looking at things like a 15% reduction was manageable. now if we can make the difference between the 15% some police forces think is manageable and the figures set out in the red book we can do that through the trees, through paperwork reductions and changing allowances. then i think actually this is delivered double without seeing the reduction visible. it will be challenging, of course it is but let's start on the proposition all of us should be saying to our forces what are you doing to try to take costs out of the back-office. ..

frankly, this was a failure, as he put it. i'm not criticizing him. he was very candid. this is an earlier intelligence and it shouldn't happen again. was an extremely thin, blue line and we saw the food lion frankly pushed away, swept away almost buy that very badly behaved crowd of people when they got into that building, by the way. that shouldn't happen again. and i obviously won't let that happen again. and there are i think plenty of numbers and police officers in london to stop that from happening again. it wasn't a shortage of resources, >> prime minister.

>> is the increasing terrorist threat, which would recognize by the term secretary of action september when she increased the assessment level. i know that the budget is such its defaults, but obviously you have responsibility over all security. and is it your understanding that the budget in northern ireland will remained the same peer will be increased or will it be lowered in the coming years? >> obviously, it's a method of them. i completely agree with you that the security situation is troubling. it's an issue that's been discussed by the private national security council and there's things we could do to help and all the contingency plans we have to make. i think we're standing by the commitments made by the former prime minister in terms of the training for police officer in the capital expenditure.

but i think obviously the decision makers in northern ireland will need to make their decisions about how to spend their money, but security must be a very great concern. >> hillsboro, there was a degree made by which we preserve the policy said he would honor. again understanding, but will the northern ireland executive have sufficient money to be able to provide the things with the resources they need. there is a current profession. a third is spent entirely on security matters. >> we believe they have what they need, but we are standing by the commitments made by the former prime minister. we believe are meeting those. obviously this something we have to keep under review. in very closely the circumstances that. there was a great access to the reservist proposed by the four runs prime minister.

we state that. but again, i think it's important, having devolved police justice, it's very important we see two colleagues, you must try and make the best decisions you can with the budget you have. and a lot your resources accordingly and come back to us that there is a real problem. i think having devolved, we should try and stand on their shoulder the entire time. i think it's quite important if that's the case. >> they see how they allocate the money they're giving. it's their decision how much they are given. the select committee was in ireland just last week and the assistant commissioner deckard said in spite of the difficulties they've got company gets an absolute category assurance that there would be no less for the border area in the republic. and we did that same guarantee for northern ireland. >> yes, i believe we can. it's a very important area i don't want to mislead you in anyway.

i i believe we can. that's a question we asked in the national security council. that's a discussion we had. also to make the general point appeared in northern ireland public spending is there to present her head higher than in the u.k. and their overall sentiment is 6.9% and that would come you know, a situation a lot tough and not. but i will drop you a line about the precise terms of what guarantee we can get about the level of important security. >> the secretary of state is not going to be any more open-ended or expensive of the acquires into the past and really it will bear the responsibility of the historic inquiry steam. again, given the budget constraint, is that team going to be able to carry out the work they need to carry out its going to be responsible for that work to the satisfaction of people in northern ireland who have been so desperately affected by those

troubles? >> that's a very good question. i think that following -- we showed avoid open-ended inquiry is the way that you say. that does put a burden on historical inquiries team for the huge amount of work to do. they do have limited resources. i think coming to terms with the past is a very good part of the peace process. i completely understand that and i'd like us to try and do that, one avoiding these inquires if we can. >> the major part of our time is devoted to these other issues. the first issue is the government's claim aspiration to be the greenest government ever. [inaudible] what struck me listening to the exchanges so far, particularly in relation to =tranfour was the money is to be allocated properly on the basis of economic return.

yet where is the stable development in all affairs? and what are you doing to advance sustainable development for the decisions are being made it's not just economic decisions. environmental, social. and just to finish on this, there's been this sense that because the government has abolished, i think there is real concern about what will be embedded in how it can be monitored. how will we know that it's been agreed from them? >> i think you're quite right to pull me up on the defense. obviously all transfer projects in terms of the economic benefit and their environmental impacts. >> taken into account the impact on the environment on carbon, on all those issues. in terms of sustainable

development commission, will try to do in a spending route is about money into things that will make a difference, like the green deal, like harvard capture and storage, like a great investment bank that will have real money to spend, rather than quite so much monitoring and evaluation. in terms of how we know how we're getting on is because of the last government climate change bill we supported in many ways proposed. we have the carbon budget that we can see how were making the progress. obviously we've made difficult decisions and the spending route. i think overall when you look at what we manage to do on the green front in terms of ccs, terrorists, and the rest of it. i think it is pretty welcomed groups and i think deservedly so because it took some difficult situations for important products. >> he spoke rizzi about the proposals for the korean investment bank. just before we leave the subject

of development, surely has to be done in a crosscutting way. will this be your impression? it's not just about how green are your government state policies? it's how you embedded into the regional policy and transport. >> i think that's a very good point. what we've done across the government is to have each department quite clear structural reform plans. instead of setting targets, actually just setting out what each department is owing to do in terms of the legislation committee appointments that will make, the regulations that will introduce. explaining what it will do to reach the outcomes we all want. obviously that makes the huge question. and so with carbon and greenery, we need to have a crosscutting structural reform banned, which will put in place. perhaps i can write to you with

some details about how that will work. because i think there are some issues that cut right across the bottom. this is obviously the most important one. >> one quick question. go review government's efficiency of procurement. does this include what a sustainable procurements quacked >> welcome his commission was really to look at cost savings and it wasn't really part of a read agenda. it was let's get some on the outside to come on different things like procurement and some of the things that the government does essentially. i think he produced a report. here's back to margaret question. are their targets we can remove some of these without having the lines. at marwood is about. >> isn't the danger about what is the whole shift of government

in one direction? and is there and actually green procurement, which took a huge amount to improve the local economy and at the same time reduce the emissions right across the border? >> well, i don't think it will embed that thinking because we are providing transparent information on environmental performance. and transparency is the best thing you can do on this front. were also going to be publishing the carbon footprint of our supply chain. so these things are embedded. that wasn't as if it purpose to the probably at cost savings and what they could achieve. but certainly we are going to -- because we have carbon budget to the bill, because we have this approach on transparent information and the carbon footprint and of our procurement, i think all of those things will be -- i'm going to sound like a jargon can come hardwired and will try not to rule that in the next 10

minutes. >> i think everybody agrees it's very important. is that going to be assigned in the dispute between treasury and state departments and might you be taking a keen interest in the cabinet level as you did a transparency spending, which he talked about quacked >> yes, yes, yes to all of those sessions. >> is there more support of your greatest government other than myself? [inaudible] now that we know the next general election, can you tell us what criteria you would use to judge the successful failure of your government is the greatest government ever? >> well, when we produce a structural reform plan that goes across government for carbon and greenery, will be giving it the weapons, as it were, to beat us if we don't fulfill all the

things that we say we've done. so in a structural reforms, i have to accept and they're very clear that in the one form department to deliver the carbon capture and storage pilot. establish the green deal with all sorts of benchmarks about what it needs to be done. introduce the renewable heat initiative by a certain date. and some of those -- i don't want to just wait for five years tuesday for good at this stuff. i want to give the tool so when i come back here, whenever it is, you can set your structural reform said you could reform said you could have done this and why haven't you done it? now it's not targets because they think what happened as we set targets for things, miss them and say shucks, that's life. this is actually sending the actual act you've got to take and see whether you've taken it or not. and i think we've got a good list of things in this area introducing feed in tariffs, the

renewable initiative i mentioned, electricity market reform. a 10% cut for government department by the end of the first year. there's a pretty good set of things i think you'll be able to judge all within the carbon budget that was sent out at the last government. >> there will be some quantifiable measurements. we'll know how many million. we know how many removable low carbon energy projects are in the consent being funded, so we'll know it will halve by 2020. when the how much money the investment bank is invested. those will be measured. >> absolutely. the professor was was they were already complaining they had to put things in a structural reform plan that they may not be able to meet and will make life very awkward in front of a committee like this in the house of commons. as part of the point in the way, is to try and have a set of plans that are quite measurable and verifiable and are actual

concrete things. so i hope will be able to drop the barriers as we go along. >> to you except the suggestion that the electricity duration should be substantially to carbonated 2030? that would mean an 80% reduction in emissions per unit generated by 2030? >> well, basically, yes. but for this reason that i think people are only just waking up to, which is if we are going to move to a world of luck or cars and more ground source heat pumps and effectively electricity, we're going to see potentially massive increase in electricity demand. and so we don't determine if electricity. we made all the target and world committed. and so their intensive discussions in government right

now about to witness reports electricity market to make that happen. to what extent do we need all the different tools to make this happen and also what sort of energy mixes are likely to result in terms of nuclear, gas, wind and other renewables. so i do expect a huge amount of work is being done in that department is doing very well. >> you mentioned carbon storage in the first competition funded. have you decided how the government is committed quacked >> we haven't yet. it was important to have that alien pounds. and it's quite difficult to hold onto a billion pounds in a tough spending realm into how that answer the first carbon capture storage product. obviously we couldn't do everything we wanted to. >> do you accept you for going to to achieve these goals to

de-carbonized electricity, which in turn will enable us to achieve the carbon budget change committee next month, do you accept that the inevitable consequence of that coupled with our concerns of our security energy supply, the inevitable consequences significantly higher interest? >> i think that electricity prices were going to rise anyway because of so much of our electricity infrastructure because so much of our nuclear industry is about to come to the end of its life. there was built-in anyway, an increase in electricity prices. the debate we're having at the moment is what sort of model going forward should our electricity market faster like to go on with this market-based model we had and just have target for carbon reduction and allow the market to deliver

that? or do we want to take a slightly more planned for you that we want to try and shield effect to believe the public from excessive for the rising electricity prices by having some quiet long-term guaranteed speed and prices? so there's a proper debate going on as with the other areas of government around the table properly about what sort of model will deliver what i think we all want, which is de-carbonized electricity, good security and supply and some certainty about pricing. ps are quite right. prices are an upward trajectory. if we go for slightly more planned approach, we may be to protect people from very big oscillations and prices. frankly no one knows it's going to happen to oil and gas prices with the discovery of so much she'll gas what they wield game changer in energy prices. i don't think we know that yet and i don't think we should take

a risk on that basis. >> were just entering the winter weather going to be worrying about prices. >> this debate doesn't affect the current year. this is more for looking ahead, how were going to structure the market. again, with all the subjects, the coalition hasn't yet completed its work on immigration or control orders for this issue of energy policy. so far i would argue we've gone through difficult subjects like higher education, comprehensive spending review and we have come up with -- it will take a little bit of time. >> honestly, you described -- [inaudible] >> -- and the other outbreak. why have you oppose such large budget cuts on the green

department? >> well, it is slightly pejorative for putting it. we have defined reductions against government and those departments that were protect did would have to find some quite big productions. i think what we've done is when you look at the important areas of spending, i think we have preserved those. so i'm cutting, for instance, were going to spend 2.1 billion pounds over the next four years, which is the same of what we spent over the last four years. i think with the pick review, we actually had to that because i think it should be possible for those two grow up what is given to them. and in terms of animal health, were spending 336 million pounds a year on this i think it's only fair we asked the industry agriculture to share some of those costs, but they should be up to sure some decision-making about how the money is spent. >> i be interesting to know how

this is popping up through the defense committees. in your debate, you are very concerned about the level of funding of the environment agency, it was a fair shortage of engineers. we know what the spending review is. but were not aware of is how the impact is cut the local authorities will impact when they take over the roles of the monitoring fees. >> that is an extremely good point. what i would say to that is the government got its responsibility to fund properly, which i think we're doing. what i found my constituency is yes, there is a concern that they get left out because you can never find the same number of houses at risk as you can in large urban areas. but i also find something else, which is sort of frustration and

sometimes just because you don't make a mark for what the ea would fund, you tend to get nothing rather than everything. and i think this idea the pits with that, which we support them will be making some announcements about is that it should be possible for local areas and communities to say we'd like -- or forget a little bit of funding the project, we can add to it ourselves. at the moment there's quite a bit of all or nothing in the way it works. >> we know you like trees. you become so committed to a tree planting program. can you give assurance today that in the forestry of state, forestry commission and state that anybody can push what's going on at the moment and it has both biodiversity and some issues that this will not be jeopardized in any way going forward. >> i think i can give that assurance. i think we do need to have a

good tree planting program in this country. in terms of the forestry commission, i don't get is absolutely vital who owns a piece of forest. the question is, is there good access to a? is a well-kept? it is supported by a diversity? almost 70% are owned by private companies or individuals. so this idea that a forest is only worthwhile and benefiting the nation and the public. we don't apply that to other areas. i'm not sure we need to apply that to forestry are properly regulated if we want them to do their job. i think some of the financing people should be worried about. >> finally, are you aware that one of the fat term parliaments -- [inaudible] >> i'm not aware of that.

