civil society to intellectual young people and egyptians and the second question is is there a connection between the civil and military council because i was watching the news and there are a couple of unfortunate incidents like from the cabinet to the demonstration affecting the job or the private sector and i think there are a lot of questions about that and also about women's rights because all of us heard about what happened to women over there so what are the rules of civil society to advocates for women's rights? thank you. ..

>> and what needs to happen to ensure that they can operate freely and to maxim benefit for civil society. and also give that many of these are u.s. based companies, is there a role for u.s. policy to promote the freedom to connect? >> one more from this side of the room. the way in the back. >> thank you. my name is john wooden. thank you all for your really excellent recitation. jackie, i was interested in your comment about more bottom-up development. others wonder if you could operationalize that with some examples. and also to ask whether the model of cooperatives and particular worker cooperatives

can play a constructive role here? thank you. >> okay, let's come back to the panel, let him respond to this set of questions and then i think would probably have time for at least one more round in addition to that one. i think perhaps the most efficient way to do this is just simpler to start at the right and work our way across and let people select a question they would choose to enter. if any remain unanswered at the end you have to catch them at coffee after the meeting is over. >> so i will start with the doctor's comments, but maybe take it from low bit of a different angle. civil society is not all good, and actually a lot of the we call civil society was a really civil society. i mean, ngos were not always ngos. they were goggles or government organize ngos. so they were effectively part of existing power structure and actually contributed to the

perpetuation of hypocrisy. they serve a purpose of letting off steam and giving the illusion of some change without the substance of it. this was a big portion of civil society. many of those organizations are still around. we will see how to make the transition to revolutionary egypt. but i think i was one of the mistakes with this whole civil society oriented approach of the u.s. and european donors. they were funding organizations that were not nested are interested in real structural substitute change. on the issue of the gap between intellectuals and ordinary egyptians, we really saw that with the referendum. i mean, much of secular civil society voted no, and they were in the minority. and it turns out that it's the same complaint we've had for a long time. they are kind of out of touch. this is concerning. i don't know what the solution

is to that, but developing stronger links with people on the ground in kind of going beyond this ngo bubble where a lot of people have the same opinions, and sometimes believe that the majority is with him but then they become surprise when the referendum results come out and they lose by a landslide. and again, that's what we get to this issue of elite ngo -- yet. military. military was also part of your question. the military is a problem and i think a lot of us got a be a little bit too excited about the role, and thought they were really going to be the savior of the people and all that. we heard all of that kind of rhetoric, but it turns out the military was always the backbone of the regime. well people thought that was somewhat of a mystery to me, but the military issuing its true colors in torturing protested. very, very depressing.

now that they're criminalizing them in stations, i mean, how much more counterrevolutionary can you be? the problem with civil society trying to interface with the military, the military is a black hole. there's no clear channels of mutation. so there's something that's bothering you, who exactly do you talk to in the military and who is that person going to relay the message to an out of going to implement that change? no one quite knows in part because no one knows a lot about the egyptian military. it's a somewhat opaque organization. so innocent i think it's pretty good that they will be out within six months, and that's one of the positive results of the yes referendum result that they are out in six months, then we can really start with civilian rule and having a more responsive government in egypt. >> doctor, i think maybe the positive thing that's come out recently is private unions now

can be formed, and they don't need the approval of the government. that's something that is positive, and i think there is pace now for all these good institutions whether it is to come back or others to come back to replace them with good people and good institutions. i think there is hope there. i'm optimistic on the institutions, new institutions to come out and fill the void. there are a lot of good young people who are very intellectual, very thoughtful, and i think that's something that's going to happen. maybe i take issue with the people who said no, are out of touch. just because you lose a referendum or you say no and the majority say yes, it does not mean you are out of touch. i think it was, i certainly

expected that it was going to be a yes vote. obviously, the muslim brotherhood are much, much more organized than any other institution. and for the yes though they also have the remnants of pushing people to say yes. so, whether it is yes or no, i think this was an incredibly good event. we had an incredibly huge number of turnout. there were people standing there for three, four, five kilometers. it was quite a scene, and everybody was coming out with her finger, you know, florescent. i mean, i took a picture of mind. [laughter] >> so i take issue about that. what happened in egypt, and a friend of mine who is head of

the bank explained, says like you had a bottle of champagne and you kept doing this to it over the years, and then near the last elections, the parliamentary election you start smashing the thing on, you know, and two things could have happened. either it breaks and the glass hurts everybody and you get people killed and so on, or the cork comes out and you get a mess. and we're lucky, i think we got the cork out and ms. i think libya is, is another story. so i think the military honestly it has tried to do its best. i think they're out of their depths now. they are really, they're listening to everybody, anybody is telling them what to do. i'm also worried about this, this new law, but i think

because they are listening to people saying listen, we are not getting the work done, everybody's demonstrating outside their factory trying to get their bosses and they want triple salary and so on. i think that's where it's coming from. i wasn't there when that came out, so maybe i'll give them the benefit of the doubt since he is going the other way. >> the bottom-up approach is an example of usage of social media and couple things about how to close the gap between black intellectuals in egypt and maybe like the less advantaged people. but about the purchase of development are a couple of examples, basically social enterprises -- sorry. that's too close.

those are social enterprises that are basically at the startup phases. so just an idea, from a group of people who feel a need in the community -- fill a need. one of examples is that government offices that were started by a group in public universities. those were the first development of in public universities in egypt. and it was a need that to graduates from the department of engineering, assuming that they graduate from the department of engineering, i would have all those employees waiting for me. that was of course not the case. and it was very clear that the counterparts graduate from private universities had a system to support them, actually complement their education with the skills they need with being ready for the job market and so on. and this very group got

incubated to support them with the resources they need, link them with the universities, opened the doors at universities, and we're able to actually great the first office in public university. those offices are being and all universities in egypt. it's a very locally grown and initiative in our education. comparing this to other programs that work on reforming, and proof quality of education, the amount of money that was spent on this versus the amount of money that was spent on all the other initiatives that i person worked on to reform education and the results of this, the results of that, there's no point of comparison. so that's one example. another example is basically people who live in areas where -- basically i'm a huge problem.

this group of young people came together and decided to come instead of just having this issue prevailing in this communities, they which is due agriculture, they started, they understood its full of very good stuff for making animal feed for example. biogas, and they change the problem, either huge would come into something that was very success. they're now putting the social enterprise to start actually recycling of agricultural waste of so those are things. people feel the need in the community and come up with a solution that they know it will work. and they take into consideration all the things that need to be taken into consideration. they understand the restriction. they understand the culture. it's better to support those locally plant initiatives rather than just assuming the

government can come top down. with the role of social networking and media, last year we had a partnership with yahoo!, and, of course, with all the social media that yahoo! is working with, i mean, we were literally pushed social media. it could very well to connect, to get them engaged, know about the problem, raise awareness about the whole idea of -- before that program and after this program, all social me had impacted so much, the awareness of what was in egypt, with google we are having this program to use the platform to educate people about different things, maybe have some lessons, but also showing the success stories and so on.

so basically raising awareness, educating people and so on. and this is i think is the role of the civil society in bridging the gap between the intellectuals and those who are disadvantaged. you use the tools available and the knowledge that you have to certify it in a way that you can actually tee mccabe the message in ways that others understand as well. thank you. >> thank you. and just building of what jackie has said, it's very similar, the approach i will take up maybe from the international ngo perspective. into the points that a document about about how you enable the competent, capable extraordinary people that already in egypt, the bottom-up development discussion and also this issue of how you bridge the divide between those perhaps intellectuals and those, the reality on the ground. from our perspective the real way you do that is you create

something that he mentioned before, but maybe getting more detail on it, is you create platforms for those that are best equipped, the best knowledgeable locally respected, well regarded individuals and institutions to play a role in a very constructive and also tangible role in the redevelopment of egypt. and that's a broad statement but it can be sort of broken out into concrete elements that can actually be executed upon, very simply, you know, a quick but thorough consultation process, consultative process we talk to individuals from different sectors, public sector, private sector, civil society. right now you're seeing that happened in egypt where you have a bit of a witchhunt happening, of course but you're also seeing those individuals that it had the respect of the people that maybe had been turned away by the regime initially, or left the regime because they were upset about what was going on.

and people do it. so you go around, you look for them, think about it and you consult with locals that know what they're doing and you find those individuals. then i would say to other things. one is you create a platform for them to execute on projects and activities that actually have concrete results. part of that would be, we talk about international development community about massive sums of money. $165 million that is now being put forward by the u.s. agency for international develop it. that's great but at the end of the day with a low capacity organizations and we talked about, we need to be split up into $100,000 implements. you need to be coupling that with support to individuals on the ground who can execute and do something if given the right platform and capability to do. and then third and finally, stick with it. once they have been able to show some success, give them more. right? show that they have actually accomplished something and say,

come forward, the crew development model that jacket region. would not talk about small potatoes but it took quite an effort. they took two to three years to get establish any university in time and we're talking about a universe of 200,000 people to did have a single job placement center on the campus. it's kind of a shocking to those of us in the united states that this kind of service didn't exist. once that office was established, don't walk away. give it more funds, be able to show the platform that you have developed has had great impacts of those individuals that you supported are able to account which great things. i should mention at this point, they have over 10,000 students going through this, just one university office, plus the outreach services they're using in social media each year. there are concrete impacts but you have to really be executing in a way that allows that to happen. speaker thank you. >> thank you. we could probably spend a day on each of these questions but i will take a few of them.

first in terms of the role of the syndicates and judges clubs. gradually over the past several years we saw slowly the state closing in on the space for the institutions, though in the past judges clubs were led by independent judges who were leaving anybody judiciary movement. more and more of this club so under the leadership of the ndp and were essentially co-opted by the state. we saw that with other syndicates as well. they are in private made and no longer relevant so these compulsory memberships for certain syndicates, that excluded a large number of the new professionals. for example, journalists and teachers for the most part now i think i'd under temporary contracts. they're not part of the established syndicate. what happened is a lot of the independent activist within these institutions into the forming independent civic organizations because they were still that loophole where ngos could register and said the company's or law companies fall under the radar of the state.

so i imagine now with the vibrant opening up more we'll probably see more development. there already were a couple of independent unions that had been established in the past couple of years, and i imagine we will see more of those. in terms of the question on women's rights come in supporting women's rights, women have been an essential part of the reform movement in egypt even before the gnu 25th revolution but anybody saw them on the square. and even before that there have been very active women's organization. a lot of organizations have been very keen on the gender mainstreaming across programs in terms of how to respond to the programs including women. i think there are two key things when we talk about women's rights in egypt. one, it's very important not to accept cosmetic reforms. we've seen a lot of cosmetic reforms dealing with women's rights. for example, the quarter for women if there's been criticism of that from women's rights in the centigrade a separate ballot that you're not educating.

