nations secretary-general ban ki-moon. later, a discussion about the future of u.s. foreign-policy. british prime minister david cameron discussed the u.k. climate change priorities and combating extremism. the prime minister meets with this committee made up of the chairs of the house of commons committees three times a years. this is about an hour and. -- this is about an hour and a half. >> welcome, prime minister. we have two things to ask you about. the first is climate change. the second is radicalization. >> before we start, i think it might be right after the events of yesterday -- >> i was going to give you time at the end, but my like to do it now. >> i would just like to pay

tribute to those murdered in australia. and today's outrage in pakistan. i'm sure everyone in this house and committee will have their thoughts with the families of the ones who perished. in australia, there are tales of bravery and sacrifice that are being told about what happened in that cafe. that is what we would expect from that remarkable country. and our thoughts are with them. the scale of what has happened in pakistan simply defies belief. it is a dark day for humanity when something like this happens on the scale. with no justification. there is not a belief system in the world that can justify this sort of appalling act. what this shows is the worldwide threat that is posed by the poisonous ideology of extremist islamic terrorism. it has nothing to do with islam, which is a religion of peace.

this is a perversion. we have to realize the scale of what we face in this country and around the world. we must with our allies use everything we have in our power to defeated. that means combating terrorism, defeating isil. and the freedoms that we hold to the values of freedom and democracy. i say that this will be the struggle of our generation. we will have to show every bit of resilience that we showed facing similar problems and challenges in the past. i am sure the committee would agree. >> very much so. the committee endorses what you just said. it is also appropriate that the second part of our session will be about how we tackle radicalization in our own country and around the world. this committee shares your horror at the scale of the murder which has taken place in pakistan. and we are all too familiar with

the hostage event in city. our thoughts and prayers are with those affected by these events. turning now to climate change, mr. yeo. >> another issue for our generation, relating to the conditions of climate stability, which has been the precondition for the success of the human species in the last few hundred years. by accepting in 2011 and by confirming last summer the fourth carbon budget, i personally believe that it justifiably can -- and is the biggest change in vision in reducing greenhouse gas omissions. it will fall to the next parliament and the prime minister of the day, who i assume is going to be you, to make a decision about the fifth

carbon budget covering the period from 2028 to 2032. another recent success was getting the eu to agree to a challenging target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. by 2030. and also sensibly avoiding adding unnecessary tribunals. do you agree that, if we are going to continue playing a leading role in achieving those targets, the fifth carbon budget will have to continue along the same path? and will you be able to resist the siren call which comes from across the global spectrum to slow down progress towards the carbon rising the economy? because it doesn't in a very

short term. >> the claim to be the best government ever is based on the fact that you have this climate change legislation that we put in place and followed. as a result, you have seen further reductions in carbon emissions. you have seen a aggressive targets for the future. you have seen the first new nuclear plant for a generation. we doubled our capacity of renewable electricity over the last four years. there are good things being done. but to answer your question, i hope we can continue with his budgeting process. the only note of caution i would add is that we have to make a decision in 2016. my only hesitation would be that i want to see carbon reduced at the lowest cost. we need to know whether the new technologies we are being told about -- carbon capture, which is absolutely crucial, we have put a lot of money into carbon capture and storage experiments.

but we have not yet gotten a workable system. before we commit to the next stage, we need to know more about whether gas can play a role in the d carbonized electricity system. until we know more about carbon capture, there is a bit of a "yes, but." >> some of the new technologies address the demand in a new way. is it possible to get electricity, to switch off consumption on short notice for a financial reward? for financial reward? this is an adopted quite widely in the u.s. we need to make sure that we had the lead in europe -- in this which is very cost effective. >> it has changed completely, the national electricity market.

used to be one big grid -- it was a one-way system -- now there is a two-way system. it is not just a small grade, it is opportunity for businesses and public services to be able to effectively reduce their demand, without any effect on the services they provide, and be financially rewarded. i think the technology is changing so fast, what you think may be the right way to do it today may be replaced by some other technology. the technology is moving very fast. >> moving on to emissions trading. many of us see this market

instrument as a very effective -- in fact, the most effective way to get a good value for money. china has reached -- it looks as though china has reached the same conclusion. will you continue to make sure that britain leads the pressure for performing the eu system? secondly, do you recognize an opportunity now that we are moving towards different amounts, for what would potentially be a very large revenue stream -- decide invested in climate change -- but the remainder of that could

be used to cut taxes since businesses will pay for a large portion of the offset. that money could effectively be recycled for lower taxes for businesses and individuals. >> first of all, the question whether we should continue to read this reform -- yes, absolutely. not only is the essential for europe, if we do not see improvement in europe, we could be disadvantaged in britain. it makes a big difference in our common carbon price here and have carbon price in europe. this is also great for europe, and essential for britain. what we have to stop is this --

inappropriate use of climate. on the issue what do we do with the revenues -- obviously, we still have a large deficit. that is the primary use of these sorts of resources. i do agree with that thinking that says -- if we want to be, we should be very pro-business government. the more we can help businesses by reducing taxes, we should. >> finally, emissions trading has been a success, and will spread across the globe -what -- do you think we can reduce our emissions? do you think there's an opportunity for us, a market for

these concepts invented here in britain? >> my understanding is that there is some other countries that have accurately copied our legislation, like denmark. some other countries our have accurately copied legislation, like denmark. i think the only thing if we do it again, the thing i would change is -- a u do not want underneath specific concepts -- we want to reduce carbon at the lowest cost, i think other targets can get in the way.

