tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 16, 2014 10:00am-12:01pm EST
children. this shows that the militants are up against the wall. they are searching for easier targets. the thinking is, they are now more desperate. they're lashing out in any way most they can against the innocent victims. host: what is motivating them? the pakistan taliban carry this out. bayer group of islamic militants that forms in the aftermath of 9/11.
they say they operate independently of the afghan taliban, but there is coordination. they live and harbor on that same border reasonableon, the afghan and pakistan border, but the focus is more on pakistan's government and the military. over the years they have been responsible for killing tens of thousands of civilians and pakistan military officials. host: any reaction yet from the pakistani government? guest: it's just really horrified. the prime minister has strengthened the country's resolve to take the battle to the taliban and try to eradicate this problem. but as we all know judging from the u.s. experience in afghanistan, this is a very complicated, very long battle and effort that is unlikely to resolve any time soon. host: tim craig, here in the u.s. we saw what happened,
different situation, but still a terror attack in sydney, australia. should we be concerned about the taliban here? guest: over the years the f.b.i. and others have raised concern that the pakistan taliban could be capable of carrying out an attack outside of pakistan borders. it has not been much evidence so far that they have been willing to do that or that they are capable of doing that. they have been sort of under siege in many ways. u.s. drone strikes against the taliban as well because they are viewed as a threat. the broader concern for the u.s. and western nations is that as we saw in sydney, australia yesterday, in canada a few weeks ago, there could be copycat attacks, lone wolf attacks of militants who take it upon themself to carry out repeat attacks. host: finally, this is of course
-- guest: schools not only here but schools everywhere have always been viewed as we see from school shootings in the united states, are vulnerable targets. whether this causes a wholesale re-evaluation of school security, remains to be seen. schools by their nature are opened and accessible. host: let me conclude with this question. the investigation in the early hours and still a lot more to be learned. what are you looking for? what questions do you have moving ahead? >> the only question we have right now is what -- how many people have been killed. the day began there was supposedly 1,000 students and teachers inside the school. many were rescued or escaped. 132 confirmed dead. but there are feared the death toll could be far higher. as we move forward and find out the final death toll, the question is what will be the
pakistani response. it's hard to fight a war within your borders. you are targeting in many ways your own areas of the country. so by its nature it's not an easy battle to fight. but i think everyone across pakistan is realizing they have to do something. they cannot allow this to continue and allow this to go on without a firm response. host: tim craig is the pakistan bureau chief of the "washington post." he's joining us live with the very latest on this tuesday morning. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you very much. host: of course we'll have more on this tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal." we'll continue the conversation as we do every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, 4:00 for those on the west he coast. thanks for joining us on this tuesday. hope you enjoy the rest of your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
>> coming up in just under an hour, prittish prime minister david cameron will appear before a plarm committee about the u.k.'s climate change priorities and combating extremism. the prime minister generally meets with the liaison committee three times a year. it's a tradition that started with prime minister tony blair. live coverage starts at 11:00 a.m. eastern. we'll have it for you here on c-span. also live today at 3:00 eastern, ebola and efforts to create a vaccine with the director of national institute of allergy and infectious diseases and the former c.d.c. director under prureb. -- president bush. that will be live at almost on c-span. yesterday the supreme court ruled 8-1 police can use evidence seized during a traffic stop even if the officer pulled
a car over on a misunderstanding of the law. since the officer's mistake of law was reasonable, there was reasonable suspicion justifying the stop under the fourth amendment. chief justice john roberts in his opinion for the court wrote, to be reasonable is not to be perfect. and so the fourth amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of the government official giving them fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community's protection. here is the oral argument before the justices. it took place in october. >> our first case this morning is heien vs. north carolina. r. fisher. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. in a country dedicated to the rule of law, governmental officers should be presumed to know the law at least as well as the citizens are. that being so, when questions about individualized suspicion arise under the fourth amendment, they should be addressed against the backdrop of the correct interpretation of the law not simply any plausible
reading an officer might have. >> suppose that this state, north carolina, did have a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule? what would you be arguing today? >> we would still be arguing if that were the case that not only the fourth amendment was violated, but that the good faith exception didn't apply. but you wouldn't have to reach that question in this case -- i would concede to you, justice kennedy, that would be a debatable argument. >> why would it be more debatable than the argument you're making here? i more or less anticipated your answer. i think that has to be your answer. i think you have to tell us even if the good faith exclusionary rule applies, mistake of law doesn't count. >> that's not what the jurisprudence holds. in davis the court has held that reasonableness of mistakes of law can be taken in account through remedy stage. >> then the question is why isn't that a problem for you when you say there cannot be a
reasonable mistake of law? we know there can be. >> there's a difference, justice kennedy, between rights and kennedys in the court's jurisprudence. when you ask a question about what is reasonable as to whether or not the fourth amendment was violated, both in the fourth amendment jurisprudence in criminal cases and other cases, you do that assessment against the correct interpretation of the law. >> whether as a categorical matter, juries prudential matter, we can have this dichotomy known as a reasonable mistake overall. a difficult and interesting question. but it seems to me that you have to make the same argument here -- in the case where they have a good faith exception as you are making here and that you have a problem with davis and crow. if you have a problem there, that undermines your categorical argument. >> i don't think so, justice kennedy. i think the best exposition of this problem in the court's jurisprudence is in the andersons against creighton case
where the court wrestled with this notion how can something be reasonable in one sense and unreasonable in another. the answer the court gave is when we ask for the fourth amendment was violated, we do not take mistakes of law into account. but the reasonableness of mistake of law can go to the remedy question. this is the premise from which leon, control, and davis all derive. >> mr. fisher, i have a preliminary question. ven if you are right about mistake of law, isn't it a question in this case -- as i nderstand it, a traffic stop was a warning citation. so the traffic stop is over. and at that point the police officer asked if he can inspect the car. and the answer is yes.
why isn't the consent to the search the end of this case? because it would be a poisonous tree if the stop was illegal. there never would have been opportunity to ask for consent. that's why the state and attorney general haven't made any argument that wipes away the fourth amendment. >> suppose the officer had said, all right, i'm giving you a warning. you're free to leave now. but by the way, may we search your car? >> i think that's more or less what the officer did say here. >> you would say, even in that situation, that that would be the fruit of the poisonous tree? >> yes. because the stop wouldn't have taken place. the court's cases proves and all the rest say traffic stop is a seizure. so upon pulling mr. heien over, the officer needed to have reasonable suspicion to do so. the only argument for reasonable suspicion is the mistake of
north carolina law as to the brake light in this case. >> i understood you to say earlier you don't take distinguishing the exclusionary rule and qualified immunity, you don't take reasonableness in an account when it comes to mistake of law? >> i'm sorry, mr. chief justice. what i think i said you don't take the reasonableness of mistake of law and do a count when you ask if a fourth amendment was violated. you do sometimes when you ask about the remedy. that's -- >> the fourth amendment itself protects only against unreasonable searches and seizures by its term. i don't understand it would seem to me there is a stronger argument for taking the reasonableness of the officer's actions into account when you're talking about a mistake of law because that's what the fourth amendment says as opposed to remedies and qualified immunity. >> mr. chief justice, the court rejected that precise argument in anderson. that textual argument that the word reasonableness means that the fourth amendment incorporates mistakes of law.
