important step to ensure that we can accomplish the mission that the president and the tech tear have set out for usment the mission of the new bureau is to lead the department in the u.s. government's effort to counterterrorism abred -- abroad and secure the united states against foreign terrorism threats. we have a number of speedometers. in coordination with the national leadership, the national security staff, and u.s. government agencies, other u.s. government agencies, it will develop and implement counterterrorism strategies, policies, operations, and programs to disrupt and defeat the networks that support terrorism. the bureau will lead and support u.s. diplomacy, countering violent extremism, and build the capacity of partner nations to deal effectively with terrorism. there are many examples of the growing importance of civilian sowrnt terrorism work, what we

hear call strategic counterterrorism which the secretary disusessed -- does -- discuted on september 9. just last september, you may recall a major initiative where we established the global terrorism forum with the goal of building an international architecture for dealing with 21st century terrorist threats. we offer policymakers and experts an opportunity to exchange best practices and to improve programming around the world. the new bureau works with partners on a wide range of challenges such as strengthening the rule of law in countries where terrorism poses the greatest threat. our aim to oversea -- ability to oversee programs which cover police training to countering the al-qaeda narrative is strengthened by the establishment of the bureau that

leads the government in efforts to reduce radicalization and mobilization abroad working with the recently established center for strategic center of communication to delegitmate the narrative that are vulnerable to recruitment and work to partner with governments and civil society in building capacity to counter violent extremism. as part of the stand up, we're reorganizing and taking steps to make the new bureau effective across a wide range of policy activities. for example, creating a new strategic unit to improve our ability to do strategic planning and develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the programs. we're making changes that will tighten coordination between counterterrorism policy and programs who are doing more to improve program implementation. finally, i want to emphasize that in these tight budget times

we're doing our part to be good stewards of public funds by standing up the bureau with existing resources. pa will have a fact sheet outlining the bureau's mission, priorities, and it will provide you with additional detail, and i'll be happy to take a few questions now. >> not about the creation of the new bureau itself, per se, but do you have an update on where things stand on your ongoing review of the emmy case, foreign terrorist organization? >> designations of foreign terrorist organizations is one of the core activities of the office and of the new bureau, and it'll continue to do so, and we'll also continue the policy, but we continue pursuant to the u.s. district courts order, continue to do review, and

obviously, it's an exhaustive effort, and exchanging com for -- counsel for the other side, and we don't have a date set, but you'll know it when it's done. >> another one, if i may, on pakistan, and as you well know, there's been a significant deterioration in the relationship over the last year going back to, you know, certainly to the case of davis, but other -- lots of other events. from your vantage point, to what extent has or has not u.s., pakistani cooperation on counterterrorism deteriorated over the last, you know, 12 months or so? >> well, it's important, but i don't think we have metrics for assessing exactly that. there's no question we're going through a difficult time in the wake of the cross-border incident, and a number of other incidents that have occurred in

the last year, but let me go back to basics. we think that it is essential that we have a good counterterrorism relationship with pakistan. we believe it's in both of our nation's interests. no country suffered more at the hands of militancy than pakistan, and i would add that this bureau, when we're doing our job right, is also going to be working closely with pakistan. we hope to continue building civilian capacity for countering terrorism is essential need there, and that was in the dialogue, and which i'm sure is something that we'll continue doing, and it's in everyone's clearest interests, so i can't -- i'm not going to give you a needle reading on the meter. we obviously have issues that are being worked out.

the pakistanis doing their review in the parliament, but we look forward to resuming collaborative efforts. >> you say when we're doing our job right, the bureau works with pakistani. is fair to say to say you're not doing anything with the pakistanis now? >> no. we have long term processes going on. we are keeping these with islam islamabad, on capacity building, on what we've done in the anti-terrorism assistance program, so we're not making any statements that we're not cooperating by any means. absolutely, we're still working together. >> a question on iran. the last couple days it's a lot of bellicose talk from iranian military leaders, and i'm wondering, are you worried that as the sting of sanctions grows over this year and as iran finds

itself feeling more isolated that the throat -- threat of iranian terrorism activity rises or destabilizing activity abroad? >> well, another issue we dealt with extensively as an office, and we'll continue to deal with it extensively as a bureau. obviously, iran was and remains the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. the recent discovery of plotting to kill the saudi ambassador in washington and the arrests in that connection have certain given us a great deal to think about and wonder about the same question you pose. i don't want to engage in hypotheticals sunlighting the iranian -- suggesting the iranians amp up support for them, and it's

something we disagree with, and we'll be as vigilant as we can to ensure that no one is resorting to terror to strike at us or our partners. >> i'm not asking you obviously how, when, or how, but do you see it as a rising threat based on the tendencies that we're seeing right now? >> i see it as an existing threat, and one that has been there for quite some timing and we'll see how the iranians respond to the fact that this plot in our hemisphere and country was disrupted. >> you just referenced -- sorry. >> [inaudible] >> killed in afghanistan, pakistan, can you give us a stance where you stand in terms of defeating the terrorist organization. >> there's no question that

2010 -- i'm sorry, 2011, keep the calendar straight. 2011 was a successful year in taking bad actors off the street, and, you know, administration spokesman said on many occasions we'll continue to do what we need to safeguard our against the group that carried # out the 9/11 attacks, but i want to underscore, we all know that there is no way to shoot our way out of the problem conclusively and forever, and that's why strengthening our engagement with others to support the civilian institutions so they can hold the territory, police that territory, try people who try to carry out violent attacks either against people who are

there or abroad is an absolutely vital undertaking. core al-qaeda as we called it is certainly under greater pressure than it's been at any time since 9/11, but if the president has said, and others have said, the job's not over and the work goes on. >> sanctions against the haqqani network, and where do you stand now on that front? >> as we discussed a moment ago, we don't set time lines or dates as to when we're going to put out particular designations, so we're looking at that closely, and we'll continue to do so, and obviously, we have a huge concern in reducing the ability of the haqqani's network to

carry out attacks. >> michael dean with fox news. in terms of the bureau, can you talk what they will be doing before that they didn't do, and what other parts of the government are doing? >> the establishment of the bureau in many ways is a confirmation or ratification of the things we have been doing increasingly in recent years, so the fundamental tasks remain the same, but what we have now is an infrastructure to continue doing them more effectively, and building on those successes in the future, so we now have a position where we can continue to innovate programs to violence extremism to enhance partner capacity around the world to do the bilateral diplomacy we do in other countries to assessment threats, underscore where there's gains to be made against

particular terrorist groups and particular legions. we have a better platform for doing the work we undertake with the department of security that work jointly to stop terrorist travel to improve aviation security, to do all things we need to do to make for a safer united states at home and to protect our interest abroad, so the fundamental mission doesn't change, but we now have a much better organization for building on that, and for moving beyond this outdated organization that we had that was really to support coordination which is something we've also left behind. >> in terms -- >> we have a set of tools and t.s that others don't do, there's the diplomacy that we do with others on a number of different issues with whatever

it has to do with how we reduce the space that terrorist groups have to fundraise, operate, and we provide a lot of training, fund other agencies of the u.s. government to send their experts out to do it in countries around the world whether it's anti-money laundering, border security, rule of law with regional -- legal advisers, a whole range of different things really in the diplomatic tool kit, and we work with the partners in the government to do, so these things couldn't be done without a strong state platform for carrying them through, and i hope that answers your questions. different things in different agency lanes and state department remains at the fore prompt -- forefront of those foreign engagements. >> i'm wondering how important the cooperation of certain governments will be in your

