tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 18, 2016 10:00am-11:31am EST
people do not give the president enough appreciation. when going to be a sad day obama leaves office. we need hillary clinton in the chair when he leaves. the issues going on today, we have people over doing it. is no talking like it issue at all. nothinger talk about about the people but what each other has done and how they can beat the democrats. they do not care about us. issue, donald trump will tell them -- host: we are running out of time today. that is going to be our last call .
we leave you with a live look. have a great monday. see you tomorrow. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we continue with the live picture. washington, d.c. it is in the southwestern part avenue.independence it is a little chilly and windy. we expect crowds will gather as ceremonies continue this afternoon. it is a day of service as people
gather. we have a social media question today. what are the social media issues today? you can leave them on our facebook page. someso honoring dr. king of our programming. tonight, martin luther king was interviewed by four journalists, a series that was distributed internationally will cannot be shown in the united states until 12 years after production. king'sxcerpts of dr. speech from 1963, coming days after he was released from jail in georgia. the best way to achieve racial quality. 8:30 eastern on american history
tv. coming up this morning, british parliamentary debate on banning donald trump. 100,000 teachers are needed, calling for donald trump to be banned. we will have that debate beginning at 11:30 live right here on seas and. , the australian prime minister live discussing u.s.-australian relations here on c-span. >> tonight, republican commissioner discusses key topics being considered by the fcc, including speed of broadband deployment across the
u.s. >> broadband deployment is one of the key drivers of economic growth. there has been a democratization of entrepreneurship. i see people using the broadband connection to build businesses. previously they would have to migrate to one of the coasts. that is really powerful. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. british prime minister testifying last week. the prime minister answered questions about climate change and refugees.
inclusive as possible. >> some of this goes to my concern about turkey and turkey putting the turkish government's fight ahead of the wider interests. what can you tell us about your reading of turkish policy and turkish intentions, at how much good faith should be placed in turkey's commitment to getting these talks so we can fight isil? the british government will
do everything they can to say to andallies that the enemy that is where the focus should be. helping to bring iraq and they have taken some important actions and this is ongoing and that is the right approach. seenw that the intentions opaque, this is not a good place to be. >> we would like them to be more
focused then they are. that is improving and changing. look at the work on the turkish border and the supplies and oil britain, including in i would say they are stepping up . we need to encourage that. over there a parallel policy towards afghanistan? game seems to be a double being played by pakistan? fairdo not think that is a . comparison suffered at the hands directly. citizens. losing clearly, if you talk to the
turkish politicians, they do about kurdish havered terrorism and you to understand that. committed to rating syria of -- to ridding syria of isil. >> i would like to start with see assadination to and his regime removed. you and i and a large majority of mp's voted for the invasion of iraq and the removal of saddam hussein. in the light of what we know
happened, do you share my view that we voted the wrong way and that it was a terrible mistake, even though saddam hussein was a terribly brut dictatoral? >> i do not choose to take that view. there are important lessons to learn, what happened afterwards, the dismantling of the armed forces, the regime. state.as no authority or biggest problem of all and we can learn a lesson from that. conclusions between these gasolinehey are both
-- ghastly. we see most recently using hunger as a weapon of war. you can say that was brutal if not worse than those things. because we have learned a lesson that i referred to it and the lesson is sometimes you can remove a uputal dictator and you end with a worse situation. the same thing happened in libya. do you accept if there isn't a secularetween a brutal alternative, it
can make sense to be -- to leave the dictator in place. it is impossible to envision a situation to which a sod stays in power and syria is a threats. there is the migration crisis engulfing europe and a large assad. a sod -- is inlong as you have assad power, you are in danger of broken terrorist style state in western syria.