the eu 2030 ating package. naturally have binding targets, as has happened in the past. lowest cost t the -- i think we have a good system, something we can recommend to others. helpful uld be really that ow what is the issue government -- in terms of the new package on air quality, and also on resource efficiency. it seems to me, if we will be with ssful in dealing energy issues, that our government actually report those proposals? national pport the

the maximum amount of -- i think what your question to es from is the proposal withdraw -- i may want to look more closely at what is being back to you. come we tried to support sensible measures where pollution is crossing boundaries. see excessive to regulation. >> i think the issue is that being made as is we speak. justin levine, about the issue of energy subsidies, clearly sums up to energy fossil fuels --

eu is ct that the ambitions cuts targets, there's also the prospect of the eu climate deal paris, i ear in do you fare the such climate deal can't make the majority of our carbon reserves. why are n't burn oil, you encouraging more oil extraction? is the things -- oone issue of subsidies, and carbon subsidies. i would argue that we do not in this e carbon

country. countries to other reduce carbon. i do not accept that. i believe that hydrocarbons have a role to international energy system. that carbon capturing them will come about. for many years to come, and gas will still play a role in our energy supply. i think it should. lets decarbonize

comes less of where that from -- you would need a very large amount of subsidize energy. you would have a very expensive energy bill for consumers, i do not want to see that. i think it is great to care for the oil industry. it is vital for our country, us energy security. i think carbon caption for the future will in ble gas to play a part the industry. i think we should use tax what is -- do environmentally sensible, as well as economically sensible.

it makes sense that we encourage the industry to decommission oil and gas platforms in an environmentally sensible way. tax system has a use for making sure that we achieve those two goals. if the argument is the should not do anything by changing the tax system, i do not accept that. less turn to nuclear. shouldn't you -- i accept that nuclear is being subsidized by the government. >> i do not accept that. i will tell you what we are make -- we are trying to sure -- you have to stand back and ask what are we trying to do? you always want to have the the ction in carbon in

lowest cost, at the same time we want to secure energy supplies to power our economy. diverse energy supplies means we do not rely on any one fuel, or any one part of the world. a nuclear supporting industry, supporting renewable energies as they come, and supporting gas. that is our policy. as part of that, i think it is great to have the regeneration of the british nuclear industry. if we do not have that, and if oil and gas, we of a be in a bit difficulty. we would only have renewable do not think that would work. if the subsidies coming from the fact that we are giving a per kilowatt ice

the future -- it is a subsidy into the price offered in the nuclear power station practice -- that subsidies actually lower -- the price is we offer to hat offshore wind. so i do not think that we are treating nuclear unfairly as compared to renewable energy. >> i think the government is actually providing greater subsidies to nuclear because of the timeframe involved -- to interrupt you, but it is a very long-term project, and enormous.

>> but the government is actually being less helpful as onshore wind energy is concerned. dclg has actually intervene in has farm applications as actually intervene in wind farm applications as recently as june 2013. >> i think there's a very joint approach. i think -- i think. billy for what we are saying about onshore wind. as with other renewable technologies, there was a subsidy in the early days. heading for around 10% of our electricity to come from onshore wind. in my view, that is enough as far as the balance energy supply. the planning t

system, we could get past 10%. that is enough as far as balancing is applied. away the take subsidy, and then see if they want to see anymore. deciding, y're not are they? respect of fracking, i'm is sure why the government subsidizing fracking, because it is not a new technology, is it? i do not accept that. are not subsidizing fracking -- as we stand today, there are gas wells ntional britain.

yet, some shell reserves have to provide gas for this country. again, it is a nascent energy a we are not giving it subsidy -- we are just saying there should be a tax regime on it get dustry to help going. 1% of the revenues can go to as local community, as much 10,000,000 pounds. your if this happened in area -- the same at 100% of the business rate can be retained by the local authority. this could be 1,000,000 pounds to 2,000,000 pounds. a means a community benefits from the development of a resource. i think that is very important

see this industry grow. i would argue that those are big and unfair subsidies. this industry will have to make a profit in order to succeed -- let's move on. thank you. prime minister, in its annual in 2013 2014, it was described as a key partner in to u.k. -- then he goes on say that the current projected in the f investment u.k.'s green economy is less than half of the required rate. there has been report which shows that

the 1,000,000,000 pounds that the investment bank was expected to make available this a new loans, r been taken llion had out. in the projections of march, we are well down, about 20% of that rate. to t do you think you can do improve that? >> i think there are two questions. one is, are we attracting enough investment into our energy industry at a time when massive investments -- investment in renewables, investments in nuclear. we need a smart grid. on that question, i would argue an enormous as been uplift in this government -- i

investment has been four years then previous parliaments. there any her day, is other country in the world has such a long-term and open plan for future investment? they basically said no. if you're an energy investor, britain is a great place to invest. on that part we are doing great. on the green investment date, we gave it 3.8 billion of capital and has not spent that money yet. right start s the -- it should be a seed investment, levering in money the private sector. right now it has money, and has

seed investment to do. >> i agree. the problem is, it cannot seem spend the money. its think it spent 1.6 of 3.8 million. i'm sure we will see it ramp up. there are plenty of opportunities. look to try y and and answer your question, but i get from banks, pension funds, there's usually positive about investing in britain. largest energy and market than anywhere else in the world. would the surface it

appear that if only a portion has been used, there is a blockage somewhere. borrowing ed to start when we could see our deficit and debt situation. i do not sense that there is a problem. again, i will look and see if there's a better answer to what you're saying. >> if you can pursue that a bit further -- it may be premature to advocate increasing the capacity of the allowing it d, but, market row on the open to invest as a conventional bank does -- but if we are to reach the environment some at some states, unless

we are to plan more money in, that will be necessary. the moment, borrowing powers would not be given until the debt has fallen means the time has been postponed because of the public sector finances, which if it sidered an in court became appropriate to do so. >> i do not think it is necessary. if a third of the capital is gone, and it keeps doing that over the next three years, we will get to where we need to be. the two things should miraculously come together. [indiscernible]

there are plenty of lending institutions out there. there are plenty of pension to ds that are desperate invest in energy. remember, with our system, people can see how much money support out there to renewable investments. renewable energy enterprise because of the way obligations were -- you know what you will get as far as returns. >> moving on. recognize that -- an we are given -- interesting point.

