Strategy. But i dont you know, strategy always has to be adaptable and has to be changeable according to circumstances. I think it was mike tyson who said everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. You have to make sure you can adapt what you have. But i would say the strategy is about britain engaging in the world to protect its interest and promote British Values like democracy and freedom of speech and human rights. I would argue what we did in libya and the approach in syria is consistent with that. What would you say your strategic goal was in syria . I think twofold. First of all, weve taken a general view as a National Security council that while there are risks in the instability that the arab spring has thrown up, weve taken a general view that the advance of what i would call the Building Blocks of democracy, more open societies, more participating systems, is a good thing in the long term for security. There will always be bumps on the road but thats a good thing, so we should basically be encouraging those sorts of developments. What about the use of force in august . The use of force that was being asked for was linked to the issue of chemical weapons. I think the debate in a way we had in parliament ended up being a debate, quite a lot of it what happened in iraq and what some people feared might happen in syria wasnt really a debate so much about the use of chemical weapons and our response to that. Fortuitously, there was a tough global response. Syria decided to give up its chemical weapons and progress on that is not too bad. But when it comes to approaching syria, our arguments have been britain continues with its very strong position on humanitarian aid, which is set out in the National Security strategy. We continued our support for developments that are positive under the arab spring which i think are consistent with the values in here. But we are also taking a very, very strong and careful look how we protect ourselves from the risks of terrorism and extremism which i think is a growing threat in syria. I have think we need to spend a huge amount of time working how to best mitigate that. But coming back to the issue of chemical weapons for a moment, presumably you had a strategic goal in mind. What was it . Was it to make assad give up the chemical weapons or was it regime change or the strategic goal was not the strategic goal that i discussed with president obama before the vote in the house of commons was that having set a red line on chemical weapons use, we couldnt allow assad to cross it with impunity. And the sort of military action that was envisioned was purely and simply about chemical weapons. We judged i judged that it was important, not only in the context of syria but also the argument i made in the house of commons was that the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons has been important to britain and countries like britain for decades and so it was worthwhile taking a strong stance on this issue, not just because of syria, but the message it would send to other dictators around the world if we did not take that stand. I said happily without military action being taken, the desired effect has been achieved which is they do look as theyre making Real Progress on giving up chemical weapons. Thats what it was about. It was not about regime change. It was not about broadening the conflict. It was purely and simply about that issue. We are all concerned about the implications of people in people who fought in syria. Having honed their skills in combat, acquired new techniques and so on. Was that discussed with the National Security council . Yes, in great detail. All through our discussion about syria. Syria has been a real difficult challenge for policymakers all over the western world. Because nobody wants to get involved in conflicts. But on the other hand, everyone can see right from the start this was a conflict which was going to drive extremism and instability and cause huge problems in the region. Thats been a massive challenge. But every discussion we had about syria we also discussed the dangers of british people traveling to syria, the dangers of extremism, the dangers of terrorists returning home. I think the signs in syria are extremely worrying at that front of the moment. That is why we are downstairs in the house of commons debating how we should be able to take away peoples citizenship. We have a crossgovernment response. Securing our borders, discouraging people from traveling to syria. Working with allies to deal with the terrorist threat. Stopping people coming back, etc. , etc. Its a very big focus for us right now. Was that a decision of the National Security council . That was something we have looked at in the national i ask in the security council. I dont recall if the decision was taken for that particular measure. Thats very helpful. This isnt just about Foreign Policy. There is a domestic element. But there are other issues where people might say, hang on, defending country against terrorism we put 600 million a year into counterterrorism. Another two billion pounds on the single intelligence account. Yet we have people at the moment having problems with floods, and our expenditure on flood defense was last year 560 million, rising next year. Does the National Security council get involved in deciding how to allocate resources between the different risks on the National Risk list and if so how do you reach a conclusion . Its a very good question. What we have is a