today when we invented a more kind of let's say easier more accessible way to use morphine through prescription opioids in the early 2000 he let lead pharmaceutical companies marketing those drugs quite strongly to doctors and

hospitals, and anyone who goes into hospital today, what's the first thing as you how much, whatever albeit you want to only get your pain. that has contributed to an increase in opioid addiction which is what you more of an increasing heroin addiction. air went addiction actually, the heroin problem quote-unquote has been a result of pure, cheaper heroin your not from heroin that is actually cagey kind of some type of side effect. >> do you discern a question in that? go ahead. >> the problem you've put your finger on, which is missed prescribing doctors and the excesses of the pharmaceutical enterprise the opioids, i think in many cases is correct. the fact that we have prohibition means is those folks become medically addicted are then stigmatized.

they don't have access to the drugs. suddenly prescription gets cut off and eternal heroin because heroin is a lot cheaper but states off build the sickness. my sense is that you do need better regulation of physicians. you need to change the culture of prescribing. when i had i had some oral surgery recently and i was getting backing from there was never a follow-up like what happened to that did you use of course turned out i didn't eat any of it so now it is sitting around. it's inconvenient to dispose of these. i paid good money for the. repeatedly i had shoulder surgery, similar kind of thing. a bunch of narcotics are prescribed. no follow-up. there really are ways in which we can do it better job culturally in controlling how

legal opioids are made available. by anything the statement from this dignity is inherent in the prohibition, people are going to be able to not go to criminal markets but people are going to be able to now i'm addicted what do we do about it? you can then wean people off. you don't have people to say i'm addicted, got to try to find another doctor to scam. i've got to skim the er. all of this flows out of the prohibition approach and the stigmatization, you're an outlaw, this is wrong, immoral. and it's not. it's not immoral to be addicted. it should never be a crime to be an addict. prohibition keeps driving that. >> a couple of things. first of all know what i think has ever argued that

legalization is a panacea but everything is going to work beautifully in a legalized system. but i would defied advocates of the prohibition who have identified the various problems associate with drug abuse to show how those problems are made better through prohibition. and that simply isn't the case and there are lots of unintended side effects, which prohibitionists almost never talk about. with the international environment, i think we of servicing a sea change in attitude. the portugal experiment was a key development, and as you note we put out a study five years ago on that experiment. one of the things i think is most important about the portugal experiment is that it blew up a lot of the prohibitionists myth, but you're

going to see soaring drug use rates. no, we didn't. we were going to see soaring crime rates associated with a legalized system or a decriminalized system. no, they didn't. in fact, the trend has been in the other direction. and the stranglehold of the prohibitionists paradigm on international policy i think, if it has been broken it's in the process of breaking. you're certainly seeing other countries that may have thought for many years that the u.s.-led policy was pure idiocy, but for a variety of reasons, you don't tell it to the world superpower. now governments are willing to deviate. reforms in uruguay i think the latest clear example of that where you have legalized

commerce and marijuana despite washington's continuing objection. so i think we are at least in a period of ferment in terms of policy now and we will see where that goes. i am a strong believer that sage philosopher yogi berra's observation it ain't over till it's over so even though i see favorable trends away from prohibition for a legalized system i'm going to pop the champagne corks, then that's legal at the time, until we see better results. >> okay. in the back. >> it appears that throughout human history human beings have been using substances to help cope with daily life whether with the stimulant or something

to relax of them. that is continued throughout human history. so, therefore, do you think that this supply of drugs is only tailoring or providing humans now today with something that they have been desired for centuries that is inherent in human nature that cannot be legislated against? >> it certainly would seem that way, given the long, long history that cuts across different cultures and so on. i think there's at least a percentage of the population that feels it needs that kind of artificial boost. i've never entirely understood that, but i think it's enough of a phenomenon that it's clear you can't pass laws against it.

