being married to? >> there should be no -- there should be no discrimination against the windows, no discrimination against those who have been abandoned by their partners. and that is why we have a system of individual taxation and we have special allowances for widows. i would hesitate to say that the proposal for a married couples or married allowed would be there to was or people that have been abandoned by their partners. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last year the noble lord mandelson launched a 1 billion pounds strategic investment fund. it was designed to help industries right across the country. the prime minister struggled with 50,000 pounds earlier but let me tie him with this particular number. why is that 90 percent of that fund doesn't help industry across the country? 90% is then given to labor constituencies. >> mr. speaker, the purpose of all our measures in the

recession is to help industry and business out of recession. 300,000 businesses have been held in all constituencies of the country. the only difference between us is they oppose all our measures and we took action to get us out of recession. and we are taking the action to keep us out of recession while the conservatives don't have a clue what the we do in 2010. >> does the prime minister welcomed the proposals for licensing and planning concerning houses in multiple occupation that were announced last week? we urge the authorities such as in southampton to make or use of the pounds of milk and? >> i know my auto friend has taken this issue up on many occasions that i know it is an important issue we are dealing with cities

f. >> , nylon c-span 2 when is this and sunday nights on c- span. you can find a video archive of the prime minister's questions. you can find a link to the house of commons. >> up next, prime minister gordon brown takes questions from the british house of commons liaison committee. after that, it is q&a with donna hartma, hartman. -- with, hartma tom harman. -- with tom hartman.

>> the communicator's is monday night on c-span 2. >> twice a year, the british prime minister meets with the liaison committee. it is made up of 30 chairman of the house of commons select committee. the questions to the prime minister are not shown in events. he will answer questions on the british economy, parliamentary reform, world affairs, and the role of the prime minister.   we have looked at a whole series of how to improve security in

the region it is an assessment not of but intentions of capabilities of people who will do damage to our country. you get a sense that you look at intentions and abilities. we took a new measures to deal with the terrorist threat that existed. >> we understand that these things remain confidential. you cannot show them in public. do you think that the public ought to have been given and in the future to be given more information as to what they should do as a result of the level going up from substantial to severe or from severe to critical? that way they understand the words, but they do not know if they should leave their briefcase at home or if they should do something different from what they did yesterday.

>> to all those people who have concerns for the security of our country, this is important. we are introducing a system which will give us far more ability to stop people from coming into the country in the first place. that is developing over the course of this year. all those people who are concerned with managing our borders and looking their security and organizing flights will be aware of this. i, too, and wanting to make sure that we are clear wit. 

we are taking what action we can to make sure that our country is as safe as possible >>. >> what is the underlying message? >> i think you have to put this in proper perspective. until a year ago, we had a higher alert. we've reduced it. of course, and the assessment required to raise it again. >> yesterday, the transport secretary announced [unintelligible] if he had traveled through london, would we have been able to discover what he was up to? >> i think there will be a major

improvement. but there are new technologies being used by the terrorist organization al qaeda and we have to keep up with them. that is one of the reasons we have commissioned and given incentives to companies for new technologies to stop the things that are now being done. what we are using the newest technology to the best of our ability by bringing in new body scanners. obviously, technology will improve and will enable us to do even more >>. >> it is also about the international standard. does it concern you that it is not an international standard at the moment that people can adhered to. we may have 20 body scanners, but yemen does not have a single body scanner.

>> as you know, we have suspender flats from yemen -- suspended our flights from yemen. you're absolutely right. we are getting training to countries so they were introduced to the latest sophisticated systems. we must also has the cooperation of europe in terms of data and similarities in security systems that we use. of course, our cooperation with america is very strong indeed. >> [unintelligible] >> i have had a chance to see the headlines. [laughter] >> uconn of all people should know not to judge -- you, of all people, should know not to judge the situation by a headline.

this is building on the foundation that we have at the moment. [unintelligible] obviously, ella people do a lot of good work. do you not think it is important to bring together these things so that you have the best possible advice from those who deal with these issues? >> on july 7 last year, the u.k. counter-terrorism was first-class effective and as the best and the government system could expect. [laughter] as far as the national security committee is concerned, i just want to make sure there's no misunderstanding on this. the ministers are concerned with every area of security.

but it also has the chief of the defense staff. it has all of the security agencies, the chief of the metropolitan police terrorism division. it has all of those people there with the chief security advisers. in fact, there seems to be very little difference from your proposal and what we actually do. we would invite you to a meeting to see for yourself what they do. these are the decisions and this is the committee where we make and recommend to the cabinet decisions on security. and the people that you want to be there are actually there now. >> [unintelligible] >> i would be paid direct. [laughter] -- i would be pretty direct. [laughter] >> we accept that.

we would've thought there were a home office policy. but the department of transport takes the lead. is there any way in which you can look at the structure to see if they can be improved. -- improved? >> we have traveled with the [unintelligible] the danger that we face from potential terrorists from somalia or yemen or pakistan, we are looking at instances of people looking to organize damage against their country and we worked to prevent this from happening. it s actually the structure that you want -- it isn't actually --

it is actually the structure that you want. i think that it is a myth to suggest that that is not happening. as far as the individual responsibilities of the ministers is concerned, the responsibility is that they made a joint statement in january with the results that they have agreed on what we should do following the detroit bombing. a think is right to say that airport security and airports are a matter for the transport secretary. but the coordination between that and the home office are very strong indeed. we are dealing with international terrorism. the coordination between national agencies and international agencies is growing all the time. you cannot simply -- within britain, we will be best protected against terrorism by

taking issue with what is happening in pakistan, yemen, and somalia. we have to take action outside of our borders as well as inside of our borders. international cooperation is very important. >> we understand that the system has been suspended to the number of students coming in. the committee actually agree with you. we hope it will providing template for the future. does it worry you that the number of students coming in under the current system possibly could lead to abuse? does it concern you that we still don't have a figure on the number of colleges and there are in the united kingdom? >> since march 2009, any

institution that was to bring students must to go undergo -- must undergo a coordination. those were the lessons are regularly visited and monitors. those who do not meet the high standards will have their licenses suspended or revoked. we have already suspended the licenses of more than 150 colleges. we will continue to bear down on those institutions that do not play by rules. i understand that students coming to our country to city is an important part of our international links to other countries and our education system in britain can we do not want to discourage -- in britain. we do not want to discourage students from other countries. we have one of the largest groups of students sitting in our country. but we must take care that this route is not being abused.