as part of their core of candidates. i think one women's rights activist that i spoke to called it a separate card for women. so that's something that needs to be very looked at closely and needs to be responded to. another thing is, unlike for example, in morocco we saw a strong women's movement, the reform, there's not really contemporary women's rights movement in each. there's many women's risk organization. they're sometimes divisive. sometimes there's a chance to court it but the coordination is about specific issues and not a larger kind of, like what is the roadmap, that vision, what is needed to empower women effectively in egypt. finally, with regard to internet and telecommunications and how we use social networking sites,

basically one of our key priorities at the last couple of years has been to support this innovative use of new technology and digital media. this whole question and debate over the social, the facebook revolution or the twitter revolution, i think sacrifice the reality of the fact that this was a very, very long-term process in egypt. it wasn't just a big bang and a facebook group that led to revolution, but many different key players that led up to that critical moment. in terms of the types of programs we supported, since 2005 there's been an emergence of youth led organizations that have pioneered the use of film, social networking sites. using youtube, sms, for community mobilization for information. and essentially marinating society for the events that happen on january 25 of there

was a lot, all of those who are on facebook saw tons of activity related to civic and democratic ideas. but i also add that i think it was a "washington post" article that was published recently is that said there were roughly 35,000 or 42000 a spoke groups or pages established in egypt in january alone. there's a plethora of these groups. it's not about -- it will not start a revolution. the fact that this is so successful in egypt is the digital activists have a pulse on society. so they created a product that could connect with what everybody else was thinking. you know, the society have been so afraid of clinical produce oppression collect on these links that talk about freedom and democracy and human rights because they can connect to it. so i think that sums up my comments. >> i am afraid folks that we have five panelists and five minutes. i do want to give each of them an opportunity to leave you with

one key message that i think coming out of the discussion they feel you should walk away with. so unfortunately we will not have done for further questions. i do take it from all the hands that are in the air that it's a topic where we might spot another discussion at a later time, as the revolutions i've heard people call it, having spent time in the world bank, words like revolution, continue to evolve in egypt. i think what i'll try to do is go in the reverse order of the way in which people gave their presentation which unfortunate put the presentation -- put a burden on shadi, the first to give us your one minute take away. >> my one minute take away is i would say that a most critical element, an incredible element of egyptian society is the activists of their there are really incredible and creative

perseverance, young activists in egypt have been able to publish things that have fascinated the world. and i think that all of our support and attention needs to be paid to the group and how to institutionalize what they have created. again, great activists, we have to build on what we have and transform this individual talent and institutional talent that can be sustained over the longer-term. i think that's it. >> you know, i think that, i think that from my perspective if you look at the events of the last few months, i mean, it's really quite shocking that one of the largest era of islamic our majority muslim countries in the world carried to the legacy forward of gandhi. i mean, that you would see a huge peaceful revolution in large part, enabling a whole new

playing field to be created. and it is something that is both, you know, extraordinary from sony different angles, but also gives us huge help but candidly also gives us a lot applause in terms of how we create a framework that the society can really build itself for the long-term. and i think that is a real tension point where you have so much hope and aspiration that has come out of this, but yet so many challenges that now are going to have to be confronted. i mean, i think as folks have said, the ability of everyone to sort of pinpoint one issue which was freedom, getting rid of a oppressive regime, the dictator that was as we all know the easy part. the rebuilding of the society will take years and years and years. i guess my sort of final particularly and all this, hopefully we can work together fairly close with local ngos

as well as international groups that are out there to help, is finding some concrete path for. i think that is the key. if we can really focus on what sorts of initiatives, efforts that can show some real impact, do it quickly, builds some momentum and show people that there is a future. because the countervailing trend of not having any progress being made and the feeling of just constant challenge is not one we want to be addressing. that's probably where i would leave it there. >> one minute, okay. i would say actually i want to leave you with this. conditions -- egyptians are very capable people. they're very creative. and often sarcastic. they are very special in their own way, and they have the solutions and i think what we need currently is just support things to happen in this very egyptian way.

the need for strong institutions is, i mean, it is something that we need now more than ever to have institutions to be able to support those egyptians, actually build the egypt they have been dreaming up. and last but not least as against bottom-up approaches for development. those who are donors here or organizations wanting to support egypt, listen to egyptians and just trust the advice they will give you. >> thank you. i think i would like to emphasize the short term. i think we really need to get egypt act to work, producing, hiring and employing. the fondness of egyptian economy is good, and there are things you cannot take away from egypt like the genius of the location, like the suez canal.

is the trade up, and i really encourage you and u.s. companies and u.s. companies to support egyptian economy at this very critical time. it's time, there are opportunities in egypt, eight even more now. you might've heard of the formula one guys, how do you always win, he says when i see an accident everyone is taking their foot off the accelerator, i put it down. this is an opportunity for companies, for everybody to really support egypt and egyptian economy. and i really, i really stress this is the time. because if we don't get through this short term it will be very difficult. thank you. >> as important as some of the other countries in the region are, whether libya, iran, salon,

it really comes down to egypt, the whole region is watching how this transition will go to egypt is the most populous country and a bellwether for the region. there's a lot at stake and we have to get right. this is where i think the u.s. and international committee have a major role to play. as jackie said, egyptians are capable and that's certainly the case. that's important for there to be indigenous ownership over this process. at the same time rarely to democratic transitions succeed without some kind of western engagement come and that's been the case in eastern europe and latin america where the u.s. and europe have played at times somewhat surprisingly, a positive role. so perhaps it's possible in the case of the middle east, and particularly egypt as well. and we've seen how the post-revolution phase of the revolutionary has become somewhat uneven. we see more and more challenges.

and that's why it's very important for the u.s. to engage creatively and to make sure that egypt is still very high, if not the highest country on the priority list in the middle east. >> well now the most pleasant duty of being a moderate falls to me, which is to be by thanking all of you for coming, for sharing your afternoon, and for being such a warm and participatory audience. is thank all the speakers for the remarks and to invite you to stay tuned because i'm sure this will not be the last conversation we have on this subject. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we take you next life to the national press club were a russian scientist who studied in 1986 chernobyl nuclear disaster will be discussing the situation in japan where repairs continue on a plant damaged by the recent earthquake and tsunami. aleksei yablokov is a co-author of the book at chernobyl,

consequences of the catastrophe for people and invite me. this event is being hosted by the groups beyond nuclear and friends of the earth. that's ahead of the friends of the earth speaking and introducing today's present. live coverage here on c-span2. >> amounts to 20 to 50% of that which was released from chernobyl. and as we approach the 25th anniversary of chernobyl, it's great that we have this been here before us. we have the fortune of having cindy to my immediate right, focus on radiation and health and renewable energy alternatives beyond nuclear. she has a masters in science and environment of science from johns hopkins university. and she has done a fair amount of tea medications with u.s. media. and she is -- she has testified and examined the cancer risk of living here bashing your nuclear

facilities ice by the nuclear regular tory commission. we also have to the right of cindy, we have doctor aleksei yablokov. who is the leading russian expert on the consequences of the nuclear disaster at chernobyl. he is a member of the russian academy of sciences and served as the chair of the russian national security council in agency commission for ecology under president boris yeltsin. in 2009 he authored the book for people in the environment. a study that was first published in english by the newark academy of sciences. and this synthesizer the result in research studies on the effects of chernobyl nuclear disaster on the people and invite. and to his right, we have tatyana. my apology. i'm not going to double to pronounce her first name correctly.

>> it is difficult. >> tie beyond is going to help with translation today for aleksei yablokov and she and her own right as a leader in making the public of the horrible consequences of nuclear accidents, and in russia able to the public. and she took part of the u.s., russia negotiations on nuclear issues and is a participant, participating doctors against atomic bombs in japan to draw attention to the victims of nuclear production. and she also work with the ngo women of europe our common future on issues of sustainable development radiation and chemical pollution. we are going to start by having several opening statements and they will have questions to the audience. we have matthew. where is matthew at. mac is out front. you have a portable mic that we have asked that the media announce the names and affiliations. and we also have doctor sherman your who is around the pillar here who helped translate dr.

yablokov's report into english. no? >> i did not translator i edited it. >> who will also be available for question. so with that i would like to introduce cindy for her opening statements. >> thank you very much. can you hear me? as with past actions like three-mile island disaster and the chernobyl catastrophe, information for fukushima is incomplete regarding both the rear active releases and health impacts they may have. industry and government have already begun to downplay these a facts, even as more and more damaging information leaks out. they do this by saying that the radiation doses are safe, radiation was at safe levels quickly. the actors have not even been brought under control and they are saying this. there is no safe radiation dose.

i'm going to say it again. there is no safe radiation dose. there may be tiny doses of radiation. there can be tiny risks of being exposed to these tiny doses. but there is no dose of radiation at which you can guarantee that it will not result in a negative health effect like a cancer down the road. claiming that it is a safe dose of radiation is incorrect. the national academy of sciences 2005, report recognize this as several radiation researchers, and women and children are particularly susceptible. after the accident at three-mile island, they were elevated rates of cancer within the radioactive plume of pathways the reactor released. this is according to 1997 study by wang et al., it is published in environmental health perspectives. more recent studies such as in

2008 and the baker meta-analysis study in 2007 have shown that normally operating reactors, though the reactors that have supposedly had no accidents, have elevated rates of childhood leukemia around them. further, a scientific study, review in 2007 state that only one environmental risk factor ionizing radiation, has been significantly linked to childhood leukemia. given these circumstances, the history and tardiness and protecting both the workers and the public, and what we know of ever smaller doses of radiation still being able to contribute to disease and action, it is not the publics responsibility to prove that nuclear power is harmful. it is the industry that profits from this technology. it is their responsibility to prove that it doesn't harm.

has to fukushima, our concern is not just the meat and exposures but the exposures that will occur over the long term from radioactive particles that are inhaled or ingested. these particles can fall on soil and water and end up in the food supply for many, many years. we are worried that the officials are only measuring the radiation that is easy to detect. that would be gamma rays their but there are other radio that they need to test for, alpha and a particles specifically. out of and beta radiation are harder to detect but these particles can have longer hazardous allies and are more damaging with him inhale or ingested over a longer period of time. while they don't pose as great a health risk outside of the body. the industry and officials owe us more information on the measurement techniques and limitation. they should also test for radioactive gases, not just radioactive particles suspended

in air. testing people for radiation on the skin or clothing is necessary and i'm sure we've all seen these pictures were the guys are scanning up and down people and the women and the children. that's necessary but it tells us little or nothing about what they have taken into their bodies by breathing in or eating these radio new class, and this will result in an internal exposure and that is a long-term risk. it is unclear to us, the officials in charge of the fukushima disaster are at this point considering all forms of long-term exposure as well as immediate exposures. we need to ask the proper questions of these officials to find out what they are and are not looking for. and what they actually know versus what they are shooting with the public. we cannot just take what they say and repeat it without a more complete picture. and we cannot allow the lives of mistakes to be repeated for fukushima.

long after these immediate dangers of the fukushima disaster has subsided we're going to be dealing with these health effect and we need to know the truth about what is going on as best as we can get it while it is happening now. thank you. >> thank you, cindy. and now dr. yablokov. do you want both of these? >> thank you. long ago the united nations had the creation, published about chernobyl. in this world, he might've mentioned we do not want to count the victim of chernobyl because scientific uncertainty. several years ago, it was published a report when mentioned that chernobyl was

9000 deaths and about 200,000 illnesses. it was so ridiculous wrong that can see in russia, in belarusian, and ukraine, and i was foolish about this. collect data, data about health of chernobyl. and now publish this book. the book based about 5000 scientific papers is published in russia, ukraine, but russia. -- belarusian. and our conclusion, you have a lot of additional deaths. about maybe near the 1 million, maybe even bigger, 1 million additional deaths. it's not only concept, not only

concept, it is in brain damage, and early agent, and congenial, damage, chromosome damage and so on. in freedom, published two years ago, very interesting paper, they compare the school mark from children who inhabited area, is even also feasible chernobyl pollution. it is, people, children who come from territory considerably less, what is -- clear. intelligence lower. in germany, even now, a lot of hunters kill.

