budget. i think every time we do a continuing resolution, there ought to be at least a reduction in the amount they're allowed to spend each month until we get a final resolution. that could be 1%. it could be .5%. it could be .25%. there's got to be some kind of a reduction if we're ever going to get this down. yes, there's a bigger responsibility, and that's for appropriators to figure out how to get this circle down to that circle. and it isn't just on the part -- this is the only part that the the -- that the appropriations committee gets to work on, this little third of the square. this part has just as big a problem as this part does in the amount that's being spent. so we're going to have to come up with some solutions. i have some solutions. i'm not going to go into those today. what i want people to do right

now is to think about how much we're spending versus the revenue we have got, and every person in america needs to be thinking about the way that the things they're involved in can be a payroll tax part of gettina part of getting this circle down to the size of that circle. it's everybody's responsibility. now, what we continually run into are the groups, particularly from our states, that say i have this fantastic program and we need a little increase for inflation because it's such a phenomenal program, and for years we have been able to do that. that's how the balloon got this big. we're just not going to be able to do that. and what would be helpful is if people could suggest how in their program they could make it better for less, it's either going to have to be better for less with a little pain or wait a couple of years and have it worse for less with a lot of

pain. we're at a point right now where we could do 1% reductions for each of seven years and get to a balanced budget. now, that's 1% true cuts. that isn't 1% less growth. that's 1% true cuts each and every year, and it has to cover the whole circle, not just this part of the circle which is what we usually concentrate on and have some discretionary capability on it because this whole piece of the pie is the mandatory spending. it's only funded by that much. you can't do that for long. we're going to have to have solutions. now, the usual effect is people come in and they say well, you know, we need a little bit more money or don't cut my program, just keep it the same size, and i asked for suggestions on how we could keep doing that in light of this being the revenue, that being the revenue and this being the expenditure, and their usual approach is i can tell you about a couple of programs that

some other people have that we ought to eliminate. now, we're taking a look at those, too. we looked at them in the health and human services area, senator coburn and i did, and found there were $9 billion of duplication. do you need to do duplication? i would hope not. well, he got so excited, he did for the entire federal government, he found $900 billion. now, does that mean a whole lot of other agencies were a whole lot less efficient than health and human services? no, it means that we do duplicative programs in every single agency. we have financial literacy programs in every single agency. if we're spending this much and only getting this much revenue, is the financial literacy in our government working? i don't think so. when i first got here, there were 119 preschool education

programs, 119 of them. and preschool is really important. the start you get from when they are first-born until they go to school makes a huge difference. we had 119 programs. we took a look at those and found that a bunch of them, according to their own evaluation, were failing, and we now have that down to 69 programs. do you know why we can't go below 69? my jurisdiction is over the department of education, and they only have eight of them. eight of 69 education programs. the department of agriculture has the most preschool programs. so when he's talking about duplication, he is talking -- and looking at the whole realm of everything that the federal government does, there is duplication in each and every agency, and what we're going to have to do is pick out the best at doing whatever we're trying to get done and put a little more funding in there and eliminate the other ones. getting rid of duplication is a sure way of solving the problem

problem -- a surer way of solving the problems than some of the other ways. we talk about waste, fraud and abuse. yes, there is waste, fraud and abuse and we need everybody in america to help us find that waste, fraud and abuse. but it was a rather elusive number. does anybody know how big that is? everybody is guessing. it's only a guess how much there is. and we need to be finding it and we need to be taking the money in before we spend it. you'll find us using some waste, fraud and abuse numbers as the pay-for for a new program. well, you don't -- you aren't able to spend that money until you have actually got it, and one of the things i have noticed is once we say okay, that can be the pay-for, the program goes into effect and nobody really has any interest in going on, digging up this waste, fraud and abuse. so that waste, fraud and abuse money ought to go into a fund before it can be spent on something else. but when i'm talking about

duplication and $900 billion worth of duplication, i'm talking about numbers that you can go to the federal budget and look up. you can find out exactly how much those programs are spending. now, in its duplication, you wouldn't eliminate all of them, but it sounds like you ought to be able to eliminate half of them. $450 billion would be a huge change for this country. so i -- i hope that we'll look at some of those, and as i have said, i have got a 15-page speech here that would explain some ways that we could solve this problem, but what i'm trying to do is get people to grasp this concept that this is our federal tax receipts, this is our revenue, and that circle is proportionate to this circle. this circle is what we're sending. as a family, people know they can't do that. as a government, you can't do it very long, even if you print your own money. so somehow we're going to have

to shrink this down until it's that size or grow this until it's this size, but -- or a combination of the two. and like i said, i will have some other speeches to do that. i hope everybody will take a look at it. we say don't touch our medicare, medicaid and social security. i don't know how long we can have half a trillion dollars worth of extra expenditure in that category alone. there is another $416 trillion mandatory here that's in that -- kind of in that same category. how long can you keep spending that, and what happens if the interest rate goes up? this piece of the pie can become much bigger, and probably will. i don't know how long we can keep interest rates at the low rate that they're at now. if they go up, it will help some seniors because they have some investments in cash that would get higher interest rates then, but for the country as a whole, when this part gets above the 1% we're spending right now, it actually makes up 6% of our

budget already, but that's at the really low interest rate that we're doing, when that one expands -- and that's going to have to expand and it's going to expand in the next couple of years because of what's happening in europe -- we better be worried about it. this is the kind of picture that the deficit commission that erskine bowles and alan simpson chaired. i was hoping that we would repaint this picture a number of times between the time they did that a year ago and now, because we have got to get america to understand -- and actually, i can tell you the people in my state really understand this. i don't need to explain it to them. they know how much more we're spending than what we're taking in. they can even remember the numbers, and they are concerned and they need to be concerned and we all need to be concerned. so i'm open to your suggestions. i will have some speeches later, again reiterating this definite problem that we're in. i have said a number of times that our country has maxed out

its credit cards. a couple of weeks ago on my trip to wyoming, i checked into a hotel and i used my senate credit card, and the lady a few moments later very embarrassed said i'm sorry, but your card is being rejected. i said i guess the federal government is in worse trouble than i thought. i used my own card and it went through. so we better be worrying about it now because we do have a problem. we have maxed out our credit cards, and there is not any other places we can go for money. we have been the bastion of money for years. so keep this in mind, start thinking of ways that we can actually make some cuts and increase some revenues. i have got both of those in my speech. so it is a crisis. it will be a more immediate crisis in time, but we are no

longer spending our grandkids' money. we're spending our kids' money, and it's just about to come due on us, and when i say on us, i'm even including the seniors in that. the day of reckoning is not far away. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. te

senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, i ask that i speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that calling of the roll be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, we're here now deciding on what kind of a country america might be in the future, whether it will be a place that we look

back at and remember when everybody was -- had a chance at success. it's hard to believe that when we look at the vote that we just had. it confirmed where the republicans are on the issue of whether middle-class families should get a tax break. the republican answer, surprisingly -- no, strike that. not at all surprisingly. they have been consistent in their views. the answer that they gave on middle-class family tax breaks was absolutely no, no, no. to the struggling single parents who want to provide for their family, works hard every day, the republicans said no way. to the recent college graduate trying to start a career but

having trouble paying back college loans, paying rent, paying living costs, the republicans said no. to the working family -- working couple with a family, a couple of kids who need some help in this tough economy, the republicans said no. no, no, no. the republicans refuse to help you because their mission is to shield the wealthy from paying their fair share of our country's obligations. across our country, americans are watching republicans in this congress and wondering what they're going to do to supply encouragement and hope for people who really need it. are we going to be like a big accounting firm, simply doing

the auditing, or are we going to be there to stimulate activity for people to give them a chance to elevate their living standard for their family to get their kids educated and take care of the family necessities? right now, 14 million americans are jobless, and they are worried about how they are going to stay in their homes, feed their children and keep their families warm this winter, but unemployed americans are not the only people that are struggling. hard-working americans from all walks of life are struggling to make ends meet. they are coping with skyrocketing grocery prices, surging health premiums, soaring college tuition. in my home state, one in ten new jerseyans are on food stamps, the highest level in more than a decade, and new jersey has

traditionally been among the top states per-capita income in the country. within the top three, often in the first position. here on this side of the aisle we're trying to help struggling families. and, mr. president, i learned the hard way about family struggles when i was growing up. my father took ill with cancer when he was 42. i was 18. my mother when my father died was 37 years old. we had all kinds of obligations to pay. my mother took over the family leadership, we owed money for the pharmacy, for hospitals, for doctors. we were virtually bankrupt. i had enlisted in the army.

