Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140131

A significant threat to the infrastructure and Information Systems of u. S. Facilities. So i would like you to answer, do you support the quick adoption of the twoperson security rodeo staff recommended . The commission decided not to go forward with that at this time. Why . It was a commission decision. Why . Was the vote . Im not sure. No recall what the vote was. Does anyone recall what the vote was not to go forward with this . That you remember. Madam chair, the specific issue was that the staff had not completed the costbenefit analysis to assess whether any of the twoperson room was appropriate corrective legislation we dont have an answer to what the vote less. I dont recall if. Does anybody five people, its done a lot of people, 32, 41 . Of voting against. And review the . Voted against. How did you vote . I believe i voted against. How did you vote . I dont recall. I completely this is a big and important issue. And this business of a costbenefit analysis when youre dealing with a potential terror attack and the takeover of a nuclear plan, you have got to be kidding. Let me say, you have never done a costbenefit analysis for the appearance checking in the past. And you found the cost was minimal, less than a million the year. Wood said the benefit of presenting someone from sterling major it to have Nuclear Weapon material would be priceless. I would suggest if you dont move to reverse yourself on this there will be legislation. Thank you a chance to my colleague. Question no, i think oftentimes in government in washington in particular we become very process oriented and lose the forest for the trees every son just going to suggest a question not to be answered here, but suggested question for all of us to think about. Senator sessions went through the last september into energy announced it would not move forward. They announced it would scale back work. No if any of us as individuals think most of all for unsafe or not save enough, thats a good result close to a pro wheel of those were safe. Its a little severe. Ours breaks, congress, though establishment. They dont lose sight of it. First of all, madam chair, at your confirmation hearing you stated your clearly, to be effective a regulatory body must be independent from Economic Policy and political interests. In the majority opinion, judge cavanagh stated that the commissions political prognostications may not prove to be correct regardless. In mayor may not rely of political guesswork about future congressional appropriations. Did not considered a close call. Why did it take you a Court Decision will to move forward without legal mandate. Why was the Political Part rustication about political this work about congressional appropriation not being independent from political interest to consideration. Those decisions are made. I was not trying to secondguess the decision that were made in the best. I can assure you that we are fully complying with the courts decision and we are moving forward continuing with the proceedings. Were moving for properly and this. Lets move to that. The commission has repeatedly and knowledge in this order that it does not have adequate resources. Issue a decision. Is that correct . For to fully complete the lessons in decision. Issue a decision pursuant to the review. That you propose a supplemental budget . We have not. Have you taken any other action to solve the problem . We are complying with the Court Decision. Let me ask you about existing resources. The few minutes ago, nrc staff has increased 34 since 2000. Meanwhile, the expected increase in workload is never materialized. Quite the opposite. A huge increase in staff note in terms of applications for licenses. Are you moving any of that staff to solve this resource problem . I have a little chart here. Its been its a story. It shows in actual dollars and custom dollars. If you look at the custom dollar chart which is in red is the lowest its been since 2007 to my belief. And in that timeframe since 2007 a workload has increased significantly. We have been dealing with it. We have been dealing with confidence. We have been dealing with fukushima. In addition to all the other worker doing, the new construction work, all the work. We are actually now doing more less. Well, there will be a lot of folks who disagree with you, and that goes back to my original statement. If you become completely process oriented, im sure youre dealing with more because he created that process. If you step back at think you come to the opposite conclusion. As you know, those resources were given to you to meet in the expected increase in license applications coming increase insights can increase in nuclear reactors. None of that and seven. In regulations have multiplied almost exponentially. But that fundamental growth of the industry as of happened that me as my question about people because you will agree that at least since 2000 there has been a huge increase in body. Since 2000, we hit our maximum a couple of years ago and we have decreased in size since 2010 we never of 30700 employees. Okay. Will not that long ago it was 2500. There has been a big increase over that time from. Are you moving in the of those folks to solve the year career resource . Absolutely. Absolutely. Moved recently from something else. I can assure you that we are currently about 80 staff cut for dealing with this safety evaluation report. So we are going to be ready to go. But again i was talking about following the whole process through. You said several times you dont have adequate resources. Of talking about the broader challenge to a have to you propose to solve that . The budget appropriations has been settled. We are in a reasonable position going forward. Ellen s. My colleagues. Cook seeking congressional reprogramming. Activities used must be appropriated. They have to receive a congressionally program. A commission decision, something will have to decide as a body. I you considering making the request . We will when it comes up in the future. The office, the new reactors. Smooth the number of his personnel of the last two years because of the drawback and licensing. The action items the appropriate fiscally prudent use of these resources. Well, i hope you can understand my general concern, which is it took a court order to have the nrc follow they cleared a legal mandate. And even as that is happening their statements. We dont have decisions to follow through and get everything done. The review and decision. And so what will we start thinking about how we solve that problem. I dont hear any requests for reprogramming, any Significant Movement of individuals, even though there has been a major increase over a decade. Any proposal to allow in the. So can you all discuss how we solve that problem overtime and present to us in congress and everyone appropriate your plan for solving that problem, not just identifying the problem, not just pointing to the problem. Thank you. Thats all i have. I do a fair amount of travel and im chairman of the Homeland Security and i need to spend more do more travel. I need to do a better job this year now i had the first year of the chairmanship behind me. But i travel a lot. Some of you travel the chairman doesnt travel that much. She hasnt been on the commission as lock. Some of you travel a lot to japan. Thats understandable. Most of you travel to places where its less clear. I ask in term of taxpayer paying for your travel, where are you my understanding is that, eh, come not from taxpayer dollars but fees collected from the utility. Can you give me the break down. 90 10. 