National Risk assessment as well as a National Risk register which is a document we used to try and assess these risks. We discuss that and agree and try to make sure were dealing with risks in an appropriate way. Its very difficult to try and measure up the amount you spend on one subject with what you spend on another. I cant pretend there is an exact science in it, but i would say because all these risks and risk registers are brought together in the National Security secretariat, at least we have one partner government looking to measure all this up and the committee then looks at it. So do you look at those resource choices . We, we do look at resource choices. Specifically in terms of intelligence. The budget comes in front of the n. S. C. And we have to its a good moment where the politicians can act as inquisitors to the experts how we got it right between counterterrorism and espionage, between counterterrorism policing and broader things. The question, do you measure up floods on the one hand and the chance of terrorism on the other, it is quite difficult to argue there is a science where you can work out where you have the exact amount of money in the right place. 600 million youre bringing it together. Youre looking at your potential weaknesses and you are trying to make sure you correctly identify the gap. Has the National SecurityCouncil Discussed flooding . We have discussed flooding in the context of a National Risk register, National Risk assessment. We have a specific subcommittee that looks at resilient sense threats and hazards, but flooding has more generally been dealt with through cobra. I think its a mistake to think that the n. S. C. Is entirely strategic and cobra is entirely operational. I do use cobra to address issues where you need a it slightly wider than the National Security council and flooding is a good example of that. Do you have, as part of that process, do you have a longterm plan with the impact of Climate Change on the u. K. . Have you considered which parts of the Critical National infrastructure are most threatened by rising sea levels . We had discussions in the National Security council about Climate Change. We need to have another one before the next meeting. We also have a piece of work thats been done on Critical Infrastructure and the potential threat to Critical Infrastructure, including from floods and from rising sea levels and that has been considered. I want to make sure im not misleading the committee in any way. The Critical Infrastructure is something thats coordinated by the n. S. S. And then get some put to ministers. Thank you. Mr. Prime minister, talking about the reorganization of the ministry of defense. This committees report last year mentioned the fact that the future army 2020, for example, will be joined the structure of the reserves, has not been something thats come before the National Security council. Do you think we were right to be concerned about that . I never want to criticize it. My nephew has done a fantastic job. But i think its actually true to say that the National Security council did discuss the Army Structure before the announcement was made. So i dont want to give the impression this was a process entirely outside i think it was the secretary of state for defense. All right. I will blame him instead. [laughter] i think you have a fair point. 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 the n. S. C. Before announcement. Have i got that right . I think if youre 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. I am wondering, to what extent your strategy which you outlined, who is responsible for engaging the the riskat there is not just a kneejerk reaction to the latest problem. , we areebody challenges talking about syria a moment ago. How do you feel about that . Message about the public perception. Have a National Security council, people can see these risk our love being looked at as a whole. We are trying to explain how we look at risk and the steps to take to make sure the people are safe. I think the scientists can probably help by forming a debate about risk improbabilities. You are looking at the strategy and saying, have you done enough consideration of this and looked at those risks . N the end, have a strategy the site is can help by explaining some of those risk. That is probably the best you can do. People want to know what were doing to protect from flooding. I think people understand that there are Severe Weather events that can affect your country. You do everything you can to mitigate but in the end you cant mitigate against every single thing. Whereas these appalling terrorist events, which can be so indiscriminant and are such huge risks, they want to know youre doing Everything Possible to prevent them from happening in the first place. Do you think that the recent problems that we have all seen about the snowden revelation, the way in which they have been publicized largely by some people actually undermining Public Confidence in our security agencies . And if so, whos responsible for defending the agencies, explaining and getting some perspective to some of the difficult discussions . I think first of all, in response to snowden, i think what we have to do is make sure were confident that the governance procedures for the Intelligence Services are robust, the intelligence commissioners. I keep asking myself, do we have a good system in place . And i think we have. Were trying to improve it. In terms of, has it dented Public Confidence in