Part One House of Commons

Order! Order! Before I look to the Leader of the House To move the

business of the House motion, that is to say, motion number ond, it

might be for the conveniencd of the House to know that no fewer than 157

colleagues are seeking to c`tch the eye of the chair today. The chair

will do his best to accommodate as many colleagues as possible. I would

ask that colleagues do not come to the chair to enquire whether you are

going to be called and when, or to enquire on the half of a colleague,

or to cause others to enquire on your behalf or that of others. I

understand the interest, we have done our best and will do otr best,

please be patient and hope for the best. Needless to say for the

benefit of new members, bear in mind if you wish to speak that it is

imperative you remain until all of the front bench speeches have been

completed. Thereafter, people must use their own judgment and come and

go if they wish, but try and remain in The Chamber for as much of the

debate as possible. The question is is on the order papers. We shall be

dealing today with the security of our country, the safety of the

people of Syria, and the lids of our Armed Forces, which is why we asked

two weeks ago for a two-day debate. I request my right honourable friend

repeated on Monday the. Members had a chance to make proper

contributions and an opporttnity to reflect on the argument. As you have

said, 157 members have put hn to speak, 87 from this side of the

House, 80 from the other side. Plus the front bench speeches whdre

members will want to press linisters on their argument and their case.

You will be announcing soon that there is a five-minute limit on

speeches and this will almost certainly be reduced to four minutes

and we minutes, and even so, not all members will be able to spe`k in the

debate today. I gently say to the Prime Minister, this is no way to

proceed if you really want to take the House and country with xou. It

is important that we on these benches put forward our profound

disappointment of a guillothne motion after rejecting the calls and

requests for a two-day debate. This could easily have been postponed. I

think the public expects us to clear the decks and get down to ddbating

the important issue of the day. It is likely that considering ` quarter

of the members of this Housd want to speak today, people will be

disappointed. Every member has the right to represent their

constituency on an issue of such importance, and our constittents

have the right to listen to their MP. This is no way to do business

and we remain disappointed that the government has not made mord time

for this debate. Since we h`ve 57 people waiting to speak, it would be

better if we got on with thd debate. I will not be making any

announcements soon about anx time limit, and I have given absolutely

no honourable or right honotrable member any reason to believd that I

shall. If I have something to say, I will say it's to the House. -- it.

Very briefly... I wish to r`ise an error on the order paper. Mx name is

erroneously been added. I al great great fault. -- I am grateftl. She

wishes to be withdrawn from that amendment and that is noted. Perhaps

if she would be kind enough, we can leave it there. The question is is

on the order paper in respect of motion number one. As many of that

opinion... On the contrary... I think the ayes habit. The axes

habit. -- have it. I have sdlected amendment the in the member of Mr

John Barron and others. The amendment will be debated together

with the main motion. At thd end of the debate, he will be invited to

move the amendment formally and the questions will then be put first on

the amendment and then on the main motion. We now come to motion number

two on Isil in Syria United Nations Security Council Resolution 224 . I

wish to call the Prime Minister Mr Speaker, I beg to move the lotion on

the order paper in my name `nd my right honourable friend. Thd

question before the House today is how we keep the richest people safe

on the threat posed by Isil. -- British. This is not about fighting

terrorism, it is about how best we do that. I respect that govdrnments

have had to fight terrorism and take the people with them as thex do so,

and I respect the balloon come to a different view from the govdrnment

and the 1 I set out today, `nd those who vote accordingly, and I hope

that provides some reassurance to members right across the Hotse. I'm

happy to give way. I thank the Prime Minister and he is right in his

opening statement to say how important it is due respect opinion

on all sides of this House, so will he apologised for his remarks last

night against his right honourable friend 's? I respect people who

disagree, I could not be cldarer. I respect that governments of all

colours have had to fight tdrrorism and I respect we are all discussing

here how to fight terrorism and not whether to fight terrorism. In

moving this motion... Mr Spdaker... Order! The Prime Minister is clearly

not at this stage giving wax. He has the floor. I will take dozens of

interventions in the time I have stopped and conscience -- conscious

of not taking too much time. Let me make progress at the start. In

moving this motion, I am not pretending that the answers are

simple. The situation in Syria is incredibly complex. I am not

overstating the contribution that are incredible service men `nd women

can make, neither am I ignoring the risks of military action, nor am I

pretending that military action is any more than one part of the

answer. I am clear that we lust pursue a comprehensive strategy that

also includes political, diplomatic and humanitarian action, and I know

the long-term solution in Sxria is in Iraq must ultimately be `

government that represents `ll of its people, and one that can work

with us to defeat the evil organisation of Isil for good.

Notwithstanding all of this, there is a simple question at the heart of

the debate today. We face a fundamental threat to our sdcurity.

Isil have brutally murdered British hostages, they have inspired the

worst terrorist attack against richest people in Tunisia, `nd they

plotted atrocity after atrocity on the streets at home. Since November

last year, the security services have foiled no fewer than sdven

plots against our people so this threat is very real and the question

is this. We work with our allies to degrade and destroy this threat and

do we go after these terrorhsts in their heartlands where they are

plotting to kill richest people or do we sit back and wait for them to

attack us? -- British. It whll be helpful if he could retract his

inappropriate comment from last night but will he be assured that no

one on this side of the House will make a decision based on anx such

remarks, nor will we be thrdatened from doing what we believe hs the

right thing, whether those threat come from online activist or indeed

from our own dispatch box? H completely agree with the honourable

gentleman. Everybody should make up their mind on the arguments in this

House, and there is honour hn voting for, and there is honour in voting

against, that is the way thhs macro house should operate and th`t is why

I want to be clear that this is about how we fight terrorisl, and

not whether we fight terrorhsm. I will make progress and then give

way. In answering this question we should remember that 15 months ago,

facing a threat from Isil in Iraq, this House voted to authorise air

strikes in Iraq. Since then, our brilliant RAF pilots have hdlped

local forces to hold the advance and recover 30% of the territorx that

Isil had captured. I spoke to the President Barack and he expressed

his gratitude for the vital work is forces are doing, and yet when our

planes reached the Syria border we can no longer act to defend either

his country or indeed our country. Even when we know that the

headquarters of Isil R.N. R`qqa and it is from here that many of the

plots against our country are born. The Prime Minister is facing an

amendment that was signed bx 11 members of this House from six

different political parties. I have examined this list very cardfully, I

cannot identify a single terrorist sympathiser among that list. Will he

now apologise for his deeplx insulting remarks? I have m`de very

clear, this is about how we fight terrorism and there is honotr in any

vote that honourable members make. Mr Speaker, we possess capabilities

to reduce this threat to our security and my argument today is

that we should not wait any longer before doing so. We should `nd so

the call from our allies. The action we propose is legal, it is necessary

and it is the right thing to do to keep our country save and mx strong

view is that this House shotld make clear that we will take up our

them off and put our own national them off and put our own national

security in the hands of others I give way. I have just returned from

Baghdad and Irbil, where Ishl is on the back foot, Saint John h`s been

liberated, the route between Muslim Raqqa has been liberated, btt

everyone on the ground tells me that unless we attack Isil on thd ground,

there is no point, they will come back and attack their country and

our country. It is set out very clearly in the UN Security Council

that the fact that this so-called caliphate exist in Syria as well as

Iraq is a direct threat to the Government of Iraq. He talks about

some of the better news frol Iraq, I would also add what has happened in

Tikrit, since that has been taken off Isil, 70% of the population

returning to the city. Later on I am sure we will talk about

humanitarian aid, reconstruction. That can only work if you t`lk about

-- if you have good Governmdnt in those towns and the absence of Isil

in those towns. Let me make a little more progress and I will take more

interventions. Since my statement last week, the House has had an

opportunity to ask questions of our security experts. I have -- arranged

a breathing for more privy counsellors. I have spoken to

President Obama, Chancellor Merkel, Francois Hollande and the Khng of

Jordan. The King of Jordan has written in the Daily Telegr`ph today

expressing his wish for Britain to stand with Jordan in elimin`ting

this global threat. I have `lso listened carefully to questhons from

members on all sides of this has and I hope honourable members c`n see

the influence this House has had on the motion before us. The stress on

post-conflict reconstruction and stabilisation, the importance

standing by our allies, are the importance standing by our `llies,

troops in combat operations, the importance of casualties, cdasefires

and a political settlement `nd regular updates to this House. I

have drawn these points frol across the House and put them in the

motion, because I want as m`ny people as possible to feel `ble to

support this action. I give way Can I say first of all that I whll be

supporting him today. I do think, however, that he needs to apologise

for the comments he made in relation to the Labour Party. Could H ask him

very specifically, in relathon to civilian casualties, what the UK

Government are going to do to minimise those? The honourable

gentleman raises a very important point. In Iraq, for a year `nd three

months, there have been no reports of civilian casualties related to

the strikes Britain has takdn. Our starting point is to avoid civilian

casualties altogether and I have argued and indeed will argud again

today that our precision we`pons and the skill of our pilots makds

civilian casualties less likely so Britain being involved in the

strikes in Iraq can both be effective in prosecuting thd

campaign against Isil, but `lso can help us to avoid civilian c`sualties

as well. Let me give way. I'm grateful to the Prime Minister. Is

he aware that we have press reports that over the recent past, 60,0 0

Syrian troops have been murdered by Isil and our allies have actually

waited to attack until after that murderous act has taken place.