90 . I go to justified places. Its hard to criticize you. Explain why it is important and why you think i always like to think one trip i take is front page of the niewp and i have to defend it. Take that approach to it. And make sure that you use the good common sense. I want to turn to sandy. Sandy visited my state and our region of the country did a lot of damage. I think if it is real, i think it is were going it see more sandy in the future. Certainly we were actually very impressed with our licensees response to sandy. They were on the alert. They were all prepared. We were prepared. We had extra inspectors at the facilities ready and watching. So we were all ready to manage. The plants managed very well. The only plant that any kind of incident during that time it didnt achght the plant. Others. What are some thing you learned from sandy acting on now. We could have done better not just within the nrc but the planet themselves and the state and local government. Thank you for the question. We had the Commission Meeting earlier this month. We had one in public. We had our supervisor there. I think the licensing learned some things. We learned some things. The two comments i have regional coordination and the licensing and communicate with fema. On sight there was areas identified to enhance the procedure. Anything the nrc is doing to better ensure that our plants in the Community Around them are better prepared for storms like this in the future . Well, were certainly he asked our plants to reevaluate the flooding hazard at the plant. We are getting their flood hazard reevaluations in. We got a big trunch in last year. Were expecting another this year. To keep up with the potential for increases in flood hazard from Climate Change or what have you. We are on top of that and analyzing other aspects of whether and Natural Disaster events as we work through the fukushima tier iii dfts. Okay. How are they doing in the recovery . Somebody give us how are they doing in the recovery from their terrible disasters they were visited by . How are we doing . No. How are we doing. At fiewksha ma . Yeah theyre a sister state to us. Its a difficult situation. Its an unprecedented celebration. They are so make it up as they go. Its a constant issue of radiation leakage in to groundwater. They have a lot of water issues there. And theyre working very hard to minimize it. They lorelly, i think, are working around the clock. So, you know, but new problems will crop up and as commissioner noted. We are learning more all the time now about the accident or what happened. I appreciate the question from you, senator. There are some important programs to begin relocating from the fuel. Thats an important milestone that people in japan are watching closely. I think the biggest challenge say that have in japan, frankly, is to continue set schism the public has about the ability of the government and the regulators to speak clearly to requirements and making decisions. And they have the doubts. I think this will be a challenge for our colleagues. As they try to make good decisions. I think they are doing a good job. Its very high. Okay. Sticking with fukushima for another minute or so. In response to the fukushima event the commission continues to long list of Lessons Learned from the accident. Thats good. The nrc has several deadlines to meet in the next couple of years. I believe to meet the timeline established in march of 2012. Are there any lessons or issues that have been a lot more difficult than you might have expected. And so what have they been . Issues that have made achieving the activity . Issues more difficult to address than expected. I would say at this moment not districtly, no. We are learning as we go and shifting around a little bit as we go. We issued an order, for example, on hard to make them more more secure. Last year the commission revisited this issue and said, you know, we need make sure the vents are hardin them as possible open them in a scenario. They have to be able to withstand the conditions of an accident. The it temperature, pressure. Intense condition. We revised the order and reissued it. So these vents will be capable of being operated under those conditions as well. So were doing that as we go along. Chairman, it was last september along with senator sessions and barbara sew. We sent a letter encouraging them to streamline the lining process. Since we sent the letter we understand they implemented a new expedited process for approving it which designs. I was wondering for you might elaborate for us on that process. I have some foodback you received from the industry. How are we doing here . There are no complaint from the industry. I think we are doing fine as far as i know. Anybody else want to respond . No. All right. Can you give us an update . Yes. As i said, we have finished our Public Comment period of getting Public Comment on the way Environmental Impact statement. Were now in the process of going through those and addressing them and we will be about right now the estimate is one month over time. Well be done by the beginning of october. Our colleague the governor had on about the appropriate state and local government. We have a clear interest in the commission around the facility around our country including vermont. Theres clearly an interest. I would have it as welt. And the use of common sense to make possible state and local government to have and well followup senator sessions and follow up with you for further discussions. Thank you. I was have to confess i was hypoing that senator sessions would make it back because i always do so much better when i ask my questions after senator sanders ask his question. Youll find out in a minute. I let me ask this also. I really think, ive been here for quite quite awhile. I was the chairman of the committee a long time ago. I think we have an excellent commission. I appreciate your service. Its well balanced. I notice that youre going to be the next one that would be coming up for renomination. I hope you could continue on inclined to do so. I would appreciate your service to continue. In my opening statement, im going repeat something i said there. Its following up a little bit on what senator vitter was talking about. Maybe in a different way. I said that i remember so well. At that time i theired the committee. It was 2003. That the nrc asked congress for the bigger tbowngt build New Buildings and all the employees. By the way, i have some specific numbers. I have to say you werent here at