i don't necessarily see why it should cause a delay because the reason for happiness long session is to get in sync with green speeches in the spring summer when the election would be, which is a logical move. i haven't started with introducing the legislation. that might just be an excuse figure being given. i will go ahead and see if i could find out something rather than not. ideal mac >> -- do you accept in the future going forward we're going to need a substantial nuclear power generating capacity? if you do, to accept there are urgent needs to get nuclear power stations built in time for the existing ones are decommissioned? >> i do think that nuclear is likely to play out a good part in a new mix of electricity. i think i should be done on the

basis of no specific nuclear subsidy. i think we shouldn't be giving guarantees to businesses about cleanup that were prepared to take responsibility for. i've had meetings with eds who are going to hunt with building new capacities in this country. they are the decisions that need to be made are being made to give them certain investment. and it seems to me were dragging on with the decisions that are necessary to give that certainty. >> i submit a question for the answers. >> in the last four questioners coming of covered issue with massive implications. and yet earlier, you have to ask that in establishing your policy that collaboration. are we going to start crosscutting work starting

tomorrow? >> i think what you're saying to me as i need to spend more time with my scientific advisers and i will certainly do that. >> questions of national strategy. forgive me for an seen a slightly cheaper question. did you ever hear an organization called eric? >> no. it was the foundation based on technical issues that actually forecast it would be a banking collapse and that it was the highest risk facing the security nation. unfortunately, they serve the national security strategy and i very deliberately did so. would you accept there is a need for that organization to be a bob list? or would you agree that a lack of that kind of strategic thinking happens in government?

>> i think probably the answer to that is yes. i think government inevitably in the modern world gets very focused on the short term of has been delivered to the next queen's speech, the legislation being drawn up. it is important to try and get government or people in government to stop, to sit back and look at the big picture, to think strategically, to take time to think. it's extremely difficult to do that because of all the pressures of political and government light. i hope that in our strategic defense review we did do that. we purposely separated security strategy from the subsequent works is that we could spend some time with the risks and opportunity of britain. to spend long enough? people what they can answer an argument you could spend longer. exit the general practice there is not a strategic thinking in government as a whole. >> in a report on the national

strategy, we very much welcome the establishment of the national security council, a big step towards better strategic thinking. but we suggest that the government -- we recommend that the government should recognize that there is a community of strategic thinkers in government, that they should decrease those and they should be trained as such. there used to be a civil service college course for six months and strategic thinking. what do you think -- we take for these recommendations that we should educate strategic thinkers across government, like reeducate finance managers in order to administer circuit in betters poured of all the possibilities and analysis and assessments of the parameters of the decisions -- >> i will certainly look at it.

but i've got a feeling that part of the problems and the sort of goes to interest question of how we can set this aside. it's all very well treated at sushi chicks finger snapping to permit scientists. what you need is to make sure the politicians have got a bit of time to stand back and listen to what the strategy is and scientists and others are telling them. and that's a difficult thing because inevitably they are huge amounts of pressures of what has to be done today, tomorrow, this year, next year, rather than try to think five, 10 years in advance. we got to find a way to do that better. and it's about how parliament work spirits that have a national debate works and the learned friends from the press as well. we've got to try and do that better as a country. i suspect having goodwill train people to help you do as part of the answer. >> heart of it is actually understanding what we mean by strategy which has become a very ubiquitous term used in place of the word plan or plan of action

is actually strategic strategy is about react into the short term as well as planning for the long-term. it's not just about the writing. but could i invite you to consider that ministers will be able to do their jobs better if they are more often confronted with the alternative scenarios and different parameters? and if that business analysis and assessment is done, much like is done through the joint television's committee, it needs to be across-the-board policy? >> yes, i agree with that. i do agree with that. i'm just trying to think whether -- we have to make sure this is not just spending more

time thinking strategically. we've got to make sure it doesn't just become -- to think it will be planning for the long-term. and i would say i've been pleasantly surprised that the way, if you create something like the national security council, machinery and the cabinet office enjoys doing it does do quite a lot of strategic thinking about resilient, about that, about future developments. things like psycho warfare would be a massive problem and i'm quite impressed that there are people thinking strategically and advising the strategically about these issues. [inaudible] >> we do recommend the national security council be given national strategy and not just the negative stuff. but the possibilities and opportunities facing our country

as well. >> up and go be to do that. if the national strategy becomes what the cabinet ought to be. you might find the national security council looses it's very important focus on security that goes off into all sorts of different tracks of them is something utterly vital that were thinking about national security. >> their efforts to include cooperation. with that departmental budgets, which i do hinder cross the department work. we abolish public service agreements, which you set across government goals. do you think you're doing enough to incentivize priced apartment cooperation? >> that's a very good question. i think so. we did this get this in opposition and should you do

more to pull budgets? i think it's fantastically complicated. it seems to me right answers at the national security council is discussing pakistan it comes to a series of conclusions about whether starr should be, our relationship he come up in every department should be following those conclusions. so defense will be spending more money on mending the fragile state. the ncos should be operating its relationship, it better, et cetera. every department as a consequence of what the national security council has decided. i'll make it matters a whole budget is appalled as long as ministers are then incentivized and judged on whether their children with the national security council has decided. >> and moving on, had the privilege of being there and assigned the bilateral treaty with france the other day. what priority do you going to give bilateral agreements over faulty lateral agreements? how do you see the two in each

other? >> i don't think it's an either/or. nato is a cornerstone of our security. i'm going to the nato council this weekend. the reason for the french agreement was for just two countries with very similar armed forces and we both want to see sovereign capability and it makes sense to combine in some areas because we get more bang for buck or indeed our frank. so i think you can do both bilateral -- not frank -- i don't want to contribute any further two euro words. where was i.? i don't think you have to choose between the two. the question i ask is what is our national interest in what maximizes our national interest quest does membership in nato? to set a budget? if it does. it doesn't deal with france?

is simple to utter national security does best. >> you see it offered bilateral assistance is one of their military operations? >> if for instance the french came to us and said we should work together because there's a problem in kosovo or some african country, then we would decide separately on each occasion but there's a danger being surrounded to some adventure or vice versa. we would've the capability to do things together as we have done in the balkans, for instance. and that without beach the good. those people sort of -- some people have written this is the end of the british armed forces been independent and is completely wreathed it goes. it enhances our father and capabilities that we can have more a 400 airborne debris better equipped tanker aircraft. we can have more effective armored vehicles. so we can get out of this.

we can save money and nuclear research, which we can put back into the defense. but it certainly doesn't mean that suddenly we're going to be careering off around the world because it says so. of course not. >> as you just said, you're off to lisbon tomorrow. what is coming out of this at the moment? this is going to be a landmark summit. the strategic concept process is rather split between those who want to speak to the old territory limits knows what to see an expeditionary capability. what side of that debate to be fair? >> i think the strategic concept and its night we all do we do not point official documents. i thought it document was beautifully cared and how it was written. and i told them, it's also the secretary general is very clear and is a good vision for nato, which is both about european defense, but also being able to

act like to play for our wider security, as we do in afghanistan. i think what comes out of the cancel is real solidarity over afghanistan, that we are making progress. we must do this together. with so the trading mission. we must go on training the afghan army and police. and i think kodak should be the preeminent conclusion. >> will be getting to that in a moment. but the strategic defense review places an emphasis on the world and as you know the responsibility transferred. the foreign secretaries going to have the last word on what the directions in the editorial content is going to be decided by the bbc. how do you think this is going to have an impact on the opening and closing on the world service? >> well, i think as you say the foreign secretary has the determination of where in the

bbc has editorial control. it seems to me that's the right decision. i think this was at good agreement with the bbc. i think the bbc shouldn't be immune from the difficult spending decisions that government departments have had to make. and i think this agreement where they found part of the world service and get licensing pairs a six-year fresen license rate is equivalent i think reduction of the budget over the spending. of what has happened to the british library or the british museum about 15% for memory. it seems to me that's a fair agreement for all concerned by having a freeze. >> yes, quickly. [inaudible] >> -- and the importance of environmental literature have been understanding about how

much of the importance of the environment and its global security. is that something which you intend pursuing are making sure it's stable and the arrangements applying to the bbc? >> it's been quite effective in putting forward good thinking on the environment. i'd also argue it's a good role for the british council. the british council is a fantastic progress of schools trying to encourage children to think about the environment. so i think it's something that the soft power institutions, which is the bbc british council are great examples of those is a really good example of what they can do. >> i understand the creation of the national survey what would happen in the last parliament is concerned concerned about the coordination policy. can you tell us practically how it works with regard to the country like yemen. we all accept that terrorism

does not have any boundaries. yet as you know, apart from what was found and what an issue dated in yemen would deal with the emergency situation. the ncc would meet monthly to consider strategy, presumably starting a strategy on the other. how that strategy actually be implemented, which would diminish the risk to yemen? >> the national security council meets every week. and the way i want it to work -- and that sort of making progress is all the ministers you have are all in national security. so energy, business, treasury, foreign office, prime minister, all of that. in addition, and crucially, if you've got current experts, the huts of the security services, pc hq.

and if were discussing brazilians, you might get people from the environment agency. the idea is that meets every week. it normally has an update on the key priorities of terrorism, afghanistan, to make sure we're getting the decision-makers are getting the latest information from the experts. and each week we try and have a discussion about a particular issue that meets the strategic approach. so we've had very good discussions on gavin and i'm looking at terrorism in northern ireland and other subjects. gehman is a good example, where we have a range of engagement with yemen. obviously, we have a budget. we have a bilateral relationship. i've spoken to president salant. i met him myself. we have a relationship in terms of security. and we tried to also have a beating part of the friends of

yemen, which we share with saudi arabia. the trainees all of those tools to make sure that what's happening in gehman is moving in the right direction. it's an extremely -- a crunchy with great difficulty, as you know, great poverty but declining resources and economy, massive population growth, rebels in the north, rebels in the south. it's a very challenged and also a base now for al qaeda and the arabian peninsula. what we do is bring all the tools we have with regard to her relationship with yemen. very long answer, but the classic awake for which you are to be thinking of government rather than by relying on a foreign government. >> obviously you are the head of the, the chief. >> you're quite right. the key person on the national security council is --

[inaudible] >> is american-style national security, condoleezza rice. >> the reason he's doing a brilliant job is proud organization together very well. one of the reasons he's been a full-time income from the foreign office who's got the foreign office to buy into the whole process. because this is a much more collected way of making foreign policy. i certainly wouldn't rule out having a person, but i think the key thing is to make sure -- what i'm trying to do is what discussed in spending or discussing foreign policy compass to afford a collective discussion at the center, which the prime minister should try and chair, rather than be the chief executive officer. >> on this topic, very quickly. >> on terrorism, besides the fact that the two hostages as of

late that came from their yacht off the coast of somalia, are we doing enough with the country to combat the situation in somalia? >> that's a very good question. we are trying. but as you can see, with the level of piracy and hostage in kidnap, the world's other in all of africa is at the moment not as effective as it should be. i think the basic problem is somalia. you can have as many ships -- and there are quite a few ships on those borders, but while somalia is a fairly broken and ungovernable country, it's extremely difficult. and so there's no easy answer to it. but again it's a combination of factors we need to bring to their to make some progress. >> prime minister come you've given insights to the national security council is working.

i'm wondering if you think appropriate one or two more points. first of all, has the composition change? because of the toxin they would announce, department for international foreign secretary was identified as a full-time member. the secretary of state cell energy and climate change would attend some time to time and you've apply to stifle member. just for clarification -- >> i have a couple is in front of you. but certainly for good discussions, we were discussing for instance carries the defense, i remember specifically chris you and chris cable where they are. energy is a key national security issue. i can let you know. andrea mitchell is certainly. who actually determines the agenda use that meets every week. obviously the international diploma and agenda, is it driven by foreign-policy or defense or

consideration? >> is driven by national security concerns. it is set on the advice by the advisor. i think actually so far it's had quite a lot of discussions that really do hinge on the work if it does and did play a very important role in that. we have made some changes to development policy and have focused it more into areas where there's a national security concern. so we are doing all in terms of broken states and more conflict prevention. >> it's not contentious, but there is a concern obviously what would call the securitization of development with the budget and afghanistan ms and pakistan were doing so as well. so i thought the two questions that follow is to what extent do you think the increase development budget actually improves national security?