idea that isthe the alternative view in which you say the one that is least bad and make an accommodation to them because i do not think that will work. you will still have the problem of the migration problem. looking to ask yourself at those people starving to prospect there any they could be part of a server. that he cannot be part of a future of syria is a political fact. i do not go down the comparison. learned frome
previous conflicts in terms of having plans for reconstruction in terms of -- i agree with all of that. >> it seems to me you still subscribe to the view that there is a third alternative, some sort of democracy. we have to choose the lesser of two evils. we're going down -- there is a third option and that the opposition -- decisive, air be strikes need to act in support of credible forces on the ground. you famously told the commons 70,000int intelligence,
moderate fighters whom we can support. if these people are fighters, there can be little grounds for sequencing about their identity. name the you supposedly moderate groups in whose name these fighters are in the field? >> let me be clear about terminology. asked for is when i to give me the best estimate. ,000 non-extremist fighters in syria. signed upentatives for the geneva principles. if you're arguing are these people democrats, we would share
the view of democracy. islamistelong to groups and the hardline. that was the best estimate of the people we have to work with. the reason for not breaking down in huge amounts of detail who they are, is simply this. we're giving president assad and not myas -- that is approach. publishedave been which should identify groups of various sizes including the army that has a large number of small and desperate affiliates to it. if the government won't name these moderate groups, it
becomes impossible that any assessment to be made of whether they are moderate or extreme. government officially publishing a list. i a being verym frank with you. they are not all in the right places. they are not the people in the conference. i would agree with all those assessments. you go back to this. between thehird way d, theand president assa butcher remaining in charge? we have to find a third way. it should involve people who
have taken part in the state run by assad. we do not want to dismantle that. to argue that the sunni majority hopelesso or extreme to take part in the future, there is despair i would have to try to find his third way opposition gropups. a large number of them you want democraticverse regime in syria that we should be supporting. i do not think we have a lot of choice to support that. tha doesn't include thet 20,000 kurdish fighters in syria. makether point i want to
about the 70,000. what on earth are the 240,000 troops that assad has? >> i have no doubt that there are a large number of troops in syria who have been fighters and have been fighting assad. are they moderate or not? youuld like to approach with a more informative answer. question by the defense secretary. he was asked which moderate non islamist group with incredible ground forces other than the kurds fighting in syria.
he replied on the 26th. forcesare a number of focused on fighting the assad regime. alecto. the vast majority of these groups are islamists. unless there is a mistake in the secretary of state's answer, it reveals that they are in many cases islamist. that's why i urge you to be able to inform choice between the options of a secular brutal dictator and islamist alternative. you need to be told more about
the composition as we are mounting airstrikes. >> i have given you my answer about what we have published. some of the opposition forces are islamist, some are relatively hardliners. and some of them are more secular democrats. there are groups who we would if you are arguing there are not enough of them, i agree. that is the point. every day we do support moderate forces. they are hit by assad. >> have you might consider it
might be somewhere between this detail that could give assistance to assad and more credibility to that number which you put into the public domain? >> i've given the answer. >> people are going to wonder whether this is -- >> all i can say is, we had an nsc discussion and they was questioned and probed on the figure. the americans have said that is within their estimates. it was the top end of their estimate. if you want to -- you are saying that
no one is going to believe in. that is why we have the jic, for precisely this purpose. >> it is going to increase your credibility. is it fair to say the libyan deprived thehas mostn of one of isil's ruthless opponent? latter days ofe extremist groups like al qaeda and famously moving towards that end. i don't think we should look back formally to the time of qaddafi. >> i am asking whether we lost
the -- on theifest shortcomings right side. >> towards the end of this time mr. cameron: toward the time of his end, he may have been on the right side but we are still dealing with the ira who had dealings with gaddafi and i don't think that was a golden era in libyan relations. we have a growing problem with justil franchise in libya as we have isil franchises in many countries around the world. the truth is, we are dealing ideologyxtremist taking hold in all states that are fractured, broken or insufficient in any way and you see that with boko haram and nigeria, al-shabaab in somalia,
and i think this point towards a missile can kill a terrorist but good governance is what killed terrorism. to build strong, inclusive governments that can deal with the people. >> you have said that there are lessons to be learned from these earlier interventions. notave to be careful about dismantling states and having plans for reconstruction. that went disastrously wrong in libya as well, didn't it? now we are in a terrible mess. the libyan people were given the opportunity -- qaddafi was threatening to shoot his own people like rats. an international coalition came together to protect his people and help the libyan people who then got rid of qaddafi. to buildan opportunity what they said they wanted.
that opportunity wasn't taken. a lot of assistance was offered. i took the libyan prime minister to the g8 in northern ireland. it was impossible to deliver that sort of government. there's a new opportunity now, with the coming together of a libyan national government to try to deliver that. the critics of these things, the choice we made in libya, partly at the request of the libyans demiseves, was with the of qaddafi was not to go in heavy-handed with boots on the ground and construct their government. they said they did not want that and it would be counterproductive. they said they could put together representative institutions. are saying these things are complicated to get right, they are.