the time. Youre off the hook partially. But they wanted to do this so they could add expected design certifications for new reactor designs and 17 of the thats not the normal we talk about. The construction and operating license. That was 4 and 17. That was actually at that time in discussing this. We were looking i went back and checked our note. E with would have to anticipate having the increase workload in three to five years. Its been a long time. And now ten years later, we only have approved one design certification. Its gone from one an expectations the design certification of 17 down one and two. Now i say this. I would like to get a response from each member maybe start with since you werent here. Tell me how it can happen. Why did it happen . I would note, senator, some statistics i found very quickly here that nrc does have under review right now three design certifications. And chairman is helping me out. I talk about underreview. We said at that time we would have those by three to five years. Not reviewing them ten years later. Some member of the committee noted in the opening statement. Some of the larger economic circumstances for the utilities that were interested in building these new reactors have changed somewhat significantly descrult some have suspended or withdrawn their application. Some have he creased the pace at which they are supporting the review of their application. By which i mean they generate questions. They indicated theyre content with a lower pace to our review. Some have become protracted for that reason. Because of timing. I come back and ask the same question of the other three. I want to get out thing in here. The nrc Near Term Task force in two japanese report determine that the disaster one we call made in japan. In other words, the cultural differences and the gaps that are out there. It would seem we need to have that determined. We talked about this way back in 2011 when it happened. We said there are difference here. There are cultural differences here. I would ask chairman has the nrc conducted a thorough gap analysis between the japanese and the united system and regulation to compare and contrast the complete picture compare u. S. And japanese nolgd more closely and wisely costeffectively suggest policy changes. Have we made that . We did a comparative study. But it wasnt comprehensive. We did no. In part because its to get in to the weeds of comparing the u. S. And japanese we have to translate all regulations to fullly understand the differences. Let me jump to the conclusion of the study we did. We found some similarities. And we found some differences. But the bottom line was there was no evidence that a fukushima type accident would have been completely avoided in the u. S. What ive learned from the fantastic staff at the nrc is that one of the most important things for regulator is operating experience. And the operating experience we have gained during the fukushima accident is significant. We did not prior to the fukushima accident expect or analyze for more than one retack or it at the sight to have an accident. That was not planned for. We had not prepared properly for extended longterm station blackout. No electricity. No backup sources. Were now addressing that. And do you know what . Every country with significant Nuclear Program around the world came to the same conclusion. They are doing the same. What i would like to have is the copy of the report you have. Certainly. Not as complete as we would probably want. I want to compare the note we took three years ago. On the change, for example. You have to go get permission and advance to do things we are through the nrc empower those people on the sight to do. And there are so many changes like that. I would like to ask, well, qap contain. Would you think its important for us to have the benefit of the complete report even more complete than the one we have right now . Senator, i appreciate the question. I agree with his response. I know, its been some discussion over the last couple of years. The committee. I think we have thoughtfully taken aboard the fukushima Lessons Learned including scope of japanese regulations in place at the time for those areas important. Okay. Well. We like to have the benefit of everything. While we talk about getting reports, miami chairman. Ive been watching closely to see do you have a date we would have the report . I think its about a year from january. But i need get back to you on that. Let me take it for the record. For the record, i would like to have you give me a date that we should anticipate receiving it. I think its to me, anyway, thats important. In the remaining time, i would ask the question in opening up how we can when were looking at oh. First of all, increasing staff. Its my information we have 900 more employees right now than we had in 2004. I dont know if it agrees with your chart. Take your chart, since this action took place in 2003, extend it to the three years prior to 2003. So we can get a better look how much came from the increased activity that we anticipated were going happen in design certification. So i wouldnt ask you take the chart. Go back to instead of starting in 2003 start in we can do that. In the rest of you in term have the increase from anticipating design certification in 17 and only getting one. Design certification. The ore three of you that didnt have a chance to respond to that tell me what im overlooking here . On the face we dont domestically look good. Thats a good response. How about you . Senator, i think when you look at what actually is taking place on the last several years, you find that the applicants and the licensees have actually struggled somewhat. Its a little bit dpircht than the gap im talking about. Theres been significant back and forth with the applicants over technical issues. Its taking longer than anybody thought. There are still review underway as we speak. Im almost out of time. Real quick, senator. Real quick. Two examples on design certifications. Met bee she had a design certification for the apwr. Submitting group backed off the resources to folks back in japan. The epr and the international community. My time is up. One more thing for my good friend senator sanders. 