inet joe mccarthy through my father. he liked a drink or two and as long as you didn't talk about communists, you couldn't ask for a more fun guy to be with, and he's very serious about that and was also someone who didn't take advice very well. and he consequentially settings and even did things that hurt the cause for some time. sunday night at eight eastern on c-span.

good afternoon and welcome to the liaison committee. we have a huge number of questions to get it to so if you don't mind we will start with henry. >> good afternoon.

and joined report in the free trade agreement gets to a specific fallback. this would apply to the agricultural goods for example is that correct? >> if i look at the question there are three strangers in terms of the commitment the first as you say what they be delivered in the overall arrangement and second is saying

we would look at specific solutions and other than that it has been said in the progress report. when it's been discussed in the solutions for the electricity market for example there are arrangements in relation to agriculture but where do they fallback to the third option of course they would need to look out on the first option. we have sufficient progress. we can look at the relationship between us and the european

union. [inaudible] the commitment to infrastructu infrastructure, controls, circumstances and all of those you just laid out in the alignment. would that cover agricultural goods? >> it is still in the progress report but i don't want people to think this is the solution we are working towards. the issues such as the agricultural trade, livestock and good is the issue we would

have to be looking at, but after how we perceive the objective that we both wanted to achieve, that would be a matter of negotiation should we actually get into that issue. we've already put forth some ideas on how we can achieve this and now that we've got sufficient progress, we are out of phase one of the negotiations because the problem we had so far we haven't been able to negotiate and discuss these [inaudible] now we can actually do that in earnest. ..

>> we have to discuss the practical issue about how long these changes would take. you have to have an agreement with the free trade relationship, those cannot complete it implementation. [inaudible] to complete the negotiating with a free trade agreement by marc

march 2019? >> that is what we are working to. and that is what we can do, i believe that's what everybody wants to know what basis they will be on the future for the implementation time. it is going towards implementing the agreement. of course we start off at a different point from other countries as we will be. you have to remember were trading on a particular basis. we can't legally sign the new trade agreement until we are out of the european union of marc march 2019. but we can it negotiate that arrangement in that time.

>> if you're on the other side that will achieve by march 2019 is what the free trade agreement will cover. and they can negotiate all the details of that by march 2019. now, why is the government -- when they don't think it can. >> will the time it takes to negotiate trade deals there's different experiences around the world about what time it takes to negotiate trade deals. we are confident that we can do this and it's because we start off at a different point. we haven't got a situation they come from the point where lenses

european union. operating on the same basis at the moment. were not just talking for negotiating trade trade agreements were also talking about security partnership that we want to have with european union. >> and any assessments being carried out by the departments in different sectors, did you know that was something done? >> i was aware of what the government departments were doing. i'm ensuring that they were in touch with different sectors and continue to be in touch with different sectors. they taken their views about what matters to them available to your committee, and that's

undertaken indeed is not just a point in time where you look at what the impact is. we continue to talk with business and continues to talk with independent sectors. >> what about the public? they would like that is no assessment of the impact. >> when you look at the national trade is a member of the house the financial section was 35 billion pounds, what time which you expect that amounts of money to be paid with the

negotiations to the e.u.? >> if you look at the giant paragraph, makes clear none of the payments required unless there is another agreement at another time. some of the elements and that will arise at some stage in the future. that the assessment been made alongside these groups would be part of the regular payments. [inaudible] >> the reason i'm asking in is

in regards to the budget and outlook. and that outlook it talks about taking a mutual approach and the reduction with the e.u. would be that to put it into extra domestic spending. and we don't anticipate the e.u. payments anti- in 18 and then increasing domestic spending from 2019. it sounds to me like what you just said might be the right way to approach it. >> maybe clear the time that's not going to be the case.

but does it cover pain -- and with all due requirements of the member states there is a budget forecast. it does not replace the sums of money that are additional to that. [inaudible] this may not be correct. >> but you talking about domestic funding may not be correct, so maybe something that you might have to revisit in a future outlook, which agreed that? >> what we have done is take a fiscally neutral approach to this. have said that any savings that are made for not paying to the european union will be recast and recycled into domestic spending is and that were not

sure when that particular expenditure will be used. as i say, the sums are covered during this time and it will be a joint progress report in which a decision on the timing of those would be possible felt appropriate to change the timing, was in the agreement so far. >> me ask about in that news today which is financial services. the senate paid 72 billion pounds of taxes to the government last year. i think it is one area you would agree we are on the same basis as the e.u. to be very virtual on the e.u. services and legislation. michelle said this morning he does not expect a free trade agreement, how we persuade him that is not a wise course of action? >> were going into a