the work of the security agencies . I havent seen the opinion polling, but my sense is that the public reaction its a r as opposed to some of the media reaction, look, we have intelligence because its a dangerous world and there are bad people that want to do terrible things to us and we should support these Intelligence Services and the work they do. I think the public reaction, what i felt in terms of what peoples reaction has been, has been pretty robust. Whos responsible for defending the security cells and explaining what they do . I think i have a responsibility. I feel like im the minister for the Intelligence Service and i have the responsibility to stand up for them, thank them publicly because they cant be thanked publicly as other Emergency Services are and try to explain what they do. Ive done some of that. I think they are often the best spokesmen spokespeople for themselves. I think their appearance recently was excellent. I think the speech that the head of the security cell was very good summary of the threats we face. I dont want them to make a speech every week. I think actually they could help set the agenda and explain what they do perhaps better than anyone. Final question. Dont you think there is potential danger, the lack of public support for a government might feel is essential to do in certain circumstances might be undermined of what would be needed and the better explanation and shouldnt that be part of your planning when youre actually talking about your strategy, the strategy should not be it should be about explaining it . I think its a very fair point. I think if youre saying, should the prime minister, the foreign secretary responsible for two of the agencies, should the three of us do more to explain, defend and give people a sense of why their work is so important . Yes. I agree with that. I think we should do more. If youre worried about damage yes, im worried about what snowden did with respect to security. I would ask the newspaper to think before they act because we are in danger of making ourselves less safe as a result. As i say but i think the public reaction, as i judge it, has not been one of sort of shock horror. Its been much more intelligence agencies carry out intelligence work could. Thank you. In hindsight, prime minister, is there anything that the n. S. C. Has missed . I think there are some specific subjects of quite a technical nature that organizations like yours and others have drawn to our attention. I am not a scientist. So e. M. P. s and space weather, i think thats actually useful to give the officials to say, have we got this covered, have we got that covered . I think we need to go faster with this work about really examining plans, whether its the budget, whether its the conflict pool, can we do more to make this organization really drive policy rather than just strategy . I think we should probably do more on that. In terms of missing things, there are lots of things that the pundits and the politicians and the experts have not foreseen in the development of Global Affairs but thats why, yes, have a strategy but recognize you need to adapt it to changing circumstances. One thing that we commented early on that we missed in the original National Security strategy, were about to go on to the next one, was the question the americans announcing their pivot to asia. It has enormous strategic consequences. That wasnt touched on at all in the Security Strategy. I think im right in saying, when was the speech, the great obama speech . Was it 2010 or 2011 . I say, we are doing our own thing. If you look at the amount of Foreign Office activity in southeast asia, the asian countries, what were doing in china and india, william is changing that department and focusing on the high growth emerging powers and all the rest of it. Obviously we havent mentioned our gulf strategy which is a breakthrough too, to recognize there is a whole set of countries which we have a strong history, strong relations where we should try to build on those relationships. So i think were doing our own thing. I think if i had a wish of replaying it all, i think the thing the sdsr did in terms of moving us away of the battle tanks in western europe and towards flexible, deployable future technologies, cyber, drones and the rest of it, i which we had done more and faster. And i suppose id apply that to the Foreign Policy side as well. I think this prosperity, trade diplomacy agenda which now is being driven very hard across government, i would have liked to have done more even sooner because i think its going to be part of our future national success. If we can, you know, massively increase exports to china. That will be a big part of britains future success story. You remember from being foreign secretary, getting the tanker to move, you would say, i wish i pushed it harder and faster. Thank you. Well go on for the next National Security strategy. Thank you very much, chair. When peter was in the role, he told us he would take two years to prepare a new strategy. Since then theres been a 25 the work on the next strategy hasnt started. Was he wrong . Can you tell us when it will start . The work is beginning on both National Security strategy and particularly on sdsr because the next sdsr we need to start planning now. Look, you can argue forever about how long these things take, but im so keen on implementing what we said we were going to do that i put more weight on that. As i say, my fear is that if you move faster on writing new