and how can you reassure people that it does that in a way that delivers development rather than disdaining defense activities are more conventional security? >> well, i'll put all my cards on the table. in order to make the argument for a growing deficit budget in a time of national austerity, we need to correctly part of the argument for the budget. and there's another argument, which is even a time of there are people desperately and other parts of the world we should be supporting and that's part of the reason for the budget. that's what a lot of the money does go to the poorest people in the poorest countries. but i think we should expand the argument and actually say quite clearly that the defense budget is also about conflict production and stopping upstream things that will cost us for

many downstream, whether that is fast migration, whether it's climate change. whether his conflict prevention, prevention and conflict is always cheaper than taking part of it. and also i think frankly we should be clear that the development budget also gives britain clout in the world and imprints in the world. and i really feel that. when you sit around the table come at a g8 or the g20 and you're discussing haiti or pakistan or yemen, authentic model equivalent of a battleship is actually the c-17 loaded, the brilliant box subroutine that's going to deliver whatever. they are real tools of foreign policy uninfluenced and the world. we should be quite frank about that. i think we should be embarrassed. >> we may have to persuade the wider public. the other thing that relates to that on climate change, you talk about mass migration. you talk about the extent to which climate change in poor

countries could lead to people being displaced, people migrating even to the shores. there is a 2.9 billion international retirement finance coming from the deficit. is that of going to classed as development systems? is about going to be targeted to poor countries? >> my understanding is they're very strict views for what qualifies as ada spending. and we will make sure we are within those rules. i think there's a limit put on the amount that can be spent on private change, finance and we will be within those roles as well. i baksheesh is commissioned work myself to find out what other countries are spending on the kind finance because i want to see if others are following the lead that we have taken. so perhaps i can let you into the secret when i find out the answer. >> thank you for that. just as a matter of interest we

have evidence for the permanent secretary to the committee, which actually indicated across the government budget that would amount to about 7.5% of our overseas to build the systems, which is actually within the range of the previous government with the target of 10% should be the upper limit. your government has not repeated that particular guarantee. if you accept that as sort of -- >> my understanding is we probably accept was previously downed and we should go on doing that. we've got to make sure that even as we make a slightly refreshed argument for the development budget, as i've tried to explain, this is money that is actually helping the poorest in the world. i personally think that conflict and conflict prevention is one of the most important drivers -- is the best way to prevent poverty, so we should be embarrassed about the change. >> thank you for that. go into afghanistan, but it's

obvious where significant increase in the budget has taken place. 700 million. , which is a 40% increase. are you in a position to state what extent that is going to be spent? our engagement is in helmand, but one would presume that our development spending is not combined to helmand. are you able to say how it will be distributed within home and then across afghanistan is there any prospective facilities? >> were to remember things, which is directly in helmand where we've built over 80 prominent roads, where we are clean water. we have been improving farmers livelihoods in which i visited myself. but we're also putting money in selling to other parts of afghanistan. we are doing some direct government support to try and build the capacity of our government, for instance, to

read its own revenue. in the end we've got to try and build afghanistan that's not so dependent on foreign aid and support. we are doing some direct government to government support for recalling and helping them build capacities of rather effective government, which is challenging. for instance, we are spending 20 billion supporting revenue department since 2004 tax revenues have gone to $200 million thomas $1.8 billion. so that's a good example of capacity building at the center of government. >> the poppies kern has reduced the lot and the commitment on health and education and delivery has improved. what do you do to try and reassure people that actually what were doing development in afghanistan is actually working? before you answer that question, there's obvious concern about the level of corruption that exists within the system. i'm concerned that president karzai has cracked down on corruption is rather lacking a

commitment. that does undermine people's confidence. is there anything you can do to reassure people that the money has actually been effective and secondly there is a genuine recognition that corruption is the worst week to ensure people have confidence in future delivery? >> it's extremely difficult. our aid programs are seen across the world as being reasonably good at making sure the money gets to the frontline and is not diverted in essence supporting corruption. so i think we have to do what we can to reassure people about that. i approached the argument is fairly different way. i think we need to explain with relations to afghanistan the reason for being there is national security. we're not going to create a country. which is on afghanistan that will take care of its own security and status baster terrace. that should be our preeminent concern to afghanistan. the eighth and develop network we do this to help build up the country's capacity in all the ways you suggest. i think the tearing of it is

national security is the first part of the answer and the development picture is subsidiary to that. >> i think the distribution of the previous budget has increased to 20% in helmand and 80% across afghanistan. are you in a position to say whether that reported significantly changed? >> all the figures i've got tears about 50% difference of these are channeled to the government. but i don't have the home and country breakdown, but i'm sure i can get that for you. >> prime minister, the justification for still being in afghanistan is beamed to come as i understand that, to prevent the return of al qaeda. it's quite important to distinguish between metallica and the locals and the al qaeda who are international terrorists. are you still getting advice to that effect that al qaeda -- you think facing al qaeda will return to afghanistan and the

troops they are? >> that is the advice coming yes. because tyler dan is a term that covers a huge range of different people. from that one end, tribes who has been ignored, either by the government or by private security firms or whatever else, who have taken up arms and insurgents, but you were really connected to the sort of taliban movement. it goes all the way from that of the right of two people who do still have a link with a strong association with al qaeda. and there are many degrees in between. is it the case that it literally we left now in afghanistan was left as a basket case country with taliban controlling part of it, with all of the bad people we know are in the tribal areas

in pakistan, that they could return to afghanistan and we establish a base there? yes, i think that is the case. i think the success we're having -- i don't want to overstate his were having more tech go success on the ground in helmand. and because we have an effective strategy working with the pakistanis squeezing this problem for both sides and serious attrition of al qaeda in the tribal areas of pakistan, i think that's why we're having some success. but if you pull back then either side, either in pakistan or in afghanistan, you create a large amount of space for al qaeda to exist in. i'm part of that could be in afghanistan if we weren't there. it's a very long answer, but i think it's important to think about. >> we are achieving success on the ground, but that shouldn't be surprising because we're right at the height of the surge at the moment. who are left with a feeling that when the military starts to wind

down, the taliban will be occupied ground that the military holds unless we can start talking to them and we can negotiate the settlement. but that doesn't mean, having taught at a high level, do you agree that we should start talking to the television sooner rather than later? >> i think this is something for the afghan government to take the lead on and determine. by the way, most counterinsurgency is the world over through history have ended through a combination of force of arms, but also some sort of political settlement. and president karzai and i have spoke this morning about what he has said, that people who take it quite fundamentally strong religious view, southern

christians have been associated with the taliban if they put down their arms, if they severing connections with al qaeda, they can become part of the future of afghanistan. so some combination of military success, reintegration of low-level taliban and cumbersome reconciliation as well i think is part of the answer. it should be led by the afghans. >> to think the afghanistan of to do that on its own? >> i think that what i've observed in us that four years in the opposition going to afghanistan every year, what i've observed this change. they're also things that the relationship between afghanistan between president karzai and president safari is much better than it was. and in a way that is very important to make sure that any form of reconciliation strategy works.

>> you hosted a seminar before the election, was that useful? >> yes, goes back to her strategic thinking as a new prime minister having taken over as an existing afghan strategy to try and stand back while i agree with the main tenants and stand back and have a proper think about what we were doing and how we were doing it and how we could get to the endpoint we all want, which is in afghanistan running its own affairs. and so i got to people like petty action came, were restored, the task force in helmand, brigadier general rimland, a number of people came in as a concession to kind of think about forward to doing and how to do it. >> i was a number of people from inside the military and outside the military, people who agree and disagree on this policy.

to think that kind of strategic thinking has been permanently available to the national security council and indeed the cabinet is going to be effectively national strategy? >> i do. you don't have a huge amount of time. were involved in afghan situation where it is critical that this year and next year we make really good technical progress on the ground to see that we're safeguarding the population and denied the taliban space and making progress with the other things i talked about. ..

it's part of the relationship with britain and america were expressed a few are talking candidly as for friends as we are house trying to do too much in a sort of public forum. i think actually the idea that some great disagreement between different countries in about the combination of military success and political settlement. i don't think it is the case pitted before.

obviously yes because we have to convince pakistan that in its interest to have a stable of afghanistan and a neighbor and we have to convince pakistan as i think we are doing that terrorism in pakistan is not part of the solution and has to be defeated, and i think you can see with the pakistanis have done and waziristan and swat valley. they are putting a lot of pressure on the bad guys. >> by 2013 it's become pretty clear the policy isn't working. if it doesn't work to we have a plan b? >> you've got to give plan any everything you've got. [laughter] and i think that general petraeus's plan has worked well. i said who it said about the

trend of the afghan army and police about the importance of the reconciliation and i think if we do all those things there is no reason we shouldn't succeed. >> primm minister, can we come back to the plan b? let's suppose the targets, which president karzai set himself, and the targets which we all want to see achieved are not achieved dewey nevertheless withdraw troops? >> i'm not contemplating having a successful strategy but i will be as clear as i possibly can if i said very clearly that i did not want us to have combat troops or troops in large numbers in afghanistan by 2015 for very good reason which is we have been in afghanistan since 2001. we have been and helmand since

2006. britain, by 2015, will have played a huge role, made a massive contribution, made massive sacrifices for a better, safer and stronger afghanistan and i think the british public deserve to know that there is an end point to this at which we won't be in a combat role or large numbers of troops and that is why i set the deadline of 2015 and yes, it is a decline. i think deadlines actually sometimes help focus the mind of the afghan government that we have to make progress, help focus the mind of the military planners to know this cannot go on forever. in my judgment that is a right approach to the united kingdom. we are five years we from that point and have a huge amount of effort to give and we will put our shoulders to the wheel. we are the second biggest contributor making extraordinary contributions to the country and the british public deserve to know there is an end point to

this, it is 2015 and that is clear. >> why do you take this of you in relation to afghanistan and you didn't take it in relation to iraq? >> i'm in the position now of taking responsibility for what we are doing in afghanistan, and in the and you have to make a judgment as prime minister what strategy do you want to set, and do you want to set a time limit and i've taken the decision that we should come in different situations in iraq and afghanistan have given a pretty clear answer. we've already been in homeland for four years by the time we are not a combat role and much reduced troop levels. it will be more like nine years that is a massive contribution to the security of the country and i think we should use the

fact that we have given so much, spent so much and lost so much life to encourage others interested partners to make sure they're in the mission helping the country and to make one more thing clear of course, we won't have anything like the troops now but should a person go on having a relationship with afghanistan helping the country, helping train the military and support that treasury and build the capacity yes because we learned the past listen walking away and not proposing that and the british public deserves to know our young men will not go on into the situation they are forever. >> so you said what he said in canada to reassure. it wasn't some pressure coming upon you from the british to make a statement. >> it's not that. this is what i feel having

looked at the defense arguments and foreign policy arguments and national security arguments, and wanting to take the country through is a difficult time we have suffered some great lessons in afghanistan and want to make sure that we can take the country in the most united way you can through the situation for the national good of what we are doing in afghanistan. that is actually important. >> you will see the risk we might be encouraging the taliban they can wait us out and we might therefore be encouraging the the local residents of the afghanistan to support the taliban. >> the second risk is we leave afghanistan and the job of

combat troops to allies which is not truly in the british tradition. >> let me try this the best i can. it thinks and the 2015 deadline takes the pressure off with the others have felt which is i must insist on the troops by that month or that couldn't that is a more dangerous to get yourself in to get conditions based on the ground and to get a leader for the to sit to the individual did once before. it is effectively for four years in a long period of time. second, leaving afghanistan what i would say is we've been in the

toughest part of the country blomquist period of time when you look up the price we paid in the casualty we've taken we can hold our heads up high and nato and say we paid a huge part and other natos respect and understand that in an extraordinarily proud of our troops have done. it's been tough and all what i've tried to do is first of all the shore the missions we are involved and have a proper spirt of troops to deliver and we had to come out of and we were overstretched, there are of less 10,000 there are 20,000 u.s. troops i wanted to make sure we were covering the appropriate amount of ground so we could deliver the job and do it properly reserved incredibly great people and extraordinary things and i've been there and

see it for myself and i think it is right to make the decision is focused on central helmand where we have enough troops to do the job properly and that is what is happening and i am confident it is absolutely the right decision i insisted was taken. that's the first point to the second point is there won't be a serious amount of time we will have been there and we can hold our heads up high and play our role and to the right now what we've done a perspectives we will continue to do the next few years. >> thank you for the fed to continue to remind us week by week for those who have given their lives and still in a very costly conflict. as you know we have these occasions more frequently than your predecessor did. >> i suppose on happier note,

it's first of all the pleasure to have been the first minister to appear in a fully elected committee of democracy in action and ensure everyone will want to know that the news from yesterday and i think actually it is a debate we ought to have to of the is yet but whether or not there ought to be a bank holiday in the middle of the week they are very good ideas even if is the weekend it is well-intentioned to have the national celebration to what is happening. >> order. >> [inaudible conversations]

