>> we have travelled around the country and we have relationships with enough of these stakeholders to know who these people are and what their capaci@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ )@ @ @ , >> to our people work with the coldest day in and day out. we have a lot of relationships as a result of a tiger. our people are pretty good at making judgments about this. >> i am asking if we are also being could add helping them with technical assistance? >> absolutely. >> that is a very strong made that has been identified. >> it is one of the ways that we have broken down the side lows. we have transit people working with highway people. these proposals that we have received have really allow us to get all of our people working

together, reviewing these, talking about them, and trying to give good technical assistance to people. you have to go on a cash management plan at that point. by august 20, we go in the by august 20, we go in the . i assume that there will need

to be another infusion of general funds into the trust fund to keep that operational. i would like to know how much will you need. last year in your testimony that what was going to be asked for was going to be offset. that was an assurance we were given. it didn't happen. how much will we need to make up the difference in the trust fund and what do we tell our states when they can't plan more than six months down the road? that's a problem. there is no long-term planning because there is no certainty out there for the states today. >> you want to give them the figures, chris. i'm going to have chris give you the figures and i'll tell you the other part. >> the highway trust fund will need $9 million to stay fiscal, $8 million for highways and $1

million is for mass transit. we provide the congress weekly updates of the status. as we get closer to the summer, we'll have a more precise estimate of what that figure is. our highway people are in communication with the states all the time in terms of what their plans are. so it's not as if we're not providing technical assistance and it's not as if they don't know at some point congress is going to pass an authorization bill, a transportation bill. there are no secrets in these states about what they want to do. and we're talking to them and we're working with them and some of the stimulus money has been used to fund things that they would have maybe ordinarily done under an authorization. >> i think the problem is they don't know -- they probably

believe that we'll keep the commitment we have at the current baseline levels, but the fact of the matter is, if we're talking about a $4 million or $5 million to increase, they cannot plan for it today. the money is not authorized. there is no plan. i have the table of how we are going to go into the negative and $8 billion for highways, another billion for mass transit coming out of the general funds which we're going to have to borrow to do that. we have all the requests here from everybody for more and more of these projects. i mean, we're at a point where there has to be some certainty out there and i think you would be able to -- it's not just the states. local communities would be able to plan if in fact we had the certainty. i don't see any effort really to do that. i mean we're kicking a ball down the field again.

i don't know if there is a question in that, ray. >> it doesn't sound like it. but it's very, very frustrating to the people that come into my office every day and want to know what's going on. i haven't seen anything moving. last year when i started talking about that and mentioned that i didn't see any reauthorization done for last fiscal year or this fiscal year or going into next year and if you heard the thud, that was jim oberstar falling down outside. how can we move the ball? tell us. i don't see the administration coming forward with,(lan. >> the president has asked congress for an 18-month extension in order to -- >> starting when? >> starting with when we requested it, i don't know, maybe six months ago.

it was probably, i don't know, i can get you the date, but it was probably six months ago, whenever we asked for it. we're not going to try and start the clock today. we're going to start it from when we made the request. >> and my concern is you're going to start a new congress in march of 2011, that will be a new congress and lord knows what's going to happen. that really kicks it probably another year down the road. that's the problem. and the states are just pulling their hair out. the local communities, there is no certainty, it's just very frustrating to a lot of us who would like to see, who have the great demands for these projects and to be able to plan long-term and you simply can't do it. >> well, having been in the seat that you're all in, if you can figure out $400 billion to

$500 billion how to pay for it, we'll work with you on that, but where are we going to find $400 billion to $500 billion? >> that's why we're looking for your suggestions, also. it's got to come from both sides. >> i think the administration actually should have some proposals also. >> i think the point is made. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> mr. rodriguez. >> thank you very much and once again, mr. secretary, thank you. i have also a great -- probably have one of the biggest rural districts in the nation in west texas and we have a good number of small airport relievers that provide resources and we're trying to enhance it in that area. i would ask in terms of some comments and in terms of the importance of those reliever airports throughout the community and including in for example, in san antonio, we have a small one that provides

150,000 in terms of the resources that are allocated in that area for you to comment on them. >> sure. those airports are very important and we have a program that can be helpful to some of the smaller airports and that program will continue. they're an important part of it and we know with the downturn in the economy, the use of those airports like every airport around the country has been diminished somewhat. but we will continue to work with the smaller airports and do what we can to be helpful. >> we have asked -- well, we have been looking at moves towards the new technology on airports. where are we at on that? >> well, we have a significant request in our budget that the president sent up for next

-generation technology. we just implemented a next-jen system in the gulf of mexico. i'll be happy to have someone come up from the f.a.a. and brief you on our plan for next-generation technology. we want it implemented. we're working with the airlines. it's going to be very costly for the airlines -- you can put it in the airports, but then the airplanes have to have it, too. we're trying to really mesh the two of these together and so we have had lots of discussions with airlines about this and how they're going to pay for it and so forth. but we think we have an opportunity to really get the next-generation technology sooner than most people think. >> i also wanted to follow up on -- i know there has been a great deal of dialogue and collaboration, and i want to congratulate ouren that, regarding the livable and sustainable community

initiatives. would you elaborate on the mechanics of how this initiative will work and how communities will be able to get access to these resources? >> if our budget is approved, we have shared resources between h.u.d. and e.p.a. and the department of transportation in a program called livable communities. we have a working group between the agencies that have been working over the last year to really begin once the budget is approved, to really begin to work with communities. we know there are neighborhoods around the country, communities around the country that want to do more with light rail, with transit, with street cars, with walking paths, with biking paths and all of these fit into the definition of livable communities. so once our budget is approved, we would be off to the races with these communities and neighborhoods in trying to help them implement the kind of dreams that they have for other ways to get around the communities and neighborhoods

other than automobiles. >> i gather then there will be noticed out later on in the near future how to go about -- >> this is a part of our budget. once our budget is approved, we have relationships, again, with these folks around the country that we have been out and visiting. they have heard about this program. we have talked about it for a year and once everything is signed, sealed, and delivered as far as the money, then we'll start making -- accepting proposals. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr.çóçó chairman. mrniçó secretary, i want toñi commendñi you for the fundñr formerly known as knifed and come up with a cautionary. i think it's agreat idea in the future. we have proposed, it was $17.5 for projects of regional and national significance and the

footprint and requirement was that each project had to be half a billion dollars or more. we knew we might not get one. there are 30 or 35 projects around the country that were going to be built and real projects. in ohio, the interbelt in cleveland, the bridge that connects ohio to kentucky, all of those are $1 billion projects. a funny thing happened on the way to the regional project fund. it went over to the other body and they pirated it, they took $200 billion here and there, $50 billion here and there. just to take the one that i'm interested in, the interbelt, it's a $1 billion project. i would hope that and i know that given your integrity that you will protect the integrity of this fund and make sure that it really builds america and doesn't satisfy a bunch of parochial needs. i am interested in the budget

submission and the reason behind the proposed termination of the fund of $161 million. i'll tell you what concerns me. it's a dirty word around here, it's an earmark, but that fund is congressionally-directed spending. so i consider it to be a direct slap at the united states congress and the appropriations committee and it will leave one bunch in town that is able to direct spending to specific areas and that's the administration. i wish it would reconsider that. if you have a comment about that -- >> do you know about that? >> go ahead and explain that, yeah. >> i'll let chris give you the bad news on this. >> those are the congressionally-directed projects in the appropriations bill and we don't terminate them. we're not rescinding them. we don't propose any new

funding for that in 2011. >> so you continue the program but no money? i got it. we'll deal with that during the appropriations part. i don't want to be a one-note johnny, mr. secretary, but again, the figures 30% unemployment among civil engineers, the sand and gravel guys, the asphalt people, the concrete people, the laborer, the operating engineer and according to g.a.o., almost half of the stimulus funds that went through your department that did in fact create jobs went for repaving projects as i mentioned earlier. in ohio, the paper reported that the stimulus bill created or saved 13,000 jobs. of those 13,000 jobs, 11,000 were teachers. i like teachers. i think it's great, but that's not stimulating the economy. in ohio, it's pretty well publicized that over $1 million was spent on signs, not saying

slow down construction zones saying that this project was paid for by the recovery act. so the signmakers are fully employed in ohio, but the people that build the highways are not. and it was further a requirement that the sign hadçó to be up before you could begin to put a shovel in the ground which seemed a little odd to me as well. we have a problem with unemployment, a job solved that. the president talks a lot about health care. a job can solve that for a family. retirement security, a job can solve that. foreclosure problems, people losing their houses, a job can save that. i just have to tell you that i heard what you said and there are proposals, mr. oberstar has a proposal. we can find the money to fully fund, but it's going to take some tough choices. i'll be a bipartisan barber. this started with president bush. when he said we only had $256 billion over six years, that was crazy. because he wouldn't recognize and his bean counters wouldn't recognize that we had to