[inaudible] german government spent about 1 million every year two, take the hunters. the same, the same system in great britain. in scotland. about hundred, maybe 200 farmers, sheep farmers, all of their products, the government pays farmers for compensation. so it will be continue. seventh generation. nobody predicted such a huge scale effects of chernobyl. so now i want to compare

chernobyl with fukushima. of course, chernobyl for a while you'll be much higher. and chernobyl it was 50 billion -- about 50 million treaty, as far as i know, fukushima about 2 million. but fukushima is heavily populated territory. much more than territory around chernobyl. also it never happened before catastrophe, nuclear reactor, it never happen. it never happened before, catastrophe with nuclear issue, but reactor number three at fukushima, more plutonium or uranium. nobody knows what happened,

maybe it is based on risk. because it plutonium will be released, its enormous consequences. is for ever, it will be inhabited for ever. it's impossible to live after contamination. so let us see what happen. but i see -- my experience started with chernobyl. it was very bleak, very negative impression for fukushima. thank you. >> thank you, dr. yablokov. tatyana, you want to say anything? rate. so we will open up this to questions. and matthew kane has the cordless mic. there he is.

so please raise your hand, identify herself and what news outlet your from and met would bring the mic. >> i am from south korea. i work for the daily. dr. yablokov, the chernobyl effect for seven generations, just past one generation, how do you know that? >> it is genetical, genetic data. if population, some stroke, some shock from radiation, it will be continual generation by

generation. it was experience. it's a visible. but nash have not only data, you have data from children, from children of the people who inhabited the community. all of them have some break in chromosome. you have evidence. you have evidence for two generation now. >> next question please. [inaudible]

>> dr. yablokov, my name is marina. i wanted to know your opinion, in japan right now they get a lot of iodine to the citizens. how actually healthful is the entrance of convention? and actually defending them from radiation? because it's not only, because there are several chemicals and probably iodine does not help against all of them. >> iodine, it's not enough to

protect. iodine is very dangerous. it is still very dangerous but very short life. only half, half. during eight days or 10 days of nuclear. if it continues to be released, of course it need to protect you. but i avoided. not not about iodine. iodine, it's quite simple to protect iodine. potassium iodine. it's good protection, but what about other radio nuclear? we don't know. we have no official data, only presume. but it will have to be several other. no choice except all protection

from this. it's very difficult. it's very, very difficult. it needs to avoid any contaminated food. in a contaminated water. it needs to mask, not to brief contamination. especially danger is plutonium. if time about a plutonium, -- tiny amount of plutonium, a slight level for cancer. so i am not so optimistic with this because you have not real protection, only about iodine. impossible to protect with iodine. other, no. >> hello. i am with vietnamese news

agency. with radioactive clouds over japan sky are crowding -- spreading throughout the region. but in other countries do? [speaking in russian] >> sorry. i have to of russian. trent lowe. >> translator: when chernobyl happened, other countries were protected because of the radioactive nuclides in the air. so to say that radioactive nuclides were there and settled.

that's why my reservations were china and korea and russian far east to help, to have aircraft ready with iodine cesium or maybe with other. that will help to capture this radioactive nuclides from the air and to settle them, to put them in the sea. as for canada and the united states, the situation is different. because radioactive nuclides are in very, not very much in the air. the concentration is not great. the danger is only from -- i can

remind you, when china was testing in the air, -- in the united states the concentration of iodine in the air was a little -- was so little that it was officially announced that non-valuable, non-necessary. nonvisible. nonvisible. at the same time, it turned out that in california was just damaged by the iodine, because

it concentrates like a magnet, the iodine from the air, and it makes the concentration is many times higher than it is in the air. there are several simple solutions just to protect yourself. you can take iodine and a bottle, and you can draw just this on your body here or on your site coming anywhere that it is visible. you should draw like this, like jack. and that will help protect yourself from exposure to iodine.

>> next question. >> stephanie cook from nuclear intelligence weekly. i have a question about the dispensing of the potassium iodine pills. it strikes me that like many other accidents beginning with the wind scale accident in 1957 where they waited three days i think before they started distributing the tablets, that if you wait even 24 hours you are subjecting, particularly children, to the risk of thyroid cancer. and i wanted to ask you if, in your opinion, you think the japanese authorities responded quickly enough to start disturbing the established antiwar the public of the dangers? because even now the iaea at the bottom of all their statements about radiation are putting these disclaimers that it's actually everything is pretty okay in terms of human health and safety. so i want to ask you about that.

and i think i have another question, but if you could answer that i will think of the other one and ask you later. thanks. [speaking in russian] [speaking in russian] [speaking in russian] >> translator: i think they have the necessity to take a caution. it is effective.

well, hours before, if it's before it happened, then the effectiveness is half glass, half less. ending two days if you start to taking tablets, two days after the exposure than the effectiveness is only 2%. when you are speaking about fukushima and the actions, i pay attention to. they usually see -- >> just now exist, but not immediately. not be immediate. in 10 years, 20 years, still they will have enormous.

so my advice, not the media dangers, crime can go away immediately. >> means you should run away very quickly and as far as you can. >> visit erich pica from erich pica from friends of the earth. and the criticism also is that the news reports about what's happening in japan and the fukushima reactors have been behind. we seem slow reporting and, in fact, we have not seen reporting about what are the radiation level, you know, what is the radioactive material that is being released from the reactor. so not only do we have the longer-term impacts which we are not going to understand, the public both in japan as well as international community, is not getting the data that we need to make from a civil society perspective. kind of well educated decisions and advise to give to both the

general public. because we're not getting that data from either tepco or the japanese government. and, in fact, a few of the groups i think beyond nuclear, physicians for social responsibility has action filed a freedom of information act request to u.s. government asking the nuclear rhetoric commission, the department of energy, following along with the department of defense, to actually come and environmental protection agency, to release the monitoring data that they're getting from the flyovers and from the u.s. staff that are at least in japan right now monitoring the reactor disaster. >> mac and i have a follow-up. i think we're just requesting the information. the answer of why they're not releasing it, i mean, not really interested in that answer right now. what we need is we need to get

the data out so that we can have a real public discourse as to what is the radiation currently being released and what's going to be both in the short term and the projected and long-term impacts of the radioactive releases. >> after chernobyl, any milk, any raw milk, any freshwater from -- >> oh, from the surface. >> canceled. >> and all green vegetables with green leaves. all vegetables speaker it happened during the two or three weeks and faced enormous health. >> it happened three weeks after chernobyl. and it stayed enormous number of lives. >> question.

>> i am from corporate crime reporter. i have two questions. first question, the organization estimated -- estimate is 9000 dead from chernobyl. you mentioned earlier you think it might be more than a million. how do you explain such a big discrepancy? and second, would you advise our policymakers here to shut down all nuclear power plants in the united states? [speaking in russian] >> translator: discrepancy is based on the fact, it focuses on -- it uses three focuses. ..

>> translator: and these calculations are always uncertain. you can't be sure of the calculations. [speaking russian] >> translator: the average doses for russians, russians in ukraine living in contaminated area are based on average statistics. for example, how much milk an average person drinks, how much

time an average person stays in the open air exposed to the contamination. [speaking russian] >> translator: we go into this logically wrong measurement of doses, and we have come to the conclusion that it's necessary to measure the consequences in some other ways. [speaking russian] >> translator: and we are examining the population who are staying on the con tam meated areas -- contaminated areas. it is quite possible to measure

the contamination which is in the water, the soil and everywhere. [speaking russian] >> translator: and we can see such populations not far from this contaminated area, but on the clean area. pus spution. >> translator: we have taken six russian areas which were very contaminated -- [speaking russian] >> translator: and compared them to the areas which are nearby but which were less contaminated. [speaking russian] >> translator: we've found the statistics for 15 years we monitor it for 15 years from 199

0 -- [speaking russian] >> translator: ah, 1990 until 2004. finish. [speaking russian] >> translator: and it turned out that during these 15 years -- [speaking russian] >> translator: we found out the rate in comparison with these areas and less contaminated areas is 3.7 higher. [speaking russian] >> translator: after this detente, i began to look through a lot of research papers. there are so many people, so much --

[inaudible] that exist, it's impossible to know what to look for. [speaking russian] >> translator: ah, okay, 3.7. not 3.7, from 3 to 7. [inaudible conversations] >> translator: the examination of the study of the same kind maybe not so big showed that the difference is 3-8. [speaking russian] >> translator: in the ukraine -- okay, in the ukraine it turned out that they also did the same study and published the results, and it turned out to be 4.2.

[speaking russian] >> translator: so we made a conclusion comparing all this data that 4% or more deaths, this is the -- [inaudible] >> and the second question was, does he recommend for u.s. policymakers to shut down all 104 u.s -- [inaudible] [speaking russian] >> translator: my recommendation for both, for all the countries that have reactors that they

have worked out their lifetime, and you see very old reactors, it's necessary to shut them down immediately because they are very dangerous. pus spution -- [speaking russian] >> translator: yes. the same as angela merkel in germany did. she shut down all the seven, seven power stations, seven reactors, power stations that have worked through their work times. >> [inaudible] i'm right here. >> over here. >> so two things. first, just to clarify, were you saying that the death rates were 3-7% higher? that's what you're saying, right? spug spution.

[speaking russian] >> translator: yeah, in 15 years period of time, 3.7% more deaths. >> i think you meant 327? >> now, 3.7. in -- [inaudible] it was 3 to 8. >> percent or times? >> percent. [speaking russian] >> and the average was what? >> average was 4%. yeah. >> okay. >> 4% -- [speaking russian] >> in ukraine it was 4.2. in russian shah from 3 to 8 -- russia from 3 to 8%. [speaking russian] >> translator: i should add that it's rather very complicated because it requires a lot of

statistics. suggestion spution. [speaking russian] >> translator: this is more exact than those. [speaking russian] >> translator: you can compare the statistics -- [speaking russian] >> translator: and so you can, and you can measure the contamination of the territory as for doses, you can't be sure. >> just to -- that have not really my question. i wondered if dr. yablokov could talk about the seize yum contamination after chernobyl and what steps had to be taken to clean up the soil or reduce the levels of radioactivity, and is it gone now? is it still there? are they still measuring elevated levels in food? [speaking russian]

[speaking russian] >> translator: it's a good question. [speaking russian] >> translator: always predictions were, that were made after chernobyl, straight after chernobyl were that the echo systems will be clean, that was the prediction. >> it not happen -- >> it never happened. [speaking russian] >> translator: plutonium, these four -- [inaudible] [speaking russian] >> translator: they go deeper and deeper into the soil. [speaking russian] >> translator: one, two, three

at the speed of one, two, three centimeters a year. it depends on the quality of the soil. [speaking russian] >> translator: and by going deeper, they get into the area are the roots of the plants are situated. [speaking russian] >> translator: and the roots again to the surface. [speaking russian] >> translator: and if you look at the level of contamination in wild game who live on the surface in this. [speaking russian] >> translator: for example, deer in sweden. >> not deer but elk. >> elk in sweden. sorry. elk in sweden. [speaking russian]

>> translator: and it turns out that the contamination last year was the same as it was 20 years before. [speaking russian] >> translator: the same can be said about people. people stopped being afraid of radiation. they get used to radiation. [speaking russian] >> translator: and they start eating the products which were, they are not allowed to eat. pus spution. [speaking russian] >> translator: so now, even now they get quite a bit big doses. they digest and -- [speaking russian] >> translator: in 1995 when i was a big boss in the kremlin, i

am now invited a lot of specialists and ask them what doses are people get in this areas at that time. [speaking russian] >> translator: amount of radio knew collides. >> in ten years the level of contamination was higher than after one year prior. so now it will shift -- [inaudible] enormous dose. not less than 20 years ago. >> okay. >> ralph nader. over 40 years as a syndicated columnist, i have noticed that a crisis in scientific integrity in the united states where the science has been politically and corporately manipulated from the nuclear regulatory commission to the nuclear industry to the

general scientific community. you are a very distinguished scientist in russia. as a member of the russian academy of science which is even more prestigious than our national academy of science. you put together 5,000 scientific papers on the consequences of chernobyl written in the slavic languages. this was reprinted in a translation by the new york academy of sciences in 2009. and available to the scientists in the nuclear regulatory commission in the universities and in the nuclear industry. my question is, have you seen any rejection of your findings? have you seen any acceptance of your findings? or have you seen mostly science, mostly silent -- silence, which

is very unscientific? rejection, acceptance or silence? >> you understand quite clear situation. mostly silent. mostly silent. i am crying. let us discuss, let us discuss it. i start my presentation with mention united nations scientific committee latest book. they openly declare this special declaration. they decline to discuss any consequences at any account of victims because of circumstances. they avoid the discussion. they avoid. [speaking russian] >> translator: what i should mention, by all means. [speaking russian] >> translator: why are they keeping silent? [speaking russian]