that is i think the one lesson that is indisputable at this point. you can try to prevent it as much as possible, but you're going to have a significant percentage of the population that will continue to use those substances, regardless of the laws. that simply is not going to deter them from doing what they want to do whether that's good for them, bad for them they're still going to do it. >> i think it's a very deep and profound question, especially in the context of american society. because we live in a very controlled society, and look, every kid is forced into public school system or a private school system that is licensed by the state. he spends 12 years receiving this message drugs are bad. and yes, over four years the problem has only gotten bigger

and why is that? of course i think drug addiction is rooted in family origin issues but think there's wider societal implications. why words are so much alcohol is him in the soviet union? -- why was there so much alcohol isn't in the soviet union? the more controlled your society is, the more paternalistic a government is the more despair there is in a society. the less economic activity, the dynamism that comes from a truly free market society is absent. i think the plate american people is innately worse than people of cuba or north korea. that's because of the words of johann goethe, that none of the hopelessly enslaved than those of also believe they are free. and i think that when you combine that control to side with the concept that involves freedom, that that might will be a cause of why there is so much widespread drug abuse and mind

altering views in american society. >> i see a dissertation topic in the works. correlation between drug use and levels of freedom. in the back. >> i'm interested in the 3 around the bottom -- >> get it right. >> could you quickly go back through like a brief history of that regulation and where it is now? and then all of you give more details or examples about how, you mentioned thursday before hundred 30 variations of these synthetic drug. examples of the whack-a-mole effect were where things change and the government tried to address it and it just went on. thanks.

>> in 1987 1980s as congress was developing the anti-drug abuse act of 1988 which included a minute to the anti-drug abuse act of 1986, dea said this particular piece of equipment was a major part of the problem in the production of methamphetamines and proposed that it be banned. and, therefore, by act of congress as one of the little features of the anti-drug abuse act of 1986 1980 which is a pretty fat bill this was enacted and remains part of the controlled substances act. >> if they change it we are all going to get rich because were going to start buying this. it's going to be made legal. spirit there's a couple of examples in the paper. >> you have most of the laws that were passed before, about

2011 2012 with specific. they went after specific uncle substances. and begin what lawmakers are finding is that the ink was barely dry on that ball and some enterprising chemist in shanghai, or wherever, what changed the composition of one molecule and suddenly the law didn't apply to the substance anymore. so the move sent 2011-2012 both at the national level and at the state level has been toward very broadband, attempting to outlaw entire families of substances if you will. and try to deal with the problem in that fashion. that anything that vaguely resembles an outlaw drug will be considered in that same category and is therefore outlawed. and begin as i mentioned

earlier, that deals with one problem but it also creates another, and that you've inherently have laws that are vague and overly broad. and i'm not sure that's a particular pattern we want to encourage in this country. we have seen abuses in other areas with such laws, and that is something we always have to be cognizant of. >> we have an instance of an ex post facto prosecute were some was convicted, not convicted but charged with violating the sale of a substance that at the time that she was so it was not illegal. it was made illegal after she was charged speaker that was the groups factor in the case where the woman was charged with marketing and illicit substance -- trying to factor. the charge filed was a three

months before the texas legislature had outlawed the substance. >> the question of prohibition specific versus no he goes does the designer drug enforcement act of 1986 was essentially very, very broad. it says controlled substance analogues should be treated like schedule one substance is your basic controlled substance analogues means a substance, the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of the controlled substance, schedule one and schedule two and which has -- well, you know, or it has a stimulant and to present in effect similar to that. so that's pretty broad and that's 1986.

so the approach at that point was a very broad one being enacted, and that's still on the books. >> that was to at the federal level. state laws that were enacted -- >> important distinction between federal and states. >> one last question. right here. make it quick. >> thank you for your presentation. for more information about prohibition black market how the price go which people had to pay -- [inaudible] that would be very helpful. second is the marijuana or something of the sort is not really, it's not really probable cause under the law but people law enforcement abuse the power

and authorities and create -- reduce the opportunity for employment and so on. how much loss economically for people who suffer and for society as a whole? >> so cost of the prohibition strategy more generally. >> excellent question. something i appointed out so many lives have been blighted by prohibition. and one i guarantee there's a gentleman who's sitting in the oval office today who wouldn't be happy run afoul of the drug laws. barack obama admitted that he used illegal drugs that he was one of the lucky ones. you didn't get caught. how many others have had their lives their careers blighted because of that? i think as eric is out the cost