enhance the revenue to the highway trust fund. it would have taken a nickel then. now it takes a dime. i get people don't want to vote for a tax increase or use the bonding authority of the united states, but if this administration continues to pump out stimulus bills that fund things like treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases rather than dispute putting the operating engineers to work, shame on you. if the congress can't get a bill that gets the bill down, shame on us. i really hope, i went to mr. emmanuel after the state of the union address and said i'm ready to kick this can down the road until 2011 as a political decision, it's not an infrastructure decision that will rebuild america.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. we're going to stick closely to let the secretary get finished here and we're going to hold to the five minutes now quite closely ok. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the stimulus package did save a lot of teachers' jobs and school boards and school districts are very thankful and cities have gotten some firemen and some policemen that stayed on the job and other people are thankful and the district i represent, jobs went for infrastructure and people are working. s onwa saddened to say there was not a bipartisan bill, not because of my choice, but because of people that either felt it didn't go far enough, which may have been my colleagues reason for not voting for it or because they didn't want to spend the money. the reality is we have made

attempts to create employment and thank god that people have stayed in a job and will continue to do it. i support infrastructure development and i will join the congressman. we have a friendly relationship that there is water treatment plants and bridges and all that and i agree with it. hopefully in a bipartisan manner, he and i and others can work to get a jobs bill that creates more infrastructure but it's greatly needed. that is the reality today and for the future we need to work together. i guess both of us need to quit looking at the next re-election and look to the nextçó generati as i heard it in the state of the union. we're willing to do that. and i want to thank you for the emphasis on the budget on safety. i have to tell you that sometimes we overlook it. the whole taxing issue, the

dis-- texting issue, the distraction for drivers is very important. adds people are driving and wanting to text and not text, but the whole issue of how people are not paying attention to their driving, it's very important. the issue i have -- it's not an issue, it's just a question, with next-gen. i have to tell you that three years ago i was greatly disappointed because i saw a lot of disarray and confusion in how to get it going and it seemed like things weren't happening because some agencies weren't involved and probable the priority was not there. today you're telling me that there is a project over the gulf of mexico and it's becoming a reality. i can wait for the administrator for more specifics, but overall, is it underbudget and on-time? i guess that's my main concern

because we can't spread it out like we have other programs dealing with navigation in the sky, so this is very important, but it's very expensive and so underbudget and on-time is a very big concern to me. >> well, we have a good plan. we have some very good resources in the budget that's being proposed to all of you. we have people that think about this every day. as i said, we have had lots of discussions with the airlines last year about how they can pay for what they need to implement in the planes. we're pretty far along on this and we think we will have it sooner rather than later and there is a commitment from congress. there is a commitment from the industry and this is, if not the top priority, which is safety, it's right up there for us to implement this. and the white house is behind

us on this also. >> i'm glad to hear that the airlines are involved in this. >> absolutely. >> the other is air traffic controllers. i remember sitting here in heargs when i was trying to discuss the screen and the mouse so hopefully they're involved. the other qui i have -- and i support you for the high-speed rail. one of the disappointments i guess that i heard this morning is that they still will be using lines accommodating most hearings i sat through here, if you try to accommodate three partners or two partners, it's always that you're not going to have that speed that you're looking for above, even to get to 90 is quite a challenge. and so i just i hope you can resolve that issue.

itçóñriñ; +kwú) a problem in current infrastructure, especially the rails. >> thank you. >> thank you, i'll try to get through this in five minutes, mr. chairman. first of all, mr. secretary, the largest transportation project in ohio1o> thank you. thanks for your leadershipship in the community. >> thank you, it's taken many, many years. thank you for your openness to that. number two, i have two quick questions. one is the administration is about to make $1.5 billion in

tiger grants funded through the recovery bill. and there is an additional $600 million that we provided in the regular budget in the f.y. 10 bill. do you anticipate recompeting the tiger grants for the new funding, the extra funding, or are you in the next two weeks going to roll out an announcement that spends the entire $2.1 billion. the second part of my question is -- if ajo project scored hi in the initial round of scoring but is not funded, are you going to make those projects compete again? >> we're stat torl to make announcementsñv=9át $1.5 billion by february 17, which we will do. and then we will -- there will beñi competition for the initially -- additional money. i take your point on programs where we didn't have enough money but they're valuable

programs or projects, you know, i'll get back to you on whether they can compete those funds. >> thank you. i will state the record and provide more detail that the top project in our regions which was the modernization of our shipyard was not able to be funded. and i talked with the secretary and you have been great in trying to explain what happened. it was a top priority of our city, county, myself, our governor, everybody else but here is what we ran into. in the recovery act, there is a section, 601 a 8 that defines project if located within the bound "desperate housewives" a port terminal to include surface transportation, infrastructure modifications that are necessary to facilitate direct intermodel interchange transfer access into and out of the port. our state thought that a port project would be eligible, our shipyard would be eligible. what happened is once it got over to d.o.t., it then got

administered by the highway administration. that is where we ran into difficulty. we will explain that, but we're hoping that in the new jobs bill, assuming the senate passes it, that if a project, our state d.o.t. director was in here yesterday and if a project is eligible for any d.o.t. program, it should be eligible for the recovery jobs program. we ought to find out a way to do that and not have any stove pipe inside of d.o.t. tell us we can't do it. it seems there is a conflict in the law. we will try to clarify to the best of our ability, we wanted to make you aware of it. >> thank you. >> the final question that i have is just a request for information and that is are there any programs that usdot, authorities or funding to help urban communities, urban counties consolidate all of their public vehicle fleet maintenance and management to

go green? is there anything in the law, is there anything in what you're doing over there because i think this would save us a great deal of money because we have state fleets, city fleets, county fleets and a transit authority fleets. everyone has their own garage. every garage leaks energy. the vehicles are not that green. so i'm looking for any type of incentive program or demonstration program that might exist through d.o.t. that we might be able to look in, if it does not exist, create an authority to have it it exist. >> we'll get back to you on that. >> i thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. lay them for your -- latham for your final round. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, there are many states in the country that don't have large transit system like iowa. in our case we put about $60 million a year into the mass

transit account with the gas taxes that we pay. we get back about $35 million in the formula. we still have tremendous needs as far as new equipment certainly as far as the systems we have. is the department doing anything to address the funding inequities for the smaller transit systems and like in the state of iowa? >> well, we're -- our transit administrator is trying to work with states like iowa and why don't i get back to you with some of the specifics that he's been doing. >> ok. >> i'll have him come up and meet with you. >> great, thank you. as you know in the f.y. 2010 omnibus, there was a provision in there that authorized the use of heavy six-axle trucks on interstates.

highways in maine and vermont, the committee didn't really have a chance to have a hearing or to really debate anything about that. and there is a lot of interest from other states obviously for the same types of provisions. i just wonder what your thoughts are on a country-wide pilot program that would allow states to increase the allowable weight on the interstate and would you be in favor of considering such a pilot? >> our administrator for truck safety is working on this and we -- i'll get back to you with the specifics on what we're working on. >> ok. obviously, we have -- >> this is a very, very controversial hot topic and i'll, either i'll come up and brief you. >> let's get into one that is real easy. what about mexican trucks?

mr. rodriguez -- >> we're working with the white house on a proposal. >> i know, we have had discussions between the two of us that this is, with nafta, it's a commitment that we made with nafta and to make sure that it has to be done in a very safe way, obviously. >> right. >> you're going to get back to me again? >> no, i'm just going to tell you we're working with the white house on a proposal. once we have that, i'll be happy to come up and show it to you. >> is there any time line you're looking at? >> soon. >> soon? ok. in the interests of time, we have votes on the floor, so i will give back my time and i appreciate that, thank you, ray. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for being with us. i have a couple of just very quickies and we will close. if when we get around to passing this bill sometime

later, some months later in the process, if it's in regular order, a limited number of months, and the -- if the economy looks like there is need, what would your thought being going above the 10% that has been allowed, several people have expressed an interest of going above the 10% allowance for capital funds that go out by formula going to a higher percentage? >> i think that if you all decide to get into that kind of debate, we'll talk with you about it. i think you know where we stand on the principal of doing it and so if you all decided to do something else, we'll talk with you about it. >> the other thing that i hear several people mentioned it at one point or another is the steam lining of the processes. it is clearly the processes

where one does planning and environmental work and design and finally at some point some 10 or 12 years later get to a construction on a project that people are concerned about. does the administration have any kind of preparatory work to work directly with the t and i, that's an authorizing issue. we have to somehow streamline these processes for major capital programs. >> yeah, i mean we talked to the -- i talk to the chairman all the time and also we're working with her staff and so we'll continue to do that. >> i thank you for that. i just also want to thank you very much for the rail money out of the recent announcement a couple week ago announcement

that involved connecticut and massachusetts and vermont in the connecticut river valley. that's a very valuable program that i think can, much of it can be delivered within certainly 2010 and 2011 and a large portion of the work will be done during this calderon year -- calendar year that we are in. a good deal of time will be saved in the trip for people that are using that amtrak corridor. we greatly appreciate. >> thkts for your leadership in the area and the regions -- thanks for your leadership in the area and the region. >> a lot of members have said that you have come to your states. i haven't been with you in iowa and you haven't been with the chairman in massachusetts. we would invite you. >> i have been to iowa but i wasn't to your district.