that is why we're not just beating up on that system, but on the colleges were entitled to bring people to this country. >> you have received information that the system is being used by those who want to support terrorists? >> we are looking all the time any possible routes that any would-be terrorist would use. if people are referring themselves to students -- to be students when they are not genuine students and using a focus group to get into the united kingdom, it is our duty to try to stop that. we continue to be vigilant in this particular area. >> thank you. >> [unintelligible] last year, there was a lecture

that said that the time had come forward legislation. would you agree to that? " we certainly still need it. -- >> we certainly still needed. the question as to look at it in the light we have. we do need to come to terrorism legislation. we're dealing with a real threat that affects people in our country ther. it is their duty to protect every citizen of this country. >> the question is whether the legislation is too draconian or if it works? [unintelligible]

there are instructions that can be imposed. some have no curfews at all. the office has spent 8 million pounds on legal costs defending the legal cases. would that have not been better spent on more police ulcers -- on police officers? you do not get the same bad publicity of these extraordinary measures. >> can i put the other side of the story? the problem we have is that they're people that we suspected terrorist activity who we can neither deport from the country

nor are we in the position to prosecute. they are in this gray area where we have to defend the people of this country and we cannot take extreme actions. there were circumstances where there were not all the evidence necessary or the powers to do so in relation to deportations. the independent adjudicator has looked at this. he has come down in favor of what we have done. we're trying to get the balance right. you emphasized the individual rights. we have a duty to protect the general public. abandoning the control order system entirely would have a damaging effect on national security. there is no better means of dealing with this.

without going into the stories of these individuals, i think lord carlyle has given us a fairly best judgment about what is a better way forward. >> certainly, the issue here is protecting the public and the rights of individuals. looking at the alternative, that would be more effective police surveillance. 20 million pounds go along way in providing police officers to keep tabs on a dozen people and probably more effectively than the comptroller advises. >> it is a matter of judgment.

those of us agree that there is the responsibility to keep tabs on these people. so there is no disagreement there. when there's someone at risk of causing a terrorist act, all we cannot prosecute. we have to keep tabs on them. to think that they cannot be done -- to think that it can be done with purely police surveillance, it would have a damaging effect on national security. maybe in time we can find a better way of doing this. no one wanted to bring in control orders in the first place. we were forced to do so because we could not support people. -- we could not the pork people.

-- we could not suppordeport pe. >> [unintelligible] 1 of the special measures went up from 14 days. that was in june 2007, three years ago in 2008 -- three years ago. in 2008, [unintelligible] that review has not taken place. now i am told that there is no intention to carry out that review anyway. what we need to do is find out how this is being used, in particular in relation to the people released.

what effect of the 28 days detention has been made upon them? can we have that review? age was promised to meet in 2008. >> -- it was promised to me in 2008. >> it was part of the proposal that would be done in every individual case. it would be done in an independent way. i shall look at what you have been told in the house of commons. i do not have that at the moment. >> [unintelligible] can i ask about section 44, stop and search? as you know, a couple of weeks

ago, [unintelligible] they are and neither sufficiently certain or subject to [unintelligible] will have been told by senior officers that section 44 can only be used for counter- terrorism operations. but, in practice, it has become a lazy way for police officers to stop individuals more broadly. -- to stop and search individuals more broadly. will you look again at section 44? it does undermine the confidence in the police. it has been abused, i think. >> as far as i am concerned, this case went to the echr.

these earlier judgments of stop and search did not interfere with a person's human rights. the case was related to two people who were stopped near an arms fair in london in 2003. as far as i understand it, the home secretary was not only disappointed with the ruling in this case, because there are other challenges in the u.k. courts, they seek to appeal. then in the outcome of the appeal, the police will continue to have these powers available to them. >> time and again, we have had overwhelming evidence. [unintelligible]

>> i can accept that you feel strongly about it. but this is a case where the applicants lost a previous challenges, in the divisional court, the court of appeal, and the house of lords. we now have a judgment from the echr. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not know anything about that. [laughter] >> can i ask you finally about a couple of points that we explored before? >> yes. >> [unintelligible] the guidance emplacin place [unintelligible] >> let's be clear when we start this. we do not support torture.

we do not condemn torture. and we do not allow torture. and we do not ask the people to torture on their behalf. i am absolutely clear that these are the principles that guided the conduct of this administration. whether the allegations are treated seriously, i want to make sure there are guidelines so there is no doubt of the direction we give to those who are in charge of their security. they are now looking at these guidelines now. i would not want to go back to previous published recommendations. i want to publish recommendations that would be followed from now on. we, as a government, are doing everything that we can. we will publish them and that is something we already said we

would do. >> but the allegations have passed. i think you'll be able to put to rest these allegations. we have to know that the guidelines worked when the allegations were first brought. >> they are being dealt with at the moment through the courts. the thing that i can do in a job that i have is to make sure that people are clear of the guidelines through which all of our services are operating now. i would publish them at the advice of the intelligence and security. >> the intelligence and security code is prepared to make [unintelligible] they want to make it available to the media and public access, but not to [unintelligible] >> he has offered to come to your committee to give a confidential briefing on the

current terrorist threat. the security and services [unintelligible] they do meet with other heads of our security services and provide formal evidence to the security committee under the act. but they do not provide public evidence to other committees. i could give you a confidential briefing on the terrorist threat. >> add to the conference in london, nato and other allies pledged to do more to support the coalition effort. but it is quite clear that a few

countries, including our own, continue to carry the burden >> your right. there should be a fair sharing the burden. -- carry the burden. >> you are right. there should be a fair share in carrying the burden carrie. we want to get the afghans to [unintelligible] that is why we are training the afghan security offices and their police. we want all of the country's helping in this coalition to provide services in this. other countries have been prepared to help. the latest country who has added more numbers is germany over the course of the last few days. they are also offering support with police training. as important with having people on the ground and armed combat, we need trainers for the police

and the army. we hope that other countries will be able to do that quite soon. >> some of our partners may already be in sending troops to the areas of the country where they are not engaged. some of them still have national caveat restricting directly what they can do or, in the case of some countries, where they have to report back to their capital city? >> that is absolutely true. that is the basis for which some countries have agreed to come to the afghanistan effort. .

