egypt's role. we've read in recent days that the united states has lifted its ban or sanctions or hold on munitions and armaments to egypt, and that egypt is to be the location of a 35,000-arab ground force for this united/arab joint defense command for which there is an air component which is much smaller -- just a few thousand -- and a naval component to perhaps double that. but those two combined multiplied by seven would be the ground forces. now who's paying for this? largely saudi arabia and the other gcc countries. but not all. and who else is involved in this? morocco is. jordan is. you may recall in the last four years a geostrategic

pronouncement that the gcc countries would be more aligned associated with juror done and morocco, fellow monarchyiesmonarchies. so this is not completely new in reaching out to those two countries, but reaching out to sudan is in part, because sudan is a neighbor of egypt and has its own armed forces. but in an effort to broaden the diversity of the coalition. mr. sharp. >> i would say that it's certainly not new, as john points out. but we are at a moment. one of the interesting strategic things to think about in terms of this conflict in yemen and really what's been going on since the so-called arab spring began in 2011 is this concept of regional integration albeit military or economic something that's been talked about for

decades. right? if you look at just from the economic side, saudi arabia, kuwait, the uae are financially supporting countries that fiscally can't do it themselves anymore, whether it's egypt jordan, be certainly yemen needs the assistance. all of these countries. now the gcc states they have the reserves right now but they're already running budget deficits. and the costs of the region are going up exponentially. whether it's military integration or economic integration. we may be at a moment here -- who knows how operationally this joint force is going to work or where it will be deployed in the future. but this maybe the beginning of -- we're at a point where we just can't sort of laugh this off anymore. like, oh yeah they talk about integration, they make these deals but it never really happens. no, this actually may be the start of something both financially and militarily that

has some legs. just because the region itself is getting to the point where it's so bad that they need that kind of assistance. >> these questions, shifting gears here to abbas almosawi. could you comment with the way in discussion is going with regard to the questions asked and the answers provided? is this another case of american lack of empathy and inability or limitation of americans to project themselves into the shoes, souls, situations, needs concerns, interests and objectives of the peoples? your comments on the americanism

aspect, anti-americanism the american role, backing saudi arabia, saying it will support this ten-state coalition providing intelligence operational, logistical, and munitions support. are you in accord with these answers, these american perceptions perceptions? in iraq, hundreds of americans were cock-sure that they knew iraq and could plan and predict and anticipate effectively. cost-effectively and efficiently what the united states did. and most would agree it's a disaster that iraq was smashed to smithereens lost its financial sovereignty, lost its political independence, lost the four things that are in america's constitution as to why america exists namely to

provide domestic safety to assure for the external defense to enhance material well being, and to ensure the administration of an effective system of civil justice. all four of those things were also smashed. the united states cannot plame others for those results. what are your answers to these controversial implicitly challenging kinds of questions? [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ]

[ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ]

[ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ]

[ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] >> i tried to get as much of that as possible. >> translator: there is definitely a great lack of information on yemen. yemen is a tribal society yes, but it is a very, very loving tribal society. they love each other they love their neighbors.

the idea of sectarianism, sunni/shiite, as far as he's concerned, they are closer to the sunnis than they are the shia and the houthis are part of yemeni society. the shia of yemen or the yazidis. . issue is the u.s. relation with yemen basically is based on security issues. what do we do with al qaeda. what yemen -- what kind of role yemen plays as far as that is concerned. the question is definitely broader than the united states wants to look at yemen around. i don't like to talk of sectarianism and yemen is for everybody. [ speaking foreign language ]

[ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ]

[ speaking foreign language ] >> waiting for the story to end. yeah. [ speaking foreign language ] ko [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ]

>> i'm sorry, what? [ speaking foreign language ] >> okay. >> translator: he's relating a little specific piece of information that before the operation to -- before the current operation between saudi arabia and gcc, he adds the united states to it we wanted -- basically everybody wanted to limit the houthi influence in yemen obviously. there actually were very many tribes who have actually secured large areas on>ok the saudi arabian border. there is a story that ahmed abdullah saleh came to saudi

arabia to tell them to stop the&ñ media campaign against him and his father to basically lift the sanctions on his family and basically he promised that he himself will be -- will lead a campaign to really end the houthi threat in yemen. >> thank you. [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] thank you. >> translator: basically the idea stlais that he is against the war because he doesn't think that it is going to resolve anything. >> yes. >> i'll try to be brief. i want to talk about how the americans are viewed from the

yemeni perspective. given everything that's happening i completely understand the u.s. being cautious in endorsing this attack in more than logistical support. they are already in a tough corner considering the drone strikes that are happening in yemen that are extremely unpopular on ground. i think the problem -- or there is an opportunity here for theht u.s. to play the role of mediator and peacemaker for once in the region. they can help bring the parties together and reach a negotiation because at the end of all this war, at the end of sending ground troops or air troops they are going toc have to sit down and come up with a solution. those yemenis are going to exist. i talkedzvearlier about this being a war to eliminate an ideology. there is no such thing as eliminating the houthis or eliminating the iowaany ofp rhetoric. the yemenis could learn to

co-exist together and allow for a process that allows pluralism. so my opinion is although americans try very hard to understand yemen, yemen is a very remote location. it's a very different culture and i think that sometimes because we're so different that results in a creation of "i versus you" dialogue or "me versus them." and i think that there are yemenis who speak english and can communicate these ideas. unfortunately, there are some nuances that the west just cannot get unless there is a yemeni person translating that to them. there is a sense that yemeni life is worthless, and this sense comes from yemenis themselves who kill each other and spill blood everywhere and this has been happening since 2011 to this point. yemenis just generally feel that their lives don't matter. and i think this is an opportunity for the world to come and say, no your lives matter, do learn that you are worth something. the situation that we're in this

yemen now can be narrowed down to the politics of five individuals. president hahdi, former president saleh. the first four have been on the yemeni political scene for the year. abdi houthi is the only newcomer to this spotlight. the reason he succeeded very much is because he was able to take the youth and employ them in the houthi movement. all the other factions failed to include the youth in these movements. pt hoo the houthis were even able to construct a show to present that women are participating in this effect and so it shows you that they are more politically savvy than the other old parties that were on the ground. so i think everything in yemen is a result of lack of leadership. poor -- poor good governance. since 2011 until now we had an opportunity to take yemen out of

the situation that it was in and lead it towards democracy. we've all talked about the gcc deal did that granted president saleh immunity and as long as he remained on the ground it meant he could carry out operations. the problem here is that we have a president who's now residing in real. his strength in yemen is getting weaker and weaker by the day and it is very hard to imagine how he would go back and then rule again by just issuing orders. that's the only thing he can do. that's how he ruled prior to 2014, by the way, is that he would issue orders for things to be carried out but they would not be actually implemented. i think in order to move forward, the analysts in general, whether american or saudi or from any other part of the world, they need to really sit down and take in yemen's history. i really do recommend to look at yemen's history not just in the past four years, not just in the past 20 years i would say to look really, really back. we are tribes by nature and we do take pride in our genealogy and whatever vendetta we have

from 50 years ago could still apply to this day. having said that if there is a process that is endorsed by the west it's been proven in the past that every political party is willing to come and negotiate. a lot of people have suggested oman since it is the only country that's not participated in this air strike as a place where all factions can talk to each other. that's about it. >> okay. >> thank you, miss el hamdani. his excellency will be hooer in erhere in less than one minute, we're told. but a question or two additional there, we westerners -- i'm one of them -- have a problem thinking about tribes. those who -- americans here who are over 50 perhaps have seen no fewer than 30 movies, cowboys

and indians. and the indians were all tribal. and they were the bad people. and the non-indians were the progressive or good people. and the indians were seen as violent, backward, ill lib-liberal or non-progressive. and in terms of what has happened to them, their lands their resources their mountains, their valleys their rivers, their streams were all taken over, by and large from people, white people christian people largely who came from western europe. so americans have a difficulty on question of tribes. i come from the state of virginia where many of the tribes are still in existence but living on reservations. others of you come from elsewhere where the tribes are larger, and so are the reservations. but think of it in this context. because the british do not have

