>> he talks about national security issues with the joint committee on national security strategies. a look of the issues at a young voters are considering important. >> consumers will win in the in, it allows sip's to innovate and bring new services and new pricing, business models to consumers. it is the main beneficiary. >> the big corporations one out in this decision. and amount of market power and imprint it washington, d.c. to

shape policy to go their direction. consumers really are going to be the losers in this deal and i think that is why so many of them are speaking and asking the fcc to move forward with a clear path to protect them. >> the impact of the net neutrality rules on the communicators at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> in the british house of commons last week, one of the questions posed to prime minister had to do with the plan for accepting syrian refugees. he also responded to several domestic related questions including one about employers who are caught abusing the minimum wage requirements. but rise to 20 points i am optimistic we can achieve that. >> questions for the prime minister. rory smith. >> mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i had meetings with ministers, colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this house i have further meetings later today. >> murray smith. >> mr. speaker, figures show the u.k. economy growing at its fastest rate since 2007. the plan is working. stick with it or abandon our plan but a better economic pizza at and my constituents, would the prime minister agree with me that what we are taking us that most be the future of britain and our children? the next generation? >> absolutely right. that should be the test of the decisions we are taking and will they secure a better future, more stability, more peace of mind for our children and

grandchildren? last week we saw the biggest number of new jobs and a quarter since records began. this week we see the growth in their economy for six years, there should be no complaints, the job is nowhere near complete but if we stick to long-term economic plan we can see our country rise and our people rise too. >> mr. speaker, the house will recognize the government's change of heart on syrian refugees which i raised last week. we look forward to the home secretary's statement but now the decision has apparently been taken will be reassured the house with the utmost urgency because we are talking about the most vulnerable people in refugee camps who need help now. what i can assure you is we will act with the greatest urgency because when it comes to syria we have acted with the greatest urgency throughout.

we have made available 600 million pounds which makes up the second-largest humanitarian donor, we provided food for 188,000 people, clean water for almost a million, medical consultations almost a quarter of a million and as the secretary will make clear we will be coming forward with a scheme to help the most needy people in those refugee camps and offered them a home in our country. we want to make sure we help those who have been victims of sexual violence, the foreign secretary on behalf of the whole country championed across the world. >> i welcome the government's decision to accept refugees, very important call. let me turn to another subject. who said this just before the election? and i quote. shelling we are all in this together means showing that the rich will pay their share which

is what -- which is why the tax break will have to stay. >> the fact is under this -- question has been asked -- under this government the richest will pay more in income tax in every years and any year that he was in office. i want to the richest to pay more in tax and under this government they are because we are creating jobs, we are creating growth, encouraging investment and what we heard from labor over the last 48 hours is they want to attack that growth, attack those jobs, attack those businesses. we have anti business, and high-growth. >> no, mr. speaker, what we have is a policy with the

overwhelming support, the overwhelming support of the most important people of all, the people of britain. that is what this is. of course, mr. speaker, it was him in 2009 just before the election, it was him that said the income tax rate was a symbol of we are all in it together and now it is gone. now can he tell us whether he rules out cutting the top rate further to 40? >> the chance yesterday exactly when asked prior to this to cut factors for the lowest paid and middle-income people, i am not surprised he didn't hear the chancellor or the rest of the labor party, he wasn't yesterday. all on his own. and while we are on the

business, who has said interesting things in recent days, who has said interesting things in recent days, let me ask him this. mr. robertson, mr. robertson, prime minister -- [shouting] >> while we are on the subject of interesting quotes, who in the last 48 hours said this? the level of public spending going into the crisis was a problem for britain, no i don't, nor our deficit, nor our national debt. in fact he even said in some areas we would spend more.

mr. speaker. we were talking earlier about our children. our children and future. go to the dictionary and look up the definition of the nile, ,, will be right there. >> it is hard to remember but along time ago i asked a question and the prime minister failed to answer it. does he rule out -- does he rule out giving another tax cut to the richest in society by cutting the top rate to 40 p? calm down. calm down. 40 p. yes or no? >> so much good news i can't wait to get up and tell it.