strategies you all the people that are trying to deliver what we need in libya or in syria, theyll come off that and theyll start writing strategies again. Will it be fundamentally different or am i right in assuming it wont be finished until the next government is in place . Both . The n. S. C. . Youre right. Theyll get a span a period of the next election. We should be starting now. I dont think and if you go back over the National Security strategy, it needs to refresh. I dont think it will be a complete overhaul. I think i hinted to margaret if im responsible for its eventual outcome, i think it will have that trade prosperity agenda perhaps more strongly. I wouldnt expect a huge change. And the National Security strategy or the sdsr. The strategy we took in the sdsr, having a gap in capacity, the exciting thing as we come into the next one, the gap will be coming to an end. Well have fantastic new carrier in the high seas very soon. With planes. With planes and people in it. Can we look between the three of us on this panel some of the specific future things . In particular, we talked about the america. What about the European Union . Which we will not know in the next strategy whether the u. K. Will be part of the European Union on or not. So will that be spelled out, the implications being in or out and specifically, how it will change if the u. K. Ceases to be a member of the European Union . My strategy linked in with the National Security strategy that we secure a referendum and i want to recommend that we should remain part of a reformed European Union and i plan on the basis of success rather than the basis of anything else. But we dont european issues, we havent dealt within the National Security council. We dealt with them elsewhere in government. I accept it has important implications to the u. K. I think we should plan on the basis of what we want to achieve. Yes. Its a democratic vote. If people are going to vote the other way, despite your recommendation, it has strategic implications. I mean, we have a vote this year on Scottish Independence and the Government Produced a series of papers setting out their case where the u. K. Is better together. Will you not do the same thing for the European Union . Well, we have done with the review looked at the various areas. I think once the negotiation is complete, there will then be a period before a referendum where the two sides in that debate can set out their arguments. I as you know, we are in a coalition government. The Coalition Partners have slightly different views about europe. My judge is if we use the n. S. C. To debate and discuss europe issues, we would have a second reading debate. What i want is the actions necessary to deliver it. I think its better to keep europe out of it. Well, another specific issue and ill be quick about this one. We heard in the past that our Food Security and essentially we are about three days away from a food crisis. Most of our food is in transit. We found that out with the truck driver strike. Do you believe you have addressed enough about how some disruption of communications could lead to a food crisis and have you responded . Is that something thats central to the Security Strategy . Because clearly Food Shortages could move the country to a crisis in the span of a short period of time . What we have done is handling the threats to food supplies, one did a review of emergency planning. It concluded there was relatively good resilience in the u. K. Food supply chain. And carried out the assessment in 2010. Its part of the national Critical Infrastructure plan that we have. Youre definitely right. A country that imports food, that has a lot of just in time delivery and all the rest of it, dislocation, whether volcanic ash from iceland or truck driver strike or what have you does impact those things relatively quickly. Im satisfied that we have examined the issues, but thats not to say, you know, you dont get effects when infrastructure is threatened. Prime minister, in the annual report on n. S. S. And the sdsr published last december, there was a paragraph which started with the sentence it has been a government priority to introduce the program to preserve the ability of the Security Intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies to have the access they require in communications. It goes on and he with changes to the existing legislative stream work may be required to maintain these vital capabilities. And i understand that the interceptions commissioner is reviewing our legislation. And will no doubt report to you. Edward snowdens leaked material, is there anything you could share with us today to comment about the position of the United Kingdom in the light of what was said in this report . Well, first of all, id agree with the report that over time we are going to have to modernize the legislative framework and practice when it comes to dealing with Communications Data. Its obviously a politically quite contentious topic. Im not sure that well make progress on it in the coming months in terms of legislation. There may be things short of legislation that we can do. But i do think that politicians, Police Chiefs, the Intelligence Services, we got a role in explaining what this is all about. Because i think, while i wouldnt go back to what i said earlier, i dont think snowden had an enormous public impact. It raises questions about who has access to my data and why. But im absolutely convinced that proper rules for Communications Data