this this. indeed the british role position and power and prestige largely was through the tribes in the region. so with regard to tribes in a british sense that power that for nearly two centuries held the reign of security and stability. they could not have done it without tribes and through tribes to. the american experience is radically different. and this means that we have proceeded with maybe two hands behind our back. because we -- we say we don't do tribes. and largely we don't. but here is a self inflicted wound. because what are tribes? tribes are groupings of people. sociological and anthropological

forces factors and familyphenomena on the ground. and in place where is the central government is weak and source sourszs are few and scarce and there is no strong central government, it is left to plan b, to the pre existing tribes which have leaders. and tribes are not ill liberal or non democratic in many instances. they too live by consultation. they too live by consensus. this buildings aethos in terms of democracy boil down to a phrase "is the consent of the governed." how do you get the consent except by consultation. so the tribes are steeped in consultation, and largely peaceful interior rule. in terms of where people would go for security and stability. and up until the last 40 years, but still in some places, you

went to your tribal leader for scholarship. to get help to have medicine and healthcare. even to have a job or to get a position in the armed forces. so if you look at tribes from this perspective, they are the glue. they are the adhesive. they are the lubricant that has kept this particular society together longer than what -- and more peacefully and effectively than would otherwise have been the case. it sounds as though i'm a member of a tribe and i am. it is called the human tribe. we have his excellence sysy who's arranged a schedule to be with us. adel al-jubeir. i'll try to summarize. if you would be good enough to

respond? are you comfortable with that? >> yes. >> we had questions that were divided in the external category of what other countries are doing. your country saudi arabia, other gcc countries. iran on one hand and then the united states. and other ten countries in the external realm one question not asked how the decline in oil prices will effect yemen which depends on oil and gas for limited revenue as does your country and most of your gcc neighbors. so those would be on the external side. with with unaddition.one addition. and that is several questions.

maybe happen half a dozen with asked about sunni shia, iran saudi arabia conflict, etc. on the internal side questions about, will saudi arabia give serious and favorable consideration to a ground offensive, if it comes to that? what has been the price saudi arabia has paid economically human resources, geopolitically humanitarianly, morally if you will people who have been killed in the air strikes. and other questions having to do with the internal dynamics of yemen and ab dell al sales role. and your government has close and extensive relations with most if not all of yemen's major tribes. and and people used to criticize

riyadh for doing this. but in my own meetings he said what choice do i have? i don't have the resources to deal with large segments of my people. if someone from the outside is willing to help meet the basic healthcare needs, education needs, security and stability needs, who would not have an outstretched hand a appreciation of gratitude for whatever count did ry did that. the united states, even the soviet union were it to be the case in years past. so this is a little of the nature of the external questions and the domestic ones. the domestic ones are charged with the understandable needs concerns and emotions of individuals who have relatives in yemen. who are suffering. and who are uncertain about the near term president letent let alone the

longer term future. i tried to summarize. might you respond to these kind of questions? >> yes. thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you everybody for being here today. let me start by talking a little bit about where we are in the operations. first of all we -- this is not something that we wanted to do. this is an issue of last resort for us. nobody wants to use force and anger. but we were left with no choice. we spent years trying to establish a legitimate government in yemen years trying to help yemen move from the chaotic situation it was in in 2011 to a new brighter, more stable future. as time went by problems developed. we had the houthis renegeing on commitments they made. 76 to be precise in the past few years they signed and then backed a way from. their aggression kept moving.

they went from saada to iran and as the and threatened to the capture the president's palace. they imprisoned the president and others in their homes in is a sana. so most were able to escape. so we had no choice but to respond to the call of yemen to come in and support him and protect him and protect yemen. so our objectives in yemen are very simple. protect the legitimate government of yemen and protect the people of yemen from a takeover by a radical group that is allied with iran and hezbollah. and we had a situation where a militia that is in control of q i (p&listic missiles, and it was now in control of an air force. i don't believe there was a situation in history where an armed militia had an air force. so this is something that cannot be tolerated. we tried to reason with them. we tried to reach agreements with them or broker agreements

with them. but as i mentioned earlier it all came to naught and we ended up having to resort to force. in response to the request by the legitimate government of yemen. the operations are ongoing. we have targeted the air force. we have targeted air bases. we have targeted ballistic missiles. we have targeted heavy weapons depot depots. and where he have tried our best to minimize collateral damage. there have been malicious charges made that the saudi air force on a refugee camp. turned out not the case. so it couldn't have been us. there were charges that saudi arabia bombed a milk factory in haneda a few days ago. it turned out the factory was bombed by the houthis themselves to generate sympathy for themselves and hostility towards the coalition forces.

so these things are going on. we believe the koemgscoalition activities are achieve their objectives. it will take more time but we are determined to prevail in yemen andlp we are determined to strengthen, restore the legitimate government of yemen and protect the people of yemen from this radical group. the -- with regards to the internal situation in the king kingdom, of course everybody is apprehensive about the use of force. nobody wants to do it. but our people understand that and we have total support, not only from the people from the kingdom but throughout the region for these military operations. the issue of yemen's oil, unfortunately for yemen the oil -- yemen does not produce enough oil to export. so most of the oil, if not all of the oil that yemen produces is for domestic consumption. so therefore the drop in the price of oil on0lthe world markets really has no impact on

yemen. if anything it reduces its import cost of oil they have to performance from outside. did i cover most? >> yes. and there is some more. okay. in fact i may ask them from here. what imp -- >> sorry. the president. e had our ups and downs with him since he came to power. sometimes a ally and sometimes he'sg when saddam hussein invaded kuwait he sided with him. so t amicable but he was the president ofr deal with yemen and with him. but now he's been playing a very negative role and a very destructive role in yemen by aligning with the houthis and the using what influence he has

within the yemeni military in order to persuade military commanders to side with the houthis. the houthis could not have made their advances without the explicitñr and implicit support of president saleh. and the miltitary units6z he controls. we know this. the world know this isg believe history will judge him harshly in his role in the current crisis. we again have been targeting units that are loyal to him or that are under his command or virtually under his command in order to degrade their capabilities and in order to make sure that the role that he has in yemen and the role that the houthis play in5a yemen as a militia are limited or non existent. we recognize the houthis6z6 yemenis=édyñ and have am

political process denying this. in fact it was the gcc initiative that opened the door to this process. but they cannot be a militia. they cannot have heavy weapons outside of the scope of the state. that is a situation that is not tolerable. we see the consequences of that in lebanon with hezbollah where a militia pretty much dominates the state and threatens state institutions. we will not allow this to happen on our doorstep in yemen. >> super. i'll just read them out. and you are good on remembering them. and answer them as you will. does it matter one way or the other if the united states lists the houthis groups in yemen under the designation of its being a terrorist organization? and as much as saudi arabia has designated of late various groups as terrorist organizations, is this among the options that saudi arabia has

under consideration? might it rule it out? or what could be the implications either way? if you did or if you did not. that is one. second one, your view of ayden. aden as we said earlier used to be in the late 1950s, the worlds largest port in terms of the tonnage and ships calling there. but things have moved on. dubai and salha near the east/west shipping routes. there is your ports and other places you are developing long the red sea. and dukam in the east is a story yet to be known and told. that's one question. i'll let you think about it. about how this duo, strategic

academic logistical aspects of the ports and exports from the peninsula and p imports into it where does that come on the radar there. >> john. i'm getting old so my memory is limited. >> okay. those are two. >> let me talk about. >> all of us. >> are first had to do with designating houthis as a terrorist group and what impact it has. i think it would be acknowledging a the fact. what they have committed in yemen is nothing short of a terrorism. trorzed a population. and the taken over equipment illegally. and invaded areas and pretty much tried to occupy the whole country. if that is not terrorism, i don't know what terrorism is. it will have impact in psychological perspective in sense of defining them and their actions but in terms of facts on the grounds, i don't know what impact it will have in the