[laughter] several former guantanamo bay detainee's overlook use of torture and receive unspecified settlement payments from the government. we will year from british justice secretary kenneth clarke next. his remarks are 40 minutes before when. >> a statement mr. kenneth clarke. >> with permission i'd like to make a statement. the prime minister told the house the legacy issues the government had inherited of the treatment of detainees held by other countries needed to be addressed. the duties and is a country that believes in human rights, justice, fairness and law otherwise risked being tarnished. the was also the risk of

confidence being doubt in the ability of our security and intelligence agencies to protect from questioning the rules in which they operate. the government is absolutely clear national security protection of the rule of law go hand in hand. the pri minister has repeatedly made clear the government is unswerving in its opposition to torture and the of treatment of prisoners or detainees. we do not condone it nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf. we recognize one returns to the interests require that we defend our values and the rule of law and that any allegations that threaten this must be treated seriously. tackle and the seals obligations, the government objective is to see the security and intelligence agencies are able to focus on the task of

protecting the security and interest in the united kingdom and the the allegations made for the reputation are examined properly. the security of the nation is the first concern of any government. the intelligence agency plays a part in ensuring the security and they are free to the vital job we need any statement of where mr. citizen will increase was required to investigate the serious allegation the government complicity in the mistreatment of detainees held by other countries. the honorable was appointed to head the independent inquiry. the premise also made clear the ann curry couldn't begin while they were ongoing they remain unresolved.

for the inquiry to begin, the government brought a process with those held by the united states in detention in guantanamo bay with tours of elections against government. today the government has now agreed a mediated settlement of the damages claims brought by detainee's held at guantanamo bay. the details of the settlement have been made subject to a legally binding confidentiality agreement. the of the reported to the chairman of the intelligence and security committee of this house and the national orders office and i think to the public chairman know. no culpability have been made in settling the cases and nor have any withdrew their allegations has mediated settlement.

confidentiality are a very common feature of the mediation process as in this case it was agreed by roof houses subject to the necessary parliamentary accountability and legal requirements. i hope the house will understand volume unable to comment further on the details of the settlement without reaching the confidentiality. the alternative would have been extremely expensive litigation and the uncertain environment the government couldn't be certain you would be able to defend the departments and security intelligence agencies without compromising the national security. the cost was estimated approximately 30 million to 50 million pounds over three to five years of litigation. in our view there could have been no gibson inquiry until that litigation had been

resolved. the government limit for the statement to develop the process and the inquiry is in a position to work. the mediated settlement represents a significant step forward in delivering the plan of the revolution of the issues with interest of both justice and national security. the settlement has the support of the heads of the security service secret intelligence service and security service and quattrone sis are issuing a statement. in the statement the prime minister also announced plans for the green paper on the use of intelligence in judicial proceedings. we are hoping to publish the green paper the summer of 2011. it will examine mechanisms for the protection and disclosure of sensitive information and the full range of civil proceedings,

inquests and increase. also considered complementary options to modernize and reform existing standing intelligence oversight mechanisms. the government is engaging the relevant parliamentary bodies, key stakeholders and international partners in developing proposals further. mr. speaker, today's announcement is a very important step forward and we are getting closer to being able to get the important gibson inquiry into all the allegations finally under way. >> thank you. >> thank you for the mission earlier today. i welcome his vision this morning to make this statement to the house rather than the written statement that was originally planned. up until november, to those of four this for the detainees.

mr. speaker, does the secretary of state agree with me the statements as significant as this should be made first to the house before they appear in the media? we can withdraw in raising the concern of those extremely important announcements the house would lead and the use the program last night. mr. speaker lebanon to the settlement statement. the house is united in its complete rejection of torture and mistreatment, but goes to the practice, collusion or complicity torture and it is banned and no government should have anything to do that. on this side of the house we will remain completely opposed to guantanamo bay which is to remove all of the settlements and all but one resident from

guantanamo. my honorable friend, the member from the british government was the first to get all of her citizens out of guantanamo. can i ask what steps the government is taking to secure the release of the one remaining still in guantanamo and the family is in his place. mr. speaker, from security forces the government to live up to the highest standards while protecting the national security. they do an incredible job. the work is obvious reasons of security to the save lives and we should remind ourselves of that and the human rights policy about security services and be proud of the stance. as the head of the intelligence service said last month if we know or believe actions we need to prepare a trois -- were

taking place we need to avoid that action and find different ways consistent with human rights to get the outcome we want to sustain the work of the intelligence agencies and to make sure it is absolutely vital when the allegations are made. mr. speaker, you would know the previous government began the process of publishing the guidance given to the intelligence offices in process finished by the current government earlier it will remain -- it was and remains by all measures possible should be taken for house bills the public and allies that if anyone is alleged and fully investigated for any evidence gathered that is dealt with to conclude and that is why the previous attorney general's referred to the cases where concerns have been raised to the investigation

and we look forward to the inquiry into allegations of complicity and torture now that the cases have been settled. the gentleman confirm they will be able to conclude those education's before the inquiry begins. obviously the house hasn't been proceed to the settlements and the negotiations and the gentleman would note there are legitimate questions about the settlements the government has come to which is the cases were no longer the result in the courts. we understand the government had to consider this in light of the ruling by the court of appeals and the secretary seat can confirm to the house the settlements reached do not prejudge the inquiry or pass judgment on the auction of the services in advance of the full investigation. could tell the house with a comprehensive agreement would prevent him from telling the house of the public the sums of

money involved in the settlement if so there is a public interest in knowing the total funds involved in this settlement and we commit to scrutiny of the settlements for the intelligence and security committee with the inquiry pass judgment on each individual's case, can it say mr. speaker whether the scope has changed since the statement to the house in july? finally, they also tell the house whether any cases remain unsettled and what decision has been taken to the inquiry. mr. speaker, it's important the inquiry can have full access as

the courts with tough held by the government. if confirmed the gibson inquiry would have access to the same information there has been and will be available to the courts. mr. speaker everyone will appreciate the need to show the security is not compromise and of course this must be reflected in the way the the ann curry operates and it's important as the delegations are comprehensively addressed the public has the process and its outcome and we say there is no place of torture or mistreatment of detainees. >> of eight regret the leak hearing about the leaks i did a statement yesterday and was told details of the government but all eight will do my best to

make sure if there are no leaks of this kind in the future. we are continuing to press the release and in ensure the release and contact with them. as far as other questions are concerned, the termination of the government to draw a line and move on in light of the policy supported and all sides of the house the country is against torture and has a very good high-quality security and intelligence service which we make quite clear it isn't complicity and torture or as soon as we resolve the doubts to get on with the intelligence we were bogged down in litigation and complaints which are slowly the and know where it could've taken years to result because the difficulties about the admissibility of the evidence and hearing evidence in public. for that reason to hope we

publish the guidance on detainee's has said which is the first step we've taken and we've no result of these issues in a way that enables us to move on. we still have to wait for the police inquiry which he referred to. no one, no minister or anybody else starts instructing the police on how to conduct these increase, and we can't get the gibson inquiry under way until the police inquiries have been resolved. i don't know how long they will take. but it is a matter for the police and could lead to prosecution as we have to wait for the resolution of the prosecution's if it leads to no prosecutions and we really will be clear to get on to the inquiry that lies beyond. the settlement which no

concession of leggitt to become the withdrawal of allegations doesn't prejudge the gibson inquiry in any way. will be entirely for the colleagues to decide on the terms of reference finally settled and we see it looking at the problem in general of course looking at the history deciding whether there were problems were not with their use lessons to learn making the increase about how we may ensure the standards to uphold. we haven't ordered the scope of the increase since the prime minister made this statement and we expect it to have access to a wide range of information. they can have access because of the security problems they can't share with the clintons and public. so far as i am aware, the

settlements can travel all the british residents and citizens making the complaints out of guantanamo bay we are not aware of any cases that could be raised on this, but the actual settlement which is saves money but most importantly saves time, the service for spending hours through evidence and the fifth mitigation. i am not able to tell the precise sums of money involved, but i think the gay and has been achieved by managing and mediating the claims is considerable and is in the national interest we have a ten minute nation followed by the first day in the committee of the very important constitutional bill.

therefore there is a premium from the back bench and front. >> a member of the intelligence committee told the last five years have reached the uncomfortable conclusion if there is to be a different stand in the intelligence relationship of the united states it is reached the right conclusion, however having said that, we have to find a productive litigation of this type without compromising national security. have we considered the scope of the paper in civil cases to criminal cases. >> ungrateful of my honorable friend. the same issues arise and i will certainly take. it is coming up over and over again. we can't have an inquest which is decided in the inquest is a highly important matter of the explosions of july to extend itself into an inquiry into the activities of the intelligence

service and reforming themselves about possible risks of security across the country and forcibly is the crash into the problem of things what the evidence is supposed to be induced in public and i have no idea where we move on in that particular case and it is difficult to do, it is going to be difficult to reach but as quickly as possible which is intended to address this problem so we can be sure justice is done without compromising national security, and when that happens there is a tendency to get per clemency and everybody else to get bogged down in the litigation and judicial review and this has to be resolved. >> may i welcome the statement and the remarks of my honorable friend from the front bench picking up on the remarks of one

of the chairman of the foreign affairs committee. might i asked gentleman if it is possible for gibson with such experience to see to the important work on the green paper of the use of intelligence and judicial proceedings. >> he indeed is the intelligence service commissioner and is still when he takes on this inquiry but yes, he wishes to give his views on this difficult question i'm sure they would welcome because the honorable gentleman knows he is an expert on the whole subject. >> is a reasonable assumption the government would not agree to ev the settlement of there was no evidence whatsoever of u.k. involvement. >> the settlement isn't to be taken as any admission of liability as it were. it equals not in the interest of either party to get them stuck

into a civil litigation for and on foreseeable outcome. as i already said it could have taken years, it could have cost tens of millions of pounds. its resolution was holding out the press minister and the government to solve these allegations and have a proper inquiry into them. it has cost quite a bit of money because become plaintiffs were pressing their claims, but it's obviously a very difficult and unusual situation but it was the right thing to do in the public interest to pay the money and the idea that we just decide to carry on our during the next five, six years and the inquiry on and on was in doing any good. we paid out the money so we could move on compared with

continuing to contest the claims. >> i think they're the national confirm on all sides about government payments of compensation when culpability is not admitted but it's important to welcome the honorable gentleman's if a steegmans play also welcome the petition worse for word if memory serves me right on the previous government position in respect of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment. can i bring him back to the police inquiry into the gibson inquiry. i hope a speedy conclusion to the inquiry and gives an inquiry can get on with its work and bring some facts to a debate that is sadly lacking them. would it be possible to start work now even if the public and other work because a would be a pity if the police inquiry drags on for months from the delay prior to this area. >> i'm sure the right

honorable to commence these concerns and i share his impatience to see the gibson inquiry under way, but we cannot have the inquiry preceding in parallel with either civil or criminal proceedings on part of the same subject. for that reason we make it clear both would have to be the result for the staff and the role of prosecution you to have a criminal trial and that wouldn't be possible. we wait to see the side and the moment is result than he will be double to give his word. >> the particular facts of this case come to my right honorable friend confirm that any act of torture or conspiracy to commit acts of torture by the any citizen, any u.k. citizen

anywhere in the world will be a criminal offense, and that is a matter of public policy any evidence obtained by torture will always be inadmissible in the u.k. courts. >> yes i can give a straightforward, positive answer. yes, it is undoubtedly the case. my honorable friend is accurate and stated the position. >> just the secretary for defense notes his statement given the need to preserve confidentiality in relation to the settlement, how long does he think that will be preserved during in mind the link for the department this week? >> exactly the same thoughts have crossed my mind and i must help everybody abides by their legal obligations, but i share his uncertainty. >> chris hopkins.