and because of a deep common law rule which is when we ask -- >> i thought we said exactly that in herring, though, where we said that even though we are going to look at it in terms of remedy, that was not to say that the reasonableness didn't go to whether there was a substantive violation of the fourth amendment. >> my understanding of herring would be that would be a mistake of fact case. whether or not there was a warrant outstanding for mr. herring's arrest would have been a factual question. not necessarily a legal question. in anderson and crowell and leon, in leon, the court said the officer in that case acted exactly as a reasonable officer could and should have acted. and time and again the court's exclusionary rule cases they say the officer acted reasonably because of the reasonableness stage you can take account whether they reasonably misunderstood the law. >> putting aside a discussion of herring, why does it make sense to say you don't take reasonableness into account when
the fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures? >> i think for three reasons, mr. chief justice. there is a practical reason, a theoretical reason, and juries prudential reason. i'll start with the theory that's what i was describing. the deep common law heritage in this country that we have always followed in the best exposition of that is in the court's chief case is that the criminal law's presume to be definite and knowable. all kinds of settings whether it be punishing somebody for violating the law or any other actions, citizens or the government engages in, we always assume a correct understanding of the law even if it's later construed by our courts in a way that wasn't exactly -- >> isn't it strange to cite that proposition. didn't the court hold in chief in the circumstances there, the law wouldn't be a defense? >> because of a special statutory exception that congress had written. the beginning of part 2 of cheek is what i'm relying on whether it's aparagraph or two that sets
out with numerous citations this principle, justice holmes described and many others, that the criminal law is presumed to be definite and knowable. once you take that presumption and put it into the police officer's mind, in this case or any other governmental actor who acts on a mistake of law, then there is no reasonable suspicion because we presumed him to know the law when he acted. >> suppose the officer stopped the driver here and said, you know, i have been going to night law school and we don't he know about this one light, two light thing. there is an intermediate court of appeals hearing the case. sounds like they are going to say only one light. i don't know what the law is. you better get this fixed. >> i think there's two questions in there. >> then he sees in the course of this conversation he seized -- >> there's two questions embedded in there. one is whether the officer can look to court decisions or other third party sources to help him do his job. now again that is what the court
has said in the crowell and davis cases you take into account things like policeman use, court decisions, the rest. the courts embraced that in its remedy juries prudesence. but rand said that's off limits to the fourth amendment. there's also an element of your question asking about what all the officer was worried about was the safety on the roadway. that would be a very different case. again i'm going to turn the court to rend where the court said if there's a stop done for reasons aside from probable cause, then the purpose of that stop, such as the community care taking function, might kick in. of course the state hasn't made any argument in that respect in this case because the record is quite clear the officer was performing a criminal investigation. >> mr. fisher, we don't review opinions. we review judgments. we review results. what you're complaining about here is the admission of what was discovered in the search of the car, right?
what difference does it make whether that was lawfully admitted because it was a it was tional search or lawfully admitted because the remedy of excluding it would not be applied if there was a mistake of law. a reasonable mistake of law? the style problem is the admission of this evidence. it seems to me whether it's properly admitted because the fourth amendment wasn't violated, or whether it's properly admitted because the remedy for that violation is not exclusion of the evidence, you lose either way, don't you? >> justice scalia, nobody's addressed the question of remedy in this case because nobody eeds to address --
>> if we find that it violates the fourth amendment to make the search, in order to decide whether the judgment is lawful, we would have to decide whether the remedy of excluding that evidence has to be applied. >> with respect, justice scalia, i'm not sure the supreme court needs to do that. i think the court can vacate and remand the judgment just as it does inmumerabble other times when it finds a problem with the lower court decision and sends it back. even if this were purely a federal case, i think i would be saying the same thing. nobody has briefed or argued the good faith exception in this ase. >> you have, and you acknowledge it applies to remedies. >> no. we have not acknowledged, justice scalia, i think it's important. we acknowledged that the question of whether the mistake was reasonable would be relevant if at all at the remedy stage.
so what you would do is you would ask the question if this were a federal case where you it to reach the question, you ask whether the officer's mistake of law in this case renders the suppression appropriate. i would add it would be an extension of the court's current good faith jurisprudence. ich has held that's upheld when the court office -- >> oot most we can get is remand? >> that's right. >> the court decide whether the remedy of exclusion should have -- >> that's right. justice scalia, i'm not sure it's different if i said it's a constitutional violation i may or may not be applied to remedy because the error was harmless or not. those are the situations where the court would always resolve the constitutional question that the lower court addressed and send it back down for the question of remedy. >> i don't know why. following up on what justice
scalia is saying, he's saying we don't give you a remedy unless we believe that one is warranted under the fourth amendment. and since we apply, doesn't matter what north carolina applies good faith or not, what we apply in terms of determining whether a federal violation, a constitutional violation is subject to any type of remedy for you is the good faith exception. why do we have to remand it? i think that's justice scalia's question, and i'm not quit sure you answered it. >> the reason to remand it because the lower court hasn't addressed any question of remedy. in the first instance you should send it back to the lower court for a full adversarial briefing -- >> north carolina has a rule, i thought, that if you violate the fourth amendment, that's it. we don't have a good faith exception. >> that would be our position on remand, justice ginsberg. >> isn't that what the north
carolina law is now? so it would be futile to send it back then to answer the good faith exception since they have none. >> it wouldn't be futile, justice ginsberg. i think the analogy that i gave earlier about chapman is more or less on point. the court has held if the constitution is violated, that the defendant in a criminal case doesn't get a remedy unless he satisfies that test. now, all the time in criminal cases you would just decide the constitutional issue and send it back for remedy analysis if the lower court hadn't addressed it. >> that's because they would be applying federal law. they would be answering the question that you want us to leave unanswered. whether the constitution requires that this evidence be stricken from the case. >> -- if they are not going to ask that question when we send it back, it seems to me we have to answer that question here before we are able to reverse or
affirm the north carolina court. it's a federal question. they are not going to get to that. but you're asking us to invalidate this conviction on the basis of federal law. and it seems to me we cannot do that unless there has even -- if there has been a violation of the fourth amendment, the remedy must be exclusion of the evidence. that's a federal question i think we are going to have to decide it. if we send it back to north carolina, they are not going to decide it. >> i don't believe they would or should. but i -- just as a state adopted a rule saying we are going to have a more favorable jurisprudence of constitution error and give automatic new trials, the court wouldn't be prohibited from deciding the constitutional issue and sending it back down to the state. retroactivity, dan ford against minnesota is another case where the court has said states can choose for themselves to have
more favorable remedies and the court simply deals with the federal question. >> there's no question if north carolina applied a state constitutional analog to the fourth amendment, they could have a more extensive remedy than is recognized under our fourth amendment cases. but your argument is they can adopt a state law rule for fourth amendment violations. that is more protective of defendants than federal case law provides. that would be your argument, right? >> i couldn't need -- don't need to make that argument that would be an interesting question and state may be able to do that. what the carter decision in north carolina says violations of the state constitution cannot be overlooked on good faith doctrine. >> was this decision based on the state constitution? >> it was based on the federal constitution. so we would send it back down and we preserved an argument under state law the violation of the fourth amendment also