>> what? you didn't call? >> i spent a half a day in dubuque and that's when i learned about the new i.b.m. employees and the mill works area. whenever i'm invited, mr. latham, i will be in your district. whenever i'm invited, mr. olver, i'll be in your district. when mr. rodriguez invited me to san antonio, i came. >> we'll see. finally, i just want to thank you for your very strong leadership in this field and really if there is a little bit of testiness that are coming from members who have great concerns, not with you, not in any kind of a personal way i am quite certain and i want to thank you for the steady communication with the subcommittee. it's very much appreciated. >> one of the values i bring to this job is i sat in those chairs. i know that when the

congressman speaks, he speaks with great authority and great sincerity and i wouldn't question his motives at all. i know there is a great deal of frustration being expressed and so we have our job to do and we will continue to work with all of you on the way forward here. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> this hearing is adjourned.

>> representatives mtrtha -- murtha died today from complications of gallbladder surgery. a couple of his house colleagues have issued statements. appropriations committee chairman says he was the first vietnam veteran to serve in congress and was incredibly effective in his service in the house. he understood the misery of a war. the ranking republican on the committee, jerry lewis, says he never saw more valiant defender of the men and women in our armed forces nor a steadfast advocate for our national defense. jack was a true patriot and the congress will be a much lesser

place without him. twice a year, the british prime minister goes before the liaison committee to answer questions on the status of their government. it is made of the -- of the 30 chairman of the committees and questions are not showed in advance. during the 82 and a half hour meeting, prime minister brown answered several questions on the state of the british economy and parliamentary reform. >> are you ready? welcome, prime minister, on your fifth appearance before the committee. on this occasion you have been given advance notice if you have been given no advanced notice of

the questions. dealing with the deficit which will be led by her peter. the second is invigorating democracy led by tony. -- dealing with the deficit which will be led 5 peter. -- led by peter. the fifth is on being prime ministter. i suggest we go straight into the first. peter? >> as a portion of gdp, there are three economies within the

fiscal year figures. japan, the united kingdom, ireland, and spain have fiscal a judgment. it do you except those conclusions? >> i think you need to except what was said by president obama last night. i they is essential for us to have the recovery necessary for the economy. but the results of that in the face of the biggest crisis we have seen for 70-80 years, maintain higher levels of employment then we would be able to do otherwise comes save businesses. >> is it factually accurate? >> will also give people from having their work homes repossessed. yes, it is a high level of deficit. we have the example of having to start from a low level of debt. >> let's look at the deficit. it is not just about recession

deficit but structural deficit. your own treasury chief economic advisor says it is 70%. the imf said that ireland, spain, and the u.k. have -- have the underlying structural problems. >> i do not believe in the structural problem. the reason we are confident that our deficit reduction plan will deal with problems dealing with the recession is because we entered the recession with a very low level of debt than other countries. you have to go back to what the level of debt was and the underlying level of debt was lower than america, germany, france injuring into the recession. i just want to say that you are basing all of your questions on that. otherwise more people would have

been unemployed and we would have made mistakes of the 1990's. >> what about the structural deficit? >> i am talking about the level of debt necessary. the level of that was lower than other countries. it meant we were able to run a flexible amounts of policy with a high deficit to bring us through the recession. i think history will show that in comparison with the 1980's and 1990's recessions we've done things to keep things as low as possible. we did the right thing. we ended the year with more businesses than me started the year with. >> do you agree that the sustainable debt levels over the economic cycle that will reach about 78% by 2014? >> the average g-7 that will be

about 100%. every country has a high level of debt as a result of the recession. germany, france, america, japan, and when you compare us with has had to deal with the fact that dealing with the recession with raising the level of debt. it is not unique to britain. any suggestion that it is is ridiculous. we entered the recession with the second lowest debt of the g- 7. >> you say i am ridiculous. >> i did not say that. >> just one question. do you accept the universal analysis that there is a political and debate about three -- the reduction of the deficit that your plans are not significantly clear and it is causing great concern. >> i think we're talking about

clarity. our position is a four year plan. a deficit reduction plan will include major changes including national insurance to maintain our health and education services and a very substantial pension tax relief, cuts in public expenditure, rising for less than people had expected. this will include canceling programs such as health services information technology programs where we feel it is not a priority. it makes a substantial advance bids because we can afford the plans to cut the deficit. if you take the details of that plant it what you -- you will be satisfied that we're taking actions necessary. if we were to cut the deficit and if we were to cut the deficit now, this year, just as we're trying to get out of the recession and the economy would

suffer, more jobs would be lost, more businesses would go under, more homes to be repossessed. it is not just a point of political issues but a matter of jobs, homes, businesses, and those people who went to cut the deficit immediately are making a mistake with the economy which needs the level of support we're giving it. >> almost no one agrees with these plants trade they do not agree. those plans are based on growth and are quite optimistic, in my view. what should be done with the money? lower taxes or increase spending? >> i do not accept that the projections are overly optimistic. i believe that when you see the american announcement yesterday that they are expecting to get to 4% growth in the next two

years of the world is hoping that it can create growth at a faster rate to get out of the recession. i do not think i am unusual in expecting growth. as far as the balance, our runs has always been between taxation, public services that are central, and securing production. getting that balance right is what the judgment of every budget is about. i continue to believe i am making the right judgment. the presses -- you have pessimism about the government and i do not think the british people sir that pessimism. >> prime minister, one of the ways in which public spending can be reduced or maybe made better is through efficiency

savings. local governments have already been much more perceptive than central government's in deliberating if they should be saving. they have that their targets ahead of time. what you think central governments could learn from local governments? -- what do you think? >> local governments have had a substantial amount of money from the central government. they have had very substantial sums of money as a result of the public expenditure plans to the course of education. secondly, we have learned lessons through experiments which have been done in a number of authorities as an attempt to use all local results -- resources in one area more efficiently. we look at what was spent by health and other public agencies in the area and look at whether we can use a greater efficiency in the using of resources.

they are going to rationalize that in other cases. in terms of human relations for information technology if we can consolidate. if we can do this at a local level, local government is leading the way in this. >> indeed, i saw you talking about it on the television less than one hour ago. i decided what to ask before you made that statement. whether you agree with the figure analysis that was commissioned by the london council. it suggested that [unintelligible] that there could be a 15% savings on the spending on public services which would help

significantly. would you agree with those figures? >> there have been a number of meetings where we have discussed how this approach -- how this project can work. this has been said that we wanted to do for some time. -- this has been something we have wanted to do. then you have a review of the land being used by the public sector, the resources being used in different areas, there is a great -- so it has a great deal of scope. 50% is not unrealistic, but we have to look at the different projects and how they work and a judge whether or not we can apply this. >> are you going to use the savings to reduce future central funding for the local governments? >> in the last couple of years, it has happened less slowly than in previous periods.