the want to talk about climate fund. of climate change, cause of climate change has been the industrialization of the modern world. you would be a great champion 2015 sustainable framework, how do you see climate change is part of that framework? >> it absolutely must be part of it. goal is that -- it will get to defuse -- i good ban ki-moon did a job recently to narrow down the dozens of people, climate, prosperity. climate change has to absolutely be a part of it. the n that context, use

litigation -- do you think there's any particular u.k. interest? poorest hink given the countries have less subsidies, on poor t be targeted countries, or should all developed countries be able to access it? >> they're not hard and fast answers to these. there are some countries, small states for example that are feeling the effects of climate change already. we should do both. should try -- the poorest countries are the ones to do olice capacity things, they need the most help. a world ays goes on in favor the tend to the poorest le in

countries, because they do not have the capacity to take action. developed countries access financing -- we should not rule out using this funding to help other countries. i think we should try and get the maximum value of the money when we do this. but, we have made good and generous offers of supporting -- i cannot give you a percentage. i think it is both. i think is where the biggest return can be found. in my view -- think generally speaking, say with aid spending, we should focus on those dates that have the least capacity to help themselves. traditionally that means conflict hit states, and the

poorest states that cannot generate revenues. >> the green climate fund is to pprovide new funding -- you said that 720 word count towards oda. of y simply taking it out other projects. >> i do not really accept that. we have an aid budget. we have sent some of that can be used for climate science. some of that money is going to the green climate fund. you can argue whether that is but is money not, that was not in the green fund and now it is. under our gue, umbrella, that is money that is going to purpose.

the hat is not to all partners -- what is to stop the oney that we put in the fund from being used for winter lysate in turkey, or being used for schools in somalia, or somewhere else. are arguing -- do we use money that is in the eu? i would agree. if -- obviously any fun we give money to, we should work as as we can to make sure that it does not waste that the y and they spent in right way. i think the contribution we climate fund n will do that. we literally target screen

one with 16 million, it's been reduced to 10. do we need other countries to sit back and say, in the u.k. does the heavy lifting? would it be easier for us to work with other countries to say why don't you match us? >> i was criticized for holding back on the green climate fund. exactly that -- i went to ban ki-moon's conference in i would r and said that deliver, trying to deliver an eu deal on climate change. but, i held back on making a contribution to the green fund. i said i wanted to see other people's money before we put our money and. i think it is a mixture likely. i think sometimes it is worth other times worth

holding back. it can work to leave earned money to say we were only given will be matched by others. i think we should do all those methods. >> i welcome that. we know that the new australian of ernment is in denial climate change -- do you think are doing enough? >> i think they are doing more. look, it is a sovereign country. it has to make his own decisions. there has also been a very big carbon prices -- that they

recognize, they do not want to be on the back burner. it is a great country, and clearly affected by climate change. i think they will do more. we should recognize, europe has what is necessary to show real leadership. >> but, the only reason they won't -- think o not think -- i they will fill pressure and want to do more. we should try and encourage their own way, n rather than saying there's a preordained group that they have to follow. america has proved to reduce their carbon emissions. the president ed to make some interesting on climate change,

delivered through executive motions rather than congress. is t we are doing there standing back -- we want to get a global deal. every country has its own politics. of my constituents have jobs where energy is used at extremely high levels. and yet, we are trying to need e the public that we to lower energy use. messages to fficult communicate. just yesterday -- clearly the application that will affect futures of jobs. are he one hand, there the shell to

agreement, on the other hand who e are certainly people need them prices to go down. does the prime minister agreed that the signs is not finished until it is -- >> definitely. of time saying t -- i value the work that scientists did. i think there's some myths that to get over. the method nuclear power is inherently unstable. there myths that we need to a nfront if we will be stable, science-based, successful country. say, the scientists -- out and them to get

communicate it. constant need a message -- a consistent message from government on climate change. you are one of the members of government that has been a little off pace, to say the least. >> i think the government has a very clear policy -- be a very green government. we are the greenest government ever. i strongly believe that cutting carbon at the lowest cost -- i think that sometimes in disagreements. the ink cutting carbon at lowest cost. i think that wind farms that are being built will not be necessary. do not need more the subsidized onshore -- get rid

of the subsidy, and put it back into the system. a case, they will make the case. i do not think they will. enough is enough. of going back to the role aand scientists i've asked before, what is the need for them to take a it independent role and advise others honestly. it becomes viable to the government comes out with a consistent message. >> i agree. i think the government has a consistent message. i think the fact that we now very scientists is a strong thing. urge them to speak

robustly to their ministers. we do not just one policy driven by science, we want sites to be included. they have that role to play. things that down the line is important. we have had things that have happened about which i do not we have had significant enough scientistific warning. >> one of the reason that we consistent message -- there are different agendas of some of the media. some real problems in scientific ld stories.

it makes it so easy for back and ts to fall a says this, minister b says that. you would not do it in party politics in the media -- i think -- it is a debate. often -- >> i want the government to stay consistent based on evidence. >> yes. >> two concerns. well, fracking is a new industry. place it e ever to

went disastrously wrong. you put regulations on fracking companies? know that -- should we be looking to precautionary measures? >> i think we have got a good regime in place. >> are you aware of any self-monitoring of any fracking company? >> anything above a shock of -- would result in an operators shut down.