next week it will be 69 years ago that i enlisted in the army in december of 1942. and i know how tough it was and how much aggravation accompanies a family who just can't keep their heads above water. and here we are, in a day of some incredible wealth around this country, around this world. republicans are trying to thwart our efforts to extend and expand the payroll tax cut for working families, for people who depend on their incomes to take care of their family needs. not of their savings, not of their inheritance -- their jobs. millions of american families have benefited from this tax cut that we've had this year, but it stands toaks pier the end of december and our -- to expire the end of december and our side

is eager to extend the tax cut and increase the size of the tax cut to help these families. my state, this means a typical family would receive a total tax cut of $2,100 next year. $2,100. mr. president, for parents who are trying to feed their family, educate their kids, pay their bills, an extra $2,100 goes a long way. and to make sure all working families receive this much-needed relief next year, we're asking america's millionaires to pay their fair share. but the republicans would rather protect their wealthy friends than continue the payroll tax cut for working families. first, the republicans blocked our side's efforts to cut taxes for the middle class, then the republicans offered their own plan. it was a disgrace. their plan calls for a much

smaller milk tax break which they -- middle-class tax break which they would have paid for by laying off 200,000 middle-class government woash. that's how they solve the problem. fire people. don't take it out of your bank account, out of your salary, even if you make over a million dollars a year. fire people. make sure that they understand that we're not as concerned about them as we are about the person who makes over a million dollars a year. it was a cynical ploy and it showed the other side's true stripes. the republicans say they're for lower taxes, but we now see that that only goes for the jet set. their tax cutting zeal doesn't extend to the middle class. the republican priorities: raise taxes on middle-class families,

middle-class families. middle-class families don't have it easy in america. they want to raise their taxes to protect the luxuries for the millionaires. make no mistake, working families will suffer if the republicans continue to block our efforts to extend and expand the payroll tax cut and so will our economy. last week, barclay's bank warned that our g.d.p. will drop 1.5% if the payroll tax cut is allowed to expire. the choice is clear. we can continue the payroll tax cut for working families or we can allow the republicans to continue running their millionaires' protection ring. the fact is, mr. president, america's millionaires are doing just fine. they don't need protection from the republicans. since 19 -- since the 1980's,

our country's wealthiest 1% have seen their average household income increase by 55%. but for the bottom 90%, average household income hasn't increased at all. as a matter of fact it's gone down because as wages were increased modestly, the cost of food, health care, and college tuition skyrocketed, so their purchasing -- purchasing power was -- declined. even though they got -- had a raise in their paycheck. as we see -- see here, even though incomes are growing for the very wealthy, their taxes are actually going down. the red stripe indicates incomes

of the higher percentage from $100,000 on up, they are getting much larger raises and improved incomes where the middle class, 15% of the people, are getting substantially less buying power. we can also look at c.e.o.'s to see how well the wealthy are faring. c.e.o.'s at the largest companies are now paid an average salary of $11 million a year. that's 343 times as much as the average worker salary of $33,000. note the difference, mr. president. 343 times as much as the average worker salary of $33,000.

that is not a very well-balanced position. cromplet pay -- c.e.o. pay has skyrocketed compared to the average worker. in 2010, c.e.o.'s made 343 times the average worker's pay. they -- it used to be a much more modest comparison. 1980, c.e.o.'s made 42 times the average worker's pay. just look at that. in 30 years, the c.e.o. pays have gone up by more than 300 times what the average worker is making. just a few decades ago, the pay cap was -- gap was much more reasonable and the people who were working in the mills and making the products and doing the service jobs and all of that were living significantly better

than they are today. the millionaires are making much, much more money today than they did in those years past. mr. president, this is something i know something about directly. i was the president of a very large company. when i came to the united states senate. and i saw what was happening because i had a boost from our country, i'd enlisted in the army, i got the g.i. bill, i went to columbia university, i still sit on the board of the business school at columbia university. my parents were running little stores to try and keep things alive for our family. and here i am running -- i ran a large company. it's because the country helped me out. it's because the company said

frank, if you can learn, we'll help you. we'll pay your tuition because you served your country. i served during the war in europe. and that made a difference. and that company that i helped start with two other fellows has 45,000 employees today. 45,000 people are working at a.d.p., the company that i helped start, today because we had a chance at an education. understand what you had to do to be in management, what you had to do to provide leadership. and our goal shouldn't be protecting millionaires and billionaires who don't need our help. we should focus on the foundation that our society requires for it to function. we should be focused on protecting medicare, food safety, head start. imagine, they want to take seats away from head start programs. these little kids. i visited a head start program

in new jersey just a few weeks ago. and i saw the children. they were 3, 4, 5 years old. they were interested in learning something, and i talked to them and i want -- one of the little boys came over and he hugged me around the knees, and i wanted to pick him up and take him home, he was so beautiful and so nice and i thought here's a child learning to love his -- he came from a single-parent family. and now what is in the programs that the republicans are trying to put into working order, will take 200,000, based on the -- on the budget that came over from them, take 200,000 of these little ones off of the head start rolls. it's outrageous. so the people who need help, again, we should be focusing on protecting them. about making sure that they have proper medicare, that food

safety is taken care of, that head start, home heating for the poor and other essential programs, protecting them from reckless cuts. the republicans who served on the super committee that we had organized refused before the negotiations were started, refused to ask american -- wealthy americans to pay their fair share. they practically took an oath that they would have no revenue increase. no revenue increase when the country is deeply in debt and starving for a better way to solve our problems. as a result, the poor and the middle class are going to have to make up the difference. these are the people who need help the most right now, and we must act now to protect the vital programs they rely upon. if we fail to act, our country

and our economy will continue to suffer, especially americans who are already struggling. it's just plain heartless to continue asking the poor, the middle class, the elderly, and our children to bear the entire burden of these brutal economic times. it doesn't hurt any of us who have been successful to pay a fair share. it might cost a few dollars more, but if you're making over a million dollars a year, then look in the mirror and see if you've done it all by yourself or whether there's a whole cadre of people working across america who go to work every day because they want to make a week's pay and take care of their kids and take care of their obligations. that's the foundation that built america. it's the foundation, mr. president, of the development of something that was called the greatest

generation. it was the generation, the last century, who served in world war ii. and all of us -- and i was one of those people -- eight million people got a college education who otherwise wouldn't have been near college. our tuition was paid and we got a stipend every month beside that for our service in the military during the war. and it built our country. and that strengthened our foundation. and now we see people, republicans, who want to make it tougher for people to make a living. tougher for people to get an education. tougher to provide heat for people who desperately need it in the wintertime. tougher to think ahead and say, you know, what? i know my children will do better than i've done in my life. that used to be a truism in our

view of life in this country. you don't hear that much anymore because people are not -- are unsure and it doesn't help to have the republicans sticking up for the wealthiest among us and turning their backs on working-class families in this country, the middle-class families. it's not right, mr. president. i hope the people across this country will say no, we're going to say no to you, the republicans, when it comes to your turn to see if you can pass the equivalent of the s.a.t.'s. see if you can pass an election with that kind of a burden being placed upon the people in the country who struggle hard to make a living. mr. president, i hope that our republican colleagues will disband their millionaires' protection game, stop standing in the way, start standing up