of that would be measured in, probably in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. so this is a massive effect, adverse effect on our society. and this is something that we are going to see more common with regard to synthetic drugs if they become more popular in terms of total use. and people are going to have their lives disrupted because of questionable judgment on their part. but i think we could make a distinction between activities that are not good for you activities that result from questionable judgment on the one hand, and crime on the of the. weekend to blur that in our society to our great societal

deference. >> on that note thank you all very much for attending today. if you will join us on the second floor in the conference center for a luncheon at a conference folks will show you the way. thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> almost as if they were -- >> is always to the right and almost always in the right. >> filmmakers robert gordon and morgan neville talk about the documentary best of him is on the 19th of the eight debate between conservative william f. buckley and liberal or but all over war, politics, god and sex spirit there's not someone and

their gear. today i was there someone the same the numbers are dwindling, talk about hot topics, hot salacious topic number two were as then i don't think that was the norm in tv at the time and it don't think these guys as morgan said, these guys didn't even. >> the moderator, a distinguished newsman who i think was really kind of embarrassed by this. he was moderating but he disappears for sometimes five or more minutes at a time. today you would have a moderator not jumping in every 30 seconds. so i think really everybody at abc just stood back and let the fire burn. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> today the british foreign affairs committee heard testimony from foreign secretary philip hammond talked about

isis, the tunisian terror attacks and international agreement over iran's nuclear program. secretary hammond recently met with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu to discuss the iran give. this is one hour 15 minutes. >> order. welcome to the first public evidence session of the 2015 parliament. foreign secretary, thank you very much for making yourself available to the first witness. i think it was right to invite you to layout your view of the state of the world and brings interest in it. to begin the session i know the session necessarily come business short and we are thank

you to make is applicable to come back. >> well, thank you. it's nice to be today and it would be a pleasure to come back and have a more full session in september but i appreciate the committee, my congratulations to you chairman on your election and to all the members on their appointments. our long-term strategic interest lies in strengthening the rules of international system and a key foreign policy objective is to strengthen that system. to do that we have to draw in the major emerging powers to show that it is in their interest to work with the rules-based system rather than to kick the traces over. we have to look eventually, ma this may be a long-term project but eventually to drawing russia back in to the system. over the next five years i have no doubt that our priorities are

going to be the renegotiation of our relationship with the european union the defeat of the military expression of violent extremism in daesh and then continuing to undermine the narrative of violent extremism, and the challenge of responding to russia's more aggressive stance towards the international community and its major programs. if i can do with those three things. on the eu renegotiation, the committee is aware of process. the prime minister set out his broad areas of concern what he believes reform is necessary. incidentally, not only in britain's interest but in

interest of making the eu competitive accountable relevant to its citizens in the future. at the june european council. since then we've agreed with the european colleagues that will be an official level working group looking at some of the potential root for resolving the issues that prime minister identified looking at legal constraints and past opportunities. that will continue through the summer and into the autumn. will continue our engagement with all eu counterparts. i'm pleased to be able to tell the committee that all 27 member states have told me clearly and categorically that they want to bring to remain part of the european union. some have gone much further and said that a european union without britain and it would not

be anything recognizable as the european union they know. and they also plan to work with us to assure that the changes are made that will be necessary if britain is going to be able to remain inside the european union. and that's the key. because we've set the test not in a smoke-filled room with politician but over referendum where the british people who made the ultimate decision know that the offer they come up with, a package of reform agreed has to be enough to satisfy the demands of the british people to change, and a strong sense i believe that the european union, bigger and passionate european project change since the last the democratic decision on this in 1975. and in many people do not for

the better. it is about resetting the doubts of european union better represents what the people expect to see of any european structure. and i think that is a focus on economic delivery, growth jobs, prosperity, helping defend our living standards in the face of a globalizing world. and if the eu can show that it is organized to do that it will have relevance to the people not only a britain but the people of all 28 countries of the european union. you know, chairman keeping britain safe is always the first duty of any government, and that you need major challenge that we face is that of islamist inspired terrorism, whether we are talking about complex patch in the ongoing spaces of the middle east or whether we're talking about global attacks inspired by daesh online