again, i think it is good that a debate about fracking -- a sensible debate. sometimes we look at the emails and et from constituents lobbying groups -- when i've some of the f at mythbusting, i hope we can encourage the media to bust and look hese myths, rationally. have the uld actually environment agency going in and test after each frack. light t we have a traffic system -- that is what we have. in place after. is what i'm worried about

the self-monitoring. does tthe environmental agency you the concern -- can give us a commitment that this impact monitoring of fracking? >> i do not see that it would. from everything i've heard about this, there is a large of regulatory hurdles. too complicated -- you have licensing processes, etc. in the end this debate will only be won or lost when there are some wells in britain carrying out unconventional gas recovery, be people can see this can without anly,

environmental problems, with benefits for us. benefits for industry and the potential to have more secure gas, but also maybe environmental benefits -- think of using gas in our homes for cooking and eating, a fact that has been produced here, that is good for the environment. >> you are asking the environment to take an awful does the -- why -- will you vary social impact t -- >> i'm very happy to look at that. justin comment on

self-monitoring activity -- companies do lose their permits. spot checks are done. i'm happy doing all these details. i see -- i do not believe that this is an industry in danger of regulation. >> this is not coming to whitney anytime soon -- >> i would be happy very happy if it did. i visited the oil rounds -- i went to see the conventional and gas recovery. small they kable how are. that would actually be smaller than those. >> but it would be one-mile in the ground and horizontal -- and no one has executed this before.

onshore gas and not say ite, iit does be t people have to consulted -- is it just an expectation, or the in obligation? i think this compelling we can rely -- >> everyone is consulted. >> it does not say that. >> in planning, everyone is able to put the point -- read surprised when i this, fracking uses less water than a golf course in one month. >> no one knows at what point of chemicals are taken out when the , and groundwater is transported to -- e sort of well to restore

20 miles aways. there also is a potential dangers. but, it's too late when the license has been granted. >> as far as any the action to your describing -- these would likely be a legal, and companies will lose their license. i wannt to be clear, my view is that if shell gas can do it safely and local commuter should do it. problem part of the again -- then back to the big groups t -- some green are anti-gas just for the fact that it is a carbon-based fuel. they are posing it with this

sort of religiosity. i think that is frankly wrong. my view is -- if we can recover gas onshore in a safe way, let's do it. you were minister, published -- >> i have not seen it. give you my copy. >> i will look at it. you have asked me a lot of points. any already -- frack site will have a full environmentally assessment. will be published? >> tthat's the way our planning system works.

[indiscernible] tell me -- there's not a danger that we may overpromise the number of jobs, especially local jobs, that will be created? >> you are absolutely right. for figure has been given the 64,000 jobs, i do not think anyone can be certain what will happen. happened in t has america -- many more jobs. examining should be this industry, aand seeing what it can do for british jobs, and british communities, british energy. my objection to the green groups, they do not want to any of this -- they cannot

bear another carbon-based energy source. i danger of -- can just ask, again on the employment issue. clearly the number just depends on the amount of gas that is recovered. we do -- what can you do to speed up the process of exploration? >> we try to do that in a of ways -- by trying to make sure that the number of and planning commissions the company needs is not too onerous. what i was talking about in chemicals, and planning. need to ink, we also try and make sure the industry skills it requires.

you can do all these things, but i think it is only when the first few wells are up and running, and people can go and visit it -- only at that point will the industry really get going. that might you think be? >> i'm hoping that the first first wells be be dug next year. >> and then the gas will be coming out the year after that? this industry -- wells are the first will go quite quickly.

>> could you say anything about under what circumstances you might support fracking in national parks? >> we have said only in exceptional circumstances. there's certainly a higher threshold to be crossed. i think again, this will come back to -- i was very struck when i went and saw the conventional feeds. they have said now this is been here for 10 or 20 years, and now we know what there is a forest road movements, we can see the scale. it is when that happens that i think the industry will be viewed in a different light. they will see that there's much less to worry about than i thought.

>> taking facking to national park something a very big challenge. your answer -- the on golf courses -- >> i was making the point. >> my committee made its first report urging -- four years heard efore many had even of it. just to put the concern of her tremors t -- were not strong enough to feel on the surface, i do not think are all that series of an anxiety.

gas could -- you agree that one way to kickstart the process and achieve what wells out - get a few there, do you think one way would be extending incentives a little further for a limited period? so, anyone who agrees to allow in the community, the gas to to be exploited, would get extra incentives? number of d quite a demonstrations of operations up running quite soon. that might allow the large-scale rollout. >> i'm open to suggestions. came up with 100,000 pounds, the chance of factored in a sovereign fund for north of

england. i do not think the problem the communities cal saying -- if only there was another 1%, we would go for this. i think the problem is, people are worried about this and concerned. only when they see and are happy with what has will go for.tthey >> let's turn to radicalization. you set up and shared the extremism task force. what has it been doing since november? again, reminding ourselves what this was all about. the government has a clear

policy on tackling extremism. light of the n murder of -- it was right to bring people together. and thing, i would actually the process of tackling extremism -- prisons, schools, unive some of which have been put into force in front of the house. the there will be subsequent meetings to see if there are more things that we need to do or check up on. it is the way i work. i bring together ministers. it's working like that. >> how much priority if you

compare your agenda on the day you started as prime minister. is it occupying more of your time, less of the time? where is it in your list of priorities? i think i say -- have economic priorities and national security priorities. it falls under the national security element. if you go back and, you know, read one of my speeches. i tell some of my colleagues -- lot if you go back, i met a of speeches about problems of extremism, terrorism -- about confronting it. i particularly remember a fifth anniversary of 9/11 -- in 2006 -- which i still very relevant

today that this is a generational struggle. this needs to be confronted and defeated with everything -- every tool in the toolbox, from military intervention all the way to persuasion. and everything in between. more ttably, i'm spending time on it than i host: because the problem we face is still very, very serious. despite all the speeches -- and i read one of them from and the need to challenge extremist -- how close are we to the sydney style attack in our country? think we are -- the threat includes the itely starting, lf sometimes quite random attacks that could happen at any moment in britain.

