make a virtual certainty he is at a sufficient level of unconsciousness to resist that stimulate -- the stimuli. i want to know what underlies that that is sufficient that you say it is clearly wrong but the riverside can answer that question. . .

now. this source. the sorry article. this is spelled saarri. and i am quoting. it has been used to induce and maintain the general anesthesia. and the recovery period is approximately 3 times longer than propofol. i have a real problem with whatever you are reading. i will have to go back to

the article. i am substantially disturbed that in your brief that you made the factual statements supported by the sources and contradicting. i will give you just three small examples among many that i sound. nothing that i say or read to me will i believe frankly. if i see it with my own eyes. the context. the three examples. and pages 4 and an of the brief. and it cites the fda approved label. mild sedation. and deep levels of sedation. virtually, equivalent to the state of the general anesthesia with the patient that may require external support for vital functions. this quote was not on a

general use but it came from the section of the fda label where it was saying that this drug's effects, when taken with other drugs that suppress the central nervous system. that this can happen. that to me, is really. there is no other central nervous system drug. at play in the protocol. on do you have an answer to that one? justice sotomayer. in the brief we explain that the fda label says that the effects of the drug depend upon three things. the rate of infusion. and mant navents rate the dosage and the rate of infusion and whether it is others to see in us.

ja 217. they caused a fatality. sure. he said that. with other people. you know. there have been 80 deaths from theraputic doses of this drug. this is almost like you saying because 8 0 people have died from the use of one aspirin. that means that if i give people a hundred aspirins they are going to die this. is just not logical. obviously people die from anything if anything that you give them it. that is why there is a procedure and 80 among the millions given the drug do not die. the point is that the fda is

saying that the general anesthesia will effect and when have you a central nervous drug. and central nervous system drug. the fda has said no such thing and they put it into that section. they described the potential affects. and they described. they said three things matter when you look at the affects. how much of the drug you are getting the rate of which you are giving it. and given with another drug. >> all right. the mel kin study says that this is how it happens. it gave this drug in doses of.02 to.06 and what it showed is that.06 dose that there was less affect than.02. and this suggests that there

is a ceiling effect to the drug. that it is less potent as you will go in higher doses. now you quoted for saying. and you took up -- you quoted by saying that the melvin study for the position that studies on humans have found that the anesthetic affect increased with the dosage and the estimates that 2 milligrams is enough for the full surgical anesthetic. what was said after pointing out that the ceiling effect is shown by his study. he said but presuming that there was no ceiling effects extrapolation of the data suggests that such a dose would be sufficient. you took out that -- respectively. what they were comparing is

a dose of a different drug to the milligram dosage. they said that we would have expected it to have a greater effect than the other drug which is more poetant than the other drunk. but there are two things going on. either there is a dose dependent relationship with the other drug or they said that there may be a ceiling effect here. they talked about maybe. and they say there is no extrapolating what we know about the drug that you would get that anesthesia. and is there a ceiling effect. let's talk about the evidence. neither are going to say what ceiling effect will occur. and it is not whether it is or is not a ceiling effect. all drugs and the ceiling effect at some point. what matters is that there is a ceiling effect that will kick in before we get to the level where there they are unconscious and unaware of the pain that is the constitutionally relevant inquiry. and this point they presented to the district

court with two-pieces of evidence and the material data safety sheet that is in the brief that mentions the ceiling effect. if the court had a said look we do not think that you presented kick in at this point. right? that is not what the court said. the theory that it did not have to concern itself with whether the ceiling effect had kicked in. that is saying that you know. you know to defend as well. that is what the court said. that is not how we read the district court's pnl. you recount the explanation of what the ceiling effect was. ja 77 or 78 and he said what ever it may be with respect to the anesthesia that occurs with the spinal cord level. and whatever it is all we have to whery about is brain and not spinal court

and the brain there. is no ceiling effect. that is just wrong. you know that is wrong. yeah. we know that a central nervous system depressant works throughout. so this is affecting the receptors that are located in the spinal court and in the brain. now the point was perhaps that the recent ors may be fully saturated at the spinal cord level. and the brain level. and in his words we paralyzing the brain that the extent that the person is unconscious and unaware of the pain? and he thought that the evidence was sufficient to could notting clued that it was. and we look at the evidence. i read that. i just think that if we go back to read it that it will show that what he was saying is that we just do not have to whery about the ceiling effect. because the brain level, the ceiling effect has no relevance. let me ask you another question. maybe this is one that we will agree on. maybe not. i am not sure. do you think that if we conclude that there is just a lot of uncertainty about

this drushgs another in other words, you may be right or miss conrad may be right this. is just impossible to tell. given no studies on the drug. we simply cannot know the answer to the questions. do you think that this is the violation of the 8th amendment to use it? if there is a risk of pain that mentions intolerable. we will give you the set of we just do not know. it may be substanltial pain. it may not be. we can't quantify it at all. but shifting the burden to the state to show that there is medical concensus that a drug in fact can do it at the doses. just put yourself in the

district judge. who can tell. what is the district court going to do at this point. in the 9th circuit court. and temporary challenge to the injection drugs and vacated. temporary and granted by the lower courts to show that they will likely suffer from the harm. so it is a burden that they bear. have i not found a place. and that seems to be quite something that would be like something. people say that this potassium clear idea is like being burned alive. burned at the stake, and everybody agrees that it is cruel and unusual punishment. suppose that we said, we are going to burn you at the stake. and before we do that we

are going to use an anesthetic of completely unknown properties and unknown effects. maybe you will not feel it. maybe you will. we can't tell i this i that the petitioner in in that case would have no problem satisfying the court. showing that it is a substantial risk of objectively untolerable risk of severe pain. that is going to be easier to make in that case. i am saying you do not know about the anesthesia. and maybe the anesthesia

will cover all of that pain of being burned at the stake or maybe it will not. the court does not know. and it is not the world. and the district court lived in. we know. we know for a fact. this is the conceded facts. and experts say that this dosage is going to be rendering the petitioners unconscious, 60 to 90 seconds. and i know. that induction of anesthesia. it is a creag. and maintenance is keeping it at the state for so many hours for surgery. or the time it takes for potassium clear idea to kill somebody. it is commonly used for painful and that of an iv. and example is a good example. and we have pointed out that the drug is regularly. and routinely used. we have experts saying that as i just said that this drug will not keep you sleep, when two others are introduced you will be jolted into consciousness that is the testimony. i believe he supported that arlt klz that looked to be the same.

and if support weed have to look to the other side to see what was refuting. what is refuting it on 327. i agree with you that this ceiling effect is a big here when it would go against it was that he said that there is an extrapolation in the conclusion that 500 milligrams will cause death. so if that much is likely to cause death, it will cause a coma. that could prevent a person from paying. and evidence for that is zero. we know that in fact lots of drugs can kill people without putting them into a coma so we will look to see what he thinks is if this kills you will first put knew a coma. and when i look or asked

the clerks of those to look. we found zero. that is the question. what is it that i think will pick up the key reputation of an expert rests upon zero. that is what i am asking you. that is what i have tried to ask perhaps. but now it is more articulate. again. have i to make this point whether it will create a coma or not is not the contusionly relevant question. based on how the nervous system depressant works. i think that will what he was driving a your expert is that you were in a state such that you would feel no pain. and the ran that he thought that 500 mg would kill you. and if it is going to kill you, it must of course at

least first, to put you in that state. so i am asking the same question. and i would use that word state for the word comb amount of because of how the central muse nervouser is system works i am not asking you forks i really want to know in the record will he provide the support for that statement that the state proceeds the death caused by this drug. you described a couple of thing. first the action of which the drug works as a central nervous system depressant. by causing death. if it works by paralyzing the brain to such an extent that you your respiratory drive is knocked out. it starts right there, because the reason evans thought that is that they worked on the spinal cord.