we have tried at the same time to keep the council taxes down and we have tried at all times to make sure the balance is there between local taxpayers and funds. >> capital investment in infrastructure. it is absolutely essential for housing in order to avoid stocks deteriorating further. are you going to be helpful with the proposals with the proposals coming forward which would require the treasury to be a bit more forthcoming than in the past? >> for a long period of time they have been reluctant to build any houses. >> i am talking about the public

housing stock which is still not in very good condition where they need to be in investing to maintaining the quality. >> i was talking about flexibility and will this is in the ability to build houses. the repair and maintenance of houses, i do not think any government has done more. i think we have a renovated about 2 million houses. it was a priority. perhaps the family's building houses and repairing houses have changed the number. certainly, i agree with you. we cannot allow the stock of houses to fall into disrepair. it is not our intention to do so. >> i was asking whether the government and the treasury would be looking at new ways so they can decide their own ways

for financing? >> this is, of course, an issue about the discretion the local authorities have treated this is also an issue about housing associations, as well, and what they do. the treasury will continue to look at rules in relation to get the balance right to allowed discretion for them to make their own decisions but not allow our wing to be higher simply because something happens to increase a higher number. >> i am asking is whether there will be a change in instances. >> i am saying we are prepared to look at this to see whether we can help local authorities to deliver the best housing possible. >> thank you. >> clearly the debate is going around and looking at this 20

billion pounds savings over the next three years. how could we reduce that scale as you have committed the government to? >> as part of our deficit reduction plan, we are ensuring that that part of our health care is going to have real time funding increases so that we are in a position to deliver the best health care possible. as i said in my speech earlier today, we are moving to acquire new definition of what the public can expect from public services. before we used to talk to aspirations than targets. now we are talking about guarantees for individuals for those who use the health service than they have a right to expect an operation within 18

weeks and cancer treatments within two weeks and they have a right for checkups and at the same time the right to see a doctor and a right for urgent needs social care. these are the ways that we can move health services to words. where can we make efficiencies that will allow this to be even more effective? we have announced changes with the information technology and changes the department of health will be making that are essential for the budget. we have determined -- we have built 110 new housing -- hospital developments. we have built more in the health services than we have in the history of that. we had the catch up of investments.

we will have the same level in the region we will not have the same level investment over the next two or three years but it will remain high. >> the target about patient choice will be adjusted to in these next two years. >> i do not see a situation in which we will be anything other than able to guarantee that the maximum level of a great time for a hospital operation is 18 weeks. the average is below 10 weeks. i actually see a situation where, although you have to wait two weeks to see a cancer specialist, and that is something that has been a big change in making people's fears less as a result of the time gap shortage, we want to get that down to one week where you can actually get your results from your cancers ganz and have it in

your hands within one week. -- results from your cancer scans and have it in your hands. i did that will remove the fear of some people have about cancer. first, there is the development of screenings and then the development of proper diagnosis. if someone who is suffering from breast or bottle cancer, these are two instances, they get screened early and get the diagnosis early. -- from best or bowel cancer, these are two instances. these are some of the changes happening in britain in terms of cancer care. >> you talk about protecting jobs. you say there will be some changes in employment. >> the laws will be changing in health services. there's a commission on nursing at the moment that is about to

reports in the next few days. i will be fascinated to have a meeting and they have been telling me how nursing is going to change. nurses are now doing operations. we have news consultants and nurses leaving the profession in so many ways. the skills that nurses can bring to the profession will change the nature of medicine as a whole as we move forward into this new era where prevention is going to be as important as curative care. a lot of energy will be being put into making sure that people will contracted diseases to make sure health services not just a repair service. >> when you talk about prevention, that has been talked about for decades now. >> we have announced that one of

the guarantees we want to give to people is that previously you can only get a full health checkup in the private sector and people had to pay. a lot of people went without the chance for a health check up. we went to a free health check as soon as possible. that is one of the things we want to introduce and the screening in diagnosis equipment that is a big advance for prevention in relation to diseases like cancer. >> i suspect this is the last time we will meet. >> i hope not. [laughter] >> it would be careless of me not to recognize and we will put that on the record.

the u.s. arguably had a larger deficit than the u.k. did. yet president obama made it the cornerstone of the u.s. economic stimulus package. it was some $21 billion u.s. was he right? was it your policy as well? what america has not done is what we have done in the next -- in the last 10 years and america is trying to catch up. we have been investing consistently in science. i look at the -- we are now one of the leaders in space and satellite and winning contracts. we are leading the world and the biotechnology in several different areas. it is the results, as scientists

will tell you, of the investment that has been made over the last 10 years at a historically high level in our country. >> if i take you back to just one year ago when you give the lecture, you said the downturn is no time to slow down our investments in science but to give more vigorously for the future. those were your exact your words -- those were your exact words. use/600 million pounds from higher education. >> we have kept sites spending throughout the recession. there were no cuts in science spending because of that. as for the future, this is a debate of the efficiency of university and we believe that, like in other areas, there are efficiencies savings to be made without affecting the quality of

work being done. >> so you reduce science funding? is that what you are saying? >> it during the recession, which is now over, we retained the level of science funding. we set aside a considerable funds for sites a technology project. the strategy announced 220 projects only a few weeks ago. we are making huge progress in some of these key areas of science, as well. >> it you announced there is going to be a standstill in terms of size. that is not the type of investment were talking about one year ago. >> hold on. research activities have doubled since 1997.

the issue is what we will do in future years. that is a matter of spending and what will happen. i am assured by the department of business and by our science minister that we can maintain a very considerable investment we're making in science. there will be shown -- some efficiency savings but we will maintain our investments. . . . xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

we will be looking at how we can move this forward and it may be that we can work in cooperative projects in the european union to increase the level of spending. i think you will have to wait for the budget to hear that. >> just a couple of wind up questions. yesterday i read that you are planning to increase defense expenditure. the pbr says that you're cutting head from 38.9 billion pounds to 36.7 billion pounds. >> i think expenditure is rising. >> that is news. >> is rising this year and it is rising in the next financial year. >> that is not what the pbr says. >> i am telling you what is happening. if you allow me to finish. defense expenditure is rising this year and next year. future years is the subject of

our spending review. there will be a paper published, i think tomorrow, on the strategic defense review that we're having. it will lead to our spending review, and then we will make decisions for future years. i think what was being emphasized at the weekend was the importance of the additional spending above the defense budget. when you're talking about the defense budget, above the defense budget, and that is the money spent on iraq and afghanistan. three years ago we were spending 600 million pounds in afghanistan, of very considerable sum of money. this year it will be 3.5 billion pounds on top of the defense budget. next year it will be 4.5 billion pounds or maybe nearly 5 billion pounds on top of the defense budget. there is no question that defense spending will be rising. >> you're saying that the use of the contingency accounts for the increase you are claiming. the pbr shows defense expenditures going down next year. >> there's been no announcement

about the future of defense spending in the spending review. that will be decided by the spending review. >> i am not much clearer but all four to the announcement on the review. you are planning to do something with defense expenditure, maintain health expenditure, increase schools expenditure, your chancellor rightly says you have no deep cuts in public expenditure. if you are increasing expenditure in these areas, it means other departments have to take proportionately larger shares of the reductions. which departments will take the larger shares? >> we announced in the pre- budget report where we would achieve substantial savings. much of this comes from a reduction in capital expenditure because the catch up expenditure we have done on hospitals and schools and transport has actually been carried out. if you build a new hospital in an area you do not need to build

the same hospital again. if you have built and renovated a new school, as we have done, you do not need to do it again. there will be reductions in the capital budget, but i may say that the proportion of money in our budget spent on capital will still be higher than it was when he came to power in 1997. we are making savings through public sector pay and through public sector pensions, savings to the regeneration program, savings through the i.t. program, there will be further changes announced. i am the chancellor who cut public spending in 1997 and 1998. i am also the chancellor who brought forward the last spending plans where we cut the budgets of seven departments. we are not afraid to make the cuts that are necessary so that we can secure britain's better future. our deficit reduction plan is to halve the deficit over the next four years by the means that i set out, including by tax, by growth, and by the public spending changes that i have been identifying here.

>> your chancellor says he is making public expenditure cuts. which departments will bear the brunt of those cuts? >> every department is having to ensure that the run things more passionately. what we have been able to say is that those front line services, policing, healthcare, and schools, will be protected. the spending review will come at the appropriate moment. there's so much uncertainty about the levels of resources that are available, partly because unemployment has not gone up in the way that we expected. there may be more resources available for public services than we had expected. if we had made a decision in the last pre-budget report or in the budget, we would have to change it now because, as you know, and i think everybody should be happy about unemployment are rising in the way that people expected. in fact, employment -- unemployment has fallen in the last two months.

>> we now move to invigorating democracy. tony wright. >> prime minister, right from the beginning you have made political and constitutional reform hallmark of your prime ministership and you have returned to that theme today with the major speech on these issues. could i start by asking you this -- we've got the leader of the opposition going around saying we've got a broken society. are you going around saying that we have got a broken politics? >> no, but we have to repair where damage has been done. the expenses scandal shamed the house of commons. there have been scandals also in the house of lords that have shamed the house of lords. we have to recognize that the public expects us to do better. there is a deeper set of issues that the public expect us to address and that is the distance between members of parliament,

elected representatives and the people. i have tried to take power from the executive and give it to parliament representing the people. i have also tried to look at how we can give more direct say to individuals in our society so that they can feel more engaged in our democracy. and i think that some of the measures i announced and suggested today will go along way, and i may say some of those measures that your committee produced are ones that we can accept and welcome, and they will help. but we have got to do quite a lot in my view as representatives of the people to make sure that the people feel that power is being wielded in both an accountable way and a way that is fully sensitive to their needs. >> in your speech today, when you talk about the discredited old politics, you're not really saying the whole system is broken? you're just saying we need a series of sensible reforms.