in view of the widespread corruption, the flawed election, and the fact that the afghan parliament have twice rejected a majority of the ministers put forward by president karzai, have we really got any confidence that he is going to change the way he has behaved in the last few years? >> i think president karzai came to the london conference to say that tackling corruption was the priority in his second term. he is already set up the anti- corruption commission, he is bringing in new laws to deal with corruption, and he has accepted international advice on this matter, and therefore some monitoring by the international community, and so the anti-

corruption effort has certainly been given a drive forward that was not there before the election. i think on other issues such as the provision of afghan forces -- that is him providing the numbers for us to train and to partner -- he has made good his promises and therefore there are additional troops joining the afghan army every day and joining the police force. we're going to bring the afghan army up from 90,000 to 134,000 by the end of this year, and to 175,000 by 2011, so we are doing a virtual doubling of the afghan army, and it requires mr. karzai himself to be able to ensure that that happens. we cannot do this on our own. he has to make the decisions to hire and then deploy the troops. we can help with the training but it is a big commitment that he has made and he is raising the number of police in

afghanistan from about 90,000 to 130,000, so there is a big rise in the number of police as well and he has to provide the police forces for afghanistan, too. >> ultimately we're not going to solve this problem military or -- militarily or by policing. it is a political issue that has to be solved here. and one of the proposals is for a new initiative to reconcile elements of the taliban. i would like to quote a few words to you from paragraph 5, it also says that there should be based on democratic accountability, equality, human rights, gender equality, good governance, and more effective provision of government services, economic growth. and i could go on. how confident are we that as we bring into a political reconciliation process people who did not necessarily sign up internally, even if they say it publicly, to those principles

and the afghan constitution that we will be able to get the kind of society in afghanistan which is consistent with the aspirations of this communique? >> i think the first priority is to secure a strong afghanistan so that -- the taliban know that they are fighting against the afghans themselves, the numbers that they are dealing with in the army and the police are sufficiently strong for them to realize that afghanistan itself is becoming strong. the office second thing is to weaken the taliban and to divide the taliban is an important aspect of this. those people prepared to renounce violence and join the democratic process in afghanistan and to abide by the constitution can divorce themselves from the ideologues and the extremists and the al qaeda links that some of the taliban have. but, in the end, as you know,

we're going to have to build local civilian government. we're going to have to build strong district and provincial governors who are free from corruption. we then have to build the local shuras and the strength that comes from people being able to resolve the issues in a peaceful way through local law and order systems that are working. that is a huge task, but the civilian part is as important at the military part, and it is employing that they are complementary. >> and i could take years, could it not? >> i think the build up of afghan forces is going to happen very quickly. >> but the other changes could take us years? >> the ability to transfer some districts and some provinces to afghan control could happen relatively soon in some cases. but i agree that this will happen over period of time.

there will be a transition to afghan control, but the policy is to make a transition to afghan control. >> i will bring in edward leigh. >> i know famously you are a workaholic, prime minister, so you read all of our reports, and in 2005 we found there was a helicopter shortage up to 38%. to be up-to-date, on january 19, the former secretary of state suggested that if he had been able to spend the money he wished to on helicopters in the period 2002 to 2004, obviously more helicopters would be available now. was he right? >> the defense budget was rising at that time. it was a matter for the defense board itself to make a decision about what their priorities were. we've had the longest rise in the defense budget for 20 years. we have put money available to the defense department.

they decided they would rebalance the program. it was their decision that they made. as far as helicopters in afghanistan are concerned, we have raised the amount of flying hours and the amount of helicopters in afghanistan very substantially over the last year. so i do not accept the first part of your allegations, and i'm trying to get you affirmation about what is actually happening on the ground in afghanistan. >> general lord walker told the chilcot inquiry yester day that we had been given the target as normal by the treasury, in this period when of course you were chancellor, "i think it included helicopter money. i think it included things like aircraft carriers. it was all big ticket items that were being threatened. i think we drew the line somewhere halfway down the page and said, if you go any further than that, you will probably have to look for a new set of chiefs." the fact is that when you were chancellor, you're putting heavy pressure and the treasury on the defense department -- from the treasury on the defense budget,

particularly on helicopters. >> i disagree entirely with what you're saying. i was responsible for negotiating the 2002 spending review which saw the largest increase in the defense budget in 20 years. the secretary of the state described as an excellent settlement for the defense that will allow us to invest in the continued modernization and evolution of the armed forces. you know this. the treasury provides three-year budgets to departments. also provides for the urgent operational requirements of the ministry of defence. there is no sense in which we were trying to cut the ministry of defense's budget. what happened was in one year they overspent and had to adjust their budget accordingly. >> so you do not accept the fact that we are now desperately trying to procure more helicopters and refurbish them showing that previously perhaps, when you were in charge of the budget, that we were not making the right decisions to procure them at that time? you just cannot accept that?

>> i am saying that the ministry of defense was given the biggest settlement in 20 years. it was their decisions about how they dealt -- about how they allocated the money to the specific -- specific programs. it was not for me to tell the ministry of defense whether to spend their money on this so that. >> i am not going to pursue this but this is not what general lord walker says. he says there were given line by line items. what happens now? >> you with the chairman of the public accounts committee. i like to finish this conversation because you are the chairman of the public accounts committee, you know the way the treasury works. we allocate budgets on a three- year period to the different departments and at the ministry of defense's settlement was welcomed at the time as the largest increase for 20 years. it is for the ministry itself to make decisions within its budget how it would spend on particular items of its capital program. as far as helicopters, i want to assure you that we have almost doubled the helicopter numbers

in afghanistan in the last three years. we have more than doubled the flying hours. we have fitted more powerful engines and improved cockpits to the chinook fleet at a cost of some 400 million pounds, while conducting an urgent program to introduce eight chinooks into service to support current operations. so we try to make sure that in this new terrain, helicopters that have moved from iraq are available to do the work in afghanistan. >> nobody denies that helicopters are now coming on stream. but we were told that the reverse in program was supposed to be ready by may 2010, and it is not going to be ready until late 2010, so there will be a six-month delay. the m o d was supposed to deliver the first of its upgraded lynx by the end of 2009. they're still having delays in meeting debt. the former defense secretary is now saying that there was this fatal delay, and if only we had