propaganda. tackling isil daesh remains the key to tackling this challenge. that prime minister has described as a generational struggle. the military defeat of isil in iraq and syria will not take a generation, but defeating the underlying ideology will be much more complex. that prime minister speech yesterday outlined our needs also to emphasize to reinforce british values, make sure that people feel empowered to speak up to british values, and to combat not only terrorism violence, expression that is limited to extremism but to combat extremist ideology itself because it creates the first go-round in which violence and

terrorism can take root. and addressing the challenge of islamist extremism, currently represented by daesh but if we defeat days i have no illusions there will be other manifestations of islamists, extremism in the future. but while we take on that challenge we must not forget and we must not sacrifice our ability to respond to a more conventional state based threat to our security. and russia is, we have driven what a rush it is that it's a major nuclear power that has very large armed forces but it has a smaller economy than the economy of the united kingdom, has a declining population and an aging population, and it has

an economy that is severely structurally imbalanced with a huge dependence on primary exports, massive corruption and huge state influence over the operation of the economy. that makes it very challenging adversary. and over the coming years it will in my judgment remain a very challenging adversary. the russians are also developing innovative new capabilities. there is a tendency i think in the west to characterize russia as a rather bureaucratic, rather clumsy opponent, but everything we see tells us otherwise. they have been extraordinarily agile and exploiting new technologies like cyber. in blending those offensive capabilities and technologies

into conventional capabilities and creating what we call a full spectrum effect capability. using deniable proxies to fight their wars for them empowered by deniable cyber operation, for example. and we are having, we are being challenged to rethink the way we do defense. and we have to think about how we respond to an adversary in which all decision-making powers concentrated in the hands of one man. i've heard it said that rush is a more centralized state today than it was under limited brezhnev were it was a the politburo that has to be consulted in some sense. that means it's a power that makes decision very effectively, that can respond very rapidly to changing situations but can exploit opportunities very rapidly. we as a nation and as part of

western alliance have to think about how we deal with the challenge of our relatively cumbersome decision-making and our much broader need a ticket buy-in for any course of action from a wide range of factors parliamentary opinion media opinion, public opinion, civil societies in 28 countries across nato as a single point decision-making and russia. this is also a very big challenge, not just a challenge of being ready with conventional forces the challenge of thinking outside of the box in responding to russia's innovative approach to. meanwhile the prosperity agenda must remain at the heart of our

work and our diplomacy to that prime minister and the chancellor had said many times that you can't be a strong country unless you have a strong economy. you can't have strong defense village of a strong economy to underpin it. foreign office has been an important part of the agenda. as i've said many times and i will say again today the role of the foreign office paid for by bridge taxpayers must be to protect britain's security, to promote britain's prosperity and to protect britain's values around the world. and if we do those three things successfully, we will deliver our obligation to the taxpayers who fund us. we want to be a major player on the world stage. that prime minister has signaled very clearly that britain is not

in retreat, that we will play a role in keeping the world safe and supporting our own allies prosperity. that means rebuilding the foreign office to deliver the best diplomatic service in the world that activity my predecessors started assuring that foreign policy is made in a ford office building, the diplomatic skills base the professional skills of diplomacy, reopening the foreign office language school, establishing the diplomatic academy, ensuring that resources within the foreign office our online with our stated priorities. and i think we can see some of the benefits coming through as we play a role in resolving some of the major crises the world faces, most recently taking a role in the vienna talks to resolve the iranian nuclear

file. we have in the uk almost unrivaled assets at our disposal. we are p5 members. we've got world-class armed forces and recognize world leading intelligence agencies. we've got unrivaled soft power at our disposal for the benefits, linkage and culture but also many institutions around the world that haven't unrivaled position in which. we've got a world leading develop program. we are members of the eu members of nato, members of the commonwealth. all of these overlapping circles of influence give britain an opportunity to put up a significant role for the good in the world old for the good in a moral sense but also for the good in the sense of protecting our national interests and we're determined to make them more solid. that process is underway and the