violates the north carolina constitution. >> you're asking to reverse it on the basis of federal law. and you're asking us to send it back for a state court, which is not going to inquire any further into federal law. even he though federal law arguably, you will concede, says that even if there is a fourth amendment violation, if there is a good faith reasonable belief that the law was violated, the remedy of exclusion will not be imposed. that's what the constitution requires. and you're asking us to say, oh no, there's been a violation of the constitution. and we are going to reverse this judgment even though we haven't inquired into whether the remedy that you want is required. it seems to me -- i don't see how we can do that. >> i don't want to keep saying the same thing. i'll try to say one more time. i think it's fully customary for this court to have a case from
state courts where a state court issues a ruling on federal law, there may be many other issues in the case, federal, state, whatever, but if the question of federal law the state court decided is incorrect, this court can reverse that judgment, say you got the federal law wrong, but we are going to send it back down. >> but it chooses to decide based on only half the federal law. north carolina more or less set us up this way? >> there is a federal -- forgive me. >> which is a follow on justice scalia's question. >> they didn't get federal law wrong. their judgment did not get federal law wrong if indeed a good faith mistake of law does not require the exclusion of the evidence from the trial. the judgment did not get federal law wrong. if that's the case. >> i think that their analysis
got federal law wrong for the reasons we described -- >> we review judgments. you're urging that this conviction has to be set aside. that's what we are hearing is the conviction not the opinion. >> justice scalia, if you want to decide the good faith question, that has not been briefed by any party, i suggest you might want to tread carefully. we have given you maybe -- maybe what i need to do at this point before i sit down and serve my time and even if you did feel like you needed to get to that question, which i don't think you need to. if you did, why you should say that the good faith doctrine doesn't apply. >> i don't want to take up your rebuttal time, your argument this morning has confused me on something i thought i understood. i thought your -- the reasonable why you have argued this case the way you have trying to convince us to draw very sharp distinction between right and remedy is because you believe that north carolina has the right under state law to devise
its own version of the exclusionary rule. if that's not your argument, then i'm puzzled by what you're doing. >> functionally that's the way things work in north carolina, justice athleteo. the only thing that -- maybe -- alito. the only thing that maybe i need to make clear the reason why that works in north carolina the state has held violations of our state constitution cannot be subject to a good faith exception. >> the constitution is irrelevant because you're arguing about whether there can be a mistake of law in determining whether a search is reasonable under the fourth amendment to the constitution of the united states. whatever we hold on that, north carolina can do whatever it wants on the same question with respect to the state constitution. >> that's the next thing i was going to say. in theory you're right, but what north carolina has said is that we construe article 1, section 20, the state counterpart, to be determine us in with the fourth amendment. that's not the way the court goes about its function.
functionally in the state of north carolina where you are is that fourth amendment questions run exactly parallel to state substantive constitutional off questions. and that's just a violation you should suppress. >> suppose this were a federal case and we had available to us and all been briefed two alternative holdings in order to support the conviction and one holding was this is not a violation of fourth amendment law in the first instance, and the other holding was this is a violation of fourth amendment law but the exclusionary rule operates. so the -- the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule operates. so the evidence comes in. is there any difference between those two holdings? >> i think the difference between those two holdings, if the court remanded, may well plow differently in north carolina. >> if it were a federal case -- >> sorry, i missed that. it would be functionally the same holding. but i think -- >> yes, please. >> there would be important
reasons nonetheless. even though that would be a functionally identical holding for the parties in the case. it would be very important reasons nonetheless to make sure that you render that holding as remedy jurisprudence not the fourth amendment itself. one reason is what i opened with and i'll try to say a couple times, that the government should be presumed to know the laws. it would undercut public confidence in law enforcement and the common law rule upon which the criminal law is built to say the government doesn't have to be -- >> do you think that some people say the existence of a rule remedy gap undermines public confidence in the law. why should we take that argument anymore seriously than the rule remedy gap problem? >> because that argument comes from academic literature and my argument comes from the court's jurisprudence where people have argued you shouldn't suspend remedy and the court has rejected and said, no, as judge wilkinson wrote in the lower piece i cited in the brief,
there is an important reason to announce the right even if you don't give a recommenddy. there are practical reasons for this as well. even in the court's good faith jurisprudence, the court has given leeway to the ofers own to the extents they are relying on a clear directive from a third party like a legislature or court. this is different. this is like the johnson case from 1982 where the court held that if the officer acts on his own view of the quote, unsettled rule of law, that we not only find a fourth amendment violation, we suppress. so even if i have to argue this case -- >> this was a reasonable interpretation of state law? >> i would dispute if you were asking it in terms of chevron nse that the statute was sufficiently ambiguous it had been read this way. i don't think it should be viewed as a reasonable mistake under the good faith doctrine because the good faith doctrine deals with directive from third parties and officers relying on third parties. johnson i was just citing to you says that -- >> i only ask this in the
context of any other body of the court's case law. just in the just in the common sense understanding of the term. if an attorney sat down and read north carolina statutes, do you think it would be reasonable for the attorney to conclude that you need to have two functioning brake lights and not just one? >> i think in the commonsense way, i could concede that would be reasonable. there is a legal way of asking what is reasonable and what is not. the court has never taken into account ambiguity or the possibility for error in asking whether an officer gets the law of right. secondly, you have to define the concept of reasonable. if you look at the facts of this case and you think this mistake was reasonable, the other side hasn't given a definition of what it would say would be a reasonable mistake to the law. there is reference to qualified mmunity.
the solicitor general references a foothold in the statutory text. i'm not sure what the definition ould apply here. for qualified immunity, you would have to define that concept. the definitions that exist now are very, very broad. that goes to the practical reason i was going to describe to the court why you shouldn't hold the fourth amendment was satisfied here. because if you say anything is reasonable as the court has defined in other casesers susceptible to debate, you vastly expand police officer discretion to conduct traffic stops. as the court has noted, officers have an enormous discretion. >> let me try one last time efore your time. you assert that we should not decide the remedy question because it hasn't been argued. but wasn't it your responsibility to argue it?
you are asking us to set aside a judgment of the north carolina court. that judgment could be set aside only if, number one, the fourth amendment was not violated or, number two, it was violated, but the remedy does not have the exclusion of the evidence? it seems to me it is your burden to establish not just that the fourth amendment was violated, but also that exclusion was necessary under the constitution. it is no answer to say that has not been argued. you haven't argued it. that is the problem. >> they need to argue it. i would refer you to the part three argument in the opening brief explains why even if you move good faith into -- those are my arguments. the other case that comes to mind is a case from several years ago. the court divided that federal law question into two pieces.