to cut taxes for the lowest paid in our country. 2 million people. the reaction of the announcement. it would cost jobs, labor ministers served alongside, economically illiterate and it would raise hardly any money. it has been an absolutely disastrous policy from a disastrous labour economic team. >> with every answer, a few of the ordinary families. that is the truth. a very simple question, of very simple question. i know the prime minister doesn't like answering questions, that is the point of this vocation, a very simple

question. a clear position. we would reverse the millionaires' tax cut for the top-rated tax, i am asking him a very simple question. does he rule out reducing the top rate to 40 p, yes or no? >> tax cuts for low earners, freezing the tax, freezing, helping people in our country, what have we seen from him so far this year? a banking policy the governor of the banking england says will increase the banking system and employment policy that would cost jobs and tax policies that business leaders would be at risk to our recovery. there is a crisis in our country, a crisis of economic credibility for the labor party. [shouting] >> three opportunities to answer

and he could not answer the question. this is a country where after four years of this government people are worse off and this -- mr. prime minister, has already given those of bus, millionaires, 100,000 pound tax cut and wants to give them another one. pecan only govern for the few, he can never governed for the many. >> i tell you who we are governing for, the 1.3 million people who got jobs under this government, the 400,000 new businesses and this government, 2 million people we have taken out of -- people under minimum wage to have seen their taxes slightly third under this government. that is who we are governing for. we got more factories producing more goods, more people taking home a paycheck, more security for hard-working families and now we can see labor, a risk for jobs and the recovery and the

future of britain and security. >> jeremy brown. >> mr. speaker, on the sunset levels causing distress for the people who live in that area. will the prime minister give a commitment today to take immediate action to try to clear the war zone from the sunset and also to put this place a long term and to try to make sure this doesn't happen again in the future. >> i give my hon. friend both of those assurances. end meeting again this afternoon to explore what we can do to help the somerset level the current situation is not acceptable. it is not currently save to dredge in the levels but i can confirm dredging will start as soon as it is practical, as soon as the waters have started to

come down. the environment agency are pumping as much water as possible given the capacity of the rivers are around levels but i have ordered further high-volume pumps from the national reserve will be made available to increase the volume of the pumping operation as soon as there is capacity in the rivers to support that. we are urgently exploring what further help the government can give local residents to move around and i will nothing out to get this problem sorted. >> can i invite the prime minister to visit my constituency to spend a day working with a rogue employment industry on that zero our contract being paid less than the minimum wage so he can get a world of insight for the people under his watch? >> i can assure i have been visiting his constituency in the next 16 months and i absolutely agree, it is unacceptable, it is unacceptable when people paid below the minimum wage and we want to see more enforcement, we

want to see more action to make sure that doesn't happen. it is not acceptable. we have a minimum wage for good reason and i want to see it properly enforced. >> is it not the case we have learned over successive years over the last two or three decades that responsible economic policies to maximize tax yields, the tax rates and the rates that you will feel the most, raising the tax rate too high and actually raise less. >> my right hon. friend makes a sensible point, but point of tax rates is to raise revenue not to make a political point. the party opposite want to make a political point because they believe in the politics of envy, nodding raising money for public services and in the end the top 1% taxpayers in our country are

paying a 30% of the total income tax and as i said the richest taxpayers are going to be paying more every year of this government than when those two sat in the treasury and made a mess of the economy. >> mr. speaker, over 300,000 people say let's be paid less than the minimum wage. i was heartened by what the prime minister said but that is the case, if he is really committed to the minimum wage why have barely been two employers prosecuted in the last four years at half of the level of investigations? >> we have seen 700 penalties issued for not paying the minimum wage so we are taking enforcement action and we need to take more enforcement action and also want to see the opportunity for the minimum wage to rise as our economy recovers. it should be possible. listening to the low pay commission to see the value of