review is that i think officially underway. both will be challenging exercise. i've got no doubt about that. .com cody ford office will be able to deliver further efficiencies. i do not think savings on the scale that indicated by the fiscal trajectory can be delivered simply -- i think we got to look to make some strategic decisions about where we need to focus resource and what we have to downgrade. for me personally i am clear that the crown jewel of the foreign office's capability is the network the network of international platforms. we must seek to protect that sharp end presence in addressing

the need for further efficiencies. i think we should to response to the atrocity in tunisia and the earthquake in nepal have demonstrated the increasing expectations that people have of our services and investment we're making in consular services, particularly crisis response is very important. we are pleased with the way our crisis capability responded to both crises but we can always do more and we always look to learn lessons. finally, what's changed between the less government and this government? well, the government priorities

will have changed a little bit as a consequence of the end of the coalition and some of the ambitions that were tempered in the previous government will now to the floor. renegotiation of her membership of the european union will be a key priority, clearly would not have been able in coalition. the government has already set out its commitment to giving our security agencies capabilities that they need in order to keep britain safe and to legislate where necessary to do that. but most importantly i think it's a signal that is i hope being sent very clearly that britain wants in all areas to play its part in the world to be seen as ever liable and consistent and capable ally, and to do its share of the workload in delivering a world that is

safer and which is more conducive to delivering our objectives for the british people maintaining and promoting our prosperity security and protecting our values. >> foreign secretary, thank you very much indeed. picking up your inheritance and from your predecessor competing before office has yet achieved that status of other strong enough role in directing uk foreign policy? as the process of reenergizing and putting -- has been completed yet to speak with no. i think it's a work in progress. and the architecture across whitehall since 2010 with the creation of a national security council and national security secretariat makes it more complex. i think the arrangements are working well but the foreign

office is focusing resource and efforts on rebuilding the core capability, the core competencies that allow it to own that process. you own a process not by bidding for it but i consistently showing that you have the capability do the work that is required to be done. >> the predecessor committee concluded that you budget couldn't be cut affecting the foreign office capacity. trying to improve the capacity of the office. perhaps you could could share with is the challenge you've just been invited to take on from the treasury. what the scale of budget measures and how is about? >> i think part of the experience would suggest initial pitching by the treasury should be regarded as aspirational.

but it is clear that to deliver the overall fiscal trajectory of the department is collectively will have to make substantial savings double-digit percentage savings. in the case of the foreign office we can make use within our activities of budgets which are protected a course in which will grow simply economy continues to grow as projected. the chancellor has also created some additional protected funds around counterterrorism and security activities by the foreign office also plays a role, albeit a small one in terms of the cash budget. spin is it safe to say they are the brains of the direct british policy, overseas that your

budget is -- yet it is now protected for some time. are we not in an inconvenient position? >> first of all i'm delighted the m.o.d. budget is now protected as you would expect is a former defense secretary, but not only that there is no doubt in my mind that the most important measure by which our international partners and, indeed, our adversaries judges, is our willingness to invest in our defense. although it is the m.o.d. budget that has the privilege of protection the benefits in projecting our foreign policy will very definitely felt in the foreign office. but look, i don't want to detract from the fact that meeting requirements will be

very challenging to as i said earlier i think the wrong way to do would be to try and slice all areas of activity. i think we've got to make some clear evidence-based decisions about what is but as a core value that the foreign office seeks to deliver. my estimate is that's the network. it's got presence around the globe. more presence than i think i'm right in saying, any of our partners compared apart from united states has. we want to preserve that am about to be sure the capability of as well as the numerical strength of it. >> foreign secretary --

[inaudible] important british value you will agree is the respect for human life. [inaudible] is that true, and if so -- >> i don't think it is a rumor. i think the bears office a written statement -- baroness -- on what we intend to do. the intention is to make what has become a very lengthy document which includes we cycle of a lot of material that is available elsewhere, and much punchier and more usable document. and i think i'm right in saying, correct me if i'm not, the baroness has published a statement about our intentions in this regard.