1115. Im afraid people wont one sentence. Okay. [laughter] out of your time. Thats good. Thats good. Do you think it was unfair me me to assert that perhaps were trying to egg late the Nuclear Energy out of business just like were trying to regulate the fossil fuel business out of business . Thank you for that with that we turn senator sanders. Let me begin. I know we disagree. We share your line of questions about the growth of employees at the nrc. And the commissioner said doesnt look good on the surface. I agree with you. Thats something we want to pursue together. The other issue i want to get back to the point i made earlier about the role of State Government and decommissioning process. Before i do that, i want to get to the voting issue. Every person up here is there any reason why every vote that you can cast should not be made public. Right down the line. Madam chair . I think there are when we vote very briefly. In the role, those votes, i dont believe. My point is give me an absolute. We have cast votes about whether we go to war or not. Some consequence. They are made public. Any reason why your vote how would not be peaked public. You think are some occasions where they should not. I yield back. I agree with that. And add if there are securityrelated matters those are not made public as well. Thats big word. Security. We can hide a lot of security. I agree with my colleagues. The vast majority are public. Every single one of our votes that come to us on sticky paper in the voting process are complete. They are made public. I happen to think that unless there are some extraordinary circumstance they should be made. Its my own view. Its an issue i want to pursue. I think Ranking Member vitter raised the issue of nuclear shut down in this country. The truth of the matter is in a rot of people concerned about Nuclear Power. We have concern about safety aspect of Nuclear Power. We are concerned about the cost. Many of my conservative friends here say over and over again they want the government to deregulate and out of the private sector. We see it every day. The truth matter of the we didnt have legislation like price anderson which is not a wellknown piece of law. If there was a nuclear disaster. Im noser sure everybody is aware. They would be called upon to come up with tens and tens and. Tens of billions of dollars to deal with the cost incurred. Am i right . You are correct. In the goal of getting to repeal it so we can leave the Nuclear Power industry alone. And not get involved in government. And i look forward to working with senator vitter or senator inhoff getting the government out of the Nuclear Power industry. Any volunteers . Okay. There we go. Im not going to volunteer. I want to underscore exactly what i said. I listed all of those shut downs. I said if you believe most or all of thesesighteds are not safe or not safe enough, then thats a good result. If you dont, and i think the vast majority of informed folks do not. Then i think its a failure upon our collective part. No more back and forth. Im nervous people wont get a chance. Finish your time. I have heard it sound so engaging. We have heard speech after speech about the government being involved in the private sector not letting free comprise dot thing. Here you have a situation without prize anderson. It is likely the Nuclear Industry in america will collapse tomorrow. Wall street whose job to make money dont think that ensuring Nuclear Power plant is a profitable enterprise. They wont do it. I look forward to working. The issue that i wanted to focus on. I want to mention in term of Nuclear Power i think everybody here knows germany is in the process of they are not dumb. Theyre in the process of phasing out Nuclear Industry. By the year 2020. People around the planet have different view. Here is the issue they didnt want to focus on that the role of states inte interrating my concerns. There are a number of states in which Nuclear Power plants will be shut down. California, vermont, elsewhere. It is enormous importance to the people in those states how the decommissioning process works. Will it take 60 years. Has been the case ten years. Will the people be satisfied about the lack of radio activity in the area . Where will the Nuclear Fuel Rod be placed . Who are get the jobs . What about the financial arrangement. All of which are very much concern. I can tell you to the state of vermont. I have flee questions i would like to ask brief responses to the complition. To you agree that states have a strong interest in u how the Nuclear Plants are decommissioned . I would agree the state and the public. Yes. Yes. Okay. Do you agree that it is fair and reasonable for the host state to have a real seat. I know, the real seat is not quite technical term. But a significant role to play during the decommissioning process . Not just a hearing. Not just giving their opinion. But having a seat at the table helping to determine the outcome. Let me explain something. Our regulation what we do is regulate the safety and security of the facility as they decommission. Lets talk about that piece of this. In that our relationship with the licensing. We are holding them accountable. Make sure they are providing safety and security. Now the public should have some kind of role. Question do encourage public engagement. We encourage strongly that the licensing form for some kind of Community Advisory board in which they could i apologize. I dont have a lot of time. Advice can be rejected. Yep. My question to you all is should the states themselves who have to deal with the consequences of the decommissioning process have a real as i understand real is not a technical term. Be part of the process such that if what is negotiated between the industry and the nrc is not satisfactory that will not happen. To be a real player in the process. Should the states have that type of authority . Very briefly. I think it depends on the specific situation in the state. I think there are more interest at stake than just the governor of the state. There are local interests as well. Those need to be represented. Its a very important issue. I think your rules right now are not satisfactory. I think you do not give enough not input. You dont give enough power in the Decision Making power to the people of the state. I would hope we had a chat about this. Change the rules. If you do not change the rule i will introduce legislation to make sure states have the authority. Thank you. Thank you, senator. You can continue on my support for that. Massachusetts has one. Senator sessions . Thank you. We dont want to get the government out, assume of solar, auto, ethanol, and wind power. How about oil . Oil . Not much except except 6 billion a year. Thats disputed fact. Okay. Whether its a tax break or a normal tax situation. Okay. I would like to see done in alabama. I dont know what they can. They sued vermont and multiple times. I guess they finally gave up and closed the plant. Thats all right. They dont want to hire have the electricity produce using carbon fuel or whatever. So be it. I would like to see clean Nuclear Power be used more around the country. Now i raise this concern because im worried about it. I think all of you are aware of the situation we have concerning constriction of Nuclear Power. And if states now second guess your Regulatory Power and maybe they have a right to do so. If they jump in and double up on the cost of closing a plant or opening a plant its u just one more burden and make it even less likely to have an expansion on Nuclear Power and more likely that we will see this decline continue. Im worried about it. You have been on the commission for some time. You observed these issues develop. Would you give your thought to us and share your thought about what might be contributing to the erosion of the Nuclear Power generation and the failure of new plant to get started that we thought would be started . Well, i think well acknowledged by economic the situation of abundant natural gas while good for the united effects the economic of both new nuclear but also current nuclear. And so from the regulator standpoint. Altogether we dont control any of the marc economic factors, i think that our pledge as a commission is to make certain that we do the most discipline sort of analysis and work so that we are only imposing regulations we analyze and justify. Is it possible these regulatory factor and thelet say the lack of final certainty over Waste Disposal in Yucca Mountain and cumulative cost are effecting the future of Nuclear Power . I support the commissions action to address the courts remand to us of our waste confidence decision. I think that the commission and the agency staff are taking quick and responsible action to address the deficiency that the court identified which were not the entirety of the rule we had put forward. But they the court asserted and found that or analysis and evaluation lacked certain point remedying those specific deficiency. And as the chairman noted we have delayed our schedule by one month. We still continue to push forward very aggressively. Its worse than that. They hammered for failure to meet this in violence of multiple requirements for law. It goes to the core of who i ares law in america. Congress passed law and we chose the sight. Its been authorized and directed. Fees have been collected and billions of dollars. Little action has been done. Wouldnt you agree courts promise was a real the decision was a correct teak of the failure to on the congressionally approved Yucca Mountain site. Yes. The courts language was of unequivocal and very strong. But we have taken action to address the writ. When will that be completed . We are providing monthly report to the committee. We dont have the team of nrc expert who address the work fully assembled. I believe the last e heard we have 75 of the expert assembled. As the chairman noted, i think they still tapet takes one year. She talk abouted that previously. I think if you need to reprogram money. Will the governor of the united execute the law accomplished by the elected congress, and you have duty to do that. Not one of the United States senator some powerful senator ought to be able to block what has been decided by out majority of congress. I feel like ly say this. I believe if youre seeking investments to build Nuclear Plant in the future, the fact we have failed to have an approved disposal sight is a factor. How much i dont know. In weighing against build ling and doing forward with investment. You can have the Waste Disposal disposed as required. You will be less confidence in investing. How many plants are license or relianced process now . Licensing process . We have nine combined license reviews underway. Many have been slowed down in part because there are delays in the design certification for the. Those were requested by the venn or its themselves. There are no Firm Construction plans for those right now. Right. We have five reck actors under construction. Actively in the u. S. Well be seeing most likely the completion of the unit. So you say the tba yep. The two. And two at summer in south carolina. And the they entirely they are entirely new designs. Yep. How would you describe. I know, you have been to the plant i hope they dont complain about the travel. Its good travel. To go observe it and see what is going on. The observation the plant with the new design ap1,000s pass i have cooling. You allow the water to cool is the system and prevent disaster. Would it be an improvement on the fukushima design . Avoid some of the dangers there . Half the systems are certainly better than active systems systems that strob activated. They are an improvement. For people listening. Would you describe how the passive system works . In light of the time im taking it for the record. Okay. Do you feel like the plant that ron the new ones moving forward could help the united be a leader in a modern Nuclear Plant and set an example for the world as well as our country . Well, its our job at the Nuclear Regulatory commission to ensure that the operating plant and the plant under construction are moving along safely. They are operating safely and securely. Were protected of Public Health and safety. Its not our job to prognosticate on the safety of the sorry the health of the Nuclear Industry or what is best in term of Nuclear Policy or energy policy. We leave it up to the congress and the administration. Well, you have a roam to play in it. And excessive regulation at this time real competition for low cost natural ghast is fairly clean carbon fuel but not as clean as Nuclear Power. I think that the scale ask be tilted in a way that we could see it collapse. In the future of Nuclear Power. I think you have to be aware there are ramifications from your decisions. Thank you for your work. I thank you for trying to dot right thing for the country. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here today. Nice to see you. The principles of good regulation, they emphasize efficiency and focusing on activity that have the greatest safety significance. Rule makings are a small portion of the total scope of the activity that licensees must respond to. How does your agency prioritize the nonrulemaking activity to ensure your finite resources are focused on activities of the highest safety significance and the most significant manner. Let me say thank you for your question. Do you believe that prioritization process is necessary . Yes. We use a prioritization process. We work with industry in helping set the prioritization process. I believe were going to be receiving a staff paper on the top thick year. Let me say in general we accident occurty at the highest priority setting factor. We depend how new rule fit to the Strategic Plan and how what the interests are within the nrc and congress and other governmental bodies and the public ngo. And industry, as i said. With regards to fukushima and what happening there, part of evaluating that lesson. I think need to be how you look in the future of the consequence s in working with other agencies within our government. And especially with regards to more dams up stream and if there would be any failures of those dam. This is a subject i know not of interest to you but also to our other agencies out there. The core, for example, department of Homeland Security. How is the commission coordinating their research on that . We are working with the other agencies that you mentioned as well as the federal Energy Regulatory commission. Which also has some purview over dams. We are working closely with them to deal with the issues. They are significant issue. Do look at any uniformity in trying to come up with the good assessment on that . You formality among the federal agency . How is that working . Yeah. We have our differences. Do you think youre going to be able to Work Together . Yes. Yes. This is a huge concern. Yes. Do you have a formal process in place . That work with the other agencies . Yes. We do. Our