that. not saying the humanitarian area of this balance sheet does not look good. the failure to create a state has created a breeding ground for isil. it cameron: we tried to do in a way that was more remote than what had happened in iraq, but on this occasion, clearly it did not work. you are having some intractable issues my colleagues have raised. i want to ask you about something within your power that you can deal with. just say yes to these propositions because they are unlike these others. they are about what you do and what the government does. what i would like to ask you about is the issue of killing by drones, which you told the house to a targetedion
killing by drones in syria carried out on the 21st of august. you came to the house to tell us about it on the seventh of september. i have two questions about this. is, will you agree to the suggestions you actually sat down and writing, publish the policy about targeted killings by drones. what you said in the house of commons, we had statements from the defense secretary and a number of different statements, but what we haven't had, and you said when you came to the house of commons in september that it was a new departure. we need to be clear what the legal basis is, what the operational framework is, and what this policy is.
the situation is different in syria now because we voted for the use of force in syria. the same issue could be raised in issue with someone being killed in yemen or someone else where someone is killed and we cannot apprehend them. this is athing, serious issue. you have acknowledged that. instant of us trying to piece it together ourselves by putting together what you have said, for giving operational frameworks is not good enough. you could easily resolve this by actually having a policy that would deal with, amongst other
things, we have worked out that there are people who are targeted to be killed on one hand, there are people you don't want to kill on the other hand, but there seems to be a gray area of people who are not the target, but if they are killed, , like the twoght people killed on the way first of august. i think we should know who is in this gray area. use youngen daesh children -- for example if there was a young children there used someones, is there there that it would not be all right to be killed? mr. cameron: it's very interesting but i don't have an absolute answer. my argument would be i set out
very clearly in the house of commons the approach that we take. i explained that we don't publish legal advice for well-known reasons you would be familiar with. but i feel there is a clear policy there. when you say why not set it out in the same way the americans do, the americans have a far larger and more extensive program ranged across afghanistan and elsewhere. i don't think the two situations are comparable. what i said was i always reserve , andight to take action then i set out the reasons and legal advice. the question you were asking, as it went on, it's difficult to write all of these things down in a policy and it might get us into more difficulties. the principle is simple -- if we
would only take action in the wherextreme circumstances there were no other actions available and we were acting legally. to write somened policy statement along the lines you suggest. i think it would be quite difficult to do. i think what i have said in the house of commons is sufficient. i can see some disadvantages to a two are saying because we could potentially write out something that doesn't envisage all the circumstances and either mislead the british public in some way because we haven't thought of the circumstances that could occur or, in another to peopleintelligence who might seek to do us harm. then they would know how to avoid the coming risks themselves, if that makes sense. >> i don't think there's any
suggestion these should be legislated, nor should it be done in such a way that it is giving intelligence duration away. -- intelligence information away. but i would say the statement to the house is not good enough in terms of the information that needs to be there. the second question i would like to ask is about the question of independent accountability for this action once it has been taken. somebody ine kill the line of their activity, it is automatically reviewed by the ipc see -- the taking of the life, somebody looks at it and says was is justified? don't you think there should be some independent oversight after to ask waskilling
there sufficiency of evidence? was it the right person in this case? there sufficient avoidance of collateral damage? inside of a just being done and coming to the house and saying we have done it, there's some independent oversight. i'm sorry, this is a long question again. but we have the intelligence for the security committee, why can you let them do that and then some accountability and you know there is proper accountability? the ifc are looking at the intelligence around the british ordered strikes i mentioned. good.s all for the
they are more powerful and the defendant may have been before. it seems i should not determine are.their investigations the only thing i would say is that they can't do is look at current operations. sometimes, these things are part of an operation of potential operations. i want to be careful not to hamper the work to keep the country safe. i'm sure they will be able to on future occasions, i'm sure we can find a way through this, but i want to make that reservation -- that sometimes, it could include other people so there would be a danger of investigation going on. >> i think they are not looking at yet. the thing about current operations is we can get into
some areas where these operations might go on many years. the point is to have a quick look to give independent oversight. to ask for you to publish the like easy it seems things for you to say yes to and bearing in mind the progress there's a lot of these other questions. i think it would make sense to agree to that one on oversight. they are not being allowed to look into this. mr. cameron: they are. the ifc are looking into the intelligence. we have written to them to say just that. i would make one additional point -- these decisions are in no way made lightly. they are one of the most difficult decisions a prime