effort and how much you can achieve in iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism not cooperating with you and pakistan, let's say they choose not to cooperate with you and other countries where terrorism is a problem, how effective can you really be? >> well, i'd say that in terms of the international cooperation assessment, the glass is 98% full, and you've gotten the -- at least on iran, the 1% that isn't, the one or two other countries that we have grave concerns about, but international cooperations built have been one of the unsung successes of the last decade. there's extraordinary cooperation on intelligence around the world and military affairs, # and in the diplomatic work to constrain the ability of terrorists to operate and to cooperate, to elect them, to ensure they can carry out attacks, yes, there's problems, and we have countries that we

have serious challenges working with, and there's a small number of countries that still view terrorism as a legitimate instrument of policy, but the remarkable thing about the post-9/11 period is how countries cooperated against al-qaeda, the core al-qaeda against al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula and uae and yemen and katar and on and on, and there's more reins in southeast asia, just tremendous strides, and we hope this global terrorism forum builds on those strides and the counterterrorism experts are able to exchange best practices and identify problems and design solutions in a way that we have not been able to before on a multilateral basis. >> the government after two

bombings happen in damascus two weeks ago accused elements that the bombings came from lebanon. dune if al-qaeda has a presence in lebanon? >> i'll just say we've seen the reports, and i don't have a further comment on them. we know there's been sympathetic groups to al-qaeda in lebanon for many years. you may recall that the lebanese forces went into one of the refugee camps years ago to deal with a group that had an al-qaeda-like ideology, so it is certainly true there's elements like that in lebanon over the years, and whether that had anything to do what's going on in syria is another matter entirely. >> the fact sheet on the bureau is released, so that should be available to you all. >> and do you think al-qaeda was behind the explosion in damascus? >> i don't know. we don't have anything conclusive on that.

>> yes, sir, do you ever re-examine your classification of hamas, the entity that governs the gaza strip, the review of steps taken in the last few months, distancing themselves from syria and iran and the unity government with the pashtun party that is a partner of the united states and the peace process? >> i think we've been very clear about what hamas needs to do if it wants to get out from under the designation, and that has to do with renouncing violence. the ground work is there, the steps -- the footprints are on the ground. they need to go through them, and we'd certainly welcome that, and it's long over due. >> i think this was addressed in the fact sheet. how many people are there in the

bureau? do you know? >> yes. i believe that we have 70fte government employees, and then contractors of the like is 120. >> okay. if being a good steward of the public money, you're not getting more money or more people than in the coming bureau; correct? >> that's correct. >> will the bureau continue to produce the country reports on terrorism and will the intelligence community continue to separately as has been the trend for years on data based on a number of terrorist incidents? >> i'll just say that we -- it's a congressional mandated report. the country reports on terrorism. we're already gathering information for this year, we've a task, and we'll put out the report again.

>> last one for me, and admittedly, it's hypothetical, but i think it's sort of topical interest. brad talked about the threats iran made, and obviously the threats in the straits of hormuz, and the question i have is whether an attack on shipping in the straits would be regarded as an act of war or an act of terrorism, and what is the key determine? is it it's a non-state actor and therefore it's terrorism, but if it's by a state military, it's an act of war? how do you determine those things? >> i think that that's relevant to the squaring in the category of hypotheticals, and if there was such an attack, we'll make that determination at that time. as you know, the whole issue of what is an act of terrorism and what is not, it's one we get into frequently and the north

korea issue for example, and rather than lay out lines that would be immediately overtaken by events, i'll just leave it at that. >> i think that i would be remiss if i didn't take time for -- [inaudible] >> thank you, thank you, all. >> okay. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you for the question. thank you so much. >> thanks for coming. >> glad to meet you. nice to meet you, thank you. >> c-span's road to the white house coverage of politics takes you on the campaign trail with the candidates. >> how are you? >> good. >> great to see you. thank you for being here. appreciate that. >> watch c-span's coverage of the new hampshire primary on c-span television and on c-span.org. ♪

>> because i didn't speak, and i didn't get really a window into my life, i've become an evil cartoon, and i didn't help myself with wearing a hat coming out of my plea in court, but i had become a villain, and i wanted to show people i'm not an evil person. i'm a regular person. i did things that were wrong, but i don't have a tail or horns. i grew up like everybody else. >> this weekend on "after words" on c-span2's booktv, power and corruption on capitol hill. jack was convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy in 2006. his story, saturday night at 10

eastern and news for all the people, ron on the role segregation played on the way news was reported. >> next, bbc parliament tv looks back at the major events in the british parliament since september. the record review with bbc parliament host, is one hour. ♪ >> hello there, and welcome to the "record review," and we'll look back at the big events here in west minister since parliament returned in october. coming up, as the euro crisis rumbles on, there's an e.u.

treaty. >> the choice was a treaty without proper safeguards or no treaty, and the right answer was no treaty. >> continuing economic glim continues to dominate events at west minister and the chancellor has little chair for mps. >> if it heads into recession, it may be hard to avoid one here in the u.k.. >> also, we hear from a veteran pair about why it's important to remember our war dead and why a lady should never be reminded of her age. >> the moral is even the people who worked last are looking veryings very old, and oh, to hell with that. >> first, it's become a familiar sedition law -- scenario. they are trying to find a way to resolve the euro crisis, and greece's economy's floundered, and attempts of trying to stop

it. some predicted the possible breakup of the euro zone. here, all of that meant potential troubles for the prime minister has his nearly skeptic back benches. >> let me say why i believe this approach would not be right, why the timing it wrong, and how britain can now best advance national interests in europe. first, it's not right because the national interest is to be in the e.u. helping to determine the rules governing the single market, our biggest export market consuming more than 50% of the exports driving such investments in the u.k.. this is not an abstract theoretical argument. it matters for millions of jobs and millions of families and businesses in our country. that is why successive prime ministers advocated our membership of the e.u.. second, it's not the right time of this moment of economic

crisis to launch legislation that includes an in-out referendum. when your neighbor's house is on fire, you're first impulse should be to help them put out the flames, not least stop the flames reaching your own house. this is not the time -- this is not the time to argue about walking away. >> some of his back benches were unconvinced. >> the situation that we find ourselves in today is rather like someone who has a trade, a slow trade going in one direction, and then just as you're cycling in, the train starts going off in high speeds in a completely different direction. you have no way of getting off, you are locked in. we're still -- the longer you're on the train, the more the fare goes up, but there's nothing you

can do about it with any negotiation with the guards or driver. >> while parliamentary private secretary announced his resignation. >> i'm mostly enthusiastic about the coalition in private, and if you're part of a team, you support it, but if you can't support a particular policy, then the honest course of action, of course; is to stand down. i want decisions to be made more closely by the people they affect by local communities, not upwards towards brussels. well, i'm not now prepared to go back on my words to my constituents, and i'm really stawingerred that -- staggered that loyal people like me have been put in this position. i'm old enough to remember a europe where military, communist, and fascist dictatorships outnumbered democracies, and one of the greatest achievements of the european union is we have

between us 27 sovereign states and 500 million people creating a peaceful, democratic federation of which we, as britain and as europeans, should be profoundly proud. i'm very proud of that. i think this motion is the wrong motion at the wrong time calling for a referendum that wouldn't work doing profound damage to britain's national interest, and i think we should throw it out tonight. >> this motion is in the national interest because it is for democracy, for trust in politics, and for the integrity of the house. >> at the end of the debate, there was a mass rebellion with 81 conservatives openly defying the prime minister's three line whip and voting for the motion demanding a referendum on the u.k.'s relationship with the european union. fast forward six weeks, and euro leaders meet again for talks to resolve the crisis. france and germany were seeking