short-term. the second question with regards to economic support for yemen saudi arabia has been by far the largest contributor of economic assistance to yemen. ever since the civil war in yemen ended in the late 60s and early 70s. we've built road schools, hospital, sent method medical teams. brought yemeni students to saudi arabia on scholarship. we've tried to help yemen with its development plans. and we are committed to doing so in the future. we have with our partners in the gcc, we believe that yemen has the potential to thrive. it has a large population base. the yemeni people are very industrious. very hard-working, very honest. and so we have in saudi arabia almost 4 million yemeni people working in the kingdom. and we believe that yemen were it to have the legal infrastructure and the bureaucratic infrastructure that

is proper, could be a magnet for investments by gulf businesses, where they can set up shops or factories in yemen, fund agricultural projects in yemen, take advantage of the abundance of labor in yemen in order to produce items or food that can then be exported either to the gulf countries or even sold in yemen. so we have -- we have no hesitation about continuing our vast support for yemen in order to help the yemeni people. and that is irrespective of what happened to the port of aden and what happened to the logistics in terms of shipping. we deal with the situation as it is. and the situation as it is now is we have a country that is one of the poorest in the world with one of the highest unemployment rates in the world with one of the highest malnutrition rates in the world that has no water to speak of. asájyv country that is ripe with disease and that needs the attention and the support of the

whole world in order to get back up on its feet. we are determined to help the people of yemen and the yes, ma'am -- and yemen as a country. to overcome the challenges it faces. but first we need a stable and legitimate government. and we need to find a way where we can end the divisions that exist in yemen and prevent a radical group from taking over the country. and as part of a foreign-driven agenda that seeks to divide yemen and that seeks to destroy yemen and seeks to create instability in the arabian peninsula la. >> super. these are three questions then. keying off the last one about those seeking to divide yemen. outsiders for sure have investment in that kind of a strategic outcome. but so do those inside. and there is a movement in the south that would love to see another independent republic of

south yemen. so would a two-state solution ever be possible in yemen and what would saudi arabia's view be about that? you dealt with that reality for a long time from 1967 to 1990 there. could there be a reversion to that? second question, is the houthis like iran? during iron's 1979 revolution, are rejecting any form of western influence. what does this mean for your major partner, the united states, that is ready and available and amenable to mediating if it can. but it takes two to tango. if the houthis want to have nothing to do with washington understandable. but what are the implications of that? do you want to answer those two? and then i have some more. >> with regards to the different movements in yemen, i think they are driven by the sense of

mismanagement. a sense of corruption. a sense of feeling that people's rights are being denied. and i think if we can create a situation where we create a stable legitimate government that east balanced and represents all yemenis and works for the interests of all yemenis we wouldn't see the movements in yemen. this is really ultimately up to the people of yemen. we have always maintained it is important to maintain the unity and territorial integrity of yemen. the objective now are to protect the legitimate government of the yes, ma'amen and yemen and to protect the people of yemen and prevent the rise of a radical militant group on the southern border. that is the first question. with regards to the second question. the houthi ideology is very clear. they have been very clear about what they stabbednd for. the education system and the textbooks are very clear about

who they perceive as their enemies. and i don't believe that the houthis would -- what they are advocating would be in the interest of yemen. because it is not. they want to close yemen off from the world. and they want yemen to be a red cal state that is allied with iran and hezbollah. and that is not going to serve neither the yemeni people nor the people of the region. >> and that last -- thank you. that last comment subsumes one here about the alliance, rhetorical or political ideological with hezbollah in leb lebanon. so we won't go to that one as such. at which point, if any, of the houthi power increasing would saudi arabia withdraw its estimated $1 billion in the yemen central bank? assumeingeing it has not been looted?

and second question. a lot of these are great questions that come from the media. they are well-versed here. and they want to know how much hard evidence is there of iranian arms shipments and other support to the houthis? none? a little? a lot -- >> a lot. >> all right. >> with regards to the -- what we would do to withdraw or deposit from the yemeni central bank, we are not going to withdraw it. it cannot be looted because these deposits stand to be numbers on computers. and so it is not some physical cache we gave the central bank. the houthis -- we are now much much less worried about the houthis taking over yemen than wherp before the operation started. we are degrading their capabilities and we will destroy their capabilities and we will protect the government and the people, period.

no question about it. and the operations are very, as i mentioned earlier, ongoing. the objectives are being achieved. and we are working through these objectives in order to reach the conclusion that we all want. that is with regards to the issue of the central bank and the houthis. with regards to iranian support for the houthis, it is very, very clear. there are -- the first thing that the houthis did when they captured sana was to release operatives of the iranian revolutionary guards and hezbollah from the intelligence jails in sana. the iranians have been shipping weapons to the houthis long before the conflict began. those include even shoulder launch surface-to-air missiles. there was a shipment that was

inter int int. we also see it reflected in the public position that iran and hezbollah have taken with regards to the conflict in yemen and with regards to the houthis. >> okay. this next one has to do with various aspects of iran. inter several questions about if you would address the question of to what extent if at all is it really sunni versus shia issues ideological, political geopolitical versus revolutionary viewpoints versus the legitimacy of the incumbent governments in the region. haven't seen that question, but that is an intriguing one. >> yes. i think the way we never wanted to have a sectarian conflict.

we have in saudi arabia, saad citizens who are of the shia branch of islam and they are viewed to equal citizens to every other saudi. all the rights that a saudi citizen has another saudi citizen has irrespective of ethnicity or sect. so this is not something that we want -- a path that we wanted to go down the road to. the iranians and hezbollah have tried to stroke the sectarian fires in order to generate conflict in the middle east. you see it in the speeches. you see it in the actions they take. we on the other hand and our allies in the gulf have tried to avoid this. so we don't look from a perspective sunni versus shia. we look from the perspective it have good versus evil. there are those want to build. there are those who want to bring countries together. there are those who want to create a better future for their people and there are those who want to do the opposite.

so for us any person or any leader, any government that wants to improve the lot of its people and take its country forward is a government that we're happy to work with irrespective of what their sect or their ethnicity is. the kingdom of saudi arabia last year provided $500 million to the united nations, organizations working in iraq in order to provide humanitarian assistance to the iraqi people. and we insisted it be irrespective of religion sect or elliot ethnicity and the aide should go to all the of the people. and that is exactly what happened. so we don't favor one sect over another. we look at every country as being a country. and all of its citizens being citizens of that country and we don't go beyond that. >> okay. another related to iran -- two really. various gcc state heads of

summits after 2003, sort of sick joke that used to pass was that the united states attacked or invaded iraq and iran won without firing a the single shot or shedding a single drop of blood. and something similar as a gift to afghanistan, earlier when the united states took down the taliban. people would say that this is rare in the history of geostrategic dynamics that hostage taking and on the iran side hating americans or american government for taking down iran's first democratically peaceful civically elected government in 1953. there are those who ask how has this complicated everything that the united states is conducting these controversial sensitive

negotiations with iran and switzerland at a time when iran has leaders that say we now control for our capitals yemen syria, iraq and elsewhere -- and lebanon. some think it was intentional. can you address this aspect? because it is known that you and the other gcc countries would like to have at least been auditors or listener/participants in the sensitive strategic negotiations between the p-5 and iran. but you were excluded and excluded largely because and i believe the united states asked iran what do you think? is this all right? and so iran opposed. and so we accommodated iran's position. how has this roiled the waters or made things more complex/convoluted than what

otherwise might be the case? and what are the implications. >> well i think there are a lot of conspiracy theories that swivel around the mideast. but i don't subscribe to them. the issue is there is no doubt that iran benefitted from the invasion of iraq and the toppling of the taliban government in afghanistan. no doubt about it. the taliban were iran's ideological enemies and zam saddam hussein was the bull wort of iran's stepping into the region. this i don't think is the united states' objective at the time but this is the situation we're dealing with now. question becomes how do you stop iran's mischief in the region. they are involved in syria and lebanon and iraq. and involvement in yemen. all of these are areas of great concern to the to the people of the region. and this is irrespective of the nuclear negotiations. the issue of the nuclear negotiations, i don't know that i would characterize it as the

iranians excluding the gulf countries from the talks. i think it was set up to be the permanent five members of the security council plus germany as the largest economy in europe, negotiating with the iranians. we see the talks. we hope that the talks will succeed. because everybody wants a serious agreement that stops iran's weapons making ability. and so we've been assured. we are continuously briefed by the united states about the status of the talks and what -- where they are at any given moment. and we have been assured by the secretary of state that the negotiations, the objective of them, is to deny iran the ability to make an atomic bomb to cutoff all paths that could lead iranatomic atomic bomb.