>> if she has i don't know about it. i would ask you how will this committee parliamentarian's and the general public, how are we going to hold you to account on human rights and lets you publish the details? the annual report i think of been very useful for those who particular interest in the subject, and some people peruse them over weeks rather than days. >> i understand that. my own having come to them with fresh my own take would be that what one gets is a very long text. and with the people who have specific interest have to do would have to comb through it to see where there are subtle variations in the text that i think will record to try to do is reduce the volume of material

and get more to the point, drawing evils attention to the issues they need to have attention drawn to them, and drawing out our conclusions about what's going on it the thing has become more and more wordy and it's our view less and less user-friendly over the years. we want this to be a document that is not only used by a very small group of very committed ngos and experts but is more accessible to people who more generally are interested in the issues and the country. >> human rights has been -- and i think you can anticipate that this committee will want to continue that work and whatever form you produce analysis. >> thank you chair. my question really in relation to last week -- exactly what the budget will be for the

departments, but i think anyone this into spreading there will be more cuts. we've got more volatile world, more dangerous world we have soft power is probably more effective than quite often military options. expand the budget and expand the work of the foreign office so that we can have actually and more diplomacy and more sort of long-term alleviation of problems. >> i think that as the world got more complex and many of the challenges we're facing have become less clear-cut, if you think back to the days when the adversary was the soviet union and renew everybody stood terrorism was a domestic issue and if the world is much more complex now. what it demands is a much more nuanced response. i -- i don't think that's the

case at all. i think the nature of the military capability we need to be able to deploy is changing. i think that the distinction between military capability intelligence-based capability and what we do and capacity building throughout developments developments, budgets and programs, is becoming more blurred at the edges. a lot more joined up government is required to deliver this program. we created a national security council in 2010. in response to this emerging trend. that definitely gives us of the ability to flex budgets across the whole's.com from respecting restrictions that are around oda at one end and respecting

restrictions around what difference money which counts for the next 2% can be used for the other end. there is an ability to use a number of budgets including -- across the spectrum in a way that delivers the most suspect of a different in different countries. so there are countries we need a pretty hard edged approach because there isn't -- ungoverned space. there are other countries where diplomatic efforts would have a fragile function government where working through diplomatic channels are providing technical support to build capacity is the most effective way we can advance britain's agenda. it's about having a proper balance and using our budget flexibly and across government working which is absolutely the way we approach all of these

things to do the national security council. >> can return to the most pressing hard challenges our country faces in terms of isil/daesh. thank you very much. foreign secretary, welcome. we want to know in your which would you deal the role is in the uk government effort to meet the threat from isis. obviously, it is multipronged. but what specifically is your role in it. >> elites with -- meets with foreign governments and if we start in iraq we have the lead responsibility for encouraging the iraqi government to adopt the policy stance that we believe will be most conducive to long-term stability in iraq. we work with partners in the

gulf and which consistently encouraged partners in the gulf to be supportive of the iraqi government to reach out themselves for the sunni constituency within iraq to try to rally constituency in support of what prime minister abadi's government is doing. beyond iraq and syria of course working with governments and working to resolve situation where there is ungoverned space is the key role. and we are working on the wind with two nations to ensure that -- on the one hand with tunisians for their fragile democracy is now facing. on the other hand, supporting the u.s.-led process in libya for example, in the hopes that we will be able to see the

emergence for government that we can work with in syria to secure our security expertise. >> thank you for that. what can be -- what i'm getting at is you know as well as i do the military response is only one part and it's not a long-term solution. it is about the sunni arab communities that need to be brought on board. that would meet the cooperation of the regional powers. for minister zarif said the a ring deal brings about some hope of an opportunity to reach of international cooperation. although over the weekend i think it was some concern.