nobody argue that's it works on the spinal cord. this is not a central nervous system drug. and this is works very differently than it. it is this is not. but they have. and so central nervous system depress ants. that is undisputed on the record. i don't know where you are getting. justice breyer said. the proof of that. it is a conceded fact on the record. that it will render them unconscious in a matter of 60 seconds that means that the central nervous system is working to paralyze their

brain and to render them unconscious this. is a conceded fact that they will be that will not tell me that you are not feeling pain or the knoxous stimulant like being burned alive will not cause pain. look at what happens with the paralyze your throat them. give you a drug. and they are paralyzing your throat. that has its own effect. and pain relief. so what you're arguing. is very different from what is happening here. putting a chemical in the inside of you that it is burning you to death. this is the most obknox showers. they give the same or the second drug here. first to keep the patient from moving. and first to that. and then they give them the

pair let i can. forting a niegz suffering and i am telling you. the sequence is done. routinely. giving patient as small dose:.

read what it actually says. benzodiazepine exhibit in effect which includes depression after full administration. intravenous administration can produce anesthesia. that is what the text actually says. the fact they are not commonly used is because we have better choices not because the drug is incapable. remember here is where they started. they said because of this affect the drug is incapable of producing it,. we it. we said someone forgot to tell the fda because the

warning is right there. they have retreated now to where it cannot reliably produce a, the read if it can get someone to a where is the ceiling effect? 's are some basic pharmacological principle that prevents this drug? we have established that there is not an ask you to look at the cases. an anesthesiologist -- >> out of this argument because you presented a lot of things i was not before either the district court for the court of appeals. i believe that your experts have proven there.'s. why don't we let the district court sort out whether it still holds to its opinion based on the plethora of materials you have given us. >> too quick responses.

the record that they presented. we put presented. we put plenty of rebuttal evidence of enough to support the district court finding. there is know district court here. >> the extent that it is unusual listening rather than talking. happy to give you an extra five minutes. >> hopefully we will have a chance to hear what you have to say. >> i appreciate that. i will told you about the 1st source the material safety data sheet. nothing in the reply brief. a study about rats. we read that study.

no mention of the ceiling effect. no responsible i'm brief. that is the evidence they put before the district court on what they said clearly demonstrates. after the fact their experts submitted an additional declaration. two more sources cited the study. took five dogs and give them a big dose's. the study concluded we season. the effect of the drug slows at a certain time. but that study concluded if you take the results and extrapolate out once you get to 30 grams per kilogram you have achieved full surgical anesthesia's. there are other experts the proposition there is a ceiling effect. then it goes on to say this

drug has been used for general amnesty was. the profile came along. that was the record case. will they stand up and say that they clearly demonstrated that there was in fact a ceiling effect they are just wrong. never submitted to the district court. .3 mg per .3 milligrams per kilogram were never given to the patients. about what happens if you have .1-milligram per kilogram of varying doses. we pointed that out. nothing in the reply. their evidence is indefensible. you go and read the sources and they just don't say what he said they say. paradoxical effects again

we have pointed out it is only relevant if someone is not unconscious. they just can't avoid the fact the district court made this factual finding a virtual certainty. they cannot establish a substantial probability. thank you. >> justice kagan, i want to address your hypothetical in this case if the risk from using the land if petitioners of petitioners are correct manifests itself them there will be unconstitutional pain-and-suffering. my friend admitted that. if, in fact a person is burned alive they didn't have appropriate anesthesia it would be unconstitutional

>> if the person was burned alive would that be unconstitutional? >> it would be. the.is that the district court below found that there is a greater risk of using that but it was unquantifiable. if that risk manifests itself there will be a constitutionally intolerable execution's. the drug formula that issue was using them soviet by bentall. >> rendered a person completely unconscious. with that be cruel and unusual punishment? >> i think the problem is not rendering someone unconscious. the problem is and is necessary is to ensure the person maintains

a deep a deep level. >> anesthesiologist called in to make sure this person feels no pain whatsoever. but that not be a violation anyway? >> being burned alive from the inside. >> that is exactly what it is, justice kagan. >> you think there are certain phases in which burning someone at the stake would be consistent with the 8th amendment? you are not certain about that? >> the founder say burning at the stake is unconstitutional. it's in your hypotheticals if there is a way to ensure that was done in a humane way. >> incredible answer.

not a violation of the 8th amendment. >> the district court found the risk. again the barbiturates function differently. in bays and lambert again there was the use of a barbiturate known to produce a deep coma like a consciousness. the reason that is important, it does not matter that they don't have analgesic properties because we know the will reliably induce a deep like a consciousness.

those support for the ceiling for. the cited study in exhibit two shows the emacs curve explained his testimony. no explanation, no support for the testimony that he presented when he testified he did not have data to cite. he was incorrect. he made a mathematical error again to all of this court needs to understand is that given the drug even if it.

>> good afternoon, afternoon, and thank you for being here. sexual assault awareness and prevention month which has been this past month they

have ended yesterday but because of its dangers to our men and women in uniform and its impact on a mission our commitment to stopping sexual assault and the cannot cease. georgetown university and sexual assault 1st responders one reason the military is among america's most admired institutions is that we are learning organization striving to understanding correct our flaws. today dod is releasing our annual report on sexual assault in the military. but how to understand and correct our flaws. some new actions that we are taking based on it.

undersecretary carson will make remarks. included in our report to president obama this past december a full analysis gives more detail and makes clear where we need to do better and also tells us how first, we develop a new and different measurement method 's how many members experienced a sexual assault last year yielding ms -- and estimated number of 20,300. an accurate measure because it is more in line with the range of crimes.

the former methodology measured this new measure will be the one we will use going forward. second, through the analysis and the report where getting a clear picture of how this crime is perpetrated. compared to women men are less likely to report and more likely to experience multiple incidents by multiple vendors and are more likely to view the incident as hazing or an attempt to humiliate. third the survey suggests that 22 percent of active duty women and 7% of 7 percent of active duty men may have experienced some form of sexual harassment last year.