the court reversed on one piece and sent it back down. what i'm asking for is not terribly different. >> send it back down for the court to decide that other piece. but this court will not decide the other piece. >> if a state gives it that choice it's going to give more remedy, the federal should respect that choice, justice scalia. i would like to reserve the rest of my time. >> thank you, mr. fisher. >> mr. montgomery. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. the fourth armed prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but it does not require that police officers be perfect. because the touchstone is reasonableness, all that is required is that a police officer has a reasonable view of the facts and applies those facts to a reasonable understanding of the law. >> when will we get a right
understanding of the law? if i read the north carolina supreme court decision, it still hasn't told me whether it is one or two brake lights. the next police officer who wants to stop someone will not now that either. he might be bound by the appellate court decision, but that will not help clarify the state of the law. isn't what you are doing going to leave criminal law unclear? it is one thing to say you want to not subject officers to civil liability. it is another to say you want to leave the law unclear in a riminal prosecution. >> in north carolina, controlling precedent does come from the intermediate court of appeals. that is not to say the supreme court may not reach a different decision someday.
for now, police officers would be bound by what the north carolina court of appeals decides. the law has been decided. an officer who makes a stop tomorrow because one brake light is out would be acting unreasonably under that decision. so it doesn't leave criminal law uncertain. >> it will for the appellate division if it is now taking your view that it can find out whether the officer's reading of the law is reasonable. it basically means that any open question, police officers will rule in favor of the right to search. >> it depends on whether the question is an open question and whether that interpretation by the officer is reasonable. it certainly may be an unreasonable interpretation. at would make it unreasonable. >> it would be unreasonable if there was some language of the
statute at that no one could reach a different interpretation at all or if there was a definite decision by an apell klatt court it would be unreasonable for the officer to interpret it in his own way. the whole standard would be a reasonable person standard. would a reasonable person be able to take this view of the statue? >> that is a very broad definition of reasonable. i understand the idea that when 99 out of 100 think you need to have two brake lights like you have to everywhere else. it is reasonable for the officer to think that. it seems to me like you're adopting the same standard that would apply in qualified immunity that gives officers quite broad scope. that is troubling. >> it is not the same as ualified immunity. it protects the plainly incompetent. we're not saying that is the standard here.
>> i think what the chief justice is asking you is to describe a case for us where the officer would receive qualified immunity, but it would not count as reasonable for these purposes. >> one of the things this court has said in wilson v lane, the court can look beyond officer's interpretation like this you could look to other matters. it could be an officer who had an unreasonable interpretation n the statute. yet he might still have ualified immunity because he was told by a judge or by the attorney general or someone that this was correct and that was a complete misunderstanding of the statute. it might be that the officer would be protected by qualified immunity. but for fourth amendment purposes, that would not be a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
you would not give a pass -- i mean, let's say the cases flip and the most reasonable reading is you only need one brake light. someone's driving around with one brake light. you pull them over. i reasonably thought i only need one. the court says i need two. in that case, ignorance of the law wouldn't save him, would it? >> no, it would not. officers believe you needed all of your brake lights. and that is not actually the law, it does not mean that erson is guilty. in other words, the defendant here, the driver, could not be held liable for the brake light violation. it is not the fact that an officer thinks reasonably that the law is something -- that does not make it the law. just like a citizen who does not
think that is the law, that doesn't mean he could escape liability. >> the police officer was not stopping him because of the brake light. the police officer was involved in criminal interdictions and admitted this was a pretext. a lawful pretext, he thought. he wasn't there just to tell him that. fix your brake light and drive away, there would never be a law suit, correct? >> that is correct. >> how many citizens have been stopped for one brake light and are asked to have their cars earch? is that something we as a society should be encouraging? >> wholly innocent people are stopped quite often because of mistakes of fact, for instance. that's part of the whole how terry works and those types of briefs stops.
it turns out that citizens have not committed any kind of offense and yet they are stopped. this is another example of that in which an officer acted reasonably, just as with a reasonable mistake of fact. it turns out this was not actually a violation. >> i would like to focus on your definition of reasonableness. let's say you have two court of appeals decision. one says you need two brake lights and the other says you need one. is it reasonable for the officer to pull somebody over when one of their two brake lights is urned out? >> if you have on flicting rulings from the court of appeals, it would be reasonable then for the officer to decide which he felt was the better rule. if there were two different decisions from the court of appeals, which is not supposed to happen in our system. but if it did happen, it would be reasonable for the officer to rely on either one of those.
>> one of mr. fisher's arguments is that this looks like a remedies question. it doesn't look like a rights question. it focuses on the culpability of the officer in the way we do when we think about immunity or the exclusionary rule. why isn't that exactly right -- that to the extent that this conviction ought to be upheld, it ought to be upheld on remedy reasons rather than rights reasons to fit in with our basic understanding of what remedies and rights do and do differently in our law? >> this court looks at different things when it looks at the rights versus the remedy. reasonableness is important in the rights stage. in the remedy stage, that might be considered, but also the culpability of the officer and whether he was deliberately disregarding the law. those types of things.
this court has addressed mistakes of law both in the rights and the remedies stage. it would be important to address the rights stage here in this particular case because we don't get into the source of things that would be necessary in the remedy stage. >> what about the dissent in the north carolina court of appeals? who said north carolina has no ood-faith exception. and so all that this decision does is it allows the police to get around the absence of a good-faith exception. wasn't that the position of the dissenter? allowing for a reasonable istake of law to support a warrant is the functional equivalent of a good-faith exception. >> that was the position of the dissenting justices at the north arolina supreme court.
again, this gets back to the reasonableness as the standard or the fourth amendment. that is what this court has said is important at that stage of whether an officer's acting reasonably. there are other considerations that take place at the remedies stage. the state was asking for nothing more than whether this violated the fourth amendment and not bout remedy. >> counsel, maybe you have the answer to the questions i was asking mr. fisher. i guess the answer is you haven't argued that point, right? you did not assert in your brief and you have not asserted it in oral arguments, thus far anyway, that even if it did constitute a violation of the fourth amendment, the remedy did not
ave to be exclusion of the evidence and that remedy is indeed subject to reasonable istake of law. therefore the decision has to be affirmed. but you did not make that argument. you want to put all your eggs in the basket of whether it is a violation of the fourth amendment. am i right? >> that is right. >> i'm sorry to waste so much of your time. >> we did not make that argument. at the north carolina supreme court. mr. fisher is correct in that it is our state constitution that says there is no good-faith exception. if a defendant had only raised a fourth amendment question in our courts, the good-faith exception would still be available if that defendant didn't make a claim under the state constitution.