>> the discredited old politics was in peak -- mp's wanting to make decisions themselves about their room pay and expenses, or feeling that they had to do that under house rules rather than on regulation, not self regulation. the discredited old system is still in fact the hereditary principle in the house of lords that somehow laws passed in our country can be passed by people who have got no claim to be in that chamber other than through hereditary. this discredited old system is not what we have lived up to, as on expenses, to the expectations that people have of us. >> the rotten as expenses system was not the product of all these constitutional arrangements. it was the product of people behaving badly, was it not? >> it was a product of a system of self-regulation that should never been -- should have been replaced long ago by a system of statutory regulation.

all of us left this matter to understandings between members of the house of commons about what we should or should not do. it was never a matter for government. it was never a matter where we had election manifesto commitments to implement on these things and we have had to face up to the fact that self- regulation in this area does not work. as far as the workings of the rest of our democracy, there are major changes we can make that can improve the working of our democracy. make power more accountable to the people, make people have a more direct relationship with their representatives, and, of course, make the executive give up some power it should not have to the house of commons and to the elected authorities. >> you mentioned just now the commons reform proposals, and i see again in the speech today -- and i welcome this very much -- that you have put your authority four-square behind them. can i just clear up this issue, that these proposals are to be put to the house in the form

that anybody who wants to shout about -- who wants to shout "object" to any of them will sink them, there and then, and some people think that this is a rather clever way of sinking the whole project. could i just have it from you that if that is how it to be done that the government then will find time immediately to bring these proposals back to the house for substantive votes? >> we would bring back the proposals but let's be realistic. if we have to go through line by line, dot and comma on each of these proposals, then we will not have the parliamentary time to be able to do that. what we are really trying to say is that we prefer there to be progress as quickly as possible, we prefer there to be progress by consensus. weekend agreement -- if we can get an agreement of all the parties and all members of the house that this is the right way to go forward, the then that is something which will ensure that these major proposals can be

agreed as soon as possible. but if people object -- and i wish they would not because my view is we want to make progress -- then we have to start looking at this line by line and of course there is a limited amount of parliamentary time to do that. i think i want the proposals through and i want us to vote for them. we are putting proposals i think most people who have looked at the issue would be prepared to agree with. i would hope there would be no objection to them. >> just so that we're clear, if a single person shouts open code object" to any of these proposals, a whole thing -- if a single person shouts "object" to any of these proposals, the whole thing collapses. if that is what happens, and some of us think that is almost bound to happen -- >> well, i hope not. >> well, i hope not but i think it will. is the intention then to find time, pretty much immediately,

to bring these proposals back? >> our intention is to find time but i have to say you did these are complicated proposals that have been agreed in a very detailed manner both by the select committee and now by the parties. we have to go line by line it will be difficult to make progress. >> i am very keen that we should make progress but my concern is the chair of the european scrutiny committee is that we are not about -- we are not about to step backwards. on october 22, we wrote to the leader of the house pointing out that it would require a standing order or amendment to guarantee that all the scrutiny that we had before lisbon would still remain. on december 1, the lisbon treaty was in fact brought in. i will give some examples. there are 29 articles or part articles which will no longer be called legislative acts and therefore under the interpretation the uk government appears to be taking at the moment. they will not therefore be subject to scrutiny nor will they have the right to a reasoned opinion or the right to use of the orange or yellow

card. it requires a standing order amendment to change that they cover competition, state aid, family law, criminal law, very important matters. can i ask you, can you guarantee your government will do whatever is necessary, because we do not think it is a matter of conflict across the parties to bring in the standing order amendment so that we have by right what was called the gold standard of scrutiny in europe, and we do not end up with false gold, with half of our scrutiny powers barrett the gift of the government department rather than by right in the standing order of this parliament? >> it is right to have proper scrutiny, and it is right to make sure that whatever time can be made available can be made available. i will look at the specific issue that you embraced in now will get back to you as quickly as possible with my own view in the view of the ministers concerned. >> prime minister, i am delighted that you did not think we have a broken politics, but

just a politics that needs refurbishing a bit. in your speech today, did talk about the new politics. one or two of the new politics ideas that you brought forward when you first became prime minister have not worked out quite as strong or as effective as we thought they might be. can you tell us a little more about the right of recall of mp's by the people? you have mentioned this on two or three occasions. could you put a little flesh on how that would work? >> if there was a situation where wrongdoing was proven by itself -- ipsa and accepted by their recommendations, and if the house then refused to take the action that was recommended, in these particular circumstances, that is financial impropriety, there should be some right for the electorate to pass some verdict on so that we need a process for that to happen. this would only be in a position

where there was effectively financial corruption and where the house refused to act. >> the lead process legg -- the legg process has just about ended. looking back on this rather torrid year that we of all face, and rightly been criticized for some of the actions, how many mp's the unit think would be subject to a recall, given what you know about these cases? >> i cannot say because a number of the cases are now with the police and we know that they are being domesticated by the policing authorities. i do not think this is by any means over and i think it would be better to make a judgment on that later. >> when you came into office, you made this big program statement about political reform, the governance of britain program, but electoral reform was not in it.

>> it was, actually. it was that we were going to publish a document on the electoral systems which we then went on to do, and as a result of that, i made further announcements later. >> that was to be a review of the working of the existing systems. that is what you are referring to. i think what people are entitled to ask is what has changed in the last couple of years to bring electoral reform to the top of the agenda and when did you have your conversion experience? >> i think you look back to 1997, we were committed to review of the electoral system. the review was done by the late roy jenkins who made a number recommendations. there was no consensus emerging around the jenkins proposals. in fact his proposals did not command the agreement that we expected. we then set in 2005 that we would ever review -- that we would have a review of the

electoral systems. we published that in 2008. on the basis of that, and looking at what has happened, not least in relation to parliament and its reputation over the last year, it seems to me that we had to reach a conclusion on where we could go. there are very strong views held by people. they're people who are wedded to first past the post but mainly because they want the constituency link between a member of parliament and the constituency they represent, and then there are people who have a very strong view with the electoral system being proportionate, and i can understand that. we have the experience of a large number of systems operating in the united kingdom -- northern ireland, scotland, wales, the mayor of london, and some from local government systems as well. when you look at it, the case for the status quo is now less strong that it is ever been. mp's, given the public scrutiny

upon them, would benefit from having the votes, even if they were second and third preferences, of the majority of their constituents, but they would benefit also from maintaining that constituency link. i am very concerned to point out that the proposals we are putting forward maintain that local -- that constituency link, so that a member of parliament is representing a local area and they are seen as one of the local leaders in that area as well as the representative in westminster. we do not want go back to a time when mp's were so divorced from their constituency that often they never visited their constituencies and did not think that was an important part of their job. the proposal we put forward is essentially for a referendum to be held in 2011 on that system of voting as against the status quo. i think it is capable of commanding a lot of support across the house of commons as well as across the country. >> i think we all know there is

no perfect electoral system. there are advantages and disadvantages of every kind of system. i am not exactly clear what is the problem to which the alternate vote is a solution? many people have always described it as replacing a system where the most popular person wins with a system where the least unpopular person wins. >> if i put it away, the person who wins has got in the end to command a majority of the people who are voting and therefore we do not have a situation where in some constituencies, i think in 1992 in inverness the winner got 26% of the votes, his or her votes would be redistributed from the second, third, and fourth preferences. if people wish to put a second, third, and fourth preference, then that vote can count, and even if they are not voting for the first person in the first ballot, they have a say in how the final selection happens.

