but has the n.s.c. looked closely enough at the issue of foreign ownership of parts of our critical infrastructure? i'm thinking of energy nuclear power and waste, water and so on. and are you confident that there isn't reason to be concerned about whether or not there should be some clear red lines drawn about foreign ownership? >> well, we do have a proper system in place for examining whether inward investments and things like infrastructure are in our national interests. but actually sir kim and i were discussing earlier there will be a proper n.s.c. consideration of this because we have slightly different procedures for some slightly different parts of our infrastructure. and i think it would be good to have a collective discussion when it comes to telecoms and electricity networks and gas networks and what have you that we have all the rules we need in place. so we will do that. i would -- and when we had a specific issue,, we properly responded to the i.s.c. report. i would not underplay that the

it was done by the n.s.c. a piece of it was sorted out later, was the overall structure of the army. but i am right in saying the reserve work was committed -- commissioned by the n.s.c., and the results of that and the future structure of reserves versus regulars was discussed by .s.c. before announcement. have i got that right? i think if you're saying, look, you should have done the thing in one go, sometimes these things take a few iterations to get absolutely right. >> probably impossible. >> thank you. prime minister, still on security but changing the emphasis somewhat, risk of -- and public perception. mention has been made of flooding. if you ask lots of people they would say flooding. when we had incidents -- i'm wondering to what extent your strategy, which you outlined all the economic benefits, which we all would agree with, who is responsible for engaging the public so their perception of risk is not just a knee jerk reaction to the latest problem? and that when somebody challenges what the govern

. >> let me switch a subject and that's the role of the n.s.c. and that's energy and energy policy. there are two aspects of it. you have the shorter term policy and the longer term policy. am i right in saying that the only real security strategy is the department of energy and climate change document which obviously leaves out foreign policy, planning and range of other issues and frankly looking 50 or 100 years ahead as to what we should be considering, is that something that almost at the top of the agenda in the years to come on long term? i'll come back to short term in a moment. >> clearly energy security is vital. we were talking earlier about how do you define security? clearly energy security, the ability to power your economy, to power your homes and businesses, that's the key aspect of security and it is something taken seriously by the national security council. we have discussed it and taken papers on it. i would argue that we have a good strategy there. we are renewing our nucelar and we will follow next. we set out a very clear strategy so everyone knows what the rule