negotiation. the city of london, it is of significant importance to the rest of european union as well. i'm afraid i don't have the exact scope. i think the -- of london commented on this today and is afraid such as it is the bank for europe and a significant provider of capital finance for europe, think as we come into discussions will be greater recognition of numeral city place in the financial provisions for europe as a whole and not just united kingdom. >> thank you. let's move on. >> our committee has taken evidence from number of business organization and businesses. the association of british

pharmaceutical organizations to on an issue regulation it will make sense where we had a divergent regulation you have spoken about regular alignment. what does it? how is it different if it is from what we have today? >> what i set out the speech was that if we look at the question of regulations and directives they fall into different categories. some on trade relations have no relevance to trade relations some areas where we have the same goals and objectives for regulation but we achieve by different means. other areas where we have the same goals and they should be achieved by the same means. as part of negotiations were going to the process of looking at that detail. and you terminating in any trade

agreement as to the regulation standards to which it will take place. that's what will now be doing with european union. so regulatory alignment could mean we have different rules and regulations here compared with what they have any other european union countries, regulatory alignment might include under what you set out different rules and regulations here. >> alignment means we have the same objectives. we might achieve those by the same means for by different means. in any trade agreement that will be part of the discussions will take place. part of a negotiation that would take place. >> so will take evidence from the food and drink they say convergence is a good thing because it brings the the cost.

if we have different rules and regulations with the same objectives, that might mean higher costs for industry, the food and drink industry seems to think that. the car manufacturing they talk about catastrophic effects of having to stop production if approvals weren't able to be provided by the u.k. they are worried. businesses are worried about us divergent from the rules and regulations, even if we have the same objectives. they're worried about diverging from the specific ones because of trey. >> businesses won't be able to do it continue to train on this basis as is the european union as they are today. in one of the examples you cited to show how this can be achieved in other ways.

it referenced u.k. authorities been able to deliver if you like the standards expected, in any trade relationship in order to be able to have a trade on the basis negotiated some agreements will be reached us with the standards and regulations are. this will be no different. so were going to do now is negotiation which will look at different areas, were very clear that will help with answers and will be discussing how we achieve the traitor what the overall trading relationship should be. the reason why this agency in the u.k. can give the tip of her approval is because were a member of the european union. for example the european aviation safety agency, earlier pain medicine agency, and house

last week minister said whether there's interest pursuing interest with the e.u. body the government will look there's interest pursuing interest with the e.u. body the government will at that. they look at if we should remain in things like the european aviation agency or medical agency? are the any of those on the table? >> if i may differentiate between the different bodies, the european aviation safety agency, is your pain safety expertise that has made that contribution. we intend to maintain high standards. of course will look at the question of our continued participation. that would be a matter for negotiations. the reason i want to

differentiate is because of the very unique legal relationship in relationship. that's why we formally notified the process. share common institutional framework which makes him uniquely joint. we been putting the safeguards fell through, we've had principles for addressing key principles americans principal ownership for most material. will continue to apply national standards as a grade by -- authority. a good idea of where were leaving a particular institution but continued to operate on the basis so people continue to have confidence of what the u.k. is doing.

and continue to work with us and move material between us. >> thank you. >> i think it's been a year since you've been at the committee when you look at the article 50 last march, did you plan the general election? >> as i make clear at the time that i called the general election, having seen the response tissues around brexit i thought it was appropriate to call the. >> there were 50 being called at the end of march. and that you had two years to go before the united kingdom with the, what they do in those two years? >> when i did call the general election is aware of the fact that we had more to do in relation to the brexit

negotiation. as you know, i made the final decision on the general election and the time it was over .. into parliament. >> having called the election to go back six months later to beg you to be in for two more years in the speech. >> i haven't baked is european union for two more years. if you look at what i said in the house speech, you see that we're talking about is the concept of a smooth and orderly process of withdrawing from the european union. that is what the implementation time is about. it's not too warriors to negotiate with the union. it's two years were practically of businesses and governments put in place the changes necessary to move from the

current relationship to the future partnership. >> the two years was not long enough, and now you want this to your time to go on longer. was a wise so that election when he knew the time would be sold short? >> i'm sorry, i don't accept the comments you're making about the timing for the implementation. because there was a general election we need another two years at the other end, we were very clear that there to have a smooth and orderly brexit leaving of the european union we would ought to ensure the success government were able to adjust to the future partnership. that's the purpose for this. i was always going to be after a point in which we left the european union.