>> might it be appropriate we recoup the cost of the compensation payments all the individuals responsible in particular the former labor prime minister tony blair who has made tens of millions of pounds since leaving. >> c2 some of the cost incurred as a civil litigation between the detainees and of government and we have settled it. i don't think -- i don't agree with my honorable friend's suggestion to switch the claim against the previous prime minister. >> does the state accept many people find this a difficult and bitter pill to swallow. what would he confirm that the intelligence relationship with the united states were to break down which is a possibility that would imperil the lives of many citizens of this country? >> i agree, mr. speaker, the

government's relationship with the united states and the close relationship to the intelligence services and those of the united states says the recovery vital part of the contribution to our protection and the lives of individuals and it mustn't be jeopardized. >> is this a country agree it would be wrong to infer from the fact there's a confidentiality agreement about the sum paid to these individuals that that confidentiality agreement was imposed at the behest of one side rather than perhaps the other? >> the other side wanted confidentiality as well and it's not at all unusual when you mediate an action of this kind both sides agreed they wish to have confidentiality and my honorable friend is right there is no point trying to lead in 28

ytd -- to it and make a reasonable offer and get out of it. the considerations are which more important and how much longer do you want man-hours observed in the intelligence service and how many tens of millions are we prepared to spend on the litigation? >> the political point made by my honorable friend, can i say to the justice secretary will many people will find it difficult to understand how compensation quickly pays unless there was substantial substance for the allegations made by those who claim they were not transferred illegally and isn't the lesson here quite clear for

states like ours based on the rule of law that all officials not be complicity in any way with agents abroad who carry out torture? >> not unusually a settlement to be reached with neither party making any concessions on their arguments people agree it is a sensible way of compromising the dispute without going further. having said that, the honorable gentleman's statement of principle the second half of his question i agree the government is opposed to torture, serious criminal defense. we are opposed to the ill treatment of detainees, prisoners in any circumstances and we will not condone it or be complice it in a evin from terrorism in the world. >> jane l. -- ellison.

>> if we are to achieve closure on this matter is important it is released to the country and for the torture in query. >> yes, i agree, and i know there are people who feel strongly and continue to be in contact with the united states and continue to be released and returned to this country as my honorable friend has been arguing for some time. i agree. >> secretary of state, i am comfortable we keep announcing big cuts of the budget, millions of pounds being played out, and shouldn't we actually be making sure if those who receive the money themselves breach the confidentiality agreement that

that money is then taken back? >> that might involve the reopening of the settlement, but i would say the reason one has to be careful about the confidentiality is it good in principle reopen the settlement. there are very -- there are quite a lot of aspects of this which everybody is uncomfortable with and some people are quite strongly dislike the we have to keep our eyes on the national to go on with the job allowing us to the repetition of the country beyond a doubt and learn any lessons that have to be learned we don't know yet from anything sir peter gibson and in the legal aid proposals he didn't say it would still be available on the means tested basis to anybody who wishes to challenge the state by way of judicial review but other claims of interest at all.

>> i welcome the statement, mr. speaker. i'm sorry we didn't do more to speak out against guantanamo bay. the creation of the term enemy combatants which allowed the nation and the world to ignore the geneva convention. but to now turn to the issue of compensation for the british victims of terrorism overseas. he will be aware of those caught up, mr. speaker were adequately supported and compensated but as soon as those events take place abroad there is no support whatsoever with r-tn mumbai this is wrong and needs to change. >> i know my honorable friend is continuing in the subject and we are as part of our policy considerations having a look at the criminal compensation system and the proposed terrorist system and deciding how we should charge the government's

responsibilities for compensating those who have been injured by crime in their home which we also have a broad as i know my honorable friend has been campaigning for. >> a year ago i wrote on behalf of the committee to the previous general asking about the police inquiry and he is surrounded by officers. while not seeking to influence the police or instruct them it should be totally improper, surely it is in everyone's interest that we note there is a timetable or what is holding of this inquiry that has gone on for several years. >> well, to follow these exchanges will note the honorable member to move on and get a resolution i think it will be going on for 15 to 18 months but he knows everybody else involved in these discussions

that actually are quite improper for anybody to start approaching the police and putting pressure on them to put a timetable and start pressing them one way or another? >> henry schmitt. >> thank you. i welcome the gibson inquiry and the fact that this is necessary for the sake of our national security. but will he not acknowledge the press by many that in particular regards to the non-british citizens that a settlement has been paid using taxpayers' money for the foreign nationals to the foreign country by the foreign government. >> the case is evolves, the british nationals or british residence there is one actually where that is a powerful statement but already got under way before the state and jurisdiction accepted and 12 already before the courts and before if we hadn't receded but we haven't started conversing

people with large for what happened in guantanamo bay. we've only dealt with the british residents and citizens. >> pagen of large sums of money the people who have given no guarantees about breaching confidentiality. kanaby truth cannot save the house at all, is it a body in time? it sounds like [inaudible] now they are giving millions. [inaudible] of this government already. >> he is not right. the confidentiality is bounding on both sides and the people who brought the claims have bound

themselves i confidentiality and so have the government and it is a perfectly usual term of a mediated settlement or what was going to be an expensive problem of the british taxpayer hasn't been resolved. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the mediation is designed to address the potential litigation are rising from the guantanamo pieces and it is estimated to be between 30 and 50 billion. it will deal with cases outside guantanamo where individuals are being detained in other countries. what estimates are being made of the potential litigation in those cases? >> well, it is the gibson inquiry does have quite terms of reference, i agree. he is looking at the whole question of the detainee's generally. the of course cases where there was provision of but whereas our allies or some theater where we

did engage, and my honorable friend has been on the telephone and takes a big interest in where their rendition should be included also in his interest in these allegations, so i can't give an estimate. we are anxious to assure the a reasonable timescale. we don't want this to go on forever and so we will take a general look and it will take such evidence to as wide as necessary to guide the policy but beyond that i can't go because there will be a matter between the two colleagues he has on the panel. >> we know the settlement was under 30 million because that is what he said was the minimum cost of the alternative. what i don't understand, but i'm not a lawyer, i will confess that and most british people aren't lawyers is why the government is with you making this settlement that it wanted to keep the sum of money involved a secret from the british people. why was that the government's

position in this case? >> the other side wanted confidentiality and it was on the basis of confidentiality subject to parliamentary accountability. understand the question is obviously a way to get quite a lot of people but we settle it and you can settle on the basis of confidentiality. we have notified the national office and also agreed to the chairman of the public accounts committee and have briefed the chairman of the intelligence select committee, but we would be folly to read the legal confidential the which is part of the settlement is the result is to jeopardize the settlement and put us back where we started >> i'm sorry to strike a discord

people are going to think the world has gone mad. they are getting more money than the victims of terrorism here in london and what people want to hear from secretary of state is to accelerate proposals to ensure we never have this nonsense ever again. >> it is the rule will fall and afraid. the honorable gentleman is judging the claim. the delegate claims were for serious problems and i've met them which the argument was about the complicity of the british security services, which was not admitted, and they were bringing legal action, and it might be the conclusion the court might have come to the conclusion of the honorable

gentleman that we are never going to discover now because we have settled it because it wasn't worth discovering the cause the bigger public interest was getting on to make sure we could put a line under all this and have the reputation of the intelligence service restored and getting to be the gibson advisers on how to make sure the reputation remains intact. >> what my honorable friend assure me of the allegations were substantiated as was suggested the government might not have needed to settle these cases. amol conversations >> think it all forms the settlement would be made with no commissions on one side or the other. those this indicate which side was winning? it doesn't necessarily. the fact is the two sides were going nowhere fast because of

the difficult legal problems of what evidence can be admitted and whether the evidence should be admitted publicly. if you want to read into it was producing frivolous games to get away with murder the court was entertaining the claims. there were 12 selections under way that i think everybody understands the extraordinary circumstances of the case it was better to settle with the emirate it will want to see who won but no one should read into this on the missions of liability no one should read into this that one side packed up their claims. we just agree to come to a sensible mediated settlement. >> we demonstrate we've learned the lessons of the damage done to their reputation by the nature of these investigations by guaranteeing that when allegations are made of that behavior such as the 21 cases quoted by the guardian on the

information request that those present and future applications would be investigated swiftly and thoroughly. >> that is why we need the green paper to try to establish some rules on the admissibility of intelligence evidence or evidence that may be of relevance to the national security. as i said to the earlier question is cropping up with ever more frequency. and we just need to resolve it. but it's not just something we can simply as a government or parliament we have to result in a way which is compatible with the rule of law, the children of the british court have come to and the strong opinions held by the judiciary in this country and the role of the pending our fundamental rights and the rule of law and the independence of the court have to look at the international obligations. it's not been easy, but that i think is the secret getting back to resolve these methods of the

decent pace. i am sure the honorable to thomas's wish we could do that so they could be sorted out clearly, early, st forward whenever these matters arise. >> you will note my former constituents were held for many years in guantanamo bay in intolerable conditions asked the secretary if members of mi5 or mi are planned to be complicitous torture what penalties to the face? >> good question. >> i should make clear the allegations in these cases were not so far as i am aware of any member of the british security services had directly been involved in torture or mistreatment the it would be

very serious matter indeed if anybody in the british intelligence services were ever found to have taken part in torture or to the brief treatment of the detainee. >> order.

last week several of the nation's incoming republican governors met at their party's annual conference in san diego.

a lawyer from governors elect john kasich of ohio, nickie hailey and tom of pennsylvania. this one hour forum begins with comments by nevada governor elect ryan. >> think all of you for the support to gave me during the course of the campaign. it's interesting you bring up the fact that i gave up my federal judgeship the last time appointed to run for governor for the state of nevada. that was probably the number-one question lagat asked on the campaign trail and the first person to ask that question was my father. he said i heard you made your decision. i guess you know what you're doing. i call him back and i said dad, that's not quite the endorsement i was looking for from my father. [laughter] in any event i was blessed to be the first person in the history of my state to be a sitting incumbent governor in a primary. i was fortunate to defeat my

democratic opponent by e11 points that came because all of your support arthu in the audience. my state faced a significant challenge. we to lead the country in unemployment and we do lead in dropout rates and an foreclosure. so the second question was why in the world would you run out now? the answer to that is i think it is the greatest opportunity and the greatest moment in history of my state to have the privilege and honor as serving as governor and i made a very specific message when i announce my candidacy the we were to balance our budget without raising taxes because that would be the worst possible thing you could do in the worst recession of my state. i talked about the fact i was going to reform education and change the dynamic. i talked about the fact that we are going to diversify our economy and make our state a better state for business to come to and work. so again i want to give a lot of time for the ever governors

elect to speak. is a privilege to be here. again, i cannot express my thanks and gratitude enough to the support of the rga and the republican governors who came to my aid during the course of my campaign. i look forward to listening to everyone else's remarks. thank you. [applause] >> the next presenter is susan martinez from mexico. she also was the former prosecutor, which is the theme among some of our new governors. she is somebody who is going to be the governor in a state that has been trending blue in recent years and a recent election cycles, but she really captivated the imagination and cast a division of brighter, more hopeful vision for her state and some very difficult years under the previous administration and she's also somebody who i think is going to be incredibly influential for the party, for the rga for years to come. susan martinez somebody worked with the rga.

i think the rga sent to mexico approximately $2 million to help her and hold the race in new mexico and we look forward to her comments. susana. >> thank you. first and foremost i want to thank all of you for your support. the rga -- i could have never been elected a state of new mexico and got my message across the it's a very large state, without the financial support of those behind rga and the staff of the rga and governor haley barbour. is a dream that has come true and has allowed me as district attorney in a county where republicans are outnumbered nearly three through coke want to take the challenge statewide, where we outnumbered nearly 3-1 and has allowed me to win this race with eight points, and the way we did that is we kept on the message that we wanted to make sure to close the deficit to this state of mexico is experiencing. at this point is about half a billion dollar deficit.

the $5.6 billion budget. we also are 49 to the nation in education. we are the bottom of every good list, and the top of a free batt list. we are not competitive and wherever the governor is, we continue to have this very friendly challenge amongst each other that all i intend to bring back all the jobs we lost to your great state in the great hope we will create an environment in mexico that is competitive for small businesses to win so small businesses have a level playing field that the haven't had in a very long time in the state of new mexico. ..