for everyday americans who need our help, help us continue the payroll tax cut for working families, help us protect the programs that benefit the people who need them most. help us, friends on the republican side, to keep -- make america even stronger than it is today and we can do that. countries are failing all over the globe. america needs not to do that. we just have to make sure that while we take care of our expenses we also make sure we have the revenues to do the job with. and with that, mr. president, with that i note the absence of a quorum. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent we proceed to calendar 360 and calendar 501 and send two two cloture motions to the desk. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the nominations. the clerk: nomination, department of state,the norman l. eisen of the district of columbia to be be ambassador to the czech republic. cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of

norman l. eisen of the district of columbia to be ambassador to the czech republic, signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the names not be read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. the clerk: nomination, department of state, maury aponte of the district of columbia to be ambassador to the republic of el salvador. cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a vote the nomination of carmen aponte to be ambassador to el salvador signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: madam president, i ask that reading of the names not be necessary. i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call under rule 2 be waived. and that on monday, december 12, at 4:30 p.m., senate proceed to executive session to consider the two nominations. that there be one hour of debate equally divided in the usual

form. upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed with no intervening action or debate to vote on calendar number 360, then if cloture is invoked, the senate immediately vote on confirmation of the nomination. and following disposition of calendar 360, the senate proceed to vote on cloture number -- cloture on calendar number 501. i'm sorry. further, that it f cloture is not invoked on calendar number 360, the senate proceed to vote cloture on california der number 501. any statements be printed in the record and the president of the united states be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask the chair lay before the house a message from the house of representatives to s.j. res. 22. the presiding officer: the chair lays before th the senate the following message. the clerk: resolved that the resolution from the senate s.j. res. 22 entitled joint resolution to grant the consent of congress to amendment to the

compact between the states of missouri and illinois, providing that bonds issued by the by-state development agency may mature at not to exceed 40 years do pass with an amendment. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate concur in the house amendment, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table there, be no intervening action or debate, any statements relating to this matter be placed in the reported at the appropriate place as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the homeland security committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2061. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2061, an act to authorize the presentation of a united states flag on behalf of federal civilian employees who die of injuries in connection with their employment. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? if not, the committee is discharged and the committee -- and the senate will proceed. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three

times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table there, be no intervening action or debate and any violated statements be printed in the -- any related statements be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of h. con. res. 86. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 86, directing the clerk of the house of representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of h.r. 2061. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the current resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table there, be no intervening action or debate, any statements related to this matter be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 1974. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1974, a bill to amend the tariff act of 1930 to clarify the definition of aircraft and the offenses penalized under the aviation

smuggling provisions under that act and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, december 12. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for two the leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 4:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. and that following morning business, the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be at least two roll call votes at 5:30 p.m. in relation to eisen and aponte

nominations. next week, madam president, we have additional nominations. we have to do either a c.r. or an omnibus spending bill or one of each, which is possible. we have the balanced budget amendments. we have payroll tax. we have unemployment insurance, medicare reimbursement, tax extenders and we have the -- including the medicare reimbursement, of course, is what we're talking about, the s.g.r. or the doctors fix. all of these matters are set to expire at the end of the year. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care. that's the most important element. no pollution controls and no

retirement and you don't care about any thing but making money. there will be a sound going south. >> britain's defense secretary testified before parliament yesterday that the government's plan to reduce military spending to much rock british troops from afghanistan. the defense secretary, philip hammond has been on the job for seven weeks. this was his first testimony

since taking the job. >> secretary of state commit thank you very much for coming to s. very mu now we are conscious of the fact that she would have been a us. position for seven weeks now.ush you've been spending a lot of in your time traveling and visitin with troops in operational areas and that is entirely the right priority forpe you. we do not expect you to know absolutely everything about absolutelyou everything. because at the concentration

tesolu been having tickets to that. so, please do not feel any concern that we are going to beo asking you to another detail about everything.w but we would like to know thatte you coming into this job have le some priorities and would like to know what they are and how he you see things. so if you would like to give usw your an of that. >> absolutely. thank you for this opening remarks. it is as you say a finely balanced decision, whether to go s.rkand visit the troops in operational areas, and meetout n international commitments that my predecessor has made with regard to its conferences and meetings and so on were to get straight down to the internalonc challenges of budgeting and ieeg hope i've got to bounce right bi

spinning the first four weeks or chal so trying to do the former and i the house is very much on the fn latter. ve i sat on the day after i was appointed that my first priorit. of course, which would be the case for any holder of this office is the success of completion of operations and ate the time that meant our engagement in afghanistan and our engagementcc in operation ad at libya. libya.unately, operation lma has satisfactorily concluded, that the operational priority around afghanistan remains. but i am very conscious that th future sustainability of our defense posture belies on th successful implementation of the transformation program. to deliver the fourth configuration that we need to be able to speak are standing

commitments and to have an effective contingency capability but in time we get to 2020, to having mod, which is structured appropriately to support that te activity. and crucially, to have a defense equipment program, which is sustainable within a budget, a which the fiscal position of the public finance can afford so sust we have a sustainable decision going forward and we can move away critically from what i perceive to be the majorr problem that the defense state living hand to mouth, constantly trying to fix the short-term cash flow problem by havingfacen a ortcts andd programs to the right, incurring significant additional costs in doing c so.s in effect in the long-term making the problem worse. we have to get from that amount of living to a sustainable program with sufficient

flexibility to deal internally with budget shortfalls. and i think it would be wrong to to suggest that getting where we are to where you need to be is going to be easy. it's going to be a veryest challenging process and it's going to involve some very painful decisions. and it is going to involve in the short term not having something that we would much prefer to have. but i think all of this has to i tdone to achieve the long-term sustainable provision that we set out. term >> thanks. we'll come back later. a brief question about the allowance is in the deferential treatment and the british treaty. >> in the french treaty is the way look at it. >> thank you. way the joint industrial projects, which were foreseen in these

french treaties, what progress fo has been made on those projects? and the answer has been, well actually, none. now i'm not suggesting that if it's not in the t british intert to make a huge degree of progress, that we should do so anyway but i wonder whether this is prt something which is one of those would intend to get a whetr grip both as a matter ofgs urgency.u woul >> i haved already visited paris and not very successful manias with my french counterpart ande with the relevant presidential h advisers in anticipation of the summit, which is going to occur last friday and which was canceled due to pressures on the president's time around the years and crisis. the discussion around industri l corporations is centeredindustri

initially on work on unmanned aerial vehicles and work has been going on to prepare an announcement around a commitment pr the assessment for an unmanned aerial vehicle project and if the senate had gonessme ahead, i think it's safe to sayt that the expect tatian was that an announcement would inmate at the summit and we will look for an opportunity, probably now in the new year to make a joint announcement to that effect. >> i understand the civil senior dealing with such issues, steven french, has now retired and has not been replaced. it would be helpful if you could concentrate on not.repl and also helpful if you could hl concentrate on the protection o intellectual property, both for

france and the united kingdom and perhaps he could get that from over the coming weeks because it is a matter of som urgency, a matter of huge complication. >> all of these things i absolutely agree are very complicated. i think that there are somecompt preedtty irreversible drivers behind this process, both the py u.k. and france will face major budget challenges ahead. franc we have already recognized what our budget challenges are liker and to look i suspect that the french post-presidentiali election will have to look very hard at their budget plans for the future and i think the haench military and military procurement establishment is already beginning to think about how to do things more effectively and efficiently and collaboration has to be part of thatdy process.

we clearly have a profiles to be commitment of defense spending, which in europe, looks more like the french than any other potential departments. so i think there is some verythe strong drivers, practical pragmatic drivers behind thisen, collaboration. i have to say on my visit to paris, i was presently surpriset by the clear enthusiasm on the french side and commitment on the french side to take in this. so i recognize that there is some complex challenges, but i think recognize there are come joul evenings. it's powerful. it makes sense for both of us in the future. >> the french discussions, any

involvement in the discussions? >> not that i'm aware of. >> thank you. >> the involvement for the uavs. >> there was israeli involvement in the uav relationship. the project we are talking about with the french. it would be a substitute based on tv. >> you are the financial strin generality. moving on. >> yes. i have two questions, really, concerned with the finances. on the 18th of july, your pred assessor announced an increase in 15 cents. firstly, would you confirm, how

you see that into your uplift. is that sufficient? in the light of the chancellors statement last week where he described a 9% real terms to increase in the overall, if you owned the car, how is it impacking the pressures. >> clearly, the further two years of fiscal cop trant have not been allocated and will not be allocated until the next spending review process. we can make no assumption about the overall.