that is abhorrent and has to stop not just because it is flat out wrong but also because the data shows that those who experienced sexual harassment are more likely to be sexually assaulted. so we have to better attack behaviors like sexual harassment. fourth, we are not making enough progress on countering retaliation. too many servicemembers feel that when they report or try to stop these crimes they are being ostracized or retaliated against. in short the report makes it crystal clear that we have to do more and gives insight on how to improve this ongoing campaign to ensure dignity and respect in our

institutions. as i said no matter woman who serves in the united states military's should ever be sexually assaulted nor should they experience reprisal for reporting such crimes. today i am issuing for new directives that move us forward in accordance with data based in part on what we learned in this latest report and each will continue to improve our efforts to eradicate sexual assault from the ranks. for example, based upon what we have learned from the link between sexual harassment sexual assault in directing the services to update their prevention training to incorporate what we have learned and have that integrated in the training. based on what we are learning about gender differences we are also going to look at how to best meet the needs of men and

women who are seeking treatment for sexual assault based on based on what we are learning about retaliation, especially from one's peers i am directing we develop a dod wide comprehensive strategy to prevent retaliation against servicemembers who report or intervene on behalf of victims of sexual assault and other crimes'. to reemphasize what i said last week even though sexual assault is a disgrace in any form it happens far too often across our country. as a particular challenge for us here. but our military also has particular strengths in dealing with this problem. we believe in an ethos of honor and trust. we have tackled tough problems before. again we are learning organization so we will keep getting smarter and better

than doing everything that we can to beat back sexual assault command we will not let up. thank you for coming here this afternoon all of you and thank you for your interest in this important subject. [inaudible question] >> thank you, mr. secretary. acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness greatly appreciative of the leadership and commitment to addressing this critical and challenging issue. sexual misconduct in any form has no place in our nation's military. nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our servicemen and women i am deeply and

personally committed to identifying and eradicating any environment of sexual misconduct tolerated tolerated, condoned, or negligently overlooked by military leaders and doing so from the highest and lowest levels. today with the release of the 2014 report we have an important opportunity to look at where we stand compared to previous year statistics and discuss also where we need to be. over over the past decade the department has dedicated substantial resources and energy to better understanding the issue of sexual assault and implementing crucial reform such as developing professional and effective training curriculums skills, personnel response and prevention programs. these programs are these programs are all available the servicemembers and provide immediate crisis

medical behavioral illegal health services to military victims of sexual assault. the military operates 64 sexual assault related initiatives promulgated by secretary carter and his predecessors. over 100 command we grapple with the implementation of over 150 recommendations' including the government accountability office response system, response system, though sexual assault crimes panel of the judicial proceedings panel in the us commission on civil rights. together since 2012 these actions of fundamentally improved the department's response to the current sexual assault. without many options in place of how victims report sexual assault health and safety understand their legal rights and options.

a fight against sexual assault. we continue to see an unprecedented increase which suggests growing confidence to the department's response system. estimates indicate overall occurrences have decreased since 2012. with that with that said there are still far too many instances of sexual assault the military and a long way to go. we do need to build on our current progress as we continue to work on the problem areas. i share a particular concern about retaliation.

this is an area where we need to dig deeper. sexual assault but for the attention of all our people. there are already efforts underway to address retaliation, and sec. carter is directing me in the sec. of secretary of the military department to take additional actions squarely focused on this problem. i am up for the challenge. as i mentioned up front that has been an unprecedented focus for the past several years. much more work to be done. looking ahead looking ahead we will remain prevention focused and continue an uncompromising commitment. personally i intend to sustain a high level of leadership focus and attention that the issue so demands as we build on the progress'. our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less.

the department sexual assault discuss details of the report and will stand might answer questions as well. >> good afternoon. i serve as the department senior subject matter advisor. i'm serve as a criminal investigator for the air force. for office director will be here to brief you except he is attending to a family a family emergency and our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. the report we are releasing today the phils and annual

requirement to provide congress with a number of reports of sexual assault we receive that involve servicemembers for the disposition of the progress we have made in improving sexual assault prevention in conjunction with the release of the report he has enacted new initiatives to improve our efforts that i we will discuss in more detail in a moment's. a moment's. as secretary carter and mr. carson indicated, this report is a bit different. we delivered a report to the president and combating sexual assault covering a three-year timeframe. greater detail. new today new today our follow-up analysis from the 2014 survey conducted by the rand corporation should the past your prevalence is down

significantly and trending downward for men. as a reminder unwanted sexual contact is the proxy measure we have been using to estimate the prevalence of sexual assault since 2,006. it it is important to be able to link to prior survey findings we asked around to check on methods to ensure that we are surveying military personnel in the most effective way possible. as a result included a new measure of sexual assault developed by experts. a similar topline prevalence estimate but also found some meaningful new impacts which are detailed in a follow-up for being released alongside ours. also is the status of efforts to oversight bodies. the report provides the data

the numbers will look familiar because they were reported last september. it's however, we have since gone through and validated data. we know reports contain information. i want to boil some of the messages down. overall occurrences have increased. sexual assault is an underreported crime. we implemented a number of policies to encourage greater reporting. victims who report are more likely to engage. in addition, is the only means by which we have to identify those who commit the crime and then hold the defenders appropriately accountable.

these policies appear to be working as we have experienced an unprecedented increase in reports of sexual assault over the past two years. our final statistics for fy 14 indicate that the number of reports we received this year 11 percent over what we received last year and 70 percent of all we received in 2012. we now estimate the report of sexual assault from about one and four in four military victims up from one in ten military victims in 2012. we are also making progress in holding offenders appropriately accountable with authorities taking disciplinary action. that reflects a 3 percent change in what we reported last december that 73 percent but once again we find additional cases, and i include them in the numbers. our surveys have not shown progress in some form of retaliation.

but i want to.out that our goal and asking about retaliation on surveys is to better assess victims well-being and that stress they encountered. this important encounter. this important feedback is making the program much stronger. i have a bit more to say about that. analysis of the 2014 survey reported previous findings of sexual harassment and gender discrimination specifically those who indicated experiencing sexual harassment are likely to indicate experience of sexual assault information we have had for some time. but the rand report and analysis thereof has refresh the data and provided additional information. the survey identified important differences and how sexual assault is perpetrated. more likely to describe the event as hazing's. these and other findings have improved prevention treatment efforts. once again they_important

connections between unit climate and sexual assault white mini prevention efforts are focused on giving commanders at tools that they need to assess the given climates and promote solutions the respective contributions. i would now like to present you with some highlights from the 2014 survey and some new follow-up analysis. by the way rand corporation is going to be available to answer detailed questions that you have. as i stated previously, the survey conducted contains two measures to estimate the past your prevalence of sexual assault. the 1st measure unwanted sexual contact is the survey question the department has used since 2006 to estimate the number of military victims. using the measure there were an estimated 4.3 percent of women and .9% of men

.9 percent of men on active duty who experience some form of unwanted sexual contact's. based on those rates we can do population estimates, and that number is about 18,900 active-duty members in the 12 months prior to being surveyed. the rates and the population estimates are down significantly over what was measured in 2012 as well as 2006. a 2nd measure to estimate the past your prevalence was also included in the survey last summer. this new measure developed by crime survey experts military attorneys, and statisticians was designed to better align with the sexual assault offenses. this new measure largely validated our prior survey approach and found similar

topline estimates of sexual assault with 4.9% of women 4.9 percent of women and 1 percent of men indicating they experienced sexual assault in the past year. these rates are not statistically different than the rates of sexual assault indicated with the prior measure. like the prior measure this new measure shows risk of sexual assault five times greater for women than men. however,. however, because there are significantly more men in the military than women the estimated number out numbers the estimated number of active-duty women's. there are some other important findings with regard to how the experience of sexual assault in the military difference by gender. men are more likely to experience multiple incidents of being assaulted by multiple offenders during worker duty hours describe the event -- the event as hazing as opposed to having some sexual content.