greater integration between the 17 countries that use the euro to stabilize the currency. questions, conservative mps and david cameron used the negotiations to get something back for britain. >> the british people want to see two things from this summit. firstly a resolution and on compromising defense of britain's national interest, and secondly, an end to the disastrous euro crisis, a currency the party opposite still wants us to join. will the prime minister did britain proud friday and show some bulldog spirit in brussels? our history of repatriating powers back to the e.u. is not a happy one. may i therefore suggest a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with the e.u. based on free staid, growth, and competitiveness which other countries enjoy and not political union and deadweight

regulations. this e.u. summit is a defining moment. once in a lifetime opportunity, will the prime minister seize the moment? >> they accused the prime minister of sending out different messages. >> let me remind him on the eve of the biggest post war rebellion against the prime minister in europe, he was telling his back benches -- he was telling his back benches that the opportunity of treaty change would mean in the future the repatriation of powers. that was his stance six weeks ago. today there's an article, not one mention of the phrase " repatriation of powers," and why does he think it's in the interest to tell the back benches one thing and tell the european partners another? >> i don't resolve a single word i said in the debate. yes, what we want to do, specifically and particularly in the area of financial services

where this country has a massive national interest that reminds him it is 10% of gdp. it is #% of our -- 3% of our trade, 7% of u.k. employment. i want to make sure we have more power and control here in the u.k. to determine these things. .. but it was the right thing to do. >> the prime prime minister and

liberal democrat leader wasn't in the chamber to hear the statement, sending out the clear message of his pro-european policy and his appointment. >> he has exposed the protected british business and he has come back with a bad deal for britain's. >> how can the prime minister expects to persuade anybody else of the good outcome when he can't avoid -- the prime minister mr. speaker wants to to a veto by the veto let me explain it is supposed to stop something from happening. it's not a veto when the thing you wanted to stop goes ahead without you. mr. speaker, that is called losing. that is called being defeated. that is called letting britain down. scheme i'm right honorable friend.

with my right honorable friend agree with me that britain today has much more negotiating strength because they know they are meeting with the prime minister who will say no if he needs to, so when we have to prime ministers who gave us bad deal after bad deal including giving our rebates away for no good reason. >> i'm sure the prime minister will want to know that the toast of the people in somerset was to the pilot who weathered the storm because he has stood up for democracy, he has stood up for free market and this is to be wonderfully committed. >> he walked out without using his veto. he has walked out without getting a rebate like mrs. thatcher did. he has walked out without --.

so backbench mps clearly delighted but at what cost? i asked the economist way the euro crisis had proved to be such a headache to david cameron. >> because it has been squeezed on both sides of the coalition. the right wing of his own party, increasingly skeptic and wants him to not only do things like feed of this particular treaty but also go further and repatriate powers from the european union, whereas the other side of the coalition, the lib dems are the most -- in british politics and will pressure him in the coming years to effectively undo his veto by softening his demands and seeking a way back into the new club of 26 countries in the european union. david cameron, by being squeezed between those two pressures, is in an almost impossible find. >> but is this so serious that it could be the thing that drives the coalition apart or will they find a way to watch

through it? >> i think what keeps the coalition together is the survivor instinct of nick clegg and the lib dems. as long as they are opposing eight, 910% in the opinion polls they have no rational reason to do anything to bring the government down and provoke an election. they could be wiped out. i think it's more likely if anyone pulls the plug in the coming years the david cameron might look at these powers in thing, i'm slightly ahead of labour labor at the moment. i fancy my chances in the general election so david cameron if anyone, would be the one who provokes that second election but even then i don't think it's likely. i think what we are going to see is a five-year coalition and although i would have come a what we are going to see is a five-year coalition i would be 80 or send certain is that a few weeks ago and i may only be 60% certain now but it's still more likely of a breakout of the government before then. >> tell us what is the big cloud on the horizon that is coming up in 2012? >> the huge external event,

which is possible if not probable is a breakdown of the eurozone itself. we could end up in a situation where at least greece, if not more countries than that, fall out of the eurozone. if that happens in than the accord which is agreed in brussels earlier this month, would almost certainly fall apart with it and at which point suddenly david cameron's veto a looks mood and b maybe even slightly looks prescient and he could gain another political windfall from having stayed out of the treaty which hasn't lasted. so i think in in the breakdown in the eurozone relations could be the single biggest event that has implications for the coalition but beyond other thing to look for is the slow war of attrition between the lib dems and wanting david cameron to fix relations with europe and tories who want them to be even more hostile in his relations and seek to win powers back. that slow, gradual process while i think be one of the defining

events of 2012 and sadly for the coalition in the next few years. >> as well as the political fallout the euro crisis is one of the factors having an impact on our economy. with unemployment rising the government is manufacturing but the head of the bank of england gave a gloomy forecast. >> the concerns that we have a think are less on the domestic side, domestic demand in terms of some stipulations. we have seen that over the last year or so. but going forward i think we are concerned that problems in the euro area unless quickly resolved, could lead to weaker outlooks for exports. >> the governor of the bank of england, mervyn king, that when the economic forecast was concerned with the chancellor came here to the houses of parliament to give his statement. summary of the nations finances. he began by giving the view of

the independent office of budget responsibility which predicted low economic growth for 2012. >> this central forecast assumes that the euro area finds a way through the current crisis and the policymakers policymakers eventually find a solution that delivers sovereign debt sustainability. if they do not, then the much worse and outcome for britain. i believe they are right. we hope this can be averted but if the rest of europe heads into recession it may prove hard to avoid one here in the u.k.. we are now undertaking expensive contingency planning to deal with all potential outcomes of the euro crisis. >> what he described as britain's challenge was even greater than the government first saw. >> because the bone was even bigger, and the effects will last even longer. britain has had the highest

structural budget deficit of any major economy in the world, and the highest deficit in the entire history of our country outside of war. and the less government left this government to sort that matthau. >> their announcements on public public-sector pay and transport. >> people know that the promises of quick fixes and more spending this country can't afford at times like this are like the promises of a quack doctor selling a miracle cure. we do not offer that today. we are a government that has a plan to deal with our nation's debt to keep interest rates low, government determined to support businesses and support jobs, government committing to take britain safely through the storm. that is what we have are here

for and i commend this statement. >> the shadow chancellor has long argued the governor strategy for dealing with britain's economic woes is wrong and should change course. >> and as a result, his economic and fiscal strategy is in tatters. after 18 months in office, the verdict is in, it has failed and it has failed colossally. we on the side of the house borne if you try to cut spending and raise taxes to far too far too fast you risk pushing up on employment. we said the chancellor it was reckless. we said he was ripping out the foundations of the house, leaving our economy badly deeply exposed to the growing mobile storm. >> and he concluded. >> the country either needs a new chancellor or a new plan. a balanced and credible plan on job growth. we need real tax cuts, real

investments, a real plan for job growth and deficit reduction. a five-point plan for job growth and deficit reduction. i have to say mr. speaker, protecting our economy, businesses, jobs and family finances is more important than trying to protect a failed economic plan. for his sake, and his party's sake and in the national interest, the chancellor needs to change course and he needs to do so now. >> the next day the reality of the economic situation was clear as around 2 million public-sector workers went on strike. tens of thousands marched in rallies in towns and cities across the country. demand by the unions that the closure of thousands of schools and hospitals as nhs staff walked out.