minimum-wage restored and we want to see that happen. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister deals in fact and the fact are we have more jobs than ever recorded before. we also have a prediction higher than anybody would have thought a year ago. will we now consider looking at the minimum wage and considering whether the level of the minimum-wage could be raised so that we can ensure everyone benefits from this recovery? >> the honorable lady makes an important point. it is good news we have over 30 million people at work in our country and record numbers in work, what happened to the minimum wage under this government has gone up by 10% and of course the fact the we have cut taxes on low earners is equivalent to another 10% in the minimum-wage. as i said i hope it will be possible to seek the real value of the minimum-wage restored. we should listen to the pay commission to do their work. i don't want to see this issue

becomes something of a political football but everybody agrees as the economy recovers it should be possible to restore that value. >> mohamad as a guard who lived in the uk for four years was recently convicted and sentenced to death in pakistan. he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2010 and treated in edinburgh but the judges refused to take that into account. the foreign secretary yesterday, now to assure me that the minister will take everything they can to support this man can't see him returned to the u.k. where he can get the treatment he needs it? >> i can give the hon. lady the assurance she asked for. i am deeply concerned about this debt sentence passed on mr. muhammed ended the longstanding policy to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances.

the pakistani authorities, the seriousness with which we view these developments, the chief minister on monday, high commissioner continues to raise this case with the relevant authorities, officials are meeting pakistani high commission officials in london as they discuss this and other cases. we take this extremely seriously and we are making that clear at every level. >> delivering the drop of 20 points, 25% over the last year, with this in mind is the prime minister aware, going forward today to build a number of specials to revolutionize and facilitate the industrialization of the energy sector, will the prime minister agree that portsmouth would be a place to do this? >> i congratulate the hon. lady for everything she has done in

recent weeks to highlight the support in all matters maritime in the broad sense of the word and i am aware of this interesting project and they will be meeting with the business department shortly, it is a testament to their reputation of folks at hand the more interest in the commercial sector that she and i and the government want to see expand. i think the appointment of a minister would be on a brighter number to make a difference, it is good news, we must stick to the economic plan and keep delivering for portsmouth. >> increasingly in london who young people find the optimal to afford to rent or to buy a home. why is it under this government we have seen the fewest number of housing starts since the 1920s and a housing the bubble being driven by wealthy overseas buyers? >> on that last point, this government is introducing

capital gains tax for overseas buyers, something the labor party for 13 years never did. when it comes to housing nearly 400,000 new homes delivered since 2010, cute to amounts of money going into social housing. this government is reforming the planning system, also opposed by the party opposite to make these things happen. >> does my right hon. friend share my concerns that the public administration select committee inquiry into police recorded crime statistics and commit serious deficiencies and reliability of those statistics and crime is undoubtedly following, would he agree with me the home office should work urgently with police chiefs across the country to restore the authority of the statistics and police chiefs should concentrate on leadership based on values and service to the public, not on discredited

targets. we scrapped all targets reducing crime, the most important thing the police do. it is important statistics are as robust as possible, that is why we transferred responsibility for crimes statistics to the independent office of national statistics, to carry out an audit on the quantity of crime recording in the police force and written to all chief constable's emphasizing they must ensure accurately and honestly. and everybody, what is notable about the recent crime statistics, crimes recorded by the police or the british pipe survey they both show crime is falling and crime is caught in by 10%. >> i thank the prime minister for his comments. mr. speaker. dozens of appliances and by

benches, the immigration bill, and they have demanded british parliament be able to veto every single european union law which is totally unworkable. the prime minister has given concession after concession, when will he finally learned they will not be satisfied by anything? >> i don't agree with the hon. gentleman. we will correct in the immigration bill the fact that it has been so difficult that the pork people who don't have a right to be here and facing trial overseas and should be deported overseas and make experienced arguments about the right to a family life. there's nothing anti european about that. is a sensible step, we should pass the immigration bill with all speed.