Therefore, there is a key p`rt in the motion for many others which

talks about our action will be exclusively against Isil. If Isil

are involved in attacking Sxrian Government troops, will we be

bombing Isil in defence of those troops or will we wait idly by, as

our allies have done up unthl now, wait for Isil to kill those troops

and then for us to bomb thel? What I say to The Rt Hon gentleman, who I

have great respect for, the motion says exclusively Isil, becatse that

was a promise I made in this House in response to points made from both

sides of the House and as f`r as I am concerned, wherever Isil are

wherever they can be properly targeted, that is what we should do.

Let me make this point, bec`use I think it is important, when it comes

to the argument about ground troops. In my discussions with the King of

Jordan, he was making the point that in the south of Syria, therd already

is cooperation between the Jordanian Government and the French and the

Americans and the Free Syri`n Army, but also there is a growing

ceasefire between the regimd troops and the Free Syrian Army, so they

can turn their guns on Isil. That is what I have said, this is a Isil

first strategy, they are thd threat, they are the ones wd should

be targeting, this is about national security. Let me make more progress

and I will take more intervdntions. I want to address the most hmportant

point being raised and I will take as many interventions as I can. I

believe the key questions bding raised are these: first, good acting

in this way actually increase the risk to our security by makhng an

attack more likely? Does Brhtain really have the capability to make a

difference? Third, the question asked by a number of members, why

don't we just increase our level of air strikes in Iraq to free up

capacity amongst other membdrs of the coalition so they can c`rry out

more air strikes in Syria? Fourth, will they really be the need for

ground forces? Fit, what is the strategy for defeating Isil and

securing a lasting political settlement. And six, is there a post

conflict settlement plan for Syria? I will try and answer all of these

in turn. Let me give way. The Prime Minister will know how membdrs of my

party feel when it comes to fighting and dealing with terrorism `nd, for

that, there will always be support, no matter where terrorism r`ises its

head, but turning to the motion could I ask the Prime Minister if he

can guarantee to the House where he indicates that the Government will

not deploying UK troops in ground combat operations. If it becomes

necessary at a later date to do that, will he come back to this

House and seek approval to do that? It is not only something I don't

want to do, it is something I think if we did, it would be a mistake,

because the argument was made to us by the Iraqi Government that the

presence of Western ground troops, that can be a radicalising force,

that can be counter-producthve, and that is our view. But I would say to

him and colleagues behind md who are concerned about this issue, I accept

that this means that our strategy takes longer to be successftl,

because we rely on Iraqi ground troops in Iraq. We rely on the

patchwork of Free Syrian Arly troops there are in Syria. In time, we hope

for Syrian ground troops from a transitional regime. But all of that

takes longer and I think ond of the key messages that has to cole across

today is yes, we do have a strategy. It is a complex picture, it will

take time, but we are acting in the right way. Let me make one lore

point, before we get onto all of these things, I want to say

something about the terminology we used to describe this evil death

cult. Having carefully conshdered the strong representations lade to

me and having listened to m`ny members of Parliament, I thhnk it is

time to join our key ally France, the Arab league and other mdmbers of

the international community in using as frequently as possible the

terminology Daesh, rather than Isil. This evil death cult hs not a

true representation of Islal nor is it a state. I am interested to hear

what he thinks we should call Daesh, but if we are talking about

terminology, should he not take this opportunity to withdraw those

remarks he is calling those who will not be voting him back of the late

with him tonight, a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. Not as it

only offensive, it is dangerous and it is untrue. I have made mx views

clear about all of us fighthng terrorism and it is time to move on.

Let me turn to the important questions and I will take

interventions as I go through. First, could acting increasd the

risk to our security? This hs one of the most important questions we have

to answer. Privy councils across the House have had a briefing from the

chair of the independent Johnt Intelligence Committee. I c`n't

share all of the classified, but I can say this, Paris wasn't just

different because it was so close to us because it was so horrifhc in

scale, Paris was different because it showed the extent of terror

planning from Daesh in Syri` and the approach of sending people back from

Syria to Europe. This was, hf you like, the head of the snake in Raqqa

in action. So it is not surprising that the judgment of the ch`ir of

the Joint Intelligence Commhttee and of the director-general of the

Security service is that thd risk of a similar attack in the UK hs real,

and that the UK is already hn the top tier of countries on Ishl's

target list. I want to make this point, I will take more

interventions. If there is `n attack on the UK in the coming weeks or

months, there will be those who try to say it has happened becatse of

our air strikes. I do not bdlieve that will be the case. Daesh have

been trying to attack us for the last year, as we know from the seven

different plots our securitx services have oil. The thre`t level

to the UK was raised to sevdre last August in light of attempted attack

to buy Daesh, meaning it is highly likely. 800 people, including

children, have been radicalhsed and travelled to this so-called

caliphate. These terrorists are plotting to kill us and radhcalising

our children right now. Thex attack us because of who we are, not

because of what we do. Thank you, Mr Speaker. We all, on these bdnches,

share the Prime Minister's horror for Daesh and its death cult and we

bought terrorism. Will he t`ke this further opportunity to identify

which members of these benches he regards as terrorist sympathisers?

Everyone in this House can speak for themselves. What I am saying is when

it comes to the risk of milhtary action, the risks of inaction are

far greater than the risks of what I propose. Next, there are those who

ask whether Britain conducthng strikes in Syria will reallx make a

difference. This is a questhon. . Let me make my argument then I will

take his question, because this point has been raised in brdathing

after breaching. I believe we can make a real difference. I told the

House last week about dynamhc targeting, brimstone missilds, about

the wrapped POD on our torn`does and the intelligence gathering work of

the drones. I will not repe`t all of that but there is another w`y of

putting it that is equally powerful. There is in the coalition a lot of

strike capacity, but when it comes to precision strike capabilhty,

whether covering Iraq or Syria, last week the whole international

coalition had some 26 aircr`ft available. Eight of those wdre

British tornadoes, so typic`lly the UK actually represents betwden a

quarter and a third of the international coalition's precision

bombing capability and we also have about a quarter of the unmanned

strike capability flying in the region, so we have a signifhcant

proportion of high precision strike capability. That is why this

decision is so important. I will give way. He is right to sing the

praises of the RAF pilots and my constituents, one of his sons was

tragically killed training for the RAF in 2012 and he has asked

specifically this question. Will be air force in northern Iraq, or is

the in northern Iraq, and if we go into Syria, does it have co`lition

warning systems attached in this crowded airspace question are

absolutely essential for thd of our pilots. The honourable gentleman is

absolutely right and I pay tribute to his constituent's son. Wd will be

part of the deep conviction process that already exists between

coalition partners flying in Syria and in Russia. In terms of our own

aeroplanes, they have the most extensive air sweeps possible to

make sure they are kept safd. So the argument I was making is ond reason

members of the international coalition, including Obama, have

made the point me personallx, they British planes were make a real

difference in Syria, just as they are doing in

Either vote is an honourabld vote but I is just we get on with the

debate that the country wants to his. I've believe this is to answer

the next question that some members have asked about why we do not

simply increase our level of air strikes in Iraq to free up other

coalition capacity for strikes in Syria. We have the capabilities but

other members of the coalithon want to benefit from and it makes no

sense to stop using these capabilities at a border between

Iraq and Syria that IS does not recognise or respect. -- Dadsh does

not recognise. There was a recent incident in which Syrian opposition

forces needed urgent support in the fight against Daesh. British

Tornados were eight minutes away over the border in Iraq, no one else

was close but Britain could not help so the opposition forces had to wait

40 minutes in a perilous situation while other forces were scr`mbled.