is essential. I didnt think we got it across to people yet the basics of this. Most of the serious crimes, child abductions, who called who and when and where was the telephone at the time, not the content of the call, but Communications Data is absolutely vital. And i think we need the Police Chiefs, the investigators and others and the politicians explaining what this is about. I love watching, as i probably should stop telling people, crime dramas on the television. Theres highly a crime drama that a crime is solved without using the data of a mobile communications device. And thats not about the content. Its about and the problem we have to explain to people is as you move from a world of people having fixed telephones and mobile phones to skype and phones on the internet and all of that, if we dont modernize the practice and modernize the law, over time we will have the Communications Data to solve these horrible crimes on a shrinking proportion of the total use of devices. And that is a real problem for keeping people safe. Now, i dont know if that was the clearest explanation i could give but we need to make this explanation really, really clear and get it out to people and build, perhaps the start of the next parliament, a crossparty case, a sensible legislation to deal with this issue. I think it is possible, but i think its going to take a lot of work by politicians across parties to try and take that Civil Liberties concern seriously but get them in proportion so we can then make some progress. Thank you, prime minister. I think wed all agree with that. And i think it follows on very well from what perhaps this is something the n. S. C. Can look at, how to get what you said over to the general public, the difference between data and content. Well, the best attempt ive seen so far, i think one or two Police Chiefs wrote some articles in the newspapers and i thought when they explained just how much this involved in child abduction cases, in solving murders and solving serious crimes, you know, i absolutely see and my work with Security Services and how vital it is to prevent terrorist attacks, i you know, i feel passionate about this. I feel the first responsibility of my job is to help keep people safe. And the fact its used so much in crime is a very straightforward thing that people can get a hold of. Thank you. I want to ask you about something else. Prime minister, we all understand the desirability of Foreign Investment and so on. But has the n. S. C. Looked closely enough at the issue of Foreign Ownership of parts of our Critical Infrastructure . Im thinking of energy, Nuclear Power and waste, water and so on. And are you confident that there isnt 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 fact that britain saying to the world that we welcome it with investment and we welcome investment into, you know, key parts of infrastructure. The fact that the chinese will be invested, i think is a good thing. It means we can free up more of our own capital to spend on roads and railways and other things. And it also makes an enormous its a very good message for britain going around the world. We are not embarrassed but delighted that indian capital is rebuilding the british car industry. Were delighted that the chinese are going to own part of water, investing in heathrow. I think its one of our calling cards that we are an open economy that encourages people to invest. So, yes, by all means, lets check if there were Security Issues we could act properly and appropriately and we will do, but dont lose the position as a great open economy. I was very struck by one of the large chinese investors, britain is better than all. I thought that was a good endorsement. Thank you. Prime minister, i think when youre saying you wish you could spend more time and effort on asia, some had a history of trade in this country. [inaudible] i just want to get your view. Mr. Gates made a comment the other day, former defense secretary of america, to ensure global reach in support of our longterm security interests and our part with a crucial relationship with the United States navy, we must guarantee that we have highend capability with the necessary number and mix of ships . You started on the 31st of january, 2013, your words, your strong view was that the Defense Budget will require yearonyear growth beyond 2015. As a leading member of nato, no less than 2 of our g. D. P. For our Defense Budget, i hope youre able to confirm that this is still very, very much your view and intention and will be emphasized at the nato conference this september. I dont move away from the importance of our Defense Budget and what that should mean for the future at all. Where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at i dont move away from the importance of our Defense Budget and what that should mean for the future at all. Where i take issue slightly with former secretary gates is i think actually if you look at the Equipment Program for our navy, it is absolutely a full spectrum Equipment Program. You have the two carriers under construction. You have the type 45 destroyers coming into action. You got the future Frigate Program that is there. You have the submarines. You have the trident submarines and the pledge to renew them and the in terms of the navy it has a very Bright Future and it is a full spectrum capability from, you know, the Nuclear Deterrent at one end to, you know, smaller vessels right at the other end. So i dont accept that we are, you know, shrinking