>> translator: one of the reasons is that there exists an agreement between world health organization and international atomic -- [inaudible] [speaking russian] >> translator: it was made in 1959. [speaking russian] >> translator: agencies signed an agreement according to -- [speaking russian] >> translator: the world health organization -- [speaking russian] >> translator: has no right to publish anything -- [speaking russian] >> translator: anything against the atomic power without consulting first the nuclear scientists. [speaking russian]

>> translator: three years ago i was standing in front of the entry in geneva to the building of this -- [speaking russian] [inaudible conversations] >> translator: and was holding the award -- [speaking russian] >> translator: yes, the -- >> hippocratic oath. >> yes, the oath of hippocratic. [speaking russian] >> translator: tell the truth about chernobyl. pus spution. [speaking russian] >> translator: just make -- break these very shameful agreements that you made. [speaking russian] >> translator: for four years running, from every day from

more of the countries, from spain, from russia, from germany, from other countries, every day they were holding this action if front of the doors of, to this building. [speaking russian] >> translator: and we decided to to -- [inaudible] until they break this agreement. [speaking russian] >> translator: seven years ago, maybe eight years ago. [speaking russian] >> translator: i am a biologist, 0,000 people -- 20,000 people sent the message to their world health organization, please, break this agreement. [speaking russian] [inaudible conversations]

>> translator: world health organization is a governmental organization. [speaking russian] >> translator: don't listen to what the public is saying, they only listen to what the government are saying. [speaking russian] >> translator: this was parliament, not the executive government. [speaking russian] >> translator: just supported our address, but single government supported, so it was not even discussed. >> just a clarification. your estimate is 100 times higher than the who estimate.

who estimate was about 9,000 fatalities. your estimate based on your scientific studies are over a million. now, this did not make news in the united states because the entire regulatory trillion and academic -- industrial and academic community in effect ignored this report, so it didn't get into "the wall street journal" or "the washington post" or "the new york times." what would you suggest is necessary for the people's right to know in our country in order to bring the results of your scientific studies and estimates to a wider audience here in japan and around the world where corporate nuclear science continues to be deceptive and to lowball the casualties of nuclear accidents whether they're small-level radioactive

leaks or major disasters? [speaking russian] >> translator: it's difficult for me to say or suggest what should be done here in the united states. [speaking russian] >> translator: 20 years ago i was on good terms with gore. [speaking russian] >> translator: he was a member of congress. [speaking russian] >> translator: we've discussed this problem in my home in moscow. now here. [speaking russian] >> translator: i've got another

question to you. do you know that here in the united states that chernobyl's influence was very great? [speaking russian] >> translator: eight years after the chernobyl catastrophe, american organization requested -- not requested, demanded to open the data, to make the data known. [speaking russian] >> translator: and it turned out that several days, literally speaking several days after the chernobyl catastrophe, contaminated food products started to get into the united states. [speaking russian] >> translator: this was herring from norway -- [speaking russian] >> translator: cheese from

germany -- [speaking russian] >> translator: dried fruit from turkey -- [speaking russian] >> translator: and some loads of -- [inaudible] were just destroyed because of very high contamination levels. [speaking russian] >> translator: and everything was made secret. [speaking russian] >> translator: my feeling is that you hear in the united states -- you here in the united states have the same problem, no different from the problems we have in russia. [speaking russian] >> translator: the influence of corporations and corporate america. the same problems. >> so we've got, we've got about seven minutes left. i was told that we should probably end around 10:30, so let's do two more questions. >> sam husseini from act

accuracy.org. if i understood you correctly, you're saying that the amount of radioactive material from the japanese disaster is substantially less as far as we know than happened in chernobyl. there was a report this morning that the mechanisms of the comprehensive span treaty tracking radiation around the world is picking up dosages that are actually comparable. have you had a chance to look at that data? are you basing your assessment of the current disaster on japanese government data? is that -- how reliable do you think that is, and how does it compare with how we were able to track in the initial aftermath the effects of the chernobyl disaster? did the comprehensive -- i don't even know if comprehensive test bans were in place at the time, for example. [speaking russian]

[speaking russian] >> translator: when i was speaking about -- [inaudible] in comparison to 50 million in chernobyl -- [speaking russian] >> translator: i based my opinion on the data which was received by french scientists. [speaking russian] >> translator: yes. and i got these estimations

through my friends in russia who were monitoring the station. [speaking russian] >> translator: and i think that this is true -- [speaking russian] >> translator: in chernobyl there was an open reactor, a huge fire was burning for many days. [speaking russian] >> translator: and some visible part of the fuel was blown out of the reactor. there is nothing of the kind here at fukushima, and i think that the radiation is less. [speaking russian] >> consequences may be viewed on the same scale because highly populated area, highly populated area is nothing to compare with population in the ukraine, russia. it never happened before that some broken reactor separated

to -- [inaudible conversations] 30 million people. it never happened before. it never happened before. the spent nuclear fuel -- it never happened before. several reactor -- [inaudible] together. it never happened before, so my feeling that the result compare it may be even worse. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> thank you. paul corazon from cnn. this area in japan also has an agricultural component, and you've mentioned how throughout many years the radiation sinks into the soil and is repopulated from the plants' roots back into the area. could you describe if an area could be declared uninhabitable

forever? [speaking russian] >> translator: very difficult to predict. suggestion spution. >> translator: basing on if we are, base our ideas or estimation on what is happening in chernobyl -- [speaking russian] >> translator: dozens of thousands of square kilometers are contaminated so that they wouldn't, would never be allowed to use. [speaking russian] >> translator: even if in japan these areas will be hundred times smaller --

[speaking russian] >> translator: it means that some percent of the territory, several percent of the territory of the whole country will be contaminated forever. >> so this concludes the formal part of this press conference. dr. yablokov will be available for questions -- [speaking russian] >> and lynn georgia gun -- linda gunter from beyond nuclear will help coordinate those questions, those interviews. we also have jeanette sherman right here who's also available for questions, and if you are looking for more information, you can visit our web site, ferentz of the earth is www.foe.org. and beyond nuclear is ppp dot --

www.beyondnuclear.org. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> coming up today, a look at iran and its regional influence with former journalist barbara slaven with the atlantic council, and she wrote a brief that's the centerpiece of this forum. joining her are the iran task force leaders, stuart eisin staff and former senator chuck hagel. live coverage at 2:30 eastern live here on c-span2. live saturday, possible gop presidential candidates haley barbour, rick santorum and michele bachmann in des moines, iowa, at the conservative principles conference. and on road to the white house sunday, our interview with rick santorum this weekend on c-span. ful. >> this weekend on booktv on c-span2, the washington post's wilbur leads a panel discussion on john hinkley jr.'s failed

assassination of president ronald reagan. on "after words," the sometimes dysfunctional world of the mercantile exchange, and panels on medicine and science, the vietnam war, the founding fathers and religion and more. find a complete schedule at booktv.org, and to have our schedules e-mailed directly to you, sign up for our booktv alert. >> british chancellor of the excheck corps george osbourne proposed new measures this week including delaying a planned fuel tax for another year. in the his one-hour speech, he outlined the government's proposed budget citing additional incentives for first-time home buyers and promising no increase in personal income taxes. criticized the plan adding that the proposed cuts are hurtingne the british economy. this is just over two hours. >> can i now call the right

honorable george osbourne. >> thank you, mr. deckty speaker. -- deputy speaker. last year's emergency budget was about rescuing finances and paying for the mistakes of thei past. today's budget is about reforming the nation's economy so that we have enduring growth and jobs in the future. and it's about doing what we can to help families with the cost of living and the high price of oil. we understand how difficult it is for so many people across ouu country right now that we are able, now, to set off on the route from rescue to reform and from reform to recovery is because of the difficult decisions we've already taken. of the difficult decisions we have already taken. those decisions have fought economic ability. and without stability there can be no sustainable growth and no new jobs. without stability governments

have to keep coming back to their citizens for more, more taxes and more spending cuts, in britain we do not have to do that today. we have inherited a record budget deficit, but we have set out a credible comprehensive plan to deal with it. we have had to undertake difficult measures but we have already asked the british people for what is needed your and today we do not need to ask for more. so this is not a tax raising budget, nor can we afford to take give away. taken together the measures i will announce today are fiscally neutral across the period. this is a budget built on sound money, a budget that encourages enterprise, that supports exports, manufacturing and investment. that is based on robust independent figures, a budget for making things, not for making things up. [shouting] britain has a plan and we are sticking to it. in recent months any other

countries have seen their ratings downgraded and their borrowing costs soar. our country's fiscal plans have been strongly endured by the imf, the european commission, the oecd, and that every reputable business body in britain. and for anyone who questions whether this massive in the real world, the real businesses and families, consider this. market interest rates increase our at 12-point by persevered in ireland close to 10%. in portugal and spain they are 7% and 5%. today, our country's market interest rates have fallen to 3.6%. we have a higher deficit in portugal, greece, and spain but we are virtually the same interest rates as germany. this is our powerful monetary stimulus to our recovery economy. stability, credibility, lower interest rates, that is what we have achieved. [shouting]

but stability, mr. deputy speaker, is not enough. so today in addition to the redbook we're publishing a plan for growth. this budget confronts the harshest truth that it has been ignored too long. britain has lost ground in the world's economy and needs to catch up your in the last decade other nations have reduced their business taxes, remove barriers to enterprise, improved education systems, reformed welfare systems and increased exports. sadly, the reverse has happened in britain. we gambled on a debt fueled model of growth that failed. with a state now account for almost half of all economy can we simply cannot afford to go on like this. britain has to earn its way in the modern world. mr. deputy speaker, i turned to the forecast. last november i told the house that the recovery was going to be more challenging than

recoveries from recessions in recent decades. that is inevitable when we've had the sharpest fall since the 1930s, the highest budget deficit in our peacetime, and the largest banking crisis in our entire history. but i said thanks to the course we've set, the independent forecast was for our economy to growth in each of the next five years, for unappointed peak this year and then fall, and for employment to rise through the parliament. that remains the case in the independent forecast we publish today. those forecasts have been drawn up by the office for budget responsibility. this important change has transformed the way budgets are put together. so instead of chancellors nixing the figures to fix the budget may not to fix the budget to fit the figures. yesterday, the legislation for the office for budget responsibility on a prominent statutory an independent received royal assent, and i'm sure the whole house will want

to thank robert, steve, graham parker, and their whole staff for the very professional job they are doing. let me start with their growth forecast. now it has been know for chancellors in recent years to wrap these office such great state in hopes that no one will keep on or notice. [laughter] >> i will not do that. although average quarterly growth this year is set to be higher than was previously forecast the annual forecast for 2011 has been revised to 1.7%. this the obr a true specifically to the weekend reports of last year, the rise in world commodity prices and a high than expected inflation in the u.k. however, the obr points out that the effect in their words is to create scope of slightly stronger growth in later years.