to limit iran's ability to conduct research and to have intrusive and severe and continuous inspections on iran's nuclear program. that is what the objectives are. and i think everybody will share those objectives. the thing that we cannot comment on is the details. because i don't believe the details have been yet worked out in terms of how the inspections would work, how the limitation on research would work. and so until we see those details we really can't comment about whether this is a good deal or not. like i said at the beginning, everybody wants a good deal that prevents iran from developing anatomican atomic bomb. >> we have 2 more minutes in terms of our permission to be in here. your views about the newly formed arab league military coalition response force. and with regard to how can one

really back president hadi when he did not engage in deliverables in terms of what the yemeni people expected demanded, needed? and would that not rule out some role possibly for ali abdel? in terms of his keeping a the a relative stable point in yemen not just years but is he out of the picture. seems as though people lock themselves into the corner by saying basher al-assad must go. and now you see references to maybe he can be part of the solution there. and then two last short ones i guess yes or no are there saudi arabia en troops in aden as reported? and you correctly noted 4 million yemenis in saudi arabia.

ms. hamdani before you came and others mentioned how many yemenis are trying to get out and get evacuated and they can't get visas except to somalia. and they are stranded not just in yemen airports but throughout the world. >> a there were a series of two questions. >> yes. >> the one about saudi arabiaen troops in aden. and the visa one. >> -- [inaudible]. >> yes and -- >> we don't have troops -- former saudi troops in aden. the issue of using ground troops is always something on the table. but the decisions will be made depending on the circumstances and the need. with regards to president hadi. the reason he wasn't able to deliver deliverables, which i disagree with that premise because i think he has. the reason he's viewed as not

having delivered deliverables is because he was being undercut by the houthis and the former president. and so we had a number of friends of yemen conferences. we had projects that we were working with yemen on with him as president. and i believe that given the opportunity that president hadi would continue to do the right thing for yemen. but it is impossible to be effective when you are being undercut. when people are taking away your ability to control your own territory. when people are undercutting you in the parliament. when people attack you and take over your capital. when people imprison you in our own home in sana. that is not -- so the problems were on the other side, not on the president's side. she the legitimate president of yemen. yemen, the gcc initiative and the outcomes of the national dialogue in yemen call for a transition period during which a constitution would be drafted. this was done and then the houthis came in and redrafted it

to their liking which we don't accept this as legal. then you set up an electoral process and then you go through elections and then you have a new president and a new parliament and life goes on hopefully towards a better future. that is what we were working on with president hadi when these problems magnified and multiplied and put a stop to it. so think he is -- i don't think. i know he is the legitimate government. she he is the legitimate president and wants what's good for yemen. and once they go through the transition period then it is up to the yemeni people to decide who they would like their leader. but we county believe president -- has any role to play in the future. he spent 35 years or so driving the country into the ground. and he was -- played a very -- a very dark role in the events in yes, ma'amage

yemen yemen. and now so he was removed. and he continues to cause mischief behind the scenes. and we're doing our best to try to put an end to it. >> i want the audience if it will please remain seated for 2 minutes while his excellency leaves. but not before saying this is one of the best sessions we've had. this is standing room only here in this room. and on short notice at that. it shows a concern, a care about yemen yemen. and the yemeni people. and yemen/u.s. relations and yemen's plight humanitarian geopolitical, geo strategic geoeconomic and otherwise. all the speakers kept within their 10 minutes and we had more than 40 questions. and i think we covered somewhat of the water front. but especially, we are grateful

to our speakers and to his excellency ambassador adel al-jubeir. thank you all. [ applause ]

last week itv hosted the first leaders debate of the 2015 u.k. general election campaign, featuring off primary leaders and opposition leader. clashed on questions of the taxation immigration, education and changes to the national health service. itv's julie etchingham moderated. the u.k. general election will be held on may 7th.

>> salford greater manchester. a city proud of its heritage. and tonight the setting for a remarkable political debate in the closest general election in decades. seven party leaders go face to face live in the itv leaders debate. [ applause ] >> good evening. i'm julie etchingham. here are seven party leaders with different visions for the future of our country. over the next two hours they

will debate head to head. and tonight will be some of the biggest issues facing britain, questions at the heart of this election. the main parties in england, scotland and whales are all represented here this evening. natalie bennett of the green party. nick clegg, liberal democrats. nigel farage, the yungded kingdom independence party. edward miliband. and nicola sturgeon. and david cameron. [ applause ] our questions are going to focus on some of the big political issues that we all care about and that effect every day life. you can get instant analysis online by going to our website. and if you want to comment the twitter hashtag is "leaders debate." the leaders position in the

studio in the order they make their opening and closing statements has been decided by drawing lots. first natalie bennett your opening statement. >> you were told that austerity and inequality bankers bonuses and tuition fees were inevitable. they were not. you all deserve better. let's put principles and values first. that is why i got into politics. the green party is determined to deliver a fair economy that does not make the poor and disadvantaged pay for the errors and fraud of the bankers. we are committed to returning the nhs to its founding principles. no public money going into private profits. we know we must take real action on climate change. the biggest threat facing us all.

other parties trade in fear fear of immigrants demonizing people on benefits. but to build a fair humane society we start with hope. vote for change. vote green. >> natalie bennett, thank you. now nigel farage. >> six others and may look different but they are very much the same. all six support the membership of the european union and most laws made somewhere else. as a consequence alle1 support open door immigration. is it any wonder trust in politics has broken down to the extent it has. i represent u.k. and we believe this country should be a sovereign nation. we believe we are good enough to do that and we also believe open door immigration depressed the doors for people. and made it tough to get a gp appointment and not been good

for this country. we have a positive alternative. let's have a trade deal with europe. let's cooperate with them as friends but make our own laws. and let's take back control of our borders and put in place an australian style point system so we can choose the quantity and quality of who comes to britain. by doing that we'llxd give ordinary working people an even break. >> nick clegg. >> i think it's pretty obvious no one standing here is going to win this election outright. so you are going to have to choose like you did last time whose going to have to work with who. i'm not going to pretend everything is in perfect how to the country in better shape than it was five years. i'm not even going to presend i haven't made mistakes. when i have i've put my handsnb up and i ooefd learned from them. but what you will get from me and liberal democrats is this. the grit and resilience to finish the job of balancing the books and doing so fairley. i will always act responsibly. i'll never let anyone else

borrow money that we don't have jeopardize and our5a economy. and above all, i will always act fairley. i won't let anyone else impose ideological cuts on your hospitals and your schools. and i will always serve the whole of our country. . not just parts of our country, the whole offá our wonderful united kingdal. >> this is a chance to change the westminster system so it serves you better.r the snp will always stand up and make scotland's voice herd. i know it is not just people in scotland feel let down by wms westminster politics. i won't pretend i don't want scotland to be independent. i do. but as long as scotland remains part of the westminster system the snp will seek to work with others of like mind across the u.k.úú"uz deliver positive change. like many of you we want an

alternative to the pain of austerity, an end to the bedroom tax, a hope to the privatization of the nhs and we believe the scarce resources of our country should be invested in the future of our children not in new nuclear weapons. a vote for a snp is a vote to make scotland's firstvoice heard but ours also be a voice for new and aggressive politics at westminster for all of us. >> david cameron. >> five years ago this country was on the brink. we had millions of people unemployed and we had one of the biggest budget deficits anywhere in the world. for the last five years we've been working with the british people through a long-term economic plan. there are almost 2 million more people in work. it is a balanced plan. so we've invested our -- in ourfá nhs, as well as reducing the deficit. and we've cut taxes for 30 million working people. and the plan is working because