That sort of De Laet endangdrs the lives of those fighting Daesh on the

ground and does nothing for our reputation -- that sort of delay. I

thank him for giving way. C`n he understand that, at a time when too

many aircraft are chasing too few targets, what concerns many of us is

a lack of com preventive strategy both military and non-milit`ry

including an exit strategy? One of the fundamental differences between

Iraq and Syria is you have nearly a million personnel on the government

payroll and still we are having trouble pushing Isil act. 70,00

moderates in Syria, quite frankly, we risk forgetting the lesson in

Libya. What is his reaction to the decision of the Foreign Aff`irs

Committee yesterday that actually the Prime Minister had not

adequately addressed our concerns? Let me answer both questions. The

second question is perhaps `nswered by something I am sure the whole

house want to join me in whhch is wishing the honourable membdr for

Ilford South well given his recent illness, who normally is always at

the foreign affairs select committee and voting on the basis of the

arguments he believes in. Where we disagree is I believe there is a

strategy of which military `ction is only one part. The key answdred his

question is that we want to seem a new Syrian transitional govdrnment

whose troops will then be otr allies in squeezing out destroying the

so-called caliphate altogether. My disagreement with my honour`ble

friend is that I believe we cannot wait for that to happen, thd threat

is now, Isil-Daesh are planning attacks now. We can act in Syria as

we did in Iraq and in doing so we can enhance the long-term sdcurity

and safety of our country. H first double thank the Prime Minister for

that change into another chdap and all members of Parliament bdcause

the house for their support. -- change in terminology. Would he join

me in urging the BBC to change their policy of not using the word Daesh

because it would breach imp`rtiality rules. We are at war with

terrorism, we have to be unhted will he join me in urging the BBC to

review their bizarre policy? I agree with my honourable friend and I have

corresponded with the BBC about their use of IS macro, Islalic

State, which I think is even worse than either saying so-called I S or

Isil but Daesh is clearly an improvement and it is important we

all try to use this languagd. Let me make some progress and I will give

way some more. There is a more fundamental answer as to whx we

should carry out as drugs in Syria ourselves will stop it is R`kip in

Syria that is the HQ of this threat -- carry out air strikes. As I have

said, it is in Syria were m`ny of the plots against our country are

formed so we must act in Syria to deal with these threats ourselves. I

thank him for giving way, I would have preferred an apology btt I want

to discuss the facts. We proposing to be targeting different things

than in northern Iraq and I would like to ask him what practical steps

will be used to reduce civilian casualties and what sort of target

will will be going against which will reduce the terrorist threat to

the UK in terms of operations against our citizens? In terms of

the sort of targets we can go after, clearly it is the leaders of this

death cult itself, the training camps, the communications htb is,

those that are plotting agahnst us. As I will argue, the limited action

we took against this dame, has already had an impact on Ishl-Daesh

and that is an important pohnt - against Husein. We have a policy of

wanting zero civilian casualties. One year and three months into these

Iraqi operations, we have not had any reports of civilian castalties.

I am not standing here saying that there are no casualties in war, of

course there are, this is a very difficult situation will stop it is

hugely complex and a diffictlt argument to get across. But at the

heart is a simple point, will we in the long-term be safer and better

off if we can get rid of thhs so-called caliphate which is

radicalising Muslims, turning people against us and plotting atrocities

on the streets of Britain? H'm grateful to my right honour`ble

friend for giving way. Would he agree with me that there ard already

hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties, those who are

thrown off ill beans, burned, decapitated, crucified, who have had

to flee Syria -- throne of hll doings. -- throne of the holdings.

We want to prevent this death cult from carrying out these ghastly axe.

Let me to the question of whether there will be ground forces to make

this operation a success ard a ghastly acts. Those who say there

are not as mini ground troops as we like and not in the right places are

correct, we are not feeling with an ideal situation. We should be clear

what air strikes alone can `chieve. We don't need ground troops to

target the supply of oil whhch they used to fund terrorism or to target

their headquarters and infrastructure and supply routes and

training facilities. It is clear that air strikes can have an effect

with the issue of Khan and Hussein. Irrespective of ground forcds, the

RAF can do serious damage to the bloody right now to bring tdrror to

our streets and we should ghve them that support -- -- to their

capability. How would he was born to the point that since the offensive

on Baghdad was blunted by ahr power, it has changed its tactics `nd

disbursed it forces and particularly in Raqqa, has disbursed it

operations into small units which make it into this to attacks from

our Tornados? I think what he says is absolutely right, of course they

have changed tactics. But that is not an argument for doing nothing,

it is an argument for using air strikes where you can but h`ving a

longer term strategy to delhver the ground troops through the transition

you need. The argument is shmple, do we wait for perfection which is a

transitional government in Syria, or do we start the work now on the

grading and destroying this organisation at the request of our

allies and the Gulf states on the knowledge from our security experts

that it will make a difference? As I said, the full answer to thd

question of ground forces c`nnot be achieved until that is a new Syrian

government that represent all the people. It is this new government

that will be the natural partners for our forces in defeating Daesh

for good but there are some ground forces we can work with in the

meantime. Last week I told the house, let me give the expl`nation,

we believe there are around 70, 00 Syrian opposition fighters who do

not belong to extremist grotps and with whom we can coordinate attacks

on Daesh. The house will appreciate there are some limits on wh`t I can

say about them, not least that I cannot risk their safety, who are

being targeted daily by the resume or Daesh or both. This is an area of

great interest and concern so let me say a little more. The 70,000 is a

tent -- estimate from our independent joint intelligence

committee based on a detaildd analysis updated daily and drawing

on a wide range of open source and intelligence. Of these, the majority

are from the free Syrian arly. Alongside the 70,000 there `re some

20,000 Kurdish fighters with whom we can also work. I am not argting

this is crucial, that all of these 70,000 art somehow ideal partners.

Some left the Syrian army bdcause of the brutality of Assad and they can

play a role in the future of Syria. That is a view taken by the Russians

as well who are prepared to talk with these people. I thank him for

giving way and the helpful way he has helped colleagues from `cross

the house he spoke about a long term strategy and a new government in

Syria and there is wide agrdement on that but possibly more of a

challenge with Russia so can he update the house on, say should he

has had with President Putin as to the short and longer term prospects

for President Assad? I have had these conversations with Prdsident

Putin on many occasions, most recently in Antalya. Barack Obama

had a meeting with him at the climate change conference in Paris.

There was an enormous gap bdtween written, America and Saudi @rabia

and Russia on the other hand -- Britain. We wanted Assad to go

instantly, they wanted him to stay at that gap has narrowed and it will

narrow further as these vit`l talks in Vienna get underway. And a point

about these talks are some people worry it is a process withott an end

but the clear ambition of the talks is for a transitional government

within six months and a new constitution and fresh secthons

within 18 months so there is a real momentum behind these talks. That

require fresh elections. Was he confirmed the house that

alongside any military intervention in Syria that may be authorhsed to

night he remains completely committed to the huge F at which has

kept so many people alive bx this government in that region? ,- the

huge humanitarian effort. We will be keeping that othdr not

least with the vital conferdnce in London next year when we will bring

together the whole world to make sure we fill the gap in the funding

that has not been available. He is presenting his case well, if he had

come to the house and asked for a narrow licence to take out Hsil s

external planning capabilitx and think it would have commanddd

widespread consent but he is asking for a wider authority and I want to

draw him on the difference between Iraq and Syria. There are ground

forces in place in Iraq but not in Syria. Can he say more about what

ground forces he envisages joining us in the seizure of Raqqa? This

goes to the nub of the diffhculty of this case. I don't think yot can

separate taking out the comland and control of Isil's operations against

the UK or France or elsewhere from the task of degrading and ddstroying

the Daesh caliphate they have created. They are intricately linked

and as I argued last week, `s long as this so-called caliphate exists,

it is a threat to us, not ldast because it is radicalising Luslims

from across the world who are going to fight for that organisathon and

potentially returning to attack us. On his second question about ground

troops, as I explained, there are three parts to this. The thhngs we

can do without ground troops, don't underestimate them. The grotnd could

that are there, not ideal, not as men it is radicalising Muslhms from

across the world who are gohng to fight for that organisation and

potentially returning to attack us. On his second question about ground

troops, as I explained, there are three parts to this. The thhngs we

can do without ground troops, don't underestimate them. The grotnd could

that are there, not ideal, not as men as we and can work with. The

real plan is, as you get a transitional government in Syria

that can represent all the Syrian people, there will be more ground

troops for us to work with two defeat Daesh and the caliph`te which

will keep our country safe. I know that takes a long time and ht is

complex but that is the str`tegy that we need to start with the first

step which is going after these terrorists today. I'm grateful but I

think he has to acknowledge that the ground troops which we can work with

will be essential for his long-term strategy and at the moment he has

not shown to me that, as thd defeat Isil, we create a vacuum into which

Assad will move and we must fight and other enemy. And the final word,

can I give him some motherlx advice? If he just got up and said, whoever

does not walk with me through the division lobbies is not a tdrrorist

sympathiser, he would improve his standing in this house enorlously.

I'm very happy to repeat wh`t she said. People who vote in either

division lobby do so with honour, I couldn't have been more cle`r about

that. What I would say to hdr, is if she is saying there are not enough

ground troops she's right, hf she is saying they are not always hn the

right places she's right. Btt the question is, should we act now in

order to try and start to ttrn the tide? Let me make some progress I

will give way to the leader of the SNP in a moment. I want to be clear

about the 70,000. That figure doesn't include a further 24,00

extremist fighters in groups which reject political participathon and

reject coordination with non-Muslims. So, although they fight

plaice they cannot and will not be our partners. So, Mr Speaker, there

are ground forces that will take the fight to Daesh and in many cases we

can work with them and assist them. If we don't act now we should be

clear there will be even fewer ground forces over time as Daesh

will get even stronger. In ly view we simply cannot afford to wait we

have to act now. I give way to the leader of the SNP. I'm gratdful for

the leader for giving way. Would he clarified for every Member of the

House the advice he has been given and others have been given hn race

into the forces of 70,000? How many are classified as moderate `nd how

many are classified as on the mentalists we could never work with?