and making sure that we are producing students that are graduating. right now 50% of our kids when they get it out of high school they gone to college and a they need remedial studies and that is unacceptable and 40% of our kids don't graduate at all from high school. so we have a lot of work in front of us however we are determined and we are determined to produce results. we are determined to make sure that the face of the american public is the face of those who redid it deliver results that those who elected them and earned the respect and a vote in the future of those who have been elected at this time. but we will do so in the years to come. thank you. [applause]

>> john kaysich is no stranger to leadership or solving problems or challenges. he has been a great leader for our country. when he served in the united states congress there was a moment in time in the late 1990s for the federal government budget was actually balanced. john kasich was one of the key leaders of not the key leader in making that happen in the congress. he was one of the driving force or that balanced budget and so he is somebody who understands the importance of fiscal discipline and not just giving great speeches about it but actually getting it done. the great stories is this election is the great state of the midwest most of them turning from blue back to read so you see now republican governors in places like iowa, wisconsin, michigan ohio and pennsylvania and so many other places. john is coming out of the huge battle in ohio. was a firewall for president obama and the democrats. president obama with their 12 times. vice president library been more.

the rga sent to ohio about $11 million, playing a significant role in this election but regardless of the mechanics of at the point is ohio is going to benefit from the positive, strong, clear discipline and leadership of john kasich and john we are very grateful to you and look forward to your comments as well. [applause] >> thank you, tim. i think it is first of all important to note i am the father of 210-year-old twin daughters and i think about nikki haley and susanna who just spoke to all of you and governor lingle and john brewer and mary fallin. the republican party has got some women that are just awesome [applause] and as the father of 210-year-olds one of my daughters wants to be a doctor in the other wants to be

president. my wife and i are enthusiastically supporting the doctor. [laughter] i received a phonecall from valerie jarrett a couple days after the election. she she is some big-time assistant to president obama and she said well, are you rested? you sent the president in 12 times to beat the living daylight out of me, the former president, the first lady and every left-wing group in america and i like to have wrapped it up by 9:00 in the evening but it took me a couple of more hours other than that. and it was a heck of a race, and i want to thank everybody that was able to jump in and participate and i think it was the firewall or for barack obama and joe biden called me the other day and he said we threw everything at you. i said yeah joe, and we one. so that was all good news. what do you think? [applause] i want to thank all of you and

you know there are a lot of people in here that represent special-interest groups. sometimes we can look at that i'm a negative point of view and other times i believe we can see moments in time where you have the experience and the knowledge to help transform the governmene sector experience and the views of innovation to make things much better. i really believe that the business community looked over the cliff after these last two years. i think a lot of times people say it is the most important election in my lifetime but frank and i think we are going to look back and say 10 was an election about buyers remorse. nothing personal against barack obama but it is sort of a values issue. you know the value being that if you work hard and you are successful, that somehow you did something wrong or that somehow we can take on massive amounts of debt and at times reckless

spending and not realized that really puts our children and our children's children at risk, that somehow letting the federal government micromanage your businesses, and then you take a look at that crazy provision in the health care bill on the 1099, that teaches shake your heads and say where the heck are we going? and i think for a moment in time, the business community, the ceos that you represent, the boards of directors that you represent, they awakened a sleeping giant in america. people who believe in free enterprise and government as a last resort, not as a first resort. and i think you should all be proud of yourselves, that you were willing to stand up, take the heat, maybe take the hits, let haley barbour become a leader here along with tim and

sonny purdue and so many of the other sitting governors to say we need your help. we need to join the fight and we need to stand for the basic principles that we believe in that not only gave us an opportunity to prosper in our country, which we inherited from our parents, but i think a lot of your motivation may even have gone back to the fact that you want your children and your grandchildren to have the same kind of opportunities that we got from our parents. that frankly was my motivation and i believe a lot of your motivation. the state of ohio has not been open for business. we are open for business now. but i want to encourage all of you to go on a web site. i don't know but his life quite yet but it will be made life, fix ohio now.com. we would like your ideas. if you have ways in which you think the location and the skills of our workers and a great universities can really be a benefit to your company, we

want you to come see us. this is really going to be the message of every governor because every governor is struggling and fighting to create jobs in an economy that has just been devastating to our families. but you know i guess john kennedy was right when he said a rising tide can lift all boats. and i hope that this group of governors are going to have their voices heard in washington to be set free, to let our people go so we can design programs to meet our problems and we can get -- i'm not just interested in balancing the budget in ohio. i'm going to balance the budget and cut taxes because ohio has become more competitive. we have to take down the regulatory barriers but every state is trying to do this and that is good for our country. but we would like you to participate. if you have ways in which you think you can allow us to operate the government of ohio and serve the customers, the people of ohio better, we want your ideas.

we want you to raise yourself out of that -- where sometimes you are concerned about taking care of what you have and think bigger than that. dare to be great, dare to be different, dare to create a legacy. we are there to accept you and i know so many of the other people that are here today feel exact the same way. and i don't look so much as a competition with rick.. you know, i think ohio state e. of the last time. i don't look at this as a competition for any of these governors. i look at it as an opportunity for all of us to work together and rise that tide, rice that tied so that we can all be successful and the families inside of our states can prosper. i want to leave you with one final thing. i am really so thankful to be in this position. i think the good lord helps push me over the mountain in the selection. the bottom line for me is that it's incredible. i don't know anybody, all yeah

prg it was great. we help the rga. we raise a lot of honey for them as well. wouldn't have been able to win without their help but at the end of the day, i am in this job and the people that are going to surround near in this job to do one thing, to restore the legacy of my great state of the good role model for other people and for young people. that is what i call a balance so we welcome you to the buckeye state. we hope you will help us and thank you for your help. [applause] >> tom corbett has served as attorney general in pennsylvania for a good number of years. he has been the leading vote getter statewide before any candidate in the most recent election. there is a reason for that. is because he's a strong leader for strong record in the also finished a strong campaign aides including keeping a lid on taxes, reducing government spending and holding government accountable. that message didn't strong contrast to his opponent. was a referendum on those valuea

state that really is one of the most important swing or battleground states in the country. we are very fortunate he is going to be one of the next great governors in the united states of america. tom corbett, the governor elect from pennsylvania. [applause] >> thank you, thank you governor. we use the term key tones -- keystone state because we are the keystone state in the country from our colonial times. and one of the things they i talked about throughout the campaign was not only being a keystone state that being competitive. governor kaysich i'm going to argue with you. i think competition is good for us because the more we compete among ourselves the greater we make this country because we have to understand that we can no longer worry about competing among ourselves. we are competing with nations around the world who would like to see us fail and we are going to change that is governors here in our state as we change this

country and i'm convinced we will do that. last year when we were in austin i sat on the same stage with governor pawlenty in myself and governor -- governor kasich and governor perry. three of us got to listen to the governor general governor perry talk about that. i thought to myself i want in on that. i want pennsylvania to be in on that and that is exactly what we talked about, what i talked about throughout the entire campaign. we could not continue i said to increase our spending and increase the size of our budget of pennsylvania which increased by 40% under my predecessor's term. we could not continue to increase the debt at a time when people are losing their houses, at a time when you come them is going further and further south. we could not continue to balance our budget with using stimulus money which i always refer to as a long-term debt of balancing

the budget for one year. and that was the message that was received by the people of pennsylvania. i would not have been able to deliver that message as well as we were able to deliver it without the help of the rga and all of you sitting here in this dais. haley and the entire rga staff and the entire membership of rga, thanks on behalf of myself and my family. i want to thank for what you have done and on behalf of the people of pennsylvania because we are going to nick a difference. i think one of the most important things that the governor can bring back into state government is maybe they can take it to washington too is common sense. that we start governing and taking a look at the effect of overregulation, take a look at the effect of not having lawsuits reformed as we don't have an pennsylvania, but i promise the people of pennsylvania we are going to get it and hopefully this year. how it will make pennsylvania (so that we can compete with

texas and ohio and my good friends on the east and my good friends to the west, my good friends in the east, governor christie. with all the states around us. i believe that competition has started out in is going to make all of the stronger. is going to make this country stronger, so thank you very much. [applause] >> the rga invested $8 million in the pennsylvania governor's race and i hope that was helpful in your getting tom over the finish line. nikki haley is their next and last presenter before we get to the q&a parts of the presentation. she has a compelling life story. she is somebody who is an entrepreneur. she worked in her family business and understands what these policies mean from the standpoint of the family that ran a small business and provided jobs and economic activity in her state. really has lived the american dream. she is served with distinction as one the most dynamic and

effective state legislators in the south carolina legislature. there are a lot of folks who are in tough competition for the governor's race in south carolina and she rose to the top. as i think you will see an amended in the coming year she will be one of the most dynamic and effective leaders for our country and we are grateful for your service to south carolina and for the whole country. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you governor. i will tell you a lot about it, please would happen with me and what happened in south carolina which is i am the daughter of indian parents that reminded us every day helpless we were to live in this country. they love the fact that you could start something. build it as much as you want to, be as effective as you wanted to be a no one was going to get in your way. mice barron started a business out of the living room of their home in 30 plus years later was a multilane dell or company but the one thing we knew was there is never a day it was easy. there was an average day we didn't look at yesterday and say

what could we have done better or look at tomorrow. i started doing accounting when i was 13. it was at that point when i learned the value of a dollar. it was at that point as i grew up that i saw how hard government was on businesses. i saw how hard it was for businesses to make a dollar and how easy it was for government to take it. i did what my parents always said instead of complaining about it i got involved in the legislature and what i saw him as we came into this governor's race was yes south carolina had a republican house and the republican senate and the republican government but that was not good enough. we need to have a conservative house, conservative senate and a conservative governor and we need to happen in every state in the country. so what we saw saw was we had an arrogant statehouse legislature, we had an arrogant federal governor in. we had a conservative governor and mark sanford but we needed to see more of that, so what i did was iran against the congressman and attorney general and lieutenant governor is a statehouse member.

a very little name i.d. and i had very little money but what i did was i went across the state and i said if you think government should understand the value of the dollar, if you think the elected officials need to remember who it is they worked for a nifty thing jobs and the economy should come first then join our movement. i only said if you like what i have to say go tell 10 people. and they did. and those 10 people told him people and before we knew that there was this amazing grassroots movement that went across south carolina but i always finish by saying if you join our family don't ever let it be about a person. don't ever let it be about an election. make sure it is about what we need to do going forward. make sure this is about how we are going to change the face of our country going forward and look at our country now. we are celebrating some wins but that really means that we saw people get involving government that it never been involved in elections before and they said this is not about being republican, democrat or independent.

this is about the fact that we have had enough. we are seeing an awakening across this country where i've never seen people more spirited about their government and elected officials so scared. it is a bit of thing and we need to keep it that way. so this is our opportunity to shine but it is not about the wins we need to celebrate. is about what we are going to do in january. we have got to show people the value of the dollar. we have to fight annualization's. we have to look at unfunded mandates. we have got to fight excess health care. we have to look at our illegal immigration reforms. we have got to make sure we are going back to smaller government but we have to make sure we are strengthening our businesses. that is when we will prove to the people of the state that we are fighting for them again. so while i think we need to celebrate the fact that we have great republican governors, what we really need to celebrate is the fact that people found the power of their voice. i can tell you what happened in south carolina in south carolina khalid can happen across the country which isn't is instead of electing the first to person

they thought it meant a lot to the person i thought should win. and we have a great responsibility especially as we go into the elections of 2012 because i think we are going to see people wake up. i think we are going to see them fight back and i think we are going to see a government that is stronger and better than we have ever seen before. as we are facing congress is going to be up to our governors to fight the good side. is going to get her governors to show washington what good policy looks like. is a pleasure to be here. i want to absolutely thank e. r. g. and because they were one of the organizations that instead of looking at who could win, they look at who should win and they gave us support along the way. my husband michael is here today and we want to tangle you for everything you did. we want to thank you for your support of the rga and we want you to know we are rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. thank you are in much. [applause] >> okay we are going to have a

discussion of between the panelists for a little bit and then and a little while we are going to open it up to all the governors and governors elected governor designates from north dakota. we will take five or 10 minutes and talk to the panelists with questions in mind. the theme for this panel is really the future of the republican party so we will talk about forward leaning issues and of course one of those is the need for the nation at the federal level and really at all levels of government to reduce and get control of spending. and so each of these candidates and now governors elect have just gone through campaigns were that was one of their main themes, what can we do to slow down, reduce the spending, reform government. let's ask each of the panelists to comment and get maybe one or two ideas that you have poor lessons learned in your case john, when you did in congress. areas where states that the state level can reduce spending by being more efficient are just doing less. >> tim the press has tried to get the specifics out of me for