last year we had the fastest growing economy of any of the major western countries. now tonight you are going to hear a lot of people claiming a lot of uq rthings. but please remember these are the same teampeople who claimed if we followed our plan unemployment wouldn't go up. the deficit wouldn't go down. the economy wouldn't grow. and public services would be destroyed. they were wrong then and now. the choice of this election is sticking with a plan that is working or going back to the debt, taxes borrowing and spending that got us here in the first place. i say let's not go back to square one. britain can do so much better than that. >> leanne wood. >> i understand all too well the difficulties that have been faced by our communities in recent years. you tell me that jobs and services have been kept to the born and they can be kept no

more. played cymru offers on alternative. a hope for the young people and for thriving, successful communities. we can win for whales but we can only do that with your support. i'm asking you to support plaid cymru, the party of whales to make our communities in whales as strong as they can be. support us to make us whales' voice in westminster. >> ed miliban. >> here is what i believe. britain succeeds when working people succeed. that's not the way it's been. five years wages haven't keptd one bills. five years nhs has been going backwards. five years our young people have been fearing they will have a worse life than their parents.

it doesn't have to be this way. if i'm prime minister i'll raise the minimum wage to 8 pounds an hour and ban exploitive zero hours contracts and reward hard work again in our country. hiring more doctors and nurses. if i'm prime minister i'll build a future for all of our young people. saying if you get the grades you get an apprenticeship. and cutting tuition free from 9,000 to 6,000 pounds and we'll cut the deficit every year and balance the books. some people will tell you tonight this is as good as it gets for pretty enbritain. i say britain can do so much better than it's done over the last five years. >> party leaders thank you for your opening statements tonight. and the format for tonight is simple. our audience will put their questions directly to the leaders. each will then have one minute to answer before we open things up for a free-flowing debate. and our first question tonight comes from johnny. >> as a 17-year-old student of

politics. i would like to ask, how do each of the party leaders believe they will be able to keep their promises of eliminating the deficit without raising certain taxes or making vast cuts to vital public services? >> johnny, thank you very much, nick clegg. >> i think it's all about balance, isn't it. that's why i don't think that you should be faces rngs johnny with the stark choice of either cutting too much. george osbourne and david cameron's plan is for 50 billion pounds of cuts are way beyond what is needed edneeded. or borrowing too much. i think that is a bad choice. it is a balance and it means you need to reduce spend being i also make thosed with the broadest shoulders the wealthiest to pay bit more to balance the books. that is the way you can balance the books do it fairley also of

course put money into public services. perhaps most especially the nhs which does need more money because of aging population. the liberal democrat is very simple. cut less from conservatives and borrow less for labor. >> david cameron. >> first we've got a plan which is working. we've taken 3 million of the lowest paid people out of tax and we've gotable almost 2 million people back into work. what's crucial here i think is recognizing that what our plan involves is balance. we're going to go on investing in the nhs every year as we have done under this government under the last parliament. we'll going to do that in the next parliament and find savings of 1 out of every 100 pounds the government spends. if we need to do that for two more years, just as we've done for the last five years. but the alternative to that plan is actually putting up taxes. and i don't want to do that. i think that if we go back to the tax, the waste, the spending

and the debt -- all of the things that got introduce the mess in the first place we wouldn't help working people. we'd hurt working people. that is what labor did last time and we mustn't let it happen again. >> david cameron, thank you. leanne wood. >> under our plan the deficit would be cut from 90 to 30 billion by 2020. we see no reason to put ash trair deadlines on cutting the deficit. we were told the deficit would be eliminated within this parliament yet debt has gone up. we face all of these cuts so much pain for so little gain. the banks have had a bailout. it is time now for the people to have a bail out. and it is time for us to invest in public services and job creation and to see an end to austerity and cuts. >> thank you. nigel. >> the question is right.

how could anybody believe these promises on cutting the deficit? because this coalition was put together to reduce the annual deficit to zero. that is why these two got together. it is still running at 90 billion sterling every year. more remarkably and what no one talks about is the national debt, which has been going on for hundreds of years and in this five years the national debt doubled from 850 billion to 1.5 trillion. we need to make cuts and there are places we can start. we can easily cut 10 billion pounds a year from the foreign aid budget. another 10 billion pounds a year by not paying over money to brussels every day. and end vanity projects likes h 2 s 2 that only benefit a tiny amount of people. and reneed to revisit the barny formula. english taxpayers are getting a rotten deal and we can save $5 billion a year in doing that. there is a plan and promise that could be kept.

>> thank you. >> johnny we'll cut the budget every year and as i said in the beginning we'll balance the books but we'll do nit a fairer and the better way in the last year fives. david cameron promised to eliminate the deficit and e failed. first of all we'll have reverse taxes so we'll reverse tax cuts he gave to millionaires. 43,000 pounds for every millionaire in britain. and secondly. outside key areas like health spending will fall. thirdly, your living standards have fallen over the past five years. and that isn't just been bad for working people. it's also meant government hasn't had the tax revenues coming in. that's why this government failed on the deficit. so what we'll do is by boosting living standards, that is the third part of our plan, live within our means, get the deficit down and balance the books. it's fair, better way for our

country. >> thank you. natalie bennett. >> well john, i think what we're offering is not cuts. we're offering the reversal of austerity, investing in your future and the future of everybody in this room. and what we've been doing is looking at this then wrong way around. we've been slashing away at essential public services. and let's think about what austerity actually means. probably somewhere near you there is a children center for a library that is closed. think of a worker inside that children's center. she used to be providing an essential public service to your community. she used to be paying tax and national insurance. she had a modest amount of income to bring to spend in the community. now that essential service is gone. she's on job seekers allowance. and everybody is much poorer. so what we're saying is we do need to raise taxes on those who aren't currently paying their share. multinational companies in particular and rich individuals. if they pay their share and the

world's sixth richest country we can afford to have a decent society and accord to have decent public services. >> natalie bennett. thank you. nicola sturgeon. >> cutting deficit is important. but economic policy shouldn't be an end in itself. it should be a means to people living better lives and the fact is austerity is pushing people into policy. undermining public services and holding back economic growth. and when economic policy is doing all of that, that policy needs to change. so i don't agree with the cuts proposed by them. i take a different view. we should modest spending increases over the next parliament. it will take slightly longer to eliminate the deficit completely but the deficit will exoneratecontinue to fall in each year. but that alternative plan would mean we have resources to invest. the things we need to get economy growing and resources to

invest in services and left people out of poverty that. kind of alternative plan must be better than a blind commitment to austerity that doesn't take account to the damage being done to our society. >> nicola sturgeon. thank you. so you have made your opening statements on the first question tonight. time to open the floor and contest each other's arguments. and nick clegg. >> i have a question for david cameron cameron. he's just said he wants to stay the course. of course that is not what the conservative party want to do at all. remarkably the conservative party have said they are not going to ask the richest in society to make a single penny of extra contribution to balance the books in the tax system. they want to impose idealogically driven cuts on schools. and when i hear the conservatives talk about the choice between competence and chaos. just imagine the chaos in people's lives the people in the nhs don't know where they are going to find the money. the people who don't know their

schools or nursery are going to close. you need a balanced approach. you need to reduce spend bug also you need to ask the richest a contribution. it's the only fair way. >> nick is wrong about you are a plans because of course we are going to raise 5 billion from tax evasion and the aggressive taxing in the economy. and also cutting packs for the people. >> -- >> -- evaders. but here is the point. we've got to understand why the deficit matters and why we got here and the problem and real choice is with ed miliband who still thinks the government didn't borrow too much, tax too much. and few you don't understand the mistakes of the past you can't talk about the future. >> you just said you were tackling tax avoidance. look at the reality. you haven't acted on the tax havens or the hedge funds.