i have a reassurance. the commitment equipment remains. it's a third commitment. whatever happens to the overall package. that will be protected. >> do you see that in yourself? the 100%. you will reach the abc pragss. if it's not enough from that time period to reach what you need. will more be required? >> i am very, very clear we have to work within the budgets we have. one of the greatest strategic threats we face is the threat of unbalanced finances. i agree with him on that point. defense cannot be anew from the process.

we have to live within the budgets we are given. we set out a strategy for 2020. we will have to tailor how we deliver. the budget's are available. we will have flat real budgets with a 1% uplift in the equipment. we will have to wait until the next spending review to find out whether that's a safe assumption or not. when the prime minister says it's his own personal wish and view, there ought to be an increase in the defense budget. that is what you regard as fulfilling that personal wish. >> i can't speak for the prime minister's personal wish. we have a clear commitment there

will be a 1% increase in the budget. i have been reassured, that commitment will be protected. clearly, i suspect i can speak for the prime minister and many other colleagues saying we would all wish to see the ability to have a larger defense budget. it will depend op the fiscal. >> you must have a view as an incoming secretary of state, of what you need the bumette to look like. the vision that's been set up. what you are saying is if that money isn't forthcoming, over the 1%, there may need to be changes to that package. if you haven't got the money,

you can't spend it. it's where you are all coming from rather than saying we need this. >> i think one of the problems, if i may say so, i am speaking with seven weeks of experience, but one of the problems has been the tendency to look from inputs rather than required outcomes. one has been to assume that concepts like efficiency, which every other department would recognize don't necessarily apply. there is a budget constraint. we know what the outcomes we have to deliver are. as with every other department, the clever bit, the bit we are paid to do is to work out how to get to the required outcomes within the constraints. clearly, it can't be without limit. it's not possible to deliver an outcome with any level of budget support.

my working assumption is that i should plan around a flat, real budget in the nonequipment area. 1% real terms in the equipment and support program and that my challenge is to deliver the required outputs for future force 2020 within the envelope. i am working through the process. the department has 21,000 open contracts at the moment, which will contribute in one way or another to that. this isn't going to be a quick or easy process. that is the sort of framework i set myself for this part of the exercise. >> that commitment you are giving us or the country includes not postponing positions beyond 2020? it will be easier to achieve them up to 2020 by pushing off expenditure beyond that. >> the outcome commitment is to

have the ability to deliver the capabilities, the future force by 2020. that's the challenge that we face. simply pushing programs into the future, historically has increased that cost for the taxpayer. if there's one clear lesson is that we have to move away from managing this business from cash to managing it for value. that's really the transition process we are into. >> you will be a great secretary of state. >> thank you. >> well, i'm not asking what i wanted to ask you. having a budget is one thing. money not available to you throughout that period is another thing and the cash flow of a guarantee you will get that money for an operation and having to find the money in the first place. our concern is the three-year

delay. having the money available to you across the period is something we raised concerns about. we also raised a concern about you having the ability to have a ten year budget and longer to help you plan that process. have you had any thought about that? >> well, i think it goes without saying. anybody running a spending department would like to have the longest possible period budget certainty that they can. certainly, when planning for long projects, it would be helpful. i recognize the realities of the public finance do not make that easily deliverable. the commitment we have through the next spending review to real terms increase in the equipment and support budget is a significant concession. i'm sure it would have only been delivered with a considerable

amount of hand wringing. it cuts against the treasury theology. we have secured a significant amount from the treasurer. >> in respect to the families association, you said that picking the sdr piece by piece is simply not an option. i wonder has anything about this in libya made you think differently about the balance of the sds decisions? >> no, i don't think so. i think that what libya showed was that the aspiration of future force 2020 to have the ability to deliver on our standing commitments and also to have an adaptable, flexible,

rapidly deployable community to reach contingencies, it's what we needed to deal with a situation like libya. it's fair to say, at this time last year, nobody was invisioning an intervention in libya or anywhere in that area. armed forces were able, on short notice to deploy and mobilize for that operation and to bring it to a successful conclusion. it's the quality of the equipment platforms we have. >> do you feel the operation in libya has restricts us strategically in relation to iran and the mideast, generally? syria? >> i'm not sure i understand the logic of the question. i think, frankly, position, our

diplomatic position with iran is what we do or don't do in libya is unlikely to significantly affect it. i don't think that -- i don't think that it affects our position in syria at all. syria is a very different situation. foreign secretaries make it. >> do you think the russian-chinese vetoes on various resolutions. possibly relation by iran. >> i have to say, i think it's a question for the foreign secretary. that has not -- that is not -- that had not occurred to me as logic for the russian-chinese president in syria. >> anyway, i'll leave that with you.

>> surely you would accept that -- somebody who spoke and voted in favor of the action that are blatant targeting one side or the other. the russians are chinese are saying once again, we are not going to allow nato to leave because we were given that freedom by the u.n. i don't care what they said, we took it. >> i think we took the side of the libyan people and sought to protect civilians as we were mandated to do. i have to say, i think this is a tribute to the russian tip lowmatic procedure.

>> what do you see as the most challenging part of the sdsr and how are we on schedule and which parts of the sdsr are we certainly not up to speed on? >> that's a very big -- we could probably spend the rest of the afternoon on that question. the sdsr sets out a strategic aspiration where we need to get to and my perception is that it accurately reflects our needs looking out to 2020. it sets out some of the steps we have to take. we have taken many of those steps, already. painful steps around anymore rod and p downsizing off the navy. the process, i think i have

alluded to this already, in terms of military structure and the supporting civilian structure, how we transform it. driving that ford, a massive program of change. bearing the capital costs of implementing that change. the frictional costs of the transition while at the same time delivering business as usual and maintaining a defense posture is the big challenge. are we on track? the first sort of round of actions have been p taken. we are now into more complex territory. i think we are broadly on track all though there are some areas i want to look at in much more detail before i stick my neck out and say we are on track. wh

there are problems in this forum? >> well, so i don't think it's about areas where there are problems. i think it's a hugely ambitious transformation program and we are moving from the stage of identifying at high level to creating a detailed blueprint. the blueprint for the shape of the department at the end of the process and then a transformation plan which in great detail will have to set out how we go about moving from where we are now to where we need to be and doing that process, conducting that process with a minimum of outside support. the department has chosen for perfectly sensible and understandable reasons to avoid the temptation to to have armies of con acceptabilities advising on this and do it with internal

resource and that is as others have pointed out a very big undertake and challenge against the backdrop of business as usual at the same time. and i want to go through that program in a significant amount of detail and understand it and make sure that what we set out, the plan that we set out, the milestones that we set ourselves which we will publish in due course are deliverable and within the capability and resource within the department to deliver. >> in your first major speech, secretary of state, 25th of october, you said and i quote the armed forces will emerge from the implementation of the strategic defense and security -- the armed forces that will emerge from the implementation of the sdsr will be formidable, flexible and adaptable, structured to defense the country and equipped with

the some of the best and most advanced technology in the world. that's kwhiet a challenge to achieve that. personally i think it's very optimistic to think that we would have that sort of power in 2020. can i ask you for your comment. were you being a trifle optimistic or do you really believe we will be able to project power abroad like we have in the past because i find that quite difficult. >> well i clearly believe we will be able to project power abroad. we are organizing our armed forces specifically to be able to project power abroad. to be able to deal with contingencies up to a bring grade level deployment on a sustained basis. when you look around the world at countries with that kind of military capability not just the nominal force numbers but the

capability, effectively to deploy them with equipment that will work on a sustainable basis and to supply them on a sustained basis, i suspect you may be better placed to comment on this than me but i suspect there are very, very few countries other than the united states that can realistically aspire to do that. we have in our equipment program some of the most formidable weapon systems in the world. i've been -- you won't be surprised to know that part of my early commitments has been in support of defense exports, particularly typhoon in the far east and middle east. this is clearly a formidable aircraft. everybody i have spoken to in foreign countries at a technical and air force level is convinced that is it the superior option.