six months. [laughter] you know i think the key is first of all you have to make changes and shrink government. we know that all over the country. we note that at our state and the federal level. the first thing you can't do is pay -- play favorites. you have to look at programs and figure out whether they were. if they don't work yet to get rid of them or if they are necessary you have to fix them. i am not a huge believer and going out and doing cuts. it is reform, make things work that are. vendettas renovation comes and so i take a look around. my folks take a look around the country and we have been actually thinking about these for a number of years. you know, how does mitch daniels do? how does he do things better? what is chris christie doing and what is bob mcdonnell doing. bob mcdonnell deals with a deficit. he has done a heck of a job so we look at best practices. best practices at the governors

level, best practices even at the municipal level, best practices in other parts of the world. what does tim pawlenty do? an impossible situation in minnesota where the legislature wants to raise taxes. how do you make it palatable lax in education for example we found that in ohio that we are 46 in terms of dollars in the classroom and we are ninth in terms of overhead red tape, administration building. that is just ridiculous. so we will get the dollars in the classrooms. most important thing is not be parochial, not take care of your friends and call it like a you see them be an innovator. if you do that it makes choices. the other thing is you can't have a spare. you were elected to do something. you were elected to get reelected, don't run. but if you are elected and you get elected there is nothing wrong with getting hammered over the head for doing something you believe him because in the long run it will benefit the people. i remembered him when i left

washington a lot of these people here worked with me. they have prayed for me when i was leaving because they want to make sure i got on the plane to get the hell out of town. now a lot of them are shaking my hand today same thank you. >> one of the things i did during the course of my campaign is i made a commitment to visit 100 businesses throughout the state of nevada. everything from a small family-owned doughnut shop to a technology company that employed hundreds of people. and in nevada they talked about the fact that things aren't working out well for us and we have reduced benefits. we had to let some people go and they turned to me and said why can't state government do the same? in nevada they have traditionally built a budget based on let's look at what we spent two years ago in ad 6% that. we can do that anymore. i don't think it should be a novel concept that you spend what you have, not what you would like to spend.

is a very big difference. during the course of the campaign that is what i talked about. now as a governor like i've met with the budget director and i'm meeting with each of the heads of their respective departments within our state government saying we are going to budget a different way. we we are going about this with the way what we have to spend nothing more. i've taken a very meticulous approach to that. i think the state of nevada is going to be better ford and the people of the great state. >> i think what we are going to face is a terrible budget crisis but when we do this i think this is a perfect example to go back and say what is the role of government? government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. was never intended to be all things to all people. so we are going to go back and still -- scale back. say what do we have to have an a market where? that is what we we do on the state level. on the fetter level when you understand we have mandates

coming down that are unhealthy so i think that we need to get this coalition of republican governors together. we need to have a conversation. we need to let them know rather than mandating health care honor states, let us incentivize or small businesses to offer health care. let us perform our medicaid that would take 10% off our budget. let us pass tort reform like governor perry did in texas which is phenomenal. let us do things like that in rather than mandating health counter citizens what we need on the federal government is to allow insurance companies to cross-state lines was competitive. that way we are not just say no. we are giving solutions on what we can do. at the federal government can do on their behalf and then stop all these mandates from going through. but i do think while we are all facing the challenges there is an incredible opportunity for us to look at what the core missions of government work and redefine our states again. >> there is nothing worse to a strong and robust economy than to have a big bankrupt

government. in new mexico our current administration grew government by 54%. handing out exempt positions to those who were donors and those who were friends. eight years ago we had a republican governor and approximately 180. this current administration grew to almost 600 exempt positions. many of them over $100,000 salaries. some of them but didn't have jobs to go to. one who is the director of museum the museum that didn't even exist. and then turning around and recent months giving a 15% and hiding exempt folks and placing them in to classified positions. growing government beyond what anyone would ever expect under the current economy. and we have a and corrupt government. what has happened in the state of new mexico is it has become

extremely unpredictable. i propose to our state, i propose to the citizens of mexico that will cut back on those exemptions, which will save us $10 million. i've also proposed that with 5% attrition rate of state employees because it grew actually by 5400 state employees in just eight years. and if we reduce that by 3000 vacancies that exist today that are partially funded and by the attrition rate of 5%, we can save up to $40 million. and if we started paying the universities for credits that students receive instead of just because they have enrolled, and wait until they complete the course, we can also save another $62 million. that is looking at the outside in, because of course this administration is not being forthcoming not only with the legislature but certainly not with the transition team. so it becomes challenging to know precisely what the numbers look like.

but from the outside looking in and we are $100 million in the week after election the deficit went from 252 million to 462 million. in just a weeks time. so the projection, the realistic projection that growth will be at a 6% rate has allowed the current administration not to make cuts, not to make the tough decisions but to continue to grow because the expectation is unrealistic that we are going to have a 6% growth. and no one believes that. so we are going to make those tough decisions but i think we can find that waste and fraud. any government they grew by 54% obviously is not in touch with a population growth and inflation and therefore there is waste within state government and to make it more predictable when you root out the corruption will bring back the ability for us to be competitive with our neighbors, to bring back the revenue in the jobs necessary for us in and grow the economy. i am committed not to raising

taxes. that is not the way we get out of the mess we found ourselves and what we have to make sure that we change the culture. that is the way we do business because it is not the way we do business. we intend to have a reputable environment. we have an intention to make sure it is a fair playing field across the board and we intend to bring our future with us, what their children and teach kate them in a way that a workforce of the new mexico stays in new mexico because we have great jobs to offer them. >> i want to echo two-point to poinsettia vardy been made and that is what happens when you are at the end. number one, what governor haley said. and that is the unfunded mandates that are coming down from washington. they come down to the states and oftentimes the states pass them down to the county or the local government and if you are from pennsylvania and ohio, we have

many local governments on top of what we have at the county level. we passed much of it along and we do to them at the federal government is doing to us. we have to get that under control. that is a great deal of spending that nobody has to pay attention to at the federal level are passing from the state of the county to that level. they just go ahead and do it and they don't think about it but somebody is going to pay for it. the complaint that occur throughout the entire campaign is, you and government cost too much. you and government make me pay too much in taxes and they don't differentiate. they can't differentiate, where they are paying the taxes to. whether it is the federal government, state government, the county government for the school district. i think that it's tremendous problem in pennsylvania and probably many states that we have to get that kind of spending based upon and nicu said be all things to all people. i always add, at all times.

if you are trying to do that for everybody all the time there is no way we are going to get control of the spending and therefore never get control of the budget. because of the economic challenges we have right now we have probably the greatest opportunity since the 80's to get this under control and say we have to start stop acting this way. we have to be responsible for anything that we send down to the next level of government. we have to make sure that they have the ability to function and therefore are we going to pay for this that the federal level or the state level? i think that is number one. and number two is, i agree with john and not just cutting for the sake of cutting. 5% across-the-board. you have to be smart about your cutting. i prioritize. i tell everybody coming from my respiratory a backgrounder number one role of all government, the care which level this is public safety. you have to make sure that people are are safe in the

streets and their workplaces and their schools and their homes. i know we remind the federal government the same thing happens on the federal government. we have to be safe from foreign nations that would do us harm. we will get that under control, but then we take a look at where we are spending money. education is important but how are we spending it. if it is not against the classroom more money isn't going to give you more education or a better education. so we have to be much more responsible and assess how that spending is going on. i take a look at pennsylvania. the average cost of the classroom is $244,000. in philadelphia the average cost of the classroom is 400,000, yet we have a dropout rate somewhere around 50%. and across pennsylvania we have 30,000 students drop out every year. that is not acceptable to me, so we have to be smarter. one of the things i campaign on

is taking, and you can't do it to government all at one time to taking certain agencies to start off with what i called and i think john you are familiar with the zero base budget. why do exist? what is its core mission and what is its purpose and what do you really need? not our budget was x last year. inflation caused it to be way. we would like to add a couple of programs. we had to get away from that thinking. i hope i can commence my legislature which is republican, to join me in that. i'm pretty sure we can but i think we need to do that at the federal level also. >> i would just customize the question to maybe one panelist and then maybe we will go through a couple of quickly and opened up to the upper governors. i will direct this to governor lex in a bowl. we have a country of 300 million people. we are not going to be a successful nation of one third of our children are dropping out of school. they are uneducated and unskilled and unable to ask if the economy today and tomorrow.

that is a for real that is not owing to work particularly if they are not only economically detached but they become wards of the state or become frustrated and other way so what we have to make sure strategic we are educating at the highest level possible as many people as possible. you were very bold in your campaign as relates to education reform and holding schools accountable. why do you share with with the audience or vision for education for that? >> thank you governor and as i mentioned my previous remarks and made commitment during the first part of the campaign to visit 100 businesses. i also visited 100 schools throughout the state of nevada. i visited elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, charter schools, private schools because i wanted to go into those classrooms myself and see what was going on and talk to principles, talk to teachers and talk to parents. now i could come out with a very bold education plan. i had the benefit of working

with former governor bush from the state of florida, one of the hallmarks of my education plan was choice in education. something that is never happen in the state of nevada. i believe that every parent, every child should have the ability to choose a school where they want to attend. you much of accountability. i think it is very very important that schools be accountable for the parents throughout the great state of nevada. that parent should know how that school is performing and if it is not performing that there will be a change with regard to administration. another thing in the state of nevada that we have as teacher tenure. in the great state of nevada you can get tenure after one year. i knew that would dry gasp. so i think that is an issue that has to be taken head-on in something that i talked about during the course of my campaign. and at the same time i talk about all of these things i think there should be married me for teachers. i think we should reward the great teachers. they should be the ones that are

given the benefit of showing the increases in test scores. and as i mentioned i talk about the fact that nevada, education statistics from the other state that we are not performing up to par when it comes to graduation rates for students, so that is one of the commitments i made during the course of my campaign is to improve systemically the delivery of education in our state so that we start to move those numbers up, that we provide children several different paths. not every child is meant to college in michigan have a career path and opportunity in that regard. i'm going to be a strong champion of the charter schools and career technical schools. those are all things that are going to change the dynamics in the state of nevada so i won't be talking about the statistics in two years or talk about the fact we have improved graduation graduation rates and we have improved every measure of education in every state. thank you. >> when we look to the future we stays -- c. states increasing

the immigration issue and of course we saw that with the actions and debate in arizona recently. governor-elect martinez is from the border state of new mexico and has a deep familiarity with these issues, spoke clearly and strongly about these issues during her campaign. governor-elect is sharing her views on how the republican party's and republican governors can address the issue of immigration going for. >> i lived in the county, the second-largest county in the state of new mexico and the border mexico. i actually border juarez mexico which is the murder capital of fear and it has been the responsibility of local law enforcement partnering with the local government with border patrol and ice to make sure we are keeping that violence on the other side of the border. however it does. we are experiencing higher numbers of trafficking of narcotics, trafficking of humans. actually we have a law in the

state of new mexico that allows for the driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. it is a driver's license that does not look any different from the one that i carry. and therefore they are able to travel the country without detection. and also under an exec to border the current administration there is an executive order that provide sanctuary, which means that when an individual is arrested by the state police, they are not able to determine whether not that individual is in this country illegally are not. so what happens is that bersin bonds out and they are in the wind and you can find them in order to hold them accountable for criminal activity. and the county we do business differently. i've been a prosecutor since 1986 and the elected district attorney since 1996 and law enforcement has always made sure that we place people in jail. we determine if they are here illegally or not. regardless of the color of their skin. i think what is important in our

message when we traveled our state was it is not about the mexican population. is merely about the mexican border which has been weak and it has weakened because people will be coming across that order because it is easier to do so but they are coming across that order from all over the world. we have arrested individuals in recent history in the last six months from jamaica, china, from poland because they are coming to new mexico because it is an attractive state where they can get a legal i.t. that allows them to travel the country without being detected and they are also provided sanctuary. in our state we find out who you are, do we arrest you and sit at a prison. we punish you and you end up being deported because you have not proven yourself to be unsafe to be in our country. in new mexico, 45% of the population, 45% of the population in the state of new mexico is hispanic. but it is amazing at how well

the message is received, that we have to secure our borders and we cannot have comprehensive immigration reform without first securing the border. [applause] and we have done many things in our state. from a fence and some places to barriers and barriers crossing over with those of narcotics. keep in mind, the rest are people from all over the world and some of them are here to cause direct harm. so we understand from a long point of view and we understand it is important that we secure that order from -- texas, arizona and california to make sure we do that first before we take a second step and demand the federal government do what they are supposed to do and make sure we have good positive immigration reform.