we've shown how you can raise over a billion pounds as the time to care fund on the nhs. 20,000 more nurse, 8,000 more doctor, 5,000 more work skpes 3,000 more mid wives. >> thank you. >> the leadership that will stand up and -- >> david cameron. >> once again he's wrong. just this week we introduced a reverted profit tax to go after companies that make money in britain and don't pay tax. but here is what he's not telling you. because he doesn't support the reductions and efficiencies we've had to make. he wants to support a very big u &háhp &hc% cut. he wants to put up taxes and cut your pay and take your money out because he thinks he can spend that money better than you. that would be a great mistake. >> one moment. nick cleggs7 thank you. >> iranic isn't it hearing nick

clegg and david cameron argue when they have been hand in glove the last five years. david said everybody had been proved wrong. that's a not that case. he missed his own borrowing targets by 150 billion pounds. his policies are pushing children into poverty. there is a million additional children estimated to be going to be living in poverty by 2020. this is not right. so what i want to do. i back it on raising the --. i also want the see raising in the future of children. i take a clear view. this country cannot affordi+w more cuts in the next parliament. we need to see spending rise so we can invest in things that matter. >> i'm hearing half the panel saying that we have no economic problems with debt at all. and the other half of the panel saying that they have been prudent in government. look there is no question that spending got completely out of control under labor. and there are many:,!q thought this coalition would bring it back under control. we have doubled the national

debt in the course of the last five years. our debt repayment is bigger than our annual defense budget and that is with interest rates close to zero. we have a massive problem here. and it seems to me have a massive problem here. it seems to me that nobody is prepared to admit that what we've down is maxed out the credit cards. at some point we've got a dreadful debt repayment problem. we've got to get real and cut budgets like foreign aid with dujts -- >> let's turn that to nick clegg. i don't think that's the best solution to our problems. but look it comes back to the simple issue of how do you balance the books but do it fairly. don't i don't believefá that you do it by letting the richest off free. i don't weekly think it's fair to do what the labor party wanted to do which is ñ actually increase borrowing. >> let's put that point directly

to -- >> the way you'vezv done it so far. you've been balancing the books on the backs of the poor. >> that was done in a -- >> the books are balanced. look what's going on here. can we get real ( please? >> 79,000 people -- >> thank you. ed miliband. >> 30% of -- >> lee anne thank you. mungering tonight0l from nick clegg and david cameron. they're scared you're going to kick them out. david cameron wants to double the cuts in spending next year. at home you've got to make a decision. is that really a balanced plan. i think that would put at risk the nhs. it's much better to have a fair plan that says those are the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden. >> thank you. now to bennett. >> there's two issues covered here.

one is the issue of the debt. it's worth saying about over the last 100 yearsp, britain ran a higher debt to gdp ratio and nobody worried about it. but the question you have to ask is why are you borrowing. if you're borrowing the build the new council and homes for social rent that we need you know you're going to get a return far into the future. your end right to buy that asset is there for the future generations. the second point about the nature of the cuts. this has been borne overwhelmingly by the most vulnerable in this society. the bedroom tax, two thirds of the households affected by thatp have at least one disabled person in them. independent living firm. 18,000 of the most vulnerable people in our society support slashed away. we have to be a humane fair decent te. 7 we haveé[j t the most}ejá >> thank you. david cameron. >> we've cut the eficit in qv:(;tl2@pcó=&+ half.n# wu'%a ]z

we need to clear the rest>> edñf] miliband in here pldlr. >> isn't that the truth? >> we have cut -- >> the amount we borrow every year has come down. >> nigel farage. >> there you go again, you can't

talk about the present and yoi can't talk about the future so you've got to talk about the past. i think people at home want to know what we're going to do for them for the next fafive years. let's talk about the future. let's talk about the choices for working families in the future. are we going to have fairer taxes so those with the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden. are we going to slash and burn as david cameron wants to do. >> let me talk about the future. we're going to train more apprentices apprentices, build houses for people to buy. we're going keep on with reduction in employment. but we won't do it if we go back to the debt, the welfare, the spending and the tactions. >> david cameron, thank you. nigel farage. >> how does that cut the deficit. the question that we started off with, how can they believe your promises. you've failed in the government to eliminate the deficit. that was your promise. tell johnny who asked the question, what are you going to cut? >> what i would say is we're

going to find one pound out of everyone hundred that the government spends and save it for. if we coit for two more combined with the extra taxes in terms of tax avoidance we'll eliminate the deficit. >> david cameron, thank you. let me put the point on the side of the deficit to leanne wood. >> labor have voted for more austerity. they voted for the austerity charter which means another 30 billion pounds of cuts. and in the valleys where i live we've yet to recover from the recession before last, let alone this one. and your party, ed, represents many airs ya of wales at all different levels. do you accept that you failed people in wales because we represent some of the poorest communities in the whole of the eu and your party is presiding

over those communities. >> no, i don't, let me tell you about the difference ps between me and david cameron because you raised the point. he refuses to have an mansion tax. instead he wants to keep the bedroom tax. i'll a bankers bonus tax to put joining people back to work. ail make fairer choices than him and he wants to go much further ore the deficit and spending cuts and that will mean not just that we balance the books but go further and that will mean a crushing impact -- >> i think the question -- >> funding is being disadvantaged in wales since 1978 when the formula was first invented. when your party was in power and had an opportunity to sort that out, you don't do it. >> thank you. >> we deserve an additional 1.2 billion pounds in wales to take us up to scotland. if. >> let's bring in nigel farage

on that point and then i'm bring in nick cola sturgeon. >> so much of their money going over adrian's wall, no university tuition whooils in england, there needs to be rebound. scotland should receive less money per capita. >> can i go to nigel farage now? >> -- population to the treasury treasury. but the question for that it's only a few weeks since ed miliband went through the house with david cameron to vote for 30 billion pounds of cuts over the next two years. i take a different view to that. i don't believe you can cut your way out of deficit. i think david cameron has proved that.

he's missed all of his targets. we need to grow out of our problem. let's have spending increase. these modest spending. invest in the things that -- >> come back directly to nick cola. >> in fact just two weeks ago we had a vote against -- >> let me -- >> let me say to you -- >> thank you. >> you've got a plan -- >> the only cuts. >> and you need to explain what that will mean for the people -- >> the only cuts on the line are the cuts thatlpfávmki miliband --d >>xdxd+my absolutely %% 1c?;çxqókú i5a >>cñyó[wisá thank you.myy nick colalpk '8%15'lt e-rze1etr(t&háhp &hc% right.fánbñiçóñid

employment inw3kook britain ht.today.cçó0l(s75yn@ one in fiv3?:÷5tfp, 20% ofçóç living &háhp &hc% people have been÷h&ñ forced intoñiqp5w"láqgwl2 r(t&háhp &hc% self employment not by-9fmyxpxdñb?9vlma choicexdd because there's noth 80% ofk

advantage whatsoever. these are massivization we could make and we could actually -- some of the concerns about social spending and everything else, that's not where the cuts need to come. >> thank you. thank you nigel farage. >> we want to lift aid to 1% gdp, increase the aid because we need a more secure stable world. that means tackling hunger, disease, supporting human democracy and human rights. >> i think we've seen the choice tonight. i've said i'll put the deficit every year. i've said that tl will have to be spending reduction. david cameron has an extreme plan. he's failed in this plan. wants to go much much further. i'm not going to stand on the stage tonight and say there don't need to be difficult decisions. cuts will have to come but we can do it in a balanced and fair way. >> thank you very much indeed policy leaders on our first question this evening.