>> i'm not too sure it makes prudential sense to allow north carolina supreme court to put to us what is basically an abstract uestion. >> the question of -- >> to give an answer without reference to the fact that part of the fourth amendment is the good faith exception. it bears unreasonableness. >> that is correct. this court has in cases like rodriguez dealt with mistake about law just in the rights stage rather than the remedies stage. that is all that has been briefed in this instance. >> that is correct. >> one of the things that is different is that we are not talking about -- >> excuse me. in other cases we decide the right and don't have to decide the remedy.
but this is a case in which unless the remedy is exclusion, there is no basis for us to set aside the judgment of the north carolina supreme court. unless the remedy is exclusion. it seems to me that is part of the case to reverse. if we cannot say that, we have no business reversing. if it hasn't been argued, i guess we could do that. >> that has not been argued here or below, that's correct. the difference between this case and the other is this involves a mistake of law rather than a mistake of law as to the fourth amendment itself. the difference in that is that a reasonable violation of the fourth amendment is still a violation of the fourth amendment. if there is a statute that gives n officer the opportunity to make a seizure on less than what
is required by the constitution, or less than probable cause, or less than reasonable suspicion, even if that officer is reasonable, that is still a fourth amendment violation, which is why the court would court would the have to go to the remedy portion to decide whether the exclusionary rule applies. in this instance, this case was a mistake as to a substantive statute that was used by the officer as part of the facts and circumstances of this case. as part of the totality of the circumstances of this case, the officer considered what he thought was the correct law. >> why is there a line drawn etween if he gets the fourth amendment wrong, the fourth amendment is violated. but if he gets a statute wrong, then the fourth amendment is not violated? >> because the officer only needs to act reasonably. the fact that he gets the statute wrong doesn't mean that he acted necessarily
unreasonably. >> the fact that he made a mistake about what the fourth amendment requires could also be reasonable. >> it could be. that would be proper to consider in the remedies stage rather than in the right stage. in the case that this court has decided, it was a decision where the substantive statute was found unconstitutional and void for vagueness. yet this court found there was probable cause in that case for the officer to make an arrest based upon that statute. that was one case in which this court looked at the rights stage as a mistake of law rather than the remedy stage. >> do you think if that case came up again today that we would decide it the same way, or do you think we would decide it now as a remedies question? >> i think the court would
ecide it the same way. the court in arizona v evans said that if the case is decided before the good-faith exception, it is still viable in terms of the fourth amendment. >> what kind of mistake to the -- mistake of law did the police officer make in di fip leapo -- filippo? the loss said exactly what he thought it said. what do you classify as a mistake of law question? we said it was presumptively valid. he asked according to a statute. you do not ask police officers to ignore the law. >> that is correct. >> this is a mistake of law. e was following the law. >> the di filippo case is important is because you had someone who is acting wholly innocently. he was not committing an offense
at all. in this case, you have someone who is acting innocently and not violating the law. even though the conduct was innocent, there still is probable cause despite the mistake of law. that is all we are saying. >> isn't there another difference between those two cases? the court and di filippo talked a lot about there was a presumption of constitutionality for any statutes. we do not want officers to go around questioning the constitutionality of statutes. here e. that's not the case. here, there is a statute. an officer is not supposed to read it as broadly as possible, they're supposed to read it fairly. here's no presumption. and there's no way we could say the same thing that we don't want officers to inquire into
this area. >> we want officers to enforce the law. we don't want them to sit back -->> fairly and as written and not to push every statute the furthest it could go without being found utterly unreasonable. >> that is correct. we do want them to act reasonably and enforce the law and not turn a blind eye to what might be a violation. >> how does the statute read here? what were the exact words of the statue? >> the statute has two parts. it has a subsection d. >> where do we find that? >> in the appendix to the espondent's brief. pages 1-5 has all of the relevant portions of the statute.
subsection d involves rear lamps. it says that every motor vehicle should have all rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order. that is the relevant portion of subsection d. ubsection g on page three says no persons shall sell or operate on highways of the state any motor vehicle manufactured after december 31, 1955 unless it is equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. that is a language the north carolina court of appeals said when it said a stop lamp. that meant only one was required. >> that seems to be what it says. >> the confusion comes in in the last sentence of subsection g. appendix page three. which says the stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps.
where the confusion comes in is that that sentence would seem to imply that the stop lamp is a rear lamp. that it could be incorporated into a unit with one or more rear lamps. if you go back to subsection d, that is a section that says all originally equipped rear lamps must be in good working order. there is some conflicts. >> that applies to all rear lamps and other lamps. >> that is correct. >> so it has to be plural if it's going to apply to some lapps and all the other lamps, of course you would say lamps. >> my time is up. thank you. >> thank you, counsel.
>> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, since its founding, the probable cause standard has allowed police officers to make stops when there are reasonable grounds to believe a person committed a crime even if the officers later turns out to have been mistaken about the facts or the law. as justice kennedy observed, given the court case has been recognized, there may be a reasonable mistake of law. an officer who makes a reasonable mistake of law might have a reasonable grounds to believe a person committed a crime. if i can go to a question that justice kagan asked about why this question is more appropriately dressed at the rights stage than the remedy stage. we think there are three main reasons. the first is history. since the founding, the court has treated the probable cause standard of allowing for reasonable mistakes of law. >> of all the cases that you cite, including riddle, on the context of a statute that did
not permit customs officers to suffer damages. >> yes, your honor. >> for purposes of an error of law, correct. >> that is correct. >> none of those cases involved a violation of the fourth amendment. >> that is correct. those are interpretations of the probable cause standard. >> how is this different in terms of analysis from what we ultimately find is a qualified immunity standard with respect to civil damages today. don't they follow exactly the same reasoning? >> i don't think so. those cases, the probable cause reasoning in those cases is what the court has done at the merit stage of the fourth amendment. this court has routinely cited cases under those customs statutes as illuminating the meaning of the probable cause tandard. >> so you disagree when he
looked at those cases and made the point i just made? you think he was wrong? >> no, there is no doubt in those cases the court question was answering was liable, but the way he was answering this question is was determining whether the officers had probable cause. probable cause is a constitutional standard, and that is why this court has relied on those cases. >> assume for the sake of argument i agree with you, that a reasonable mistake of law is an excuse, but what is a reasonable mistake? now, that is what i would like you to address. in particular, would you have objection to it has to be one, exceedingly rare, two, objective, three, it has to be that a reasonable lawyer would think that the policeman was right. on the law and only after your
quote, your brief, if a careful scrutiny in construing the laws to it turn out he's wrong. what do you think about that or some other sentiment? >> i think we agree with each of those descriptions. >> if you agree with those, then what about this case? after all, it does say a stop light. what is the difficulty of construing that to mean a stoplight? >> we think the north carolina supreme court and court of appeals were right that an officer can reasonably interpret the statute to require -- >> only after careful scrutiny and serious difficulty in construing the law does it turn out the officer was wrong. what is the difficulty? it's a stoplight. >> here the difficulty is the provision that requires all originally equipped rear lamps to be working. >> that includes the stop lights and any other lights. stop lights, the turn lights, the backup lights.