>> i don't think he is listening because they declared negotiations to end four weeks ago. they said they may define their final offer. they said they'd make their final offer mr. speaker. and they haven't even met the unions for four weeks. and what is the prime minister done? he is gone around tate saying to people, is gone around saying he is privately delighted the unions have walked into his trap. that is the reality. he has been spoiling for this fight. it's extraordinary that what he is just -- is completely and utterly untrue. the fact is there were meetings with the trade unions yesterday. there will be meetings with the trade unions tomorrow. there will be meetings on friday. these discussions, these negotiations are underway and let me repeat again what he said in june. it is wrong to strike when negotiations are going on and yet today, he backs the strikes?

why? because he is irresponsible, left-wing and week. >> mr. speaker, the difference is that unlike him,. [inaudible] people who earn in a week what a chancellor pays for an annual hot -- ski holiday. the truth is, his plan has failed. he refuses to change course and he is making working families pay the price. at the very least, we now know he will never ever be able to say again, we are all in this together. let me tell you this, the shadow chancellor, mr. speaker they are all shouting in unison.

or should that have been they are all shouting on behalf of unison? >> david cameron and miliband battling the prime minister's questions. too many prime minister questions is the highlight of the parliamentary week and they celebrated its 50th anniversary. keeping it legal brought together three politicians who know best about the headline making half hour. michael howard was before david cameron the leader of the conservative party. charles kennedy led the lib dems for six years and david hanson was the parliamentary aide to tony blair. so, what did they make of the mq? did they love it or loathe it? >> i think people are very interested. i'm not sure but i think people are interested in it. i think it encapsulates the big issues of the day. if you're interested in politics and you want a quick take on

what's important and what is the big issue of the day, the prime minister's questions will give that's you and i think that it does, it's important -- its importance can be exaggerated but it can also be dismissed. it is important in terms of morale of backbenchers and it's important in terms of establishing the public eye something about the characters of the leaders. >> charles kennedy, love it or loathe it? >> never been a fan of it actually. i rather agree with i think it was ken willing stand who said it was a cross between street theater and the rubberstamp. mike was right, it's important in that sense but it is never done much for me to be on the sosa spectator in the chamber, not a fan.

as party leader he had to ask them every week and i didn't enjoy that either. i quite enjoyed watching on tv from the office. >> more than in the chamber. any particular reason for that? >> i think you get a slightly more balanced view of it when you watch it through the sub dimension of the distance between you and it. what you get in the chambers is often so far removed from the impression left outside it's quite remarkable. >> david hanson, love it or loathe it? >> i think i love it because it does do what michael said. at challenge his party morale on both sides. it holds the prime minister to account even if it is in a -- sort of way. is something the prime minister's have to repair foreign to worry about but i think people, it's not the house of commons as a whole and people do tend to think the prime minister is what the house of commons does in the house of commons is wider than that half an hour once a week. >> fairly untypical?

>> it's untypical but also very important in the sense that it is people's most opportune window on what happens in parliament, so how they see parliament very often is how they see the prime minister's questions. >> tells us again and again that the public doesn't like the rather scenes in the raucous noise. do you think he is right about that? >> a lot of people like the rowdy scenes but they look at them and i suspect quite a large number of them really rather relished in. >> charles kennedy, do they need to quiet down a bit? >> well actually, it is quiet even during the half-hour for the prime minister's questions. the most heated tends to be the leader of the opposition in the prime minister. and they have god, the opposition has six questions so if he or she wants to deploy all six on the same subject one after another that really develops into a tennis match. the rest of the questions,

everybody else is one supplementary so those can be highly charged but not its esteemed high charge that you get between the two individuals close to each other with microphones directly across from. >> in the present coalition to lib dem later is not asking any questions, which means pmq now lacks that sort of second highlight that he used to have. do you think it is really lost something they're? >> it is a curiosity this one yeah is what has to happen with the lib dems is they are encouraged to stand up and ask questions and usually one or two of them would get us because the speaker wants to office they spread around in terms of party balance. but of course they can't be too -- because the coalition government so you sustain from their point of view. also when we are in opposition, when it was conventional one-party government, you were very dependent on what the leader of the conservative party

did exist i would have to go in with two or three sets of questions knowing that for example michael, the issue of the day is the problem that is all over the press. what the hell am i going to say in front of a question that gives me a twist? very difficult. if i go on to something else but chances are a drop off the edge to cokie. >> a quick final word for each of you. do you think it's going on -- going to go on for the next 50 or will reforms happen or will it stay exactly the same? >> i think we'll stay as it is now. is combative and testing the prime minister but there are other ways now. if the liaison committee so there are different ways but this will be -- >> charles kennedy? >> distinguish parliaments, once said that too much silence is much more ominous than too much

noise in a parliamentary democracy. much as i do totally subscribe to the yahoo! i would still condemn the site of noise. >> when i first came into the house of commons, i remember being told by a very wise, experienced colleague on our side, when we would complain about the noise and the yahoo! stuff, tell them to remember that we are carrying out our arguments in here instead of fighting the match on the streets. >> the view of pmq from the common incentive. bbc parliaments speaker john burke holds what he made up of it all. >> you guys in the media like things to be black and white, simple message on related. i am going to disappoint you because my view of the prime minister's questions is an unashamedly missed -- mix one. on one hand i think it's great the prime minister in our democracy comes to parliament for half an hour every weekend of the answers questions a great many of which he has no advanced

notice and that is a good thing. what i think is a bad thing is that sometimes noise reaches decibel levels that deep purple would not have thought of putting on its audience. >> silence is not what parliament is all about. >> who is arguing for silence? do you think it is a matter of degree? >> i'm not arguing the silence. we are not trappist monks and you're not going to have that atmosphere. a display vet -- passion, extreme irritation, occasional incredulity for an answer given, sure but i think the idea that the prime minister should have to fight to be heard, although really low grade insult should be held across the chambers extraordinary. >> are you the right person to make that judgment? >> yes because i'm the speaker and i'm put in charge of keeping order and i think that if there

is a threat to order of our conduct somebody has got to decide. if you are asking is the speaker blessed with special wisdom, probably not, but somebody has to be the referee and it was decided that it should be and that is my ability. one point if i may on this. i intervene in the best interest of the house to the best of my ability and what i would ask you to observe is that i am doing so with goodwill because i care about parliament. >> we have come here to the house of lords to did look at it bill that is hugely controversial, government plans for a radical shakeup of the nhs in england. the proposals made it through the house of commons only after a rewrite following opposition from house professionals, labor and political democrats. even after that, didn't streeter stick to the streets to protest against the changes.

increase competition in the nhs gave control of budget. when the bill of rights -- it would mean a fundamental shift in the balance of power away from politicians to help professionals. >> the shift would have two advantages. it was servitude depoliticized and it would promote efficiency and quality by making those who take clinical decisions on behalf of their patients responsible for the financial consequences of those decisions. both gp funds holding in the 1990s and more recently commissioned showed that empowering clinicians directly could improve the quality of care that patients experience. the potential is truly enormous, allowing doctors, nurses, specialists, social services and other professionals the freedom to design care pathways that are integrated into commissioned them on behalf of their patients

while we firmly believe, transform the quality of care and treatment of the service delivery. >> he moved on to another area that concerned critics, the accountability of the health sector. >> the bill provides that the secretary of state should remain accountable to parliament as he has been since 1948 for promoting a comprehensive health services and each year by parliament for the health budget. let me be clear, the bill build is bill does not undermine the secretary of state's ultimate accountability for the nhs or the responsibility that he carries for a comprehensive service. >> it will change from a health system into a competitive market. it won't turn the patient into consumers. it will turn patient's choice into shopping and most crucially of all come it will turn our health care into a traded commodity.

so my lord i start with a fundamental simple point, people did not expect this and do not want these changes. the government was not elected to do this. they do not have the electorate mandate. some in this house dislike comparisons with the commercial world but i'm going to make one. one of our most successful businesses in the united kingdom, which is very consumer responsive, is tesco. tesco has happen number of people and half the budget. it remains a huge and complex organization. the chief executive has been on the board for 19 years and he was the chief executive for 12 of those years. so i think it is romantic poppycock to think that the secretary of state personally should be involved in all of these issues. >> the noise reverberates but

the point is, it isn't the that the stay should be concerned with. is the much -- and of course this house. the endless interference with the discretion of clinicians and gps and for that matter of professions runs against the need to change such the sensible outcomes. micromanagement cannot he ruled out. and much of the rest of the bill suggests without having this vast reorganization thrust upon a. >> the liberal democrat, lady williams will continue their detailed scrutiny of that bill in the new year. staying in the house of lords and the head of remembrance day held a debate to mark the sacrifice of britain's war dead. >> it is a tragic fact that

16,000 members of the armed services have lost their lives serving since the end of the second world war. they are commemorated at the national memorial arboretum in staffordshire and those who fell in the two world wars on many thousands of war memorials throughout the united kingdom, may i say today to the minister how very strongly i deplore the appalling actions of those who vandalized such monuments, because they wish to sell plaques and statues to unscrupulous scrap metal dealers to be melted down. this desecration has to be stopped. i hope the minister will consult urgently with the british transport police to established what concerted action should be taken to prevent these shameful crimes. >> a former servicemen said the government's covenant with the armed forces was failing in three areas are gus.