made this decision back in 2004, and when he was pressing you for monies specifically on helicopters, it was you who vetoed it. >> i'm sorry. what happened in the early stages of the chinook procurement, it commenced in 1995 under the previous administration. now we have a program which has been committed to you -- commended to your committee which is allowing us to deliver more helicopters to a afghanistan. >> your people were briefing the press over the weekend that we are going to both be able to deliver the aircraft carriers and maintain our role in afghanistan. with the ministry of defense came to our committee recently, working with the figures of the nhl, we put it to them -- and this is proven -- that there is this black hole in the ministry of defense budget. even if we assume that there is of 2.7% increase, there is still black hole of 6 billion pounds. you accept that that black hole is there and you cannot go around saying we can maintain all our commitments in afghanistan and elsewhere in all

our spending commitments on programs? the money is simply not there, prime minister. >> that is why urgent operational requirements for afghanistan are met and continue to be met. i do not want you to go with any impression other than when our fighting forces are in afghanistan or as previously in iraq they are given the best equipment and the best support that is possible. i do not want -- this is met not by the defense budget itself. it is met by the treasury from the reserve in meeting the urgent operational requirements of our forces. they will always be met. i've said before the figures. 6 million pounds three years ago. 4.5 billion pounds at least in the coming year, perhaps nearly 5 billion pounds. we are not under-investing in afghanistan. we are putting the resources that are needed for the work

that is being done by our magnificent armed forces there and we're giving them every support in equipment and protection that they need. >> i am sorry, prime minister, with respect, i was not asking you about our commitment now to the contingency budget and afghanistan. i was talking about the black hole in defense spending. i was following on from questions put to you by peter louth -- luff. the fact is that you are ring- fencing health and education and international development. what are you going to do about the defense budget when it is generally accepted, on independent analysis, that there is a black hole in the defense budget of 6 billion pounds within 10 years if you maintain your present commitments? >> so we are clearly ring- fencing afghanistan and making that absolutely clear that the resources needed for afghanistan --

>> i was not asking you about afghanistan. >> but you are comparing what we're doing with other departments. afghanistan receives the money that is necessary for the urgent operational requirements that we are seeking to meet. i do not want anybody to go with the impression that we're doing anything other than making sure that our troops are properly equipped and that they are equipped -- properly protected for the work you're doing in afghanistan. as far as the defense budget is concerned, there is a strategic defense review going in the place. that will be announced in due course. there will be a defense white paper and there will be a debate about the future robert -- of our defense commitments. that is something that everyone agrees in every party should happen. we're going to have another defense review. that is the right way forward to judge both our commitments and our resources. >> so you will confirm presumably today that you are still fully committed to the aircraft carriers? >> i confirm that we're committed to the aircraft

carriers, but our priority in defense is, as it has been over these last few years, to make sure that what we do in afghanistan is properly financed. >> what are you going to do? at the moment we are killing very successfully the afghan taliban in afghanistan and the pakistan government, as we know, are pursuing the pakistan taliban very successfully in pakistan. however they are leaving alone the afghan taliban. what is the point in pursuing successfully the afghan taliban in afghanistan if they are just left unmolested inside pakistan? >> i do not accept your reading of events. it is true that the pakistan taliban are under huge pressure in pakistan. it is also true, and you are right, that we made significant inroads with the work we're doing to expose in been to cause damage to the afghan taliban in afghanistan, but we are not leaving the afghan taliban in pakistan free to do anything that they want. we have our sights on what we

can do to weaken their status and their power in pakistan. >> thank you very much for that. will you forgive me if i ask you one question as a bit of light relief? when you opened your daily paper this morning -- >> what is the grim situation? >> it is pretty grim in afghanistan. very serious and very grim. >> your questions are. >> when you opened your daily papers today, did you muse along with joseph stalin when they asked him the question, "how many divisions does the pope have?" and therefore his views could be safely ignored as on your equality bill and anything else? >> i did not see that in the papers today. >> you did not see it? >> i heard about it. >> prime minister, talking up the -- taking up the point about pakistan, we are giving a third of all our spending on counter- terrorism to assist the pakistani government.

do we have an audit of where and how that money is spent and do we think it is well spent? >> i have got to assure you that our view is that it is well spent. the reason that 75% of the most significant attacks that we about covered -- uncovered affecting the uk have started from pakistan, and therefore our counter-terrorism activity in pakistan is incredibly important. we're not only supporting pakistan, however, and counter- terrorism activities. we're supporting them in educational and development activities, and i think it is important to send a message that where we are helping is also in the north of pakistan trying to educate young children, trying to help pakistan develop better governance, and trying to give people access to services so that it is simply not counter- terrorism expenditure. pakistan is the uk's second- largest development program worldwide and we want to help the pakistan people as well. >> you referred to education. there has been concern for many years about the way in which the

only education that many young people in pakistan can get is through the madrassa system, either because the pakistani government did not spend enough on education or that there were so-called open "ghost schools" operating in certain areas where people were paid but there were never any schools or teachers. what are we doing about the madrassas? how are we assisting the pakistani government in its own efforts to deradicalize some of those places? >> ipod the president said dari about this and prime minister gillani -- i have talked to president said dari -- zardair and to the prime minister and i've talked the other leaders in pakistan. it is important not just to think of this in terms of the madrassas but also in terms of some of the schools themselves

and the propaganda that comes to the schools. we are offering help not only with education in the sense of building and paying for teachers but also when terms of school books. it is important to say that we want to discourage people from using madrassas. we want to build up the official education system and give it support, but there are problems in the pakistan education service that have to be solved as well. one of the things we did after the army went into the north of pakistan to deal with the pakistan taliban was to support the development of schools in these areas and remove some of our educational spending to the north of pakistan to give help there. we are aware that unless we win the support of local people by showing that we can help deliver services, that there is always a danger that people do not think that we are on our side. >> we have already referred to two countries where there are clear links with al qaeda and international terrorism, and over recent weeks we have seen up the agenda come yemen. we had a meeting in london last