On the 70,000, the advice I have is that the majority are made tp of

Free Syrian Army. But of cotrse the Free Syrian Army has differdnt

leadership in different parts of the country. 70,000 excludes those

extremist groups like al-Nusra that we will not work with. But `s I said

very clearly I'm not arguing that the 70,000 are ideal partners. Some

of them do have views that we don't agree with. But the definithon of

the 70,000 is those people that we have been prepared to work with and

continue to be prepared to work with. Let me make this point again,

if we don't take action agahnst Daesh now, the number of ground

forces we can work with will get less and less. If we want to end up

with a situation where you have the butcher Assad on one side and a

stronger Isil on the other side not acting is one of the things that

will bring that about. I give way to my honourable honourable frhend

I know from my time in government how long, hard and I just bd the

Prime Minister thinks about these questions. But, will he enstre that

we complete the military aspect of this military campaign so that we

can get onto the really but perhaps most ethical aspect of the puestions

he has posed, the post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction of

Syria? Without this early stage there will not be a Syria to

reconstruct? I think my Right Honourable honourable friend who

always thought about these things carefully is right. That is the end

goal. We shouldn't take our eyes off the prize, which is a reconstructed

Syria that can represent all the people, a Syria at peace so we don't

have the migration crisis, the terrorism crisis, that's thd goal.

Let me return to the overall strategy. I set this out in the

House last week. Counterterrorism, counter extremism, political and

diplomatic processes and vital humanitarian work my Right

Honourable honourable friend referred to. Our counterterrorism

strategy gives Britain can Prince of plan to prevent and foil plots at

home and also prevent deep poisonous extremist ideology that is the root

cause of the threat we face. I can announce we will establish `

comprehensive review to root out any remaining funding of extremhsm

within the UK. This will ex`mine specifically the nature, sc`le and

origin of the funding of Islamist extremism activity in the UK,

including any overseas sources. It will report to myself and Rhght

Honourable honourable friend the Home Secretary next spring. I want

to make this point before ghving way. There are some who express

military action is in some way capable of undermining our counter

extremism strategy by radic`lising British Muslims. Let me tackle this

head on, British Muslims ard appalled by Daesh. These wolen rake

raping, murderous monsters `re hijacking the peaceful religion of

Islam for their ends. As thd King of Jordan says, these people are not

Muslims, they are outlaws from Islamabad must stand without Muslim

Friends of Labour and around the world as they reclaim their religion

from beast terrorists. Far from an attack on Islam, we are eng`ged in a

defence of Islam. And far from the risk of radicalising British Muslims

by acting, failing to act would be to betray British Muslims and the

wider religion of Islam in hts very hour of need. The Prime Minhster

said that they would fight `ll the time in this country. Why don't the

Iranians, the Saudis, the Ttrks why do they not fight these people? Why

has it always got to be us who fight them? The Turks are taking part in

this action and urging us to do the same. The Saudis are taking part in

this action and urging us to do the same. The Jordanians have t`ken part

in this action and urge us to do the same. I have here quote aftdr quote

from leader after leader in the Gulf world making and pleading whth

Britain to take part to takd the fight to this death cult th`t

threatens us all so much. The second part of the strategy is support for

the diplomatic and political process. Let me say a word `bout how

this process can lead to ce`sefires between the regime and opposition so

essential for the next stagds of this political transition. Ht begins

with identifying the right people to put around the table. We expect a

Syrian Bell a team of peopld to negotiate under the auspices of the

United Nations. Over the last 1 months political and armed

opposition have confirmed Eddie Macken the -- have converged and we

will arrange a meeting for opposition representatives hn Riyadh

and the United Nations will take forward discussions on steps towards

a ceasefire, including at the next meeting of the international Syrian

support group that we expect to take place before Christmas. The aim is

clear, a transitional government within six months, the new

constitution and free electhons within 18 months, so I would argue

that the key elements of a deal are emerging. Ceasefires, opposhtion

groups coming together, the regime looking at negotiation, the key

players, America, Russia, S`udi Arabia and Iran and Chirichds no

players -- key regional plaxers like Turkey. Negotiation helps this

process which is the eventu`l goal. Does the Prime Minister agrde with

me that the murders on the beach in Tunisia and the carnage in Paris on

the 13th of November changes everything. And British people would

find it rather odd that it would take something more than th`t for

Britain to stand shoulder to shoulder with a number of other

countries and take on Daesh? My honourable honourable friend speaks

for many of us, they attack us for who we are, not because of what we

do and they want to attack ts again and again. Do we answer the call of

our allies, some of our closest friends in the world, the French and

Americans, who want us to join with them and their Arab partners in this

work, or do we ignore the c`ll? And if we ignore the call, think what

that says about Britain as `n ally. Inc what it says to the countries in

the region who ask themselvds if Britain won't come to the ahd of

France, it's neighbour in these circumstances, just how relhable

neighbour, honourable friend and ally this country is. Let md talk

about humanitarian relief and longer term stabilisation. I said last week

the report for refugees in the region and the extra ?1 billion we

have committed to Syria's reconstruction and the broad

international alliance we would work with in the rebuilding phasd. But Mr

Speaker, let us be clear and my honourable honourable friend for

Dorset North made this clear, people will not return to Syria if part of

it is under the control of `n organisation that enslaves Xazidis,

throws gay people off buildhngs behead aid workers and forcds

children to marry before thdy are even ten years old. We cannot

separate the humanitarian work and the reconstruction work frol dealing

with Daesh itself. I'm gratdful for the Prime Minister for giving way

and welcome any comments th`t distance British Muslims and Muslims

in Scotland from Daesh and H welcome the use of that terminology. I ask

the question as a new Member of the House, looking to seasoned

Parliamentary members who h`ve been in the House for some time `s new

members do on such occasions. Given the language used would be seen as

unbecoming of a parliamentarian for the benefit of new members would the

Prime Minister withdraw his remarks in relation to terrorist

sympathisers? What I would say is I think everyone is focused on the

main issues in front of us `nd that is what we should be focusing on.

Let me turn to the plan for post-conflict reconstruction to

support a new Syrian governlent when it emerges. I've said we wotld be

prepared to commit ?1 billion to Syria's reconstruction. The initial

priorities would be protecthon, security, stabilisation and

confidence building measures, including meeting basic hum`nitarian

needs such as education, he`lth and shelter and helping refugees to

return. Over time the focus would shift, the longer term rebuhlding of

Syria's shattered infrastructure, harnessing the expertise of the

international financial institutions and the private sector. As H said

last week, we're not in the business of trying to dismantle the Syrian

state or its institutions. We would aim to allocate reconstructhon funds

against a plan agreed betwedn a new inclusive Syrian government and the

international community wants the conflict had ended. That is the

absolute key. I will take the honourable member here and there and

bring it to a close. Prime Linister, what matters to my constitudnts is

whether they will be safer `fter this process has taken placd. He's

making a strong case that wd are attacking the heart of this

terrorist organisation. Will he assure the House, as well as taking

action in Syria, you will also shore up services, security services and

policing, in the United Kingdom That is what our constituents want

to know. What are we doing to strengthen our borders, what are we

doing to exchange intelligence information across Europe? What are

we doing to strengthen intelligence and policing agencies which the

Chancellor spoke about last week. All of this we should see through

the prism of international security. When you have the knowledge you can

make a difference I believe we should act. Let me take an

intervention from the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He rightly makes

the point how important it hs we are seen to stand with our friends and

allies in Europe. However, the Prime Minister has not so fast and with

those European allies on thd matter of taking our fair share of refugees

from this crisis and others. Would he look again at the save the

children request that this country takes 3000 orphaned children,

refugees currently in Europd? I would say we have played a huge part

in Europe as the biggest bilateral donor. No other European cotntry has

given as much as Britain has and we will take 20,000 refugees whth 000

arriving by Christmas. I'm happy to look once again at the issud of

orphans. I think it is bettdr to take orphans from the region rather

than those who come over with sometimes extended family. H'm very

happy to look at that again, both in Europe and out of Europe, to see if

Britain can do more to fulfhl our moral responsibilities. Mr Speaker,

let me conclude, this is not 20 3. We must not use past mistakds as an

excuse for indifference or hn action. Let's be clear, Mr Speaker,

in action does not amount for a strategy for our security or the

Syrian people. But in action is a choice. I believe it's the wrong

choice. We face a clear thrdat and we have listened to our allhes. We

have taken legal advice. We have a unanimous United Nations resolution

and discussed action extenshvely at meetings of the Security Cotncil and

cabinet and I've responded personally to the report of the

Foreign Affairs Select Commhttee and we have a proper motion before the

House and we have a ten hour debate today. I look forward to thd rest of

the debate and listening to contributions of members on all

sides of this House. But at the end of it all I hope the House will come

together at in large numbers so that Britain will defeat these evil

extremists and take the acthon needed now to keep the country safe.

I pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery in service of our

inspirational Armed Forces who will once again put themselves in harms

way to protect our values and our way of life and I commend this

motion to the House. The question is motion numbdr two, I

call the leader of the opposition, Mr Jeremy Corbyn.

The whole House recognises that decisions to send British forces to

war are the most serious, solemn and morally challenging of any we have

to take as members of Parli`ment. The motion brought before the House

today by the Government authorising military action in Syria ag`inst

Isil faces us with exactly that decision. It is one with potentially

far reaching consequences for us all, here in Britain as well as the

people of Syria and the widdr Middle East. For all members take `

decision that will put Brithsh servicemen and women in harl 's way

and almost inevitably lead to the deaths of innocents. This is a heavy

responsibility. It must be treated with the utmost seriousness and

respect, given to those who make a different judgment about thd right

course of action to take. Which is why the Prime Minister's attempt to

brand of those who planned to vote against the Government as tdrrorist

sympathisers, both demeans the office of the Prime Minister and, I

believe, undermines the serhousness of deliberations we are havhng

today. If the Prime Minister now wants to apologise for thosd

remarks, I will be happy to give way for him to do so.

Since, Mr Speaker, the Primd Minister is unmoved, we will have to

move on with the debate. And I hope it will be stronger later to

recognise that yes, he did lake an unfortunate remark last night, and

apologising for it would be very helpful to improve the atmosphere of

this debate today. I thank my honourable friend

forgiving way. As he appropriately is pointing out, the Prime Linister

is not showing leadership bx not withdrawing his slur on me `nd

others, would he also agree with me that there is no place whatsoever in

the Labour Party for anybodx who has been abusing those members of the

Labour Party who choose to vote with the Government on this resolution?

Mr Speaker, at use has no p`rt in responsible democratic political

dialogue. -- abuse. That I believe very strongly and that is the way I

wish to conduct myself and H wish others to conduct themselves in that

way. Would he agree with me that if the Prime Minister came to that

dispatch box and made a cle`r apology, he would clear the air

immediately and we could move on in this debate with a simple sorry

Well, as he often does on these occasions, he appears to be taking

advice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter. If he

wants to apologise now, that is fine. If he doesn't, the whole world

can note is not apologising. Since the Prime Minister first made its

case for extending British bombing to Syria, the doubts and un`nswered

questions than expressed on both sides of the House have onlx

multiplied. That is why it hs a matter of such concern that the

Government has decided to ptsh this vote through Parliament tod`y. It

would have been far better to allow a full two Day debate that would

have given all members the chance to make a proper contribution. And you

yourself, Mr Speaker, inforled us that 157 have applied to spdak in

this debate. He and I have worked together on the Kurdish isste. He

knows how tough the Kurds are finding it fighting Isil in the back

and Syria. -- Iraq. The Shadow Foreign Secretary believes the four

conditions for taking action in Syria has -- have been met. Why does

he disagree with him on that? He may have to wait a few moments to hear

that but it will be in my speech. I am pleased that he has made the

intervention in respect of the Kurdish people. At some point over

the whole of the Middle East and this settlement, there has to be a

recognition of the rights of Kurdish people, whichever country in which

they live. He and I have sh`red that view for more than 30 years. And my

view has -- has not changed. I am glad he has mentioned the

Kurds. Could he be clear at this dispatch box that he or anybody on

this bench will no way want to remove the air protection which was

voted on with an overwhelming majority in the House 14 months ago?

I thank my friend for that intervention. It is not part of the

motion today, so we move on with this debate. It is impossible, I

think, to avoid the conclushon that the Prime Minister understands that

public opinion is moving increasingly against what I believe

to be an ill thought out rush to war. And he wants to hold this vote

before the opinion grows evdn further against him. Whether it is a

lack of strategy, the absence of credible ground troops, the missing

diplomatic plan for a Syrian settlement, the failure to `ddress

the impact of the terrorist threat or the refugee crisis and chvilian

casualties, it is becoming increasingly clear that the

proposals for military action simply do not stack up.

I am very grateful to the honourable gentleman. I agree with what he has

been saying, that the case has not been put for this. I wonder under

the circumstances and the slur that has been put on the opposithon

benches, whether he will reconsider that it is important that the Labour

Party in its entirety joins with those on these benches in opposing

the Government, to whip Labour MPs to make sure the Government is

defeated in this motion? Evdry MP has to make a decision todax. Every

MP has a vote today. Every LP has a constituency. And every MP should be

aware of what public opinion is and they will make up their own mind.

Obviously I am proposing th`t we do not support the Government lotion

tonight and I would encourage all colleagues on all sides to join me

in the opposition lobby tonhght to the Government proposals. L`st week

the Prime Minister focused his case for bombing on the critical test set

by the very respected cross,party the Foreign Affairs Select

Committee. Given the holes hn the Government case, it is scarcely

surprising that last night the committee reported the Primd

Minister had not adequately addressed their concerns. In other

words, Mr Speaker, the commhttee judged that the Prime Minister's

case for bombing has failed its tests. That the committee rdsolved

4-3 that the Prime Minister had not addressed concerns, the Right

Honourable friends would have resisted that motion. It was on a

narrow point were logically it is almost impossible for the Prime

Minister to adequately meet those concerns. Given the fact he is not

in a position to produce sufficient detail. He satisfied summer by

colleagues. It is a very we`k point for him to rely on. He needs to give

it some substance. I thank him for my intervention He

and I have often had amicable - amicable discussions on these issues

and I'm sure we will again. The fact of the matter is though that at a

meeting of the foreigners elect committee there was a verdict given

that the Prime Minister had not adequately addressed the concerns.

-- foreign affairs select committee. I understand there are diffdrences

of opinion. Goodness me, thdre are differences opinion all arotnd this

House, your benches and mind. I asked the chair of the select

committee to recognise the decision has been made by his committee.

After the despicable and horrific attacks in Paris last month, the

question of whether the Govdrnment proposals for military action in

Syria strengthens or undermhnes our own national security must, Mr

Speaker, be at the centre of our deliberations. There is no doubt

that the so-called Islamic State group... Mr Speaker, I have given

way quite a lot of times already. There are 157 members who whsh to

take part in this debate and so I think I should try to move on and

speeded up slightly, which `ppears to meet with your approval, Mr

Speaker. There is no doubt that Islamic state has imposed a rain of

sectarian terror. There is no question it also poses a threat to

our own people. The issue now is whether extending British bombing

from Iraq to Syria is likelx to reduce or increase that thrdat to

Britain. And whether it will counter or spread the terror campaign Isil

is waging across the Middle East. The answers do not make the case for

the Government motion. On the contrary, they are warning to step

back. A vote against another ill-fated twist in this nevdr-ending

war on terror. Let's start with the military dimension. The Prile

Minister has been unable to explain why extending air strikes to Syria

will make a significant milhtary impact on existing -- on thd

existing campaign. Isil is `lready being bombed by Syria or Ir`q, by

the US, France, Britain and Russia, and other powers. Canada has

withdrawn from this campaign and no longer takes part. During more than

a year of bombing, Isil has expanded and lost territory. Isil gahns

including Raman the and the Syrian city of Palmira Silva the claim that

superior British missiles whll make a difference is hard to credit when

the US and other states, as an intervention said earlier, when the

US and other states are strtggling to find a suitable targets. In other

words, extending British bolbing is unlikely to make a huge difference.

Secondly, the Prime Minister has failed to convince almost anyone

that even if British partichpation in the air campaign were to tip the

balance, there are credible ground forces able to take back territory

now held by Isil. In fact, Lr Speaker, it is quite clear there are

no such forces. Last week the Prime Minister suggested that the

combination of Kurdish militias the Free Syrian Army, would be `ble to

fill the gap. He even claimdd a 70,000 strong force of moderate FSA

fighters were ready to coordinate action against Isil with thd Western

air campaign. That claim has not remotely stored up to scruthny.

Kurdish forces are a distance away in the Sunni areas where Ishl

controls. Nor are the FSA, which includes a wide range of groups few

if any would regard as moderate and mostly operate in other parts of the

country. The only ground forces able to take advantage of a succdssful

anti-Isil air campaign are ` stronger, jihadist groups close to

the Isil controlled areas. H think these are serious issues th`t we

need to think through very carefully. I believe that is what

the prime's bombing campaign could lead to do. This is why the

logic... Mr Speaker, I will give way later on but I think I should be

enabled to make what I think is an important part of this contribution.

This is why the logic of an extended air campaign is, in fact, mhssion

creep. And western boots on the ground, whatever the Prime Linister

may say now about keeping British combat troops out of the wax, are a

real possibility. Thirdly, the military aim of attacking Isil

targets in Syria is not really part of a coherent diplomatic strategy.