experience physical injuries however, men are less likely to experience a sexual assault that involved alcohol use or tell anyone about the event. important implications for training prevention, and treatment efforts as well. but look at those measures side-by-side. all total an estimated 20,300 active-duty members who indicated experiencing a sexual assault in 2014 using the rand measure. it seemed to yield its slightly different estimates they are within margins of error and are not different statistically. since december the population estimates have been refined slightly but i also want to illustrate to you the number of sexual assaults in the report being

released today is about 148 more than reported back in december largely due to our data violation. >> what do you mean by data violation? >> in order to give those numbers we basically took a six-month process and extended it. as we went back and validated each of the reports they were an additional 148 reports we were able to include. we also asked ran to update our sexual harassment measure. using this measure rand estimated 22% of 22 percent of active-duty women and 7 percent of active-duty men indicated experiencing sexual harassment. while these estimates are important in and of

themselves, they take on knew importance of regard to the relationship with sexual assault. the findings further validate the existing's of a continuance of harm in which sexual harassment and assault coexist and serve to reinforce each other, other, something we described more fully in our dod prevention strategy. please keep in mind that one may not cause the other. sexual harassment may not cause sexual assault but these problems are both closely related and highly correlated. i would now like to briefly outline some of the other work we have been doing. congress has passed 71 sections of law containing more than 100 unique requirements. in that same time frame the secretary of defense is directed 34 initiatives including four new initiatives. the response system panel released a final report and

in that congressionally directed panel limited 132 recommendations to improve sexual assault prevention and the military justice system. while he made a great deal of progress we still have much to do especially with regard to victim perception of retaliation associated with reporting of sexual assault. when the president directed us to provide them a report in december 2013 we develop a list of metrics agreed upon by the department of defense and the white house. we chose retaliation because it's something we never want victims to face. elected to measure retaliation in three ways a measure from prior surveys our new survivor experience survey and through climate surveys at a military unit. these sources these sources allow us to get a better overall picture of survivor

experience. unfortunately, our surveys have not demonstrated progress in this area. military members generally gave high marks to the unit leadership far too many indicated some kind of retaliation. survivors indicated they receive support from their commander that tended to wayne. it is important to note that survey responses should not be reviewed as an indicator of action. in other words there are other elements of an evidence that must be gathered in order to establish whether or not an offenses occurred. but we use survey data in order to assess well-being.

since the department deliver the report we have been working hard to learn more. however, the data we gathered was not sufficient to allow visibility of the problem. we're going to revise our survey measure and improve the way we ask this, it's like the approach that rent check. so, what do we do? 's we enhance training that we give to first-line members in order to better allow them to identify and address behaviors is to be retaliatory. another initiative another initiative following the december report was for services to engage command. we are doing this through case management. each month installation commanders and their role as

chair of case management are asking about retaliation experienced by the victims, 1st responders, and bystanders. those commanders in the role are referring allegations to the proper authority whether they be for services inspectors general investigators, military general, investigators military opportunity for commanders. having commanders asked regularly demonstrates our resolve to protect themselves and others to let everyone know this behavior has no place in the military secretary hagel issued a 3rd initiative which brings all stakeholders within the department together's as well as identifying commanders to address the behavior. as you heard we must do more

the sec. is ordering us to develop a strategy to prevent the top -- retaliation. this last initiative joins three others being released. the sec.'s directing the services should learn from the 2014 survey and incorporate findings in the sexual assault prevention training and evaluate current treatment for men and women to ensure they reflect gender differences were it makes sense. that that evaluation will inform training to better address the specific needs of men and women. third, employing the common force wide survey strategy across the department to determine the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment. this will follow a number of recommendations as well as

the lot that requires us to conduct our surveys every two years. important important for us as a department to speak with one voice on this topic however, in off year similar to what we do military service academies we will be conducting a force wide focus groups to identify emerging trends and follow up on matters captured in our biannual surveys. it was my intention today to give you a snapshot of our efforts. this unprecedented leadership has resulted in improved understanding of the problem and how it impacts the military. i would like to share with you a personal note. when i joined in 2007 we were barely receiving 1500 reports of sexual assault the year. this year we received 6131 almost three and a half times as many.

more reporting can expect those with needed care and services, helps them heal from this terrible crime and restore their lives. even with the increasing for it by servicemembers sexual assault remains underreported and we encourage servicemembers to choose a reporting option that is right for them to make a report and get the help that they need. servicemembers can talk to someone. www. that helpline .org. >> i don't understand the disparity. >> what we are talking about is two different sources of

data. the reduction in the prevalence of crime our estimate of how often the crime occurs command that is the numbers that we came up with some 18,900 how many we think are out there. however, as far as the numbers of reports that actually come in and get reported, that number is increased. people walking through the door it is an all-time high 's. >> fair to say that there were more incidences in the us military. >> it is not fair to say that. the estimates have come down while the number of reports come up.

this top number is like a denominator. how many of those got reported is a numerator. >> what was the actual number? that is up from thirtysomething hundred. >> up from last year. the number was about 11 percent less. i don't have the number off the top of my head. >> washington examiner's. walk us through how you estimate the topline number every report you receive. how do you no there are about 20,000 sexual assaults and 6,000 reported. >> how we do that is to the survey that rent conducted last summer. what we did is asked.

about 560,000 people were invited to take the survey. 170,000 respondents which is very good. out of those we asked if they experience the sexual assault by using the questions as well as the unwanted sexual contact measures. they don't ask. that is not what these are. questions are behaviorally based listing off behaviors. for example, did anyone force you to place -- did anyone force their penis in your mouth. they are clear language so that people understand what we're talking about which is industry-standard. based on that another criteria we are able to calculate an estimate rate for how many people said yes that happened to me.

using the measure 4.9 percent of women indicated. about 1 percent of men. that percentage is important, but often times we wonder how many people that accounts for. we go and use the number of people in the military because the surveys are done representative with. we calculate the number of people it's about 8600 or so women. we characterize the number of men -- bring up the slide one more. one more. one more. keep going. right there.

>> calculate how much this percentage's we get this number here. we estimate that about 10,600. we had those two together do the rounding and it is a little bit different. that is our denominator. the number of service reports are at an all-time high. numbers include 6131 not only servicemember victims but other civilians. because i do and apples to apples comparison and look at how many many reports versus how many i figure out there. that is where i get my

estimate of about one in four victims of sexual assault make a report versus 2012. >> the number of assaults is dropping. >> yes. >> that include civilians. give us some sense. >> about a quarter of that number involve civilians. that is our's task from congress to report to them not only the sexual assault experienced by victims in the military but sexual assaults that may have been perpetrated by members of the military. if that might include some civilian victims which is what we carry in our data. >> you are the civilians? contractors? >> people of the local community, foreign nationals, anyone that comes in contact with the military perpetrator.