minister has to make. you have important legal advice and the legality of the act that we take has to be confirmed through the process. unthinkable to , but thatenerations is what takes place and rightly so he these are important decisions. in novembero you and got a reply and it is amazing the effect these hearings can have. because what i this is you are not actually giving the ifc what they need to do. the system. through
this was a military operation, wasn't it? it was an operation in defense of the united kingdom to protect us against attack using a military asset. you can put whatever label on it you like. excluded the circumstances around the use of that military operation, haven't you? mr. cameron: i haven't. i said they can look at the intelligence around it. currently we are toaged in an operation defeat a terrorist organization intending to blowup, kill, and maim our citizens. that is what is going on. we have to focus on that and
think about how we keep this country safe. if you don't think there is a cell of people planning to try to do damage to this country, you don't know what you are talking about. excludedif you have the military aspect. if you look at the memorandum of , you will see therly -- i have to admit font size makes it pretty difficult to read. it says general military operations are not part of the ifc's oversight responsibility. you are clearly telling me that is not part of their work. how can they do their job and examine that if they are not able to look at that? mr. cameron: their job is really
about -- is this a justified decision is the question you want to ask. that depends on the individual and what their intentions were. that information will begin to he ifc -- >> whether the use of force was necessary and proportionate. needder to do that, they to look at the specifics of the operations. mr. cameron: they should look at the intelligence. why don't you ask me whether it i'mroportional -- responsible for this. you can ask me. >> we ask you on the floor of the house and you say if we want reassurance what you are saying is a correct judgment, we should not rely on what you say in the house. mr. cameron: that is not what i said at all.
you should rely on what i say in the house. i am here to explain this important and significant thesion and i'm giving detail under advice in order not to give away our capabilities. i'm able to give further answers to questions about whether it was necessary and proportionate. if it wasn't proportionate, it would not have been given the legal sanctions. >> i think we have agreed you whether itthe ifc would rely on the judgment you made. i think the reason for the ifc to do the work is i the intelligence we have about these individual people. that would go against common
sense and good practice and everything we can think of. that is why we have an ifc that looks at the intelligence who are trusted members of parliament who are not going to reveal it publicly. they can come to the decision whether the government made or did not make this decision. >> it must cross your mind that it would include if they can look at the specific aspects of this operation in order to judge of thesertionality cases. ist would conclude the work incomplete. work could be rendered meaningless. mr. cameron: i don't agree with
that for a moment. it has been described for the house of commons. was.ue that it isc looks at intelligence -- i think you are wrong. they are not the intelligence defense committee. they are not responsible for looking at military assets. they are responsible for looking at intelligence and that is what they are going to do. >> you have not yet acted on it in the legislation and that's what i'm asking you to do in public -- ve the mr. cameron: i don't agree. i think the public eye and large understand the threat we face and that this is an ongoing operation. i think by and large they
probably support the action that we took because they can see it is necessarily -- necessary and important. want to know the government doesn't do these things without thinking hard. that's why we have an attorney general. why's why it is a tale -- the intelligence is examined by the security committee. and other aspect of the work of the ifc would be imperiled by the fact that under the legislation, the somewhat more powerful ifc, but many would has to rely ongh what is authorized for release by the secretary of state. they can withhold information. all you now agree information relevant to this held by your secretaries of state will be released and
withhold the power to that it would not be exercised in this case? i would not be inclined to say that is an easy thing to answer. that is why i'm trying to be frank with you and say i will -- my distinctive -- my answer would be no. >> we have this committee full of intelligence cleared people and we can rely on their assurance. mr. cameron: that is all well and good but let me answer -- >> but you have instructed them to do this -- mr. cameron: let me tell you why
my instinct would be worried about it. you have to be incredibly with information. it could result in someone's death. the source that gave you this information could be at risk. you have to understand -- you asked me a question, let me answer it. you are asking me if the government should have no hold back on the information the government gives to the ifc. there might be some intelligence so sensitive that its release in anyway could endanger the source of the intelligence. the government should keep that in as tightly held as possible. there may be situations where you can't answer that. that, would you release the information. mr. cameron: i am not going to give you that information either.