so you had to use the plural. >> agreed, it is not the plural. it is the fact that all originally equipped rear lamps have to be working. originally equipped with multiple stop lamps, as cars now are, if one of them is broken, one of the originally equipped rear lamps is not working. that is the difficulty. that is why none of the courts at that considered this question thought this was anything other than a very hard question of statutory interpretation. >> so when we come out with the hypotheticals, is it reasonable for the officer to say i will pick this one and follow that? >> if the officer is in a jurisdiction whose court of appeals has decided the question, we think the officer is bound by that interpretation, even if other courts of appeals come out differently. but if the officer is in a jurisdiction where the question -- >> you can see the rest of this oral argument at c-span.org. we'll leave this here. yesterday we should let you know the court ruled 8-1 since the officer's mistake of law was
reasonable, there was reasonable suspicion justifying the stop on the fourth amendment. see the rest of it at c-span.org. and now prime minister tony -- sorry, prime minister david cameron appears before a parliamentary committee, talking about the u.k.'s climate change priorities and combating extremism. this is one of his three regular appearances before the 33 member british liaison committee. it's made up of the chairs of the house of commons committees. former prime minister tony player started the -- blair started the tradition during his administration. we join it in progress. >> it defies belief. it is a dark, dark day for humanity when something on this scale happens with no justification. there's not a belief system in the world that can justify this sort of afalling act. i think when this shows is the worldwide threat that is posed by this poisonous ideology of extremism islamist terrorism. it has nothing to do with one of
the world's great religious, islam, a religion of peace. this is a perversion. we have to recognize what we face in this country, but also as we see around the world. we must with our allies use everything we have in our we must, with their allies do to defeat it. can values of freedom, democracy -- i say to the committee as i have before, i think this will be the struggle of our generation. we will have to show every bit of resilience. i'm sure, members of the committee would agree. >> we very much endorse what you have just said. i think it is appropriate to the second part of this talk about how to
tackle radicalism. all too familiarity of the hostage event of sydney. to turn now to climate change. of her her issue generation, which relates to of climate ons the preconditions of the success of the human for the last several hundred years. personally believe -- this is the greenest government, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
without introducing an inappropriately partisan note, the next rove to parliament, to make a decision about the budget that covers 2028 to 2032. is success was the challenging target of reducing greenhouse emissions. also, avoiding adding unnecessary targets for renewals. do you think that if we an tinue to playing important role, we have to continue along the same path, the d you be able to resist call -- that comes really from political spectrum -- to flow down on progress of the carbon as in our economy? investment is
add to cost. >> i think we will. i think we're put this legislation in place and followed. as a result, we have seen further reductions in emissions. ritain is the first new renewable plant. a lot of good things are being done. to answer your question directly, yes, i think we will continue. we have to make the decision in 2016. my only hesitation is, we have the ee carbon reduced at lowest cost. on carbon capture and storage, is absolutely crucial,
we're put a lot of money into capturing storage experience, but we haven't yet gotten the ion understanding a workable system. i think before we commit to the next stage, we need to know more about whether gaskin a carbonizing in system. so, i think it is yes, but we say yes, we must have a better understanding. get people ssible to to switch off the electricity for financial reward? this is an adopted quite widely in the u. s.. we need to make sure that we lead in europe -- in
this which is very cost effective. has changed completely, the national electricity market. big grid -- it was a one-way system -- now there is a two-way system. a small grade, it is opportunity for businesses and public services to effectively reduce their demand, without services they the provide, and be financially rewarded. i think the technology is changing so fast, what you think may be the right way to do it today may be replaced by some other technology.
the technology is moving very fast. >> moving on to emissions trading. many of us see this market very effective -- in fact, the most effective way to get a good value for money. -- it looks eached as though china has reached the same conclusion. sure you continue to make that britain leads the pressure the eu system?g secondly, do you recognize an we are nity now that
different ards amounts, for what would large ially be a very revenue stream -- decide in climate change -- but the remainder of that could to cut taxes since businesses will pay for a large of the offset. that money could effectively be recycled for lower taxes for businesses and individuals. all, the question whether we should continue to this reform -- yes, absolutely. essential for e europe, if we do not see improvement in europe, we could disadvantaged in britain. it makes a big difference in our common arbon price here and have
carbon price in europe. this is also great for europe, and essential for britain. is this -- e to stop inappropriate use of climate. on the issue what do we do with the revenues -- obviously, we still have a large deficit. that is the primary use of these sorts of resources. i do agree with that thinking that says -- if we want to be, we should be very pro-business government. the more we can help businesses taxes, we should. finally, emissions trading has been a success, and will he globe -what
reduce ou think we can our emissions? do you think there's an opportunity for us, a market for these concepts invented here in britain? >> my understanding is that some other countries our have accurately copied legislation, like denmark. i think the only thing if we do it again, the thing i would change is -- a u do not want underneath specific concepts -- we
want to reduce carbon at the lowest cost, i think other targets can get in the way. the eu 2030 ating package. naturally have binding targets, as has happened in the past. lowest cost t the -- i think we have a good system, something we can recommend to others. helpful uld be really that ow what is the issue government -- in terms of the new package on air quality, and also on resource efficiency. it seems to me, if we will be with ssful in dealing energy issues, that our government actually report
those proposals? national pport the the maximum amount of -- i think what your question to es from is the proposal withdraw -- i may want to look more closely at what is being back to you. come we tried to support sensible measures where pollution is crossing boundaries. see excessive to regulation. >> i think the issue is that being made as is we speak. justin levine, about the issue of energy subsidies, clearly
sums up to energy fossil fuels -- eu is ct that the ambitions cuts targets, there's also the prospect of the eu climate deal paris, i ear in do you fare the such climate deal can't make the majority of our carbon reserves. why are n't burn oil, you encouraging more oil extraction? is the things -- oone issue of subsidies, and carbon
subsidies. i would argue that we do not in this e carbon country. countries to other reduce carbon. i do not accept that. i believe that hydrocarbons have a role to international energy system. that carbon capturing them will come about. for many years to come, and gas will still play a role in our energy supply. i think it should. lets decarbonize
comes less of where that from -- you would need a very large amount of subsidize energy. you would have a very expensive energy bill for consumers, i do not want to see that. i think it is great to care for the oil industry. it is vital for our country, us energy security. i think carbon caption for the future will in ble gas to play a part the industry. i think we should use tax what is -- do
environmentally sensible, as well as economically sensible. it makes sense that we encourage the industry to decommission oil and gas platforms in an environmentally sensible way. tax system has a use for making sure that we achieve those two goals. if the argument is the should not do anything by changing the tax system, i do not accept that. less turn to nuclear. shouldn't you -- i accept that nuclear is being subsidized by the government. >> i do not accept that. i will tell you what we are make -- we are trying to sure -- you have to stand back and ask what are we trying to
do? you always want to have the the ction in carbon in lowest cost, at the same time we want to secure energy supplies to power our economy. diverse energy supplies means we do not rely on any one fuel, or any one part of the world. a nuclear supporting industry, supporting renewable energies as they come, and supporting gas. that is our policy. as part of that, i think it is great to have the regeneration of the british nuclear industry. if we do not have that, and if oil and gas, we of a be in a bit difficulty. we would only have renewable do not think that would work.
if the subsidies coming from the fact that we are giving a per kilowatt ice the future -- it is a subsidy into the price offered in the nuclear power station practice -- that subsidies actually lower -- the price is we offer to hat offshore wind. so i do not think that we are treating nuclear unfairly as compared to renewable energy. >> i think the government is actually providing greater subsidies to nuclear because of the timeframe involved -- to interrupt you, but it is a very long-term
project, and enormous. >> but the government is actually being less helpful as onshore wind energy is concerned. dclg has actually intervene in has farm applications as actually intervene in wind farm applications as recently as june 2013. >> i think there's a very joint approach. i think -- i think. billy for what we are saying about onshore wind. as with other renewable technologies, there was a subsidy in the early days. heading for around 10% of our electricity to come from onshore wind.