type 45 destroyer, clearly is a best in class ship, delivering the capability that we have not had before and that no one else has at the moment. so i have no hesitation in saying we will have the configuration of forces. we will have the equipment platforms to deliver formidable power. that doesn't mean power that would match that of the united states. of course it doesn't. but it means a formidable capability to intervene in regional conflict and conduct stabilization operations to deal with threats from nonstate actors and that is before we take into account the quality of our people and i like to think and always believed that over and above the equipment capabilities we have the organization and cultural benefits that we have, the quality of our people gives us

an edge that we will continue the sustain into the future. >> let me finish with one final question. so what we're talking in practical terms, beyond 2020 is the ability to project a brigade-level-type operation overseas and support and sustain it. that's what we're aiming at and that's the maximum we could do. >> i could find in the notes but i'll try to do it from memory. to project a bring grade level operation and sustain it and at the same time to be able to conduct two significantly smaller level operations or to be able to conduct a short-term intervention at a level of about 30,000 personnel for a short, nonsustained operation. >> 30,000? >> 30,000. >> that's quite a big small

operation. >> for a short period of time. that's a surge capability. >> that's quite a lot. >> sorry. >> after you. >> sorry. the strategic defense and security review annual update was published earlier today under the prime minister's name i suspect rather than your own. but in that it says that the government is held accountability by select committees. and the house of commons defense committee who reported for the second time on the sdsr. we did. we have had no parliamentary debate about any of these things. we are in a position whereby we don't seem to be able to secure any quality times of getting debate about defense. for probably the last 16 months the only real debate is about armed services personnel just

before armistice day. but the broad agenda including the definition we have had no discussion about. could i ask you that you ensure that in terms of debate and examination of the public document but more importantly these other issues in it that you could assist us in gaping a better public examination of these things than we have been able to get in the past as opposed to competing against the newspaper's latest campaign? >> it's a fair point and i will undertake to discuss it with the business managers. the problem is that in a department without a significant amount of legislation and in an environment where the back bench committee is controlling a significant amount of the available nongovernment bill business time, is it quite

challenging to find opportunities for debates. but i'll take up the point that you raised with the leader of the house. i hadn't appreciated that there had been no defense debates other than the debates on armed forces personnel. i will look at that. >> you may have noticed there is not much legislation going through the house of commons right now. maybe it wouldn't be -- >> this week it is true. >> or next week. but i wanted to get back to when you talked about strategic aspiration. would you actually say that the review was strategic and if it was, do you think we've struck the right balance between the choices we make and the things that are nonnegotiable things like we are on an island and we need a navy. but the overall strategic priority. so far, you answers have been

beautifully tech cattic and bureaucratic. i have not yet got the sense of the point of the secretary of state of defense thinks our strategic needs really are. do you think we struck the right balance? >> yes, i do. i think we -- i think we've gone a very long period without a strategic defense review. during that period, the world has changed very significantly and it would be a brave person that ever said permanently. but it looks as though the change in focus is likely to be long term. we ask -- you know we face a situation where the threats are likely to come from unstable regions of the world, from non-state actors and yet we have tens of thousands of men deployed on the north german plain which is not the obvious place to focus our defense

effort. the sdsr was about identifying where the threats are likely to come from in the medium term which is as far as we could sensibly project and making sure we have the appropriate force configuration to respond to those threats. it's about facing up to the reality or maybe just embracing the reality that we are most likely -- with a degree almost of certainty to be operating with alliance with partners and allies in responding to those threats. i can think of only one of our commitments, in the south atlantic where we might not be operating with the support of allies and partners. and also, of course, because i do, as/said earlier think that the budgetary position is a strategic threat, also we have to configure our defenses to

deliver the outputs that we require within the fiscal constraints that the country can afford. that's the reality of the situation. and it would be pointless to conduct a strategic defense review without any consideration of the resource envelope available to support defense and likely available to support defense in the future. >> i just want to take you back a little by to the two answers that you gave to the different stewards in the room. you seem -- you did a good job of selling typhoon as a platform and its wonderful capability. you talked about the future will be in partnership and in alliances. almost certainly apart from the south atlantic. how much is our future defense and the capability that we will

focus on going to be one where we are going to be looking more and more at our nato allies, what their capabilities are and what niche areas we are going to look at to complement that? >> it's a very fair question. it does make sense if we are operating in an alliance to look at the capabilities of our allies. as for example we have done in the decision around the nimrod maritime aircraft. we have allies who have maritime patrol aircraft available for nato tasks. i have two sort of thoughts on this. i think it would be wrong for us to give up without a very great deal of very careful thought any

core competencies which we might need in the future if the defense threats that we faced were different and the fiscal position that we were in was different. so i think we should try to retain core competencies, for example, in relation to flying aircraft off carriers, not vertical takeoff carriers but normal fast jets off carriers. that it's a capability that we lost 30 years ago and we are now having to relearn that capability with the support of the u.s. navy in anticipation of having our own carrier edge capability again by the end of the decade. when you surrender a body of knowledge and skill and experience within your armed forces it can take you a very long time to recover it. and i think we should be very

careful about that when we think about how we work with our allies and how we interface with them. i think the other reality is we need to think about -- in our alliance structures we need to think about which of our capabilities delivers the most value to the alliance. so in particular, in our most important alliance with the united states i think we need to be -- we need to constantly have in our mind those areas of our capability which adds significantly to the value of the alliance to the united states so that we have something -- we don't inadvertently discard the chips which we play into that game and which buy us very considerable access to u.s. support and u.s. capability. >> could i just mention the mine sweeper capability? >> that is a good example. that's a clear example. the u.s. recognizes our mine

counter measures capability as superior to their own capability. and the mine clearance -- mine counter measures operation that we have deployed in the gulf is depended upon by the united states. we are an important part of their force protection arrangements in the gulf and they will can expect us to maintain those commitments. >> is that an area we reduced or cut back is this in? >> no. the message i get from the u.s. is they are happy with the commitment to mine counter measures in the gulf. >> my understanding is that that squadron based out of iran and the gulf is funded out of contingency in afghanistan. have we secured agreement for how that will be funded post 2014 when that money comes to an

end. >> it's nothing to do with -- i'm -- my understanding it's nothing to do with afghanistan. it is an operation that is not part of the core tasking of the m.o.d. it is therefore funded from the treasury reserve as an operation over and above the core tasks. so the treasury makes separate provision for the operation. >> and that won't be coming to an end in 2014? >> it's an annual task that's set by the national security council and funded by the treasury. so i can't give you a commitment that it won't come to annen end at any point. >> but it's not tied to the -- >> it's not tied to afghanistan, right, no. >> talking about afghanistan -- >> it's not looking terribly positive in afghanistan. the al qaeda network seems to be active. you heard the assassination of

general dodd and the attempted assassination of another general. the killing of u.s. special forces. you had attacks by rogue soldiers and police and the taliban increasing and yesterday's attack was the ogre of a dark future. is it still our policy to be no longer involved in the combat role after 2014. is that realistic? >> that is our policy that we will have withdrawn from a combat role and have withdrawn the vast majority of our forces by the end of 2014. >> what roles and capabilities do you see us retaining post 2014? >> that is a subject that the national security council will consider in due course. it's a subject we will approach with our isef allies. it is unrealistic to look at any