you can have this information, that document, we can set out this policy. you can't take the action to keep your country safe. give you aner answer then say that we have layered ourselves and bureaucracy so we cannot take action to protect our own interests. >> i'm going to say something nice. mr. cameron: this is all nice. you onnt to congratulate reaching your target of 1000 syrian refugees by christmas. mr. cameron: thank you. >> and ask you how it jumped so rapidly when it was 252 in september to 1000 by christmas. saycameron: i would like to i waved a wand and it happened. at these things take time to wrap up. the minister i appointed have --
has done a great job. the local authorities came help.d with offers for there was a huge amount of work processing these people but there was a lot of drive to 20,000,ate when we said including 1000 before christmas, that we meant it. i am delighted we meant it. ofpeople like the archbishop canterbury, to house refugees, it has been turned down. tableoffers remain on the , they are high profile individuals. again at these offers that have been made who wish to be part of the solution? i think to get this off to a good start, asking local authorities who could
provide either public or private housing, who could put in place all the procedures necessary, i think it was the right way to do it. i'm happy to look at that. the events that happened in cologne recently -- do you think angela merkel went too far in making the offer she did to those coming into europe question mark -- coming into europe? continental european powers face a very difficult situation because people are coming into europe in large numbers. we have a discussion about doing more at the border and we should . we can have a discussion about european countries being generous as britain has been helping them stay in the country . germany has been a very popular destination, but i will leave
the german politicians to the german people. we are adjourned for 15 minutes. i hope you very much see you again. mr. cameron: i look forward to it. >> order, order. mr. prime minister, we are going to begin whether or not we are quarried. >> one of the concerns of migrants coming into this country is the number of terrorists who may have been masquerading as refugees. one of the terrorists crossed the border with a fake syrian passport. recently 10,000 fake syrian passports manufactured in bulgaria were seized. what are we doing to help other countries in the eu to deal with this important subject? mr. cameron: we are doing everything we can to make sure border information is robust.
borders, we can stop anyone from coming into the country. we have turned away 93,000 foreign nationals since i have become prime minister and 6000 eu nationals. it helps if there are good and robust border controls another countries, particularly half of europe's external border. my sense is that they are improving. it gives us vital information that when we can match up with our data, we can spot when people who might be a risk are traveling. month, we had passenger name records. this security argument about how the eu can work together.
there is a lot more to be done. >> there is a concern that the leader for the attacks in paris came into the country, went to arming him through it over and return to paris. the country,nter you have checks on entry, it takes just one person doing this to cause a lot of concern. trying to dowe are everything we can to marry the with theave the people border data to share that onermation and that is why of the reasons we never took down the borders, we think it is important we do that work and don't rely on others.
but we get better approach is right across europe so we have that information as well. always stop people who want to do harm? that tocult to give guarantee because some of the people we are talking about our foreign nationals. i have been to a number of european councils about this. .here's real impetus people think that's exchanging passenger information. it's not just information about passenger names. iat information can be vital -- i just want to say i think this is an area of progress, an area where we need to do more,
and i think we can end up with the best of both worlds. >> i agree with all of that and it's going to be helpful. he was a member before he gave up his passport. by the time the metro police wrote to him on the seventh of sinceer, it was 36 days he was asked up to give up his passport on the 30th of october. these are letters in the public domain. theow you can't talk about individual case but taking the principle out of this, the need to seize passports and give powers to take passports when giving police bail, i appreciate
you have other things to do but the head that gave ordnance to the home affairs committee, to which he refers to the bill powers, they need to be tougher. they are making an immediate passport handover a condition of bail and it was concluded that a bail was a criminal offense. would you support the change in the law that would allow the police to seize those passports when giving bail? cameron: i knew that mark riley was excited to make remarks at your committee because frankly there's more we need to do. he wasn't on it when he was arrested. so the police couldn't legally was him while the passport
sought and his home address was searched. i think the point you are making that determining nationality, seizing passports, being done more quickly, is a good idea. i came from a meeting with the national security council where we were looking at the porting national offenders and illegal over stayers./ back why we comes cannot determine nationality and get the papers faster. i think in all these areas we need to -- another thing i think we need to make sure that information like those on bail is automatically put on to warnings and checklists and i think there is more the police can do. radicalization, i know you feel more should be done to take down jihadist websites from the internet. do you support the works of
groups like anonymous and the ghost security group who have taken down 2002 at 259 websites and 19,000 twitter pages that encourage people to go and fight in syria? do you think we should encourage -- cameron: i certainly encourage taking them the website, i don't know about anonymous to encourage whether they are doing the right or wrong thing but i think we have a right to take down websites and we are working with internet companies. we make major breakthroughs on child pornography and searching for a decent term if you're a member. and they said we cannot do this it is free speech and then they thought they could and should sameow we need to make the conversation on extremism to make sure these sorts of things are removed. so we can ignore the bell when it rings.