week associated with the afghanistan meeting where there was an agreement and communicate about yemen. -- communique about yemen. would you assess the real threat of terrorism coming from yemen? is it on the same scale as from afghanistan or pakistan or even somalia? >> no, the epicenter of terrorism is afghanistan and pakistan, but mainly pakistan. al qaeda is organized there, but we have some success in dispersing them and some success in reducing their effectiveness. if you have success in pakistan and afghanistan, it is inevitable that some people will organize elsewhere. i have no doubt that when al qaeda left saudi arabia and went to yemen, there was a self- organized unit of al qaeda there

taking instructions, and certainly working under the guidance of al qaeda in pakistan. but it is not of the same scale. the issue in yemen must be that, given the conflicts that exist in that country already, we must make sure that the government of yemen is focused on the al qaeda threat. we can help them deal with some of the other problems that they have to deal with, secessionist movements and other difficulties they have holding their country together, but we must make sure that they are aware that if this terrorist threat is allowed to grow in this fragile state and in uncontrolled territories, that it will become an even greater threat in the years to come. we're focusing with the yemeni government -- and i met the prime minister last week when he was in london -- on what we can do to help them deal with that terrorist threat. >> yemen is an extremely poor

country, and it has had a lot of international support pledged to it in the past, but i understand that the money that was pledged in 2006 largely was never spent because of concerns about how low would be dispersed, and whether it would get to the right people. how can we this time with this renewed international focus make sure that if there are pledges, they actually get through to the poor people and that they do what they are supposed to do? >> our aid to yemen has been maintained on the basis of promises that we made, and it beat hit has been extended -- and indeed it has been extended, and we will certainly do what we can to help this very poor country, but we must be sure also that the aid is getting to the people who need it. this is an incredibly difficult country, given the conflicts that exist within it. the prime minister was here and i talk to the president on the phone and we offered him help

with the tell development which -- with the development, and we continue to do so, but we must be sure that the action we need taken that he himself was taken against al qaeda is actually undertaken. >> one of the other problems that has arisen about yemen is that most of the remaining people in guantanamo bay are now yemenis. there were supposed to be returned and sent back to their country, but in the current situation, that seems extremely unlikely. does the terrorist plot, already referred to by keith vaz in his remarks and the subsequent events mean that it is now less likely that guantanamo will be closed? and that, given that two of the people who are alleged to been masterminds of this plot were people who had been inside guantanamo who are saudis who had been through the

rehabilitation and deradicalization program in saudi arabia, does that not call into question the effectiveness of that deradicalization program? >> first of all, we want guantanamo bay closed and we have always said that. the decisions on that will have to be made by the president about what he does with those people who are there from yemen. it is for him to make the decisions. the third thing, failure in certain deradicalization programs should not allow us to abandon the necessity of working to try to tackle this extreme is some problem by persuasion and by showing that the violent extremism which people are supporting is essentially based on a perverted view of what is a peaceful religion, islam. we've got to continue to expose that and continue to use the work which is done by moderates

and sensible reformers in the islamic world to counteract these extreme views which have been so poisonous in recent years. >> now we will move to somewhere else in the islamic world, iran. >> we've discussed iran in this forum before on several occasions, and i was glad to start with a very simple question about the prospects for tougher un and eu sanctions. but as we sat down, reuters was announcing that the u.s. and three european powers hope to blacklist iran's central bank and firms linked to the revolutionary guard. the state department apparently are circulating an outline of possible new sanctions in london, paris, and berlin. is this accurate and what is your response? >> i have always said that if iran does not respond, the next

ages to get agreement on sanctions. it is obviously important to get the e3 plus 3 all engaged in this process. we in britain have said we are prepared to take further sanctions against iran. there will be a meeting of the european union to discuss this very soon, and i believe that we can agreement -- we can get agreement within the european union, and then the e3 plus 3 will make up their minds about further sanctions beyond those things already announced. >> any sanctions regime, there is always a delicate balance to be struck between how to assist the disadvantaged part of the community, how to assist the parts of the political movement which have got a more rational approach to how they would like to run their country, and on the other hand, wanting to do

damage to the regime. is there not a risk given some of the events going on inside the country, that increased sanctions will simply hurt the iranian people? >> i think we have got to balance that off against the fact that iran is now in defiance of five un security council resolutions. they are developing a weapons program which we know has no apparent civilian use, despite their protestations. the message to iran has to be very clear. we want iran to join the international community and agree with the international community a means by which it can develop civil nuclear power without nuclear weapons, but if it is not prepared to do so, it has to be isolated from the international community. it is a choice that they are making by their failure to take action once the iaea has shown

that they are not complying with un security resolutions. >> mousavi has apparently said in the last couple of days that the green movement will not abandon its peaceful fight until the people's right preserved. peaceful protests are iranians rights, as they are in any country. are you confident that this approach is not going to damage that counter revolutionary force? >> you have to make a judgment, and the message we have to send is that iran has a duty to respect human rights and the right to peaceful protest of its citizens. everybody u.s. seen pictures coming out of iran about what has happened to people who have been demonstrating is shocked by the way the regime has dealt with these peaceful demonstrations.

but i think one has to take a balanced judgment about the future, and it must be this -- that iran has been in defiance of united nations, evidence has emerged continuously about how they are trying to process a nuclear weapons program under the cover of a sillier -- of a civil nuclear program, and all the evidence is that they had materials they are trying to bring together are not for civilian use and would not be the right materials for that civilian use of nuclear power. it is very clear that the international community is agreed that iran has broken its responsibilities under the nuclear non-proliferation act. what we now have to do is accept if iran will not make some indication that it will take action, we have to proceed with sanctions. i am sorry it has come to that,

but it is essential that the international community shows that it has strength in these matters by imposing these sanctions. >> what more can we do to assist the process of change in iran without playing into the hands of the regime that claims that western powers are just conspiring against them? >> make it clear in every way possible that we're presenting iran with the opportunity to become a respected part of the international community -- that our fight is not with the people of iran at all. we want to make sure iran can join the international community by complying with its obligations to the international community, and through our ability to talk to the people of iran and assure them that we want them to be a peaceful part of the international community. >> finally, i hope as part of our position, we would make it clear to the iranians that it would be totally unacceptable for them to execute the nine