what more can we do to bring about saudi arabia, turkey and, of course, iran to play a more positive role should be under the command of prime minister abadi but they are not included on the ground. how do you see our world developing in that space to bring about the cooperation of the sunni community feel that they can't trust this process speak with you are talking specifically about iraq. i would agree that the iranian deal creates the possibility of an opening to a more constructive dialogue with iran, which will be aboard in the context of what happens in the rain. but we can't bank that yet. realistically we have to accept possibilities short term consequence of an iranian nuclear deal which does not find

favor with all the hardline factions in iran. there may be a spike in iranian unhelpful activity around the region. but in the meantime there is reason to be cautious optimistic that as iran starts to see the benefits with the international community, it will start to feel like a place that has a bit more of a stake in its region and a bit more of a stake in the world. i mean, there are many countries in the world who have instinct to do things in their region more widely, which are not necessary helpful but those are sometimes tempted by recognition of their own self interest in stability. for example, the more international trade you have the less likely your to one is the international trade routes

disrupted. i think there is reason for cautious optimism and we will be looking for every opportunity to try and gently nudge iran and the hard powers in the region towards some kind of businesslike dialogue. we are not asking what taking them to embrace each other enthusiastically, but a businesslike dialogue that recognizes that while they have and will continue to very pay substantial differences, there are nonetheless some areas with the interest lies. rather while continuing to have substantial differences with russia, we have been able to work together on the iran nuclear file because our interest alignment. we work very constructively and pragmatically on that front. >> foreign secretary, i think we want to record our congratulations on the iran deal, or my congratulations.

to both you and to simon for the i know the office is delayed over a very long time on that. at a mighty it is a very signal achievement, every good start to the new administrations diplomatic achievements. but dan. >> thank you. i should say it's not just the department, but simon pursley who committed himself to more weeks than any of us would normally be prepared to tolerate in order to get this deal done played a really important role in the team that delivered this in vienna. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with the question of iran, i, too, would like to associate myself with the comments of the german. i think the united kingdom has played a unique role in bringing about this agreement, both you

and your officials ought to be congratulated on that. but having secured greater engagement with iran what are their perceptions may i ask, on the spread of isis daesh in iraq? and what chances are there if i can price you are engaging with iran more effectively to take this terrorist organization on? >> well i think the one thing that we can say without any fear of contradiction is iran shares our concern, put it mildly about isil or daesh. they see them as a mortal enemy which needs to be eradicated. and we have a clear alignment of interest. we also have many other areas where our interest are not

aligned and the trick is to make sure that we can work together to achieve a common objective while respecting the fact that the we many of the areas that we remain in dispute over. this does require i think some change in the way iran in cages with the international community if that is going to work. but i have no doubt there will be people in iran who are looking to ensure that what the consequences of discrete is that we collectively are able to be more effective in our military response to daesh. i don't know simon, do you want -- >> some while ago as a talk to the iranian foreign minister and we had a conversation. at the end of it he corrected me slate when i said to him that we have now because of daesh we

have some common interest in the region. he corrected me and said we don't have common interest. with common challenges at i think that's it's quite a good way of putting it. is unlikely to be the same approach we would take in several significant steps. i think nature has occurred to the control of shia militias, for example. so i think there is some potential for increasing our dialogue for trying to find areas where we have a commonality of the challenge but i think we will always need to work carefully with iran. i don't see any chance as foreign secretary has said of something becoming very friendly in the region. >> with the agenda he outlined at the beginning of your speech, could i ask what would be the

sort of signal two british companies now are actively seeking contracts in iran, particularly with regards to oil exploration? i have to say of someone who represents a midlands cecum it was a midlands company automotive company that actually helped the iranians to build their first state car decades ago. so there are opportunities for british firms. what is, at this early stage what is your advice two british companies speak with i think british companies will have noted very clearly the fact that the agreement made will forego according pashtun to the gradual relaxation of sanctions, and as important the release of significant value of iranian frozen assets. iran when i don't get the benefit of regular cash flow from being able to engage in international trade, but will

also have the block assets which most about $150 billion released to it. psilocybin is briefing a uk business seminar on friday on the opportunities for british business. our european partners are already revving up to engage come and we're determined the chancellor of the business secretary are absolutely at one with the foreign office on this, that uk business will be up there with the best in seeking to be able to meet the requirement that iran has for import permitted import, if you look at iran's investment potential as the market opens a. i'm not so sure this is going to be as much in the short term about exploration in the hydrocarbon sector as about

renewing infrastructure to maintain production, increased production levels. technology has moved a long way during the period that iran has been under sanctions. we would expect a significant amount of capital investment going to their infrastructure. ..