>> can we talk a little bit about the retaliation issue? about two thirds of women who report. >> of the women on the survey indicated that they experience a sexual assault the past year and made a report to the department to a dod authority about two thirds of those women indicated they experience some form of retaliation associated with the report. >> we heard the zero-tolerance. this would indicate that message is not getting through to a lot of people. retaliating against someone. >> keep in mind that this takes time. ultimately i we will tell you last year we did focus groups of people to ask them what you think is anything changed in the us -- since you have been in the service. our senior enlisted folks. notice any kind of change

and they said yes. night and day. that might always be one or two people at disregard. remember it can cause a lot of problems, but ultimately we're giving people the tools to assess, understand what they can do and hold people appropriately accountable. >> two thirds of the people reporting this are being retaliated against. >> here is the deal that number like i said my comments' is not necessarily incidence of retaliation the

perception of victims of the taken the survey that they perceive they might have been retaliated against. i have treated victims of sexual assault. after you experienced trauma the world is a much darker place and you begin to see things differently. in order for things to be an actual retaliation episode to be established perception is just one element. there are additional evidence is the must be gathered and other elements to establish. establish. that is why i said our surveys are 62 percent and should not be taken as reports of retaliation. asks for the perception so that we can better assess the well-being. there is a lot more needed. >> with 10,600 small percentage, but a larger number of men and women experiencing sexual assault rely on a separate strategy. the men perceiving retaliation is not

reportable. why is that the case? 's. >> that is a statistical issue. the margins of error become too wide. men probably did experience some retaliation but we did not have enough confidence in the results. if i tell you at a certain.the margin error could be 30 points above or below, i can report that. largely because of the men -- keep in mind of the men who experience a sexual assault very small numbers report. very few of them may have experienced retaliation afterwards. >> a follow-on a follow-on question. please forgive me if i am obtuse about the statistics. 6,131 sexual assaults reported.

that is an 11 percent increase. >> yes. >> how do you get to conclude that have been fewer sexual assaults? >> a lot of people think that the number of reports of sexual assaults because how many incidents occur every year. that is a mistake. that is what we mean by it is underreported. occurs much more often than ever reported true in the military and civilian population as well. a public -- we adopted the public health approach in 2010 the basically married up surveying for prevalence surveying how often it occurs command matching that to how often it is ever reported. when we end up -- the reason why we do that's committee is he not only for sexual assault but influenza, all sorts of other public health problems.

but we do that because we need to know what we think how bad can this could this problem be versus how much of it are we seeing in our reports. people come in and tell us about it. and what we are saying is that we have always had an ability to estimate the number of occurrences through surveys. 20,000 versus the number of reports that come in and we want to improve and increase the number of people that report this because what research says is that when you bring a more people in: they come into report they are more likely to engage and get that restorative help that they need in order to heal. >> the actual reports have gone up. >> the actual reports of gone up. >> or that it is going down. >> you got it. that is exactly right.

>> that is sexual assault but does not include harassment. >> that's correct. >> the 19,000 number is way down from the 26,000 estimate. the break down by gender. >> the 26,000 by gender -- standby. last year's numbers. very similar and breakdown. i believe that it was -- you know what i will have to get back to you on that. i cannot recall off the top of my head. a very similar breakdown to what we have before. >> perception among males that this is hazing. is that.to an institutional pattern hear?

a culture where it permeates and continues. >> i will have information. i don't have that breakdown beyond what they were able to get. >> the numbers between 2012 and 2013. can you just talk a little bit about the reasons why. >> i wish i could tell you. we do believe that it is a lot to do with our policies that are encouraging people to come forward. one of the things that we put in place in 2005 was restricted reporting which allow people to come in and engage care services but not initiate criminal investigation. people would rather suffer and tolerance rather than come forward and sometimes subject themselves to legal system.

experts told us that we need that conference reporting. in addition what i would tell you is that it is the senior leadership focus that has a great deal to do with it. like i said it is before 2012 that i would tell you we worked very hard the sexual assault prevention response office to bring people forward and the policies in place. one of the things that was amazing it just energized everything. more people started talking about it. senior leaders started talking about it. every secretary has talked on it. things that were not happening before. these people i have more confidence about it.

>> our audience here in this town hall. this is "question time." >> now thank you very much. over the next 90 minutes the three party leaders are going to take the stage here and the question for our audience of course, as ever. an audience that tonight is made up of three lots of 25% who intend to vote for each of those three party leaders, and the remaining 25% for either undecided or supporting other parties. now, joining this program as ever on "question time" you can of course text or tweet. #bbcqt. follow us @bbcquestiontime.

press the old red button and see what other people are saying. let's now get cracking and hear from the leader of the conservative party, david cameron. [ applause ] our first question comes from jenny johnson please. jenny johnson. >> will you put back rumors that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict benefits to children? >> well, thank you jenny, for that question. no, i don't want to do that. this report that was out today is something i rejected at the time. this prime minister and i rejected again today. i do think it's important we go on reforming welfare. it's worth remembering when i became prime minister, we had a situation where some families were getting 70,000 80,000, 90,000 pounds for housing benefits, one house. think how many people watching this program were going out, working hard paying taxes to

keep that family in that house. a house they could never ain order to live in. so we've got to go on reforming welfare. let's make sure work always pays and go on doing what we've done for the last two years is get 2 million more people back into work. the most important thing we can do, helping people off welfare into work. that's the sort of country i want to build the next five years. >> you said you didn't want to put to bed the rumors you wanted to cut child tax credits. >> yes, we increased child tax credits, 352 pounds under this government. i was determined while we hadto take difficult situations, we have. i wanted to make sure child poverty continued to fall and it has fallen under this government because of what we did -- >> that's a guarantee -- comment on this. there, in the middle there.

yep? >> quoting 70,000, 20000 pounds of benefits. how many families are claiming that amount of money? >> it wasn't a huge number, but the fact that every one that was was being paid for by dozens of people going out to work, paying their taxes. look, if you believe, as i do we should go on reforming welfare, making sure that work always pays, helping people back into work, and keeping working people's taxes down that's my program. if you want unlimited welfare, more increases in welfare, and higher taxes for working people, that's ed milliband's program. vote for him. i say keep reforming welfare. it's the right thing to do. >> i'm sorry, but i think you're either deceiving the british public or you know exactly what you're going to do but you're refusing to give specifics. i find that very very difficult -- very difficult to understand and how can i possibly vote for you on that basis? >> let me answer that very directly. in the last parliament we saved 20 billion pounds on welfare. we need to save something like

half that in this parliament. as i say, if we don't save the money on well naer and oathfare and other parties don't want to it that, they have to make deep cuts. i don't want to do that. i'm going to increase spending on the national health service every year in the next parliament just as i did in the last parliament. we can reduce welfare, if for instance, we get another 2 million people back to work, that will cut the welfare bills. here's another tough choice i think we do need to make. i i think we should say to young people in our country the idea you can leave school and immediately sign on to job seekers alliance, get a flat with housing benefit i don't think that should be an option anymore. i think what we should do is say to young people, we want you to have a great future, you should be earning or learning. make available the apprenticeships, university place, make available the training places but say you can't start your life on benefits. that's not the way we should work in britain today. [ applause ] >> in the back.