>> and sure we can agree when refugees come from syria, we want them to be well-received. to our select committee back in september, he said he was trying to find a way of ensuring any cost on the council for taking refugees into the community, the net costs would be supported by the government. and in a statement, the chancellor said it was being used for the resettlement of refugees including local councils to help with their additional cost. into this,es come counsel should be rate against -- recommenced for the cost. : from theirn
there's a tariff basis from 5000 pounds per person in year two for 1500 per person in year five. wellnk we have done very getting this done before christmas. i would encourage the councils that are welcoming these people to encourage them to start to build a life for themselves here. they have the right to work and ,ave the status for the label but they can fully integrated to the community and seek a life that is better. >> i think we would agree with that as well but --
it could lead to friction which we don't want to see. i'm not sure if there has been money identified for health services or for schools. many of the refugees are going .o come with problems maybe they don't speaking the sure have not been in education for quite some time. a government movement. david cameron: as i said we would fully fund the year one and have this ready for future years. i think the central government can say to local authorities we can reimburse you for any cost, i don't think it would be the right approach. the authorities came forward and said we want to help and the government is playing its part and locals play their part. that you woulda say we are going to fund every single element of what this family does, i think you would
be hard to arrange. i think people would see it as unfair and i think this tariff system is a fair approach. those that have longer waits and dr. practices and people getting displaced from schools because additional places haven't been funded. you mentioned local authorities but many of these costs are on the health service which is not local government. many are on the school system which is outside the control of local government. classes,for english that they can get into the jobs you mentioned. how will those costs be funded? you don't mention any of the money for the parties involved. david cameron: we have a well-funded service with health budget and well-funded schools and protection for people. that reflects what happens if people numbers go up. for ak we have a system
country that is capable of welcoming. 20,000 was a reasonable number. i think we are more than capable of delivering that sort of what -- help. if you think of the people that come to britain as refugees in a manage how wee don't fund those areas that receive the refugees and that is one finer point but can we have reflection on the general thing of refugees? i think the thing of asylum-seekers who have a lot of support, the records available show they were actually three in the local authority. none in a local authority. 718. should we give them this floor too? they aren't public supported. in the case of
the syrian refugees we are keen to encourage authorities to come forward and we dead and you have a good group of authorities going forward. there is or is a question of where housing is most available, where capacity is most available. there is a danger of alienation and isolation in rural communities. system fromited the we hope theyt and come forward. >> but nothing on how refugees are funded in terms of health care? david cameron: i think we have set up one of the most generous systems anywhere. sharing, which is what it should be. i'm confident it will work well. is still the issue that those
receiving the refugees, that there is no additional money put into these systems. there is a very complex and real need that other people and this community will find their services at risk and i don't think that's the best way to encourage the welcoming of those refugees. i think you might mitigate things. is there a response? i was out there as part of the environmental committee in paris as part of the legislators that put into practice what the outcomes of the paris top 21 negotiation and agreement will be. to pass myy congratulations on to those not only at the conference but in the years leading up to it doing so much work to achieve what i think, broadly, can be welcomed. you know as i do that it is
nothing unless it is an cemented .nd ratcheted up year on year what do you feel about the outcome of the top 21? david cameron: i thought it was pretty good given that in the weeks running up to it, it was wasing like two degrees beyond our grasp and that there would be no review mechanism. it was looking like any reference to progressive increases in ambition would be struck out. it was also looking like declining financed embers wouldn't come together so it was a lot of things which i thought really didn't look that good. be a confident there would deal because i think the fact that china and america decided to be on board this time so there will be a positive outcome. that was better than kyoto. because of the hard work of secretarye that trade