-- you know -- over the last few months, there have been a series of plots been detected and prevented that would have seen or other ficers authority figures, you know, murdered in cold blood. and thanks to the brilliance of our policing and security services, these things have been prevented. -- you know -- we can't count on them every time. is one thing -- understanding that terror networks coming out of pakistan or afghanistan or iraq and syria -- and trying to monitor what they are doing. that is one thing. but people who are self radicalized on the internet, who then suddenly do appalling things -- that is much more difficult to prevent. >> i have to ask you about what you call about the dark knight.

despite millions, billions the last 10 over years, there are still more people being radicalized. wrong with the agenda that has not enable us to engage with communities? using -- ll just obviously, speeches -- but we get t seem to be able to into the community to try and identify those lone wolves and the others who are coming out and trying to undermine our way of life. how do we get to them? that is the issue, isn't it? >> it is, but we have to do everything. i mean, i would argue that the buildup of the security services has made a difference. i would argue that counterterrorism legislation has helped. program, he preventive we are diverting people away from terror, i think that has helped. you are saying we are

not doing enough to challenge narrative that has been the starting point for some people to be seduced from a moderate islam approach to something that accepts the narrative of the extremists, i agree with that. because you don't seem to be able to get that tipping point. what take someone who is a law-abiding young man -- >> we do a lot of work -- i agree, but i think a lot of work -- >> i think a lot of work is being done in order to do just that. axa, the australian social media response. i think it is incredibly powerful. murdered in very, very quickly. britain, the same thing happen to your. what we need is people, across

our communities, perhaps with the muslim these ity because extremists are using phrases and words from islam -- but we rise up and e to take these people are not speaking in my name. that can sometimes -- sometimes people feel they are being targeted. that is not my intention. we just have to drive these people out of our communities. we have to drive them out of national life. sometimes people say -- okay, of course we are against the extremist terrorists, but we to oppose the all muslims at says a jewish ms, 9/11 with plot -- sometimes people except that bit of the narrative, but say violence is one. we do have to do with that narrative. >> we do.

you have attended functions we made the point about representing multicultural companies -- countries. this is a tiny minority of people. but what do you say to a mother who tries to help? what their son, yusuf, was doing? and then says, i feel betrayed by the police. that kind of symptom ssends the wrong if our to parents, children suddenly reach that tipping point? that they tell them can cooperate with the police services, and not been -- and not see the children again? >> i wasn't in the courtroom, so i didn't hear the argument. very difficult interposer self -- you hear about it on the radio, you read little bit about it.

we have to trust our policing system to deliver justice. but should we use all the powers we have tto try and pull away from that side? using persuasion and the program, as well as, and arrest he harder and prosecution -- yes, of course we should. i think what i see of the police intelligence services, they do that a lot. message that e goes out. stop people ant to -- there might not want to do that. >> if you spent time with the police or security services, give your countless examples of people being pulled away from the radicalization process. so, of course we need to treat

people in the right way. we at the end of the day, have to allow the police and the prosecuting system to work tackle those who are threatening us. >> as far as schools are talked about the relation -- as far as terrorism concerned, there are 300 terrorists groups that we know of. the internet companies came to seminar that you held and promised to do various things. shouldn't we be doing so much more, as far as this goes? have you looked at the setting up the the internet watch foundation for those who want to try and report tto terrace sites? is this all happening far too late?

>> i think -- we are doing all of those things. i think if you stand back a bit, it is interesting -- last week, the internet companies, they took massive steps forward. were saying to y you have aid to them, terms p allowing search for this appalling searches. google are done -- exactly, they can. and we encourage them to do that. they have made bigger steps on the child-abuse front of them only terrorism r abuse front. they are taking on more images. they are helping to -- because we do have organizations which to work to take down terrorist images.

and we need to keep on doing that. but i think we have got a long ways in the last couple of years on this, but there's more to do. >> and on the schools, is the evidence of radicalization in schools? we know about problems, but is a word to you or is it something that is being -- is is it ord to you, or being contained? and i don't ord, think this would be right as it is purely confined. we have had instances of parts of the her had backing have from groups that have views on extremism there is some that i think are completely inappropriate. and we have had to act, in some cases. place all the necessary powers? i think -- if we can get

everyone to understand what think fighting against, i this new duty that we are passing in this legislation -- which is that all public bodies a duty to prevent radicalization and extremism -- i think that is a very powerful thing. but it is not just in areas other countries that a high risk. it is everybody -- schools, universities, colleges, and sometimes these organizations have, frankly, been too relaxed about it. they think, of course, there's extremism speech going on, but it is free speech. but it is a problem. >> we don't have -- >> thank you. is degrading and in iraq and sil

syria a priority to you? >> wwell, it is a priority. the problem is the extremist narrative, and the backing it gives to terrorism. we saw that with al qaeda in afghanistan. receipt with aqm. but it's biggest current manifestation is isil in iraq and syria. this is not a terrorist body found a willing host, it is a terrorist body that has weapons, has lands, has money, and all the rest of it. so we will not deal with the problem of the extremists' terrorist that narrative unless we aggressively deal with it. it is a priority. we just had a meeting this afternoon to see what more we can do. there is no short-term, easy answer.

we need a long-term, multiyear to help the regional players and the key countries to eradicate this organization. it can be done. >> how are we going to make sure come in a big coalition, end up don't just is in -- well, this iraqi lead -- we will do a tiny part, but we will not really take a big view? sure re we going to make we grip this? >> the bombing that has been positions in iraq -- i think britain has ttaken the second-largest role after the united states -- but i would put it in a very simple way, which is -- this alliance very strategy, which is simple and straightforward, that we want a government in a government in syria

that are capable of representing all of the people of the country's. and has security forces to keep stability oof those countries and not allow terrorists to thrive. it may take many, many years. so what are we going to do to make the realization of the strategy more likely? my test for the national security council is -- what in strategy can tary help this? in terms of military technology can we do all these things? what can we do to help put pressureon the syrian regime get a proper transitions we a proper government? we cannot do all of everything. we should just try and do a bit everything, we should try to work out where britain has some expertise that we can bring to bat.