there are advantages in the system, so that i can, and others can come to the house of commons and say, at the end of the day, we had the majority of the people in my constituency voting for me after the preferences were redistributed. i think that that is a good system and a better system than the one we have got. i agree with you that there is no perfect system. i have always been concerned that we can maintain the constituency link for members of parliament. i believe in the 25 years i have been in parliament, that link has become more important, not less important, and i believe that if people thought we were removing that link through some other electoral system, they would be very disappointed and angry indeed, and keeping that constituency link is something that is important to me. >> the only serious look at electoral systems that we have had since 1997 s was the jenkins commission set up by your predecessor. if you go back and look at what they said, "av on its own

suffers from a stark objection. it offers little prospect of a mood toward greater proportionality and in some circumstances it even less proportionate than first past the post." most people thought the thing that we needed was to make our system rather more proportional than it is. >> i am not going to get into a big debate about other systems than av, but in the end you lose some of the constituency link, there is no doubt about that. the issue since 1997 has not just been the jenkins reform. we've had the experience of what has happened in wales, north ireland, scotland, and what is happened in london. >> prime minister, this is not

in your speech today, but it does appear from the as you gave in prime minister questions a few weeks ago that you are having a flirtation with votes at 16. is that right? >> i have always believed that it could do three things at the same time -- one, it could have the best citizenship education in the school, two, if at the age of 16, people assumed the british citizenship in a formal way, and three, you could then go on to have both said 16, but i think these three things ought to come together. there is a doubt amongst members of the public about whether people at 16 have got the maturity to cast their votes. i do not agree with that. i think most people do have, but it would be far better combined with better citizenship -- better citizenship education that is leading toward that, and at the same time, some people assuming citizenship at that age. >> i think you and i would agree

that one of the greatest things the government has done is what we did in every child matters and the five outcomes for the children. >> i think you are very much involved in that as well, so thank you for what you did. >> thank you, prime minister. many people care about childhood believe that the pressures on childhood are immense -- commercial pressures, the pressure of testing and assessment, all the pressures on a modern childhood in a modern environment. many people believe that votes at 16 would take away some of the crucial protections of children and childhood away because it would pull down the age of adulthood to 16. are you worried about some of the voices that argue that childhood would shrink if we had votes at 16? >> i think you're talking about two separate things. as a parent, the parents -- the pressures on both parents and young people are enormous now,

as you say. when we were growing up, and i think i am speaking for all members of the committee now, the major influences on our lives were our parents, our school, perhaps our church or faith group, and friends. now the influences on a young person growing up, particularly very young people, include the internet, television and videos, texting, mobile phones, all these come into play at some point during a young person's youth. with the influences were quite specific when we were going up, these influences are ones that even parents do not know the full weight of, as they influence a young child's development. i think we should think more about the pressures on parents and how we can respond better to these huge influences that were not there in our youth, but now are on children. i do not think it makes young people less mature. i picked it makes young people

more knowledgeable about what is happening, more able to find out what is happening, more informed if they choose to be so. my only issue here is that if we're going to have a big reform like this, we ought to be sure that citizenship, education, and the knowledge that young people can get from a school particularly but generally is sufficiently good so that we can have some faith that the citizenship they are assuming is one that they will take seriously. >> cannot push you once more on this? we have had some ghastly cases around child protection in recent months. job protection is a very important part of the work that we do and our committee -- child protection is a very important port of the work that we do in our committee. there is a real fear that when we looked after children in care, that any attempt to bring down the age of a child to 16 would leave some of the most vulnerable children in our society, between 16 and 18,

praey to some pretty ghastly influences in society. what do you say about that? >> i am afraid that these teenagers are prey to some of these influences already and we have to ensure the particularly young children leaving care are given the best support that is possible. we have to recognize that some of the most of vulnerable people in our country are those children who have been in care until a certain age, and then leave care and often find themselves without qualifications, no jobs, without proper accommodation and without the support that they need. we have got to do more for that group of people, and you are absolutely right that child protection in that area is incredibly important. >> that was a very full answer, prime minister. will you consult widely before you move on to a vote at 16?

>> there is no question that there would have to be a wide consultation on this. we have talked to young people themselves about it. we have had a youth citizenship commission that actually in the end did not make a full recommendation, but it is a live issue that i believe we should be prepared to discuss. i would prefer to discuss it in the context of better such as ship -- citizenship education. >> one question on behalf of the voters, prime minister. i taught modern studies and government political systems right from 11 up to 18. is all very well in an ivory tower to talk about systems and what is good for the voter. your next door neighbors do not know who their four councilors are, who their six mep's are for scotland, who their eight msp's are forced the scottish parliament, and will they understand why we want to bring in yet another voting system? certainly the voter has to be considered and if it is good

enough for one system, maybe we should have the same system for all other electoral levels because the electorate are totally confused in scotland at the moment. why give them another puzzle? >> from my experience, your constituents know who you are. you're very well recognized in your own area, and that is a tribute to you. we have got different voting systems at the moment. the question is whether the voting systems are the best ones. we have a different voting system for the welsh assembly to the scottish parliament to the northern ireland assembly to the mayor of london into the european parliament. the question you have to ask is not whether there are going to be a number of different systems -- there are -- but whether we can get a better system for the area we're talking about at the moment, which is the house of commons, and i believe that we can. i believe that we should at least give the voters the chance to make a decision on whether they wanted. it is not asking too much mp's

to allow the voters in a referendum to decide. >>-just a couple of questions as we end? one of them i take from president obama's state of the union speech was week. i am after the idea that although we talk about these political and constitutional structural changes, what obama bangs on about is how we do politics. he says in his state of the union speech, "oh what frustrates people is where everyday is election day. we cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent." he goes on to say, "this is sewing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government," and he says, "i will not give up on changing the tone of our politics." do you not think -- >> nor will live. i think he is right. i think we do ourselves a disservice on so many occasions by the way in the house of

commons or as politicians we behave. you're looking for for all the time in this country where people can discuss in a sensible way very serious issues. people want us to discuss the issues about what the prospects for young people, the issues that they are worried about childcare protection. they want us to discuss afghanistan as a big issue, and we have not, to be honest, found the best way to discuss the big issues and big challenges that affect the country. it is a regret to me that while i would like to see less partisanship in the way that we look at some of these big issues, it has proved to be impossible. it is something that president obama will obviously feel as well because he has tried, his outreach is to ask people to look at these issues without partisan eyes on occasions and to look at the broader national interest, and, of course, he has not been able to persuade his opponents to do that either.

>> my question to you is that you have taken steps to curtail the prerogative powers that exist in this country. why did you not at this stage in the electoral cycle tell us when you're going to have an election and do that as an emblem of your commitment to fixed term parliaments? [laughter] >> i think fixed term parliaments, even if we had written constitution -- >> which you are in favor of. >> which i would like to see happen, but it is going to take time to get an agreement among so many people both about what should be in the constitution, as i keep saying, should it be like the south african constitution or should it simply be a constitutional document that does not refer to some of the big issues of social and economic and individual rights. you've got to make a decision about what that is. until that day when you have got this clear written constitution

which would require a date for elections, we are in this situation where we are in at the moment where rest on my shoulders to decide when the election will be. >> we move on now to counter- terrorism policy. keith vaz. >> its may 6, is it? >> i did not give answers to question -- this is not a question about the election you are asking me. >> counter-terrorism, prime minister, is obviously very high on the government agenda. you have made more statements to parliament on this issue than any other parliament -- any other prime minister has, and the budget is now over 3.5 billion pounds to our security services, an increase of 215% over the last 10 years. it is accepted that there are about 2000 people in this country who pose a serious threat to this country, an increase of about 25% in last -- in five years. does it worry you that there has been such an increase?

>> i do not want to get into figures about the numbers that the security services are tracking, and i do not think it would be helpful to do so. the issue about the use of our security services, how they use their time, is an important one, however, and we have doubled the number of our security services staff over these last years since september 11. we have also, and i think that this is important, almost doubled the number of police were directly working on counter-terrorism. we have increased -- created regional units so that we are simply not dealing with problems in one city but in a lot of cities. i do believe that we have enhanced at every point when we have got information to do so our security apparatus, both in terms of our surveillance, in terms of our collation of information and in terms of coordination of the services, but every day there is a new problem, and every day you got to look at what you're doing

things well and make changes if you think it is necessary, given the changes in technology or the method of terrorist, or simply the changes in the landscape from where terrorists are emerging. which is not simply pakistan and afghanistan, but is is somalia, yemen, and other countries as well. >> the threat level has now been increased, and 10 days ago the home secretary announced it had been increased. this was not a decision of ministers. this was the advice given by jtac, it then went to cobra. presumably you are informed of the same day that jtac made its decision? >> yes, and the important thing to recognize is that after the detroit bombing, we have looked at a whole series of things about how we can improve our security arrangements as well. the decision about raising the security assessment is an assessment not only about one thing but about intentions and about capabilities of people who would do damage to our country, and so it is made in the broad sense that you look at

intentions and capabilities. the statement that i made two days before, it showed that we were taking new measures to deal with the terrorist threat that existed. >> we understand that these things must remain confidential. the decision to increase the threat level is based on confidential intelligence that you cannot share with the public. the a think the public ought to have been given, and in future ought 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? obviously they see the home secretary making the announcement, they understand the words, but they do not know -- should they leave their briefcase at home? should they do something different from what they were doing yesterday? that kind of a commission would be most helpful, where it is at the moment? >> it is obviously to all those people who are concerned with the security of our country. our aviation system has been intensified, as you know.