who is there throughout as a key negotiator, that we got that review mechanism and had two degrees to be kept in touch with. and agreed there was further ambition necessary. it was a good, comprehensive deal. as you said, now there is a limitation and -- >> what do you draw from the experience of actually working up there with the european union, particularly with the work around the high ambition coalition? this is a perfect example not only of u.k. leadership but eu leadership as well. david cameron: i think that the u.k. played quite a key role in getting the eu to a higher ambition and they were able to say to the rest of the world that we have really got big ambition in terms of the greenhouse gas reduction. and also because europe had other mechanisms in terms of
pricing and targets on renewable energy. a figure at the european nations and britain within that if you look at we dead on private finance, we were leaders of the pack. -- if you look at what we did on private finance we were leaders. leading up to the conference, climate finance was essential nations hadloping to sign up to an ambitious deal. the wealthier countries were going to support them in mitigating and addressing concerns. >> but how we deal with that international clement finance and where that will come from. can i ask you, really good british leadership over a prolonged. time,longed amount of does it make you reflect on a referendum? i think that:
britain's membership with the european union has benefits where we work together for common goals. think in this area where we have been the lead, yes. great britain takes a very strong view about this development. we are one of the few with the only g7 that is reach the target. we did a very strong view on climate change and have the legislation. the last government was supported by me and opposition on climate change and since then we have had a absolute revolution in terms of the last government backing and financing in terms of renewable energy. so we are able to lead by example in these forums including in the european union. >> could i turn it back a little? with that note of optimism, particularly in the last year, what is concerted criticism about a range of sectors
short-term, uncertainty, you have criticisms straight off from the foremost lead. you have criticism from al gore who said on a range of issues, i am puzzled. although he has commended the outcome. all of those suggest there is a real disconnect between what's going on the u.k.. what is your response? david cameron: i completely disagree. i couldn't disagree more fundamentally. with all of those people. totally disagree with anyone who says that on the one hand, britain has helped to pioneer this climate change agreement and all the other hand it is somehow back siding. nonsense and i will go through it if you like.
>> you disagree with al gore even though he has commended the outcome, you disagree with the statistical analysis of ernest and jan which showed -- ernest and young which shows that the u.k. is tumbling down the scales and rankings. david cameron: to take one example. one example is great britain. lot about this the other day, one example where britain is backsliding. international investment in renewables. the u.k. has tumbled down where to invest. david cameron: first of all, the international green group that looks at countries and their commitment to climate change says that britain is the second
best in the world after denmark. that's the first thing. we are the second best country in the world. if you actually look at what is happening in terms of the deployment of wind, biomass, solar. 98% of the solar panels were stored in britain were installed by the former premise or. if you want to know what is going to happen to the cost of solar, it will be double in this parliament what it was in the last parliament in terms of our investment. whether you look at solar or offshore wind, where we have the biggest offshore wind market anywhere in the world and if you look at the green investment bank which is the first in the world, whether you look at the fact that we are reinvesting our nuclear program. how we are onet of the first developed countries to say we will cold -- phase out coal energy.
if there any other reasons why you think great britain is not fulfilling its been agreements. that is why u.k. greenhouse gases fell by 15%, the biggest reduction in a single parliament and the current estimate of 8% reduction for the previous years , one of the biggest on record for a single year. >> i can see that. can just ask you something? all of those are wrong. issue, because last week, the newly appointed chair. by the way to the national directly, and i quote our current approach to flooding was not only an adequate, but has no likelihood of ever being adequate. does the prime minister agree with that? david cameron: on the flooding, there is no doubt we need to do more. we have seen one in 100 year of
ansett and they happened in 2007, 2013, 2015, the country wants us to do more. i gave a great investment in terms of capital. your own recently appointed to the committees, not only is it inadequate now, it will never be adequate. pointing to us, we cannot do more of the same? david cameron: we need to do more by building flood defenses and getting better at river management and look at the way area systems work. we had a cabinet meeting this morning where we discussed these. i think you have a team of ministers who are absolutely on that. moreilitary came in quickly, the money was dispersed more rapidly, the flood prevention we had put in place with something like 20,000 homes. if you're asking if we can do more, yes we absolutely do.