other way. it has to start with decisions taken in the united states about the level of commitment both financial and in terms of force levels. that the united states will be making over the next few months. and i think we -- and the rest of the alliance will wait for the outcome of that process in the united states before deciding our own posture, both for strategic reasons and for future force protection reasons will the be necessary to know what the u.s. is doing. >> does that not make it difficult for us to plan our financial consequences of those decisions being made in america? because it's all well for america to make those decisions but the financial consequences will be felt here. is that not going to impact on our budget capability in the ministry of defense? >> we've made clear that we will be coming out of the combat role by the end of 2014 and that the great majority of our forces

will have been withdrawn by that time. any forces in a training or mentoring role will be strictly limited. but it is also clear that there will be a need for the international community to continue supporting the government of afghanistan beyond 2014. the strategy is to transition from isef-led security to afghan national security forces led security. the afghan national security forces will be surged to 352,000 strength. the discussion that now needs to be concluded is the sustained level of ansf post 2014 and who is going to pay for it. the afghan government clearly does not have the capability to sustain security forces at that level, at the level that will be required to take over from isf

and take over. the international community will have to deliver support. the united states made it clear that it expects the international partners to deliver an important portion of that support and we are clear that we will have to play our part in that -- in delivering that. >> the assessment of the level of force, the numbers that we will actually be leaving behind? >> of uk forces? >> yes. >> that's a discussion that we haven't yet had. it is clear that will the be a small number. we have made only one clear commitment so far and that is to providing the majority of the staffing capability for the afghan national officer training academy outside kabul to which we will be contributing just over 100 uk personnel on an

ongoing basis. any commitments beyond that will be decided in due court by the national security council. >> you talked about a number around 100. are we talking about 500 or 3,000 at the top level? what do you see the range being within that limited capability? >> the nsc has not had this discussion yet. but if you are asking me for my assessment of what colleagues are thinking about we are talking in hundreds, not if thousands. >> is there a danger, do you feel that those few hundred could be drawn back into a combat role? >> no. they won't be there in a combat role. this is training, mentoring, support, perhaps at ministerial level in kabul and strategic security planning. that kind of operation.

>> so you don't see the recent events in afghanistan over the last two weeks as hampering progress toward peace and security bearing in mind the conflict on the border there is an attack on the pakistan border. you don't see any of that as indicating a change towards a dark future? >> i think that's probably rather premature. clearly the last two weeks have seen significant setbacks and yesterday's attack in particular is a very, very unwelcome development opening a new front on the face of it. but i don't -- i think it would be hugely premature to suggest that that will deflect the process of transition to afghan-led security. on my recent visit to afghanistan, one of the things that slightly surprised me and very much impressed me was the growing confidence in the afghan

national security forces by british and american troops and i don't just means commanders in kabul but people in the canteens. they feel comfortable with the afghans. they feel they are competent and committed to the fight and they are still dependent on the isf forces as enablers. but they are regarded as worthy colleagues in arms and they are doing the heavy lift in many areas. certainly where we have transitioned to the afghans it is very clear when you talk to british commanders, that they are surprised by the little call that has been made on them a provide support to the afghan-led security operation. it's been a pleasant surprise to them. >> just challenge a little bit further and with a caveat of i'm

sure the national security council will make the decision. but can you tell us what you said in the national security council. on the 21st of november, [ indiscernible ] told the program that raf could be asked to provide support to the afghan government beyond the nato withdraw date. he said it will certainly be an possibility and opportunity which our government will have to make a decision on. what is your thinking on that? >> well, he's right that the raf could be requires to provide support. >> just say -- >> required or be asked? >> i think -- >> support. >> yeah. >> i mean clearly, the afghans are going to require enablers beyond 2014. and the u.s. has indicated that will the be continuing to provide some enabling forces.

is it not my view that the national security council is likely to agree to the uk providing front line enablers. so any kind of air lift that would go into combat zones, for example. >> so that would not include apa chis? >> i would not think so. the national security council has not had this discussion. but the prime minister expects us to have exited any combat role by the end of 2014. i would think that that means the prime minister is not envisioning apa chis in afghanistan after december 2014. >> what may or may not be going through some people's minds. are you ruling out therefore tornados and uavs because they are not -- depending on your viewpoint they may or may not be

front line. >> the prime minister said we will not be in a combat role beyond december 2014. as i repeatedly said, the national security council has not yet had this discussion. but in the plain use of language, tornados are -- if tornados were deployed that is likely a combat operation. >> uavs. >> it depends what they are doing. if they are gathering intelligence it might not be combat. >> it could be air traffic control or air bridge. obviously -- i am sure you discussed these remarks with the air chief marshall. what did he have in mind? >> i have not discussed these remarks with the air marshall. i'm sure the raf will do whatever it is tasked to do. but the prime minister made

clear we are be out of the combat role and we focused on the commitment we have made to continue training of the officer cadre of the afghan security forces. we may make specific commitments beyond that but we haven't yet decided on any and we will want to take into account what commitments the united states makes to supporting the afghans beyond 2014. >> is it premature to set a specific date for the end of combat roles in the first place? does this not encourage the taliban to provide an impetus for sectarian violence that we are now seeing? what if that violence increases categorially ruling out a combat role how would you react if the situation deteriorates badly

enough and the afghanistan people are let down by the international pt community moving out? >> i'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that there is any link between the decision to end the combat role at the end of 2014 and the sectarian violence that now very unfortunately broken out. i don't think there is any link at all between those things. i think it is important to be clear that we are not talking about the cessation of combat against the insurgency at the end of 2014. we are talking about the transition to afghan-led operations of -- containing that insurgency and the afghans are showing increased competency and greater numbers in being able to do that. in so far as the insurgents are concerned they are even know increasing facing afghan troops

and afghan uniformed police and special police operations over the next three years there will be further progress so that it becomes the norm for these operations to be afghan led across greater and greater proportions of the country. >> as you said the national security koibl has yet to consider these. what the time scale for these to be considered? >> that's a good question. the bond conference has taken place and fired the starting gun on the process. my personal view is that it is quite important that the international community has clear position by the chicago conference in may, the nato chicago conference to which the afghans will be invited. i would certainly hope that around that time scale, first of all, the u.s. will be clearer about its intentions for post

2014. and its willingness to fund afghan national security forces post 2014 so that the rest of the world in turn can decide on the commitment of the various nations alongside the u.s. thank you very much we will now move on to the issue of reserves. >> there was a report produced in july of this year which we're wondering on the outcome from. that made a radical set of suggestions there were 3,100 reserves of marines and navy. 30,000 in the army, auxiliary air force, 1800 and so on. 30,000 in the army. so this is a big strategic shift through a period up to 2015 up on to 2020.

you are familiar with it. that's what we are asking about. could you please give us any information you have about when a detailed response to all of that will come and whether it comes with a timetable of implementation that may be difficult than the one recommended in the report itself. >> yes. the resources that were referred to in that announcement, 1.5 billion pound package, will start to become available from april 2012. and there is already -- i believe -- a major recruiting campaign 3 million pound territory in the army. 3.4 million triservice multimarketing campaign that's going to commence in the new year. so this is already a process that is underway. each of the individual services have developed plans to

reinvigorate their reserves. but the overall -- the overall program of reinvigoration of the reserves is coupled with a longer term work of army 2020. the bulk of this is an army program and it's embedded in the wider review of the structure of the army. >> well i mean that's interesting. i have had discussions with people that are involved in the particulars that you describe. can you tell us who is driving this program or is it in individual services? for example one army recruitment, triservice recruitment. how is this being driven ben by whom? >> by the vier chairman of the defense staff who is taking this forward. >> right. and presumably -- yeah, yeah. right. >> there are two options used

interchangeably. >> i don't know if you had time to have a flavor as to how the regular forces are reviewing this. and you have heard when you go around the bazaars that there is suspicion that the regular components might not be happy about the speed of transition and so on and accommodating it in their varied ways. perhaps you could give us insights into the timetable of transition. >> one of the things i have already learned is there is a good-natured suspicion between all sections of the armed forces of each other. because it is generally good natured, chairman. but in terms of the reserves exercise, i understand and i think people are involved in the reserves understand that to make this a credible proposal it has to come with a clear plan for