>> mr. speaker, this government successfully -- the new immigration bill will crack down the immigrants and -- immigration law also political parties. >> i am sure i shouldn't comment on this case. don't send me. this it is an important piece of law. we don't just need to have control on our borders but make sure people cannot come to britain and view health service or give rights to other housing or banking or driving licenses if they don't have a right to be here. the immigration bill makes all of those important changes including making it possible to deport people, why they have

appeals overseas. we hope we won't delay much before passing this important bill. >> people in my constituency up and down the country it worked harder and harder to meet as they are paid consistently. and the business secretary said this week the company feels the company, all sorts of companies and be helpful to the prime minister. the answers on page 57 in his order. >> i think you'll find the business secretary said that it is welcome but in terms of gdp growth we have seen strong growth in manufacturing and industrial production and not just in services. in terms of making sure we genuinely help people as the economy grows we need to cut people's taxes. the point is we have cut people's taxes because we made difficult decisions about public spending. everyone of those decisions has been opposed by the party

opposite. if we listen to them people would have a more difficult situation with the cost of living rather than a better one. >> can i thank the prime minister for his announcement, on behalf of all the people in somerset where we have an area the size of bristol under water and has been underwater for a month. thanking all the people working hard on the ground can't i take it from him that what he is doing is committing the whole of government including transport and the treasury to working to deal with this situation not now but for six years as well. >> i can certainly give him that assurance ended does need to be a government effort. what i don't want to see is dredging work being held by arguments in other departments. i would like to join him in praising all of those emergency services, environment agency,

local flood ordnance to have the valuable work including in somerset levels but we need to move more rapidly to the issues like dredging which will help to make a long-term difference. >> the maximum development, and therefore call to all of us, called for an absolute song, it is morally right, half of that fight to be used for local people and independent value said the developers could build 60% genuinely affordable housing and still make a huge great profit. in those circumstances and given the level of local opposition would it not be outrageous for the mayor of london for this site, 12% affordable housing really help the cost of living? >> i am happy to look at the site that she mentioned. is important to allow the mayor of london to carry out his plan and responsibilities but what is

important is there are read development opportunities that are not endleslie blocked and we need housing. >> the royal data, would the prime minister join me, the general talking about holocaust memorial. whatever speck on both sides, the hon. gentleman, holocaust memorial day to places monday will the prime minister join me in commending work of the holocaust memorial trust in educating future generations about the holocaust and would he comment on the holocaust commission which he launched this week? >> i am grateful to the hon. gentleman, holocaust day is an important day in the annual calendar and it gave me enormous pleasure to welcome to downing street 50 holocaust survivors who came and talked about their stories, incredibly moving and brave stories and we should thank them for the work they have done going into school after school, college after college reminding people of the

dangers of what happened in the past and how we should drive out hate and prejudice from every part of the national life. the holocaust commission has been set up and across party commission on representative of all parties in order to ask the question as tragically these holocaust survivors come to the end of their lives what should we do as a country to make sure the memory of this never fades, whether that is a new museum or a new way of remembering or recording their memories, all of these things would be looked at and i look forward to getting the report that will have support across the house. >> the most ordinary people, the reality is child poverty, lending to up, energy costs up, wages down and. mr. speaker, the prime minister once said he wants to stop jobs because when will he? when will he start the problem for all the people in all the

country? >> the first thing that came out of his now under this government child poverty has measured gallon, on the measure each preferred. i am not satisfied. we need a bigger measure. what i would say is employment is up. employment is up. number of businesses is up. we have a long way to go to restore our economic fortunes, we have a long-term economic plan delivering britain's families, got to stick at it. >> i am pleased to report large companies are finding an attractive place to do business from. i would like to particularly mention something about headquarters with 200 new jobs next week, very pleased about that but i must report and recent meeting in winter, the enterprise home that i visited last week i saw quite a few small businesses such as 18

solutions and publicity training said to me mr. speaker that they were very frustrated by the amount of red tape in their business and i would ask the prime minister what his government intends to do about it. >> the business environment, we have helped businesses with taxes and helping with red tape and helping them with their exports on red tape, this will be the first government in modern history that at the end of parliament will have less regulation in place and at the beginning and i commend the business department and my right hon. friend for his heroic efforts to get that legislation, get those regulations on to websites so people can tell us what we can remove. we are on target for scrapping 3,000 regulations under this government, sending we can be proud of. >> the government sought to exploit the strike, close picks