which is going to be at the end of march 2018. >> i think people join their own can conclusion. >> after brexit, will be in the possession, were looking to ensure rabbits not only have new trade deals with countries around the world but obviously a number of trade agreements held on will be looking at our relationship with those countries once we leave the the we have another 47 [inaudible]

>> i don't accept the premise of your question, no space on is not been able to negotiate a trade deal with the european union. no space on the reality that there can be zero that we have at the moment it's how many countries as i have made clear that when we have left your opinion, is looking trade deals in place. we intend to have trade deals in place with which some cases you we will be looking at the

relationship united will have live already started. >> to accept the premise first of them up to 94 countries and the premise of your question is that the united kingdom is not going to be able to negotiate a trade deal either with european union for those who we currently have an agreement with. of course we could rollover those together. our aim is to ensure that that

we see new trade barriers being put in place that we see improved trade relations. [inaudible] i assume that you're making a reference to the fact that the spanish government and the rule of law and we support the spanish government the spanish constitution should be applied. >> thank you, will come onto a group of questions that started with andrew. >> you seem like a long way away down there. congratulations on to where we are at the moment.

can i ask you, who is to pay for the right of northern ireland president identified themselves be at the passport after brexit. the more importantly other for the rights that european union would do in the future there there's the united kingdom and the republic and the european union itself. which one will pay for those rights? >> was just checking the references, you race were actually covered the joint progress report that was published between united kingdom and that's one of the issues being under discussion.

to make sure those arrangements would continue. >> there could be rights where they want to wear their citizens in the future. clearly, we have to consider it was going to pay for that. future given that we have accepted those identified northern island would be useful to know would actually be responsible for paying for any consequential's. >> the reference in the joint progress report which i was looking for specifies in the year of health insurance scheme that persons whose common state

as the u.k. and vice versa continue to be eligible for reimbursement, as long as that continues. i was so that's an agreement that will take place in the future. >> i promise i would hold for any other rights to the european union might wish toward healthcare and elsewhere. >> that a specific about the current arrangements that residents have within the european union. therefore, citizens rights element is about ensuring the decisions that have already been made will be respected in the future. >> so any for the race that european union determined would be paid for by who? >> as it also says specific to

northern ireland, both parties agreed the withdrawal agreement should be without president and -- that is the people of the northern ireland. in the next phase of negotiation though examine arrangements to give effect to those rights. >> thank you, comey press in paragraph 49 of the report and the ambiguity contained therein. obviously option three you have cited. i'm puzzled with some of the words. at the look at the economy down into the future is and may be subject to full alignment, given the economy now or in the future means practically everything for

sectors and industries, where's the divergence might emerge to continue to provide -- with a job. >> i'm afraid i will repeat the point i made in response to the first of the questions. this is not the default position. there are two phases will be going through, i fully expect she will resolve the issue of the border in northern ireland. there's a second stage we can go to if we feel that, this is the final defaults rather than being the automatic stage to go to if we don't achieve this through the e.u. >> we have to look at the worst

possible option. an option three is the worst possible option. >> excuse me if i say that sometimes how people would look at the best possible option as well as only look at the worst possible option. this is to give the guarantee that we will ensure there's no hard border in northern ireland. the economy is already there, i cited some of the examples in relation to the first question i was asked. but if you go on to read it is clear that we we don't do this in a way that disrupts for damages economic integrity of the united kingdom. as it says no new regulatory borders unless they consist with the belfast agreement.

>> where do you think we can diverge? you must be able to diverge. at the moment that option three suggests we will not diverge. >> what option three saying is that if we get to that point will will ensure it's possible for trade to continue across the border without having a hard border without having that physical infrastructure. at the border, that is the commitment been given. we believe it can be achieved as part of the greater relationship. will not be able to discuss how to negotiate that detail with all parties concerned. we haven't been able to do that because we been in phase i. now we have sufficient progress can look at it in detail with the other parties. >> thank you, which is global

britain into? >> demeans a united kingdom that is plentiful role on the world stage. part of it is the trading relationships who want to develop around the world. another part is us continuing to play a role the multilateral institutions around the world. plan our role in nato, and the commitments on defense and security, and being in upholder of the values that underpin our society and democracy. >> and national security advisers cited advice partnerships and boosting prestige, today there's reports that several of the majesty ships alongside.