The UN Security Council resolution to 249 passed after the Parhs

atrocities and cited in tod`y's government motion, does not give

clear and unambiguous authorisation for UK bombing in Syria. To do so it

would have had to have been passed under chapter seven of the Tnited

Nations Charter, to which the Security Council could not `gree.

The UN resolution is certainly a welcome framework. For joint action

to cut off funding, oil revdnues, arms supplies from Isil. But I

wonder how much signs there are of that happening?

I will give way. Myself and the honourable member do not agree on

very much but on the necesshty to cut off the oil supplies I very much

agree with him. Therefore I am at a complete loss to understand why he

would oppose air strikes, which are such a crucial part in targdting oil

supplies which provide fundhng for Isil and Daesh. The problem is the

oil supplies being sold by Hsil I going into other countries, into

Turkey and other places. And I think we need to know, I think we need to

know exactly who is buying that oil. Who is funding that oil. Wh`t banks

are involved in financial transactions which ultimately end up

with Isil and which other countries in the region may or may not be

involved in. That is despitd, Mr Speaker, the clear risk of

potentially disastrous incidents. The shooting down of a Russhan

military aircraft by Turkish forces is a sign of the danger of ` serious

escalation of this whole issue. I am grateful to him forgivhng way.

The number of these ground troops is unknown and the composition is also

unknown. We do know that thdy are by definition opposition fightdrs,

anti-Assad. Does he agree whth me that the Prime Minister still has a

question to answer about how we can work with them to retake ground from

Daesh without getting into ` wider conflict with Russia?

I think the member for Brighton makes a very important point, and

she has been very active in trying to promote pace and humanit`rian

resolutions to conflict arotnd the world. The Prime Minister h`s

avoided spelling out to the British people the warnings he has surely

been given. The likely impact of UK a rights on the threat of tdrrorist

attacks in the UK. -- air strikes. That is something everyone who backs

very carefully before we votes very carefully before we votes

whether or not to send RAF pilots into action over Syria. It hs

critically important, Mr Spdaker, that we as a house are honest with

the British people about thd potential consequences of the action

the Prime Minister is proposing to us today. I am aware that there are

those with military experience, including members on the benches

opposite as well as this side, who have argued that extending TK

bombing will and I quote increase the short-term risk of terrorist

attacks in Britain. We should also remember the impact, Mr Spe`ker on

communities here in Britain. Sadly, since the Paris attacks, thdre has

been a sharp increase in Islamophobic incidence and physical

attacks. I have discussed these with people in my local mosque in my

constituency, and it is horrific. Surely the message from all of us in

this house today must go out - none of us, we can say this together we

will not tolerate any form of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or

racism of any form in this country. The Prime Minister has not offered a

serious assessment, in my vhew, of the intensified air campaign on

civilian casualties in Isil held Syrian territory, or the wider

Syrian refugee crisis. At ldast 250,000 have already been khlled in

Syria's terrible civil war. 11 million made homeless and four

million forced to leave the country. Many more have been killed by the

Assad regime than by Isil itself. Yet more bombing in Syria whll kill

innocent civilians, there is no doubt about that, and turn lany more

Syrians into refugees. Yestdrday, I will name and, I will in a loment.

Yesterday I was sent a mess`ge from a constituent of mine who comes from

Syria. I am sorry, it is not funny, it is a family who are suffdring. I

quote from his message, I al a Syrian from a city which is now

controlled by Isil. Members of my family still live there, and Isil

did not kill them. My questhon to David Cameron is, can you gtarantee

the safety of my family when your air forces dropped bombs on my city?

It is a fair question from ` family who are very concerned. Thank you

very much. I would say to the right honourable gentleman, as I speak as

a member of the military who has left, and there is a fundamdntal

point that the Leader of thd Opposition is making, and that this

is about national security. All these conflicting arguments, the

complex situations, it is vdry difficult, but it comes down to

national security and inhibhting what these people are trying to do

on the streets of this country. Yes, of course, security on the streets

of this country in all of otr communities is very important. That

is why we have supported thd Government in no longer pursuing the

strategy of cutting the polhce, and also increasing security in this

country, because clearly none of us want any kind of atrocity on the

streets of this country. My borough was deeply affected by 7/7 hn 2 05.

Order! Can I just say that the member who has the floor cannot be

expected to give way to a ftrther intervention when he is in the

process of answering an existing one? The honourable gentlem`n is an

experienced enough denizen of this house to be aware of that. H would

like to give way to the member for Tottenham.

LAUGHTER I am very grateful to the Ldader of

the Opposition. In making hhs points, does the Leader of the

Opposition accepts that the 70, 00 moderate Sunnis that the Prhme

Minister claims is there consists of many different jihadist grotps?

There is some concern, I thhnk it is across the house, that potentially

degrading Isil-Daesh, we crdate a vacuum into which other jih`dist

scum over time. That surely does not make the streets of Britain safer.

-- jihadists come. I now give way to the member for Southgate. I am very

grateful to him for giving way, he has a consistent position in

relating to opposing air strikes, and he has insisted in this house in

September 2014, when you voted against air strikes in Iraq, he said

this, I do not believe that further air strikes and the deepening of our

involvement will solve the problem. Does he maintain his opposition to

air strikes in Iraq, let alone increasing and extending to Syria? I

thank both members for their interventions, and the point made by

the member for Tottenham is a very serious one. We have to be careful

about what happens in the ftture, we have to be very aware of thd danger

of some people, mainly young people, being deeply radicalise and ending

up doing very dangerous things indeed. Is the radicalisation of

some very small number, but nevertheless significant nulber of

young people across Europe ` product of the war or something elsd? I

think we need to think very, very deeply about that and think very,

very deeply about what is h`ppening in this world since 2001, and the

increasing numbers of peopld that are suffering because of it. I rest

my case at that point. Therd is not, Mr Speaker, an EU wide strategy to

provide Umana Terry and asshstance to those victims. -- Umana ,-

humanitarian. I ask the Prile Minister this, is he able to explain

how British bombing in Syri` will contribute to a Cumbrian sidve,

negotiated political settlelent of the Syrian war? -- comprehensive.

Such a settlement is widely accepted to be the only way to ensurd the

isolation and defeat of Isil. Isil grew out of the invasion of Iraq and

has flourished in Syria in the chaos and horror of a multi-frontdd civil

war. The Prime Minister has spoken of the choice between action and

inaction today, but those of us who will be voting against air strikes,

we also want to see action. The Prime Minister said almost nothing

about cutting off the financial supplies for Daesh which by the

bombs, which help radicalisd recruits. Does my right honourable

friend agree with me that wd need action on this point. We nedd action

to ensure there is a diplom`tic and political solution to the crisis. I

welcome what the Prime Minister said about speeding up the process in

Vienna, but the message shotld be, let's speed that up, rather than

sending in the bombers to bring about political settlement. What we

need, therefore, Mr Speaker, is an involvement of all the main regional

and international powers. Now, that, I know, it has been attemptdd, I

know that there have been discussions in Vienna, and we

welcome that. I think it is regrettable that Geneva 2, Lr

Speaker, I am going to try to make progress with this speech if I may.

There are over 150 members who wish to speak, therefore I think long

speeches on the front benchds take time out of backbench speeches. So

the aim must be to establish a broad-based government in Sxria that

has the support of the majority of its people, difficult as th`t is to

envisage at the present timd. Such a settlement, no. But such a

settlement could help take back territory from Isil and bring about

their lasting defeat in Syrha. Ultimately... Mr Speaker, I am

really sorry to have to tell members I have given away quite a lot to

members on both sides, I am going to continue with my speech.

Ultimately,... Sits down! Order A very long established convention of

this house is that the membdr who has the floor gives way or not as he

or she chooses. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that

for now he is not giving wax, the appropriate as bonds is not to jump

up and shout give way, it is not terribly sensible. -- the

appropriate response. The point I was making is that, ultimatdly, the

solution in Syria has to be by all the people of Syria themselves.

Surely, on that, we are all agreed. I thought I made it clear, H think

the speaker made it clear, that for the moment I am not giving way, I am

really sorry, but I am not. The Government's proposals... The

Government's proposals for... Order! On a point of order, Mr Spe`ker

although it is indeed custolary that he will hold the board decides

whether or not to give way, is it not also customary to answer

questions when they are put in interventions, and we are w`iting

for the answer on Iraq? LAUGHTER

The honourable gentleman is a sufficiently experienced

parliamentarian to know that he has made his own point in his own way,

and it is on the record. Mr Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speakdr. Mr

Speaker, if I could move on with the speech, I would be most grateful.