staff has been coordinating with them and meeting with them on a regular basis. Do you anticipate youre going to be coming up with a plan or soon or going to be targeted for each area . Let me get back to you with a specific answer on that one. Okay. From a review of industry perform over the last twenty years. It appear the most significant Safety Improvement have been obtained as a result of voluntary industry assessment to identify and fix those vulnerabilities. Do you agree with that . No. I dont. Tell me why. I dont think theres any evidence that any let me put this way. There are a number of voluntary actions taken by the industry but i think they have been prompted by actions within the nrc. And anticipation of new rule at the ncr. My colleague might disagree. I encourage you. The study that was done in the nowed late 80s to identify [inaudible] certainly contributed to the and the safety of the i wouldnt call those the most significant Safety Improvement. I think we have made tremendous progress in the protection, for example. Both the industry and the nrc staff. Come up of ways of improving it and understanding better. I would say that is more significant improvement. Qon text of the fukushima. Two comments. One, the commission back in 2011 made a very concerted decision to prioritize those safety issues and tier i, tier ii, and iii. I being the most important. It srved them well. The second piece in the context of few she ma industry developed a flex proposal to deal with loss of power offset, on sight. To deal with other issues associated with the catastrophic event. Thats been a Partnership Industry developed that in response to our mitigating strategies order. I would say its a Partnership Lot of discussions and interactions between the regulator and vitter raised and the public on the issues. And their own desire to build margin and increase safety. Theres a handshake along with that. I think each plant benefits from voluntary matches taken by licenses. How to today up and compare them to regulatory action. I dont think we try to do that. I agree with my colleagues i think the regulatory framework. Thank you. I want to thank my colleagues. Its great. They just started the vote. Thats good. I want to thank you. Were going have you back soon. Theres a ton of issues we didnt get to. Specifically, in the next hearing were going look at more of the transparency by commissioners who are going to look at the twelve recommendations made post fukushima for safety by your own staff between them had 150 Years Experience who laid out 12 thing you should be doing. You should do. That the time it was a hope in the commission to get those things done in five years. Fukushimas march 2011 and 2012 passed and 2013 and approaching 2014. I also found a very interesting talk about cost benefit. We are going to make public your vote. You voted with everybody else not to do. Everybody agreed not to do the twoperson. Just a reminder jog your memory. We found it in the public record. So the issue is your own staff who had 150 years of experience get the twelve things done. Dont do a cost benefit able sis. The cost of fukushima, might i remind you, is pretty much immeasurable and the benefit of avoiding that is pretty much immeasurable. You doctor doing cost benefit on everything. Im going to find out from you next time. All of you. The status of each of these twelve recommendations. I hope you can move forward on them. That is critical. Im going put in the record a letter i got as you delivered you signed it the next area of information and youre answer if you have a problem call me. I have a problem you asserted some kind of illegal bar to giving me everything is your general counsel here . Ive never met her okay. I think its important that you talk to my counsel and you also speak with those who advise us. Our understanding is the privilege that you are suggesting is absolutely off the wall our interesting from every legal expert here is you can assert executive privilege or the fifth amendment right not to incriminate yourself youre talking about some separationofpowers. Well the arrogance of that is unbelievable you wouldnt be here without the congress. You wouldnt be here without the Congress Setting you up you wouldnt be here you have to be subjected to oversight. We have a right to document. When you sit there and you tell me and senator vitter youre going hand us all the documents we want and you dont, i say very sweetly. Ill be happy to find out what if you need anymore, yes i need them all its not personal. Im sure we can be friendly on a personal level thats not what this is about its about openness and transparency its about safety its about accountability. And for you to withhold documents, which you admit you are doing based on some phony legal argument. Its beyond it. Maybe it winds up in court. Maybe we sue you i want the information. I will get it. Even if i have to go to whistle blowers. Ill teaming you get me the information even before the inquiry there was a Staff Opinion to let it go and open it i cant find out why and how. Its wrong im sorry but this continues on and on. I thought maybe the new chairman and new spirit here things would change, you know, but whether its your travel that some of you dont even want to have buried. You asked us to make it considerable. Dont tell people what we spend. What is that about youre not above the American People i want you to travel somewhere i want you to go to japan. I dont know some of the other places look like theyre fun to go to. I dont know how much they have to do with anything. Im hoping you would go back and talk to each other and instead of going back and saying that Barbara Boxer you have a right to do that. But i hope you will also change your attitude about openness, transparency, about moving a little quicker adopted one out of these 12 recommendations i dont understand it. Just look at the faces of the people who got caught. You can say all you want florida never happen here. Dont say that. We never thought we would be hit on 9 11. We never thought we would see the like of hurricane sandy. No one ever thought kids would have to be in a bus on an iced road for over night either. Were not that powerful. Were just not. Were humble in the face of what could happen. I hope youll go back and i hope your counsel will look at the law in the light that our experts are telling us. They dont have anything to hide oar anything to gain they vitamin been advise congress forever. I have their opinion here ill give it to your counsel this summary of it we have the whole book if you need. It i hope youll take a look at this. Should we give it the whole thing . Well give you the whole entire book about it what youre telling us is simply unheard of we dont get it from any other agency, just so you know. People complain about epa theyre not asserting. Theyre asserting executive privilege or one of the arguments that are legitimate. So well have you back soon were going look at the twelve recommendations and how are you going about it. I thank you for being here and answers the