people, probably more, they are currently threatening to hang? >> as you know, we are opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances and will make these views known and clear. i agree entirely with you that it would be completely unacceptable for this to happen. >> prime minister, can i just conclude this section by going to the israel-palestine issue? as you are well aware, the situation in gaza is absolutely desperate. the foreign and commonwealth office said at the beginning of last month that in 2007 there was an average weekly number of 2807 truckloads getting into gaza from israel, and this year it was 418. recently the israeli government even refused admission to the humanitarian affairs minister of belgium, and parliamentarians

from many countries are not being allowed access from israel into gaza. what can we do, what concrete steps can we take, to get passage of humanitarian aid into gaza both from israel or from egypt? >> you're absolutely right about this tragic set of events, and that there needs to be a means by which, in the long run, the palestinians and the israelis can come together to reach an agreement -- an agreement initially about further progress towards an agreement. i talked to the palestinian leader, mr. abbas, only on friday when he was in london about the serious situation being faced by people in gaza as a result of what has happened. i wanted to know that we have provided 78 million pounds and support. we've given 50 million pounds to

help provide public services to the palestinians in gaza and on the west bank through the world bank trust fund, and we provided additional help in december. >> how much of that has gone to the west bank and how much is getting through to gaza? >> substantial amounts are going to both. we are helping pay for teachers, doctors, engineers, and keeping services running. i agree with you that we have to find a way of getting humanitarian aid and reconstruction into gaza. we continue to press the israeli authorities to do so. there was a european union foreign affairs minister statement on the -- december 8 calling on the israelis to do more for that. we continue to press them. but in the and, is going to have to be an agreement so that people will move forward and try to get a settlement of the differences. i personally believe that these are not intractable problems. no matter how long we of have to

deal with them, i can see a way, as others do, whereby the palestinians and israelis could come together. first in some confidence- building measures which would -- >> can i take you back to this question of the gaza assets -- gaza access first before we get on to the wider area? it is not possible through israel, what is your reaction to the egyptian government building this wall, 10 kilometers or 11 kilometers long, along the border through roth, -- rafah? i understand that they want to stop smuggling, but is that not going to contribute even more to the humanitarian difficulties? >> that is the problem, is it not? that is why i was going to be clear with you that we need progress between the israelis and pastille -- and the palestinians on other issues, so we can ensure the people of gaza

are given better help. it seems to me there is a stalemate which can be broken. george mitchell is working very hard to do so, but it will be broken by some confidence- building measures where the israelis are prepared to take some action including on gaza. >> in terms of the dialogue going on, there have been more than 20 meetings between the egyptians, hamas, a top -- and fatah, either direct or indirect, and they had failed to get an agreement. protect has had its stated policy which our government has upheld since 2006 of not a engaging with hamas. i understand why that is the position, because they have not accepted the quartet's principles, but nevertheless, is it not clear now that the policy has failed and that the efforts through the egyptians have also failed? is there not the need for

complete rethink of the approach taken not just by our own government but the european union and the quartet, and try to find a new way to deal with this situation? >> i think you're talking in a roundabout way about things which have been attempted, but the central issue is whether the israelis and palestinians will be able to negotiate together a settlement. the palestinians are divided and that is a problem. but it is the ability of the israelis and palestinians to come together on a common agenda. and we know what the common agenda which has to be resolved is. but to get there, you're going to have to have some measures which assure both sides they are working in good faith. whether george mitchell, the president, and hillary clinton are able to help them in bad in the next few weeks is, i think, but the essential question. i think we need some means by which we break this deadlock and allow talks between the

palestinians and the israelis to resume. we will do everything that we can help make that possible. that, i am afraid, is the only way forward. they have got to get back to talking to each other about a solution to what are fundamental problems over many, many years, but are problems which i believe can be solved, as do many other people. >> would you therefore characterize this as an "west bank first" approach? it is quite clear that the writ of president abbas, fatah, and the palestinian authority does the run in gaza, and there is no possibility of a two-state solution including gaza in current circumstances? >> i would not characterize it as that because there are many issues related to gaza which are going to have to become part of any discussion between the palestinians and israelis. at some point the palestinians have to become more united force.

>> we will now move to the final theme of being prime minister. >> when you took over as prime minister, you found it number 10 an office to support the prime minister with about 200 people in it. did you think it was well geared to its purpose and how would you define its purpose? >> the purpose is to lead the government and to coordinate the work of government wherever possible. i think big structural changes are going to have to happen in the way we govern over the next period of time, and we have only begun to see the benefits of that you technology that is available to us. as you know, a few months ago we published a document about restructuring government, which is the beginning of our thoughts about how we can adapt the way government is organized in a new technological age. so there is a lot that i would say now we have got to change for the future. >> tony blair apparently thought

it had to be changed to a more basic level. one witness to a lords committee said that tony blair thought the prime minister, far from being too powerful, was not powerful enough to have effective control over the direction of government, and therefore he built up the central capacity of no. 10. i am not asking you to confirm whether that was tony blair's of view, although it sounds pretty much in character, but is it your view and is it your frustration that in some respects, the prime minister is not powerful enough? >> i was brought up studying history, and as you know, the debate has always been about whether you have cabinet government or whether you have prime ministerial government certainly the prime minister is far more in the headlines and people focus politics and a very personalized way towards one individual or one set of individuals, but my reading of the work of government is that

is collected, and the cabinet does matter. i think we have had more cabinet meetings than most, and we have had wider discussions than i think have taken place in the past about the various issues before. i hesitate to take this one- dimensional view that it is all about prime ministerial government, and about building up the power of the prime minister. that is not my view. it is about a cabinet that works, it is about individual departments that can work, and with a clear purpose for what you intend. for example, when we had the recession, we organized government to deal with that, certainly around me chairing meetings of a new economic policy committee, but we found that was the best way to bring officials, ministers, and in some cases businesses together to deal with the recession. that was a committee working as an effective cabinet committee and i found the was the best way of dealing with the new problem we had to confront.