yes? >> that's all very well, but what about those 18-year-old to 21-year-olds who don't have a support network? so then who don't have a family to turn to. isn't that policy for them specifically going to result in more homeless young people in the streets? >> i think the lady makes a very important point. any -- [ applause ] anyone who clearly can't stay at home, who has to live independently because of abuse or what have you we have to make special provisions for them and we would. but the situation today where you can age 18 leave school, sign on get a flat, rather than work or earn and learn at the same time, i don't think that's right. other countries in europe have almost abolished youth unemployment because they've taken this approach in say germany or holland. i think we should do the same thing. we have created 2 million jobs in the last 5 years. youth unemployment has come plummeting down. if we stick to the economic plan that's working, we can continue

to get unemployment down and give young people what i want which is the opportunity of an apprenticeship or university place and the chance of a great career. starting a life on benefits, frankly, is no life at all. >> can we come back to the question that the man here asked, that either you don't know what you're going to do -- you specified getting people back to work -- out you do know and you're hiding it. you know alexander said today you asked two years ago for a thing that included massive cuts in child benefitses >> these were proposals introduced that i rejected then. >> you asked for them. >> i didn't ask for them. >> where did they come from? >> in government, people produce -- look, you remember, step back a second, what we inherited. i became prime minister at a time when there was no money left. and i bring this with me everywhere. the notes that the treasury minister left. and there it is. dear chief secretary, i'm afraid there is no money. that is the situation i inherited. we have had to make difficult decisions. over these last five years.

i accept not every one of the decisions has been easy for people, but the truth is, five years on, the deficit is halved. 2 million people are back in work. the economy is growing faster than any major economy in the western world. i think what this election is about is do we build on that foundation and build a really strong country where you can get a job you can keep more of your own money to spend as you choose, you get that apprenticeship? we can build houses for people to buy and own. do we go right back to the start with ed milliband potentially propped up by the snp, who want even more borrowing, even more spending, even more debt, all the things that landed us in that mess in the first place? i never want us to go back there again. [ applause ] >> clearly there are some people who are worried you have a plan to cut child credit and tax credits. are you saying absolutely as a guarantee -- >> first of all, child tax

credit we increased by -- >> it's not going to fall? >> not going to. child benefit to me is one of the most important benefits there is. it goes directly to the family formally to the mother. 20 pounds for the first child, 14 for the second. it is the key part of families' budgets in this country. that's not what we need to change. what we need to change is, again, what did i inherit? a system where if you worked an extra hour extra shift you can find you lost money from the extra hour or extra shift. so universal credit that we're introducing, coming in now means every hour you work you keep more of the money that you earn. we're going to introduce that right across the country. that will save money and form part of the welfare savings we need to make. >> let me bring a couple more people in. the woman there. then i'll come to you. >> if things are all fantastic, we all have more money to spend, why are more families relying on food banks and more people and children in poverty than ever before? [ applause ]

>> i think you ask a absolutely key question. i'm not saying everything is perfect. i'm saying we have not finished the work. that's why i'm so keen to do another five years of continuing to get the country back to work to build a strong economy, to pay down our debts and hand on a really good country to our children. that's what this is all about. i'm not saying we fixed it. it takes a long time to fix the mess that i was left to clear up. what i would say is we're halfway through a building job. now, you can keep the team that are building the stronger economy or you can go back to the team frankly, the ones that designed the building that fell down in the first place. i think that will be a terrible mistake. >> you want to come in? i'll come to you and then move on. >> you talk about the sort of country you want to hand on to our children. i don't want to hand on a country to my child where there are many using food bank where people have been hit by really punitive benefit sanctions. people have died from the bedroom tax.

we've got places where people -- [ applause ] a woman had a disabled daughter die and received a demand for bedroom tax the disabled daughter left behind. that is not a country i want to hand on to my child. [ applause ] >> first of all, let me say, i don't want anyone to have to rely on a food bank in our country. it's important it's there, but i don't want anyone to have to rely on them. >> they do. you're prime minister, and they do. >> the most important thing we can do is get more people into work. that's the best route out of poverty. 2 million more jobs is more than the rest of europe put together. have we finished the job? someone said -- 1 in 50 jobs is a zero contract. 2/3 of the jobs we created are full-time jobs. if you're saying the job isn't finished, i absolutely agree. that's why i'm so passionate about completing the job. madam, you asked what country do you want to pass on to our children? i don't want us to go on

borrowing year after year racking up debts we then ask our children to pay because we didn't have the courage to pay them off ourselves. this goes to the heart of the election campaign. ed milliband will stand here in a few minutes' time. he is saying go on with the budget deficit forever. i'm saying once the economy starts to grow you should be putting money aside for a rainy day. otherwise we will burden our children with too much debt and that's not right. >> what was that? >> why don't you debate with him directly instead of pointing fingers at him? [ applause ] >> we debate -- we debate in the house of commons 146 times. we debate 146 times in the house of commons. it's not always that -- i think this is giving you the chance to ask questions directly. i actually think this is more powerful than a television -- >> let's go on to another question. it's similar subject, really. lana jasper, please. >> okay.

more to guarantee your no tax rises promise, acknowledgement you were in the habits of lying in your pre-election promises? >> this is a -- the announcement yesterday -- >> the reason for making this pledge, i really want to be clear with people. over the last five years we made difficult decisions. it hasn't been easy. i know for many people in britain. i think it's been the right thing to do. i now know what is in the books. i know what needs to be done and i know we can finish the job without putting up people's tax mind fear is this, those people who opposed every step we've taken, every cut we've had to make, i think they will make a cut of their own, to put up taxes, reach into your pay packet and cut pay. if you want government that finds efficiencies in government spending goes on reforming welfare and doesn't put up taxes for working people, indeed, cuts

taxes for working people. that's me. if you want a government that goes on with unreformed welfare that doesn't find savings in government spending, and puts up taxes, that's the other guy. that's the choice. >> the question is, why do you need a law? i would -- >> i want to put it absolutely beyond doubt that you know, i really want hardworking people in our country who work every hour, who want to have a better future for themselves and their families. i want them to know that we're not going to put up v.a.t. national insurance, or income tax because we know we can make the remaining savings without having to attack their wallets. that's the pledge -- >> when they tried the same thing, your chancellor said no other chancellor in the long history of office has felt the need to pass a law in order to convince people he has the political will to implement his own budget. why do you suddenly need to pass a law? >> because that was -- >> which can be changed anyway, as we know. that was at a time when the

budget deficit was forecast to be bigger than the deficit in greece. that's what we inherited. so making that sort of promise then was meaningless. now, having spent five years as prime minister, knowing what needs to be done and let me be clear about what still needs to be done. we've got to save one out of every 100 pounds the government spends for each of the next two years. that's the extent of the efficiencies that are needed. then we can start to see public spending growing again to make sure that we go on putting money into our schools and hospitals and all the important public services. >> you want to come back on this question? >> more or less i was going to say what you said. >> all right. okay. the woman there? don't want you to have to repeat -- >> you say you know what needs to be done. why aren't you announcing where the benefit cuts are coming from? >> what was -- [ applause ] what we're saying, very precisely, is we need to make another $30 billion of savings. 1 in 100 pounds. 5 billion of that should come from the tax evaders and

