they do look ahead to look at options. i'm a great believer in what i call red teaming, which is thinking from other areas and trying to work on that. so there is work that goes on. you know, specifically set up to look at the what ifs and look into the future. >> look at the paper alongside on global trends, trends -- and that went out to 40 years. but as these things, they are trends. and when you, you know, they can never fully anticipate shocks and changes that will inevitably

come about. there was an attempt to analyze those trends in the potential need for, you know, changes of stamps over the long term. >> but i think when it comes to the strategic defense review, trying to look forward to deep interest, unquestionably, that is going to be a key question foreign policy leg of when you're going into that in depth and it does go a wide round of protecting the trade lanes of this country in what it's been all about as to what conclusions you're going to come to on that front. i wanted to be sure. >> as a sailor as i am, we will be delighted that the national security secretary at national security strategy and the nsf, without any prompting from me because i couldn't have possibly have said it came out the statement of sea is crucial to the wealth and security of the united nations kingdom. you could imagine how delighted i was with that statement, and it didn't come from me at all. so that was -- >> i think it's been a

significant advantage to be able to bind other european nations into operation atlanta which without -- we would not have been able to dismount on our own. >> it's important that we look at the security strategy that gives us a wider framework than foreign policy. it will be ruled in the security strategy, not in foreign policy. foreign policy is really an important part of that. >> on defense, can i go back to something the secretary of defense said earlier, which was the -- he really expressed some concern, i think, that in the past military have been brought in and they were available when the primary roll in protecting national security was not the system to civilian activity, but protecting our interest elsewhere. when foot and mouth hit us very badly and the military came to

our aid, i think what was noticeable was the principal benefit they brought was not that you expect the military to deploy. it was the ability to draw the plan quickly and manage it operationally. which the civilian authorities seem to lack. you seem to be expressing confidence that you can, you're not going to need it to provide military support in some situations in the future. because we've developed that sort of capacity in other agencies. is that really the case? >> no. that isn't what i was trying to say. i mean the last in the military wants to be dropped into driving green goddess' around and the police has developed a huge level of capability and, you know, high-end capability to the degree that the military are not

going to be as required, as they otherwise would do. but i agree with you totally that what the military brings, i've seen that in my time in the ministry of defense is the planning capability. that can be dropped into. and is regularly dropped into other o. you talk about the north. i saw it in the floods as part of the gulf command down there. you know, doing assessments of what was possible. people thought that water was going to be provided largely by the private sector. because they have promised. and there was an intent on their part to provide water. but there was the military plan there that was pretty, you know, quickly able to see that simply wasn't going to work. and we had to put, you know, army units into, you know, into the field in order to ensure it was there. i think that planning capability is exactly the kind of thing that we can't afford not to have

as part of this, you know, overall sort of framework that's set up in the emergency situations. and the whole issue is flagged nut strategic defense review as, you know, have we gone too far? you know, is it something that we continue. what capabilities are still required? and have we got enough in the planning capability? i think it's an important part of that. >> sir, if i may, we have a dramatic improvement and are getting lessons learned out the exercise. there have been a dramatic improvement in the police, the emergency services and other departments compared to where it was say three or four years ago. dramatic improvement. [inaudible] >> i take your point. it's been proved in three years of my absence of being.

[laughter] >> my arrival. [laughter] >> i want to say however good the planning may now be we have gotten into the situations where the problems multiple terrorist attacks or a range of other coinciding threats, and one coinciding with somebody else and another one, where public opinion and practice would turn the armed forces again, however much the secretary of state would like to wish and keep focused on the prime task. i wonder what thought we were thinking on matters developed and try the last strategic defense review, the view of the home office is certainly that they didn't want to set up arrangements in my formal sense for that engagement beyond what already existed. i wondered if that was the sense

for the way forward? >> i think it has to fit in with some of the improvements that have been made. and some of the sharing arrangements on air between the police forces and the far greater degree than i do, but i mean the level of cooperations between forces are far better embedded now over the large force that can support the systematic ways of ain't. the other things that's needed, that's the service and the home office on exactly what we can do and can't do. what they cannot be, you know, blissfully believing that the armed forces are there and able to provide a particular capability in depth on such a time scale as is not there. so i mean, what we tried to do and may actually be certain is that everybody knows it cannot be provided, how quickly, how

long it can be sustained, so that our planning is across the police. and the police force knows exactly what triggered the need in order to get the capability that they want. >> we have our national exercise programs, we've had three in the last year where we prepare for an event that we imagine may happen. we had one on mumbai. if there was a mumbai attack here, how would we deal with it? m.o.d. was involved, all the different agencies were involved. i think if we were to look at it again as part of the strategic defense review and, you know, i suspect we'd come to the same conclusion. we don't need a more formal mechanism than the mechanisms we have now to use the expertise of the m.o.d. when it's necessary to deal with the kind of event that you spoke about. >> for example, of course, we have set things in place, and

they are still in place to use for the special forces. so they will still there, of course, the special forces type, they are certain operations of the jobs. for example, the olympics coming up, we are in debate with the m.o.d., talking about what extra might be required from defense. you are absolutely right, the scale of things means one has to draw on the military. >> i agree. britain has the corporation which is one of the mechanisms of achieving is if not an account for the body. it's a dependence on the structures. they perhaps to be reviewed in view of the centrality of the police strategy. >> i think we are looking to examine their own structures and something that is very keen of them. and i guess it's a valid point. >> on a separate point, the

strategy talking about the need to address problems early and focus on prevention. are we really doing that? for example, what informs planning procedures about national security issues which ought to be taken into account if you are building a power station, if you are creating any other facility which has national security issues around it. how is the planning process effectively informed? >> now we have just -- we have just reinvigorated and the other thing to do with crowded places, for example. where we look at what can we do in terms of design, internal design and build to give advice on various concerns. and, for example, one well known firm was about to build a series of stores in the central towns, which were sort of beautifully designed to be a marvelous

terrorist target. we were able to the stage of design to change them. >> you talked to them but not to the planning authority? >> sorry, part of it -- one the documents was to do with planning and terms of plans. that, for example, roads, we know the attack on airport where they tried to get through the airport. the reason it couldn't get through, it had to run parallel and turn into it. we don't want people to design structures where they have a nice road going straight into that. how do we do that with plans? we've given advice. so we do. there's the planning advice, there's design and architectural advice. i didn't think i'd be excited about boulevards. we produce the best. the work that's done, it's

fantastic. when you add this as well, it's a bit pressing that i'm talking about boulevards. [laughter] >> i'm really reassured. we do produce the best boulevards. world. i'm not sure if my question can be fully answered in public. i was thinking back to easter of 1982, when our intelligence didn't tell us what was happening in pugh nose aries, but we managed to get a task force together with a lot of help from the private sector from the m.o.d. i presume we're not making the same mistakes again to foreign office messages to argentina. i presume, but maybe there is more difficult, if the wrong

thing happened, which i think it unlikely and there was a repeat with the invasion, we could repel it as we did in the last occasion. >> i think we're certainly, i'm not going to answer every element of that, obviously. but the -- we have thought long and hard before in the run up to the process of starting to -- of the island government deciding to go ahead with looking to see whether this is commercially viable oil and gas supplies underneath the ocean. the -- i'm very comforted by the fact that the arch arch tinnians have made it possible to what is complexed. >>