and our next question tonight is in the scenario where powers are in the scottish parliament. this debate is about election of the parliament at westminster. our question comes if rerty kelly. >> as a 63-year-old i've grown up with the nhs, recently retired after 30 years of working there. my question is this. how will your party ensure long term funding for the nhs while keeping it as a public service accessible to all. >> thank you very much indeed, terry. i'll turn first to nigel farage. >> like you, i care about the nhs, i've had so many scrapes in my life i've needed it for more than more people. when it comes to emergency care, it probably is the best in the world. that doesn't mean there aren't some things that occasionally go wrong. this whole question of how we fund the health service with a population that's rapidly

rising with a population that is aging is a big question. we've had a big internal debate in our party. run it as a public service free of access and to recognize that there has been a 48% growth in middle management of the nhs since 1997. the labor party attempted to privatize large chunks of the health service. that i also don't believe has worked. i put an extra 3 billion pounds in from savings through eu contributions and stock the tax by ending hospital parking charges. >> nigel farage thank you. nicola surgeon. >> this is an important question. the nhs is the most precious public service we've got. i was a health secretary for five years. in scotland we protected the budget of the nhs and we will so. we also believe that the nhs

should be run as a public service, not for private. we pose it in principle but also because it poses a risk in the long term to scotland's budget. that's why in the house ofjft ñry commons will take the opportunity to vote against any extension to privatization in england. it's one of the many ways in which you seek to build progressive alliances. the best thing we can do is to end -- you hear the other parties tonight ending funding. but if they try to the that within the spending cuts then they'll have to cut even deeper. and anybody that tells you that cutting the social care budget or the welfare budget is (dhs6

skbr put money in the nhs because we'll actually get the job done of balancing the books and then we can invest in the nhs. that is the way to balance the books and invest in the nhs. it means 8 billion pounds more here. 800 million pounds more for the nhs in scotland and 450 million pounds more in wales. and my challenge to the leaders here is if you love the nhs so much, put your money where your heart is. >> nick clegg, thank you.

>> we're proud. it's probably one of the most important contributions of our modern age and it was based on a scheme founded by people contributing together to fund the help that they needed collect tuffly. the nhs is precious and it must be defended against privatization. and the nhs facings two threats. one from continued austerity and cuts, but two from centralization and the labor in wales. the company wants to recruit and attract an additional thousand doctors into the welsh nhs to bring us up to the same level as the rest of the uk. at the moment we're way behind. have fewer doctors than the vast majority of countries in the eu. >> leanne wood, thank you.

ed miliband. >> i'm dreeply concerned about what i see happening in our national health service. we see people waiting longer for their test results longer to see a gp wsh longer to have an operation. we've got to turn it around. and when you hear from us leaders tonight, i think at home you should ask where specifically is the money coming from. i'll tell you. we're going to have a mansion tax on the most expensive homes above 2 million pounds. we're going to get money from the hedge found and money from the tobacco companies for 2.5 billion pounds. that will hire 20000 more nurses 8,000 doctors, 5,000 more care workers and 3,000 more mid wives. it's taking on the biggest challenge that we face an aging population. if they get get in to see their gp or be seen at home, they end

up there. >> thank you for your incredible service to the nhs. you're absolutely right. this is the most important national institution and national public service that we have. and i'll never forget as the dad of a desperately disabled child what i got every night when i took him to hospital worrying about his health. i got unbelievable care and i want that for every family and everyone in our country. we've been talking about the difficult decisions we made to turn the economy around. but our different decision was to fund the nhs putting more money in every year. that meant that we trained 7,000 more nourss, 9,000 more doctors and we also took out of if nhs 20,000 bureaucrats becausety want the money spent on patient care. it's key that we keep a strong economy and i want to see the nhs move to much more seven-day operation like your gp being open 8:00 in the morning, 8:00

in the evening. there's one point i want to end on. there's only one group of politicians anywhere in the united kingdom who cut the nhs and that was the labor department in wales. think about that. >> thank you very much in deed for your opening comments. i'm going to turn to nigel farage to open the debate. >> i wonder what everybody thinks about health tour risk. lee anne made the point ic christened. we have a lot of people coming in and using the health service that are not british residents. i just wonder would the panel agree with me that actually it needs to be the national health service. wouldn't it be a sensible thing if every other sensible country in the world we said to foreign workers who come to britain you must have health insurance when you come here. >> let me bring in natalie bennett. you were shaking your head. >> absolutely not.

the figures benefit tourism that nigel farage is citing they do not reflect the reality. the situation is people come here as immigrants to work or they come here to seek asylum as refugees. we've had a dangerous debate about immigration, where it's been fueled from sadly followed by the others. we need to look at the facts that our nhs is hugely dependent upon foreign born workers. it couldn't operate without them. >> thank you very much natalie bennett. let's remind ourselves of the question how your party extends the long time funding of the nhs. >> of course we have to look at those issues and deal with them. but i really don't believe that is the root of all of the problems of the national health service. i wanted to pick up on something that david cameron said. he protected the nhs. a million people waited last year for more than four hours. we've got ambulances cueing

outside in our merge units. we're missing the targets for cancer treatment for the first time ever. and to add to that we had a tent erected in a car park to treat people in 2015 in our united kingdom. that is not protecting the nhs. >> david cameron. >> first of all let's take the one example of cancer. what we're seeing with cancer is 460,000 more people a year getting seen and getting examine examined for cancer than used to happen. our survival rates for cancer are now some of the best in europe. we're changing the nhs and improving it. but a strong nhs needs a strong economy. we go back to the plans for debt and spending' welfare, the economy will be wrecked. when i said we would fund the nhs more every year, the labor view was that was irresponsible.

the liberal democrat view was that was not responsible. >> david cameron, thank you. just for a moment thank you. nick clegg. >> i mean, terry asked how are we going to safeguard the nhs for future generations for the aging prop ageing population. but tl's a simping question. who has got a plan to put 8 billion pounds of additional money into the nhs. that's what all of us standing here has been told is required. you're only going to get it if you're going to ask the wealthiest to pay a small contribution. one other thing i would like to say mental health for far too long has been the physical cousin of the nh. the more we can do to treat mental health within i think that will put the nhs in good shape for the future. >> nicola sturgeon.

>> it's increased and will go up by 400 million pounds next year. look, i think one of the things we've learned is there's not anything that nigel farage wouldn't believe on foreigners. the pressures on the health service, many of them are things that we should celebrate. people are living longer. we've got new treatments and technologies. how do we deal with that. as of yesterday in scotland health and soernl care services are integrated and yes we've got to invest. i think it's great to accept the stephens report but nick clegg's is 9.5 billion pounds for the whole uk. and if you follow the plan i'm putting forward of modest fiscally responsible spending, we can invest more in the health service but do that without cutting welfare and saeshl -- >> thank you. >> health has been used by labor and the conservatives in order to score points off of each

other ahead of the general election. and the people that suffer most when that happens are the patients and the staff in the welsh. now there are problems in health in glen and in wales. and my view is that those problems are exacerbated by cuts to social services but they're also exacerbated by privatization. it was the labor party that began the process of privatization in the health service. they introduced schemes and they introduced foundation hospitals as well. my view is that the private sector has no role in a public health service. >> i'll just say this lee anne, my two sons were born at a psi hospital. it was an old falling down hospital. there need to be limited of privatization privatization. we're roll back the role of privatization privatization. but i do want to come back to david cameron. he said he protected the nhs and

kept it word. david, you made a whole series of promises at the last general election. you said no top down reorganization. you didn't listen to the staff and that's exactly what happened. you said no going back to the days when people had to wait hours on end. this is exactly what happened. i don't think people take seriously your promises -- >> let me tell you what we did. we put 9,000iu nurses in. presumably he would like to rehire the burreaucrats. i want doctors with steph scopes.scopes scopes. dementia is growing. just a few miles away from where we are tonight is the hospital that carries out operations and scans and treatments on saturday

and sundays as much as they do monday through friday and as a result they provide a fantastic service. we can improve our nhs if we improve the way it works and go off things like dementia public health and challenges that put pressure on nhs. >> let's talk about the 600 million pounds that went to the health funds. the privatization is causing damage. we're racing towards the american health care system, a system that uses twice the percentage of gdp that we use on health care for worse outcomes. one more point i really want to pick up. we also need to think about the nature of our society. and if we're going to take the pressure off of nhs we need a healthier society. encourage walking and cycling. take the stress off of people. >> nick clegg. >> it's not the case, not true that there's been a push towards

privatization. it's not the case. >> what? >> 49%. >> thank you nicola sturgeon. >> -- by the labor government. >> i'm not defending that. >> when we took over five years ago, the amount of nhs money devoted to the private sector was 4%. it is now 6%. i don't call that a great sweeping action of privatization. we need to prioritize mental health and bring social care and health care together. we have too many elderly folk in hospital beds that need to be -- >> my challenge was ignored and pushed aside for political reasons. terry wants to know where the money is coming from. you've got to put money in. i mentioned health terrorism. here's a fact and i'm sure that other people will be mortified that i dare to talk about it.