making reserve training effective, for making a commitment which doesn't leave the reserves always as the flex element whenever there is budget pressure. the commitment to training and commitment to service must be clear. and we must be -- we must convey the message that we are serious about making the reserves a serious part of our 2020 force structure we are absolutely clear that this has to happen. and i recognize that there will be some areas of residual skepticism. is it for us and for the reserve forces themselves to overcome that by demonstrating the commitment, the capability and the competence. >> when are we going to have -- i say "we" as the committee but the public as it were, a

detailed implementation response to all of this? at the moment what seems to be happening is some of the things you've said are being known those directly involved. but it doesn't seem to be any sort of clear, coherent sort of response to it. the individual measures that are taking place. is there going to be a detailed response which sets out the program and the time lines and responsibilities and so on? >> there have been a number of steps that have already been taken. there's a future reserves 20 program manager has already been appointed. there's an implementation team and reserves executive committee in place. and i am committed -- i think my predecessor committed me but i will repeat my commitment today to set out my response the commission's report very shortly in the new year. and that will set out the plan, the trajectory for delivering

the plan. and hopefully, will give you the reassurance that you're seeking. >> a year is 12 months. in the new year, in the next year. we are getting it this year. is it like before april or is this -- >> in the new year means to me before we put the clocks forward. >> before we put the clocks forward. that's a deal. i never heard that one before. thank you very much. >> thank you, chairman. secretary of state, the bag of gold that came with the announcement of fr 20 came across quickly from the treasury. a welcome announcement that it was coming. i mean the word on the street that is that -- that the money being committed to reserves in the earliers is a lot less than the percentage of the package on the basis they will get a larger

proportion of it after 2015. there is a feeling throughout in the reserves community they have heard this before. most of what has been announced is welcome. but the proposal was that there should be to take the army as an example, 30,000 are trained by 2015. they are convinced they can do that. there are recruits pouring in. but the worry is the money isn't there. >> well there obviously be a buildup to the trained force level of 30,000 as you're aware. and because there will be a buildup, the money will need to be profiled to reflect that buildup. but i can assure the committee that the discussions that i'ved what the vice chief of the defense staff and all of the programming that i have seen indicates a buildup to a trained

force level of 30,000 by 2015. that's building up the numbers exactly in accordance of what's been announced and the cash will be profiled to meet that delivery requirement. >> by 2015, that trained by -- trained by -- >> that's the figure i've sneen the discussions i've had. >> i'm pleased to hear that. can i give two examples of things they there will have to do early the first is phase one training regionally. the present situation of trying to get reservists on the back and squeeze them into the regular staffs simply won't do it in time. and the second one .. two training are very, very long way

below par. we are short of officers and our phase two training is behind ore english-speaking countries. there is no word throughout on tackling those at all although there is anecdotal evidence that recruits are coming in. >> not every "i" is dotted and "t" crossed but i will set out how the department intends to rise to the challenges. i'm aware of them because you have raised them with me. but i'm aware of the specific challenges -- >> now that -- now i had finished. >> on the same thing and he's right to raise it with you. saber, for example, it's the offer to employers as well and the explanation to the people's families and certainty about the employment model that comes with it.

the detailed questions that are inhibiters at the minute in terms of having the quality of conversations they need to have to bring that program forward. that's why we raise the concern. there doesn't seem to have been a comprehensive description of all of the elements together, how they sequence so that people have a coherent people and have an intelligent discussion other than bits and pieces. that's the reason for the asking the question. >> i can assure you that internally that discussion is going on. i have had those discussions specifically around what the offer to employers is, what the employment model and deployment model is going to look like. what assurances can be given to make service in the reserves an attractive proposition to recruits and make the employment of reservists an attractive proposition to employers.

and both ends of that are critically important and the work is going on. >> and a great leap forward and we'll know when the clocks jump forward? >> we will address and set out a plan for delivering the future reserve structure and it will of course have to address all of these areas. they're a critical part of it. and to my mind, i said this already but just to repeat it i know there is a degree of skepticism among those in the regular army. and is it for us to dispel that skepticism by setting out a program for terms of service and deployment that is clearly credible and that will allow the army to plan around the reserve levels that we've set out and make that, you know, incorporate that into the planning. >> we will be looking carefully at where the royal air force fits in the program.

>> of -- >> of course i recognize that. i think the -- the army is in a slightly difficult place because we have the question of deployment of formed reserve units as well as individual deployments. i suspect although i may not be fully indoctrinated in this area i suspect in the air reserve and naval reserve we are talking more about individual deployments. >> just a couple of final points. just to echo the point, part of the package is around the issue of how much one goes down the route of encouragement and one of compulsion. could i urge you to look at best

practice abroad? most other english speaking countries get high level of turnout without come plulgs. >> would you like to answer that question? >> you are urging me to do something that i've already set in train. that clearly from the point of view of someone considering becoming a reservist, the balance between voluntary service and compulsory service is critically important to their decision. >> particularly good to hear you are engaged with employers. i have a huge respect for vice chief and serving under him was an equally great experience as serving under this chairman. but i do hope you will be able to meet the senior reserve officers and indeed also you will find time to visit the reserve units. >> i have already made a

commitment to you that i will seek a meeting before i make this announcement with the duke of westminster. he is the keep person you want me to meet. i'm happy to do that. i'm happy the meet a reserve unit. i know there's an excellent unit london scottish just around the road. perhaps that's something i can get without difficulty. >> can i recommend you do it before the current co hands over to his regular counter part? >> the chairman would like us to take this offline? >> oh, sure. >> just one point. you said there is skepticism and certain amount of alarm in the regular army. the worry is that the 30,000 won't be reached but you have assured us it will be reached by the appropriate time. the alarm in the regular army is

also because the sdsr suggested the regular army will go down to 92,000 but they are taking another substantive cut down to 82,000. that is a huge amount out of the army and the sdsr thought that we could manage on 92,000 not 82,000. i'm delighted about the reserves but worried that we take a great slice out of the instantly deployable regular army. and that worries me. i have to say. >> is it not, of course, the case whether we have 82,000 or 92,000, the whole of the regular army instantly deployable. and part of the future force 2020 program is to define what we need in terms of rapidly deployable elements. the message that i'm getting from the generals no general is going to tell you he'd rather

have fewer troops than more but the message i'm getting from the generals is that the military tasks and the contingent capability are deliverable within the configuration of 82,000 or thereabouts regular troops and 30,000 trained reservists. that is deliverable on that basis. but it does make the assumption that the trained reservists are functional effective. and i think that is where the concern is. i haven't heard a concern about the numbers the concern is about whether they really be properly trained and deployable reservists. we clearly have to deliver that if this is a credible solution to delivering the outputs that are required. >> and it would be nice, secretary of state if you were to ask further down the chain

too if they believe 82,000 is manageable. people i speak to think it's wrong. but you can only go on what the generals say. >> that's not true. you can go on your own judgment. >> i can go on my own judgment and i have the opportunity to talk to middle ranking officers as well. yesterday, the prime minister held a reception for members of the armed forces who took part in operation enemy. and i met reservists who had taken part in the operation and were not slow about giving me views of the reserves in the future. >> one final question on the reserves. in your reply to this committee's report on the sdsr, on as it happens, page 22 of your reply, there is reference to a report from the council of reserve forces and cadet

associations subgroup which is going to be presented to you and you are then going to do a report to parliament. can you take away the fact, please, that we would like to see a copy of that report which is going to be presented to you in a -- in its complete version if that would be possible. >> okay. i will take that away and have a look at that request. yeah. >> thank you very much. aircraft carriers. thomas? >> before aircraft carriers, secretary of state, you'll be aware, i assume of your parliamentary secretary's comments on arctic convoys. have you seen your secretary's comments zbled. >> i have seen them reported be you not read the text. >> i would bother reading out