in my view, that is enough as far as the balance energy supply. the planning t system, we could get past 10%. that is enough as far as balancing is applied. away the take subsidy, and then see if they want to see anymore. deciding, y're not are they? respect of fracking, i'm is sure why the government subsidizing fracking, because it is not a new technology, is it? i do not accept that. are not subsidizing fracking
-- as we stand today, there are gas wells ntional britain. yet, some shell reserves have to provide gas for this country. again, it is a nascent energy a we are not giving it subsidy -- we are just saying there should be a tax regime on it get dustry to help going. 1% of the revenues can go to as local community, as much 10,000,000 pounds. your if this happened in area -- the same at 100% of the business rate can be retained by the local authority. this could be 1,000,000 pounds to 2,000,000 pounds.
a means a community benefits from the development of a resource. i think that is very important see this industry grow. i would argue that those are big and unfair subsidies. this industry will have to make a profit in order to succeed -- let's move on. thank you. prime minister, in its annual in 2013 2014, it was described as a key partner in to u.k. -- then he goes on say that the current projected in the f investment u.k.'s green economy is less than half of the required rate. there has been
report which shows that the 1,000,000,000 pounds that the investment bank was expected to make available this a new loans, r been taken llion had out. in the projections of march, we are well down, about 20% of that rate. to t do you think you can do improve that? >> i think there are two questions. one is, are we attracting enough investment into our energy industry at a time when massive investments -- investment in renewables, investments in nuclear. we need a smart grid. on that question, i would argue
an enormous as been uplift in this government -- i investment has been four years then previous parliaments. there any her day, is other country in the world has such a long-term and open plan for future investment? they basically said no. if you're an energy investor, britain is a great place to invest. on that part we are doing great. on the green investment date, we gave it 3.8 billion of capital and has not spent that money yet. right start s the -- it should be a seed investment, levering in money the private sector.
right now it has money, and has seed investment to do. >> i agree. the problem is, it cannot seem spend the money. its think it spent 1.6 of 3.8 million. i'm sure we will see it ramp up. there are plenty of opportunities. look to try y and and answer your question, but i get from banks, pension funds, there's usually positive about investing in britain. largest energy and market than anywhere else in
the world. would the surface it appear that if only a portion has been used, there is a blockage somewhere. borrowing ed to start when we could see our deficit and debt situation. i do not sense that there is a problem. again, i will look and see if there's a better answer to what you're saying. >> if you can pursue that a bit further -- it may be premature to advocate increasing the capacity of the allowing it d, but, market row on the open to invest as a conventional
bank does -- but if we are to reach the environment some at some states, unless we are to plan more money in, that will be necessary. the moment, borrowing powers would not be given until the debt has fallen means the time has been postponed because of the public sector finances, which if it sidered an in court became appropriate to do so. >> i do not think it is necessary. if a third of the capital is gone, and it keeps doing that over the next three years, we will get to where we need to be. the two things should miraculously come together.
[indiscernible] there are plenty of lending institutions out there. there are plenty of pension to ds that are desperate invest in energy. remember, with our system, people can see how much money support out there to renewable investments. renewable energy enterprise because of the way obligations were -- you know what you will get as far as returns. >> moving on. recognize that -- an we are given --
interesting point. the want to talk about climate fund. of climate change, cause of climate change has been the industrialization of the modern world. you would be a great champion 2015 sustainable framework, how do you see climate change is part of that framework? >> it absolutely must be part of it. goal is that -- it will get to defuse -- i good ban ki-moon did a job recently to narrow down the dozens of people, climate, prosperity.
climate change has to absolutely be a part of it. the n that context, use litigation -- do you think there's any particular u.k. interest? poorest hink given the countries have less subsidies, on poor t be targeted countries, or should all developed countries be able to access it? >> they're not hard and fast answers to these. there are some countries, small states for example that are feeling the effects of climate change already. we should do both. should try -- the poorest countries are the ones to do olice capacity things, they need the most help. a world ays goes on in favor the tend to
the poorest le in countries, because they do not have the capacity to take action. developed countries access financing -- we should not rule out using this funding to help other countries. i think we should try and get the maximum value of the money when we do this. but, we have made good and generous offers of supporting -- i cannot give you a percentage. i think it is both. i think is where the biggest return can be found. in my view -- think generally speaking, say with aid spending, we should
focus on those dates that have the least capacity to help themselves. traditionally that means conflict hit states, and the poorest states that cannot generate revenues. >> the green climate fund is to pprovide new funding -- you said that 720 word count towards oda. of y simply taking it out other projects. >> i do not really accept that. we have an aid budget. we have sent some of that can be used for climate science. some of that money is going to the green climate fund. you can argue whether that is but is money not, that was not in the green fund and now it is. under our gue,
umbrella, that is money that is going to purpose. the hat is not to all partners -- what is to stop the oney that we put in the fund from being used for winter lysate in turkey, or being used for schools in somalia, or somewhere else. are arguing -- do we use money that is in the eu? i would agree. if -- obviously any fun we give money to, we should work as as we can to make sure that it does not waste that the y and they spent in right way. i think the contribution we climate fund n will do that.
we literally target screen one with 16 million, it's been reduced to 10. do we need other countries to sit back and say, in the u.k. does the heavy lifting? would it be easier for us to work with other countries to say why don't you match us? >> i was criticized for holding back on the green climate fund. exactly that -- i went to ban ki-moon's conference in i would r and said that deliver, trying to deliver an eu deal on climate change. but, i held back on making a contribution to the green fund. i said i wanted to see other people's money before we put our money and. i think it is a mixture likely.
i think sometimes it is worth other times worth holding back. it can work to leave earned money to say we were only given will be matched by others. i think we should do all those methods. >> i welcome that. we know that the new australian of ernment is in denial climate change -- do you think are doing enough? >> i think they are doing more. look, it is a sovereign country. it has to make his own decisions. there has also been a very big carbon prices --
that they recognize, they do not want to be on the back burner. it is a great country, and clearly affected by climate change. i think they will do more. we should recognize, europe has what is necessary to show real leadership. >> but, the only reason they won't -- think o not think -- i they will fill pressure and want to do more. we should try and encourage their own way, n rather than saying there's a preordained group that they have to follow. america has proved to reduce their carbon emissions. the president ed
to make some interesting on climate change, delivered through executive motions rather than congress. is t we are doing there standing back -- we want to get a global deal. every country has its own politics. of my constituents have jobs where energy is used at extremely high levels. and yet, we are trying to need e the public that we to lower energy use. messages to fficult communicate. just yesterday -- clearly the application that will affect futures of jobs.