so while the expect real gdp growth of 2.5% next% next year, they forecast it will then rise to 2.9% in 2013, the 2.9% in 2014 followed by 2.8% in 2015. the european commission has also this month published its growth forecast. the show that the uk's full cast to grow more strongly in the coming years and spain, italy, france but the average for the euro zone and the average for the european union. all countries have to steer a course between two central risks. the risk of european sovereign debt crisis, on the one hand, and on the other the risk that comes from rising global poverty prices. food prices around the world have increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of last year. or has risen by 35% in just five months. that is why the obr expects

inflation to remain between four and 5% for most of this year, before dropping to 2.5% next year and then 2% in two years time. i have today, tricky written to the governors of the bank of england to confirm that the inflation target for the monitor policy committee will remain at 2% ash but by the consumer prices index. i can also confirm that the facility set up by my predecessor will remain in place. one cause of current instability is the conflict inside libya. the whole house will praise the courage and professionalism of our armed forces are trying to bring the conflict to an end and save lives. i can confirm that the additional cost of military operations will be met entirely on the treasure reserve. house will also know that last week i authorized the u.k. to part in according to g7 currency innovation in support of the japanese yen. our hearts go out to the japanese people, and this is one way in which britain can help.

it is still too early to say what lasting impact the earthquake and tsunami will have on the world economy. but this is an opportunity for me to report that we had already decided to rebuild the uk's foreign currency reserve, which are at historically low levels. we will purchase a range of high quality assets that will unfortunately the price of gold now at a record high we will not be able to replenish the gold reserves that sold at a record low. [shouting] >> mr. deputy speaker, i turn now to the fiscal forecast for our debt and deficit. borrowing to fund the deficit this year is now set to come in below target at 146 billion pounds. then fall to 122 billion next year, in 101 billion the year after, than 70 billion in 2013-14. in 46 billion, and 29 billion by

2015-16. inflation has had its impact but crucially the obr a fix that next years structural deficit remains the same as forecast last november. in other words, the size of the task or repairing britain's finance is unchanged. our national debt and the share of our national income is forced to be 60% this year, before peaking at 71%, and then starting to fall reaching 69% by the end of the period. this leads me to one of the central task of the obr. that is assessing the government's performance against its stated budget goals. in an open and independent way, so that we avoid repeating disastrous experience of the so-called golden rule. our fiscal mandate is to achieve a cyclically adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling five year forecast period, which is currently 2015-16. we have not with a 6% target as the debt should be following in the proportion of gdp by the

year 2015-16 as well. i can report to the house that the obr confirmed that on the central forecast we will meet both these objectives, a thousand structural current budget, and falling national debt by the end of the parliament. indeed, the forecast remains that we will meet both these objectives one year earlier. [shouting] mr. deputy speaker, i said at the start of the stability and fiscal responsibility were not enough. our country has to compete if we are going to create jobs and growth. britain has fallen behind many others in the world in the last decade. we've dropped in the world global competitiveness seen and growth in the country has become so unbalanced, consider this staggering truth. during the boom years before the bust, private sector employment actually felt in the region as important as the west middle. so today's budget is an urgent call for action for britain. private sector growth must take

the place of government deficits. prosperity must be shared across all parts of the united kingdom. yes, we want the city of london to remain the world leading center for financial services, that we should resolve that the rest of the country becomes a world leader in advanced manufacturing, life sciences, industries, business services, green energy and so much more. this is our vision for growth. difficult decisions and major reform are needed to make it happen. but the alternative is to accept britain's economic decline and a continuing fall in the living standards for our population. and that is not an alternative anyone in this house should be prepared to accept. mr. deputy speaker, this budget sets are but these four economic ambitions. britain should have the most competitive system energy 20. be the best place in europe to start finance and grow a business. the a more ballots economy by encouraging exports and

investment. and have a more educated workforce that is the most flexible in europe. let me set up the measures now that will achieve these ambitions. first, taxation. here's the truth. britain used the third lowest corporate tax in europe and now has the sixth highest. at the same time our tax code has become so complex that in recent years it took india to become the longest in the world. from adam smith to others people set out the principles of good taxation. this government for the modern age. our taxes should be efficient and support growth. they should be certain and predictable. they should be simple to understand and easy to comply with. and our tax system should be fair, reward work, and asked the most from those who can't afford the most. in july last year we set out the office of tax simplification to provide independent advice --

advice. i want to thank michael jack and john for the work they have done. following their recommendations i can announce today that its budget abolishes no fewer than 43 complex release. this includes the money and give a system which we will let me for another 989 years. [laughter] >> however i decided not to follow their advice to post the committee investment tax relief and instead i encourage people to take it up. this budget at a stroke removes over 100 pages from our tax code that begins the work. in the last budget i announce that from next month welfare payments and public service, pensions will be in line with the consumer price index. i said at the time we should also consider operating the tax system in the same way. from april 2012 the assumption for direct taxes will move to cbi. there will be protection to this

of those eligible for age-related, married couples, and blind persons allowed his, and for employers national insurance contributions. the increase in the personal tax allowance already announced will fast exceed anything, and that's even before any further increases in that allow its. but this will bring coherence to the facts and benefit system and we look to moving into a taxes over the same basis for what the fiscal system allowed. but there is in one service which we want to undertake, that will dramatically supervise the tax system. for decades we've operated income tax and national insurance as two fundamentally different tax code, and force businesses large and small to operate two completely different systems of administration with two different periods of basis of charge. the resulting anomalies are legion, and it imposes totally unnecessary costs and complexity on employers, and it costs the

taxpayer in the extra burden it places on a gym or see. so i am announcing today that the government will consult on emerging the opposition of national insurance and income tax. i am not proposing we extend national insurance to commissioners are other forms or we abolish the contributory principle. our purpose is not to increase taxes. it is disabled by the. and huge task will therefore require a great deal of consultation and take a number of years to complete. but it is time we took this historic step to simplify dramatically our tax system and make it fit for the modern age. making our tax system more competitive is another challenge for the times we live in. again, let's face facts. other countries are quite deliberately making their tax systems more competitive and attracting multinational companies away from the united kingdom. we could stand and do nothing,

increasing the living standards of every house and come in the country depends on key things, investment and the tax revenues that come with them here in the united kingdom. so we will go ahead with a highly competitive tax rate on profits derived from industries like pharmaceuticals. we will fundamentally reform the complex rules that control foreign companies and make them more territorial. we will introduce new rules that effectively applied older competitive by .75% rate for overseas financing income. this will give us a far more attractive system than france, america or germany. i want britain to be the place international businesses go to, not the place that they leave. but today i wanted even more. so i can announce that from april this year, corporation tax will be reduced not just by the 1% my previous announce but by 2%. and it will continue to fall by 1% in each of the following

three years taking on corporate tax rate right down to 23%. 16% lower than america, 11% lower than france, 7% lower than germany, the lowest corporation tax in the g7. let it be heard clearly around the world, from shanghai to seattle, britain is open for business. [shouting] >> and to ensure, and to ensure that this is not a net tax cut for banks. i am adjusting the bank levy rate next year to offset its affect. [shouting] >> in each -- mr. deputy speaker, in each and every year of this parliament, our permanent bank levy raises more in any one year of the last parliament bank taxes.

the most competitive access and energy 20 is the first of our economic ambitions. the second is that britain becomes the best place in europe to start, finance and grow a business. again let's face facts. in the last decade countries like germany, denmark, finland and the netherlands have all overtaken us in international rankings of competitiveness. that is not surprising when the total cost of regulation imposed on business since 1998 is almost 90 billion pounds a year. so in today's plan for growth we take action. 350 million pounds worth of specific regulations will go, including the quality act, discrimination rules, the recommendations on health and safety laws will be implemented in full, and no win no fee legal services that prey on employers will be restricted. existing regulation will restrict neither the public

process, and from april we're going to impose a moratorium exempting all businesses employing fewer than 10 people, and all genuine startups funded domestic regulations for the next three years. [shouting] >> we'll also take this fight against regulation to brussels where this week my right honorable friend the prime minister bibby including other allies. we will tackle what every government has identified as a chronic obstacle to economic growth in britain. and no government has done anything about the planning system. councils of spending 13% more in real terms than they did five years ago despite the fact that applications have fallen by a third. yes, local communities should have a say in planning, but from today will expect all bodies involved in planning decisions to prioritize growth in jobs. will introduce a new presumption

in favor of sustainable development so that the people say yes. we will retain existing controls on greenbelt, but we will remove the national impose targets on use of praided lands. and will also allow certain use class changes introduced time limits on applications, and pilot for the first time ever auctions of planning commission on land. planning rules and bad regulations stand in the way of new jobs. so too, mr. deputy speaker, does the shortage of finance. small businesses are the innocent victims of the credit crunch. that is why we have agreed with the banks to pay 50% increase in the availability of credit to small businesses. and lack of startup capital has long been a problem in the british economy. too often with very ideas and britain but it is other countries that exploit them. today i announce sweeping changes.

from april this year income tax relief will increase from 20%, to 30%. next year we will double the amount of any individual can invest increase the size of companies that qualify for investment and raise the limit on the amount that can be invested in the company by 400%. and next week my right honorable friend the prime minister of the business sector will launched a new campaign by entrepreneurs for entrepreneurs, supported by many of britain's most successful firms that will help people start and grow a business. today we can add to the help from the six of april this year i am doubling the size of entrepreneurs relief to 10 million pounds. let britain be the home of enterprise in an age when people can't invest all over the world. it's time that we ended the uncertainty around the taxation of non-domiciles. they are welcome in this country but i always believe they should be pay something in return for the special tax status.

the last government followed our advice and introduce a 30,000-pound charge for those who have lived here for seven years. i think we can ask more for those who have been your even longer so i'm increasing the charged up 50,000 pounds for non-dom so been in the country for 12 years. this will raise over 200 million pounds in the coming years. but in return and to encourage investment in our country i am removing the tax charge when non-dom's remain capital gains to the u.k. for the purpose of investing in a british business. we will introduce a statutory residents test to end the speculation and uncertainty and to provide stability, i confirmed that i will be making no further changes to the taxation of non-domiciles in this parliament. in an age when business and capital and people can't increasingly move anywhere, high tax rates can do real damage. that's true for high corporate tax rates, and it's true for high personal tax rates, also.