we are introducing this e- borders system which will give us far more ability to stop people from coming into the country in the first place, and that is developing over the course of this year. all those people who are concerned with managing our borders, looking at our security, organizing flights, they will be aware of this award. as far as the general public is concerned, i on wanting to make sure that we're clear about what is happening with radicalization in our universities, in our prisons, and we of got to be pretty clear that we are making all the efforts that are necessary there as well. the alert is a call for the public to be vigilant, but is also a statement that we are taking what action we can to make sure that our country is as safe as possible. >> when it goes up, is the underlying message you must be more vigilant because something may be happening? >> i think people will be more

vigilant, but you have to put this in proper perspective. until your ago, we had the high rollers -- it was severe. we reduced it, and of course, because of the committee's assessment of intentions and capabilities, they have raised it again. >> you have mentioned airport security. the abdulmutallab incident -- yesterday's the transport secretary announced body scanners were to be rolled out in manchester and heathrow airports. if we had had body scanners, and if abdulmutallab had travelled through london rather through labels and schiphol, would we have been able to discover what he was up to as a result of having this equipment? >> i think it will be a major improvement. there are new technologies being used by the terrorist organization al qaeda and we've got to keep up with them. that is one of the reasons why we have given a lot of incentives to companies to

develop new technologies that could spot some of the things that are now being done. we are using the newest technology to the best of our ability by bringing in these body scanners, but obviously over time our technology will improve and enable us to do even more. >> one of the issue is not just having the scanners here but being able to work with countries abroad, the international standards. does it concern you that there are no international standards at the moment which people can adhere to, so that what we do in europe, which is obviously of the highest possible level, matches a country like nigeria or yemen? we may have 20 body scanners, but yemen does not have a single body scanner. >> as you know, we suspended flights from yemen. we are working with the yemen authorities. we're trying to work with them on improving aviation security, and that will happen. but you're absolutely right -- we are giving advice and training help to a number of

countries who want to introduce more sophisticated systems for spotting and detecting people as they come to airports and take off in planes that come to countries like ours. we must also has the cooperation across europe, both in terms of data and in terms of similarities in the security systems that we use. and our cooperation with america is very strong. >> you'll probably not had a chance to read the select committee report that we published this morning. [laughter] >> i have had a chance to see the headlines. >> you of all people should never judge an article by the headlines. we have recommended the establishment of a national committee that will bring together the security services, and national security committee. it is actually building on the foundations that we have at the moment, because you have a cabinet committee at the moment that deals with national security. there is the home secretary's

weekly thursday morning meeting, there is cobra, there is jtac -- obviously a lot of people doing a lot of good work. do you not think that it's important to bring together the various strands in order to ensure that you have the best possible buys from those who know about these issues? >> although you have criticized us today, i remind you that on july 7 last year you said, "the uk's counter-terrorism apparatus is first-class, effective, and as joined-up as any system of government can expect." >> to shape. >> as far as the national security committee is concerned, i just want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding on this. that meeting has the minister is that are concerned with every area of security, but it also has the chief of the defense staff, the chief of all the security agencies, it has the chief of the metropolitan police terrorism division -- all those people there who are either the chief security advisers or head

the agencies. in fact, there is very little difference between your proposal and what we actually do. perhaps the only way i can convince you is by inviting you to a meeting to see for yourself that all these people are sitting around the cabinet table, all with the chance to contribute to this debate. this is the committee where we make and recommend to the cabinet decisions of security, and the people you want to be there are actually there now. >> i don't know whether that is a coded way of inviting me to join your cabinet. >> in your dreams. >> i would be pretty direct if i were talking to you about these things. [laughter] >> may be a bit late in the day. prime minister, we accept that. we accept that you have got a cabinet committee. the worry is that it may well be a little fragmented. going back to scanners, for example, scanners you would have

thought was a home office policy, but in fact it does the department of transport that takes the lead. is there any way in which you can look at the structures to see if they can be improved? the program that you have on counter-terrorism is pretty ambitious. you want to protect the public -- you have given them more money. >> we have trebled the budget on counter-terrorism. every week i am looking at, as are other ministers, with those important advisers at what is happening and at the danger that we face from potential terrorists coming from somalia, yemen, or pakistan and the afghan/pakistan border. every week we are looking at instances of people trying to organize to cause damage to our country and trying to prevent this happening. i think the structure we have got, actually the structure that you want, all the ministers together with all the chiefs of the different agencies including the chief of defence staff, is the right way of bringing people together and coordinating things. it is a myth to suggest that is not happening. as far as the individual

responsibilities of ministers are concerned, the coordination between the home office and the department of transport was such that they made a joint statement on the day parliament resumed in january with the results that they had agreed on what we should do following the detroit bombing. i think is right to say that airport security and airports are matters with the transport secretary, but the coordination between them and the home office is very strong indeed. we are also finding, because we do with international terrorism, that the coordination between national agencies and international agencies is growing all the time. we appreciate that we cannot have a "fortress britain" policy. you cannot simply say that within britain, if we do everything then we will be best protected against terrorism. we've got to take issue with what is happening in pakistan, yemen, somalia, and we have to take action to protect our borders outside our borders as well as inside our borders, so international and national

coordination is incredibly important. >> finally from me on bogus colleges. we understand that part of the points-based system has now been suspended for north india because of the number of students coming in. when your last before the select committee, if you said -- and the committee actually agreed with you on this point -- that the points-based system was a radical approach and we hope very much it would provide a template for the future. does it worry you that the number of students coming in under the points-based system possibly could lead to abuse? is it a concern to you that we still do not have a figure as to the number of bogus -- bogus colleges there are in the united kingdom? >> since march 2009, any institution that wishes to bring foreign students into the united kingdom must undergo a two-stage process of accreditation and licensing. we have reduced the number of institutes able to bring

students did you take from 4000 to approximately 2000. those with a license are regularly visited and monitored. those who do not meet the high standards will have their licenses suspended or revoked. real or to revoke your suspended the licenses of more than 160 colleges. we will continue to bear down on those institutions that do not play by the rules set. i think you have to understand that students coming to our country to study is an important part both of our international links with other countries and our education system in britain. we do not want to discourage bona fide students from coming to study in our institutions. i think that 20,000 come from india and 60,000 from china. we have one of the biggest groups of people studying in our country simply because our universities and colleges are very good indeed, but we must take care to make sure that this route is not being abused. that is why we are not only of course tightening -- tightening up on the basis system, but on the colleges that are entitled to bring people to this country. >> and you receive no

affirmation that suggest that this route is being used by those who would want to support terrorists or indeed are would- be terrorists? >> we are looking all the time at any possible routes that any would-be terrorists would use and if people are declaring themselves to be students when they are not genuinely students, and using a bogus route to get into the united kingdom, it is our duty to try and stop this. therefore we continue to be vigilant to what is happening in this area. >> thank you. >> cannot tell you about counter-terrorism legal framework, prime minister? i'm sure you agree that counter- terrorism law has evolved over quite a long period now, and they are special open-ended measures that are bolted on to the ordinary law and a theoretically supposed to be temporary, but there is always a risk of them becoming permanent. jackstraws get a public lecture last year in may when he said that the time to come for going through the counter terrorism legislation to work out whether we still needed it. would you agree with him about that?

>> we certainly still needed. the question is whether we can look at it afresh in the light of all the information we now have. there is always a case for consolidation. i do not disagree with you that there could be a case for consolidation, but i do say to you that we do need counter- terrorism legislation. we're dealing with a real threat that affects people in our country. >> i would not disagree with you about that, but the real question is whether the counter- terrorism legislation is too draconian, whether it actually works, and whether it is affected. if we look at the question of control orders, which have had quite a battering over the last few years in the courts in particular, we now got 12 in force. originally altogether there have been about 45 people covered, but there are only 12 now. since they came and, seven people have absconded. the restrictions that can be imposed or are imposed in control orders have reduced. the average curfew now was only