i am sure your committee is working on that. >> going back to the -- >> i'm interested in taking up the topic myself. of attorneys from syria who are finishing in our because we em prosecute them. we have radicalization problem in prison. and is it a real problem? do we have evidence that people became radicalized in prisons? >> i think the answer to that is yes. that -- you ding is know -- there are several prison who ple in convicted rrested or of terrorist offenses, but two, nonetheless, have been radicalized with an extremist, islamic narrative. so it is a problem. it is not something that is

being invented. i think it would be wrong to say that, you know, all over doing untry, prisons are a bad job. they are not, they are doing a great job. which d to look at programs of d radicalization are working best -- de-radicalization are working the best. we seem to have an effect in some universities and some countries. we are up against. it happened to the prison where we are responsible for people. able to recruit enough who are prepared to challenge the narrative? which you would expect them to do because it is not the narrative of genuine islam. bailey is a real challenge. only able to recruit enough to do that?

>> i guess we are. there is a particular course educating prisoners who are new in the muslim ed tackling head-on the -- so, this was one of the purposes of the extremism task force. you have all the different -- prisons, ties colleges, universities -- it one that has to -- tthat might be the highest priority -- but because the extremism task force exist, they know they have to report back to me on the action they take on this agenda. >> the "sunday times" has recently reported that they taken away the passport of not just him, but the entire family. 22 passports were removed from the entire family.

if that's what we have to do in the future to try and stop returning to our country -- but also everyone in the family, irrespective of whether they should have their passport revoked. >> i do not know the details of this particular case. from everything i know, they are meticulous and looking at the advice she has given. and what the legal rights are, and a cane is out. her primary priority is keeping the country safe. >> and the exclusion order that has begun to take place in this is scheduled to parliament. cooperation of those countries? see someone would refuse to abide by the conditions and they wouldn't stay in, for example, in afghanistan. would we keep them?

>> with foreign governments -- her ve discussed it with myself recently -- and i hope will get the agreement we need. but it goes to the bigger point trying s -- what are we to do here. sometimes that is taking people and ay from their families in advance of them traveling. sometimes it is at the border. and on occasion, i think it read as a someone who is thinking of returning to britain that we are very cannot about that they come back until we have the measures in place that we feel are safe. foreign s pressure on governments, but frankly, foreign governments also put pressure on us by not taking tthem back. what would they say to us?

would you be happy with -- >> i'm afraid our prisons are full. i would happily put them back back to tomorrow antenna to these countries -- and send them back to these countries. i think we should be very robust about keeping our country safe. >> you talk about a political search being the key to addressing the course to extremism. are you confidence that, over have ast four months, we put adequate resources into the the officers -- in to understand that search? >> i was asking that exact question at the national

security meeting today. well, the intelligence services doing exactly this -- they have to face this shifting threat pattern, and try and establish themselves where they are most needed. -- up to e, they have now, they had a very big focus on afghanistan and pakistan. that is where, up until recently, the majority of the problems were coming from. i would say some good work is being done, but more needs to be done. the kurdish with have a lot on -- we of intelligence liaison going on. if you are saying, you real solution in iran representing nt

the whole country, military the work and representing the country -- we should ask ourselves, where is our expertise? we shouldn't overstate what we are good at, but there are some areas i am sure within that can make a difference. >> we are still grappling with ebola. too early to say all the lessons have been from something already we were told une, that they did it think it was control in sierra leone. think we ville, i it was up the sense that impossible to control.

we were basically told not to get too alarmist. first of all, would you accept that? and would you accept that, as a have to look at whether the who fits the purpose? >> i completely agree. i think there is a real question here of why wasn't the in responding to ebola? it is not airborne, if you get hold of it quicker, you out a be able to snuff -- a -- a cure to this disease much quicker. everyone shares the think sibility, but i do is a argue that we need standing team of doctors and experts to be flown into a there is a en problem, to assess how bad this. challenges -- ome

these regional organizations it, not how can i put the fastest moving. it doesn't function very well. i'm not sure we can spend the our lives reforming who and get very far, but i suspect the right thing we can do is what we can bolt onto it. there are certain number of countries who step up to the plate, of which, i'm proud to say we are one. but it is taking longer than i because -- i think the assessment did not get done fast enough. leone, we have responded very substantially. recognize that we were in a system that was not the ble of withstanding development of ebola, and, therefore, we need to ensure on, is the legacy of a much stronger health care system.

there are actually significant numbers of sierra leones working in health services who would've been much better sserved working in sierra leone. strengthen those systems. the nhs exit has a huge capacity to work. as a benefit to both the nhs and the country, it is better that we do together. >> there will come a moment we should be planning for -- once we have this thing under control, and on a downward trend -- one of the try to that we should leave behind is helping sierra leone have a better healthcare system for the future. still, the tragedy of these cases, as they say, if you get an outbreak and act quickly, you can build it faster. think, the real learning -- as well as the other stuff. but look, i think we're doing a

great job at training the people every week. but, you know, we have to stay on top of this because the figures have not yet shown the of reducing terms infection rates. >> we had said why the world cannot move faster. rescue has been known for many years. that in the put context of uk. allowed to run checks -- close down flights -- when, in reality, that is the problems und with the come to be addressed. we -- we changed, fundamentally, the way this government handle scientific advice.