and denied -- from communities, some families have never recovered and others have died waiting for justice. at the end they deserve the truth and deserve an apology. why are they still waiting? >> my right hon. friend said we have a system for releasing paperwork from ken, 20, 30 years ago and should stick to that but if anyone needs to make an apology for their role in the miners strike in judy parter stargel -- it should be arthur stargel and will of the leader of the labor party who is tied to never condemn the fact. there are lessons for neighbors to learn in their performance today, they haven't learned any of them. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and we will be aware of the

plant outside the city. could the prime minister do everything in his power, to do well. >> that might be a question for my wrong not -- right hon. friend who guides me in these important issues but i will go away and will get the issue of the bishop and try to put the image out of my mind and come up with the right answer. >> if we are to have a parliament that reflects the people, the prime minister must be disappointed that one in ten of his women and hes to came in in 2010 have declared they will not be standing and one of his most senior women, chairs of

committees, signatory party's problem with women. >> proud of the fact and last parliament we had 19 women who served as and thes and that has gotten closer to 15. do i want us to go further and faster? if i do i will start by targeting him in the next election. >> mr. speaker, i am sure the whole house will congratulate my right hon. friend, sticking to their economic guns, introduced -- my right hon. friend will agree with me will be accused look at the british people, the shattered chancellor who never owned up to the last government function of the deficit and the reconstructed centrist party to

tax and spend which will ruin -- >> my right hon. friend put it with characteristic strength and clarity. the fact is the party opposite has learned no lessons from the past. they say they would do all over again. and visits saying they haven't got a clue. i don't know if you have seen the film gravity but they remind me of two people in a void with no idea what to do next. a great film, tragedy made in britain. >> the prime minister, in light of the prime minister's recognition, a superb and sunny place, in my constituency but showing real potential of

community renewables from the power and the government's new community including the victims, the energy provides us with potential for more, and that strategy instead of the evidence about fracking. >> i am sure i will be invited before long and look forward to hearing about the renewable energies to we. i would say we need both of these things. we have set out to strike prices and the energies of the we can be a real magnet for investment in renewable energy but also think we should take advantage of shale gas and an opportunity to have clean-helping to keep energy bills down and to those in the green movement to oppose it simply because shale gas includes carbon is on misguided approach. we want to have affordable

>> you been watching the prime minister's questions on c-span. it airs on sunday nights on c-span. you can watch anytime online at c-span.org. >> last week, david cameron appeared before the u.k. joint committee on national security strategy to discuss a variety of national security issues ranging from syria to nsa revelations by edward snowden. it is made up of 22 members from both the house of commons and house of lords. a little more than an hour. >> welcome people to this afternoon session and say at once we hope and anticipate there may be a vision before 4:00.

if there is, i will adjourn the committee for a few minutes. but hopefully, there will not be. welcome, prime minister. >> thank you. we have been looking forward to seeing on a quiet thursday. turns out not so quiet but you're most welcome nevertheless. as i hope you are very committed and supported against the national security strategies and national security council and we want to see if we can contribute constructively to its work. taken evidence from the members of the committee and adviser and now am very anxious to hear from you. will you tell us first what you hope to gain by having the national security strategy? >> what we hope to gain is make sure we analyze the threats to britain, analyze the opportunities for our country better and we plan across government better and we make better decisions. and i think that i would say sort of 3 1/2 years in, i think

it's been a real success because you're bringing together the relevant departments, considering national security from a domestic perspective as well as overseas perspective. you're making sure that the great systems of defense and foreign officers play together rather than play separately. and i think it's proven itself across a number of subjects. i'm hugely enthusiastic about this reform. i think it works very well. i think it joins up prime minister, foreign secretary, chancellor secretary and others in a way perhaps they have not been joined up in the past and i hope it's a reform that will endure. >> you said it enables you to look at domestic and other matters. our impression is it's been very foreign policy oriented so far. >> i would argue it's been a reasonable mixture. i've got the figures with me. if we take say 2011, you have 36 n.s.c.'s. we covered 50 foreign policy topics, 9 domestic policy