they crush enterprise. the divine aspiration. they often undermined tax revenues and people avoid them. i include that the 50% tax rate would do lasting damage to our economy if it were to become permanent. that is why i regard it as a temporary measure. just as my labour predecessor, the right honorable did when he introduced a. i said before and that wouldn't be the right time to remove it and we're asking others in our society on much lower incomes to make sacrifices, for we are all in this together. [shouting] >> i think it is sensible -- to see how much revenue it actually raises. i've asked hmrc, mr. deputy speaker, i've asked hmrc to find out the truth when the self assessment forms start coming in. of course, the taxation must be fair. it's right that the wealthy

should pay more than others and it's especially wrong when they avoid taxes. i will have much more to say later on in his speech on tax avoidance and evasion, but there's one area that needs extra work in the coming months and that's on the taxation of a very high value prop it would evasion and avoid and are widespread in the some of the wealthiest are not paying their fair share. so as well as reviewing revenues from the 50 the tax rate will also be redoubling our efforts to find ways of ensuring that owners of high by your property cannot avoid and their fair share. help for small businesses, a boost for enterprise, reforms to planning, cuts to existing regulations, and a moratorium on new ones. all part of our ambition to make britain the first place in your to start, grow, and finance a business. [shouting] >> our third edition is to encourage investment and exports to a more balanced economy for britain. in the plan for growth we

publish today we set out specific measures we can take to help a wide range of businesses. and life sciences we dramatically reduce the time it takes to get approval for clinical trials. in our digital and creative dig industries we will improve the intellectual property regime in our professional and business sectors one of our success stories we will unbuffered our regime and the u.k. is a global arbitration and a visa service. our sector includes many small shopkeepers anxious about the impact of coming business rising. the last government planned that the current rate relief holidays of small businesses should end in october this year. i don't think that would be right so i can announce at a cost to the exchequer of 370 million pounds i would extend the rates holiday for small businesses for another year to october 2012. we will also take action to help

the construction industry. they will be levied on the mean value of the houses being purchased within a portfolio not the bulk force and real estate investment trusts will be simplified to encourage homebuilding but average mortgage supporters are close to 30% and this puts homeownership beyond the reach of many, many families. and this is not fair. so i can announce today that from the proceeds of this year's bank levee we will fund a 250 million pound commitment to first time home builders. it will be available to first time home buyers who cannot afford the high deposit. this will help 10,000 families get onto the housing ladder for the first time. >> here, here >> the previous government, mr. deputy speaker, intended to end the temporary changes to the support for mortgage interest schemes next january. instead, we will extend it for

another year. and that will reduce it for hundreds of thousands of out of home workers. manufacturing is crucial for the balancing of our economy. over the last decade the share of the economy accounted for by financial services increased by over two-thirds. while manufacturing shares fell by almost a half. under this government, manufacturing is now growing at a record rate and 14,000 more jobs have been created in this sector in the last three months. to help this continue, the government will make it more entrepreneurial and create more export credit to help smaller businesses, launch britain's first technology and innovation center for high value manufacturing and fund a further nine new university centers for innovative manufacturing. science is one area where britain already has an advantage over many other countries and it is central to our future as a place to create business. and that's one reason why i

protected the science budget from cuts last year. i can tell the house that i've been able to find again from this year's extra bang levee an additional 100 million pounds to invest in new science facilities at the campus in cambridge for environmental allied sciences, the international space innovation center and the national science and innovation. but if britain is really to become a home of innovation, then we want research and development to take place not just in our great universities but in our smaller businesses, too. one of our greatest high tech innovators has urged me to go. from april this year, mr. deputy speaker, the small companies research and development tax credit will rise to 200% and from next year it will rise again from 225%.

we also want to encourage manufacturers to invest in the latest machinery and technology. so i propose to double the limit on the capital allowances for short life assets from four years to eight years. and the allowance for the renovation of business premises in assisted areas which was due to expire next year we will extend for a further five years. supporting the private sector across the whole of the united kingdom is central to our economic ambitions. savings in the transport department mean that we can also afford 200 million pounds of additional investment in our regional railways. we will go ahead with the 85 million-pound scheme linking manchester victoria and piccadilly stations significantly reducing journey times between liverpool and leeds. and as we've been hearing many honorable members have been calling for this and it will compliment our electricification of the great western main lines

to wales. and we can find another 100 million pounds to help the winter potholes on our roads. >> here, here. >> mr. deputy speaker, helping all parts of our country succeed is also the purpose behind the new enterprise zones we launched today. mr. deputy speaker, there have been reports that we'll be able to fund 10 new enterprise zones. today i confirm that instead we will fund 21 new enterprise zones. businesses will get up to 100% discount on rates, new super fast broadband and the potential to use enhanced capsule zones allowances where there's a strong reliance on manufacturing to radically reduce planning restrictions we will let local authorities keep all business rate growth in their zones for a period of at least 25 years to spend on development priorities.

the first 10 enterprise zones will be in urban areas of the highest needs but also the highest potential. and they will be in birmingham in leeds, liverpool, greater manchester, the valley, time side, the bristol area, the black company, and sheffield. tomorrow the prime minister and deputy prime minister will announce some of these specific locations of these new enterprise zones. and i confirm that a further zone will be located in london where i've asked them to choose a suitable site. a further 10 enterprise zones will be announced in the summer and i want local enterprise partnerships all over the country to come forward with proposals. responsibilities are devolved in northern ireland and scotland and wales and we will work with the administrations so they too can enjoy the benefits of this policy. in northern ireland tomorrow the treasury will publish a paper on

how we help their private sectors to grow to deal with the unique issues posed by the irish ray hubbard business tax regime that considers the case for northern ireland adding an even lower rate than the corporate tax than the united kingdom. i look forward for engaging in all parties there on the way forward. there is one other particular issue that affects a specific part of our country, and that is the very high water bills for customers in the southwest because of the geography there, particularly for those on lower incomes. so we will come forward to help bring those bills down. >> mr. deputy speaker, let me turn now to the opportunity presented by the green energy revolution and our determination to be the greenest government ever. we already announced our ambitious renewable heat incentive and support the low emission cause and changes to the company car tax regime today increase that support.

a great deal to increase the energy bills for homes will be introduced next year and i confirm that we will actually incentivize and encourage its pickup. we are pioneering new carbon capture storage and future projects will be funded out of general spending rather than a complex new levy. but we need to take if you further broad if we're going to make the green revolution in energy. investment in green energy will never be certain unless we bring some stability to the price of carbon. today we've become the first country in the world to introduce a carbon price to the price sector. the price will start around 16 pounds per ton of carbon dioxide in 2013 and move to a target price of 30 pounds per pound in 2020. this will provide an incentive of new investment in our dilapidated in energy infrastructure. to ensure customers get a fair deal, we will closely follow developments in the energy sector in the likes of the

review published on monday. at the same time i'm extending the climate change agreements to 2023 and increasing the climate change levy discount on electricity for those who sign up from 65% to 80% from april 2013. this will help our most energy-intensive industries. green taxes will increase as a proportion of total tax revenues as we promised. and the second bold step we take today is the creation of the green investment bank to support low carbon investment of where the returns are too long term or two risky for the market. we've already committed a billion pounds to it. today i commit 2 billion pounds more funded from asset sales and underwritten by the treasury. this will enable the green investment banks to start operation one year earlier than planned in 2012. it will leverage an additional 15 billion pounds of private

sector investment in green projects over this parliament. i can also confirm today that from 2015, '16 and subject to our overall debt target being met we will allow the green investment banks to borrow and invest in a better future. so a green investment bank with its resources trebled, a new carbon price law, new capsule for manufacturing, new support for new home builders and first time buyers and an economy where growth happens across the country and across all sectors, that is our ambition. >> here, here >> and mr. deputy speaker, it leads me to this fourth ambition. to create a more educated work force that is the most flexible in europe. britain's working-age population has the lowest skills than the populations of america, germany and france. and that's probably the biggest problem facing our economy in the future. that's why we're undertaking far-reaching reform of our schools and universities and funding a pupil premium, an

additional earliest for our most disadvantaged children in poverty. that's why we commissioned the impressive report. the government is committed to funding new university technical colleges which will provide 11 to 19 years old with vocational training that is among the best in the world. the curriculum is being developed in close coordination with both local universities and leading employers and i commend ken baker for getting these new colleges up and running in our manufacturing heartland. to date the government has funded two university technical colleges. i will tell the house we will provide that funding to double that number to at least 24. we will also deal directly with the challenge of youth unemployment that has been on a steady rise for the last seven years and give people direct contact with the workplace. instead of 20,000 young people benefiting from our new work experience scheme, as we planned, we will increase that number trifold to 100 places

over the next two years. in austria, australia, germany and switzerland 1 in 4 provide apprenticeship. in england fewer than 1 in 10 do. [inaudible] >> that's got to change. [laughter] >> that's got to change after 10 years of a labour government. last year, my right honorable friend the minister published a skills strategy and confirmed the largest ever expansion in adult apprenticeship. today i'm funding another 40,000 apprenticeship for young, unemployed people. there are currently only 1,500 higher level apprenticeship across the whole of england. this budget provides for 10,000 more. that brings a total of 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years as a result of this government's policy. a government backing must work with real trading security and

more growth. mr. deputy speaker, we shouldn't talk about those at the start of their working life without also talking about those who are coming to the end of their working lives and looking for retirement. i'm very proud that it was this coalition government that withstood the decision for the safe pension to earnings and guarantee its increase through a triple loss. this would simply not have been affordable. without an increase in the state pension rise. it's set to rise by 66 by 2020 and i can tell the house that we will now seek with more party support a mechanism for future increases in the state pension age based on regular independent reviews on longevity. this is another major reform that will help britain live within her means. we also need to make sure that our public service pensions for those who help others and fair

to the taxpayers who have to fund them. today we published the results of our consultation on the discount rate which shows that a more appropriate rate would be inflation plus, gdp growth. this re-enforces our case for increasing the employee contributions by an average of 3%. indeed, the new discount rate could be used to justify further contribution rises. i'm not prepared to ask for more of the 3% average. john hutton has completed his final report which looks at the pension benefits. and i'm sure members in all parts of this house will want to thank him for a very impressive -- >> order. >> i confirm today that the government acceptance the recommendations as a basis for consultation with public sector workers, unions and others. there should be no

cherry-picking on either side. i believe this house did also recommend similar changes to positions of mp's and we should also address the state pension system which has become unbelievably complex. if people can't work out what they're going to get in retirement through the second state pension or how much we claw back for the means test then they can't work out what they need to save. so the pensions minister, the pensions secretary and i have worked together to develop opportunities including a new single tier pension. it would be simple. it would be based on contributions. it would be a flat rate so people know what to expect. and it would cost no more than the current system. we estimate this single tier pension would be worth around 140 pounds per week. it would not apply to current pensioners and it will take years fully to come in to effect. as with the other major reforms, i've announced to date simplify or tax system to reform or performance and reform our public sector pensions this government is doing the right

thing for the long term. >> here, here >> the most competitive corporate taxes, the best place to start up and run a business and investing, exporting greener manufacturing more balanced economy, a better-educated work force, a fairer pension system these are or ambitions for britain with the measures to match. mr. deputy speaker, let me turn now to personal taxes and duties. and let me start by noting that a society should not be judged by the strength of its economy alone but also with the compassion of its people. the culture secretary and i -- well, that's what i happen to think anyway. the culture secretary and i have been working on a series of substantial reforms that will support giving. to the larger nations and to the coins collected in the charity bucket at first we will simplify

the of gift aid and instead of every charity provide a written record of every donation we will have a much easier online system. second we will encourage wealthy people in our society to give even more. to give -- gifts will be increased from 500 pounds to 2.5 000 pounds so the charities and museums can say thank you properly we will consult in the coming year on how to encourage the donations of preeminent historic objects in our nation for a tax deduction and we will introduce in april of next year, a major change to our inheritance tax system. if you leave 10% of your estate to the charity the government will take 10% of your inheritance tax. let's be clear, no beneficiaries will be better off as a result of this policy. just the charities to the tune of 300 million pounds. i want to make giving 10% to a legacy of charity the new norm

in our country. the third reform we make to the charitable taxes is not about the biggest donations but the smallest. we will introduce, mr. deputy speaker, a new scheme where gift aids can be claimed on school donations up to a total of 5,000 pounds a year per charity without the need for donors to fill in any forms it all. that means gift aid on the content of the collecting tin and the street bucket, 100,000 charities will benefit to the tune of 240 million pounds. and together these represent the most radical and most generous reforms to charitable giving for more than 20 years. >> here, here. >> to the right for charity and the government will do the right thing for you. it's a big help for the big society. >> here, here. >> so mr. deputy speaker, our charity does not extend to those in our society who seek to avoid

paying their fair share of taxes. innovation means we have to ask more from working families and that is not fair. unfortunately, not enough has been done in recent years to tackle this injustice. hmoc estimates the 14 billion pounds was lost through a void in innovation and we take specific members to shot down the open abuses that have been allowed to continue for too long. we will close down three forms of duty land tax avoidance. tightening game rules for corpse and these highly paid employees offer tax-free lifetime loans that are never repaid. and we're going to tackle the exploitation of low-value consignment relief that has left our music stores fighting a battle with the warehouses.