>> i would say, look at what we're doing around the world. and what our armed forces are doing around the world. the navy and the mediterranean continuing to save lives. we committed to continuing to be in the mediterranean as long as necessary. the air force in the work with the coalition in iraq and syria for example. just last week i was pleased to present know what to representatives of the joint services led by the navy which went and give support to overseas territories those after the hurricanes in the caribbean.

people see the united kingdom around the world that is planets role. commitments we have made on the fence are an important part. and commitment to maintain what we spend on a. fisher's united kingdom with commitments around the world. >> and what you see is increasingly no space system? we. >> were doing that in a number of ways, part of that is working with those countries to encourage and persuade those countries clearly take action for good causes so, to sign up for international order which is that role -based system. it's about the contributions we make in a number bodies, be that with the united nations or within other bodies were a party of. >> which nations would be a priority send when would you publish your priorities on these areas? >> in terms of the overall response we have is the united kingdom and global britain,

course we have priorities in a number of parts from the world in different ways. >> may switch to euros, you cited a deep partnership that many of us hope for. you spoken to the government has spoken about the government was cfs p. can you highlight how you see us plan our role in those organizations. >> i would describe it in a different way. of course we want to continue to discuss with and contribute to these issues of foreign policy. he will maintain security. it also look to the possibility of being involved in some

agreements that take place in europe. for example) lost on the european council last week, there is a possibility frederick countries to be involved in the. on the front policy side we would want to continue to work with the countries in the european union on key issues that are of importance. one that the u.k. has been very clear is the need for sanctions in relation to russia's their issues like that we want to continue to work with others to ensure withholding the values as your pain. >> and highlighted organizations like nato, would you agree that we require organization-the e.u.

to make sure sanctions are what they should be. >> whether we should be doing as we look at legislation in relation to the position that applies is to make sure before legislation to make sure we can apply sanctions. >> i mean being structured alongside others. >> the point i'm making is if we're not in the european union will not necessarily be a part of that regime. that would be put into place a machine that will enable us that we can put sanctions in place when it's appropriate to do so. just like today we put sanctions in place also united nations sanctions. >> do you want us to stay for members -- level restaurant after brexit?

>> you and i have had talks about this in the past. i argued that we should remain part of the arrest warrant. there are benefits in both of these, this will have to be part of the negotiations future. whether we remain will depend on what were negotiating. >> in an ideal world, that's something we're aiming for, to keep a full membership? >> i have spoken about the value of the arrest warrant. there are number of programs on the criminal justice that in europe that we should look at is whether benefits not just in the u.k. or the rest of the european union. i would say some of those is an exchange of data borders. but the reason i answered

initially as i did a set of course would depend on the basis on which the european union as we negotiate and would be possible for us to be members. >> will be helpful is to know if it still is our best objectives and, even if it's part of the negotiations. secondly, at the border i know dover they are looking at a number of recognition cameras are you clear that is not something that would be an option in northern ireland? can you confirm that you will look at that is we have put forward a number of options on how that can be addressed.

however be applicable more widely. between the u.k. and the european union were not going to give a running commentary as we go into negotiations on this will be discussing how we address these issues. you said there be no physical infrastructure at the border. some people will be able to move across the border is currently. >> they have to be physical, or even hurting out cameras a quarter? >> as part of our negotiations we will be ensuring there's no hard borders.

that can be achieved in a number of ways, not going to sit here we are going into a negotiation. >> that's baffling. on the process, no amendment seven is in kenny confirmed there be a vote on the statue before the withdrawal treating stratified? over talking about is that there would be a vote in parliament switch would take place before the european had their vote. putting in implementation fell through parliament. that is what would put the agreement into the legal status here in the united kingdom.

>> now that that has been passed by parliament, can you confirm that means i'll be a vote on the statute of that agreement before the agreement is ratified? >> it depends on what you're talking about. we have to have a withdrawal agreement before we can bring a withdrawal agreement bill in parliament. there be an opportunity for parliament to talk about that before that legislation is brought into place. >> will there be a vote on the statue before they go to the legal ratification process, can you confirm there would be a vote on primary legislation and they will have a vote on primary legislation? not simply on a motion.