aggressive tax avoiders. we've gone after them every year in government. we'll continue to do that. we need to go on making savings in government departments through efficiencies and then the welfare savings that i talked about. that's my plan and that gets us to a budget surplus. it means we're paying down the debts. we're passing on a better country to our children. and crucially we're not putting up taxes. indeed, i want to cut people's taxes. i think you -- people talk about the cost of the living. the biggest element of the cost of living is the tax you pay at the end of month. i say you should be able to earn 12,500 pounds a year before you start paying income tax. that would take people on minimum wage working 30 hours a week out of tax all together. we should stop taxing poor people in this country in the way we do today. that's part of our program for the future. >> that wasn't my question, mr. cameron. >> all right. let's have another question from chedia huligan. >> another question on trust. why don't you think voters don't

trust your party? >> all i can say is what i think, what i believe and when my disabled son was desperately ill, i went to the nhs night after night. i went to different hospitals. i was in different places. but i got the most fantastic care, support, and i'd say love from those people in the nhs for my family and for my son. it was always there for me. and i would always make sure it is there for other families in our country. now, i showed you that note about we had no money when we balm became the government. when we got that note we made a very big decision. we said, yes, we're going to have to make cuts in some areas of government spends but the nhs is going to get more money every year i'm prime minister. it has had more money. that's why there are, comparably when i became prime minister, 9,000 more doctors, 7,000 more nurses. carrying out millions more operations every year. do i think it's perfect? no, i don't. i've got a big ambition for the next five years which is to deliver a seven day a week nhs including seven day opening,

8:00 in the morning, 8:00 in the evening for gp surgeries. i know we can do that because we're already delivering it to about 8 million people in our country. if you elect me as prime minister, i'll finish the job and make sure we have seven day opening for gp surgeries right across our country. that would really help working people to access the nhs that we all want. [ applause ] >> why spend 3 billion or so on what was described as damaging and distracting reorganizations of nhs by the kings fund? >> the changes we made actually -- >> making -- >> yes, they're saving money in the nhs. because we got rid of 20,000 administrators and bureaucrats in the nhs, that's one of the ways we've been able to find the extra doctors and extra nurses. again, what i inherited, when i became prime minister, the growth in the number of bureaucrats were going -- i make the point because it's been a recovery job. that's the point. the nhs is stronger today than it was five years ago. >> okay. you served on the nhs.

yes? >> good evening, mr. cameron. the fact an extra 8 billion was promised for the health service, very welcome, but surely anybody with half a brain can see that the nhs isn't sustainable in its present form pouring more and more money into it. what are your thoughts on that? >> what do you mean it needs more money -- >> you can't keep pouring more and more money. we already put a sixth of gdp into the house service. you can't keep putting more and more into it. >> i don't agree with you, sir. >> well, you're wrong. [ laughter ] [ applause ] >> actually if you look at our health system, compare it with others in the world, it comes out very strongly on its performance and it also comes out very strongly on how cost effective it is. as we become a wealthier country, we should put more money into our nhs so it's always there for us. we have to do better in terms of public health, have to do better

in terms of health education. there are all sorts of things about diabetes and smoking and other things where public health issues can really take the pressure off the nhs. i'm a profound believer that our model is the right one, and as long as i'm prime minister, it will be free at the point of use, available to all on the basis of need, and we will go on putting the money it needs into it. not least because we have taken the difficult decisions elsewhere that some people have been talks about today. >> the delayed behind me here. >> good evening, mr. cameron. >> good evening. >> i would just like to ask, is it really so difficult to achieve the emergency waiting times, found a best way, and what are the actual blockers? it seems every week in the media we're not hitting these targets. what are your plans moving forward? >> i think you make a really good point. actually the local hospital here does meet the target of seeing 95% of people within 4 hours. it's important to have that target because we want to know we're getting the best out of

our nhs. the problem we've had recently is just the number of elderly in our country, growth of the population of our country has put a lot of pressure on the nrkts nhs. my solution of having seven day openings for gp and making sure gp surgeries easier to access for people will take pressure off the nhs. i think making sure social care works together better with the nhs so we begin thecombine the budgets and help get elderly people out of hospital, blocked in beds when they could be looked after at home, those things will keep the pressure off. it's always going to be hard work to make sure we deliver these -- >> before we leave it, do you have an answer to the question which is why don't people trust the conservatives on the nhs or -- >> i mean, to me it is my life's work. i profoundly believe that the nhs grows with a conservative government like what i've been leading. we put the money in. i care about it passionately. and i've got seven days left to prove to people that the nhs together -- also i'd make this point, you only ultimately have

a strong nhs if you have a strong economy. we have the strong economy now. don't put that at risk. you know where they cut the nhs? portugal. terrible economy. cut the nhs 17%. greece catastrophic economy. cut the nhs 13%. it's the economies that tank and bomb when you can't support the health service that our country needs. i think we all deserve -- >> all right. let's go on. [ applause ] doug wilson, a question from doug wilson. you have your hands up. >> yes, mr. cameron. i'd like to ask if we remain in the eu, how will you and how can you control immigration? >> yes very important question. we can control immigration from outside the eu in the way we do now by closing down these bogus colleges and we've closed down about 800 of them and can do it by having a cap on migration for economic reasons coming into the country. >> can you get that done? >> i'm getting to that. inside the eu, the key changes i'm going to make if you re-elect me are these.

first of all anyone coming from an eu country cannot claim unemployment benefit while they're looking for a job. second, if they're here after six months and haven't got a job, they have to go home. third, you have to work here for four years paying into the system before you get tax credits and other benefits out of the system. and fourth if you're living here because your family's back at home, you will no longer be able to send the child benefit home to your family. now, those four changes are big changes. they'll make a real difference and help us to control immigration immigration. if i'm prime minister, that's what you'll get. [ applause ] >> just a couple of points. i'm sure a lot of people have questions on this. a couple of points. first of all, we looked at the figures of this. under 6% of eu nationals living in this country claim benefits of any kind. under 6%. >> i'm not -- >> you're saying stopping that is going to hugely reduce the number. the other thing is -- >> let me answer that one. >> the point i'm saying the in-work benefits. at the moment -- >> someone coming from the an eu country is effectively getting around 8,000 pounds to come and

work here. i'm not saying they shouldn't be able to come and work here. british people can go and work in other european countries. but we do have a benefit system that skews it in favor of people coming to work here. that needs to change. now, that needs change in europe. you need a prime minister that's prepared to make change. >> one other thing, sorry -- how much do you want to get the net migration from outside the eu down? do you have a figure in your head for that? >> i have a combined figure. i want to see net immigration into the eu come down under 100,000. the reason i set that target is back in the 1990s, we were members of the eu. we had an open and successful economy. before they got in and opened the doors we had net migration in the tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands. i believe that's the right ambition. >> all right. the person there in the orange -- in the purple. you, sir. >> you made similar promises in 2010. you lied. immigration most. how can we believe you now? >> let me answer that very

directly. i made the promise and outside the eu we did get immigration down. inside the eu, partly because the rest of the eu's economy has not performed and we've created more jobs than the rest of the eu put together, it's been very difficult to meet that target. i now need to make these benefit change ps changes, welfare changes things i described and need to negotiate those in europe. i would argue i have a track record of that. i cut the european budget. first prime minister ever to do it. i vetoed the european treaty because it wasn't in our national interest. i've kept britain out of the euro. i can deliver these things in europe, but i need your mandate, sir, in seven days' time to get out there and win a deal for britain, controls immigration gets us a better position in europe and with me, you'll get that. in our referendum, you the british people deciding before the end of 2017. >> lady here. [ applause ] >> good evening, mr. cameron. >> good evening. >> i work in housing. i deal a lot with the homeless that live in bradford.