>> i see not believe that the third sector should be exploited to fund men and women who are still serving in the forces. that that is the irrefutable responsibility of government. charitable money is desperately needed to support those who have left the services and every pound of the charities commit to those in service denies health to deserving veterans and their families elsewhere. secondly and others have spoken about this far more eloquently than i, there is an absolute compelling case for the retention of the -- we owe this much to all grieving families weather in the services or not. but the ratifications of not retaining such a post for those who have lost a son, father, mother or daughter in some far off and off in unfashionable war are extreme. thirdly, there is no way that being made redundant when you have so recently fought for your country is morally defensible. we are not talking about a situation here for

demobilization after a major war. the circumstances are entirely different. nor are we talking about large numbers. as it is likely the majority of the redundancies from the armed forces will be voluntary. we are probably talking about a few thousand people. it's difficult to imagine how these people will feel having volunteered to fight for their country, being sent to do so often several times having survived life-threatening battles with their enemies to return home keen to remain in the service only to find that their ungrateful government is kicking them out. what a way to show that the nation value such people. >> i have to say that we do need our armed forces. if wars are the failures of politicians the sad truth is that they will make mistakes again and it's against that background that we do need to ensure that the duty to those who have served and paid the ultimate sacrifice are sure that

there are survivors and successors are properly equipped, properly maintained, is continuing the sacred task of defending our nation's interest. >> following lord keynes other marks, take a look at lady trumping tin sitting near him on the conservative benches. >> survivors of world war ii have started to look pretty old too. claiming to be the only survivor i think in this house of those who gave great service to their nation in the second world war. >> that cheeky gesture became an internet sensation but probably didn't surprise those in the know. the robust lady served at the code breaking -- breaking bletchley park becoming -- before becoming a counselor, minister in the conservative peer. a reporter duncan smith caught up with her and asked her why it was important to hold a remembrance day debate. >> i think any talk about those

days should be remembered by people who don't really know what being in the war is like. i think memory is very short unless you actually experienced it yourself. therefore, thought it was extremely interesting that hardly any of those people who took part in, think there were 28 speakers, were alive then. >> you are one of a few peers who actually worked in the second world war. what exactly did you do? >> from 1941 until the end of 1946, i worked at bletchley park. due to the work, the great than a factor was field marshal montgomery because the german naval, the u-boat code was broken and that meant that the u-boats couldn't attack our

supplies and our men going to the middle east. it was all to do with that if we were working. >> during the debate, tom cain made reference to the advancing age of the veterans in the second world war. how exactly did you react to that? >> to my horror he suddenly said, more or less, even the people who were in the last war are starting to look very old and i thought, the hell with that. i nearly did it again. i didn't though. it was just meant to be between him and me. i did actually raised two fingers and i tried to pretend that my hand had slipped, but it was going to be quite obvious my hand hadn't slip. i meant it and he and i are jolly good friends. i just thought he had gone too far looking at me and saying how old are you?

>> back in the commons, there was one debate put forward by backbenchers which provoked a huge interest. it was about the death of 96 liverpool foot wall fans at the hillsborough stadium in sheffield in 1989. several mps want all the papers to be released and after 140,000 people signed a petition on the downing street web site, it's time for debate. one mp said the disaster would live with him for the rest of his life. >> on that beautiful spring day 22 years, six months and two days ago, before 1989 hillsborough was the name of one of england's famous old but all grounds but for the last two decades, the word hillsborough has evoked memories of britain's worst sporting disaster. it was a day when i helplessly watched frantic scenes, as people that had traveled to see a football match, some mere

children, lay injured and dying as they were pulled from the -- i was one of the lucky ones that day and all of my close friends and members of my family although for one, release it was touch and go whether she would survive. thankfully she did. this unfortunately was not the case for 96 men, women and children who were killed and for hundreds of others injured and left permanently traumatized. the loss of 96 innocent lives -- but that tragic nature of their death was exacerbated by what happened next. instead of those at fault taking responsibility for their actions, a coordinated campaign began to shift the blame and look for scapegoats. to this day, nobody has been held to account.

>> the secretary made a firm commitment. >> let me say here and now in this house and on the record that is home secretary i will do everything in my power to ensure that the families and the public get to the truth. as a government we fully support the hillsborough independent panel and the process the panel is leading to disclose the documents telling the whole story. no government papers will be withheld from the panel. no attempts to suppress publication will be made. no stone will be left unturned. >> the hillsborough independent panel began work in february 2010. >> the reason for this debate in the emotion behind it concerns the cabinet officer's decision not to disclose papers relating to the disaster in response to a freedom of information requests from bbc reporter. i want to state very clearly that the government's position has absolutely nothing to do with attempting to suppress the release of these papers or to somehow hide the truth.

and i am sorry that the way the government responded to the foia request was to anxiety among the families and concerned beyond. >> mr. deputy speaker, we are here tonight because 139,815 people have asked this house to revisit events 22 years old. they are right, because i believe they concerned one of the biggest injustices of the 20th century. for 22 years, the hillsborough families face insults, had obstacles placed in their way at every step, as they have for funds -- pursued a dignified campaign for truth and justice. >> keep the government said the papers would be released first to the family and later to the public. after days of uncertainty, the former libyan leader moammar gadhafi and the sun in one of his ministers were buried in secret in the libyan desert. witness said the bodies had been

removed late on monday from the meat storage warehouse in misrata where they had been on display. but after months of conflict how dangerous is libya for its citizens adjusting to life after gadhafi? >> mr. speaker the house will be aware of disturbing reports this morning of an explosion at a fuel tanker that is left more than 50 people dead and the libyan city of search. of course there needs to be investigated fully but it does surely -- still awash with weapons including heavy weapons left over. what steps are the british government taking to support libyan authorities to secure those weapons so they threatened the libyan people nor national security? >> thank you mr. speaker. the right honorable gentleman is right to focus on this as indeed we have. there's ardea team of people from the united kingdom assisting both in dealing with the collection of weapons of small arms and also looking after the issue in relation to the surface to air missiles that

also have gone missing in the area. we have also got people involved in the mining and decommissioning so the united kingdom takes this issue very seriously. is essential to militia, under proper control and arms are returned and the politics of libya can now get on and work for the future. >> does the government show my repulsion that supporters of gadhafi have been subject to revenge executions without any semblance of due process? now being accompanied by a determination to persuade the new government of libya not too without any dissent into brutality. >> mr. speaker unequivocally yes, but i think what what we have to do is paid to tribute to the work of the national transitional council who set out a clear set of principles on which they would seek to remove the regime and also by which to govern, which indeed and