but don't you think there are to be learned here about a system that didn't kick in fast enough? we ended up as a reactive organization, when -- with the scientific knowledge we had -- should have been prepared and much more alert to this risk. my first question -- will the prime minister look again at draw on scientific information into the emergency planning procedures? are proactive, not reactive. >> i will certainly do that. but i d to be corrected, don't think -- right -- i think there was -- how do i put this? i don't want to say something that is wrong. i think that everyone knew it problem, but everyone

assumed that the government and the who would handle these things. were there scientist team saying, quick, wake up? what you need is this combination of political action and sound, scientific advice. i think it would be wrong to think that all they do is sit and listen to the scientists. they really advise you about the scale of the problem, what works and what doesn't work. but with the policies, you do have to make a decision. with these things come you're not just dealing with science. sometimes you are dealing with perception, public sometimes even problems of public panic. the way we work these, whether in fukushima or japan, with er it was dealing ebola are other scientific

the advice e look at and followed the chief medical officer on most of the stuff. right to say the that -- how the public will we communicate this -- tthe politician has a job, yeah? >> i am certainly not criticizing him. he has done a fabulous job. but the fact that the system does not proactively sucking expert groups om weakness of the system. look at it -- would you have a look at it? >> i will have a look at it. is o not think the problem think g in information, i

the problem was the big executive action that was required. this crack re is not team of doctors to get out there. of the as actually one first politicians to spot the scale of this problem and think we all ut i of the lessons is, when this thing happens, you cannot act too fast. >> i wish you and your family, a d indeed my colleagues, very happy christmas. >> saved by the bell. happy christmas to you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> north korea is calling for a into the estigation cyber attack against sony pictures, just a day after the fbi said the country was to blame for the attacks. north korea has denied its role spokesman ter, and a for the country has said today be " brave would

consequences if the u.s. did agree to an investigation". the hacking has led to a emails and documents, as well as the theaters who plan to show the movie. sony has since pulled the movie from release. well, tonight on c-span, we will bring you a discussion from that f the stars movie -- actor seth rogen. he was part of a discussion month about the relationship between politics and humor. never make a joke that i would think would get a laugh that has a political view that i don't, personally, believe in. because i might get asked about that one day and i do want to look stupid. it is like -- i do think that a lot of people who tried be edgy or political, who

they are hough unfairly targeted by the political correctness crowd -- oor forget that they have to be edgy and well as -- there other people complaining about it who are hilarious. people who are truly hilarious never complain about it at all. i think every time you make a know in your head is slightly controversial, like an almost expected -- there's almost like a group of people who have to react. and you just know that group of stupid people is going to say that thing. the point s almost that the joke is making. you know? and they will say the thing. will say imes it

something, though, that offends just more than just those people by accident. and i do see comedians apologizing sometimes. i have never done something felt like i have had to apologize before, but i have people who have said -- yeah, they should apologize. we screen are movies a lot. in a lot of early screenings of her movies, there are jerks and are too far probably -- jokes that go too far and are probably too edgy. we didn't even realize it, and someone says something. sensitive towards that. don't feel sonally, like -- you know -- that some political correctness squad that is trying to protect me from doing my job in the best way that i can.

>> you can see all of that with actor seth rogen tonight at 9:30 pm eastern here on c-span. >> here is a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day on the c-span networks. holiday festivities tied at 10:00 am eastern, with the lighting of the national christmas tree. followed by the white house christmas decorations with first lady, michelle obama. 12:30 pm, fter celebrity activists talk about the causes. then at 8:00 pm, supreme court justice, samuel alito -- on the bill of rights and the founding fathers. on c-span2, vventure into the writing with steven pinker. 12:30 pm, see the wonder woman. on "american history tv" at

8 o'clock eastern, the fall of the berlin wall with footage and speeches from presidents john kennedy and ronald reagan. and at noon, first ladies choices, and how they influenced how they lived. that is this christmas day and the c-span networks. go to complete schedule, c-span.org. >> un secretary-general ban ki-moon held a news conference some of the issues the organization has dealt with. the topics include to the ebola outbreak in west africa, and the terrorist activities in syria. this is 40 minutes.

>> good afternoon. good afternoon. the secretary-general will make some opening remarks, and then we will be delighted to take your questions. sir, welcome. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. great to see you. end of this year, i'm so bright to see you eyed after last night's dinner. have some pieces left. if anybody wants -- you are welcome. of nk you for a whole year

friendship and cooperation, and support for the united nations' work. i really thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, since i come back from lima, the climate ing change meeting, let me begin with the climate change. in lima, governments are built on the success of the climate i ange meeting, which convened in september this place the put in building blocks for a meaningful, universal climate change. member states advanced on several fronts. agreed on a draft to serve as the basis for the negotiations beginning in february. in geneva. clarity the prophetic

on other commitments to be national plans of actions, or what we call indc. abbreviation of intended national democratic contributions. they built trust most notably the green izing climate fund with international $10 billion. the advanced on action agendas, the wealth of ow opportunities offered by the a low carbon pathways. taken together, these are tthe momentum ain towards paris. and although we deal with a or unt of war -- governments, along with other

civil societies, now agree that they must curb the growth in emissions. years as the secretary-general, that was the eighth conference meeting. and that was the most encouraging conference i have attended. ladies and gentlemen, we have the progress, this year, at finishing the job of the millennium development course. laying the ground work for a new agenda, including an agenda for new developmental courses. ahead, three high-level meetings will give us the opportunity to chart a new area of sustainable development. you know, in july there is

going to be high-level conference on financing for development. and in june, the president of the general assembly is going to convene high level meeting on climate change. middle point of -- of december. to , thirdly, we are going have special sessions on -- on sustainable development in september. a summer reading. as i indicated earlier this month on my report, the stars are aligned for the world to take historic actions. to transform lives and protect the planet. alongside these gains, the just came to a year of discord, disease, and disruption.