you see an attitudinal change in the environment agency where i think we were trying to balance out the effects on nature on the one hand and protecting property on the other hand. the time for that is over. this is about protecting our homes. i want to see that continued shift and you saw that very directly at somerset. that is a man-made environment and it is ridiculous those andrs were being dredged it do we need an attitudinal change? yes we do. >> do we ignore fundamental change? only ask you. do you feel, as prime minister, who is committed to doing climate change, do you feel your hands are tied by short-term? by financial decisions in the treasury, are you a prime
minister whose hands are tied behind his back? i don't think that it all. we came to government to make tough decisions. the departments that were established by the previous government were involved in major spending reductions. there was a 50% cutting capital spending but when it came to the budget, we decided that's not right. flood defense spending had to be protected and we had to increase that flood defense spending. so to answer the question if we need to look at more than needs to be done, of course. these are very serious offense, terrible for the people who are affected. i've seen it myself. it's not just about flood defenses, it's the other things as well. that is what our views are all about. four-week continue, i think
it is worth noting 40% of the refugees coming to the u.k. and people have the most coming to the refugees particularly the editor who said he wanted us to be known for the warm humanity and willingness. think it is an inspiration for many communities and for us to aspire to. one of the cases you made before the action was there were 70,000 fighters. thatmpression i had was there would be 70,000 new fighters but these fighters are existing fighters that were talking about. david cameron: the 70,000 people was the best estimate by the joint intelligence committee of the non-extremist opposition that we are fighting, largely against. some are also fighting against daesh. the question set up by the foreign affairs select committee which is what ground troops are
there available in syria for you to coordinate with in terms of this campaign against daesh, that was the best answer i can provide. in thehen you spoke chamber talking about 70,000 fighters, were they knew or existing? david cameron: they were existing. these are people who were already in the battle space as it were. they were not additional kurdish onhters, they were people the ground. it was a very direct answer about what ground troops were available. two days ago, military defense, an independent monitor said the british airstrikes directly resulted in the gas of
200 did -- in the deaths of 272 civilians. david cameron: the information i have is that at the time we held the debates endow a correct myself i get it wrong is at the time of the debates, after all that action by the raf believe there had been any specific casualties. we take a very careful approach to minimize and eradicate civilian casualties wherever we can. but obviously we must look at them. >> so you will look at the reports of those i mentioned? people maken: points, we will take them away and look at them but we were very careful. to what wask
mentioned earlier, you rolling moving toward the objectives? david cameron: they are making a massive contribution. britain probably has some of the most advanced climate change legislation of any country anywhere in the world. then we have made good on not only having those things but actually meeting the budgets time off time. we have reduced greenhouse gases by 15% from 2010, over delivering against budgets. if you look at what we've done on low carbon energy, you're going to be doubling our investment in low carbon energy to 11 billion pounds. we have one of the largest solar installations of almost any country, the largest offshore
wind market, we have done what we said to do. we wanted to invest in renewable technologies because at the end of the day, if you will meet targets you will have to have renewable energy and provide a the cut -- an nuclear program. we are well on the way to delivering that sort of energy outcome. i think whether it is a first rate investment, the legislation thishe action we take in country and recognized by this international body that we are the second most effective country in the world for taking action on climate change, i think we have a good record. energy secretary told by committee that what's being done or not being done for what to meet the 2020 target, what is your rule on providing leadership to ensure the 2020 targets are being met by the department of transport? david cameron: i think she is making an important point which
is to answer your question directly, make sure we are taking action across government to meet these targets and deliver low carbon at the lowest cost. that is our aim. i think the point she is making is we need some important interventions and heating and transport. the electric vehicles that we have been subsidizing. i was in munich last week and they said we take the absolute right approach. pounds, -- billion have areem is what you the different sectors, transport, housing, heating, electricity. we are over performing in some sectors like electricity generation. we are going to meet our targets and more. ,nd some areas are less easy
sometimes because markets are not developing in the way you would like them to. heat was goinge faster but it is going to take time. i wish the price of electric cars was going down so more modest incomes could afford them. you have to adjust for what's happening in the market. i think this is for how we may carbon budgets work. it is not exactly where it comes from, we should be looking at this question of whether these work in the right way and i think that's what you was talking about. the confidence in my committee and we received a pro, the competition for investor confidence this confidence the range of technologies, we are supporting a competition, it was up to one billion pounds to bring forward a scale of carbon.
one month later it was strapped. it looks at one arm of government and who was pulling the strings to scrap that despite what they had set a month earlier? david cameron: decisions made collectively by the cabinet. explain, i think it is important. when we look at this renewable energy stuff, there is the criticism and if you are saying you can always criticize. i would argue if you look at biomass, thed and last government and this money into these , and have made big event is. you have to think as prime minister that every penny you put in is a penny that goes on someone's electric bill. spending and you have to look across the piece of
what it committed spending our money on? while i completely believe in the idea, you can take the carbon out of gas, you have then gas plants that are underachieving. but the economics are not working. pounds ofe billion capital expenditure. one billion pounds we can spend on flood defenses or schools. for health services.