chairman jalil has made it clear on a variety of occasions no reprisals, no refrains and respect for human rights. in the circumstances of conflict that can be very difficult to deliver but there is no doubt that the new government has made it clear what its aims and objectives and principles are and which is to be different to the previous regime and we are indeed right to stand by it and the determination to make those principles stick no matter the circumstances may be different. >> the defense secretary resign from the government on his working relationship with his former best man at a more the. the distinctions have become blurred between his professional responsibilities and his personal loyalty to mr. worth it. he had described himself as an adviser to mr. fox and attended meetings including some overseas. following his resignation dr. fox made a personal statement to the house. >> the ministerial code had been found to be breached and for this i am sorry. i accept that is not only the

substance but the perception that matters and that is why i choose to resign. i accept the consequences for me without bitterness or rancor. >> we have come here to the committee corridor next to the houses of parliament, where a group of mps have been looking into the causes of the summer riots in england. there were widespread violent disturbances in several english cities in august. the trouble started in the suburbs of london and then spread north. looting and arson caused millions of pounds in damage in many shopkeepers and homeowners are still waiting for compensation. the whole affairs committee heard from the inspector of constabulary who asked if the police were able to deal with such situations. >> what we have seen i think and what you have seen over the last year or so is the ability people to use social media and other mechanisms to organize themselves. all of that points me towards

devolved commanded order to make an immediate assessment and then have done enough in advance so that you have more than one game to play as it were in order to protect the public. now our analysis suggests that the training as insufficient for that. the people do not get an opportunity to look at the numbers of scenarios when people actually don't retreat and happily go away. they scatter and reappear somewhere else. you need to prep for that in a way we haven't before. >> we will never have enough police officers and unless we use the ones we have really well and best to give them a clear view about the priority that we attach to this in our civic life. let's be absolutely honest. public order, because we have --

setting aside the protest issue, has not been to the fall. >> what you're saying obviously putting it in elegant terms but they failed to mobilize earlier and they ought to have mobilized earlier. if they had mobilized earlier it was the question of numbers, it was a question of how you use people and they didn't use their people effectively. they didn't bring people out on the streets earlier where is in liverpool when the chief constable saw this happening when he was abroad as most of us were brought, in august, he got his force out as to the chief constable of constable of nottingham. the differences, the differences in the police response, the lack of confidence is because it just wasn't happening. speier thinks a matter of public record that we acknowledge that they didn't do as well on this as they should to say the least or guy think what mr. murphy had, he had the advantage of seeing it on television and he would know from his memory, this

is where memory in response to these things are important, the copycat writing is entirely possible. so he had that advantage. >> the committee heard from a panel set up to investigate the cause of the riots. >> i think if you were to ask me personally what shocked me the most, it would be actually conversation as i have with some young people including some who rioted and the absolute absence of any hopes and dreams of those individuals and their feeling of a real lack of opportunity in terms of jobs in terms of accessing education. that to me was profoundly shocking. >> you were quite tough on the police, weren't you, in your report? i am reading a headline here because i haven't seen your report but basically it said that they were pretty slow in dealing with these riots and if they had been quicker we would have less disorder. is that right? >> chairman, can i expand upon that? we have been very clear from the outset that we are not

expressing operational matters to do with how the police deployed and responded to public disorder. we went with the views of victims where the communities took us in every engagement in every location, 20 areas in total, 17 of my affected areas in our discussions with members and shopkeepers and victims that they raise fears about placing. >> it's very much the perception of what people were sitting on their screens that we were trying to reflect in the report, which i think is a challenge for policing in the future and the perceptions of certain images were ones that were very much across the social media platforms and clearly social media enabled people to, and they were the contagion if you like, the disorder to spread in the way that it did. >> there was another huge news story that was still making

headlines. the fallout from the phone-hacking scandal. an inquiry under lord justice leveson was set up by the prime minister to look into the practice and ethics of the press. it it's overheard from celebrities and -- the now defunct as of the world. the committee is heard from the head of the news international, james murdoch and former employees as part of its inquiry into the affair. meanwhile the joint committee of mps and peers is holding an inquiry into whether not there needs to be a change in the law to protect people's private lives. the committee asked hugh grant why he got involved with the campaign. he said he had been crossed after having his mobile access but that paled in significance compared to the average he felt when the phones if friends and families were hacked. >> seeing children of girlfriends being chased down the street by paparazzi in tears or by seeing paparazzi trying to

run over there 61-year-old grandmother of mine's child or in the name of profit for tabloid newspapers. it's an anger that is doubled when you realize that for quite a number of years the police have ready much turned a blind eye to many of these practices and politicians have betrayed their duty and doing something about this out of fear and intimidation. >> what about apologies from newspapers? >> if they have been unfairly treated by the newspaper the apology should the proportion of. that means if you are savaged on the front page pages should and might you expect a front-page front page apology. i think that should go across-the-board. >> i think there's actually more of a deterrent than a fine because of the loss of face and thinking twice about whether they have faith in the story they were about to print. >> the fourth witness thought that would work for defamation. but part of it privacy was

another matter. >> no matter how big the apology, in my case news of the world have been forced to print on the front page this was actually a private. it would really have helped me very much. >> the committee after the witnesses. hugh grant said he abused them in the 1990s after his medical records have been published by a national newspaper. >> the pcc dragged their feet for a year before i finally got a mention in the back of the daily mirror saying that my complaint to the pcc had been upheld. didn't say for what so i felt profoundly useless and i never use them again. >> personally people like -- doesn't fill me with much confidence. >> max mosley argued they needed to be prime notification does those involved in tabloid stories had a chance to act before they're published. after the pcc, will whatever --

needed to have a different structure. divided between making rules and enforcing them. >> so what is needed is a body like the pcc and i think it's worth saying again the body to which anyone can go where there is no charge which has the power to find it necessary, to prevent a story being published, to order a correction or an apology of equal prominence or whatever prominence the body decides and various other powers of that kind which again, free of charge. that is what is important. they could deal with it very quickly and staffed by people who just have to be fair-minded and have some knowledge of journalism but also of the law but nothing to do with the newspaper, nothing to do with the government, and ended in -- imported by.

>> they later put those criticisms to the director of the complaints commission. >> there are aspects of the current work of the pcc which in my view should be continued in the area of privacy. i think we do offer the sort of services the parliament were talking about in advance. it's free, is there to serve all members of the public primarily, it gets them results that they want to see so i don't necessarily disagree with the panel in the sense of things that need to do better. most of those people hadn't used the pcc specifically in the complaints area or the publication area that recently about all. >> so another very busy few months here at westminster. we asked the common speaker joe burkhart what he thought was on the horizon for 2012. >> i would hope that in 2012, we have fewer leaks, we have a continuation of the commitment to make statements to the house. i hope the debates about the

nature, form and opera die of the house business committee will get underway and i hope it's a year in which parliament asserts itself. and we try to get across to the public that parliament is not the same as the government, and all parliamentarians have got a responsibility to hold the executive branch to account. the government has got power, perfectly properly and we wish them well in the national interest in exercising that power but they have got to be subject to checks and balances. the crucial check and balance on executive power is a strong parliament, and effective, robust inquisitive, demanding, curious legislature. so here in 2012 to an effective,

robust, demanding inquisitive, and curious legislature. >> that's it for now. join us again when parliament returns on january the tenth. you can catch up with the best of the day at westminster in the record at 11:00 at night. but for now for me, good life.