>> that is very interesting because geoff mulgan, he used to direct the fourth strategy unit, said in evidence to the lords committee that when you became chancellor, the treasury became "much more powerful, more activist, and initiated policy across government." he described it as a creative tension, a mutual challenge. others described it a much more unfavorable terms. that is all gone now, has not? when she moved from the treasury to number 10, the center of government lost that constructive or destructive tension because you are running the whole show. >> i did not agree -- you might expect me not to agree and you might expect me to paint a different picture from some of the more lurid accounts which other people want to trade. in 19967, the problem for the treasury was that it had to be more than a finance ministry, and had to be an economic ministry, and thus by the treasury had to change.

it is not enough in the modern world simply to have a finance ministry. you have to be able to deal with the wider economic issues. the relation between no. 10, the business department, and the treasury is incredibly important, but the treasury remains an economic ministry and not just a finance ministry. it is important recognized that if you simply have a finance ministry in the modern world, you will not be able to deal with the plight range of economic problems which finance is certainly part of, but is wider than finance, including international economic cooperation. i think the treasury is an economic ministry and should not be seen as a finance ministry, and that is still the case. i think alistair darling and i have worked very well together and i do believe he has done an excellent job in taking this country for a recession. >> does that mean you're still running the treasury from across the road? >> no, not at all. dealing with the recession, and dealing with a financial recession, as we have done -- and this is an insight for me

into government -- demands a degree of international cooperation which i do not think people outside the government now recognize. you could not deal with this global financial recession without countries in europe co operating and america working with europe, and it had to be done at both levels -- heads of government and finance or economic ministry level. the contact between me and president obama, and me and president sarkozy or chancellor merkel or other members of the g-20 have been very intense over the last period of time. but equally, because we're dealing with the financial regulations, dealing with liquidity and capital ratios for banks and everything else, the detailed work which has had to be done across the international community involving the treasury has been very extensive indeed. i think the new world is that we are part of a global economy, we are increasingly part of a global society and increasingly

the leaders, whether they are the economic leaders of the political leaders, have to spend more time talking to each other about these very big problems. >> while you were doing that, and we all understand why you have to do that, is not no. 10 generating policy initiatives which do not have the evidence base which policy initiatives developed by departments do, and never 10 then feeds these out into the system in order to try and keep you in the news on domestic issues and ensure that what you are busy with the international situation, they in some way are promoting -- >> i think you read too many newspapers -- i really do. we've changed the structure of government. we have an economic policy committee which meets regularly to discuss economic issues, and every minister is free to issue their ideas about what should happen. it is been very cooperative exercise if we have tried to deal with employment, housing, and business needs throughout the recession. we have a domestic policy

committee looking at all the issues which perhaps you are commenting on, and we go to all of these issues, whether it is alcohol laws, whether it is sure start, whether it is the education white paper and the health white papers we have seen. then we have a constitutional reform committee which has looked at these very issues i have been discussing with you this afternoon and from which sprang the speech i had given the day. our decisions about the alternative vote have been after lengthy discussions which have taken place of the last few months about the constitution in future changes in the constitution. then you have the national security committee which is made up not just of ministers but, as i have said, in attendance are all the major security chiefs and serving officers. so the structure of government is certainly coordinated through the cabinet office and no. 10, and i think it is far more efficient in allowing people to take their initiatives on policy, but to deal with them in a collective way by discussion in these major new committees.

>> it is interesting you did not mention the cabinet office, but never mind. >> i just mentioned the cabinet office at the end. coordinated through no. 10 and the cabinet office. as you know, our foreign affairs work is done to the cabinet office where it used to be done through no. 10. that is a may -- that is a change i made when i took over. >> i do not know how many newspapers you read, and i did not know what the what you are in north ireland last week you had any time to read any at all, but you may have noticed that one of the leaders of the minority party last week lamented the fact, without criticizing you personally, that nearly three days of the time of two heads of government were taken up with the affairs of northern ireland. what makes northern ireland in general and the peace process in particular so different from other policy areas that he has required the personal, and quite regular intervention at prime ministerial level of john major', tony blair, and now you?

>> first, it because it want northern ireland to escape the violence that has been its legacy from the past and which, thankfully, as a result of the devolution of power and the cross-party government, has been ball two -- has been brought to a virtual end. so it is about the security of the people of northern ireland and our responsibility for the security of all people mohole united kingdom. it is secondly about completing a process which was started by john major, moved forward in a very brilliant way by tony blair when the st. andrews agreement was negotiated. but it is still unfinished business because we do not have the devolution of policing and justice, and we therefore do not have the end to the constitutional conflict over who does what, which has been a problem for northern ireland for many decades. we do not therefore have the certainty that you have an assembly which is looking at

schools, hospitals, housing, and everything else, and is stable in the way that an assembly with the completion of the devolution powers would be. i think have a responsibility to spend the time which is necessary to bring, if you like, to an end one chapter which is incomplete devolution and potentially a stalemate, and opened a new chapter which is devolution complete, politics seen to irrevocably triumph in northern ireland, and people then ready to move forward and have an assembly which is focusing on the issues which are real concern to the people of northern ireland. >> naturally i wish you success, prime minister, and we all hope your efforts are suitably rewarded in the next few days perhaps. but how do you, when you are grappling with all the issues that you face, decide when it is important for you to make a prime ministerial intervention or take a prime ministerial initiative and not to leave it

to your appointed secretary of state? >> you were in northern ireland last week, and i am sorry that our meeting in hillsborough prevented you from having your dinner at hillsborough with your select committee members. you're very gracious about being moved to another restaurant. i did not decide to go to northern ireland to make it difficult for you to have dinner read hillsboro. >> i would never suggest such a thing. >> it seems to me at this point that there were certain issues which, together with the case search -- toiseacaoiseach of ir, brian cowen, i could help move forward. what we did in the three days was to provide a pathway for the completion of that negotiation. the fact that these negotiations are taking time is hardly surprising because there are a number of issues still