questions you did. Thank you very much. We stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] important ways around the world. I also reject the idea that you can only measure how engaged you are and how successful you are in projecting influence by how much money you spend. No business goes about like that. We have to make sure we get as much into the teeth and is little into the tail of our def ense. I would argue our leadership has been successful with that. I dont accept the idea that because we are spending less on the fence that we can have as significant of a defense plan. Mr. Arbuthnot wants to come in briefly. We aret it embarrassing spending more on the winter fuel allowance than the Foreign Office . We are spending the right amount on the Foreign Office to seed an expanding global network. I am a great user of our Foreign Office. I travel all over the world, flying the flag of the british business. Investment. Courage i see in our Foreign Office an amazing asset. I think we have brilliant diplomats, fantastic teams around the world. WasForeign Office relatively welltreated by the comprehensive spending review. I dont see the Foreign Office in retreat at all. I see it in advance, opening new posts. A bigger presence in india than any other european power. Expanding in china. The fuel allowance is necessary to help keep people warm. Will talkinister, you a lot about security and strategy today. Talk about strategy, what do you mean by strategy . To me, strategy is about setting up a clear series of goals you want to meet, and making sure youve got sensivl ble means for achieving the goals. I dont need to look at paper to tell you what i strategy is. Strength, britains refresh and enhance the great alliances we have got, to tackle threats that could threaten our country, and to make sure we do it right across government, not just the Foreign Office. Every bit of government working together. That is the strategy. Maybe i am too much of a practical chap. Having set the strategy, you want to try to use government to make sure you are implementing the strategy. Strategy, but i want us to determine policy. I want us to agree on action and check that we have done what we said we were going to do. To me, that is not misusing the nsc. It is the right use. I dont know what you found. Often the is too problem that people love sitting around talking about strategy. It is completing on the strategy that is often the challenge. Thank you. Next word, security. You didcurity practically everything. Good democracy, good social cohesion, everything. How do youo work use security . Security, you have to take a wide definition. On nations security relies having strong defenses so we can protect ourselves, but it, also means considering every risk to our security from floods, pandemic diseases, new threats like fall category up to ands, eruptions. What we try to do is bring together one place in the Cabinet Office the teams. Security is the ability to protect your country, your people, your interests, so they can grow and prosper. In delivering with security you have to deal with every threat, from the biggest to the most unlikely. The point of having the big army in whitehall is to make sure we cover all the threats. A pretty wide definition. Example, is tax avoidance by Multinational Companies atif we couldnt look, the heart of our national Security Strategy is restoring britains economic strength. Economicain in strength, things fall into place. If you lose economic strength you are in a much more difficult situation. Of National Security is our economy. If we cant properly raise taxes because technology has changed and they are not paying by the rules, that would be, i suppose, a threat to security. Im trying to find what isnt. You have to have a hierarchy. We have a terrible list of acronyms in the National Risk assessment and National Resilience planning assumptions. The attempt is to try and ity,neate risks to secur have them all. Within one part of whitehall. Example. You give me an me an example of re people are thinking that clashes with the strategy. , because it do that clashes with the strategy. These issues about visa discussions, you have to weigh the prosperity agenda with the security agenda and make sure you are making the right decision. Visa decisions were made by the home office we now discuss around the table. Very important economic relations with this country. The visa restrictions are getting in the way. We reach a decision. Thatrms of things proposed fall absolutely counter to the strategy, im struggling to think of one. Example is not a bad one where you have a policy issue, which countries get visa preference, and you have a way of discussing it. Thank you. Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Prime minister, we would like a tle bit more about how the at the moment the committee has some ideas. Syria,d be dealing with afghanistan. It doesnt give any secrets away, how operational or longterm those discussions might be . The secretary gives a report to the committee, they talk about it, and that is the end of the committee . It is a lot more than that. What this National Security it isoes, it normally the secretary of state. We dont really allow, if we can avoid it, junior ministers coming in. I think its very important in my cabinet to oversee one of the most important meetings of the whole week. But it brings together foreign secretary chancellor, Prime Minister with the heads of the intelligence agencies with the chief of the defense staff. If necessary, the head of the metropolitan police dealing with counterterrorism and you have the experts in the room as well as the politicians. The format of the meetings is often a presentation rather than just a massive paperwork and the presentation would be given by mr. Kim or a leading Foreign Officer official to set out in front of the committee the choices we have to make. And sometimes its very operational. We might have a on afghanistan, for instance, we want a proper look at the drawdown plans that the ministry of defense have. As a committee, we want to figure out, is that the right Operational Plan for britain . I think it is right that the government collected. Sometimes it can be very strategic. We might have a discussion about our relations with the emerging powers, and it will be about how we best go about, who should we be seeking relations with and how do we improve them . Sometimes it can be a meeting where it really helps to have a collective discussion. For instance, we have brought we have the conflict pool, ringing together money from defense and foreign affairs. I think its good that we sit around the table. We got this money, how are we going to spend it . Which conflict areas and unstable states should our investments be going into . We are about to have a conversation about the budget. Obviously it is determined according to principles, but it is important to discuss this collectively so we can see the link between what were doing in terms of, you know, fragile states that were trying to help fix with a decision that were