the navy or its not a full spectrum capability. It absolutely is. As what you say about asia, i completely agree. Weve seen a big increase in our exports to china, for instance, but were still only 1 of chinese exports. We can, you know, quite easily get to 2 which will be great for us without being a huge change. Prime minister, there are some who would suggest having more to meet the very ambitions you have been talking about today will be more than useful. I have this debate with the navy all the time. Because clearly whats been happening is that we are having fewer, more expensive ships, type 45s, you know, are pretty close to a billion pounds each. They are phenomenally expensive. They are the most modern, most effective one of our type 45s thats doing more at the moment. I think its getting quite a lot of attention. There is obviously a discussion we should have, is there a role for other sorts of vessels we should be using as well and whats the tradeoffs between these multipurpose ships that can do everything from drug interdiction in the caribbean right through carrier escorts or complex warfare, is it right to do that or should you try to have more ships that are carrying out more different tasks . And i think its a debate that will continue. Up until now the answer is lets have the multirole ships that can do everything. Let me switch a subject and thats the role of the n. S. C. And thats 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 . Ill 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 and thats 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 that point and we will follow next. We set out a very Clear Strategy so everyone knows what the rules and the costs are for investing in renewables. And were moving ahead, not just with new gas plants as appropriate but also with onshore shale gas which i think could be a major industry for britain in the future. So i think we got a longterm plan. And we got to make sure that every piece of that is put in place. And i think our position does put us being reliant on so much. I think if you look at our energy penetration of imports compared with other countries, because of the north sea, we had a relatively good record. We got the interconnector with france. A potential interconnector with norway. If we make the most of shale gas, then as north sea gas runs down well have a new national resource. So when i look at our position in europe and look at, you know, how we linet we are on imports, im i think were relatively secure position. We must keep up. Thats why the relationship with gasa and others in terms of imported gas, the relationship with norway is fantastically important. Making sure we get a decent contribution for renewables. Could i bring up the other thing that is a really serious problem . We believe our country is facing potentially a very serious crisis of supply and competitiveness at this very moment in time we speak. And are you prepared to set aside the targets in the 2008 Climate Change act in order to get through this period . If youre unable to act unilaterally, will you seek consensus with the major countries on behalf of the commitments . Prime minister, what i ask with that is, do you accept now in retrospect these targets, those set by the former government but were endorsed by you, were a huge mistake that threatens the severely damaged and indeed our already damaging europe competitive and Growth Prospect in years to come . Prime minister, this view that he expressed may not be shared by of course. Two questions in there. One is the Climate Change act framework, can that work for us in the long term . My answer is yes, it can. We set these budgets. We have to make sure theyre achievable and deliverable. I supported the Climate Change act and i think we can make it work. The second part i think about the european targets which i think we are capable of meeting, i think you go back over the history and argue whether it was right to have as many specific targets, you might come to a different answer. Europe is reviewing the e. U. Is reviewing this at the moment about whether the specific targets are correct. But look, the question i ask and i got the energy industries, the National Grid and everybody else around the table, i checked that our situation was robust, is are we content with the rules we have in place and everything we have in place that we are Energy Secure in terms of our short, medium and longterm future or are there any changes we need to make about decommissioning coal plants, bringing on gas more quickly or anything else and the answer i got was that the rules and regulations and capacity mechanisms are in place so we have the Energy Security that we need. So the question you put is very important. But i dont think either the Climate Change act or our own situation is one that we ought to be concerned with but one that i think we need to make major change. [inaudible] this is just not my view. Its head of the International Energy agency based in paris and in london here today, we were discussing only the subject of deep, deep critical concern about europes competitiveness. The European Union theyll debate at the march council. Theyll think very carefully about International Competitiveness and prices. The United States has 10,000 shale gas wells. In europe we got about 100. And so i think we do need to think about the competitiveness picture. I completely agree with that. I dont think throwing out the window the concern about carbon emission