are he one hand, there the shell to agreement, on the other hand who e are certainly people need them prices to go down. does the prime minister agreed that the signs is not finished until it is -- >> definitely. of time saying t -- i value the work that scientists did. i think there's some myths that to get over. the method nuclear power is inherently unstable. there myths that we need to a nfront if we will be stable, science-based, successful country. say, the scientists --
out and them to get communicate it. constant need a message -- a consistent message from government on climate change. you are one of the members of government that has been a little off pace, to say the least. >> i think the government has a very clear policy -- be a very green government. we are the greenest government ever. i strongly believe that cutting carbon at the lowest cost -- i think that sometimes in disagreements. the ink cutting carbon at lowest cost. i think that wind farms that are being built will not be necessary. do not need more the
subsidized onshore -- get rid of the subsidy, and put it back into the system. a case, they will make the case. i do not think they will. enough is enough. of going back to the role aand scientists i've asked before, what is the need for them to take a it independent role and advise others honestly. it becomes viable to the government comes out with a consistent message. >> i agree. i think the government has a consistent message. i think the fact that we now very scientists is a
strong thing. urge them to speak robustly to their ministers. we do not just one policy driven by science, we want sites to be included. they have that role to play. things that down the line is important. we have had things that have happened about which i do not we have had significant enough scientistific warning. >> one of the reason that we consistent message -- there are different agendas of some of the media. some real problems
well, fracking is a new industry. place it e ever to went disastrously wrong. you put regulations on fracking companies? know that -- should we be looking to precautionary measures? >> i think we have got a good regime in place. >> are you aware of any self-monitoring of any fracking company? >> anything above a shock of --
would result in an operators shut down. again, i think it is good that a debate about fracking -- a sensible debate. sometimes we look at the emails and et from constituents lobbying groups -- when i've some of the f at mythbusting, i hope we can encourage the media to bust and look hese myths, rationally. have the uld actually environment agency going in and test after each frack. light t we have a traffic system -- that is what we have. in place after.
is what i'm worried about the self-monitoring. does tthe environmental agency you the concern -- can give us a commitment that this impact monitoring of fracking? >> i do not see that it would. from everything i've heard about this, there is a large of regulatory hurdles. too complicated -- you have licensing processes, etc. in the end this debate will only be won or lost when there are some wells in britain carrying out unconventional gas recovery, be people can see this can
without anly, environmental problems, with benefits for us. benefits for industry and the potential to have more secure gas, but also maybe environmental benefits -- think of using gas in our homes for cooking and eating, a fact that has been produced here, that is good for the environment. >> you are asking the environment to take an awful does the -- why -- will you vary social impact t -- >> i'm very happy to look at
that. justin comment on self-monitoring activity -- companies do lose their permits. spot checks are done. i'm happy doing all these details. i see -- i do not believe that this is an industry in danger of regulation. >> this is not coming to whitney anytime soon -- >> i would be happy very happy if it did. i visited the oil rounds -- i went to see the conventional and gas recovery. small they kable how are. that would actually be smaller than those.
>> but it would be one-mile in the ground and horizontal -- and no one has executed this before. onshore gas and not say ite, iit does be t people have to consulted -- is it just an expectation, or the in obligation? i think this compelling we can rely -- >> everyone is consulted. >> it does not say that. >> in planning, everyone is able to put the point -- read surprised when i this, fracking uses less water than a golf course in one month. >> no one knows at what point of chemicals are taken out when the , and
groundwater is transported to -- e sort of well to restore 20 miles aways. there also is a potential dangers. but, it's too late when the license has been granted. >> as far as any the action to your describing -- these would likely be a legal, and companies will lose their license. i wannt to be clear, my view is that if shell gas can do it safely and local commuter should do it. problem part of the again -- then back to the big groups t -- some green are anti-gas just for the fact
that it is a carbon-based fuel. they are posing it with this sort of religiosity. i think that is frankly wrong. my view is -- if we can recover gas onshore in a safe way, let's do it. you were minister, published -- >> i have not seen it. give you my copy. >> i will look at it. you have asked me a lot of points. any already -- frack site will have a full environmentally assessment. will be published?
>> tthat's the way our planning system works. [indiscernible] tell me -- there's not a danger that we may overpromise the number of jobs, especially local jobs, that will be created? >> you are absolutely right. for figure has been given the 64,000 jobs, i do not think anyone can be certain what will happen. happened in t has america -- many more jobs. examining should be this industry, aand seeing what it can do for british jobs, and british communities, british energy.
my objection to the green groups, they do not want to any of this -- they cannot bear another carbon-based energy source. i danger of -- can just ask, again on the employment issue. clearly the number just depends on the amount of gas that is recovered. we do -- what can you do to speed up the process of exploration? >> we try to do that in a of ways -- by trying to make sure that the number of and planning commissions the company needs is not too onerous. what i was talking about in chemicals, and planning. need to ink, we also
try and make sure the industry skills it requires. you can do all these things, but i think it is only when the first few wells are up and running, and people can go and visit it -- only at that point will the industry really get going. that might you think be? >> i'm hoping that the first first wells be be dug next year. >> and then the gas will be coming out the year after that? this industry -- wells are the first
will go quite quickly. >> could you say anything about under what circumstances you might support fracking in national parks? >> we have said only in exceptional circumstances. there's certainly a higher threshold to be crossed. i think again, this will come back to -- i was very struck when i went and saw the conventional feeds. they have said now this is been here for 10 or 20 years, and now we know what there is a forest road movements, we can see the scale. it is when that happens that i think the industry will be viewed in a different light.
they will see that there's much less to worry about than i thought. >> taking facking to national park something a very big challenge. your answer -- the on golf courses -- >> i was making the point. >> my committee made its first report urging -- four years heard efore many had even of it. just to put the concern of her tremors t -- were not strong enough to feel on the surface, i do not think are all that series of an
anxiety. gas could -- you agree that one way to kickstart the process and achieve what wells out - get a few there, do you think one way would be extending incentives a little further for a limited period? so, anyone who agrees to allow in the community, the gas to to be exploited, would get extra incentives? number of d quite a demonstrations of operations up running quite soon. that might allow the large-scale rollout. >> i'm open to suggestions. came up with 100,000 pounds,
the chance of factored in a sovereign fund for north of england. i do not think the problem the communities cal saying -- if only there was another 1%, we would go for this. i think the problem is, people are worried about this and concerned. only when they see and are happy with what has will go for.tthey >> let's turn to radicalization. you set up and shared the extremism task force. what has it been doing since november? again, reminding
ourselves what this was all about. the government has a clear policy on tackling extremism. light of the n murder of -- it was right to bring people together. and thing, i would actually the process of tackling extremism -- prisons, schools, universities? helping moderates drive of mosques, or community centers. put into force. there will be subsequent extremism task force to see if there are more things we need to do. i work -- the way sometimes it is best to bring together ministers on an agenda. this is what we will discuss fun, we will report back, and
see how we are doing. it is working like that. for committees that i've done, i think it was moderately successful. >> how much of a priority is for you personally? is occupying more of your time, less than the time, is it more than the economy? where is in your list of priorities? i i would say -- i think have twin priorities -- and national rity security. you go back, if you read one my speeches -- if you go back in opposition, i made a
lot of speeches about the of islamic extremists, beneath it ideology -- i think it is still very relevant today. generational struggle. in the three beaten with all in the toolbox. regrettably, i'm spending more i'm holds -- the problem we're facing is a series. despite your speeches -- i of them -- how close are we to that sydney style attack in our country? threat we the face definitely includes those
sorts of self starting, sometimes random attacks. >> we're going to leave this life meeting in london for a house of moments as the gavels in. there standing by waiting for he senate to complete its work. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 16, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable randy neugebauer to act as spe p