a lot of those come from eastern european countries who are not able to access those types of benefits that we're talking about. what can the community do in relation to dealing with that? because it just causes problems related to crime and drug substance abuse. >> i think we need to go back to a system much more where, of course, you are free to travel around europe to work in a different european country. but you're not free simply to travel around europe in order to claim benefits. freedom of movement was always meant to be about the freedom to go and take a job. it was not freedom to go and claim benefits. so those rules need to be tougher. that's not what our benefit system is there for. >> all right. you, sir there. >> yes mr. cameron. all these questions you're being asked have a moral dimension and you keep answering them in terms of economics. i'd like you to engage a little bit more with the moral die

dimensions that these questions are asking. [ applause ] >> to me helping someone to get a job has a moral dimension. it gives them the dignity and pride that comes with work. helping someone to get an apprenticeship, that has a moral dimension. it gives someone the chance of a career and success. building a house for the young can afford to buy and own that has a moral dimension. it gives them a stake in the country they want to live in. the plans i have for the next five years is about taking the economic foundation we've built the last five year all the shared sacrifice we've been to but not putting that to waste saying let's now turn that into jobs, into pay into houses, into good school places. yes, also, into that sense at the end of your life that this is a country where if you work hard, save, do the right thing, you should get that dignity and security in retirement that's the right of everyone who lives in our country. >> matthew, with a question, please. >> hi, david. >> hi. hi. >> if you're in a situation where you have to team up with

another party, what policy would you be willing to compromise? >> i'm going to be really -- it's -- [ applause ] i'm going to disappoint you because we've got seven days to go, and i'm gong to fight everything i've got those next seven days to get an overall majority. and the reason why i think that's right is look i think a strong decisive -- a more accountability government where you're not trading away -- that's the trouble with coalition. you've got a great manifesto you don't quite win the election, you go into some dark room with nick clag or someone else and start giving away some of the things in your program. i don't want to do that. i have a great program about building these houses creating these jobs funding these apprenticeships, helping people with pensions and crucially this european referendum which i've said absolutely that is a red line. i don't want to give any of these things away, so i'm going o to spend the next seven days for victory and if enough people are watching this program back at home backing me, we can have the

whole of the manifesto rather that bartered away in a darkened ed room. >> wa you said five years ago, we must sort things out as quickly as foblpossible for the good of the country. i want to make a big offer for the -- now it's getting closer to a dark room with -- [ applause ] >> what i'm saying, the last election wasn't decisive. i believe i did the right thing by forming a coalition and having a decisive government to deal with the mess that we left. i'm saying this time i think we can go one better. i'm saying let's have a decisive outcome and these things don't have to be compromised on and can have a really decisive government, more accountable government for you as a citizen. >> all right. you, sir? >> sorry. >> sir? >> winning by a mile is a good hope, but say you don't, then what if you have to be in a coalition with somebody else.

that question -- >> let me give one specific example, something i've been very clear about. >> i think the british people really do deserve a referendum on whether to stay in a reformed european union or leave. i've been very clear that i will not lead a government that does not deliver that pledge. so i couldn't be clearer about that red line. i think people frankly, have been let down too many times about this issue. and i want everyone holding that stubby pencil in their hands in the voting booth in a week's time to know if you get me as prime minister, you get that chance to have that in a referendum. >> so if you couldn't glompb with the liberal democrats on those grounds, you wouldn't -- >> you correctly interpreted what i've said. >> what happens to the government of the country? >> i'm say if i'm to form a government, and i hope to win the election in seven days' time, we're 23 seats short of an overall majority. so i hope to govern the country as a majority. but if i don't, for whatever reason, i've been very clear i

would not lead a government that did not contain that pledge. >> all right. >> couldn't be clearer. >> briefly, you, sir? >> more likely to actually win that overall majority if you treated voters with the intelligence they have and answer their questions in terms of what if or what might happen if there was a coalition that needed -- treat people with their intelligence. >> i think that it's fair in the last seven days to do everything you can to try and win. i want to use the limited time i've got including the 28 minutes tonight to explain why a conservative majority government would be good for britain. i think we'd go further and faster in clearing the deficit, in building thoses homes and providing those pensions. that's what i want to do. >> you've had your -- >> let me take this point. people know with me if we fall short, i'll do the right thing for the country. i did last time. i would again. i would still plead with people with seven dayses to go particularly

particularly when you're faced with an alternative of a labor government. people don't want our country to succeed or even exist. when that's your alternative, put your trust in 23 more seats for the can rveonservatives and we'll have a strong government. >> david cameron. >> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> so our next -- our next party leader is from the labor party. would you welcome ed miliband, please? [ applause ] >> thank you very much. thank you. >> the first question is from elizabeth moody, please. elizabeth moody. >> good evening, mr. miliband. >> hello, elizabeth. >> five years ago the outgoing labor treasury minister left a message, there's no money left.

how can we trust the labor party with the uk economy? >> we just saw it by the way, because -- >> david cameron had it in his pocket. >> it's his regular prop. let me directly address you, elizabeth. there was a global financial crisis. there was a high def sit. that deficit hasn't been cleared. it will be the mission of my government to cut the deficit every year and balance the books. let me tell you how i'm going to do it. first of all, we'll have fair taxes. we'll reverse david cam ro's tax cut for the richest in our society, millionaires. i can't justify a 43,000 pound tax cut for every millionaire in britain. secondly, we'll protect key areas like health and education but outside those key areas there will be falls in spending because we have to get the deficit down. the final thing concerns your living standard. we see living standards fall over this parliament. as a result, lower living standards means lower tax revenues for government and that's why the deficit hasn't been cleared. so it's a three-part plan to

make sure we balance the books. >> but if you look back, and the question was looking back, why should we trust labor in the light of what happened before? so, six years before the crash, you increased borrowing year on year on year on year on year. why should people believe that you're going to get it done? >> the debt and the deficit were both lower before the financial crisis. >> of course they were, but you were increasing the deficit. >> let me address directly the issue about the financial crisis. we got it wrong on bank regulation. the mistake we made, and i absolutely say this to this audience was the banks weren't properly regulated. we made that mistake. now the question you've got to consider for the future is who's going to get it right for the future? now, we've learned that lesson. david cameron is saying there should be less bank regulation at the time. leave that to one side. we learned that lesson for the future. i'm the first labor leader david, going into an election saying spending in key area is actually going to fall. that's because i'm so determined, back to elizabeth, that we live within our means.