reduction. What is the market in europe, that would be a very good thing. Make sure we make use of shale gas. We are committed to cheap green energy and keep driving down the price of these new technologies. If we do all those things we can be green and competitive. We are almost out of time. I just want to take you back for a moment. To something you said about the maritime about the navy. I am reminded about what was said recently, unless we change our current course, not enough people. And he said that they were close to the critical mass. And i applaud what you said about the navy. Well, i think to be fair, what was said, if spending reductions went further, there would be a danger of what was called hollowing out. If we were in danger of that happening with what we have. The point i would make is that in the sdsr we made decisions with the chiefs of the Defense Staff around the table that were about the future capabilities of the u. K. And a very strong argument was made, which i completely agree with, that we need to have a navy that is full spectrum, thats got everything from those submarines, the type 45s, to the future frigates and everything else. And that was a real priority. Weve taken this gap in capability, which well refresh with the new carriers, and thats incredibly important. I dont see obviously want to do everything we can on value for money, on efficiency. I think if we do that i dont see any reason why we wont be able to properly run and crew these excellent assets. And also i think its encouraging people to join the navy. The opportunities when you got this absolutely world firstclass equipment thats running out of our shipyards at the moment, it is terrific to encourage people to join up. Can i applaud what you just said about the gap being replaced by new carriers . [laughter] you have about two minutes. [inaudible] in a public meeting, if the secretaries get their way and break scotland up from the kingdom, what are the National Security implications of that . I think you stated publicly some of those implications but i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. In a nutshell, we are more secure together as well as more prosperous and all the rest of it. Scotland makes an enormous contribution to the u. K. s defense. I will be making a speech soon which is its very important everyone in the rest of the United Kingdom emphasizes how much we benefit of scotland staying in the United Kingdom and thats something i feel passionate about. Were grateful, prime minister. And i think we got through most of the things we wanted to get through. I think you would have gathered that we are very anxious about the National Security strategy, that the next one will be better. One point we have made repeatedly is how much we would like to see it drawn outside experts and other views. Without any disrespect to the people we have. A couple of times its been suggested that the government might consult this committee and we very much hope that it will and we will do our best to be cooperative and helpful. Thank you. In the end, the government has got to own this document. So its got to reflect our collective view. But the more input and also identifying gaps and weaknesses that your committee does frankly the better. Very kind of you. Thank you very much indeed. Order, order. The meeting is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] tomorrow treasury secretary jack lew will get the Bipartisan Policy Center in d. C. Recently sent a letter to lawmakers that the government would likely reach into Borrowing Limit by the end of february unless there is congressional action. We will have that on monday and 90 and eastern on cspan 2. You can share your thoughts on twitter by using the cspanchat. And the center for National Interest is hosting the u. S. Russia relations event. It will also be on cspan 2. Cspan, we bring Public Affairs events from washington directly to you, putting in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete devil coverage of the u. S. House, all as a Public Service for private industry. We are created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. A look at some of the issues young voters are more interested in. From this morning washington journal this is 30 minutes. We continue with matthew segal. We looked at the young people and their take on the state of the Union Address. For those of you 1829, give us a call on the number on your screen. For all others, give us a call on the other number understanding. We will talk about the state of the Union Address. Guest lets do it. Tuned inmillion people to the state of the union. Over 100 million will tune into the super bowl. What does that say about Civic Engagement in our country when you three times as many people watching a Football Game . For thethat is endemic larger disenchantment we have seen with congress not being able to produce any results. The president trying to govern with a pen and a phone, which is to a certain degree unrealistic. I think what the speech was as optimistic as possible, there the some good steps in right direction, particularly around the minimum wage. I do not think it had the grand ambition or really honesty, the great to realize any true action. To me and to many young people, while it was a motivating speech, i dont inc. There is a lot of confidence it will result in anything tangible. Host this is one of the headlines. This is from the desert news out west. It does not just the jobs. Millennials what a kinder, smarter, cleaner