10 hours and two have no curfews at all out of those 12. we know that the home office has spent 8 million pounds on legal costs just defending the legal cases, and if you add in the legal aid for the control these and the cost of the court hearings and so forth, is probably nearer 20 million pounds. would that not have been better spent on more police officers to keep tabs on these people more effectively so they could not abscond? you're not interfering with their human rights or their right to go about their business in the same way. you do not get the same bad publicity for these extraordinary measures. he probably would have a more effective way of keeping tabs on what they are doing. >> cannot put the other side of the story? the problem we have is that there are people of whom we suspect of terrorist activity who we cannot deport from the country, nor are we in a position to prosecute. there is this grey area where we have got to defend the people of this country but cannot take these two extreme actions, and

you would not want us to do in circumstances where we did not have all the evidence that was necessary to do so or the powers to do so in retaliation to deportations. i have to say that when lord carlile, the independent agitator on this, has looked at this, and he has come down in favor of what we have done on control orders. we are trying to get the balance right. you've in this is the safeguarding of the individual rights, and i accept that is an issue, but we have also got to make sure that we protect the public. lord carlile concludes in his report published today, "is my view and advice that abandoning the control orders system entirely would have a damaging effect on national security. there is no better means of dealing with the serious and continuing risk posed by some individuals." without going into the stories of these individuals, i think lord carlile has given us a fairly balanced judgment about what is the better way forward, accepting there is no best way

forward. >> let us put it this way. certainly the issue here is protecting the public and balancing the right of individuals. it is not an either/or. there are now only 12 people subject to control orders, and 10 of those have curfews averaging out at 10 hours. lord carlile has not ashley looked at the alternative, much more effective police surveillance. if we had 20 million pounds to spend, it doesn't all long way in providing police officers to keep tabs on a dozen people, and probably more effectively than the control order regime actually provides, bearing in mind that they are only under curfew for 10 hours a night. >> it is a matter of judgment. >> lord carlile does not actually look at that at all. >> i know, but it is a matter of judgment. both of us agree that we have a responsibility to keep tabs on these people, so we're not in disagreement that where we find

someone who is at risk of causing a terrorist act, but we cannot prosecute and we cannot deport, we have to keep tabs on them. the question then is how we do it. you are suggesting that it can be done purely by police surveillance without a control order. i would just say that the judgment of lord carlile, who is clearly looking at whether control orders or a good thing or not, is that it would have a damaging effect on national security to take them away. maybe over time we can find a better way of doing this. everybody agrees that this is not an ideal system. nobody wanted to bring in control orders in the first place. we were forced to do that because we were not able to deport people that we wanted to get out of the country. >> that were brought in because we could not lock up people without trial, not because we cannot deport people. >> the poor people or lock people up, i can only repeat what lord carlile says. >> can i ask you about 28 days pre-charge detention? again, this is one of the

special measures. it went up from 14 days. it was last used in june 2007, getting on for three years ago. during the 2008 renewal debate, i was told by the minister that a detailed review of the cases of those detained more than 14 days in relation to the heathrow airline plot would happen. that is operation over. that review has not taken place. now i am told that there was never an intention to carry out that review anyway, even though i had been given that assurance on the floor of the house. the point here is that what we need to do is to find at how this being used and, in particular, in relation to people who are released at the end of the 28-day period without charge, who are found to be innocent, what the effect of the 28 days' detention has been on them, and indeed on all -- and indeed on the wider society in which they live and what impact that has had on the whole issue of radicalization?

can we actually have that review of those who were detained under operation overt that was promised to me in the 2008 renewal debate? >> when we were discussing the issue about going beyond 28 days, it was part of the proposal that a report would be done in every individual case, and that report would be done in an independent way. i shall look at what you had been told the house of commons. i do not have that here at the moment, but if you can give me it, i shall reply to you. >> it was when tony mcnulty was the minister in the 2008 renewal debate. can i ask about section 44, stop and search? a couple of weeks ago the european court of human rights held that the power of stop and search under section 44 violate the right to respect for private life because they are neither sufficiently circumscribed and defined nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against their abuse. time and again i have been told

by ministers and senior police officers, that section 44 should only use be it -- only be used strictly for counter-terrorism purposes, but in practice it is become a lazy way for police officers to stop and search people more broadly. in my own constituency, talking to the borough commander, there are six areas which are subject to section 44 powers, which i found rather surprising. we now look again at section 44 and the way it is used, because i think it does undermine confidence in the police in the way that it is being used as well as if it being abused in the way that it is used excessively? >> as far as i understand, this case went to the ec h.r. after the applicants lost their previous challenges in the divisional court, in the court of appeals and in the house of lords, and these earlier judgments said that stop and search did not interfere with a person's human rights. this was related to two people who were stopped near rape arms

fair in london in 2003. as far as i understand it, the home secretary is not only disappointed with the european court of human rights ruling in this case, because we had won all the other challenges in the uk courts, including in the house of lords, but we're considering the judgment and will seek to appeal. pending the outcome of this appeal, the police will continue to have these powers available to them. i think we must wait until we see the outcome of this appeal. >> i am sure the home secretary is disappointed, but my committee is report it -- is disappointed by the response that we have had in relation to this, because time and again we have had overwhelming evidence about the abuse of section 44, even when it comes to ordinary people -- protesters having a cup of coffee or the climate change people sitting in the indian restaurant. >> i accept you feel strongly about it, but you have to understand that this is a case where the applicants lost their previous challenges in the divisional court, in the court of appeals, and in the house of

lords. therefore we now have a judgment from the echr. we will look at that carefully but our instinct is a piece -- is to appeal. >> i understand that even lord west the security minister was subject to a section 44 not so long ago. >> i did not know anything about that. >> finally about torture, he promised to make public the guidance to the intelligence services on the detention and interrogation of suspects overseas. will you make public the guidance in place between 2001 and 2007 when the allegations we have previously explored in this committee, and in my own committee with ministers, of complicity in torture were alleged to have happened? >> let us just be clear where we start on this. we do not support torture. we do not condone torture. we did not allow torture. we do not ask other people to torture on our behalf. i am absolutely clear that these of the principles that guide the conduct of this administration.

where there are allegations made, they are treated seriously. i wanted to publish the guidelines so that people can be no doubt as to what the recommendations we give to those people charged with the security of our country. i put the guidelines before the intelligence and security committee. they are now looking at these guidelines. i would not want to go back in time and publish previous recommendations. i would want to publish the recommendations that are going to vote -- going to be in force from now on. i think it would be the satisfaction that we as a government are doing everything that we can. >> that would be helpful for the future. >> hold on. they will come from the intelligence and security committee with their bison and will publish them, and that is something we have already said we will do. >> that will be helpful for the future but the allegations relate to the past. if we are going to be of the put to rest these allegations, we have to know what the guidelines were at the time when the allegations were supposed to have happened. >> there are cases in relation

to that that are being dealt with at the moment through the courts. the most important thing i can do is to make sure that people are clear about the guidelines under which the security services and all our services are operating now, and i am going to publish these very soon after i had the advice of the intelligence and security committee. >> the last question, prime minister. the director of general -- the director general of the security service is quite prepared to talk to the press and give public lectures about what is going on in his work and the terrorism threat, but is not prepared to give evidence to my committee. you think it is defensible that the director general is prepared to talk openly to the press, to the media, to give public lectures, but not give the same speech before parliament terry committee? >> shias offered, as i understand it, to come before your committee to give a confidential briefing on the current terrorist threat. the security intelligence services are accountable to parliament through the intelligence and security committee. they did meet mr. evans and

other people who are heads of our security services. they provide formal evidence to the intelligence and security committee under the act, but they do not give public evidence to other committees. they will give you a confidential briefing on the current terrorist threat and i think that is a way of resolving the issue. >> thank you. we now move on to foreign affairs. michael gates? >> a un minister, last week you hosted a major afghan conference in london, and at that conference, nato and other allies pledged to do more to support the coalition effort, but are those pledges really worth anything when it is quite clear that a few countries, including our own, continue to carry a disproportionate burden? >> you're absolutely right that there should be a fair sharing of the burden. let us remember why we are in afghanistan. we're there to prevent the taliban returning to power and al qaeda having a base from which to operate in afghanistan

itself. we want to give the afghans the power to run their own affairs and that is why we are trained the rigid training the afghan security forces and their police. we want all the countries who are involved in this coalition to be helping in this effort. in the last few days, i think 9000 additional forces have been agreed in addition to the american numbers. some other countries had been prepared to help. the latest country that has offered more numbers is germany, over the course of the last few days, and they are also offering support with police training. as important as having people on the ground in armed combat, we also need trainers for the police in the army and we are hoping that other countries will be able to do more quite soon. .

>> if countries are prepared to contribute to the training of afghan police and afghan forces, our strategy is to train the forces of that they can do the job and allow our trips to come home. >> there was a very lengthy communique last week that a lot of allegations on president karzai. in view of the widespread " --

corruption, and the fact that the afghan parliament twice rejected a majority -- confidence that he is going to 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, reutersñr ws 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. ñithere 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. 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 içó 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 -- taoiseach of ireland, 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 stillñi 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 foreigni] ministr of ireland, and our secretary of state, that we are moving things, inching things, forward. in the end, this agreementñi has to be an agreement of the orthernn agreement of the 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 ofñi 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 thatñr 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. ñrwe 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.