The Government's proposals... The Government's proposals for lilitary

action in Syria are not backed by a clear and an ambiguous authorisation

by the United Nations. It does not meet the seven test sets down by our

own foreign affairs committde. And it does not fulfil three of the four

conditions laid down in my own party conference resolution of a couple of

months ago. The past week, Lr Speaker, voice has been givdn to

growing opposition to the Government's bombing plans `cross

the country - in Parliament, outside, in the media, and hndeed in

my own party -, and I believe it is a consideration of all the wars that

we have been involved in in the last 14 years. These matters werd debated

a great deal during my own campaign to be elected the leader of the

Labour Party, and many people think very deeply about these matters The

light of the record of Westdrn military interventions is one that

has to be analysed. British bombing in Syria risks yet more of what

President Obama, in a very thoughtful moment, called the

unintended consequences of the war in Iraq, which he himself opposed at

the time. The spectre, Mr Speaker, of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya looms

over this debate. Mr Speaker, I am not giving way, I'm going to carry

on with my speech. Mr Speakdr, to oppose another war and intervention,

in my view, is actually not pacifism, it is hard-headed

common-sense, which I think we should be thinking about today in

this house. To resist Isil's this house. To resist Isil's

determination to draw the Wdstern powers back into the heart of the

Middle East is not to turn our back on our allies. It is refusing to

play into the hands of Isil and what I suspect some of them want us to

do. Is it wrong for as here in Westminster to see a problel, passed

a motion, drop bombs and prdtend we are doing something to solvd it

That is what we did in Afgh`nistan, Iraq, Libya. I ask the question of

the house - as terrorism increased or degrade as a result of all of

that? -- as terrorism incre`sed all the creased. The Prime Minister said

he was looking to build consensus around the military action he wants

to take. I do not believe hd has achieved anything of their kind He

has failed, in my view, to lake the case for another bombing calpaign.

All of our efforts instead should go into bringing these Syrian civil war

to an end. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya - I ask members to think very

carefully about the previous decisions we have made. What we are

proposing to do today is send British bombers... Point of order.

On a number of occasions, hd has spoken of receiving complaints from

the public, what you think the public makes when the Leader of the

Opposition is being shouted down constantly by the government

benches? I think what the ptblic wants is a civilised though robust

debate by members on both shdes of the house! I thank the honotrable

gentleman, a very experiencdd member, for that point of order

Let's proceed without the atthor a bug. Mr Jeremy Corbyn. -- whthout

fear or favour. Sometimes we get carried aw`y with

the theatricals of the placd and forget that millions of people

sentenced to this House to represent them and we should be able to

conduct our debates in a decent respectful and civilised manner And

assured as this debate is compared to the number who want to speak I

hope all of those members who wants to speak do get called. I conclude

with this point, Mr Speaker. In my view only a negotiated political and

diplomatic endeavour to bring about an end to this Civil War in Syria

would bring some hope to thd millions who have lost their homes,

who are refugees, who are c`mped out in various points all across

Europe, dreaming of a day that they can return home. I think Rover

riding goal should be to end that Civil War in Syria. -- our

overriding goal. And also to protect the people of this country. That is

why, Mr Speaker, I do not bdlieve that the motion but by the Prime

Minister achieves that, bec`use it seems to put the emphasis on bombing

now, whereas I think the emphasis should be not on bombing now but on

bringing about all of our endeavours, all of our intelligence

and all of our efforts... I think it is very strange that members do not

seem to understand there ard millions who watched these debates

and want to hear what is behng said. They don't want to hear people

shouting at each other. So for those reasons, Mr Speaker, I urge members

on all sides of the House to think very carefully about responsibility

that lies with them today. Do we sending bombers, not totallx aware

of what the consequences ard going to be? Or do we pause, not send them

in and instead put all of otr efforts into bringing about a

peaceful, humanitarian and just political settlement to the terrible

situation faced by the people in Syria?

I don't think there is anybody on either side of the House, as all of

us are trying to show responsibility and duty, who in any way relished

the decision that we are behng asked to take today. It is not

straightforward likely response to the invasions of Kuwait and the

Falklands. It is a very difficult decision we are being asked to take.

Dean taking it -- and in taking it we have to have two issues hn the

forefront of our thinking. First, the security of our own country And

secondly, the desperate need to restore stability to the Middle

East. But rather than rehearse all of the arguments, I would lhke to

pick out and emphasise a few points which I ask the House solemnly to

consider. The question of whether to commit our Armed Forces has actually

over the last few years become seriously muddied both by the

painful experience of past decisions, and by the compldxity of

the unfolding disorder across the Arab world. The experience of

Afghanistan in part to which the Leader of the Opposition referred

and of Iraq, more significantly have led to growing reticence and

indeed distrust in this House and outside it, about any proposal for

military action. The first point I would like to emphasise is that we

must take the decision todax based on the merits of today. We lust base

it on today's facts and not on yesterday's mistakes and regrets.

Before I give way, may I just point out politely to the Stop thd War

Coalition that when it actu`lly comes to Syria, stopping thd war is

exactly what we want to do. I thank the Honourable gentleman

forgiving way. I absolutely agree with him that what we need `re facts

and greater clarity about otr capability to take on the t`sk ahead

of us. Yesterday we were told there were between 20000 and 30,000 Daesh

across Syria and Iraq. But H could not be given a number as to how many

Taliban who are fighting in Afghanistan, to get a comparator,

when we had 10,000 of our troops and 30,000 Americans fighting them, I

could not get that. I could not get an answer as to how often wd reduced

our brimstone missiles and how many more planes we would be flyhng.

Don't we need those questions answered?

I am sorry, interventions mtst be brief, not many speeches, however

well-intentioned. May I am sure the Honourabld Lady to

appreciate that the search for certainty in the Middle East is a

vain hope. Perhaps the watchword I learned 30 years ago when I first

went there, if you are not confused, you do not understand. It is a

complex world in which we are deciding to act. Let me movd on to

my second point. The second point, and again I address this to the

Leader of the Opposition, wd must not underestimate the extent and the

nature of the danger we facd and say that because it is all over there it

is not over here. The phenolenon of ices -- Isis is not only a dominant

force running rampant through Iraq and Syria, it is also fuellhng those

who will readily walk up thd Main Street of a major city with a

suicide bomber or carrying Kalashnikov. So to those who same

air strikes would increase that danger, I would urge them not to

give into that narrative. These people are already targeting us now.

No. Thirdly, we have to see this thread. No. We have to see this

thread in the context of evdn greater regional danger. We are

witnessing the collapse of nation states across potentially the whole

of Arabia, along with the vholent release of centuries of sectarian

hatred. A crucial element of our policy should be to try to stop this

spreading. And that means that we must support stable rule within the

six countries of the GCC, and those who just attack the conduct of our

Gulf allies simply do not understand the horror that would be unleashed

by further instability in the region. Even now, we face the very

real prospect arc of brutalhty and terrorism stretching from Sxria

through Iraq, to Yemen, right across into a terrifying link with the Horn

of Africa. And fourthly, we cannot turn away from this threat `nd sub

contract our obligations. If we are to pursue the destruction of Isis

and rebuild stable government and underpin wider stability, and make

all of that a serious and convincing objective of our foreign policy we

must be part of the convoy that is trying to do it. We cannot, as I

would see it, negligently W`tchet roll by while not playing otr part.

Put frankly, our reputation, our international reputation has

suffered from the parliamentary vote in August 2013. Our allies now

question whether it can be relied upon -- whether we can be rdlied

upon when they call for joint assistance. Mr Speaker, if we choose

today to remain on the sidelines, especially when there is a new and

unequivocal UN resolution in place it would signal to the world that

the UK has indeed chosen to withdraw. Mr Speaker, we should not

be in the business of national resignation from the world stage.

Perhaps indeed the paradox of our position today is not that we are

doing too much, but that we are doing too little. But if I do have a

concern, and again let me look directly at the right honourable

gentleman, the Leader of thd Opposition, it is that the `ction I

hope we will vote for tonight is not the whole answer. And the Prime

Minister is not pretending that it is. The hope that local so-called

moderate forces can do the job on the ground and somehow put Humpty --

put Humpty Dumpty together `gain is, of course, more of an act of faith

than a certain plan. But I think it is wrong, however, for the Leader of

the Opposition to dismiss their significance and that their

composition is sufficient rdason to do nothing. Tonight I think we

should carry this motion. Wd have to carry it with our eyes open. Knowing

that we are flying into MS that shows no easy prospect of bding

quickly resolved. -- into a mess. But we cannot leave a vile force

unchallenged. Mr Speaker, these air strikes do matter. I believd they

are justified. But I also think that in my view the future judgmdnt of

the Prime Minister about wh`t then follows will eventually become more

important than the decision we are taking tonight.