society. Does that summarize . Guest i would say thats true. I would say absolutely they want cleaner, kinder. If you look at the statistics around young people who believe in Climate Change and want action on it. They want kinder in that income inequality is a huge problem. And young people are some of the most likely to make minimum wage. In fact, there is just a piece in the atlantic that talks about how the average 27yearold in america is more likely to earn 15,000 per year as a 27yearold than 40,000 a year. So the wages are awful. And the Student Loan Debt and the underemployment and the personal debt are severe. And so when you have that, clearly also in juxtaposition to the fact that there are wealthy people who have done so well, i think i read something that said about 85 of the wealthiest people on earth own more than 50 of all bottom people in the world. So thats 2 billion people who have cumulative wealth akin to 5 people. So in terms of a Kinder Society to answer your question, i think a Kinder Society would look at how were going to make sure that people have a better opportunity of achieving wealth. Host and that headline is based on a study by deloite consulting which surveyed 8,000 people young people born in the late 1980s to the early 2020s from 2 countries and looking at what the millenials are focusing on. Asked what the top issues facing society. Only one of the top three was economic. Giving global surprising on the economic conditions. Its also may not surprise people that Climate Change was at 32 and wealth inequality also at 32 . Topping the list. Not surprised. Not surprised at all. Host good morning. Independent how old are you . Guest im 30. I was calling actually to ask about the last guys who were on talking about the constitutional guys. And i also believe that ties in to what were talking about right now the Voting Rights. Which is we dont actually get a fair say at whats being voted on. We have people who go to college, literally they cant get a job. It seems like you can only go to a few colleges such as princeton, such as yale. And like your man was just speaking about right there, you have one portion of the country making massive amounts of wealth and you have everyone else whose going to school and trying to do this and that and they cant even acquire 2 of the wealth. What about the transfer students from china who are coming in and more than 100,000 transfer students here in the u. S. And their economy is doing nothing but going up and we cant even transfer more than 2,000 kids there to go to school. And our economy and our wealth is just dropping. I think voters need to really sit down and ask themselves what is clean energy . Im sure its all the energy sources. Im pretty sure that we talk about military benefits and our veterans and this and that. Well, if anybody serves in the military, if youve gone to work you dont want somebody taking your benefits, taking your money or anything from you that you believe that you earned. Host thank you for the call. Guest i think so many of his points are spot on. But they really boil down to one key issue which is democracy reform. Democracy reform will solve so many of the other issues you just outlined because it will make the large poddy of representatives, senators we have more accountable to us, the people. And the reason for that is right now our democracy is a sham of what it should be. Its broken. The system of Campaign Finance we have is a joke. Theres so much money thats filtered into the political process. And clearly politicians are very accountable to that money and not accountable to the broad majority of their constituents. I think the fact that Voting Rights is something you raised is right spot on in the sense that young people in certain communities are having a more difficult time expressing their voice given restrictions weve made that have made voting more difficult unfortunately. And when you also look at gerrymandering in districts and the way that districts are drawn, the conclusions of elections are quite predictable. So politicians dont really have to govern to the majority of people. They have to govern to what the likely bases in their districts are where the money is. And for the rest of the time they can often manipulate voting laws to govern outcomes in their favor or to dictate outcomes in their favor. So democracy reform is critical as a means to ensure that more people can actually vote and express their will. And then i think you will see some of these issues like the minimum wage become a no brainer. Youll see College Affordable t and really lowering the cost of college become a no brainer. Youll see Energy Reform become a no brainer. Because as you just pointed out in the survey, millenials have positions on most of these issues. Its not a 50 50 divided country on Climate Change. Its not a 50 50 divided country on wealth inequality. So why are these outcomes not happening . Its because the democracy we live in is not accountable to us. Host our conversation with the cofounder and president of an Organization Called our time. You can get more information on line at our time. Org. Hes also a contributor to the huffington post. And andrew, who is 20 years old joining us. Caller thanks for having me on. I just wanted to say i was watching the state of the Union Address and i was the only one in my house. I go to college. And i was the only one in my house to watch it and that amazed the lack of politicalen volvement with my generation. I