>> they will have two opportunities to vote on this. the first will be on a withdrawal agreement. then, primary legislation to bring that into u.k. law. >> and will the primary legislation happen before britain goes to the ratification process of the treaty? >> parliament will have the opportunity to say whether it agrees with the treaty with the european union. it will then be bringing that into law. >> i'm still trying to get you to tell us the vote, will parliament now get to vote on a statute rather than emotion before the deal is finalized? >> parliament will have an

opportunity to vote on the tail. >> consequence of amendment seven was it being done on the statute. what's your objection to being done on the statue rather than emotion, given that they have ignored these and have a history of doing so. you'd have the vote on the statue before the process is finalized because that's what amendment seven says. >> the principle of what we want to do is ensure that parliament is able to have what we've always said would be amenable vote, before the parliament has its own and before we bring that agreement into the legislation and the united kingdom. the bit that ensures that was job agreement is in u.k. law y you, will be the e.u. withdraw agreement and implementation

bill. >> and will that happen before the treaty is ratified? >> it depends on what you're talking about. before, we can't bring with strong agreement before the house must have an agreement. >> problem that would've voted on that. >> thank you. >> on all accounts regarding the application under the spell disobeyed the first time in british constitutional history

that they would strike down under domestic -- in the striking down of the house -- this is a possible were an act of parliament is inconsistent. -- this is a possible were an act of parliament is inconsistent. the case law of the european court of justice, however in the e.u. and the repeal of that i different considerations apply. i raise this on the 21st of november and referred that to several secretaries of state and the attorney general as well as yourself. here's have been expressed by the fourth president of the supreme court that they could be dragged into the political arena and those would seek direction

to the courts to be included in the spill. the question of how it would be done drives from plus five and six of the bill. i trust that you'd agree just as a matter of such constitutional importance of novelty that uncertainty must be removed clear direction must be given with the courts to deal with this matter by government at this stage on 16th and 17th of january. it's not confined for e.u. lost. so to avoid any constitutional crisis or clash between parliament and the courts and to reaffirm the sovereignty, it would be impossible to amend the bill to express a statutory

provision given clear direction to the courts on this. so drawing on incompatibility as we have with the current human rights. the question is, what are your thoughts on this given the extreme complications of it all, and would you in principle, agree to resolve this matter on the report stage? >> i will be responding to your letter in full and i will do so in a timely fashion. i was just looking at one of the issues which we have been discussing in part one is how we do this with citizens rights, we feel that we have given

sufficient guarantee, that is why we have been very clear about the relationship about them being brought into to withdraw agreement. and the extent to which they could be changed in the future. that's what is at heart of the issue that you have raised in relation to the ability of the courts to say these take over other legislation. it's also to ensure the consistency of the approach. >> so you will look at this very carefully.

>> a look at the second phase of negotiations with the european commission issued today, it reads very much like an ultimatum. they ask you to be robust in your response and language. in the big picture, given last year voted to leave the european union, they would do so even more statically now otherwise president yunker, shorts and so on. forever deeper european integration. don't you agree that they would actually leave on a bigger

scale? the important thing is they are leaving course i'll be up to the -- 27. be a matter of you 27. will be out of that and not part of that. response to comments he made about the guidelines being issues by the commission staff face to the, these are the starting point of the negotiations. will be robust through that is a no, we're looking at how to hunt the service service become more helpful with exit. how confident can you be set the

coordination and leadership across the whole of government of day one of brexit on that these directions are being effective? >> there's a number of ways that you can ensure that is taking place. we can look at all of the remic vocations of brexit. the key issues in terms of ensuring individual departments are operating in doing what they need to is the direction that comes not just the permanent secretary but the secretaries of state. the that is brought together within the committee structure to provide for that discussion but also that has been brought

to departments. we also look at what's been happening make sure departments are doing what they need to do. >> there are 330 charts, one for each across government, charging the progress and risk to each. they say that only some 20 programs are moving too slowly. how can we be confident these assessments are given reliable information? >> i think that's a process we go through in terms of challenge that comes from civil service to departments.

obviously there are several roles in this and any concerns about departments and whether they are doing the job they need to do is sometimes brought to ministerial encouragement and direction. >> : respond to the suggestions of last week that the organized effort actually requires a dedicated very senior cap that commands the confidence of the prime minister to make sure that these programs run right through the department. >> my view is that we have a structure ready which enables us to ensure that which is running through departments, obviously is clear and setting a lot of this in trade.

ultimately the important thing is this is across government activity which cabinet discusses and agrees. that is a very clear message. >> and what is the role of the first secretary of state in this? would normally -- the first sector state plays a role across government issues in terms of coordinating. >> i want us very briefly about the result of the amendment to the withdrawal about the sifting committee. how old the government treat decisions of this committee when it recommends legislation be subject to the approval of the house?