at a press conference on new year's eve the prime minister of japan promised to tackle social security and tax reform and visit the families affected by last year's earthquake in nuclear plant disaster. during a 20 minute news conference he was also asked about the governments proposed sales tax increase which we jump from 5% to 10% by 2015. try minister noda served as the finest minister in the previous administration and is japan's sixth prime minister in five years. >> we will now begin the press conference with prime minister noda who will be speaking at the beginning. first, please allow me to offer my heartfelt new year's greetings and in my bushes for continuing cordial relations for the new year. i would like to confirm one point, which is that when my

cabinet was initiated in september of last year, there were three issues that were considered of highest importance and priority. the first was reconstruction efforts in the wake of the great east japan earthquake that struck last march. the next was dealing with the nuclear power station accident from fukushima and the third was restoring japanese economy to health. we will be continuing our efforts to deal with these three challenges in the new year. i would now like to express my heartfelt sympathy and support for those who are still forced to live as evacuees in temporary housing or evacuation centers in the midst of this cold weather. at the end of last year, the third supplementary budget was passed with funds for reconstruction. we have also been able to establish new systems such as recovery grants and specially designated recovery regions.

we expect to soon see the launching of a new recovery agency that will coordinate efforts in this regard. we are determined to continue powerful and effective measures for reconstruction. second, it is the response to the accident at the nuclear power station. on december 16 of last year we announced the completion of step two, the achievement of the so-called cold shutdown at the reactor. at that time i expressed my awareness that this was not the end of our struggle with the impacts of this accident. we must still deal with questions of compensation, the health of people in the affected areas and the removal of radioactive pollutants. each of the steps as necessary to achieve the rejuvenation of fukushima prefecture and we will be putting our fullest efforts into these. in terms of reviving the japanese economy, the third supplementary budget that i

mentioned includes such measures as subsidies to encourage companies to locate india for the -- afflicted region, financial support for small and medium-size companies. this provides an book and in a seamless economic policy. it is particularly important at the breakout of the present inflationary conditions into this and we intend to work in close quarter coronation with the bank of japan. we will also promote high-level economic coordination such as to the realization of the free trade area of the asia-pacific program and also through accelerated implementation of new growth strategy. through these and other concrete measures we are determined to promote and realize revival of japan's economy. in addition to these three overarching themes there are a number of issues which, despite continuing discussions with the opposition parties last year, remain unresolved. the first of these is reform of the postal savings system. such reforms are important to

meaningful in themselves but it is also hope they can provide a source of non-tax revenues to be used for the financing of reconstruction. the next is reform of the political system, in particular reducing the number of dioceses. further we want to pursue administrative reform, including reducing the personnel costs of public sector employees. this is another area where we engaged in discussions with the opposition party but were regrettably unable to come to a conclusion. i hope that we will be able to take up these issues and deal with them concretely at the earliest possible stage of the regular -- perhaps the most formidable challenge that we face is the question of consolidated reform of the social security and tax system. the basic outlines of the social security system in japan were established in 1961 to ensure that all citizens have access to health insurance and retirement pension. since that time however, are

rapidly falling birthrate and aging of society have given rise to a number of structural issues. the naturally increase in outlays has more than 1 trillion yen per annum and efforts to keep funding for pensions from the regular budget at 1/2 of the total or something that has been struggled with going back to the time of the ldp coalition government. we have reached a point where we cannot postpone dealing with this issue any further. it will be difficult to maintain social security payments at their present levels and with the continuing decrease in the birthrate, we need to consider not only the beneficiaries of the system but also those who supported through tax and other payments. unless we create a social security system that responds to the needs of all generations including the employment and childrearing needs of the younger generation, we will not be able to develop a truly sustainable system. this is an issue which neither

mine nor any future administration can avoid dealing with. fortunately, the tax committee of the democratic party of japan engaged in wide-ranging policy debates and late in the evening of december 29, with approximately 100 participants, we have reached a certain conclusion. this was not a hard and fast determination, but one that was adopted with applause and handshakes. i've regard this as important progress. this draft presents our basic thinking on this issue and we hope to see formal adoption of the draft this week by the headquarters on consolidated social security and tax reform. once the stand of the government and ruling party has been firmly established, we intend to approach the members of the opposition party.

we hope to do this within the next week and i hope to see opposition party members will also recognize that this issue on which no delay is permitted and that through deliberations, we will be able to established the broad outline of the law they can be submitted by the end of the fiscal year. this is the process that i hope that we will follow. in addition to these financial issues, we have also seen the emergence of a changed situation on the korean peninsula following the death of kim jong-il. my instructions at that time were to strengthen information gathering efforts, to maintain close communications with the relevant government in order to develop effective preparations for any difficult to predict situations. at the end of last year, held

discussions with top leaders from china and india and i'm determined to maintain close contact with these and other governments in order to strengthen the crisis management capacities within the international society. we face many important challenges this year but my basic stance is to take them on one at a time. i hope that through such efforts, we will be able to usher in a better year for everyone. this is certainly my determination. with that i would like to close my new year's greetings. thank you very much. ..

which must give its approval to any law and order for it to be passed. the house of counselors has passed a resolution questioning the responsibility of two of your ministers and asking that they be replaced. how do you intend to respond to this? ..

. >> it seems very clear that your call to the opposition for the necessary cooperation will not be realized and not possible for you to pass a law raising the consumption tax. it seems clear that this is difficult from anyone's view. is appealing to public opinion particularly in the form of calling an election is the only way to settle this issue. this difficulty is actually a two edged sword and i have

mentioned we are about to approach the opposition to engage them with deliberation, whether we can come to an agreement there are many hurdles to face. just yesterday's the high school that i graduated from, someone gave me a letter asking if i remember the six most famous words said by winston churchill during world war ii i had forgotten that is never never never never give up. but when something is genuinely important double absolutely not give up but continue our position which i am certain will change this situation. next, please? >> i am a freelance journalist.

>> you attended the same high school as i did. >> you spoke of social security in tax and consolidated reform as the basis of that for political reform. you also express your strong determination to realize these in your radio address last year. when can you do this? in time for the next election how do plan to do with this with a different sizes of the electoral district and the difference is in the way toward value of each boat? >> translator: regarding the differences of the value of the to vote, my electoral district the most populous one in japan and so the weight of each individual but this smallest. there are many electoral districts whose maps must be redrawn and we must do this quickly.

this has been described by the supreme court has essentially unconstitutional situation and therefore needs to be resolved and the fact that there has been no measures taken in this direction is a problem. this is the first thing we need to challenge. regarding the consolidated reform of tax system we need to set an example public opinion wants to see politicians make real sacrifice. if we take public opinion seriously we need to take immediate steps to reduce the waiting. that individual boats must be dealt with promptly but this in the prime minister's right to call an election are separate issues. we must take prompt and repeated action to come to these two primary issues of the difference of the value of each vote in the need to reduce the electoral districts. next? >> my name is foster with a

p i have felt that people remain very concerned about the lack of transparency from the nuclear power accident as well as your plan to raise the consumption tax and the conflicts between the ruling and opposition party. what steps you plan to implement trust? >> translator: with regard to then nuclear power station and accident and the earthquake, and many people have pointed out to the lack

of adequate and accurate information and also question the appropriateness of our response. we have taken these comments very seriously and have sought on each occasion to improve our response is. if people still feel this way, this is something to take very seriously. it applies to people inside and outside of japan that were caused great anxiety as a nuclear power facility. it is essential accurate information is made fully available to the public. we want to renew our efforts in this regard. we have competent ministers travel to explain the of policies. on the eighth i intend to also hear people's views and opinions.