outstanding from the st. andrews agreement which were unresolved, but i hope, on the basis of what had been done by both the ministers, the foreign minister of ireland, and our secretary of state, that we are moving things, inching things, forward. in the end, this agreement has to be an agreement of the parties themselves in northern ireland and we're there to help them reach that agreement. previous agreements may have looked different. i think this has to be the parties working together to sort out the problems that they have. >> amen to that, and you know very well that we were perfectly content to have our dinner in a different place, prime minister. in a move on to something else which has exercised people a lot over the last year or more, and that is the role of the special adviser? how many special advisers do you have a number 10? what is the number compared with your civil service contingent at number 10? how do you decide when to consult one and the other? does not apply restoration of

political advisers jeopardize to some degree the impartiality of the civil service cores to mark -- of the civil service? >> as you know, when i took over i changed these rules, these orders in council, which had given to political advisers the power to instruct civil servants. a change that because i found it was far better to find an atmosphere in which civil servants could work together with political advisers, recognizing the importance of both. now you will find in the constitutional reform act i am right in saying the position of political advisers is for the first time set out in legislation, but in the and it is a cooperative arrangement. the civil service works under guidelines which require them to maintain their independence and impartiality, and we ensure that is upheld as it is, but equally it is important that for the workings of government political advisers and civil servants can

work together on the development of policies. from my experience, there are very few tensions between the political advisers and civil servants. >> what are the respective numbers? >> i have a figure about 26 political advisor -- roughly where we were when i came in. i am very happy to give the figures to the committee. >> you are back up to where you were when you came in? >> well, it is roughly the same as i understand it, but i am happy to send the figures to the committee. >> would you say to those, some very eminent civil servants among them, this say that sofa government has taken over from cabinet government? >> i can assure you i have no sofa in my office. i was explaining earlier that i think what has been proven over the last year, particularly in dealing with the recession, it is that the collective actions

and the collective responsibility of ministers working together is the major means by which we deal with problems. there is a complicating factor now which is a good thing, and that as we are part of the global economy where people cooperate together, and that does mean that the heads of government or the finance ministers are more likely to be the people who are cooperating and working at international level. but i found that the work we have done to deal with the recession, as we are dealing with the other issues, is best done by these collective groups working together. i think political advisers and civil servants can help towards that. but we are dealing with a new situation at an international level, where i hope global cooperation will be enhanced, and because you do not have any institutions for global clock -- global cooperation at the moment, it tends to be on a more ad hoc, individual, and personal basis.

>> prime minister, as well special advisers, you more than any of your predecessors have sought to bring into your government as ministers people with outside knowledge and experience. if the majority of those seem to let the government after relatively short period and have appeared to be somewhat disillusioned by their experience. are you disappointed that the efforts you have made to bill the government of all the talents has not been more successful? >> i think it was always understood that some ministers who were coming and would come in for a limited period of time and that they would do a particular job and they would want to move back to the things that wanted to do. so i am not surprised we had ministers in for period of time who did a particular job and then decided they had at the things they wanted to do. these ministers have been successful and they have made a huge difference. we have at the moment admiral west, our security minister, and i think he is an excellent job. we had mervyn davies, the former

head of standard chartered, and he is in the government as the minister for trade, and i think anybody from the business community is most impressed by how he is brought together and is reorganizing the uk dti. we have paul myners, the financial ministers -- the financial-services minister. >> i think we know the list. >> he was implying they had all left, and these are people who are doing the jobs at the moment. paul drayson, the minister for science. they are all doing an excellent job and we think we should recognize that this is of benefit to government if used wisely. you have to get the right people and you have to accept that some people are doing other things, our health minister who was also a surgeon who wanted to go back to his research. he did a brilliant job in helping us build up confidence among the staff at the nhs about its reforms, but wanted to get back to the practice he was

trained for, which is as one of the country's leading surgeons. >> but to give two examples, lord malloch-brown left the government saying he had found it to be more chaotic and short- termist than many he had known in developing countries. lord digby-jones concluded, "the civil service runs the country, ministers are completely disposable and dispensable." are you concerned that the verdict of some of those you brought in? >> not really. at the end of the day, many of the people who have come in and are helping government are personalities in their own right. they want to go into other things. they can make controversial statements. i think you have to look at this as a whole. have we benefited from having the expertise of people who have been prepared to serve in the government, and in some cases serve for limited period of time but do particular things, like the digital work which lord

carter did? i have to answer, yes, we benefited from that work, and i think the country has benefited from that work as a whole. i would be surprised if the opposition was to make an issue of this because i think the whole country benefits when we have people of talent who are prepared to give time this occurred -- to serve the nation. >> when you sometimes have appointed ministers from within the house of commons, there have been complaints they have found the experience completely overwhelming, they have arrived in a job without proper knowledge or training, and that is one of the reasons why you are looking to broaden the government that you have found it difficult to sue -- to find suitable people from within the pool of talent in the house of commons? >> that is certainly not a problem in the labour party. we have people of immense talent in the house of commons. i did not know why you should think of that as being even a possibility in the house of commons. you must be thinking of some of

the party. >> can i conclude. your predecessor made it clear in the run-up to the last election that if reelected, he would not serve a full term. how long would like to go on being prime minister? >> my prime ministership depends on the people of this country and that is their decision to make a the next few months, and i did not want to add to that. >> we quite understand the people will decide, but how long would you like to go on being prime minister? >> i will do the job as long as i can feel like to make a contribution to this country. at the end of the day -- and this is why this is a very strange session, if i may say so, talking about the job of the prime minister when we have so many policy issues to deal with -- i would leave the decision in the hands of the good sense of the british electorate. >> as your predecessor recognized, the people were entitled to know he did not intend to serve a full term at the last election. is it your intention to serve a full term if reelected this time? >> if i stand for election, i would be putting myself forward

for the term of that election. >> i did not think you should be surprised that in the last of these sessions before the election, we might think appropriate that the voters should know how the job is done and what the demands on it are. thank you for helping us in that respect. >> i am very grateful. >> may i say that some of us are geriatric enough to remember when mrs. thatcher brought in john davis from the cbi as a matter political and venus. >> he was very successful. >> he was very successful gas. prime minister, this is the end of our 16th sitting. it is probably the last one we will have in this parliament. it is something which never could have happened before. our clerk assures us that the only previous prime ministers to attend committees did so at the beginning of the last century and they did so not as prime minister, but in their dual role as leader of the house. may i thank you and your predecessor for both your roles in pioneering and establishing a new form of parliamentary accountability for prime accountability for prime minist