the full transcript but he has offense to veterans and their families. would you like to take the opportunity to apologize for your junior minister's comments? >> i don't think he intended to cause offense but the words he used did cause offense. it was an unfortunate just that position of references. these are people that performed an incredible service to our country. the role of the arctic convoys in the successful conclusion of the second world war is well known and undoubted. if any offense has been caused i deeply regret . what date did you expect to have the operators on them? >> 2020. around 2020. >> that was two different answers. >> i mean, in this stage in the

maturity of the program to say whether it would be, you know, late 2019, early 2021, i think is too fine grained, but 2020 is the central date that we're shooting for, and i would expect to achieve that or something very close to it. >> i'm sure you read the report, and paragraph 126 talks about the challenges on the generation of aircraft carrier, and which you'll be, i'm sure, briefed on. >> yes. >> familiar capability and challenge both on air crew sides, and can you take the committee that far on the progress they are making on the regeneration of that capability? >> yes. my understanding, i mean, i'm not into the minute detail of

it, but we have a clear agreement with the united states navy in terms of trains personnel, and this will be by wales personnel embedded in long periods between now and operation of the carriers to acquire deep skills in deck operation and in flying operations. i think i'm right in saying the first u.k. personnel are already deployed. somebody might tell me if that's right. >> [inaudible] >> okay. had the opportunity to take the air sec fair of the navy in london, and he assured me the uses is fully committed to working with us on this program, delighted that we're reacquiring carrier capability, and we'll do everything necessary to support

regenerating this capability. >> [inaudible] >> by the way, i might just -- perhaps i should just say that i had the opportunity to talk to the chinese naval last night at the defense counsel reception who faces a rather different challenge with the aircraft carrier, the skills for which he has to learn from scratch without the support of the united states or any other partner, and he told me it's really a major challenge, and we are very lucky that we have an an ally prepared to support us in that way. >> can you confirm we have no intention to sell to the chinese our -- that's media speculation. >> i have in intention.

>> if there are any security reasons why i can, i'm happy to do so, and i can't imagine there would be. >> finally, on the issue of the fast jets flying off with prince of wales and queen elizabeth, are you convinced it's the best value for money over, for example, the s35b or the version of the sat? >> i believe so, but your appreciate that i'm probably not yet in a position to give an unqualified answer to that question. it will take me longer to fully understand the all the issues around the capabilities of the different aircraft and the true live costs of the different aircraft ties. >> that strikes me you are currently studying this question; am i right? >> currently studying is ambitious, but it's on the long

list of things i need to look at and understand fully. the way i'm -- there are -- large number of very important and very complex subprojects within the defense agenda, and the way i'm trying to deal with this is on the systematic and manageable basis to get the people who are the experts to come in, brief me, on a fairly detailed basis that i have -- i can acquire in an hour or two what would have been 17 or 18 months worth of build up of understanding had i been in the job from the beginning of the government, so it's not -- it's not a process that i've started in any detail. it is something that is on my list of things to do. >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> still very new to the job, but i'd be interesting to get your views on how you see the capability once regenerated actually working in practice so

i'm thinking particularly much of the native things, the ten year gap we have in that capability, but once we have it, we'll still potentially have gaps, many gaps if you like because we only have one operational carrier. what's your understanding of how we ensure that we have this very important capability when we need it. >> well, of course, first of all, i should say that no decisions have been made about what will be done with the second carrier yet, so that will be a decision that has to be made in the future period against a future sdsr backdrop. the carrier force that we'll be generating will give us a capability to operate on our own, but because of the interoperatability we'll gain,

it allows us to integrate as a fully functional part of a u.s. task carrier group or in different circumstances to operate alongside the french so there will be options around how we deploy the carrier, and i would expect that we 4r adopt different postures at different times. we'll want to ensure that we have fully exercised the option of a fully integrated level of operation with u.s. carrier fleet. we will also want to ensure that we build up and maintain the ability to deploy on a fellow operation should we find the need to do so. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. the issue of sufficient helicopters provided has been

contentious for some time, and no doubt that was mentioned 20 you when you were in helmand province and on monday when you visited the air assault brigade; is that correct? >> i was happy to visit 16 air assault brigade monday and to see some of the helicopter capabilities that the command has available, and, yes, in afghanistan, it was an issue that i raised because clearly in the past it's been an issue of great political failures. i looked at the figures in advance of this session. i know that between november 2006 and june 2011, the number of flying hours, rotary flying hours in theater increased by more than 145%, and over the

last year on average the available flying outs have been underused by 16% per month, so we have the rotary wing capability we need in theater. commanders are not exhausting the available flying hours, at least they have not over the last year on a monthly basis, and i think this reflects a number of things. it reflects a greater capability in theater. it reflects a significant decrease in insurgent activity over the last year, but it also reflects, frankly, the fact that we are now operating in a much more concentrated area of operations which clearly reduces the demands on helicopter lift. we're traveling shorter distances to get between the operating basis we're current -- bases we're currently involved

in. it's not something we can be complacent in and have to keep a close eye on it. i think the problems we highlighted, members of parliament were highlights on a very regular basis four or five or six years ago have been largely addressed. >> my apologies for not being here monday, but four of my cabinet ministers were here at the same time. a deliberate tactic. >> it worked. it worked. [laughter] a multibarreled assault. [laughter] >> i'm not sure if you read james weekly for november, but i do have an extract which perhaps i could put to you. nodc argues the defense strategy late in november which contains further plans for cuts in

spending of the royal navy, british army, and royal air force. we're now the first week in december. are you able to enlarge the committee on to what that strategy doctrine says or has it not yet arrived. >> not yet arrived on my desk. what i can tell you is i was able to see it on tuesday -- monday, monday. the upgraded version of the links, which will, of course, in due course be replaceed by the wild cad, and as you know, we've committed 20 the delivery of 14 additional shanooks taking our fleet to 60 aircraft, and we have a -- we are already underway with the upgrading of the fuma fleet, the first upgraded aircraft has been delivered, so there are a number

of steps in place to maintain the helicopter fleet at the level that is required for current operations and to support the contingency element. >> at one point, just press you on the strategy capability study, call it what you like, when you say it's not reached your desk, is that saying it has not yet arrived yet or just has not reached you? >> a further defense rotary wing capability study is conducted to ensure we're operating and maintaining the helicopter fleet as effectively as possible. it's not yet reached my desk, and it's underway. jane says it's being delivered 3 p >> we'll all read the next issue to see what's happened. secretary, i'm trying -- it does talk about my broafing note says

245 the study about ensuring and operating the fleet as effectively as possible comes back to something i said in the beginning that there seems to be a slight tendency in defense to assume that spending less means getting less output in every other area of human endeavor, we learned we have to be able to get smarter so we have to be able to do the same for less money and things like helicopter maintenance and support are the areas where i would expect us to find ways of saving money, but still delivering the same output. >> you may have answered this in the next question in part, but i'll just press it. in 2005, the then undersecretary agreed capable by 2018. is that still the case? if not, what's happened to change it? >> i think i probably have answered that. i think the increase in flying hours, 145% from 2006 to the

middle of 2011, the decrease in the level of insurgent activity, the decrease in the area of operations that u.k. forces are trying to cover all combined to have eliminated that deficit in rotary wing capability. >> who has the future for 2020? >> i don't believe so. my understanding is that the programs that we have in place including the links replacement, the upgrade, the new shanooks deliver the requirements. >> in a future session, you can come before us, and the final question is, secretary, are you in a position today to outline the plans and timetable to bringing rotary wing capability into balance?

>> what do you mean by "bring it into balance?" >> well, you're telling the committee, as i understand it, there's sufficient helicopters we have in theater. >> yes. >> and ordered. you're convinced when we get to it, future force 2020, everything will be okay? >> my understanding is that they believe the existing equipment, the planned upgrades and newly delivered equipment have what's needed. if i find i need to correct that, i'll get right to you. >> thank you.