making. What im trying to say sometimes very operational, sometimes very strategic but sometimes genuinely making operational decisions that have an impact across whitehall. Thats very useful. In terms of perhaps the longer term or more strategic meetings that you could have, one thing we noticed is that the meetings dry up in july and they start again sometime in october. What about having one or two meetings extra in that period to look more widely at things, if you like, and at the same time the committees concerned whether the n. S. C. Has sufficient outside expertise to come in and give advice and knowledge to help you out . Do you think the staff is enough . How many staff . Two. Oh, no, the n. S. C. Is serviced by the National Security secretary which is 200 people. You really feel that the n. S. C. , its not a committee that brings together whitehall. It has a proper Team Together behind it that will operationalize decisions and make them happen. In terms of outside advice, we have on occasion brought outsiders in. But we also occasionally had seminars that n. S. C. Members would attend in order to hear from outside experts. We had a particularly good session on pakistan and afghanistan when some experts came. We had a special n. S. C. In august last year on syria. For my g8 agenda in terms of transparency and all of that we had a whole series of experts to address those issues. In terms of meeting over the summer, we have had meetings over the summer. I think if the criticism is that urgent operational meetings to discuss syria, afghanistan, libya, tends to crowd out more thematic discussions, i would plead guilty. I think that is inevitable when governments have to prioritize and choose and talk about the most urgent things. I think we have spent more time on the operational emergencies than rather other things. Rather bluesky thinking. Time,are tight for although we are doing reasonably well. Prime minister, i support the innovation of the National Security council. I think everything allows sharing of Institutional Knowledge within governments is a good thing. S. C. , ar to the n s strategic decision was usually practiced, the foreign secretary or defense secretary would make the final decision. Now we have the n. S. C. Youre chairing that meeting. Can you think of of anything where there was a defense decision where you have taken the ultimate decision rather than the secretary of state . Im not sure mrs. Thatcher or tony blair would say they just left defense and Foreign Policy decisions to their secretary of state. And only occasionally intervened. I think the History History as a bilateralds thing between a Prime Minister and a foreign secretary or Prime Minister and a defense secretary. The good thing is that its a more collective way of making decisions. Of course, there are decisions made by ministers. You talk about the decisions for instance, how we went about our engagement in libya and the decisions we made about syria, they were genuinely discussed around the table with those ministers, with the expert advice and another point, i think a better institutionalization of the legal advice. The attorney general is there to give his opinion about these things. If youre asking, are there times when the n. S. C. Comes to a different decision what the defense secretary or Prime Minister walked into the room, yes, it has. Thats what collective decisionmaking is all about. Wed like to ask a series of questions on how the system actually works in practice. And you mentioned syria. How did this is in the sense a repeat of the question that was asked. How did the national Security Strategy affect the way you made decisions and the decisions you took on syria . Well, obviously when we drew up the strategy and the sdsr in 2010, we didnt have perfect foresight about what was going to happen in the events of the arab spring in syria. Id like to think that the decisions weve made in all these have been relatively consistent with the strategy set out in the national Security 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. Int is why we are downstairs 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. Momenthave people at the 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 ariat, 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 Security Council 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. , 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. 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. If you ask lots of people they would say flooding. When we had incidents im wondering to what extent your strategy, which you outlined all the economic benefits, which we all would agree with, who is responsible for engaging the public so their perception of risk is not just a knee jerk reaction to the latest problem . And that when somebody challenges what the government is doing, youre actually able to extend. We are talking about syria. You said even debate in the house focused on iraq. So how do you deal with that . Who in government is responsible for getting that kind of message about Public Perceptions of britain . I hope by having a National Security Council People can see these risks are being looked at as a whole and in the round. It falls to the Prime Minister trying to explain how we look at risks and the steps we take and what were trying to do to keep our country safe. I think our scientists can probably help by informing the debate about risks and probabilities. I think also your committee is helping because youre looking at our strategy and youre saying, well, have you had enough consideration of this and have you looked at those risks . I think in the end have a strategy, explain what it is. The Prime Minister has to front it up. The scientists can help by explaining some of the probabilities and risks and thats probably the best you can do. Coming back to this flooding versus terrorism, i think people want to know were doing Everything Possible to protect dwellings from flooding and we have a Forward Investment program and all the rest of it. I think people understand 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 row bust, the intelligence 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 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 in front of the Parliamentary Committee 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. Good. 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 dfid 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 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 pivot. 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 pivoting. I think if i had a wish of replaying it all, i think the thing the sdsr did in terms of moving us away from 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 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. If we can link up with the fastestgrowing countries, 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 will it be fundamentally different or folow the same one . 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. In either 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