>> i am from fuji television. september this year there will be elections for the leaders of the democratic party of japan. do you intend to continue to serve as prime minister? are you looking to be reelected? if you do what issues will use stress? are you intending to call a general election before the party elections are held? >> translator: that is much too far into the future i make my assessment day-by-day to resolve each of the issues we face before i can even think about september there are so many things that need to be dealt with in the next session. i want to produce results to reach conclusions on these issues and that is what i am working toward to the

fullest of liability and not thinking of anything else. next? >> i would like to ask about the moving of the base to a different location and in okinawa. there was criticism last year for the box it is that have the environmental impact statement delivered 4:00 a.m. to the ninth delivery door of the appropriate offices to avoid contact with the protesting $0.7. what do you think of this situation? do see any prospect of actually moving the base? >> translator: the stance of may administration is to work while keeping in mind the agreements between united states in japan toward a goal of eliminating the risk associated with the

base. doing this as quickly as possible thereby reversing-- reducing the burden of okinawa. this is the basic stance. doing the environmental assessment was submitted by the ministry of defense will take appropriate action going into the future. next and last question. >> my name is yamaguchi. the democratic party of japan wants to reduce the number proportional representative seats in the house down at 80 i don't think the smaller parties will pass this you still intend to pass the law or is there an ability for compromise? >> translator: the initial report from the tax reform committee mentioned the number of 80 proportional seats but this is been changed simply to reducing the number of seats. we have our own views that we have formulated as to the various opposition parties. how do we work from there to

reduce the number of seats? this will be a big challenge right to the end but it is something we must do. we'll pay attention to the views of each respective party and also make clear our own view. i hope with each side sharing their opinion in a constructive manner, we could come to a conclusion. this concludes the annual new year's press conference for the prime minister. thank you very much. >> because i did not speak

or give a window into my life, i have become an evil cartoon. i did not help myself wearing a hat to and court, but i had become a villain. i am a regular person per cry did things that were wrong but i don't have people who are inside group like everybody else.

>> citing the latest jobs report secretary john bryson says the last six months as in the best private sector job growth since 2006. it created 2,000 -- to a dozen jobs in december the unemployment rate dropping at 8.5%. the secretary talks about the latest numbers at the center for american progress. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. welcome to the center for american progress. i am the president of the center and we are enthusiastic or today's events. we are excited to have secretary of commerce john bryson here to talk about competitiveness and has you

know, it is about building an economy that is before the 21st century and a world where we are competing trying to win with new competitors each and every day. also about building an economy that works for everyone. and we know the obama administration made competitiveness a policy priority and it has really geared up in the last year especially was secretary secretary bryson leadership in commerce. he has also done much work again this area my colleague john the dust of releasing reports for a more comprehensive approach so the american worker in families could prosper in a more competitive world they made out a blueprint at the top of the national agenda

and one year-ago the president signed the american complete reauthorization act into law. is a major achievement in the u.s. competitiveness policy of the raising significant investment the national science foundation department of energy, department of commerce to ensure american end competitiveness. to keep america on a path of leadership to ensure we do what is right for our economy in a global world also for decades to come. part of that asking secretary bryson to do a analysis on the challenges to the engine of job creation known as the competes report it is the first of is, a look into the biggest challenges our economy faces as well as opportunities we have today. the center is honored to have secretary bryson here to unveil the report to give

the key findings also joined by several members of eight innovation the advisory board who made the report possible. and has provided incredible guidance on this issue and they're all made up of leaders that many of us have heard from for many years. my pleasure to welcome rob at 10 sen, rebecca, it jim, president from west virginia university, the president of the global market institute and senior investment strategist at goldman sachs. president of the communication workers of america, chairman of apple apple, the director of mckinsey and company global institute, the president and

ceo formal but equal lube -- equilibrium group, the president and ceo of welched island, the director of the university's center i'm coming to the last line, the national center for women of science in technology. we're looking forward to hearing more about this report i will turn the floor over to secretary bryson in a moment but first let me say a few words about what we're doing today. we have different and interesting format with the panel led by sarah rosen wartell after secretary bryson remarks then we will have something of a fare with a lot of members with the advisory group and information of different elements of the compete act i hope you will stay for all of that. it is my pleasure june

introduced secretary of commerce john bryson sworn in a few months ago. he brings nearly three decades of experience in business to the commerce department. with an innovative business leader leading the effort around green energy and ensuring that we are taking advantage of the new economic issues and he has been a real leader to find this new area of innovation in our economy with specifically green energy. i can think of no one better to talk of the american competitiveness in secretary of commerce john bryson. [applause] >> good morning. thank you very much. it is of special treat to be

able to present this report. the advisory group was played such a large role the members, 11 of 15 are with us and i just met with them. the backgrounds coming together around this issue. just let me say at the outset. john podesta of -- will remember i had to go through the confirmation process i have never been part of the federal government before i had no idea of what it takes to go through the confirmation reprocess. [laughter] maybe some of the things i had done over the years so it took awhile to go through the process but is an honor

to be secretary of commerce and a special honor to work with my colleague who really was the lead at the commerce department. i am four munn singh and this is really, really important for us consistently hard and a longer-term way about how we strengthen our competitiveness around the world as it is come put it -- very important but let me just say perhaps you know, some ways another good news day because the report on jobs maybe you have seen that but the

report is now in the month of december, 200,000 net to new jobs, not just the private sector, that is often reported but the net number after increases in the private sector with some of sets of loss of jobs and a private sector. 200,000 now we have six months in a row in which the numbers each month 100,000 and more jobs in each of the last six months. put this together that for example, is the highest-rated job growth since 2006 over the last half year. we have all been very, very focused on jobs for the american people and we cannot go forward without them. this is another step. but with the competitiveness

report, it is a special moment for us to go through the elements going forward the element of which is having the type of economy that gives all other us particularly our people and our children to have the job opportunities that we and our generation have had. let me jump in to the report. one year-ago as the president signed into law, the mayor can competes reauthorization act, a bipartisan bill built upon the 2007 american competes act called on the federal government to invest in our nation's long-term future in the areas of science education through increase funding for innovation in research and development. house like to acknowledge the leadership senate

commerce committee chairman rockefeller. the numbers are not here but staff members are. they played a huge role. ranking member kay bailey had to send. senator alexander. as well as the house science committee chairman gordon, and many thanks to all of them for renewing the final piece of legislation that allow us to look and read the at the economic model to find areas of improvement to track down solutions. the other requirements of the law instructed the commerce department to study the country's economic competitiveness in the innovative capacity. that is what we have done. the study was not an easy task i'd like to ask all

members of the team who worked on drafting this report to please stand and be recognized. [applause] thank you. the topic of this report is certainly a matter of pivotal importance. the ability to innovate as a nation will determine what kind of the economy, the country our children and grandchildren will inherit. whether it is a country that builds and holds the same promise for them as it did for our parents in grandparents. let's talk a little about the importance of innovation in competitiveness. history tells us that what

happens when we don't innovate not pushed by a competitive s when not wisely invested in good schools or new information technology. its impact on jobs, and economic growth. the recent report from the information in technology in innovation foundation and concluded that no advance the economy in the world except italy, and i'm sure that says a lot, have done less than the united states to improve the country's competitive position over the decades. that is reflected as a we know and the lives of many american families today. even before the recession

since 2000 saw wages stagnate with the key necessities of life that tuition and all went up some merit his challenge is not just to strengthen the recovery but to lay a new foundation for sustainable long-term economic growth. and the reports findings and proposes the strategy that makes sense, the path or to lay down a critical foundation, innovation remains the key driver of competitiveness in this report looks to the past to examine the factors to help unleash the tremendous innovative potential of our private sector. the study has found three major areas to target for

serious strong federal support. first, basic research. of private citizens in businesses are the top source of new ideas, the government plays a key role to fund the basic research that underlies their innovation. basic research is under provided by the private sector. governments around the road recognize the need for public support at universities and research institutions. the u.s. has a proud tradition to support the work of federal and university labs and it has helped to change our world. the internet or satellite communications are among those jobs creating advances that would not have been possible without the use of se