peace operations, diplomacy, and humanitarian capacities have been pushed to the limit. than 100 million peopleneed assistance, and more than 50 million people have been driven from their homes. the most since the second world war. the outbreak of ebola in west africa has challenged the community in unprecedented ways. nations mobilized its first-ever systemwide emergency health mission. visit t, i will leave to and uinea, liberia, leone -- the countries most affected. will be accompanied by the

director general, and a special envoy on ebola. ghana l representative in will join me to visit the affected countries from ghana. i want to see the response for myself, and show my solidarity with those affected. an urge even greater global action. ebola rresponders are doing heroic work. local communities and national governments are highly engaged. there has been an impressive outpouring of life-saving contributions from across and across the world. strategy is sponse working, and we are beginning to see improvements. but now is not the time to ease up.

as long as there is one case of ebola, they risk remains. we must do everything we can to get it to zero. at the same time, we remain short of people and resources. moreover, ebola continues to drive up food prices, keep of school, and drama attention away from other activities. year s and gentlemen, this in syria, the successful resolve of the chemical program been of little consecration have seen the who war wage on. the policy saves many thousands lives, but the situation at our peacekeeping bases -- where we are sheltering hundreds of thousands of people -- remains

dry, as it does drop the country.

i am welcome today's development. i hope that these measures, will help uncements between d the exchanges the two peoples, who have been separated by a longtime. the united nations stands ready to help both countries to cultivate their good neighboring relations. >> thank you. >> secretary-general, you said that 2015 you hope is the

ureter and the nightmare in syria. to be epresentative seems doing mismanagement for a very terrible event in syria. do you approve of the peace approach that is being criticized by him? you confident that you will approve the process? >> of course, we like to have peace and ence of stability -- and development. that is basically our principled approaches. been doing is s case resolution -- peace resolution. is not a substitute for

broader aand comprehensive peace arrangement. but when you really want to have a broad, company is a should have all approach, you should have all elements started from smaller things, or easier thanks. course, even having this is not easy. i'm encouraged that, to his president ith the assad of syria and many actions is gaining on, this political support. most recently, european gathered and supported his opinion. at what is most important this time -- after four years killing each other -- the violence must stop.

without a kind of argument, or difference of opinion -- there may be. the violence must stop, and they should sit down together to talk about their own future in a peaceful manner. this is what, exactly, demonstrates it to me. [inaudible] started the geneva meeting, then whatever may be. to sit down together -- whatever it may be called. making, again, clear that is not a substitute.

this is a comprehensive approach. >> okay. >> thank you, secretary-general. i have a question on the human rights issue. year, we have seen a lot of unprecedented light on this issue. they pointed out examples of human rights violations in the country. the country has not accepted at the next week security council, he is expected to talk about this public discussion about that issue. is your view on this latest development on these issues? and you think the discussions at the security council will help the situation to better? situation an rights

there has become acute has received it acute attention from the international community. most recently, the committee has adopted a resolution. the general assembly is going this, and tion on there is, again, discussion in that the ity council agenda should be updated in this security council. -- se are the methods for the member states -- in the general states or security -- to comment. in many situations of serious humanitarian and human right been a ons, there has risk of social, economic, and political instability. seen many such cases --

where people ace and refugees are also impacted negatively to the well-being. as member states, and i myself, as the secretary general, to the my own report general assembly, i have made it quite clear that he should carefully -- sincerely -- to the course of the international community to protect the human rights. and, also, to do what they can to increase the well-being -- promote the well-being of their own people. that is my sincere wish.

>> mister secretary-general, earlier you mentioned the situation in ukraine. earlier, the russian minister emphasized that the russian support judicial integrity of ukraine. from your point of view, how it stabilize the situation? in ukraine has n of deep concerns for all international communities. not to mention -- not to the people of ukraine and the countries of people in the region. the situation in ukraine has various serious global implications. that is why the whole world, the european union and usa, and russia -- they have been heavily engaged.

again, am deeply concerned by the continuing -- continuing situation -- negative situation -- in ukraine. they seem to be holding, but still, we have seen a lot of casualties. just since september 5, when agreed on a memorandum, mmore than 100,000 people have lost their lives. going to impact economic situations; therefore, i'm urging, again, that the populace should sit down sit ther -- parties should

down together and abide by the letters and spirit of the minsk protocol and memorandum. was the one -- the result very intense consultation meetings, with the help and facilitation of many important regional countries. i am urging them, again, to really abide by this. united nations is concerned, the human rights monitoring mission will continue. next year. december te was until -- this month -- but it has been extended. we will try to mobilize humanitarian assistance to this assistance to whoever may be in need. >> associated press to pakistan.

mister secretary-general, thank you. out strongly on the slaughter of children in pakistan yesterday. subsequently, have you been in touch with the pakistan issue? should r, an issue that have a much more international response. >> recently, the intelligence community has been -- international community has been affected by all this terrorism and extremism -- here and there. what we have seen, what happened in pakistan, is totally unacceptable. that is why i have condemned it in the strongest of possible tones. in have seen so many things pakistan and afghanistan,

nigeria, somalia, and israel. at this st important, now the at -- international community must resources and political will. help those countries affected to address this extremism and terrorism. well, the united established a counterterrorism center on the department of political affairs. we are now actively engaging the countries who are in for terrorism and extremism. help those try to member states strengthen the national capacities.

for example, we have been in contact with nigerian government to organize a sort of capacity building workshop -- january next year. i will also consider what we can do with pakistan and other countries. >> thank you, mr. secretary-general. as i'm sure you know, there have been some intensive meetings going on in the past few days on the israeli-palestinian conflict and the possibilities of trying to get some action here at the united nations. what would you like to see come out of the security council. what kind of a resolution? >> i understand that active discussions are taking place on the issue between members of the security council and relevant