in total on the numbers audited by the independent obr, the tax avoidance in this budget raise 1 billion pounds a year, 4 billion pounds over the parliament. we're doing more today to clamp down on tax avoidance than in any budget in recent years. >> here, here. >> mr. deputy speaker, that give us more resources in a fiscally neutral budget to help those families who do pay their taxes but who are struggling with the daily cost of living. we've already taken steps to help from this april. i'm glad to report that the following measures in my budget last year, every local authority in lane has chosen to free council tax in the coming year. compared to the amount council tax could have risen by, this freeze will save a family in an average approximately 72 pounds a year. in two weeks time the child tax credit for low-incomed families will reduce by 255 pounds.

i confirm that in the coming year all workers in the arms services, nhs, teachers and civil servants earning 21,000 pounds a year or less will receive a pay-uplift of 250 pounds. as i said last year, the national rate insurance rate raise which the last government announced will have to go ahead because we increase the threshold it will be clear up to employ people of 9:00 less than 21,000 pounds than it is today. that's how we stopped labour's job sack. anyone earning less than 35,000 pounds a year will be better off because in 14 days' time the personal income tax allowance, the amount that people can earn tax-free will go up by 1,000 pounds. that's the largest rise in our history. and that means in real terms around 160 pounds extra per year or 200 pounds in cash terms for 23 million taxpayers. the coalition agreement commits this government real increases in the personal allowance each

and every year. and sets this country the goal that no one earning less than 10,000 pounds could be caught in the income tax net. this budget say takes another step towards our valuable goal. i can confirm that from april next year the personal tax allowance for increased fire service 630 pounds to 8,105 pounds is another real increase of 48 pounds extra per year or 126 pounds in cash terms together with this year's rise a total of 326 pounds extra money each year for those working hard to pay for their family needs. and it means just 10 months in office this coalition government has taken 1.1 million low-incomed people out of poverty. and one more thing.

and the result is there will be no more people pooled into the higher rate tax band as a result of this budget. mr. deputy speaker, let me turn now to excise duties. first, air passenger duties. mr. deputy speaker, let me be straight with the house. we have hoped that we could replace the per passenger tax with a per-plane tax. we have tried every possible option but have reluctantly accept all are illegal under law and we have worked with others to try to get that work changed but in the meantime we are consulting today on how to improve the existing and rather arbitrary band that the caribbean is further away than california. we will also seek to bring private jets which pay no duty at all into the scope of taxation. the wealthiest should not accept that the ordinary holiday maker has to pay and i can tell the house with a hefty duty last

year and with the cost pressures on families we think it would be fair to delay this april's air passenger duty rise to next year. let me turn to duties on alcohol. we have already announced plans to increase duty on the strongest spheres and cut in half on low alcohol bills. beyond that i can tell the house i have no further changes to announce. the rates of alcohol duty put in place by the previous government. as usual these changes will come in at midnight on sunday. i've announced again by my predecessor the duty rate will increase 2% above inflation. however, it's clear that the structure of the tobacco duty regime is being exploited to produce clear up cigarette rates and we will change the regime of the differential between the lower cost brands and the lest and cigarettes and hand-roll tobacco. it will reduce smoking and improve our health and these duty changes will come in effect at 6:00 pm this evening. i turn now to other excise

duties. rates of excise duty will increase by inflation only and we will freeze rates to heavy goods vehicles to help our haulers. i'm also proposing to increase the approved mileage allowance payments. this rate has not increased at all since 2002 taking those who spend increase. it will increase from 45 pence per mile. and i can tell the house that we will extend this relief to cover volunteers traveling as passengers as charities and others have been calling for many years. all other duty rises will remain exactly as planned by the previous government except fuel duty. >> ah! >> the price of petrol has become a huge burden on families. in the last six months, the cost of filling up a family car such as a ford focus has increased by 10 pounds and this rise has also

hit businesses hard especially small businesses. and it's important that when there's a steep rise in oil price occurs a responsible government is able to listen and respond. let's be clear about what's within our control and what is not and so we don't raise false hope. british governments are not in charge of the world's oil price and as we've seen, events like those in the middle east can push the cost of petrol at the pump higher. we are responsible on the tax we levy on petrol. and the previous cabinet put in place before they left office a new fuel duty escalator that involved seven fuel duty increases. three have already taken place adding 3 feet to the price of petrol. the third step on the escalator is due to come in to effect next week and that would add almost another 5 pence to the price of a liter of petrol.

i made it clear that i would listen to the concerns put to me by so many people. many have suggested that we should use the extra revenues we automatically get from the north sea. and it's true that they go up when the oil price rises but the abr confirms that rising oil prices also cause other tax revenues across the rest of the economy to fall by a similar amount. and i'm not prepared to undermine the public finances like that. others in this house have suggested we have separate v.a.c. rat for petrol. the deputy mr. speaker, have assessed the petrol. it would take six years to come in to effect and that's because it turns out to be illegal. and so i've decided to reject this approach and do something different. mr. deputy speaker, mr. deputy

speaker, the north sea oil tax regime was most recently changed in 2006 when the price of oil stood at $66. it is now almost double that amount. that means that oil companies are making unexpected oil profits that are far higher than they make their investments on other oil producing companies automatically regulate returns when prices rise. we do not and the north sea is too mature to introduce a regime such now. instead we can do something now. we can introduce a fuel stabilizer. for tomorrow the supplementary charge will increase from 20% to 32% even after there's profits on a barrel of oil are forecasted to be higher in the next five years than in the last five years but this will raise an additional 2 billion pounds of revenue. and we will use the new tax money to do this.

first, we will delay the inflation-rising duty planned for next week until next year and also delay the april 2011 inflation rise until the following summer. second the fuel duty escalator that adds an extra penny on top of inflation every year will be cancelled. not just for this year or next year but for the rest of this parliament. but i don't want important investment in the north sea lost. so if the oil price falls below $75 and we will consult on the precise figure, we will reintroduce the escalator and reduce the new oil tax in proportion. that is how it will work. no escalator when the oil price is high. no extra tax on the profits of the north sea oil companies if the oil price falls and stays low. that's the fair fuel stabilizer. >> here, here. >> and this is the result for britain's hard-pressed families. i made sure that there will be

no fuel duty rises her. i've cancelled the fuel deescalator when the oil price is high. and one final thing. as well as stopping these fuel rises i'm today cutting fuel duty by 1 penny per liter. this will take effect in petrol stations from 6:00 pm tonight. mr. deputy speaker, i know that by itself it will not end the pressure on family budgets, but we've done what we can to help. help the families, help the businesses, the government that listens and helps. mr. deputy speaker, there was some who said this year that my job was to help families with the cost of living and there were others who said no, my task was support enterprise and business and far-reaching reforms to help the economy grow. it is the central understanding of this government and call to your strategy that these are not two separate tasks. they are one and the same thing. we are only going to raise the

living standards of families if we have an economy that can compete in the modern age so this is our plan for growth. we want the words "made in britain, created in britain" to drive our nation forward. a britain carried along by the march of the makers. that is how we will create jobs and support families. we have poured fuel in the tank of the british economy and i commend this budget to the house. >> under the -- under the standing order no. 51, the first voice entitled of taxes must be divided without debate. will the chancellor of the exchequer please move formally? chancellor? >> the question is, that the pursuant of section 5 of the provisional collection of taxes

act of 1968 provisional statutory effects shall be given to the following motions, a, increasing the rate of supplementary charge, b the alcoholic duty rates motion no. 10, c, the duties rates motion no. 12. d, amusement license duties, motion no. 13. e, field duty raised from the march 2011 motion no. 13. f, stock duty land tax prevention of aavoided advance no. 9 and in support of the aye. the ayes have it. i feel no fall on the counsel of the exchequer to move the motion entitled amendment of the law under his own motion that the debate will take place today and end on the succeeding day. the remaining motions will be put to the end of the budget debate on tuesday, 29th of

march. will the chancellor move the motion. the question is, that the expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and the public revenue and to make further provisioning in connection with the finance, two, that the resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value-added tax so as to provided a zero rating or a supply or refunding a tax or c other relief other than the relief that i so far is applicable to apply on every description. and two, so far is applicable to services and applies to services of every description. i note the right honorable edward miliband leader of the opposition. >> mr. deputy speaker, the chancellor spoke for an hour but one fact says it all and he couldn't bring himself to say

it, growth down, last year, this year and next year. it's the same old tory that's hurting but it isn't working. what was it he said last year about growth? judge me on the figures? well, judge him we will. every time he comes to this house, growth is downgraded. last june, 2011 growth, down from 2.6% to 2.3%. in november, down again. and in january, what did the prime minister say? his three priorities for the year were growth, growth, growth. [laughter] >> and what happened in this budget? growth, down, down, down. and taking into account of all the measures -- and taking account of all the measures, what -- >> order, order! we should show the same courtesy that were shown to the deputy

chancellor. >> mr. speaker, what is the chancellor's singular achievement? to deliver a budget of growth that downgrades the growth forecast. down this year to 1.7%. downgraded next year to -- mr. deputy speaker, it didn't happen by chance, by choice. and it's the wrong choice to go too far and too fast. in his own words in the june budget, he chose to go 40 billion pounds further and faster in tax rises and spending cuts than our plan to halve the deficit in four years. it's those cuts that has seen consumer confidence fall in almost every month since the general election. in his first budget, the chancellor promised steady and sustained economic recovery. and when last september's growth figures came out, the chancellor took the credit. he called the figures a vote of

confidence in the government's economic policy. but when the economy contracted in the fourth quarter, what did he do? he blamed the snow. mr. deputy speaker, even he -- even he must appreciate the irony. because while the prime minister was grounded from his trip to thailand, he was on the piece in cloisters. i guess it was the right type of skiing holiday. but mr. deputy speaker, what is it? what is it about the british snow? because they had worse snow in germany, a big freeze in france, in the u.s., the worst blizzards of the decades. but despite all of that -- but despite all of that, their economies grew in the fourth quarter. and while our growth forecasts have worsened, theirs have improved. the german economy -- the

chancellor -- the chancellor should just calm down a little bit, mr. deputy speaker. the german economy is forecast to grow more strongly than it was last year. so is the united states. growth in the world economy has grown up. what is the worst economy downgraded in its forecast? the united kingdom. mr. deputy speaker, it's not the wrong type of snow to blame. it's the wrong type of chancellor. it's the wrong type of chancellor and the wrong type of government with the wrong priorities for britain. mr. deputy speaker, mr. deputy speaker -- >> order, order. could i say to everybody, the public also wants to hear what the opposition has got to say. for our government members, who do not want to listen, then please leave the chair but if the public may want to hear some may agree and some may disagree. the leader of the hooping