>> america's competitiveness depends on a lot of things going for it including access to affordable and competitively priced energy. a lot of what we thought about the energy debate even as recently as five years ago has changed radically in part because of massive new fines and availability of natural gas in north america and within the territorial jurisdiction of the united states. it is a game-changer. many experts now believe we have enough natural gas to supply the entire energy for the country if not hundreds of years to, and in pennsylvania is one of those states that has one of the large deposits. tom talk to us about what kind of policies the federal government needs to enact further states can enact to unlock that massive game-changing transformative potential natural gas deposits? >> the potential for this country and for a state like tonsil dania particularly the

marcellus shale in pennsylvania is almost difficult to get your head around. depending on who you talk to. i look at it from a number of different perspectives. one it has argument about 80,000 jobs in pennsylvania. in this economy in the last four years. it is going to mean hundreds of thousands of jobs both direct and indirect. in building the gas supply and building the delivery system but also opening markets that we are going to be able to go use clear technology. in addition to the technology and the resources that we are to have in pennsylvania with our clean coal to knowledge he, his made pennsylvania literally the second-largest energy field in the whole world in my opinion. if you had all the different types of energy. what that allows the united states to do if we develop it properly and save the -- safely is to make ourselves independent

in the mideast over the course of the next 30 years. as we take that technology and put it into use with clean burning fuel in various areas including developing a vehicle fleet in pennsylvania, helping michigan. hopefully i would like to get michigan come down to pennsylvania and get some of the truck spilled down there that are gas burning trucks, and a whole new market that is going to be distributed across not only the country, but we will become a net exporter. we have to start looking at energy in this country and we deal with certain parts of the country. we are going to do it in the northeast now as really a commodity that we can be exporting but we have to develop it properly and safely. that to me one of the best things that is going to happen pennsylvania is this is an industry that is in its very beginning and i always compare it, and they know john remembers what it used to be like growing

up in western pennsylvania when the steel mills were operating. this is the beginning of the steel industry. amp what is going to mean for the hundreds of thousands of jobs in pennsylvania. but we have to develop it rapidly and safely and keep the environment in mind. that is going to be something that pennsylvanians and americans across the border going to be able to rely upon that kind of energy. i know governor perry we have in texas and we have it in arkansas and louisiana. we as americans have to get better control on their energy policies and we know we have been talking about having an energy policy for the united states. it is now almost 2011 and we do still don't have one. i party told the people of pennsylvania we are going to develop one for pennsylvania. >> john kasich if you could tell the federal government one thing that they have to get out of your life, get out of her face in ohio, what with would that one thing be if you were a dictator in you could say? >> how about two things. how about medicaid, how about

medicaid and job training to get started. let us have our money and let us fix our own problems. letter people go. [laughter] >> nikki haley. nick he haley with your entrepreneurial but round and your small business but i'm of course most of the job growth is going to come from the early-stage entrepreneurial startups, small and medium-size businesses. if you could highlight one or two things that would be most impactful for starting new ventures in your state encouraging them, what would that be? >> i think we have to create a small business environment and the way to do that in every state is to understand that when you give businesses cash flow, when you get the profit margins, what is the first thing they do? they hire people so it all comes down to tort reform. it comes to workers comp reform. is tax reform. is understanding when you give them profits they will hire people. the spot where you can make government, the more you can create jobs, the more you can

improve economic development, the more you can start up small businesses. >> lets ask our governor-elect to join the discussion. >> unfortunately we are having microphone issues and we don't have a floating microphone. let's see if our governors on the panels would like to jump in and make comments on these topics or any others that are of interest to you. rick, are you awake? [laughter] stay with us, man. linda you look like you have something on your mind. jump in. >> i'm not sure why do you were picking on me today, 10 but let me just take this as an opportunity to tank or everyone who is here today and two i am sure state what everyone is thinking right now and that is what an impressive group you are. it is just phenomenal caliber of people. [applause]

i think for the first time and perhaps in our memory, the focus is going to be on the nation's governors as opposed to washington d.c. as we have a split government there. and many other states you are going to have the opportunity to get these issues dealt with and get your solutions implemented more quickly than they would be if the federal level. maybe i would pose the question to you, what is going to be the biggest challenge to each of you in getting these common sense solutions implemented right away? what are you going to face? what is your biggest obstacle going to be? >> i think the microphones may be working again. the biggest barriers to whatever the reforms are an changes you would like to enact? >> i think it is getting the mindset of many in the media that we can actually do this because i know the question they ask is how are you going to be old to do this? nobody has been able to do it in

the past. i think they have to understand and we have to understand, the new governors, that we do now have a mandate from the people of pennsylvania and people of the united states for direction. they want this done, and we have to follow-up with it. is going to be building consensus building coalitions with the legislature to make these changes. and i think one of you said earlier today, we can't link. and i agree with that, we can't blink. >> other barriers or hurdles? >> you no i think i will just say i think what we are all going to face is a tough budget. i think we have to be on us with the people of our state. we need to say this is going to hurt. we are going to struggle but we have to make sure we don't make political decisions that first year we make the right decisions and if we do that we will come out of this challenge in new york two and three stronger more competitive but i think we need to be first be on us with

ourselves if we are headed into a terrible budget year. i think we are to be asked of the people and let them know what we are going into but see the opportunity that when we define the role of government again we will actually bring this country back to where it is supposed to be. >> i think the biggest challenge is to get everybody to kind of reflect on the chilean miners. they were down there in the minds. who is going to get this last gasp of air? if we all plug together and have a good strong team nothing should get in the way. the issue is if you break down people want to take care of themselves. is not time to do that. it is not time to do that in a of our states are this country. we are incumbent upon us to raise the bar and get other people to join in. if that happens i've no doubt we will be successful. >> he is somebody who took over puerto rico with a lot of challenge, the political tradition at least in recent years was the other way.

he came in as a reform minded governor and leader. he has been able to enact significant changes in the face of a lot of opposition both current and past. give us a couple of lessons learned that these new governors might benefit from your experience and puerto rico. >> thank you tim and again i congratulate everyone here for a tremendous success this november. i am afraid indeed we are going to be facing some of those challenges and i know the governors will as well. from i am experience, what i can tell you is what you are going to do to it quickly. communicated immediately with all of your stakeholders and let the voters so or everyone understand where you are coming from and why. go as far as you need to go in year one. and, then once you are done reducing expenses because many

of you have so many budget gaps, then immediately start reducing taxes since that will bring business to your states. that is my own experience. the country is looking for leadership so i am sure you will lead and that is what we need from you. >> thank you. we we appreciate. >> dave heineman icu lonely in the corner by yourself. you have got the other end of the continuum, state where you have done extremely well with a lot of momentum, with your perspective and leadership in mind. you have got a lot of experience under your belt and a lot of vision going forward. give us the lessons learned and what you see going forward for the state of nebraska that these governors might benefit from. >> i share little bit of what you heard from -- you have got to communicate what you believe in frequently, often and until people start coming back and saying hey i'm tired of hearing that speech. to think we all know that within

our own campaign trail split it is true in that regard. secondly when i took over state spending average 7% of the year. we weiss loaded 4% in about us to pass the largest tax relief package in the history of the state. when i started as governor we were in the top 10 in some place we didn't want to be, top 10 highest taxed state. i think we were 45th out of 50. we are now down to 29. we are not done yet. you can make a difference. the one thing i would share with you and i think we all have learned as governors, when you stand up and lead your state will follow, and if you can set those markers out there, you could really challenge or legislature. the other challenge for me is how important taxes and spending are. what counts most in our state is when the university of nebraska once a football game so i want to thank rick perry perry in advance that we will win texas

a&m. neck sure we are going to join the big 10 and i'm sure tom corbett, john kasich will allow nebraska to come and and when the first game. when you do that nebraska will continue to grow and i want to thank you in advance for that. [laughter] >> let me ask her governors who just came through the campaign, fresh off the trail, had a most cases a competitive experience with the exception of sandoval who was essentially coordinated. what is one thing that surprise you during the campaign that you wish you would have known earlier or that you now know that will serve you going forward that perhaps you didn't fully appreciate when you first got into it? >> probably the biggest surprise to me was the intensity of it from moment one. when i jumped in the race, i announce my resignation from the federal bench. a month later i stepped down. at 5:00 p.m. there was a

reporter on my doorstep ready to ask me questions and interview me. the next day i had several interviews and meeting with different groups. you have to be on at every moment. i learned about the trackers. never knew about trackers before. and so it is again making sure that you are on your game every moment. the importance of getting out in the community and again i hate to be redundant but going to those businesses, going to those schools and learning things firsthand so you your finger on the pulse of your state. that you realize the degree of how people are hurting and how when you say something you say what you are going to do and now it is time to do what i said i was going to do. i have gotten to work in that regard so i made statements during the course of my campaign. i put together my team. i put together a transition. i'm interviewing each of the respect of persons that are the heads of my respective divisions

within state government so i hit the ground running. and as i said, there was never a day when i wasn't something going on. i think that was the boot camp for when you are the governor. because starting january 3 it is going to be the same way. >> nikki, surprise along the way for you that you learned from? >> i think the big this thing is ignorance is bliss and god so sometimes you just don't need to know and you just go for it. i think there is good there are certain things you don't know if she ran for governor but certainly the biggest surprise was watching people find the power of their boys. understanding that when you let people know that you are working for them and when you are fighting for them. the fact that they are getting involved. sometimes for the first time. we are seeing this across the country. it is an amazing thing to watch and it is amazing thing that i think is only going to grow. every once to analyze the tea parties. and i have to say i'm a huge fan of the tea party but it is because it is not a party doll.

it is republicans, democrats and independents who said we have had enough. we are taking our country back. that was just such an inspirational message by the people in such a great push in motivation for all of the governors in this country. >> there are just a couple of minutes left in favor go-go to our panel. i want to come to you rick scott on the health care question so you think about that but let's go to my friend from south dakota who couldn't hit a pheasant with a shotgun and close range. >> thanks, 10. i don't know if i'd been hunting with you lately, have i? i? i was thinking about this as we met a great group of new governors coming in. i think are countries in very good hands. i was also thinking about the fact that there is a reality that we sometimes walk away from the. in south dakota, we are one of the smaller states in terms of our total overall budget but if you look at the general fund which is part of the legislative

ranch, about 49 cents of every dollar in our state goes into education whether it be k-12 or higher education. 35% goes into taking care of people either matching federal medicaid, people in the state hospital and so forth. it leaves you with 11 cents for for all of your corrections, protecting the public. if you had it all up you have five left out of every general fund dollar that actually goes into what most of us like to beat up on which is the bureaucracy, the operation. in our case eight a department, for bureaus and in the government office and bureau of economic development. at the same time if you look at that amount in south dakota the amount that goes into that bureaucracy is $58 million per year. this year our federal medical matching rate, the fmat are medicaid program in our state because of our income ever said over the last three as compared everybody else is with us to number three in the nation. that means we get to put in

another foreigner to 83 basis points of matching funds. our fmap increase will be $37 million more this year than last year. compare that with the operation of the bureaucracy of government. everything at 57 or 58 million. starts to bring in the reality that the federal government, their policies and their mandates are clearly going to be a player and how all of us are going to be able to fix our budget long-term. the reason why bring it up in the reason why think it is important to talk about it today, i think there is to be commended among the governors here in the future. that they have to be actively involved and sharing policy and what the impacts are at the federal level with what is doing with the people. i don't think you can walk away from it. i think is much as governing and the fact that the local level you get in a roll up your sleeves and so forth but i don't think this group of governors can walk away from responsibility and literally telling it like it is to the

federal government and getting actively involved in the policies. exist if you don't, nobody else will. i think we truly need this new group of governors to step toward and play an active role at the federal level. >> thank you or goes this will be last question. rick scott is the new governor the state of florida, probably one of the most for most policy leaders in experienced hands in the health care health care debate and let able nation leading health care company. rick if you look at state budget, of course you see places like minnesota. you haven't k-12 education and human services, you have three force of the budget. k-12 and higher editor of their own stories but compared to hugh hugh -- health and human services their growth is not anywhere close to services. we have got to find a way to slow down health care costs at the local level, the state level in the federal level. give us 60 seconds worth of the best way to contain health care costs from your prospective. >> there is no reasn