issues, 14 security-related issues like counterterrorism and defense. i think there's an argument to say it could do more domestic subjects and hope sect it always secretary is always keen we discuss more. but the point i would make, when you're discussing the foreign policy subjects, you have got the minister responsible for security around the table as well as the head of mi-5 and other relevant officials. i think that's hugely helpful. in two different ways. if you're talking about syria as a foreign policy issue, you obviously want the home secretary there and our counterterrorism experts to worry about the blowback from syria and radicalization and terrorism that's being fostered there. that's important. and also if you think about our relations with china and how improved our relations with china, it's very good you have gotten a trade minister, the chance of the foreign secretary and expertise of the foreign

office but also have the home secretary to think about things like visas and border access and all of those things, which are an important part of our relationship. so i think we could shift to do some more domestic subjects but i think the balance is pretty good and when we're dealing with foreign policy subjects, we take domestic aspect seriously. >> at the outset you did, with the new government you did national security strategy, spending review and defense review sort of alongside each other. was the intention that the national security strategy set the context for the other reviews? >> yes. we did as you say, the new government, did all three things together. strategic strategy, defense review and, of course, comprehensive spending review and we did them all together. the national security strategy helped set the context for what you want to do in terms of defense. i know we have seen some of the

work on your committee. people are very keen the strategies and defense and then and only then do you consider resources issues. i think in the difficult times in which we live, i think that will be difficult. i think you do have to consider what is affordable alongside what is desirable. i think that's just realistic. but as you say strategy should inform the defense decisions that we make. >> i take the point that you're making but you must know it has been subjected -- suggested, the defense review particular, was written holy by budgetary and not strategic consideration. >> i would reject that completely. the defense review was about how we should configure our defense forces given britain's place in the world, given our foreign policy and security policy, objectives. most important decisions we took in the defense review to radically reduce the number of backward tanks in europe and

look at increasing the maneuverability, flexibility, of our forces. we made big decisions about investment in cyber security, spending more money. we made important decisions about bringing on stream two new aircraft carriers. so this was not driven by spending. of course, it was informed by what we believed was affordable but proper strategic defense review that took proper strategic decisions. >> one other issue that particularly wanted to raise with you at the outset, because we refer to it in our first report. in the national security strategy itself, against the background of describing the rise of new global powers, shifts in the centers of economic activity, the strategy still says there should be no reduction of influence for the u.k. and then in your most recent report which does come out on the national security strategy, you talk about housing the influence.

expanding the influence of the u.k. we were concerned at the outset that no reduction in influence was unrealistic. when you say expanding now, do you mean spreading us thinner across the world? >> i don't. first of all, if you look across our projection of power and influence. the foreign office, defense, trade, you definitely see britain is doing more. we are opening embassies, expanding in india and china. one of the only european countries with an embassy in every asean nation. there is no doubt that we want to link up with the fastest-growing parts of the world, want to be an open and engaged power. we are using what we have to do that. i would argue even in the area

of defense, where of course the defense budget has come down in real terms, not by a huge amount but by a small amount, even in defense. because we have made choices, fewer battle tanks in europe, investment in things like drones and cyber and flexibility, i would argue there has been no reduction in, no long-term reduction in britain's defense capabilities and our ability to stand up for our selves in important ways around the world. i also reject the idea that you can only measure how engaged you are and how successful you are in projecting influence by how much money you spend. no business goes about like that. we have to make sure we get as much into the teeth and is little into the tail of our defense. i would argue our leadership has been successful with that. i don't accept the idea that

because we are spending less on the fence that we can have as significant of a defense plan. >> mr. arbuthnot wants to come in briefly. >> isn't it embarrassing we are spending more on the winter fuel allowance than the foreign office? >> we are spending the right amount on the foreign office to see an expanding global network. i am a great user of our foreign office. i travel all over the world, flying the flag of the british business. trying to encourage investment. i see in our foreign office an amazing asset. i think we have brilliant diplomats, fantastic teams around the world. the foreign office was relatively well-treated by the comprehensive spending review. i don't see the foreign office in retreat at all. i see it in advance, opening new posts.