there are 7,000 diagnosis in this country every year for people who are hiv positive. not a good place for any of them to be. i know. but 60% of them are not british nationals. you can come into britain from anywhere in the world and get diagnosed with hiv and get the drugs that cost up to 25,000 pounds per year per pointeatient. i know there are horrible things happening in many parts of the world but we need to put the national health service for the british families who have paid into this system for decades. >> thank you. this kind -- >> it's a fact. >> it's dangerous. it divides -- >> well it's true. >> it creates stigma to people who are ill. and i think you ought to be ashamed of yourself. >> we've got to put our own people first. [ applause ] would you open it up to 17,000 people? 27,000 people? the question is how do we fund

the nhs. and up to 2 billion pounds a year is being lost on health tourism -- >> nicola sturgeon. >> my instinct is to view them as a human being, not consider what country they come from. i want to go back to something ed miliband said. he said there should be limits on the private tie dagszags. i take a different view. nick clegg you legislated 49% of hospital beds to be used for the private sector. my message to people in england and wales, you want to roll back to tied of privatization, we'll be your allies. >> nick clegg and then to ed miliband. >> as i say, five years ago we inherited a situation where the

previous government wasted 250 pounds on sweet heart deals with private contractors in the nhs which didn't help a single nhs person. we outlawed that use of money for private sector contracts. and as i said earlier 4% under labor was already the vote -- >> thank you. >> it is simply not the case to allege the privatization has happened in an unbridled fashion since this government came into power. >> you supported the health and social care act which is a recipe for privatization. but there's a bigger issue for people at home. that's future plans for nhs. i've set out where the money is coming from. david cameron is planning to double the spending cuts next year and bigger cuts in the next three years. think of what that would mean for the nhs and social care. if you cut social care dramatically, you undermine the nhs fundamentally. because elderly people don't get

the help in their home, they end up in the hospital. that's what happening now. imagine what it will be like with another five years of david cameron. >> david cameron. >> ed miliband is scare mungering. the nhs is a service for our families not a political weapon. let's be clear about social fund. we started bringing health and soernl care together so we can unblock the hospital beds, making sure that people get the care that they need in the community. nick was talking about the inheritance we had. there was something else we inherited, a culture of coverup. 60 miles from where we are is the hospital and we all remembered what we uncovered with that public inquiry that elderly people were being left uncared for, some of them drinking out of water bottles because they weren't being looked after. we've changed that and made sure

there were more nurses onwards more doctors in charge and standards of care are going up. >> doesn't that make the situation even worse, put even more people at risk because you've got fewer social workers -- >> i agree -- it's very important -- >> i would suggest from this discussion we need three things to safeguard the nhs. fist, money 8 billion pounds. my party has a plan to do so. secondly, give mental health the same importance and emphasis in the nhs as traditionally given to physical health and making sure that elderly patients are discharged from the hospital, the social care system has a place for them to go. >> let's pick up on the point that david cameron made about coverup. ed miliband. >> i would say to everybody at home, use your vote in this election as a right to fight. it needs to be rescued from you db david.

i've got to say, over 13 years the labor government transformed nhs from 18-month waiting to 18-week waiting. that's our record and now it's going backwards under you. you've failed the british people. they bhooefd you. they bhooefd you. they believe you're another kind of conservative and it's gone backwards on your watch and they won't trust you again. you are wrong on the figures. there are more nurses more doctors and more people being treat because we have a strong economy. let's remember the failure of the last labor government that virtually bankrupted the country and left us with impossible difficult decision. a decision that labor at the time said was irresponsible. we went ahead and invested in nhs as part of a balanced plan for our country. >> ed miliband. >> people at home will have to decide. i think the nhs is a foundation for working families in our

country. that's why my plan is only when working people succeed that britain succeeds. david cameron wants to tell you it's gotten better, path himself on the back. you've got to decide -- >> ed miliband thank you. >> it's going backwards and not safe in his hands. >> i think david cameron raised the issue of social care and this is a critically important one that has huge impacts on the nhs. two million people aged over 65 who need social care. 800,000 of them are not getting any help at all. it's worth thinking for a second about what social care actually is. you might need help getting out of bed and bathe in the morning. you might need help eating just living your life. and you're not getting the help you need. and that's why the green party is calling for free social care for the over 65 to provide it for everybody who needs it. >> thank you natalie bennett. david cameron. >> there's a point about the fund that will fund the vital

social candidate that natalie is talking about. i want to say how important it is that we have a seven-day nhs with your gp being open 8:00 in the morning an 8:00 in the evening. we're seeing a lot less pressure on hospitals because people can get to see their gps when they want. all of this is taking the extra resources that we put into the nhs because the long term economic plan is working. >> you promised seven day waiting and you failed to bring it. >> we've come to the end of the debate on nhs. thank you very much for all of that. we're going to take a short break. when we come back the issue will be immigration. so please do stay with us for that. [ applause ]

[ applause ] >> welcome back. tonight seven party leaders are debating the big issues of the election campaign live here. late in the campaign there will be debates produced in scotland and in wael and in northern ireland, a u tv debate involving five distinct and separate mayor parties there. elsewhere in the uk you'll be able to see the debate. time now for kour third question which comes from joan. >> as a part of europe immigration is inevitable. if you were elected, how would your address the issue of immigration? >> joan, thank you very much indeed for that. ed miliband. >> joan, thank you for your question. i change labor's approach on immigration because i don't think it's prejudice to worry about immigration.

i think people's concerns are real and they've got to be dealt with and i want to explain how we'll deal with them. if i'm elected as prime minister we'll put in place new rules which say if you come to this country you won't get benefits for at least the first two years. ail do something else which gives a concern to many people in our country. we'll stop the undercutting of wages and conditions that happen so often. employers exploiting migrant labor, not paying the minimum wage recruiting only from aboard. we've got to deal it with and if i'm prime minister i will. one other thing i'll say to you, though. if you want a party that will cut britain off from the rest of the world, that's not me. i believe we've got the play our role in the world. but if you want a party with control on immigration that's what i offer. >> ed miliband thank you very much indeed.

leanne wood. >> i won't go along with the scapegoating. it was not the bar workers what caused this economic crisis. it was bankers. and we shouldn't allow the rhetoric that blames immigrants for all of our ills. there's a reason why there's a strong anti-immigration feeling in areas where there is little immigration, and that's because often those areas have not shared in the wealth that is being generated. there are gaps in the welsh economy and there are suited skills that we need. but sadly the debate around immigration has stopped those gaps being filled. we talked earlier about the welsh nhs. we have fewer doctors in the population as a part of the eu and this immigration debate has not help that problem. it's exacerbated it. >> leanne wood. thank you. nicola sturgeon.

>> we do need strong and effective controls on imkbrags. we need to make sure that people don't get away with abusing the systems that the rest of us pay for. we need to recognize parts of the uk that with housing and public services. the answer to that is investing more in home and public services and enforcing a decent minimum wage, not in scapegoating immigrants. i think the views of the westminster parties on this issue has been driven by fear rather than national debate. here's some facts that we need to beer in mind. eu immigrants are contributor to the uk public finances. the majority of migrants work. the majority of those who don't work are students. and let's also not forget that hundreds of thousands of writtish citizens go to live in other countries. how would we feel if they were spoken about or treated in the way that migrants are often here. let's have a debate,