>> mr. deputy speaker, they shout and jeer as unemployment hits an all time high. he also promised in his june budget that he would deliver low inflation. and what happened? inflation has risen month after month after month and it simply didn't happen by accident. it's happening because he took the wrong decision on v.a.t. same old taxes, same old tories and he promised falling unemployment and what happened since he gave us our first budget, over 60,000 more people looking for work. to this tory government, just like the ones of the past, unemployment is still a price worth paying. and when people heard -- and when people heard the chancellor's budget speech today, they will wonder what world he was describing. i think the chancellor should listen to this because -- well, in the constituencies, in the

constituencies of over 130 members of this house 10 people are chasing every vacancy. 1 in 5 young people is looking for work. families are seeing their finances squeezed, not just this year but year after year. and mr. deputy speaker, what does the government say the communities losing their jobs? let me tell you what they recently told the people of newport justifying the closure of their passport office. they said the redundancy payments would provide a boost in trade for the local economy. mr. deputy speaker, what kind of planet do these people live? on growth, on unemployment, the chancellor couldn't bring himself to admit that his second budget tells the story of the failure of his first. at the stage of this recovery, growth should be pouring ahead. unemployment should be falling

fast and every month when unemployment is higher than it should be, it pulls up long-term damage for our country. every month when growth is lower than it should be, it hits the future potential of our economy. the problem is, instead of admitting it, he refuses to change course. what did the energy secretary say? if the figures change, the government should not be lashed to the mast of their reckless gamble. he should be willing to change and think again. now, mr. deputy speaker, it's not as if they had practice of the u-turn business. they're becoming the task masters on schools, housing benefits for those looking for work, even on the vanity of photographer they've been pushed to climb down but on the things that matter the most they will not change. on the chancellor, his goal is to be nigel and mr. deputy

speaker another comparison brings to mind. the same hubris and arrogance of the early 1990s. the same broken promises. the same views of unemployment is a price worth paying. he's norman lamont with an ipod, mr. deputy speaker. [laughter] >> and no doubt on his playlist, regret. [laughter] >> mr. deputy speaker, this is not a growth budget. it's not a jobs budget. it's a budget for more of the same. from a complacent arrogant chancellor and a complacent, arrogant government. it's working but it's not working. let's not forget, mr. deputy speaker. these are not just the chancellor's decisions. they are not just the prime minister's decisions. they're the deputy prime minister's decisions, too. he is an accomplice to the tory

plan. when it comes to the economy, the man who coined the phrase has a snooze button really, truly on. nobody voted for this deficit plan. least of all -- nobody voted for this plan. least of all his liberal democrat voters who were told and promise after promise he would never encounter them. mr. deputy speaker, if i can put it this way, it's no wonder nobody wants to share a platform with him. on the measures in this budget, i welcome the support for the armed forces. i welcome the support for the armed forces. and on the measures he proposes to support growth, we will look at them. but there is little -- but there is little reason they will make a difference to growth.

indeed, the justice secretary fell asleep during the chancellor's asleep. his growth strategies were so compelling. but, mr. deputy speaker, this is important. the office of the budget responsibility -- the office for budget responsibility has already factored in every single measure he's just announced and they still pronounced today's downgraded growth forecast. and you can't blame people for being skeptical when the chancellor has a new flagship policy for growth. because people are asking, people are asking, what happened to his last flagship policy for growth at the center of his june budget? does anyone remember the national insurance holiday? in june, he took credit for

helping 400,000 small firms. how many have actually benefited? mr. deputy speaker, he's been strangely shy in revealing the figures. but someone let slip by the financial times by january it wasn't 400,000, it wasn't 40,000, it wasn't even 4,000. it was less than a half percent of the number he promised just 1500 businesses. now, on his incentives to small firms, on his incentives to small firms we will look at the details. but i have to say -- but i have to say -- i have to say his decision to counsel flexible working for families with children between 16 and 18 is extraordinary. this prime minister took credit for championing that policy with mumsnet and takes credit for dumping it. you ask mr. deputy speaker, has he got no shame?

the idea -- no. the idea -- the idea that families needing flexibility imperil our economic future is frankly absurd and it tells you all you need to know about this government's values and how they think our economy succeeds. greater insecurity as a route to greater prosperity. we take a different view. flexible working is yet another growth in promise from the broken promise of the prime minister. now, mr. deputy speaker, while we're on the subject of broken promises, remember what the prime minister said before the election. he said he would be the banker basher in chief. now, he makes great play in his budget speech but the reality is this. last year labour's bonus tax raised 3.5 billion pounds. it's in the red book. and this year the bank levee raises 1.9 billion pounds.

if a tory government cutting taxes for the banks while they raise taxes on everybody else. and he should have -- and he should have used the money for the bank levy to invest in the future jobs fish to make a real difference to housing in this country and to boost enterprise. mr. deputy speaker, they are failing on growth and they are failing on living standards, too. what did the prime minister say before the election, the families receiving tax credits? he said that below 50,000 pounds a year, that tax credits were safe. when labour said otherwise, the home secretary said this. that is a lie and it is irresponsible to labour to be worrying families needlessly. but what is the truth? next year over 1 million families with incomes as low as 26,000 pounds will lose all their tax credits. they should be ashamed of their broken promises on tax credits.

and it's part of the cost of living crisis they are imposing. the chancellor trumpeted the rise in the personal allowance. and he said that everybody under 35,000 would be better off. but let's look at the facts. he came along in the june budget and put out v.a.t. costing families 450 pounds a year. now, he's got the nerve to expect them to be greatest when he gives them a fraction of their own money back. and what did the institute of fiscal studies tell us this morning? they said this. there's an awful lot of giving with one hand and taking away with loss of other. it's a classic tory con. and what about the decision on petrol? he's done the same thing again. he cut duty by one pence and whacked v.a.t. by once pence. for a family both on average wages it's 5p up in the basic

rate of income tax and just 1p down next year. what do the british people know from history? every tory ends up costing them more. same old tory, same old defeat. mr. deputy speaker we needed a budget. we needed a budget to change course on selling too fast and too far. the chancellor said of the weekend with his customary modesty he completed his rescue mission of the british economy. it's not the chancellor who's rescuing the country. it's the country that needs rescuing from this chancellor. mr. deputy speaker, when families look at this budget, look at the squeeze on their living standards, look at their job losses in their communities, they will conclude it's hurting but it isn't working.

>> order. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] >> the principle is clear. let's move on mr. andrew tyri herk

>> it will provide strategy to prove the long-run performance of the british economy. i'll mention another -- a number of concerns about the growth strategy in a moment. but in my view, we need to be clear, all of us, about one thing. we are living beyond our means as a country. with every 1 pound in every 4 we spend is being foraged. that overshadows everything else today. despite all the clash of party symbols, the gap between the parties actually on the state of the action requires to reduce the deficit is not so big. at least two-thirds of the adjustments have been signaled by the last chancellor of the exchequer in his budget a year ago. i regret that he's not in his place at the moment. it was courageous of him to set that deficit reduction plan out and those spending cuts out before the election. he did it.

today, this chancellor has stuck to his plans to sort out the public finances and that's taken courage, too. and i think deserves our full support. i think he's done the right thing. i want to make three further points on the deficit. first, the government is not reducing unemployment. at 40% of gdp by the end of parliament, it will be rushed to broadly the same levels achieved by labour in 2008. nonetheless, the retrenchment is going to feel more painful from this time on. the consolidation in each of the next three years at around 25% of 30 billion pounds a year is three times the amount implemented in the first year of this government. the third point i want to make on the deputy is that the pressure to flinch will now mount. we simply must not do so for at

least two reasons. offshore start it would cost the country a fortune in high deficit costs as markets lost confidence in economic policy. and secondly, to do so would mean a field day for the spending lobbyists once they smelt blood the government's strategy would be put at risk. i want to say a few words about it. the chancellor announced a comprehensive new approach and it contains many measures which i think we should welcome. not least the large list of deregulation measures he cited, the planning and measures to include access to start-up capital. on all of those, it's essential that each part of the strategies is consistent with other parts of public policy. direct measures always sound attractive. the test is whether they form a coherent strategy.

on those grounds i warmly welcome a new agenda for tax reform to create the most competitive tax system in the advanced world. and i support the corporate reductions that will bring it down in a few years. mr. deputy speaker it's a disgrace that the u.k. now has the longest tax code in the world. the complexity of the system is getting in the way of thousands of small businesses in our constituency. the very people who can take us back to sustained growth. we must have a tax system which allows enterprise to flourish. a few weeks ago, the trade committee published a report setting out the key principles which should underpin tax reform. i can summary some them very briefly. let's have more simplicity. let's have more stability. and let's have lower rates and fewer relief where possible. i noticed the chancellor has

abolished 43 relief and he's gotten rid of 100 pages of the tax code, a huge step forward. and let's have less in the tax system as well. the chancellor appears to have set us out in the right direction. it will be now for the treasury committee and others to judge whether his proposals match up to the principles that we set out in our report and which matches quite closely what others have concluded, the tax advisory have concluded is the right way forward. the committee would also examine who gains and who loses from the budget. last year, the committee demanded an unprecedented number of detail of the effects of the budget. the chancellor responded and i'd like to commend him for this by publishing more information than had ever been provided by a chancellor before. this will be particularly

important with respect to the plan to merge income tax and national insurance contributions. now, this has been an beguiling idea which chancellor of the exchequer have looked closely and in the end rejected largely because it hits the incomes of certain groups in unexpected ways. maybe the time has come the treasury committee will take evidence on whether indeed the time has come to implement it. i think we should also look at a number of other proposals that will have long-term distributional impacts. among them, of course, the encouragement of charitable giving with a sizeable extension of gifting and the inheritance tax relief and i hope the vast majority in the house welcome that too. we will also do -- we'll also as a committee do our best to examine the coherence of some of his other measures against wider public policy.

i can best illustrate this by alluding to this by colleagues made in the house. for example, the chancellor announced the creation of 21 enterprises. they must be designed carefully to ensure that they create jobs and increase overall activities. the risk will always be with enterprise zones that they distort activity at the boundaries and add no new jobs. [inaudible] >> i will. >> i thank my honorable friend for giving way on some thoughtful remarks. doesn't he think the enterprise zone should be like where we have strong corridors? >> yes. it just crosses my mind that we might have an interest in harlow. [laughter] >> the issue if we are to create areas which have special relieves that we don't inadvertently merely moving activity around the country

while adding nothing to overall welfare in the u.k. and that is a very difficult judgment and we need to look extremely carefully at it. >> would my right honorable friend will -- >> i will. >> my right honorable friend will have heard the chancellor say that there will be discussions in relation to the position in wales and the existence of an enterprise zone in the bristol area if the welsh assembly were not to follow this policy might actually result in that very real location he refers to. >> i know what the -- what my honorable friend says and i think these points need to be taken careful point of. another area that's important to have coherent policy is for the cost of fuel. this project gives some relief on fuel duty rises with the cancellation of the fuel duty escalator among other things. but while reducing others, other government policies putting up the cost of energy are a lot for businesses and homeowners in other ways. not least, the price of

electricity. and the cost of rail travel is also going up. does all this, a reduction for motorists and increase for rail users and much higher energy bills form a coherent policy. i don't know. but it needs to be carefully examined. it needs to be examined particularly in the light of the chancellor's announcement for a full price for carbon. all these issues need to be very carefully looked at and the distorted energy policy will make britain less competitive particularly in our export market. in our effort to -- in our effort to return to sustained growth, we need to make better use of every pound invested in our public services. and another example of the need to make sure we have coherence in growth policy, it has also been put to me by a colleague on both sides of the house, they've asked whether spending 17 billion pounds on a high-speed

rail link is of better use of the money than investing in modern rolling stock and improving the existing plan. i suspect that millions of rail computers who can't at present get a seat and whose trains are unreliable and relatively slow will be interested in the answer to that question. i'm very pleased that the transport select committee has just announced an inquiry, and i think a lot of people will be awaiting the outcome. i will. >> i'm grateful to my right honorable friend. would he agree with me that high-speed rail has the potential to be a profoundly bad economic decision for the whole country? >> well, what i'm deliberately trying to do is not answer the questions here but pose these questions for the select committees and others to try and answer. i think -- what i'm trying to point out is that in order to demonstrate the coherent growth strategies, a large number of policies need to be looked at in the round