a bigger presence in india than any other european power. expanding in china. the fuel allowance is necessary to help keep people warm. >> prime minister, you will talk a lot about security and strategy today. [indiscernible] when you talk about strategy, what do you mean by strategy? >> to me, strategy is about setting up a clear series of goals you want to meet, and making sure you've got sensible means for achieving the goals. i don't need to look at paper to tell you what i strategy is. to restore britain's strength, refresh and enhance the great alliances we have got, to tackle threats that could threaten our

country, and to make sure we do it right across government, not just the foreign office. every bit of government working together. that is the strategy. maybe i am too much of a practical chap. having set the strategy, you want to try to use government to make sure you are implementing the strategy. we discussed strategy, but i want us to determine policy. i want us to agree on action and check that we have done what we said we were going to do. to me, that is not misusing the nsc. it is the right use. i don't know what you found. i found it is too often the problem that people love sitting around talking about strategy. getting people to do things and act. it is completing on the strategy that is often the challenge. >> thank you. next word, security.

you took security -- you did practically everything. [indiscernible] good democracy, good social cohesion, everything. if it has to work -- how do you use security? >> security, you have to take a wide definition. our nation's security relies on having strong defenses so we can protect ourselves, but it, also means considering every risk to our security from floods, pandemic diseases, new threats like volcanic eruptions. what we try to do is bring together one place in the

cabinet office the teams that do all of these things. security is the ability to protect your country, your people, your interests, so they can grow and prosper. in delivering security, you have to deal with every threat, from the biggest to the most unlikely. the point of having the big army in whitehall is to make sure we cover all the threats. >> a pretty wide definition. for example, is tax avoidance by multinational companies -- [indiscernible] >> if we couldn't -- look, at the heart of our national security strategy is restoring britain's economic strength. if you gain in economic strength, things fall into place. if you lose economic strength,

you are in a much more difficult situation. at the heart of national security is our economy. if we can't properly raise taxes because technology has changed and they are not paying by the rules, that would be, i suppose, a threat to security. >> i'm trying to find what isn't. [indiscernible] >> you have to have a hierarchy. we have a terrible list of acronyms in the national risk assessment and national resilience planning assumptions. the attempt is to try and delineate risks to security, have them all dealt within one part of whitehall. >> could you give me an example? could you give me an example of where people are thinking -- that clashes with the strategy.

we shouldn't do that, because it clashes with the strategy. >> a good example was -- is about balancing interests. these issues about visa discussions, you have to weigh the prosperity agenda with the security agenda and make sure you are making the right decision. in the past, visa decisions were made by the home office -- we now discuss around the table. very important economic relations with this country. the visa restrictions are getting in the way. we reach a decision. in terms of things proposed that fall absolutely counter to the

strategy, i'm struggling to think of one. but the visa example is not a bad one where you have a policy issue, which countries get visa preference, and you have a way of discussing it. >> thank you. >> mr. murphy. >> thank you. prime minister, we would like a little bit more about how the -- at the moment the committee has some ideas. agendas you have. names of countries. we could be dealing with syria, afghanistan. it doesn't indicate it gives any secrets away, how operational or long-term those discussions might be? the secretary gives a report to the committee, they talk about it, and that is the end of the committee?