Mr Angus Robertson. It is a pleasure to follow the right honourable

gentleman, a fellow member of the intelligence and security to the,

but I fear we will be in different lobbies later this evening. May I

begin by intimating support for the amendment which appears in ly name

and those of honourable and right honourable gentleman. And honourable

and right honourable ladies, of course. It is signed by members of

six different political parties and over 100 members from across the

House. While welcoming the renewed impetus to watch peace and

reconciliation in Syria and recognition that a comprehensive

strategy against the Dyas is required, does not believe that a

case with UK participation hn air strikes has been made under current

circumstances, and consequently declined to authorise milit`ry

intervention. May I begin bx thanking the Prime Minister. I would

like to thank him for advanced side of his statement and for thd

briefings by his national sdcurity adviser and colleagues from the

Ministry for defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, David and

other agencies. And I put on record our appreciation to all of those in

charge with keeping us safe at home and abroad. And notwithstanding the

profound differences I have with the Prime Minister on the issue, I would

wish to commend him for bridfing parties and parliamentarians in

recent weeks, and the tone he adopted in last week's statdment. It

is disappointing that he chose to describe opponents to his plans as

terrorist sympathisers. The amendment we have before us today

against bombing is signed bx the Honourable member for Basildon and

Billericay, who served with the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in

Northern Ireland. It is also signed by the honourable Labour melber for

Norwich South, who served whth the Territorial Army in Afghanistan The

amendment is also signed by my colleagues from East Kilbride and

Glasgow North West, both of whose husbands served in the Armed Forces

with distinction. It has also been signed by members in Northern

Ireland who have had to expdrience terrorism at first hand. It is

totally wrong to impugn members of this house who differ with the

Government on bombing Syria as terrorist sympathisers. The Prime

Minister has made numerous ,- has had numerous opportunities to

apologise. I fear he will not. I would be prepared to give wdight to

apologise. I will not give way to apologise. I will not give way to

the honourable gentleman. I hope the Prime Minister regrets what he said.

We in the Scottish National Party share the concerns of everybody else

in this House and the country about the terrorist threat by Daesh. We

deplore the Assad regime and that regularly raised the issue of

refugees in the region and Durope. There is agreement across this house

that the threat from Daesh hs real and doing nothing is not an option.

However, however, we recall that only two years ago, this Prhme

Minister this comment, wantdd us to bomb the opponents of Daesh. That

would no doubt have strengthened them.

We have not heard it yet, btt there is no shortage of currently

currently is currently bombhng in Syria. The Russians have bedn

attacking Daesh and the moddrate opposition to Assad as well.

Coalition operations includd, and it is a long list, Australia, Bahrain,

Canada, France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, which also uses Brilstone as

a weapons system, the Republic of Turkey, which interestingly is also

bombing our allies in Kurdistan the United Arab Emirates and thd United

States of America. Open sources confirm, Mr Speaker, that shnce

September 2014, these air strikes have included F-16 Falconss,

Subotic, sea-launched Tomah`wk missiles, and weapons launch from

drones above Syria. The United States central command confhrms that

the United States has conducted more than 2700 air strikes in Syria.

Daily strike updates from the combined task force coalition shows

that military forces have continued to attack Daesh terrorist in Syria

at using bombers and remotely piloted aircraft... In a molent In

recent days, these have included three strikes on an Isil tactical

unit, I am reading from the report from the United States military

near Raqqa, two strikes, vehicles destroyed. The point is, thdre is

bombing currently under way in Syria, and to pretend that what is

being proposed while not taking that into account is highly misldading.

In Syria, does he think there is a legitimate case for operations, or

does he want them to withdr`w? I am hugely supportive of efforts which

can lead to stabilisation in Iraq. It is very important, but I would

like to stress, I would likd to stress one thing in particular. I

think we have a particular responsibility towards the Kurds,

both in Iraq and in Syria, `nd I would wish that the Prime Mhnister

would use his good offices when dealing with Nato allies th`t we do

not undermine the efforts in Iraq and Syria. I have answered the

honourable gentleman, and wd ensure that Turkey does not bomb otr

Kurdish allies. I will make some progress. The Prime Minister has

asked us to listen to his c`se for bombing in Syria, and we have, and

we have repeatedly asked two very specific questions, as have other

members on all sides of this house. How will the UK plan secure peace on

the ground in Syria? And I puote, as the House of Commons foreign affairs

committee, which ground forces will take hold and administered

territories captured from D`esh in Syria? The second question, the

second question that I posed, how will the UK's plan ensure long-term

stability and reconstruction in Syria, given that the UK spdnd 0

times more bombing Libya th`n on its post-conflict stability and

reconstruction? I ask the Prime Minister, how much does the Prime

Minister estimates this will cost, and how much has he allocatdd from

the United Kingdom? I would like to turn to those two questions, because

on the issue of ground forcds, we have been told that there are 7 ,000

troops opposed to Assad and Daesh which could take the territory that

Daesh currently holds. The problem is that only a part of thosd forces

are moderate, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever

that they would definitely deploy from other parts of the country to

counter Daesh. I asked the Prime Minister in an intervention, and

members will have heard, of those 70,000, how many are moderate, and

how many are fundamentalists? I have not had an answer to that qtestion,

and I would invite any membdr from the Government site to tell the rest

of the house what that is, come on! Silence! Silence. On this critical

issue, a critical issue posdd by the... I will give way in a moment

to the esteemed chairman of the intelligence and security committee,

of course I will, but this hs an absolutely vital point. It was

raised by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, 80 part of the argument

of having any credibility that a bombing strategy will lead to medium

and long-term peace in Syri` and dealing with Daesh is that there are

ground forces capable of taking the ground when they manage to displace

and degrade Daesh forces. Wd have asked repeatedly, and I ask again,

will any... I will give way if any member from the government side

wants to elucidate and expl`in to the house what the Prime Minister

was not. I see the Foreign Secretary chuntering, I am happy to ghve way

if he will confirm from the dispatch box, what is the make up...

Mr Speaker, I have now asked a question directly to the Prhme

Minister, which he did not `nswer. I have challenged the Foreign

Secretary to answer the question. Is there anybody else who will answer

the question? I give way to the honourable gentleman. We asked a

very similar point at the Ddfence Select Committee yesterday, and the

point that the right arable gentleman is making is a nit-picking

point. -- the right honourable gentleman. If he will hear le

out... It is dancing on the head of a pin to try and achieve is that the

honourable gentleman starts with. There are these people, we have to

them, they are not on Assad's side, they are not an eyesore's shtes - we

need to work with them. -- they are not on Isil's side. So the

government was offered a ch`nce to answer, let me accept this

intervention, if we are going to get an answer to the question of the

70,000 non-villain-macro and non-Daesh sources, how many are

moderate and how many fundamentalists? -- non-Ass`d. The

honourable gentleman is a clever man and rarely asks a question he does

not know the answer two, and he seems to be tied up on the 70,0 0.

He seems to have forgotten the Kurds in Syria, the several battalions of

Christians, and also the Ar`bs in north and north-east Syria, who will

work with the Free Syrian Army to take Daesh. No answer! Anybody

watching this debate and re`ding Hansard in future will be able to

recognise that this question has been asked time and time and time

again, and we have not had `n answer to that question. It is a

fundamental, I have given away a significant number of times on the

question and nobody has answered. Sorry, if my esteemed colle`gue the

chairman of the intelligencd and security committee, is able to

answer the question, I would be delighted. What interests md about

that the right honourable gdntleman is putting forward is forward is

evasive is perfectly legitilate questions, which should, I hope be

and said in the course of the debate. What he glosses over his

party's position on the current operations which, I think hd will

agree with me, are in fact controlling Daesh's ability to do

violence and cruelty in the area, and terrorism in Europe. If indeed

those actions at the moment involving our allies both in Syria

and Iraq are achieving that goal, I find it very difficult to understand

how he can argue that we ourselves should not cooperate in this. Out of

the greatest respect for thd honourable gentleman, I will come on

later in my comments to somd of the questions he made, but I note

respectfully that we have not heard and answer to the question which has

been posed, the government front bench have the opportunity to tell

the house, and I note they do not, so I will make some progress. If the

honourable gentleman can answer I would be delighted. Lady! I thank

the honourable gentleman for giving way. As a member of the Fordign

Affairs Select Committee, I was in the Middle East last week, we went

to Cairo, we went to a man, and we went to Beirut, cities which have

also suffered destruction. We spoke to military people, counterterrorism

people, and politicians. I can tell you how many people there are, it is

about 10-15,000, that was the answer given by everyone there. My

goodness, Mr Speaker, that hs a very important intervention from the

honourable lady. From her experience, in having travelled the

region, she is suggesting that the Government figures that we have been

provided an massively wrong. This is a very, very important point, Mr

Speaker. We are now hearing, on a crucial issue, raised by thd Foreign

Affairs Select Committee, a crucial issue that, far from the 70,000 we

have heard repeatedly, it is significantly less. These should

worry us all, and I will make some progress. -- this should. The

problem with this issue, and it is critical, is that only a part of the

forces that the Prime Minister and his colleagues have spoken `bout are

moderate, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that thdy would

definitely be deployed from other parts of the country to counter

Daesh. It appears to be tot`lly wishful thinking that, without a

comprehensive ceasefire but in Syria, we can expect any redirection

of any forces from other br`nds in Syria. -- other fronts. On

stabilising and rebuilding Syria, the second question I posed to the

Prime Minister, we were advhsed by the World Bank that it will cost

$170 billion to rebuild Syrha. The Prime Minister has made a commitment

to contribute ?1 billion towards this mammoth task, which is welcome,

new money to deal with the rebuilding after the stabilhsation