>> purpose of the sifting committee is to give the house not just reassure itself, but it sure are things matters are of significance that should be dealt with in a particular way. that is sent. government obviously take account of what the sifting committee has proposed. we would not put it into place if we were going to do that you pgh so, fried history is littered with these examples and recommendations. i think it's important. >> i once wrote -- that there should be more debates on the house. >> i was likely to be discourteous to throw that at you. the for all affirmative instruments and withdraw all

recommended by the sifting committee, howell government scheduled business to make sure there's reasonable opportunity for committees to come in? >> this is going to be an easy task, particularly with filling time which is available for government for dealing with these. it's limited. so, it will be i'm afraid parliament will be very busy. >> some of our friends have shown great enthusiasm and scrutinized many more orders than we may have had to have the bill had not been amended. thank you. >> the minister, and the issue sexual harassment and hollywood and westminster has the makings advice. the truth is, whether half the

women in this country suffer sexual harassment often silence. what is your government doing to tackle that? >> a number of things government can do. it's also about attitudes. the approach people taken different environments to this particular issue. government can help through "attraction such as one and at women and girls i would hope that work that is being done in the letter of the house of commons has taken up with the working group working issues with harassment and other issues including accountability and the meta- parliament and it also

sent the signal to people. the snappy something changed by government taken one action or another. it's about the attitudes people have with in workplaces another environments. . . it's about the attitudes people have with in workplaces another environments. . . this question i think is taking place in a variety of settings and i'm not sure whether it is a

strategy or otherwise that is going to deal with it because it is the culture and attitude the specifics and the case of the disclosure agreement should it be a crime in relation to the wrongdoing used in this kind of case? if you look at this issue in relation to the whistleblowing and exposing wrongdoing with the public interest those are not

enforceable. there are occasions where there will be a settlement agreement that may contain confidentiality resulting in a workplace dispute or they should go no further than necessary to protect the confidentiality and commercial interest and unless the employee has had advice in both the public and private sectors. it is a protected settlement agreement and we also produced

guidance so there are ways to ensure they are used in the cases it is appropriate. >> sometimes they are not used appropriately. they wouldn't be aware. it is a highly regulated profession. >> i'm happy to look at the structures on the agreement. >> i know you have another engagement to go to, but to follow up on the letters and the request from the chair defense

committee who was currently declined to the work of the status committee and whether you do have a response to that now. >> i would respond to that lettethe letterthat you sent mei recognized the role that this takes, but the national security adviser hasn't provided the joint committee on the national security capability review. when we look at the appearances

in front of the select committees it is accountable to the department on the basis the minister is accountable to the committee. for the committee and the defense committee without that before then but there is precedent to appear and we feel

very strongly on the capability in relation to the defense secretary in that particular issue of the rights to the chairman. [inaudible] we need to establish very clearly. if the ministers decide or they are able to agree those who are

responsible for the areas of activity to the select committees and the civil service appearances from the relevant select committee for the national security adviser strategy. aspects of defense for the permanent secretary in response to the committee as any other departmental secretary of states would get evidence to the committee. >> [inaudible] is a matter of precedence that has appeared in front of other committees as a matter of

principle do they choose their witnesses should be and the government should assist it is not the government to decide which witnesses appear in the committees. the so-called rules are the property of the government and have never been approved by the house and who to put in front of the select committees but it is for the committees to decide. i'm happy to respond, and i know the points that you've made as i respond to the letter.

as i say that defense secretary was able to give evidence on the defense aspects of the review that i respond to them when i respond to the chairman. >> we would ask you to take away the invitation to go down all these different points we would like to wish you a very happy christmas. >> thank you.

yours was the third servicing mission. having been a part of that mission talk about what you believe the legacy is or does it have a legacy? >> i think it is incredible. you would know better than i doing that kind of science on a daily basis and leading not only the scientists experienced the data that they get from it which is most of the stuff you don't see but also the public engagement to let people get a

sense for where we are in the universe which is significant if you consider the images