>> it is a lot more than that. what this national security council does, it -- it is normally the secretary of state. we don't really allow, if we can avoid it, junior ministers coming in. i think it's very important in my cabinet to oversee one of the most important meetings of the whole week. but it brings together foreign secretary chancellor, prime minister deputy secretary with the heads of the intelligence agencies with the chief of the defense staff. if necessary, the head of the metropolitan police dealing with counterterrorism and you have the experts in the room as well as the politicians. the format of the meetings is often a presentation rather than just a massive paperwork and the presentation would be given by mr. kim or a leading foreign officer official to set out in front of the committee the choices we have to make.

and sometimes it's very operational. we might have a -- on afghanistan, for instance, we have a proper look at the drawdown plans that the ministry of defense have. as a committee, we want to figure out, is that the right operational plan for britain? i think it is right that the government decide these things. sometimes it can be very strategic. we might have a discussion about our relations with the emerging powers, and it will be about how we best go about, who should we be seeking relations with and how do we improve them? sometimes it can be a meeting where it really helps to have a collective discussion. for instance, we have the conflict pool, bringing together money from defense and foreign affairs. i think it's good that we sit around the table. we got this money, how are we going to spend it? which conflict areas and unstable states should our investments be going into?

we are about to have a conversation about the budget. obviously, it is determined according to principles, but it is important to discuss this collectively so we can see the link between what we're doing in terms of, you know, fragile states that we're trying to help fix with a decision that we're making. what i'm trying to say sometimes very operational, sometimes very strategic but sometimes genuinely making operational decisions that have an impact across whitehall. >> that's very useful. in terms of perhaps the longer term or more strategic meetings that you could have, one thing we noticed is that the meetings dry up in july and they start again sometime in october. what about having one or two meetings extra in that period to look more widely at things, if you like, and at the same time the committees concerned whether the n.s.c. has sufficient

outside expertise to come in and give advice and knowledge to help you out? do you think the staff is enough? >> how many staff? >> two. >> oh, no, the n.s.c. is serviced by the national security secretary which is 200 people. you really feel that the n.s.c., it's not a committee that brings together whitehall. it has a proper team together behind it that will operationalize decisions and make them happen. in terms of outside advice, we have on occasion brought outsiders in. but we also occasionally had seminars that n.s.c. members would attend in order to hear from outside experts. we had a particularly good session on pakistan and afghanistan when some experts came. we had a special n.s.c. in august last year on syria.

for my g-8 agenda in terms of transparency and all of that we had a whole series of experts to address those issues. in terms of meeting over the summer, we have had meetings over the summer. i think if the criticism is that urgent operational meetings to discuss syria, afghanistan, libya, tends to crowd out more thematic discussions, i would plead guilty. i think that is inevitable when governments have to prioritize and choose and talk about the most urgent things. i think we have spent more time on the operational emergencies rather blue-sky thinking. >> we are tight for time, although we are doing reasonably well. >> prime minister, i support the innovation of the national

security council. i think everything allows sharing of institutional knowledge within governments is a good thing. but prior to the n.s.c., a strategic decision was usually practiced, the foreign secretary or defense secretary would make the final decision. now, we have the n.s.c. you're chairing that meeting. can you think of of anything where there was a defense decision where you have taken the ultimate decision rather than the secretary of state? >> i'm not sure mrs. thatcher or tony blair would say they just left defense and foreign policy decisions to their secretary of state. and only occasionally intervened. i think the history -- history is, it often ends as a bilateral thing between a prime minister and a foreign secretary or prime minister and a defense secretary.

the good thing is that it's a more collective way of making decisions. of course, there are decisions made by ministers. you talk about the decisions -- for instance, how we went about our engagement in libya and the decisions we made about syria, they were genuinely discussed around the table with those ministers, with the expert advice and another point, i think a better institutionalization of the legal advice. the attorney general is there to give his opinion about these things. if you're asking, are there times when the n.s.c. comes to a different decision what the defense secretary or prime minister walked into the room, yes, it has. that's what collective decisionmaking is all about. >> we'd like to ask a series of

questions on how the system actually works in practice. and you mentioned syria. how did -- this is in the sense how did -- this is in the sense a repeat of the question that was asked. how did the national security strategy affect the way you made decisions and the decisions you took on syria? >> well, obviously when we drew up the strategy and the sdsr in 2010, we didn't have perfect foresight about what was going to happen in the events of the arab spring in syria. i'd like to think that the decisions we've made in all these have been relatively consistent with the strategy set out in the national security